4 ms·
> that is precisely what they have never done. That is /exactly/ what I'm disputing. To the point where you can't even generalise about so-called "self-made" r
by harry8 6y ago
> that is precisely what they have never done.
That is /exactly/ what I'm disputing. To the point where you can't even generalise about so-called "self-made" rich people.
But beyond that, I'm not left-wing. At all. There's nothing left-wing about being a bit contemptuous of the successful who believe their monetary success is proof of themselves as superior humans. And there are at least some successful people who agree with that. Takes all kinds. Some fail upwards.
- mjburgess 6y agoI agree. But you're still slightly misreading/moralising my point. I'm not saying anyone deserves anything. I'm not saying anyone is superior. I'm saying that commonly, amongst people who become millionaires, you find a certain set of characteristics. In particular, you often find an obsessive interest in something which is greater than their desire to vacation or to spend frivolously: typically their business. Poorer people misunderstand wealth. To them it is essentially just a series of inexplicable lotteries, "falling up" as you say. But in functioning societies most people who become wealth don't just "fall up" -- there is a pattern to their personality (including risk tasking, say) which facilitates this movement.
- harry8 6y ago>I'm saying that commonly, amongst people who become millionaires, you find a certain set of characteristics. I continue to disagree strongly with this. There are /all/ kinds. We're now talking past each other. Some are successful for reasons one can attribute to their nature. Some just fail upwards. Really they do. It's actually hard to miss examples of this when you look a little critically. I'm not sure how you've come to the conclusion such people don't exist... Luck is always a huuuge factor, even among the best of us. Anyway, best.