6 ms·

I think these are all more similar than you think: Consider - the children of musical prodigies are likely to be more musical then average. The children of bi

I think these are all more similar than you think: Consider - the children of musical prodigies are likely to be more musical then average. The children of billionaires are likely to be more entrepreneurial than average - both are likely to be wealthy - neither are likely to be as prolific — I.e a child making an even more successful business, or being a better musician - over a few generations, both are likely to revert to the mean. In some countries this is not true of the wealthy, but in America this is particularly true

NathanWilliams 6y ago
> Consider - the children of musical prodigies are likely to be more musical then average Is that true though? You made a big claim, without backing, to support your other claim.
- stopachka 6y ago
  I didn’t support the claim, as it seems very apparent to me. Do you think it’s not the case?
  - NathanWilliams 6y ago
    I don’t think we should make claims based only on what seems apparent to us. That isn’t a good path to finding the truth. It only exposes hidden biases and assumptions.
yellowapple 6y ago
I mean, just because someone squanders an advantage doesn't mean that one didn't have an advantage to begin with. And that's the fundamental difference between the child of a musician v. the child of a billionaire. In order for the musicians' child to be a prodigy like one's parent, there's still considerable training and practice required. In order for the billionaire's child to be a billionaire like one's parent, the child simply needs to wait for one's parent to die. That is: the passing down of musical aptitude through multiple generations requires each generation to put in approximately the same labor as the previous. The passing down of material wealth through multiple generations does not. The descendants of American billionaires might suck at sustaining their advantageous positions right now, but that's only because America's upper class is relatively fresh, still full of bourgeois "new wealth" instead of aristocratic "old wealth", and lacking practice with migrating from the former to the latter. In a century or two (barring intervention to return wealth to the proletariat) I'd expect the American upper class to get into that groove of wealth consolidation, like how things evolved in Europe (and hell, if the US follows the same trajectory as the Roman Empire we might even end up with the same sort of feudal society in some places).
- stopachka 6y ago
  > That is: the passing down of musical aptitude through multiple generations requires each generation to put in approximately the same labor as the previous. Let’s think on that a bit. Consider, if a parent is a musical prodigy, it’s akin to having a fantastic coach at an early age. They can teach you hard-earned insights, help you make the right choices, introduce you to the right people. This makes achievement considerably easier. It’s not as different from financial transfer as we think. > In a century or two (barring intervention to return wealth to the proletariat) I'd expect the American upper class to get into that groove of wealth consolidation, like how things evolved in Europe As long we live in a free-market society, I think this will be hard to do. Main reason: it is extremely difficult to invest well in the long-term. You can see this by how prized top investors are. Unless one invests well, in a free market society their wealth gets eaten up. Europe avoids this through a highly regulated society — social mobility in and out of the upper class is extremely difficult there. It’s certainly possible that the u.s will lose their position as the bastion of free markets — but whoever picks it up will become as powerful, and most people will start to immigrate there.
  - 8note 6y ago
    Investing well is a worse strategy that investing long. Doing a real low percent gain for 500 years is going to be more predictable than investing well over 5 years
    - stopachka 6y ago
      My meaning "investing well", was similar to your meaning of "investing long". I don't meant investing well in the short term. Even a low percent gain over the long term is very, very difficult. You can tell this by noting how much endowment managers get paid.
      - confidantlake 6y ago
        You can't tell that investing is hard by how much endowment managers are paid. Convincing people you have the secret investing sauce is the most important skill of an endowment manager. All claim they can beat investing in index funds but there is no evidence they can.

NathanWilliams 6y ago

> Consider - the children of musical prodigies are likely to be more musical then average Is that true though? You made a big claim, without backing, to support your other claim.

stopachka 6y ago
I didn’t support the claim, as it seems very apparent to me. Do you think it’s not the case?
- NathanWilliams 6y ago
  I don’t think we should make claims based only on what seems apparent to us. That isn’t a good path to finding the truth. It only exposes hidden biases and assumptions.

yellowapple 6y ago

I mean, just because someone squanders an advantage doesn't mean that one didn't have an advantage to begin with. And that's the fundamental difference between the child of a musician v. the child of a billionaire. In order for the musicians' child to be a prodigy like one's parent, there's still considerable training and practice required. In order for the billionaire's child to be a billionaire like one's parent, the child simply needs to wait for one's parent to die. That is: the passing down of musical aptitude through multiple generations requires each generation to put in approximately the same labor as the previous. The passing down of material wealth through multiple generations does not. The descendants of American billionaires might suck at sustaining their advantageous positions right now, but that's only because America's upper class is relatively fresh, still full of bourgeois "new wealth" instead of aristocratic "old wealth", and lacking practice with migrating from the former to the latter. In a century or two (barring intervention to return wealth to the proletariat) I'd expect the American upper class to get into that groove of wealth consolidation, like how things evolved in Europe (and hell, if the US follows the same trajectory as the Roman Empire we might even end up with the same sort of feudal society in some places).

stopachka 6y ago
> That is: the passing down of musical aptitude through multiple generations requires each generation to put in approximately the same labor as the previous. Let’s think on that a bit. Consider, if a parent is a musical prodigy, it’s akin to having a fantastic coach at an early age. They can teach you hard-earned insights, help you make the right choices, introduce you to the right people. This makes achievement considerably easier. It’s not as different from financial transfer as we think. > In a century or two (barring intervention to return wealth to the proletariat) I'd expect the American upper class to get into that groove of wealth consolidation, like how things evolved in Europe As long we live in a free-market society, I think this will be hard to do. Main reason: it is extremely difficult to invest well in the long-term. You can see this by how prized top investors are. Unless one invests well, in a free market society their wealth gets eaten up. Europe avoids this through a highly regulated society — social mobility in and out of the upper class is extremely difficult there. It’s certainly possible that the u.s will lose their position as the bastion of free markets — but whoever picks it up will become as powerful, and most people will start to immigrate there.
- 8note 6y ago
  Investing well is a worse strategy that investing long. Doing a real low percent gain for 500 years is going to be more predictable than investing well over 5 years
  - stopachka 6y ago
    My meaning "investing well", was similar to your meaning of "investing long". I don't meant investing well in the short term. Even a low percent gain over the long term is very, very difficult. You can tell this by noting how much endowment managers get paid.
    - confidantlake 6y ago
      You can't tell that investing is hard by how much endowment managers are paid. Convincing people you have the secret investing sauce is the most important skill of an endowment manager. All claim they can beat investing in index funds but there is no evidence they can.