4 ms·

Medieval peasants weren't told their place in life is a matter of personal responsibility (within reason), they were told the hereditary social hierarchy is div

by hnbad 5y ago

Medieval peasants weren't told their place in life is a matter of personal responsibility (within reason), they were told the hereditary social hierarchy is divine will and can't be overcome. "Trading" is the ultimate example for the opposite, since it promises to directly translate "skill" into wealth. Wealth inequality is an important factor but expecting everything to boil down to one simple factor is overly simplistic.

skinnymuch 5y ago
> Medieval peasants weren't told their place in life is a matter of personal responsibility I assume wealth inequality is worse today than Ancient Egypt, but regardless of how it is, this point is key.
amelius 5y ago
> "Trading" is the ultimate example for the opposite, since it promises to directly translate "skill" into wealth. Tell that to the sweatshop worker who made your jeans. Or to those poor restaurant owners who now have to pay a 30% fee to the likes of Uber eats to maintain a steady income. (If it's up to Apple, developers are next!)
- usrusr 5y ago
  These days all of them have their perception permanently saturated with the lie that they had all the opportunity and just didn't take it. No surprise many are eager to jump at imagined opportunities whenever they arise. Gambling, speculation, falling victim to some "get rich by becoming a get rich mentor" mentors and so on. Some poor industrial age miner with no better case scenario than becoming a respected poor miner would have been far more resilient (and surely many fell victim to similar schemes nonetheless)
  - Consultant32452 5y ago
    Who believes they had all the opportunity and just didn't take it? The zeitgeist appears to be there's no opportunity and it's someone else's fault.
- hnbad 5y ago
  I don't have to tell them that, what do you think why gambling is so popular in poorer communities? Yes, everyone "knows" it's a game of chance but they secretly tell themselves it's a game of skill and that there are rules they just have to get better at recognizing. The gambler's fallacy is a prime example of that. Trading is only different from gambling in that we don't view the belief in "skill" as a sign of addiction and instead feed into it with the mainstream news cycle. There's no practical difference between betting on stocks and betting on horse racing except the levels of complexity permitted. The trick to winning at stock gambling is that unlike with regular gambling if you have enough money, you can effectively "be the bank". The more money you, the easier it becomes to diversify your investments and in some cases you can effectively bet on black and red at the same time and still turn a profit. It's less about skill and more about having the wealth to feed complex financial vehicles that practically guarantee an ROI over time. > Tell that to the sweatshop worker who made your jeans. The sweatshop worker doesn't believe their skill at their job translates into wealth. The sweatshop worker knows they're in a deadend job barely making enough to feed their family and that they'll be cycled out if they get sick, injured or simply have a few bad days. They might still believe their "skill" at gambling could make them money. But they probably don't have enough money to be able to "invest" in trading.

by hnbad 5y ago

skinnymuch 5y ago

> Medieval peasants weren't told their place in life is a matter of personal responsibility I assume wealth inequality is worse today than Ancient Egypt, but regardless of how it is, this point is key.

amelius 5y ago

> "Trading" is the ultimate example for the opposite, since it promises to directly translate "skill" into wealth. Tell that to the sweatshop worker who made your jeans. Or to those poor restaurant owners who now have to pay a 30% fee to the likes of Uber eats to maintain a steady income. (If it's up to Apple, developers are next!)

usrusr 5y ago
These days all of them have their perception permanently saturated with the lie that they had all the opportunity and just didn't take it. No surprise many are eager to jump at imagined opportunities whenever they arise. Gambling, speculation, falling victim to some "get rich by becoming a get rich mentor" mentors and so on. Some poor industrial age miner with no better case scenario than becoming a respected poor miner would have been far more resilient (and surely many fell victim to similar schemes nonetheless)
- Consultant32452 5y ago
  Who believes they had all the opportunity and just didn't take it? The zeitgeist appears to be there's no opportunity and it's someone else's fault.
hnbad 5y ago
I don't have to tell them that, what do you think why gambling is so popular in poorer communities? Yes, everyone "knows" it's a game of chance but they secretly tell themselves it's a game of skill and that there are rules they just have to get better at recognizing. The gambler's fallacy is a prime example of that. Trading is only different from gambling in that we don't view the belief in "skill" as a sign of addiction and instead feed into it with the mainstream news cycle. There's no practical difference between betting on stocks and betting on horse racing except the levels of complexity permitted. The trick to winning at stock gambling is that unlike with regular gambling if you have enough money, you can effectively "be the bank". The more money you, the easier it becomes to diversify your investments and in some cases you can effectively bet on black and red at the same time and still turn a profit. It's less about skill and more about having the wealth to feed complex financial vehicles that practically guarantee an ROI over time. > Tell that to the sweatshop worker who made your jeans. The sweatshop worker doesn't believe their skill at their job translates into wealth. The sweatshop worker knows they're in a deadend job barely making enough to feed their family and that they'll be cycled out if they get sick, injured or simply have a few bad days. They might still believe their "skill" at gambling could make them money. But they probably don't have enough money to be able to "invest" in trading.