4 ms·

You are missing the network effects. Wealth compounds, capital grows, assets beget assets. If an ordinary person is lucky, he or she may win the literal lottery

by melony 4y ago

You are missing the network effects. Wealth compounds, capital grows, assets beget assets. If an ordinary person is lucky, he or she may win the literal lottery and may never have to work again. If a massively privileged person wins the proverbial lottery, he or she will have enough money to rival the GDP of nations and appear on Forbes magazine. The difference is hardly linear.

mxkopy 4y ago
I think this makes sense, but luck is a weird way to put it. I'm sure Bill Gates' family had plans to create generational wealth; at the very least they didn't ignore the possibility. The question of whether or not Bill is lucky because he wasn't responsible for starting those plans is the same question of if I'm more lucky to have been born in this body or in one 500 years into the future.
wpasc 4y ago
One of your examples I believe hurts your point: "Whether they win $500 million or $1 million, about 70 percent of lotto winners lose or spend all that money in five years or less." https://www.rd.com/list/13-things-lottery-winners/#:~:text=Whether%20they%20win%20%24500%20million,taking%20the%20money%20and%20running https://www.rd.com/list/13-things-lottery-winners/#:~:text=W....
staunch 4y ago
How do network effects apply here? Do you mean to refer to compounding growth? It's true that wealth begets wealth. Zuckerberg's kids are billionaires without having to do anything. Bill Gates would've been rich even if he had not started Microsoft, just through inheritance. But Steve Jobs led the creation of the most valuable company on the planet. There was no blocker to him being richer than Bill Gates or Elon Musk. Larry Ellison is among the richest people on the planet. John Carmack and Palmer Luckey have generational wealth. Creating a massive company is what makes someone as rich as an Elon Musk or Bill Gates. They had more opportunity to create a massive company than a person from a lower class, but it's got nothing to do with network effects. The main driver of these people's massive fortunes is technology that scales globally.

by melony 4y ago

mxkopy 4y ago

I think this makes sense, but luck is a weird way to put it. I'm sure Bill Gates' family had plans to create generational wealth; at the very least they didn't ignore the possibility. The question of whether or not Bill is lucky because he wasn't responsible for starting those plans is the same question of if I'm more lucky to have been born in this body or in one 500 years into the future.

wpasc 4y ago

One of your examples I believe hurts your point: "Whether they win $500 million or $1 million, about 70 percent of lotto winners lose or spend all that money in five years or less." https://www.rd.com/list/13-things-lottery-winners/#:~:text=Whether%20they%20win%20%24500%20million,taking%20the%20money%20and%20running https://www.rd.com/list/13-things-lottery-winners/#:~:text=W....

staunch 4y ago

How do network effects apply here? Do you mean to refer to compounding growth? It's true that wealth begets wealth. Zuckerberg's kids are billionaires without having to do anything. Bill Gates would've been rich even if he had not started Microsoft, just through inheritance. But Steve Jobs led the creation of the most valuable company on the planet. There was no blocker to him being richer than Bill Gates or Elon Musk. Larry Ellison is among the richest people on the planet. John Carmack and Palmer Luckey have generational wealth. Creating a massive company is what makes someone as rich as an Elon Musk or Bill Gates. They had more opportunity to create a massive company than a person from a lower class, but it's got nothing to do with network effects. The main driver of these people's massive fortunes is technology that scales globally.