3 ms·

Wouldn't the constructive uses be more responsible for getting rich in this case? Removing a negative does not do the job by itself.

• tmn 4y ago
  I agree the removal is not sufficient, but it is helpful
• mjburgess 4y ago
  Wealth is pareto distributed, by definition, almost no one can be rich and almost nothing you do can change that.
  • QuarterReptile 4y ago
    For a narrow enough definition of rich (10s of billions? You'd have to define "almost no one"). On a more useful level, reliable distributions of populations, no matter how reliable they tend to be, do not control individuals. There's a spot on the big fat end of the distribution for pareto nihilists.
    • cy_hauser 4y ago
      > For a narrow enough definition of rich No matter where you lop the end of the Pareto distribution off the remaining curve still fits the same distribution. I though that was a defining characteristic of the principle. > ... reliable distributions ... do not control individuals. The people who've made it always talk to the people who haven't as if they can, by force of will, change their circumstances. That may be true if an individual has an untapped talent but in general luck will determine your outcome way more often than force of will. If it were possible for everyone to be rich there would be examples of that in society all across the world and all throughout history. I applaud your optimism though.