3 ms·

But there's plenty of cases where success drives failure (look at Bezos' Fire Phone as a low hanging fruit example, or more recently at Branson's Virgin Orbit),

by dvt 3y ago

But there's plenty of cases where success drives failure (look at Bezos' Fire Phone as a low hanging fruit example, or more recently at Branson's Virgin Orbit), so, again, it's classic survivorship bias, as there are plenty of counter-examples.

Supermancho 3y ago
> But there's plenty of cases where success drives failure That's a separate issue, under different conditions. Land development is the most common way to grow wealth, historically. It's mostly a matter of probability consideration and access to capital. It's not no-risk, but it's low risk until you start building.
- dvt 3y ago
  > It's not no-risk, but it's low risk until you start building. Building is kind of.. the whole point. And risk profiles vary. For example, I'd rather build/invest in a startup rather than buying land where I may or may not be able to build anything profitable over the long term. Development also has a very long horizon, tying up liquidity in the process. Saying "just buy land bro, making money is ez" seems like a very TikTok Investor kind of take.
  - Supermancho 3y ago
    > Building is kind of.. the whole point. Land development is not limited to "build anywhere you can". Purchases of land for later resale, when armed with knowledge about likely events, is a common strategy. In cities, you often have to deal with municipal pressures to do more. Parking lots filled empty plots in southern california 1980s and since 2015ish the number of Car Washes in Fargo, ND has grown to 80... a cash business with minimal overhead and a flimsy construction, which does not have to cover the entirety of the plot. > Saying "just buy land bro, making money is ez" seems like a very TikTok Investor kind of take Just like interest on large amounts of liquidity, land ownership generates a meaningful passive income, over time. There's nothing trivial about it...unless you buy wasteland in Arizona (which many people hold).
doctor_eval 3y ago
It is odd to point out the relatively minor failures of massively successful people. It is only because they are successful that they are able to afford to take these risks and the fact that these failures did not materially diminish their wealth speaks to the truth of the archetype.
- dvt 3y ago
  > speaks to the truth of the archetype The archetype claims that success breeds success, and this is categorically false, apart from a few exceptions (e.g. monopolies, collusion, etc.). The fact that even literally the richest person on the planet couldn't make a cellphone project (that he himself spearheaded) successful is a clear counter-example to the archetype. Your point that he didn't go broke afterwards is imo unrelated. I will agree that success definitely lowers risk profiles, but does not necessarily impact future success.
  - doctor_eval 3y ago
    I disagree. Having wealth lets you spread risk. That’s one of the big reasons that success breeds success. At least when success is measured in dollars, not projects. This is why so many wealthy people are VCs. The failure of the fire phone, Blue Origin (TBD), Virgin Galactic etc simply reinforce the notion that successful people aren’t necessarily smarter than anyone else. But if they only make $10 billion from every billion they invest in crazy schemes… well they are still some way ahead of most of us.
kmonsen 3y ago
Bezos' Fire phone is an example of success drives success. Amazon is a success even after Fire phone failed because he could afford to do many things, have some of them fail and some work out well. It is perhaps classic survivorship bias if you look at Amazon initially, but after it got into a money printing machine the expansion shows how one success can lead to many mores even if some of them fail.
janalsncm 3y ago
Elon Musk’s money pit Twitter acquisition might be an even more salient example. Success leading to overconfidence leading to failure. (Read “failure” however you like but the fact remains Musk wouldn’t have bought Twitter unless a court forced him to.)

by dvt 3y ago

Supermancho 3y ago

> But there's plenty of cases where success drives failure That's a separate issue, under different conditions. Land development is the most common way to grow wealth, historically. It's mostly a matter of probability consideration and access to capital. It's not no-risk, but it's low risk until you start building.

dvt 3y ago
> It's not no-risk, but it's low risk until you start building. Building is kind of.. the whole point. And risk profiles vary. For example, I'd rather build/invest in a startup rather than buying land where I may or may not be able to build anything profitable over the long term. Development also has a very long horizon, tying up liquidity in the process. Saying "just buy land bro, making money is ez" seems like a very TikTok Investor kind of take.
- Supermancho 3y ago
  > Building is kind of.. the whole point. Land development is not limited to "build anywhere you can". Purchases of land for later resale, when armed with knowledge about likely events, is a common strategy. In cities, you often have to deal with municipal pressures to do more. Parking lots filled empty plots in southern california 1980s and since 2015ish the number of Car Washes in Fargo, ND has grown to 80... a cash business with minimal overhead and a flimsy construction, which does not have to cover the entirety of the plot. > Saying "just buy land bro, making money is ez" seems like a very TikTok Investor kind of take Just like interest on large amounts of liquidity, land ownership generates a meaningful passive income, over time. There's nothing trivial about it...unless you buy wasteland in Arizona (which many people hold).

doctor_eval 3y ago

It is odd to point out the relatively minor failures of massively successful people. It is only because they are successful that they are able to afford to take these risks and the fact that these failures did not materially diminish their wealth speaks to the truth of the archetype.

dvt 3y ago
> speaks to the truth of the archetype The archetype claims that success breeds success, and this is categorically false, apart from a few exceptions (e.g. monopolies, collusion, etc.). The fact that even literally the richest person on the planet couldn't make a cellphone project (that he himself spearheaded) successful is a clear counter-example to the archetype. Your point that he didn't go broke afterwards is imo unrelated. I will agree that success definitely lowers risk profiles, but does not necessarily impact future success.
- doctor_eval 3y ago
  I disagree. Having wealth lets you spread risk. That’s one of the big reasons that success breeds success. At least when success is measured in dollars, not projects. This is why so many wealthy people are VCs. The failure of the fire phone, Blue Origin (TBD), Virgin Galactic etc simply reinforce the notion that successful people aren’t necessarily smarter than anyone else. But if they only make $10 billion from every billion they invest in crazy schemes… well they are still some way ahead of most of us.

kmonsen 3y ago

Bezos' Fire phone is an example of success drives success. Amazon is a success even after Fire phone failed because he could afford to do many things, have some of them fail and some work out well. It is perhaps classic survivorship bias if you look at Amazon initially, but after it got into a money printing machine the expansion shows how one success can lead to many mores even if some of them fail.

janalsncm 3y ago

Elon Musk’s money pit Twitter acquisition might be an even more salient example. Success leading to overconfidence leading to failure. (Read “failure” however you like but the fact remains Musk wouldn’t have bought Twitter unless a court forced him to.)