4 ms·

This sounds more like a slogan, a belief, than a fact. It’s not true for the extreme top end: [0] Here’s a Yahoo Finance article citing several efforts to inv

This sounds more like a slogan, a belief, than a fact. It’s not true for the extreme top end: [0] Here’s a Yahoo Finance article citing several efforts to investigate inheritance vs self-made wealth in the upper middle class: [1] We keep electing new politicians and buying the latest and greatest thing. Technology keeps revolutionizing everything. This leads to a ton of churn at the top as incumbents are replaced. What may fool you though is that all successful people are similar in important ways (Anna Karenina principle). But they are not the same people. [0] https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/billionaires-self-made https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/billionaires-self-made [1] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/79-millionaires-self-made-lessons-160025947.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/79-millionaires-self-made-les...

cess11 2y ago
There is no self-made wealth. You can't become wealthy without the labour of other people. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/apr/03/all-billionaires-under-30-have-inherited-their-wealth-research-finds https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/apr/03/all-billion... The article you linked was a bit fuzzy, seems they counted people like Thiel and Musk as 'entrepreneurs' rather than inheritance because they didn't keep running a family company. But them being wealthy is absolutely connected to their families being privileged and the nasty, nasty crimes they profited from.
- FredPret 2y ago
  You know you’ve gone off the deep end when you call Musk an “entrepreneur” in quotes instead of what he is - a regular, if excellent, entrepreneur. Having a leg up due to coming from a well-off background invalidates nothing. These top entrepreneurs and politicians typically grew up upper-middle class or as members of the minor rich; they rise to positions of prominence from there. That’s fundamentally different from inheriting power even if you’re a dunce as kings once did.
  - cess11 2y ago
    No, he's not, he's a douche born into criminal wealth that organisations he ends up in needs to protect themselves from. Today he's also a fascist grifter who's entered into politics. For some reason usians don't revolt when their political system elects rapists, genocidaires and people on the far right, so I'm hoping it'll turn into something like a kingdom that they find it in themselves to overturn.
    - FredPret 2y ago
      > Douche No accounting for taste > born into ... wealth It's a very minor thing in the big picture to be born into a 3rd world country like South Africa's top 1%. > criminal wealth His dad likely had some dodgy dealings, but there's every indication that he made the bulk of his money legally. Anyway, how does that reflect on Musk? Did we go back to "sins of the fathers"? > organisations he ends up in needs to protect themselves from. Ah yes, it's pure coincidence that so many of these organizations go on to absolutely kick ass. Let's check in on the EV situation at, say, GM or BMW in an alternate universe without Tesla. Or on the progress at ULA or Blue Origin. > fascist I don't think you understand what that word means. A key part of fascism is unlimited government control - the exact opposite of what he wants. > grifter He sells stuff? I guess that's bad in your eyes? > who's entered into politics How very dare he!? > rapists, genocidaires and people on the far right, Nice linking those three things together.
      - cess11 2y ago
        Apartheid was a crime. SA occupying and running mining operations in other countries was criminal. Profiting from it means you're accumulating criminal wealth. Mistaking first-mover advantage and access to extreme amounts of funding for "kick ass" is quite weird. No, that's not a characteristic of fascism. He's impressed by and promotes nazis, maintains his wealth through corporativism, and so on. No, it's that he makes wild promises, takes money and then don't deliver on them that makes him a grifter.
        FredPret 2y ago
latexr 2y ago
> It’s not true for the extreme top end Any extreme is, by definition, unusual. You don’t need to be a billionaire (which is what the articule you linked to focus on) to be considered powerful or wealthy. Tellingly, that articles notes that: > The proportion of those in the list who grew up poor or had little wealth remained constant at roughly 20 percent throughout the same period. Which suggests that inheriting power and money does make a difference in your chance of success. They continue: > Most individuals on the Forbes 400 list did not inherit the family business but rather made their own fortune. But one does not follow from the other. Inheriting a business is not the only way to have a leg up. If you’re well off you have the opportunity to risk going into some venture on your own and fail, because you have a safety net. Furthermore, your affluent family can and probably will make a difference in your business. I’m reminded of a piece of news a while back where a couple of rich kids were bragging they made their company successful “from scratch” but upon further inspection into it was revealed their customers were rich friends of their parents.

cess11 2y ago

There is no self-made wealth. You can't become wealthy without the labour of other people. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/apr/03/all-billionaires-under-30-have-inherited-their-wealth-research-finds https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/apr/03/all-billion... The article you linked was a bit fuzzy, seems they counted people like Thiel and Musk as 'entrepreneurs' rather than inheritance because they didn't keep running a family company. But them being wealthy is absolutely connected to their families being privileged and the nasty, nasty crimes they profited from.

FredPret 2y ago
You know you’ve gone off the deep end when you call Musk an “entrepreneur” in quotes instead of what he is - a regular, if excellent, entrepreneur. Having a leg up due to coming from a well-off background invalidates nothing. These top entrepreneurs and politicians typically grew up upper-middle class or as members of the minor rich; they rise to positions of prominence from there. That’s fundamentally different from inheriting power even if you’re a dunce as kings once did.
- cess11 2y ago
  No, he's not, he's a douche born into criminal wealth that organisations he ends up in needs to protect themselves from. Today he's also a fascist grifter who's entered into politics. For some reason usians don't revolt when their political system elects rapists, genocidaires and people on the far right, so I'm hoping it'll turn into something like a kingdom that they find it in themselves to overturn.
  - FredPret 2y ago
    > Douche No accounting for taste > born into ... wealth It's a very minor thing in the big picture to be born into a 3rd world country like South Africa's top 1%. > criminal wealth His dad likely had some dodgy dealings, but there's every indication that he made the bulk of his money legally. Anyway, how does that reflect on Musk? Did we go back to "sins of the fathers"? > organisations he ends up in needs to protect themselves from. Ah yes, it's pure coincidence that so many of these organizations go on to absolutely kick ass. Let's check in on the EV situation at, say, GM or BMW in an alternate universe without Tesla. Or on the progress at ULA or Blue Origin. > fascist I don't think you understand what that word means. A key part of fascism is unlimited government control - the exact opposite of what he wants. > grifter He sells stuff? I guess that's bad in your eyes? > who's entered into politics How very dare he!? > rapists, genocidaires and people on the far right, Nice linking those three things together.
    - cess11 2y ago
      Apartheid was a crime. SA occupying and running mining operations in other countries was criminal. Profiting from it means you're accumulating criminal wealth. Mistaking first-mover advantage and access to extreme amounts of funding for "kick ass" is quite weird. No, that's not a characteristic of fascism. He's impressed by and promotes nazis, maintains his wealth through corporativism, and so on. No, it's that he makes wild promises, takes money and then don't deliver on them that makes him a grifter.
      - FredPret 2y ago

latexr 2y ago

> It’s not true for the extreme top end Any extreme is, by definition, unusual. You don’t need to be a billionaire (which is what the articule you linked to focus on) to be considered powerful or wealthy. Tellingly, that articles notes that: > The proportion of those in the list who grew up poor or had little wealth remained constant at roughly 20 percent throughout the same period. Which suggests that inheriting power and money does make a difference in your chance of success. They continue: > Most individuals on the Forbes 400 list did not inherit the family business but rather made their own fortune. But one does not follow from the other. Inheriting a business is not the only way to have a leg up. If you’re well off you have the opportunity to risk going into some venture on your own and fail, because you have a safety net. Furthermore, your affluent family can and probably will make a difference in your business. I’m reminded of a piece of news a while back where a couple of rich kids were bragging they made their company successful “from scratch” but upon further inspection into it was revealed their customers were rich friends of their parents.