4 ms·

Usually not - the people writing these comments have neither the understanding nor the courage of their conviction to bet based on their own analysis. If they

Usually not - the people writing these comments have neither the understanding nor the courage of their conviction to bet based on their own analysis. If they did, the articles would look less like “wow, numbers are really big,” and more like, “disclaimer: I am short. Here’s my reasoning” They don’t even have to be short for me to respect it. Even being hedged or on the sidelines I would understand if you thought everything was massively overvalued. It’s a bit like saying you think the rapture is coming, but you’re still investing in your 401k… Edit: sorry to respond to this comment twice. You just touched on a real pet peeve of mine, and I feel a little like I’m the only one who thinks this way, so I got excited to see your comment

Terr_ 1y ago
That sounds like a variation on: "If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?" which rests on some very shaky (yet comforting) set of assumptions in a "just world." Heck, just look at yesterday: Myself and several million other people wouldn't have needed to march if smart people reliably ended up in charge. I think it's more valuable to flip the lens around, and ask: "If you're so rich, why aren't you smart?"
- Esophagus4 1y ago
  Fair point - meaning, you can be right (and rich) but for the wrong reasons? Like… you can place your bet based on a coin flip and get it right without actually being smart?
  - Terr_ 1y ago
    > based on a coin flip To simplify: Yes. While it seems foolish to discount all effect from individual agency or merit, we do know that random chance is sufficient to lead to the trends we see. [0] Much like how an iceberg always has some ~10% portion above the water: The top water molecules probably aren't special snowflakes (heh) compared to the rest, we're mostly just seeing What Ice Does. Combine that with how humans seem hardwired to dislike/ignore random chance, and it's reasonable to think we overestimate the importance of personal qualities in getting rich. Consider how basically anyone flipping a coin starts thinking of of causal stories like "hot streaks" or "cold streaks" or "now I'm overdue for a different outcome", even when they already know it's 50/50. ________________ A simple trading simulation of equally-smart equally-lucky agents still demonstrates oligarchic outcomes [0]. When you also add a redistributing effect (like taxing the rich to keep the poor alive) it generates outcomes that resemble real-world statistics for different countries. > If you simulate this economy, a variant of the yard sale model, you will get a remarkable result: after a large number of transactions, one agent ends up as an “oligarch” holding practically all the wealth of the economy, and the other 999 end up with virtually nothing. > It does not matter how much wealth people started with. It does not matter that all the coin flips were absolutely fair. It does not matter that the poorer agent's expected outcome was positive in each transaction, whereas that of the richer agent was negative. Any single agent in this economy could have become the oligarch—in fact, all had equal odds if they began with equal wealth. [0] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-inequality-inevitable/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-inequality-ine...
    - atmavatar 1y ago
      I like to think of becoming wealthy like catching a ball at an MLB game. First, you have to show up at a game in person. No one watching the game on TV or ignoring it altogether is catching a ball. Next, you have a greater chance at catching a ball if you bring a glove. Then, it also helps your chances if you've practiced catching balls. However, all of that preparation is for naught if a ball is never hit to you. For every person who strikes it rich, there are hundreds if not thousands of people who were just as smart, worked just as hard, and did all the same right things, but they simply didn't make it.
      - pmg101 1y ago
        "necessary but not sufficient"

Terr_ 1y ago

That sounds like a variation on: "If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?" which rests on some very shaky (yet comforting) set of assumptions in a "just world." Heck, just look at yesterday: Myself and several million other people wouldn't have needed to march if smart people reliably ended up in charge. I think it's more valuable to flip the lens around, and ask: "If you're so rich, why aren't you smart?"

Esophagus4 1y ago
Fair point - meaning, you can be right (and rich) but for the wrong reasons? Like… you can place your bet based on a coin flip and get it right without actually being smart?
- Terr_ 1y ago
  > based on a coin flip To simplify: Yes. While it seems foolish to discount all effect from individual agency or merit, we do know that random chance is sufficient to lead to the trends we see. [0] Much like how an iceberg always has some ~10% portion above the water: The top water molecules probably aren't special snowflakes (heh) compared to the rest, we're mostly just seeing What Ice Does. Combine that with how humans seem hardwired to dislike/ignore random chance, and it's reasonable to think we overestimate the importance of personal qualities in getting rich. Consider how basically anyone flipping a coin starts thinking of of causal stories like "hot streaks" or "cold streaks" or "now I'm overdue for a different outcome", even when they already know it's 50/50. ________________ A simple trading simulation of equally-smart equally-lucky agents still demonstrates oligarchic outcomes [0]. When you also add a redistributing effect (like taxing the rich to keep the poor alive) it generates outcomes that resemble real-world statistics for different countries. > If you simulate this economy, a variant of the yard sale model, you will get a remarkable result: after a large number of transactions, one agent ends up as an “oligarch” holding practically all the wealth of the economy, and the other 999 end up with virtually nothing. > It does not matter how much wealth people started with. It does not matter that all the coin flips were absolutely fair. It does not matter that the poorer agent's expected outcome was positive in each transaction, whereas that of the richer agent was negative. Any single agent in this economy could have become the oligarch—in fact, all had equal odds if they began with equal wealth. [0] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-inequality-inevitable/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-inequality-ine...
  - atmavatar 1y ago
    I like to think of becoming wealthy like catching a ball at an MLB game. First, you have to show up at a game in person. No one watching the game on TV or ignoring it altogether is catching a ball. Next, you have a greater chance at catching a ball if you bring a glove. Then, it also helps your chances if you've practiced catching balls. However, all of that preparation is for naught if a ball is never hit to you. For every person who strikes it rich, there are hundreds if not thousands of people who were just as smart, worked just as hard, and did all the same right things, but they simply didn't make it.
    - pmg101 1y ago
      "necessary but not sufficient"