4 ms·

> The fact that they have so much wealth is a testament that their way of thinking is always right. At least wealth is a quantifiable measure of success in our

> The fact that they have so much wealth is a testament that their way of thinking is always right. At least wealth is a quantifiable measure of success in our society. In contrast, many posters on HN think they're always right (it's notorious for it) with no qualifications whatsoever. This discussion is a sea of jealously and a perfect example.

nkrisc 6mo ago
There is obviously some minimum level of competence and intelligence required to be wealthy (not losing all of it), but for many becoming fabulously wealthy is as much a matter of circumstance than anything else. I would guess most people here would also be billionaires if they had the same opportunities and circumstances as Musk.
- array_key_first 6mo ago
  I don't think there's a minimum level of competence even. You can get very wealthy by sheer luck and timing. Also, a lot of wealthly people aren't stupid like we think. They're evil, which is different. And being evil is actually pretty good for being wealthy. Most people are encumbered by their morality. Evil people are not, so they can do much more.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- raddan 6mo ago
  This reminds of me the following wonderful Numberphile video [1] where they compare the success of billionares to gas molecules: "everybody is just bumping around randomly but the one person that, you know, that became a billionare or something--they wrote their autobiography 'how I got here, all the great decisions I made to beat everybody'... It was just random." I've always wondered whether it would be possible to compute the expected number of billionaires with a model like this. If the number is higher than the expectation, well ok, some fraction of them are consciously steering themselves into billionaire-hood. Otherwise, it's probably dumb luck. It's a fun null hypothesis. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvwgdrC8vlE&t=57s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvwgdrC8vlE&t=57s
gentoo 6mo ago
Thank you for illustrating another feature of the billionaires' defensive bubble: anyone who dares criticize them from a position of lesser wealth is just "jealous" and their criticism is presumptively invalid.
b00ty4breakfast 6mo ago
>This discussion is a sea of jealously and a perfect example. Yes, the only reason anyone could have for criticizing the ultra-wealthy is jealousy. It's just the haders, b.
- longislandguido 6mo ago
  You eat booty for breakfast?
  - b00ty4breakfast 6mo ago
    are you a guido from Long Island?
codechicago277 6mo ago
HN posters are famously overconfident, sure, but wealth is a bad measure of success. Putin is one of the richest people on earth, but responsible for extreme political repression and global instability. Pablo Escobar did very well financially. Financial success says how well you’ve extracted wealth from others, and approximately zero about your contributions to society. Einstein, Gandhi, Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr, Orwell had tremendous public impact and “success”, with relatively little wealth to show for it. Wealth gives those with shallow sense of values an easy scoreboard to look down on others, which is how you get disasters like Sam Bankman-Fried’s failed attempt at “effective altruism”, or almost-trillionaires like Musk gutting the federal government, while extracting billions in public funding and subsidies.
- scubbo 6mo ago
  > wealth is a bad measure of[...]your contributions to society To be _abundantly_ clear, I agree with you and your assumptions here - but, please note that you are making some assumptions here about what "success" is defined as, which might explain why other people disagree.
  - codechicago277 6mo ago
    Sure, but with that definition parent’s comment becomes “wealth is a good indicator of wealth”, which while true certainly isn’t useful. I’m assuming they meant to imply wealth is a measure of positive social impact, which is a bad measure for the reasons I stated. They also might mean it as a proxy for “rightness”, whatever that is, which is even more of a problem but for different reasons.
    - scubbo 6mo ago
      > I’m assuming they meant to imply wealth is a measure of positive social impact I don't see any basis for assuming that (again, I say this respectfully - I hold similar values to what I'm assuming you do) > They also might mean it as a proxy for “rightness” This feels closer, but still not right IMO. I see it more as a claim that "success" is "ability to achieve one's _own_ aims" - personally, internally-established objectives - whereas you (and I) are trying to tie "success" to external, pro-social measures. Basically, selfishness vs. community.
andy_ppp 6mo ago
Everyone thinks they are right, but it’s having the grace to be able learn, be wrong and develop is the point here! Also your average HN commenter does not get listened to or promoted anywhere to the same degree!

nkrisc 6mo ago

There is obviously some minimum level of competence and intelligence required to be wealthy (not losing all of it), but for many becoming fabulously wealthy is as much a matter of circumstance than anything else. I would guess most people here would also be billionaires if they had the same opportunities and circumstances as Musk.

array_key_first 6mo ago
I don't think there's a minimum level of competence even. You can get very wealthy by sheer luck and timing. Also, a lot of wealthly people aren't stupid like we think. They're evil, which is different. And being evil is actually pretty good for being wealthy. Most people are encumbered by their morality. Evil people are not, so they can do much more.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
raddan 6mo ago
This reminds of me the following wonderful Numberphile video [1] where they compare the success of billionares to gas molecules: "everybody is just bumping around randomly but the one person that, you know, that became a billionare or something--they wrote their autobiography 'how I got here, all the great decisions I made to beat everybody'... It was just random." I've always wondered whether it would be possible to compute the expected number of billionaires with a model like this. If the number is higher than the expectation, well ok, some fraction of them are consciously steering themselves into billionaire-hood. Otherwise, it's probably dumb luck. It's a fun null hypothesis. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvwgdrC8vlE&t=57s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvwgdrC8vlE&t=57s

gentoo 6mo ago

Thank you for illustrating another feature of the billionaires' defensive bubble: anyone who dares criticize them from a position of lesser wealth is just "jealous" and their criticism is presumptively invalid.

b00ty4breakfast 6mo ago

>This discussion is a sea of jealously and a perfect example. Yes, the only reason anyone could have for criticizing the ultra-wealthy is jealousy. It's just the haders, b.

longislandguido 6mo ago
You eat booty for breakfast?
- b00ty4breakfast 6mo ago
  are you a guido from Long Island?

codechicago277 6mo ago

HN posters are famously overconfident, sure, but wealth is a bad measure of success. Putin is one of the richest people on earth, but responsible for extreme political repression and global instability. Pablo Escobar did very well financially. Financial success says how well you’ve extracted wealth from others, and approximately zero about your contributions to society. Einstein, Gandhi, Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr, Orwell had tremendous public impact and “success”, with relatively little wealth to show for it. Wealth gives those with shallow sense of values an easy scoreboard to look down on others, which is how you get disasters like Sam Bankman-Fried’s failed attempt at “effective altruism”, or almost-trillionaires like Musk gutting the federal government, while extracting billions in public funding and subsidies.

scubbo 6mo ago
> wealth is a bad measure of[...]your contributions to society To be _abundantly_ clear, I agree with you and your assumptions here - but, please note that you are making some assumptions here about what "success" is defined as, which might explain why other people disagree.
- codechicago277 6mo ago
  Sure, but with that definition parent’s comment becomes “wealth is a good indicator of wealth”, which while true certainly isn’t useful. I’m assuming they meant to imply wealth is a measure of positive social impact, which is a bad measure for the reasons I stated. They also might mean it as a proxy for “rightness”, whatever that is, which is even more of a problem but for different reasons.
  - scubbo 6mo ago
    > I’m assuming they meant to imply wealth is a measure of positive social impact I don't see any basis for assuming that (again, I say this respectfully - I hold similar values to what I'm assuming you do) > They also might mean it as a proxy for “rightness” This feels closer, but still not right IMO. I see it more as a claim that "success" is "ability to achieve one's _own_ aims" - personally, internally-established objectives - whereas you (and I) are trying to tie "success" to external, pro-social measures. Basically, selfishness vs. community.

andy_ppp 6mo ago

Everyone thinks they are right, but it’s having the grace to be able learn, be wrong and develop is the point here! Also your average HN commenter does not get listened to or promoted anywhere to the same degree!