4 ms·

"But I don't think being rich equates to being smart." Possibly. It depends how one got rich. Did they inherit wealth from previous generation ? They may or ma

"But I don't think being rich equates to being smart." Possibly. It depends how one got rich. Did they inherit wealth from previous generation ? They may or may not be "smart" by the book. But if you got rich on your own (think entrepreneur, gambler whatever), then I am sure there is some element of smartness involved but the important thing is to define smartness. For example, are you smart with money management? Boom, you could possibly get rich over time if you do it right. stuff like that. Overall, I think that being smart is necessary but not a sufficient condition (hello logic class) to be rich on your own. What do you all think ?

jaredsohn 13y ago
Based on what you just said, smartness is not necessary for wealth.
- codegeek 13y ago
  you are right. I updated my comment with "on your own".
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
thesimpsons1022 13y ago
one can be smart or gifted in their field but not very logical or intelligent about other things. also, logic and intelligence aren't neccesarily linked. so you can be smart but irrational.
Iftheshoefits 13y ago
"Becoming rich" and "being smart" are entirely unrelated except by the occasional chance correlation. The wealthiest people alive today either started wealthy or born into affluence. Very few individuals ever "become rich" when starting out in the middle- or lower classes, regardless of their intelligence.
- Crito 13y ago
  > "The wealthiest people alive today either started wealthy or born into affluence" I would expect that depends on what bar we set for "rich". Is the bar: "1%"er billionaires? Then you are probably right. Is the bar: "SF Tech workers"? Well newsflash, most google employees are not trust-fund babies.
  - Iftheshoefits 13y ago
    That gets into Heritage Foundation semantics over "what does rich mean." Of course we can shift the definition of "rich" around until everybody (or nobody) is "rich," but I don't think that leads to any meaningful discussion (unless the point of the discussion is, of course, to engage in a semantics argument over that meaning).
    - Crito 13y ago
      Defining "rich" is important because if we don't do that, then we cannot have a sensible conversation. Anyway, I am not the person that wants "rich" to be defined with such a low bar. Rather it is the SF protesters and their supporters who are setting that low bar. To them, the bog-standard tech worker is "rich", hence their objections. Personally, I prefer a much higher bar for rich. The "1%er billionaire" is closer to my preferred definition.
beachstartup 13y ago
smart money management doesn't buy you a mansion in woodside, which is the kind of rich the author is talking about. you aren't going to save your way to being larry ellison's neighbor. that kind of money is either inherited or made by founding companies. only one of those involves smartness, and i'm pretty sure that's the kind of rich he means.
- codegeek 13y ago
  agreed. That's why I said necessary but not sufficient.
pfisch 13y ago
People who are "gamblers" win powerball like lotteries very frequently... Of course a lot more of them lose.
klochner 13y ago
It's neither necessary nor sufficient, unless your definition of "smart" is "not severely learning disabled". Many many people get rich on their own without having a ton of smarts.

jaredsohn 13y ago

Based on what you just said, smartness is not necessary for wealth.

codegeek 13y ago
you are right. I updated my comment with "on your own".

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

thesimpsons1022 13y ago

one can be smart or gifted in their field but not very logical or intelligent about other things. also, logic and intelligence aren't neccesarily linked. so you can be smart but irrational.

Iftheshoefits 13y ago

"Becoming rich" and "being smart" are entirely unrelated except by the occasional chance correlation. The wealthiest people alive today either started wealthy or born into affluence. Very few individuals ever "become rich" when starting out in the middle- or lower classes, regardless of their intelligence.

Crito 13y ago
> "The wealthiest people alive today either started wealthy or born into affluence" I would expect that depends on what bar we set for "rich". Is the bar: "1%"er billionaires? Then you are probably right. Is the bar: "SF Tech workers"? Well newsflash, most google employees are not trust-fund babies.
- Iftheshoefits 13y ago
  That gets into Heritage Foundation semantics over "what does rich mean." Of course we can shift the definition of "rich" around until everybody (or nobody) is "rich," but I don't think that leads to any meaningful discussion (unless the point of the discussion is, of course, to engage in a semantics argument over that meaning).
  - Crito 13y ago
    Defining "rich" is important because if we don't do that, then we cannot have a sensible conversation. Anyway, I am not the person that wants "rich" to be defined with such a low bar. Rather it is the SF protesters and their supporters who are setting that low bar. To them, the bog-standard tech worker is "rich", hence their objections. Personally, I prefer a much higher bar for rich. The "1%er billionaire" is closer to my preferred definition.

beachstartup 13y ago

smart money management doesn't buy you a mansion in woodside, which is the kind of rich the author is talking about. you aren't going to save your way to being larry ellison's neighbor. that kind of money is either inherited or made by founding companies. only one of those involves smartness, and i'm pretty sure that's the kind of rich he means.

codegeek 13y ago
agreed. That's why I said necessary but not sufficient.

pfisch 13y ago

People who are "gamblers" win powerball like lotteries very frequently... Of course a lot more of them lose.

klochner 13y ago

It's neither necessary nor sufficient, unless your definition of "smart" is "not severely learning disabled". Many many people get rich on their own without having a ton of smarts.