3 ms·
The churn in the top .0001% means basically nothing as to how serious wealth accumulation is. It's a horrible indicator. Looking at the world cup results of 1
by furyg3 12y ago
The churn in the top .0001% means basically nothing as to how serious wealth accumulation is. It's a horrible indicator.
Looking at the world cup results of 1982 (Italy, W. Germany, Poland, France) and 2014 (Germany, Argentina, Netherlands, Brazil), you could assume that there is a healthy amount of churn happening, so there's not really an accumulation of medals happening. Every country has a chance! In reality, there are only 8 winners and maybe 12 who have ever had a chance to win (out of 24 who have ever even made it to the top 4). There are ~196 countries in the world. The wealth distribution of FIFA medals is not good if you haven't already been a winner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Cup#Teams_reaching_the_top_four http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Cup#Teams_reaching_t...
- yummyfajitas 12y agoI'll give you the same reply I gave to yodsanklai, who made the same (incorrect) response: > a significant majority of members of the 1982 list would have qualified for the 2012 list if they had accumulated wealth at a real rate of even 4 percent a year. Further, your world cup analogy shows how inequality of results is not strong evidence of gboudraias' claim: "Those with the most money can... make the most money. " Owning a 2006 or 2010 world cup does not give you a greater ability to play soccer - the World cup inequality between Germany/Brazil and India/USA is purely meritocratic.