There aren't many billionaires, if any, that didn't achieve that status without both being intelligent and cheating others.And, more often than not, wealthy parents
And, more often than not, wealthy parentsFor ever person who grew their generational wealth, there are just as many who squandered it all away. They just aren't talked about as much since you can't easily hate them.
For ever person who grew their generational wealth, there are just as many who squandered it all away. They just aren't talked about as much since you can't easily hate them.Which is why I said "and" ... because what most billionaires have in common is starting from wealth. Base level intelligence isn't enough for most of us to become billionaires and I'm not gonna praise them just because they didn't squander all of daddy's wealth, especially when many are just handed taxpayer money for their pet projects and bailed out when everything goes wrong
So yea, there is some base level intelligence there.
I thought about these 3 guys recently and did a bit of research on them.https://youtu.be/c-FGwDDc-s8
It turns out Musk wasn't a founded of "PayPal", or "Tesla" and he really hasn't delivered on his promise with SpaceX and well he severely overpaid when he purchased Twitter for $44B because his annual loan payments are said to be around $1.4B dollars. To date from Government subsidies/contracts etc between Tesla and SpaceX, Musk has raked in over $2 trillion of taxpayer money to fund his projects and what has he delivered for that free money.
SBF was basically running a crypto Ponzi Scheme until he couldn't pay investors when they wanted their money.
Zuckerberg spent roughly $36B on what he calls the "MetaVerse" and nobody uses yet he laid off over 11,000 people and FaceBook is now a shell of its former self and we now know he made his money hoarding and selling people's personal information without their consent.
Are these guys geniuses or frauds?
There aren't many billionaires, if any, that didn't achieve that status without both being intelligent and cheating others.If intelligence was a prerequisite to being ultra-wealthy, we would expect to see the ranks of billionaires dominated by scientists, researchers, and other fields that attract the intelligent. But that's not what we see at all - instead, we get some guys who are smart (Bill Gates seems to fit the mould), some who are of average intelligence, and some who are objectively dumb as fenceposts (like Trump - Musk also seems to be in that vein, though I'm currently undecided if he's legitimately stupid or just has terrible impulse control and an inability to consider the viewpoints of others).
For ever person who grew their generational wealth, there are just as many who squandered it all away.So?
So?
This just strikes me as reverse-survivorship bias. If 1% of people with generational wealth translate it into billions and 99% piss it away, that still might mean it's the best predictor of extreme wealth if only 0.00001% of people without generational wealth become billionaires.
The fact that some people with "Trait X" do not display "Outcome Y" does not mean that Trait X is not positively correlated with and/or a predictor of Outcome Y.
You don't know anything about jeff bezos if you believe he grew up poor. "In 1995, Jacklyn and Miguel gave Jeff a loan of US$245,573 to start Amazon.com." if that's growing up poor then I may as well have grown up under a bridge
It might be different in places like california, but making over 100k a year ain't middle class.
Anybody can get a loan for $250K.No "anyone" can't do that lol. Most people cant. Most cant even get a house loan for that. You have to have decent income and usually more than one person on the loan lol. Also, it was from his parents/caregivers, not a bank. Most people don't have access to interest free 250k loans from their parents
Plus, you think turning $250K into almost a trillion is "Generational Wealth"? LOL!I never used the term "generational wealth." I said wealth buddy
No "anyone" can't do that lol. Most people cant. Most cant even get a house loan for that. You have to have decent income and usually more than one person on the loan lol. Also, it was from his parents/caregivers, not a bank. Most people don't have access to interest free 250k loans from their parents
I never used the term "generational wealth." I said wealth buddy
Which isn't even close to true....he says before immediately proving me right.
Which doesn't even account for the fact that some of those "Came from money" people (I.E. Bill Gates) came from parents that were barely millionaires at best."Barely" millionaires? Oh, the horror.
Yes, anyone can. I bet you could go to a bank today and get itI know people who have gotten rejected for much less. Not anyone can get it. They aren't just handing out 250k loans to anyone lol
Plus, I was more talking about his upbringing. His mom had him when she was 17, his father basically had to give up custody of him, he got into college strictly on scholarships (didn't pay his way in) and his step-father didn't even start making actual money until after Jeff had long since started working at Bell Labs. Focusing on a loan he got in his 30's from his parents when he didn't have any money until them is disingenuous at best.
Don't know about Sam but Mark is legit smart. And Elmo is a fucking dumbass.
...he says before immediately proving me right.
Tell me, how much of the general population do you think "comes from money"? Because I can tell you right now it's a lot less than 50%-60%.
"Barely" millionaires? Oh, the horror.
Apparently being a millionaire in the 50s is just pocket change now.
Why are you so determined to paint this man as growing up poor? lol
Because, comparatively, he did. People's perception of money is so out of wack that they think going into debt to help your child out with his dream is "being rich". No, that is called being a parent.Dude got what is equivalent to half a mil today gifted to him. That is RICH. And yeah, that's awesome that his stepfather was able to help him like that. That is a great AND very wealthy dad. The vast majority of people can barely imagine a level of wealth like that
Anybody can get a loan for $250K.
Because, comparatively, he did. People's perception of money is so out of wack that they think going into debt to help your child out with his dream is "being rich". No, that is called being a parent.not if we compare him to me lol
It doesn't even go into the fact that the money he was given was for a stake in the company. So it wasn't a "loan", it was an investment.
not if we compare him to me lolYeah, only if we compare him to Bill gates, Trump, or the bushes basically lol
But 50-60% is way more then the .0000001% you threw out.Re-read the sentence you got that number from and maybe you'll understand why what you're saying makes zero sense.
We aren't talking about the general population, we are talking about billionares.
I am just arguing that the idea that every billionare being the Waltons or Bloombergs is just flat out wrong.And no one has said otherwise.
The top billionares nowadays didn't even have parents that registered in the top 100 30-40 years ago so saying that all but .000000001% is generational wealth is flat out wrong.And, as above, no one said this either.
Seriously, read my posts before responding to them please. This is just kind of sad.
You said:
" that still might mean it's the best predictor of extreme wealth if only 0.00001% of people without generational wealth become billionaires."
My argument is that it, given there are around 3000 billionaires in the world today, that would mean that only .0000003 people who are billionaires don't come from generational wealth. So even providing ONE person disproves your statement. I provided 4-5.
Unless your definition of generational wealth is (maybe) parents having a bank account your statement is flat out wrong.
You said:It seems that your definition of generational wealth is being a multi billionaire or else you're poor lol
" that still might mean it's the best predictor of extreme wealth if only 0.00001% of people without generational wealth become billionaires."
My argument is that it, given there are around 3000 billionaires in the world today, that would mean that only .0000003 people who are billionaires don't come from generational wealth. So even providing ONE person disproves your statement. I provided 4-5.
Unless your definition of generational wealth is (maybe) parents having a bank account your statement is flat out wrong.
It seems that your definition of generational wealth is being a multi billionaire or else you're poor lolMore so multi-millionaire. At that point I think you are setting up future generations for success rather than trying to secure your own retirement. If the argument is that it is easier to become a billionaire if your parents where multi-millionares, then I agree 100%.
I am just saying it isn't the only way.
"The best predictor of *outcome*" doesn't mean "the only way to achieve *outcome*."Again, that part I agree with. Which is why I never quoted it or responded to it
You said:What I said: "if 0.00001% of people without generational wealth become billionaires"
" that still might mean it's the best predictor of extreme wealth if only 0.00001% of people without generational wealth become billionaires."
My argument is that it, given there are around 3000 billionaires in the world today, that would mean that only .0000003 people who are billionaires don't come from generational wealth. So even providing ONE person disproves your statement. I provided 4-5.
What I said: "if 0.00001% of people without generational wealth become billionaires"
What you think I said: "if 0.00001% of billionaires did not come from generational wealth"
Those are two very different statements. Seriously, why do you need this explained to you? The original statement is not unclear. I pointed it out to you, adjl explained it to you in detail, and you're *still* getting it wrong.
If we assume the estimate of 50% of billionaires not coming from generational wealth is correct and that 99.9% of people in the world do not come from generational wealth:I know you're doing it strictly for hypothetical purposes but it's definitely closer to about 90% than 50% lol
Remember that when you're using comparative/superlative adjectives like "stronger" or "strongest," nothing involved actually has to be "strong."Agreed - and, noting my original post where those numbers come from (Post 10), I did allude to this:
This just strikes me as reverse-survivorship bias. If 1% of people with generational wealth translate it into billions and 99% piss it away, that still might mean it's the best predictor of extreme wealth if only 0.00001% of people without generational wealth become billionaires.And it's also worth noting, for Diktain's benefit, that * this entire post was entirely hypothetical* . That 1% and 0.00001% number weren't what I was saying were the actual numbers of people with/without generational wealth who become billionaires, it was me throwing a pair of numbers out there to demonstrate a point about statistics and predictors.
The fact that some people with "Trait X" do not display "Outcome Y" does not mean that Trait X is not positively correlated with and/or a predictor of Outcome Y.
I know you're doing it strictly for hypothetical purposes but it's definitely closer to about 90% than 50% lol
Yes, anyone can. I bet you could go to a bank today and get it.