DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Questions & Debates
*****************************************************
#Post#: 8190--------------------------------------------------
Re: Monetary Wealth
By: guest30 Date: August 21, 2021, 12:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
@Mazda
If You’re so Smart, Why Aren’t You Rich? Turns out It’s Just
Chance.
[quote]The most successful people are not the most talented,
just the luckiest, a new computer model of wealth creation
confirms. Taking that into account can maximize return on many
kinds of investment.[/quote]
[quote]The distribution of wealth follows a well-known pattern
sometimes called an 80:20 rule: 80 percent of the wealth is
owned by 20 percent of the people. Indeed, a report last year
concluded that just eight men had a total wealth equivalent to
that of the world’s poorest 3.8 billion people.
This seems to occur in all societies at all scales. It is a
well-studied pattern called a power law that crops up in a wide
range of social phenomena. But the distribution of wealth is
among the most controversial because of the issues it raises
about fairness and merit. Why should so few people have so much
wealth?
The conventional answer is that we live in a meritocracy in
which people are rewarded for their talent, intelligence,
effort, and so on. Over time, many people think, this translates
into the wealth distribution that we observe, although a healthy
dose of luck can play a role.
But there is a problem with this idea: while wealth distribution
follows a power law, the distribution of human skills generally
follows a normal distribution that is symmetric about an average
value. For example, intelligence, as measured by IQ tests,
follows this pattern. Average IQ is 100, but nobody has an IQ of
1,000 or 10,000.
The same is true of effort, as measured by hours worked. Some
people work more hours than average and some work less, but
nobody works a billion times more hours than anybody else.
And yet when it comes to the rewards for this work, some people
do have billions of times more wealth than other people. What’s
more, numerous studies have shown that the wealthiest people are
generally not the most talented by other measures.
What factors, then, determine how individuals become wealthy?
Could it be that chance plays a bigger role than anybody
expected? And how can these factors, whatever they are, be
exploited to make the world a better and fairer place?
We finally get an answer thanks to the work of Alessandro
Pluchino at the University of Catania in Italy and a couple of
colleagues. These guys have created a computer model of human
talent and the way people use it to exploit opportunities in
life. The model allows the team to study the role of chance in
this process.
The results are something of an eye-opener. Their simulations
accurately reproduce the wealth distribution in the real world.
But the wealthiest individuals are not the most talented
(although they must have a certain level of talent). They are
the luckiest. And this has significant implications for the way
societies can optimize the returns they get for investments in
everything from business to science.
Pluchino and co’s model is straightforward. It consists of N
people, each with a certain level of talent (skill,
intelligence, ability, and so on). This talent is distributed
normally around some average level, with some standard
deviation. So some people are more talented than average and
some are less so, but nobody is orders of magnitude more
talented than anybody else.
This is the same kind of distribution seen for various human
skills, or even characteristics like height or weight. Some
people are taller or smaller than average, but nobody is the
size of an ant or a skyscraper. Indeed, we are all quite
similar.
The computer model charts each individual through a working life
of 40 years. During this time, the individuals experience lucky
events that they can exploit to increase their wealth if they
are talented enough.
However, they also experience unlucky events that reduce their
wealth. These events occur at random.
At the end of the 40 years, Pluchino and co rank the individuals
by wealth and study the characteristics of the most successful.
They also calculate the wealth distribution. They then repeat
the simulation many times to check the robustness of the
outcome.
When the team rank individuals by wealth, the distribution is
exactly like that seen in real-world societies. “The ‘80-20’
rule is respected, since 80 percent of the population owns only
20 percent of the total capital, while the remaining 20 percent
owns 80 percent of the same capital,” report Pluchino and co.
That may not be surprising or unfair if the wealthiest 20
percent turn out to be the most talented. But that isn’t what
happens. The wealthiest individuals are typically not the most
talented or anywhere near it. “The maximum success never
coincides with the maximum talent, and vice-versa,” say the
researchers.
So if not talent, what other factor causes this skewed wealth
distribution? “Our simulation clearly shows that such a factor
is just pure luck,” say Pluchino and co.
The team shows this by ranking individuals according to the
number of lucky and unlucky events they experience throughout
their 40-year careers. “It is evident that the most successful
individuals are also the luckiest ones,” they say. “And the less
successful individuals are also the unluckiest ones.”
That has significant implications for society. What is the most
effective strategy for exploiting the role luck plays in
success?
Pluchino and co study this from the point of view of science
research funding, an issue clearly close to their hearts.
Funding agencies the world over are interested in maximizing
their return on investment in the scientific world. Indeed, the
European Research Council recently invested $1.7 million in a
program to study serendipity—the role of luck in scientific
discovery—and how it can be exploited to improve funding
outcomes.
It turns out that Pluchino and co are well set to answer this
question. They use their model to explore different kinds of
funding models to see which produce the best returns when luck
is taken into account.
The team studied three models, in which research funding is
distributed equally to all scientists; distributed randomly to a
subset of scientists; or given preferentially to those who have
been most successful in the past. Which of these is the best
strategy?
The strategy that delivers the best returns, it turns out, is to
divide the funding equally among all researchers. And the
second- and third-best strategies involve distributing it at
random to 10 or 20 percent of scientists.
In these cases, the researchers are best able to take advantage
of the serendipitous discoveries they make from time to time. In
hindsight, it is obvious that the fact a scientist has made an
important chance discovery in the past does not mean he or she
is more likely to make one in the future.
A similar approach could also be applied to investment in other
kinds of enterprises, such as small or large businesses, tech
startups, education that increases talent, or even the creation
of random lucky events.
Clearly, more work is needed here. What are we waiting
for?[/quote]
HTML https://getpocket.com/explore/item/if-you-re-so-smart-why-aren-t-you-rich-turns-out-it-s-just-chance?utm_source=pocket-newtab
[quote]One word: Trump. A moronic billionaire born into money.
Trump is definitely not the only moronic talent-less wealthy
person on the planet either....[/quote]
Pity of you, feel jealous to people who have richness, rather
than mocking people like them, better you be their friend and
work with them, you will be rich too, if you have a such jealous
feeling in this capitalist world, then this world is not your
place
#Post#: 15595--------------------------------------------------
Re: Monetary Wealth
By: rp Date: September 12, 2022, 2:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
SEC makes fun of retail investors for gambling on stocks:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av3k_lcGm9g
Note how they chose the archetypal "White" male for the gambler.
Probably because it is mostly "White" men who have a gambling
addiction.
#Post#: 15599--------------------------------------------------
Re: Monetary Wealth
By: guest78 Date: September 12, 2022, 1:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Pity of you, feel jealous to people who have richness,
rather than mocking people like them, better you be their friend
and work with them, you will be rich too, if you have a such
jealous feeling in this capitalist world, then this world is not
your place[/quote]
I had said: "One word: Trump. A moronic billionaire born into
money. Trump is definitely not the only moronic talent-less
wealthy person on the planet either...."
I have no problem with people who became wealthy through hard
work and on their own accord, as long as they did not impact
others negatively in their accumulation of said wealth. This is
why I called out Trump in particular in my comment. You have
zero reading comprehension!
#Post#: 26308--------------------------------------------------
Re: Monetary Wealth
By: rp Date: May 6, 2024, 9:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
All "Whites" (including Jews):
HTML https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_Americans_by_net_worth#Top_25_richest_Americans
Except this guy:
HTML https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Jensen_Huang
The game is rigged. If you are "non White" you can become CEO of
the largest companies in the world, but in the end you are just
a slave making already rich "Whites" richer. Even if you start
your own business and become a billionaire, you will not reach
the level of wealth as the richest "Whites".
*****************************************************