Meanwhile, the New York Post

[Irish Jet]

29 minutes ago, jgb said:

 He put it all on the line, double mortgaged his house, quit his job, was supported on his wife's meager salary to pursue a dream to sell books online.

You forgot the $300,000 that his parents gave him. Which helps.

[jgb]

3 minutes ago, Irish Jet said:

You forgot the $300,000 that his parents gave him. Which helps.

Again, not saying things don't "help." But how exactly does it dilute their accomplishments?

There are tens of thousands of rich brats who have done eff all with their lives. In fact, it's easier for a rich kid to squander their lives because of the golden safety net under their feet.

It can't all be explained by having nurturing circumstances and benefiting from "the system."

 

[Irish Jet]

6 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Ok.  How about Bezos?  Horrible human being, yes, but what help did he get?

See above.

But even an eventual billionaire born to crack addicts would have to be fully reliant on networking with the right people, exploiting some of those people, finding the right opportunities and avoiding the wrong ones. There is definitely a talent to accumulating that much wealth but it cannot be achieved in any way that it could be described as "self made". They all need help to varying degrees. 

[jgb]

Just now, Irish Jet said:

See above.

But even an eventual billionaire born to crack addicts would have to be fully reliant on networking with the right people, exploiting some of those people, finding the right opportunities and avoiding the wrong ones. There is definitely a talent to accumulating that much wealth but it cannot be achieved in any way that it could be described as "self made". They all need help to varying degrees. 

I think we're just debating the definition of "self- made" without actually disagreeing on the premise.

You are using the literal definition. We are speaking colloquially as the phrase is generally used in normal conversation.

Not saying you're wrong, just pointing out that I don't actually think any of us disagree with one another.

[Spoot-Face]

[Irish Jet]

1 minute ago, jgb said:

Again, not saying things don't "help." But how exactly does it dilute their accomplishments?

There are tens of thousands of rich brats who have done eff all with their lives. In fact, it's easier for a rich kid to squander their lives because of the golden safety net under their feet.

It can't all be explained by having nurturing circumstances and benefiting from "the system."

 

And there are plenty more ambitious, hard working poor people who don't get the private education or the hundred thousand dollar startups to make that kind of money. 

The reality is the greatest indicator of whether or not a person will be "successful" are the resources they start with. Bezos and especially Gates had a huge head start on the average person. 

[jgb]

2 minutes ago, Irish Jet said:

And there are plenty more ambitious, hard working poor people who don't get the private education or the hundred thousand dollar startups to make that kind of money. 

The reality is the greatest indicator of whether or not a person will be "successful" are the resources they start with. Bezos and especially Gates had a huge head start on the average person. 

I'd like to see that study. I think it also depends on the definition of "successful." Sure, you're more likely to be comfortable financially if your parents are. But a billionaire? The sample size is probably too small to find statistically-significant correlation, but I could be wrong.

But even under your view, the seed for family wealth has to come from somewhere at some point. Chicken and egg.

[Jetsfan80]

8 minutes ago, Irish Jet said:

See above.

But even an eventual billionaire born to crack addicts would have to be fully reliant on networking with the right people, exploiting some of those people, finding the right opportunities and avoiding the wrong ones. There is definitely a talent to accumulating that much wealth but it cannot be achieved in any way that it could be described as "self made". They all need help to varying degrees. 

Networking is a skill.  We’re social creatures.  We all need a little help to get where we are.  But to create a new product/invention/service is at least 90 % a credit to persistent hard work, and just as importantly, a willingness to fail without giving in.

The inventor of PayPal, for instance, created 4 different failed companies before creating PayPal.  At any point in that process he could have given up on entrepreneurship and no one would have blamed him.

The founder of Waste Management lived out of a truck after coming back from Vietnam.  He noticed people in the neighborhood he parked in had a lot of trash and took it to the dump for a few bucks.  More people and neighborhoods paid him for that service and the rest was history. 

Just because someone gets a leg up doesn’t mean it isn’t a credit to them for creating something new.  Even if people have no rich family member, lots of people take out loans for businesses.  You have to have at least a little money to make money…so what?  If you have a plan or vision and can successfully argue an idea will work, there will always be people willing to invest.  The rest is up to the entrepreneur to deliver.  

[ultraJETfan]

1 way ticket to Palookaville

[jgb]

10 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Networking is a skill.  We’re social creatures.  We all need a little help to get where we are.  But to create a new product/invention/service is at least 90 % a credit to persistent hard work, and just as importantly, a willingness to fail without giving in.

The inventor of PayPal, for instance, created 4 different failed companies before creating PayPal.  At any point in that process he could have given up on entrepreneurship and no one would have blamed him.

The founder of Waste Management lived out of a truck after coming back from Vietnam.  He noticed people in the neighborhood he parked in had a lot of trash and took it to the dump for a few bucks.  More people and neighborhoods paid him for that service and the rest was history. 

Just because someone gets a leg up doesn’t mean it isn’t a credit to them for creating something new.  Even if people have no rich family member, lots of people take out loans for businesses.  You have to have at least a little money to make money…so what?  If you have a plan or vision and can successfully argue an idea will work, there will always be people willing to invest.  The rest is up to the entrepreneur to deliver.  

Without the 300k, Bezos probably would've still made Amazon. But some venture capitalist would own 60% of the stock.

[Irish Jet]

7 minutes ago, jgb said:

I'd like to see that study. I think it also depends on the definition of "successful." Sure, you're more likely to be comfortable financially if your parents are. But even under your view, the seed for family has to come from somewhere at some point. Chicken and egg.

Well if you're idea of successful is education then it's true.

If it's general happiness it's true.

If it's future income it's true.

I mean it should be pretty obvious. It pays to be rich. As for the chicken and egg that's not really relevant. You are still an individual benefitting from something that had nothing to do with your own ability. I think your point about rich brats sort of negates any idea of a successful gene that's being passed on but rather you're being born into a network that has already bred success. The path has been paved so to speak. 

[jgb]

38 minutes ago, Irish Jet said:

Well if you're idea of successful is education then it's true.

If it's general happiness it's true.

If it's future income it's true.

I mean it should be pretty obvious. It pays to be rich. As for the chicken and egg that's not really relevant. You are still an individual benefitting from something that had nothing to do with your own ability. I think your point about rich brats sort of negates any idea of a successful gene that's being passed on but rather you're being born into a network that has already bred success. The path has been paved so to speak. 

Again I think we're debating without actually disagreeing. Certain things can give you a leg up on life -- only a fool would argue otherwise. Up to you what you do with it. Squander it or risk it to build, or something in between.

But I still believe there is a stronger positive correlation between the characteristics of the person over what they are born into when it comes to fantastic wealth like we are discussing. Something must distinguish them from the multitudes of upper-middle class kids or rich heirs who do nothing, tread water, or even are "successful" in the sense they turn a million into 5 million. It cannot all be explained by external factors. Arguing that would be equally foolish -- IMHO -- as arguing that starting point has no impact on finishing point.

[Jetsfan80]

5 minutes ago, jgb said:

Without the 300k, Bezos probably would've still made Amazon. But some venture capitalist would own 60% of the stock.

Precisely.  Modern capitalism rewards those who let others build something and then buy it from the creator.

But someone still had to create.  And some of those creators opt NOT to sell.  Zuckerberg, Gates and Bezos didn’t. Hence why they’re now all billionaires.  

[jgb]

5 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Precisely.  Modern capitalism rewards those who let others build something and then buy it from the creator.

But someone still had to create.  And some of those creators opt NOT to sell.  Zuckerberg, Gates and Bezos didn’t. Hence why they’re now all billionaires.  

Putting aside financial speculators (and very few, if any billionaires, simply "traded stocks," they took over companies and unlocked some value for investors, that they also benefitted from), to build great wealth you must create some value proposition -- goods or services -- where many people voluntarily enter into mutually-beneficial transactions with you. They give you money, they receive something in return that they value more than that money that costs you less to provide than what they pay you.

[jgb]

6 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Precisely.  Modern capitalism rewards those who let others build something and then buy it from the creator.

But someone still had to create.  And some of those creators opt NOT to sell.  Zuckerberg, Gates and Bezos didn’t. Hence why they’re now all billionaires.  

I'd expect Irish to raise situations of ill-gotten wealth, monopolists, corrupt business people, etc. I would do the same if I was arguing his position.

But if you look at the list of US billionaires -- basically all of them either built something that entices millions of people to enter transactions with them at mutual-benefit, or they inherited it from someone that had.

[Barry McCockinner]

1 hour ago, Barry McCockinner said:

I suspect this conversation is about to go sideways ...

[jetstream23]

14 hours ago, TokyoJetsFan said:

Was Tony Dungy bald when he was coaching?

 

Is bald Tony vs. Tony with hair a legit debate?

Like fat Rex vs. skinny Rex?

 

Maybe Saleh just needs to stop running the steps and get a goddamn snack.