Comment by neilv
5 hours ago
If only more billionaires would start sounding as aware as this 95 year-old one:
> But Lady Luck is fickle and – no other term fits – wildly unfair. In many cases, our leaders and the rich have received far more than their share of luck – which, too often, the recipients prefer not to acknowledge. Dynastic inheritors have achieved lifetime financial independence the moment they emerged from the womb, while others have arrived, facing a hell-hole during their early life or, worse, disabling physical or mental infirmities that rob them of what I have taken for granted. In many heavily-populated parts of the world, I would likely have had a miserable life and my sisters would have had one even worse.
> I was born in 1930 healthy, reasonably intelligent, white, male and in America. Wow! Thank you, Lady Luck. My sisters had equal intelligence and better personalities than I but faced a much different outlook.
> [...] A Few Final Thoughts [remaining 7 paragraphs possibly directed at current events]
I have found that it's incredibly hard to get successful entrepreneurs to acknowledge that a lot of their success is down to luck. I think it's got something to do with the Protestant Work Ethic - that if they were smart and worked hard then they "deserve" their wealth , but if they just got lucky they don't "deserve" it. So acknowledging that luck played an important part in their success gives them bad feelings, and they don't want to feel bad.
Conversely there's a lot of unsuccessful entrepreneurs who blame bad luck entirely for their failures. There's a lot of "I didn't deserve that. I worked hard, I made smart decisions. I should have succeeded".
It's hard because while for a 1 in 10,000,000 achievement, even if they're lucky to get 1 in 1,000 just by being born at the right place/time, they still need to fought hard for the rest of 1 in 10,000.
I've seen people attributing Taylor Swift' success entirely to luck. But eventhough of course she has inherent advantage, she still has to defeat tons of people who also has the same or even more inherent advantage as her. The numbers are arbitrary and a spectrum, and I've seen too many people treating it as black and white.
Yeah I've noticed it even in games. It's an industry known for being high risk and very fickle in success, but you'll still see so many devs profess that "you just have to make a good game the audience wants!" If only it was that straightforward.
Luck is the crossroad of opportunity and preparation. The "opportunity" here is basically "luck" with a tiny bit of sway. Sometimes opportunity is missed or never comes from no fault of your own. If more people saw it this way they may not cast it off purely as happenstance.
I once heard one such entrepreneurs (Éric Larchevêque) defining luck as "preparation meeting opportunity"
At the same time i dont think luck is something prople really want to hear about. It makes a terrible story.
You can't emulate luck, you can't control luck, you can't explain luck.
I suspect luck has less to do with Buffet's fortune than most billionaires since he's in investments, so he gets compared to other hedge funds with similar starting resources. He seems to have made it work over the long term and not just had one lucky break.
Chance favors the prepared mind.
If modern society is inherently unfair and unequal. Then the best thing the powers to be/people at the top of the hierarchy can do is have culture dictate there is meritocracy to justify the status quo and current hierarchies.
“All progressions from a higher to a lower order are marked by ruins and mystery and a residue of nameless rage“
> Dynastic inheritors have achieved lifetime financial independence the moment they emerged from the womb, while others have arrived, facing a hell-hole during their early life or, worse, disabling physical or mental infirmities that rob them of what I have taken for granted. In many heavily-populated parts of the world, I would likely have had a miserable life and my sisters would have had one even worse.
Yes, this sounds unfair to our individualist ear. However, I am also cognizant that there could be another lens that is more top down, not acknowledging our sense of individuality, but rather a layer at the species level with crests and troughs distributed and fluctuating across the individuals that come into existence and whose offspring HAS to be affected by the uneven environment in which they find themselves.
An organic feature of the natural world?
What other creatures show this kind of hoarding pattern in nature?
Storing more of a thing than can (reasonably) be used in hundreds, or thousands of lifetimes?
I don't know of any (others) that do so, and then pass the hoard down through the generations.
Chipmunks and Squirrels.
4 replies →