The richest people are not the most talented, just the luckiest, a computer model of wealth confirms

Considering how much "muh bootstraps" gets tossed around as an argument, it is.
When the USA was at it's peak the wealthy had the bejesus taxed out of them which was in turn used to fund public works and infrastructure. It also doesn't help that the private sector fell into the retarded notion that throwing money at management while leaving the workers holding the bag will magically improve things either.

No matter how you slice it a few dipshits having most of the worlds currency is intrinsically bad because they hoard it reducing the fluidity of currency and thus the potential for work to be done and when they aren't hoarding it they are more likely than not using it to nefarious ends such as undermining governments and subverting the will of everyone else.

Attached: epi-ceo-vs-worker-pay-cotd.png (1200x900, 158.51K)

how is being jewish lucky?

What's the point of that, though? The fact that wealth distribution is entirely due to luck implies something about the fundamental structure of the economy. Even if you killed some percentage of the rich and redistributed their wealth, it wouldn't do any good. The wealth would settle back into the same distribution as it recirculated - just with a different set of randoms at the top. This is what neither the commies or the liberals or the nazis or the ancaps or whoever the fuck seem to get - all your political posturing is fucking meaningless in the face of the mathematical laws that actually govern things. Commies are wrong because they think that you can politically enforce a new set of social relations without changing the underlying economic structure that creates it (which is why all their experiments keeps failing). Ancaps are wrong because they think that the problems we see aren't inherent to the underlying economic structure of society. Nazis are wrong because they think somebody's actually in control of this shit. Liberals are just generally fucking wrong.

Again, taxing the fuck out of people doesn't work. Leave aside the fact that it was pretty handily undone over the past 30 years - the mathematical reality is that you 're trying to bail out the Titanic with a fucking teaspoon. Time and again the models tell us that this pareto distribution is an inevitable result of an economy structured like this. Time and again liberals like you, commies, and nazis all band together to stick your fucking fingers in your ears and declare that your retarded and temporary political solution will fix it this time. Time and again the fundamental law of random pareto wealth distribution reasserts itself and you're all bee tee eff oh.

that's why we crash the plane with no survivors. It doesn't matter who the big guy is.

Attached: HUzx7OO.png (500x700, 532.19K)

Equating money to success, or happiness, for that matter, is a big mistake.

for you

Something else for lazy, talentless, unmotivated millennials to point at and use as an excuse to remain unproductive parasites on their parents and society.

For anyone. There's a reason why the majority of lottery winners are less happy after they get money.

Because tax problems, then long lost "friends" and relatives come out of the woodwork begging for money. Then charities making you feel guilty for being a selfish bastard, then con artists and scammers. It never ends until you're broke and alone.

Give me money. I promise you, I'll be happy.

I didn't say it was hopeless you absolute fucking mong, I just said that the solutions you fucksticks have been shilling are going about things all fucking wrong. If you want to see things actually change, you need to be thinking on a more fundamental level. Political bullshit, tax rates, etc are surface-level concerns. Papers like this show that the issue is fundamental to an economy based on exchange. You're not going to overcome it through political means any more than you could change the distribution of velocities of the molecules of water in a cup. And 'crashing the economy with no survivors'? Give me a fucking break. That happens like clockwork every 70 years or so. We just end up with a world war and a stronger system. At most we'll destroy everything and be hurled back to some bullshit feudal or early agrarian level of development, which would suck even more ass than a world war would.

Material wealth is the thing that enables you to have whatever makes you happy, including life, the medium through which happiness is transmitted. No matter what makes you happy, money will help you get or keep it. Nuclear family? Costs a fuckton of money. Spiritual fulfillment? Costs money, unless you're planning to reach enlightenment and ascend in the month before you starve to death. Living /comfy/? You think blankets, a roof, and land all come free?

Alternative hypothesis #1: Winning the lottery is such a drastic and dangerous change to a person's circumstances that the overwhelmingly likely outcome is that they end up getting fucked out of their money and unhappier for having had and lost it. Not a problem with 'having money', just one of 'gaining that much money that quickly'.
Alternative hypothesis #2: Not having earned the money means that they don't psychologically value it, but the money smooths over so many opportunities to learn and grow that life becomes boring and colorless. Again, not an inherent problem with having money.
Alternative hypothesis #3: Rich people really are more talented, smarter, etc, and the kind of people who buy lottery tickets are unsuccessful trash people that don't know how to use a windfall to actually enhance and sustain their happiness.
I could go on, the point is your statement proves nothing.

Wow, that's shocking.

But luck isn't a matter of intelligence, user. It's a skill. You can train a person to be notice and take advantage of opportunities, ie, to be luckier. In any case, plenty of manifestly low-IQ people are rich and successful. What we really need to be doing is training people to be luckier en masse. The chinese, with their cultural emphasis on fucking each other over any chance they get, are already doing this. We cannot afford to be on the wrong side of a luck gap.

kys

Your special type of retardation must have been fun during the cold war, huh?

I was just reading an article about how the wealthiest people are 5x more likely to have some sort of mental illness like psychopathy/sociopathy, so I very much doubt it's all about luck, lefty.

The model itself is pretty sound and can be detailed here.
http s://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.07068.pdf
The starting wealth probably should have also been normally distributed and T, their symbol for talent/intelligence/work ethic/etc…, should have been a multifaceted figure consisting of several normally distributed statistics.
I find that the way that the paper defines T as used in the model is a poor representation for the distribution of factors typically associated/correlated with success (Intelligence, Conscientiousness, height, etc…) The chance that any one person would be several standard deviations above average in multiple aspects is exponentially higher than just a normally distributed generic T figure for 'talent'.
Thus I can't say that it really proves anything other than the Pareto Principle's accuracy when dealing with probability. The normal distribution of multi-faceted features of which would follow a similar distribution without the need for the 'lucky' or 'unlucky' events as detailed in the paper.

I knew this,
this explains it all
I;m not a loser after all

Unlucky losers are still losers

Attached: Thumbs Up.gif (256x199, 545.18K)

So, what you're saying is that discriminating against one who is wealthy is no different than discriminating against someone for being black, or a woman? The problem that Liberals don't see in trying to tear down the wealthy in this way is that it opens the wealthy up to the same protections on moral grounds as their pet minorities. Why should people be punished for good luck if they shouldn't be for bad?

Anyone who knows how to make a computer model knows they're complete bullshit. If the last 2 decades of climate models didn't already point out to everyone.

what part of crash do you not understand?
I don't mean crashing the economy. I mean the whole fucking system of liberalism. The whole goddamn plane, small guy.

every thread

Okay.

Lol, never underestimate the tyranny of the minimum wage worker.

You're on the internet, probably in a western country with some social programs. You are the 5%.

computers judging talent

just think of how much better TV is going to be in the future

That's because many of them have enough self-respect not to release sex tapes

...

studies also show water to be wet

social science is a meme that needs to die

Luck is not a scientific term. It has no place in any scientific paper. These faggot ivory tower fags are literally saying, "We can't explain why these guys are rich, so it's luck, yo."

They are using a "god of the gaps" argument. Shit science, shit article. I'd give these researchers an F and ban them from any learning institution.

This is the kind of garbage that permeates every facet of the humanities and social "sciences". All of it is pure trash.

can you do useful shit
do you have nice shit

wow user I can now how muddy the waters can get!

Of course luck exists, but how are you supposed to quantify it when man can't affect it? This article sounds like an excuse to give up trying in life. And I don't see the group who created this study becoming willing to help the unlucky with their own pockets.

U wot. The literal definition of "luck" makes equating luck with the skill of observation have no sense whatsoever. You can explain it all you want, but you're still not getting around the fact "luck" and "skill" have very long established definitions anyone can look up.
I hope you're not paying any money for this training. Whoever your teacher is has a very high skill in observing how the power of redefining words mesmerizes people into thinking the speaker is an incredibly intelligent man worth giving lots of money and attention to.

...

...

...

Nice reductio ad absurdum. People's success can be measured in how wealthy they are. People's talent can be measured at least to a a degree by what work skills they have. If somebody has a lot of the former but not the latter, they probably didn't earn it.

The point is, "luck", "talent", "success" are concepts, which are inherently subjective and non-quantifiable. In order to do statistics, you have to convert something like "luck" into a single number, which is absurd. You can come up with a bunch of proxy meausres that you assert are related to the concept, but you're always dealing with proximal measures of a vague concept that have multiple layers of correlation and ambiguity.

wew lad

the jew always has several timelines going at once, each oblivious to the others. if you step back far enough it becomes apparent, though.
Life of Brian? fucking real.

...

Just to state it before hand, I'm with you the whole way, I actually am the dude that posted and I think you've done an excellent job defending every bit of reality this situation has in it. Good on you.

But this quote of yours is the one stand out. In spite of all the arguments to the contrary, hell even pure logical reasoned arguments as you've laid out, failed in that assertion. For reasons we are completely unable to explain some of the poorest people in the world living in South America, in literal squalor by most standards, still rate happier than most Western citizens in more developed countries. We're not even sure why. There's something to be learned there that might actually be the key to it all in terms of ending the pointless, hell ultimately self-destructive, pursuit of wealth and its distribution for the human race.

Basically, in spite of all reason HUEHUEHUE's might actually be on to something. Just something to consider.

...

are you implying that luck doesn't play a part in everything you do and get to experience? guess what, it does. everything in life is just luck.

be at the wrong place at the wrong time several times in a row and it fucks up your development and in turn your entire life. the only difference is that people with luck take it for granted, they don't "see" it because its so natural to have things go their way that its the norm for them.

Circular logic doesn't actually prove anything.

i bet this study was made by losers

Exactly, wtf magic do normalfags think models are pulling data from.
It's a closed system giving back the formula you give it.

jews are so successful because of "luck"
oh, okay. thank you for informing me greatest ally.

man those jews sure are lucky. I mean just look how many are on the supreme court. How lucky is that!

man those jews get admitted to harvard more than whites beyond accounting for merit. Their over-representation Harvard and in the Ivy League is not only incredibly disproportionate against European American students, but also wildly disproportionate against every other racial group in America.
SO LUCKY!

Things that happen to people are part of their future, jow they respond is the rest. Luck plays a part, a major part for sure, but not the only part.

Jews, who are less qualified in comparison with European Americans, are over-represented by a factor of more than 13 times higher than their merit would deserve, and almost 6 times over-represented than their ability would deserve against Asians.

The lack of merit is easily proven by comparing groups of the top performing students of the United States with the National Merit Scholarships. One can simply compare the percentage of Jews who score in the highest levels in the National Merit Scholarships compared to Gentile groups such as Asian, African, Hispanic and European-American performance on what is the best predictive gauge of student qualification and ability before college.

When one compares the Jewish and Gentile National Merit Scholarship qualifiers with the admissions to the top universities, one can easily judge the relationship between academic performance and actual university admission at Harvard and other schools.

There is a simple and elegant way to determine the best performing students. It is called Phi Beta Kappa, the premier honors society of academic excellence in America.

Phi Beta Kappa recipients at Harvard make up about the top ten percent of students. It is based on an extremely high grade point average of 3.75 (out of 4) and a rigorous Arts and Sciences curriculum, the inclusion of advanced math classes and foreign language proficiency.

European-Americans are just 20 percent of the Harvard students as compared to Jews, who are 25 percent.

Yet, what percentage of total Phi Beta Kappa recipients at Harvard are European Americans, and what percentage are Jews?

Jews — 11 percent
European Americans — 54 percent
Asian Americans — 35 percent

Like how I didn't check my spelling was my own folly rather than luck based.

I can make a computer model of my anus shooting out rainbows. It doesn't make it real.

hey thanks for making that the first word of your diatribe so I didn't have to read the rest lol

yeah but I bet you can't find the flaw in their program, just call bullshit in general because findings don't gel with your pre-held beliefs and fee-fees

Ah, yes, a computer model! It all makes sense now. Thank you, computer! Gosh, I always knew my lord and savior a computer would deliver us all from evil, and now that the infallible word of the "computer model" has told us the Almighty Truth, we must all do whatever it says without question. Please, do not think; do not reason; now is the time to turn off your brain and listen to the computer model!

>(((luckiest)))
Nothing to see here.

Lolbergs btfo!

You do release if you try to kill the 1 percent again and again you're only going to have 99 people left.

First of all, did I ever state that I do or do not believe that wealth is determined by luck and not talent? You're making a lot of assumptions here. But then again, your very point sort of gives away that you're entirely O.K. at making assumptions with disregard to critical thinking.

My point is more general than that: a computer program of an event does not constitute as proof for that event.

To drive the point home, imagine we had the following exchange:

If your point had been, "Yes, but there was an actual theory behind it that drove the program, and that's the important element that needs to be analyzed, this is merely a demonstration," in just the same way someone could say, "Yes, but there was actual logic that drove the theological argument, and those are the important elements that should be dissected out of the treatise and possibly made more secular," then fine, I could see that. However, I don't think anyone is arguing that here.

It's not just luck that jews own such a large portion of the world economy. It should be obvious that this study left out a few factors, such as nepotism, corruption, and the habit that rich people have of MITIGATING RISK. When you mitigate risk luck means nothing. Workers on the other hand can't afford to mitigate their risk, they have to rely on luck. A flawed study like this probably treats nepotism as luck, since you have to be born into a wealthy/connected family to take advantage of nepotism.

Okay but this is really just telling us what we already know about outlier cases. No shit the billionaires got there with some luck. But you know what doesn't take luck? Working your way into a career or position that nets you $120k a year. That's some pretty comfy living right there and you can get there with effort.

actually, no, the study's showing that people that got rich only got lucky. Your point isn't invalid, because once they HAVE the wealth, they'll do everything to keep it. Nepotism only keeps people rich, it doesn't elevate people if they're already in a rich family.

Either way, you're lucky if you become rich and you're lucky if you're born rich, it doesn't matter either way.

jews literally suck the blood of any economy until it's dead.
it's not luck.

it's why AH was right.

I bet you enjoy penis

its bad luck that you are born in a country run by jews. after all you cannot actively choose your upbringing.

also i should have typed this before sending the previous post, for people who are so quick to blame jews for all their misfortune, you sure are just as quick to disregard luck as a fantasy. Don't you think that's a bit hypocritical?

if luck isn't real then what's stopping you from going out there starting a business, acruing massive amounts of money, and overthrowing the jewish regime?

Well Duh, any National Socialist could tell you that

generally speaking because jews do stuff like lawyer up, make start ups unprofitable, regulate the fuck out everything so the only people who can do business are jews and friends of jews.

should have been born jewish then, oh wait, you weren't lucky enough. too bad. life is entirely about luck.

We commies don't want more taxes, we want to abolish the right to profit from ownership. Now that wealth is taken from the value that labor creates.
Pure ownership, that means, having something, does not produce value by itself. Only with the labor does capital become worth someting, and the owner then does not particularly matter.
Yet we still for some reason think it's just and sane that an owner has exclusive rights on important equipment that we all need as society? For some reason we don't have job interviews to see if they'd be a good person to be in charge of important economic resources. Or for that matter, why we allow a minority in charge of it while it's clearly something that we should all have a say in.
I guess that's not what "communism" is anymore, now it seems to be all about identity issues.
But in that case, Zig Forums and Zig Forums are mostly not communist nor socialist.
Help us Zig Forums, what are we then?
Just anticapitalists?

In the case of he jews i dont think its luck. They are worried they will lose power over the goyim.

Attached: 08ca1a16e04db28abfb7eec0c530a51d78ec5e640fcc3a92021ef317634fe51c.jpg (720x722, 243.18K)

Wait!! What?!! You mean the most successful are not just superior beings destined to succeed? Wrong! Even if they had the bad luck, for example, of being hit by a car and rendered brain dead they would still succeed, believe me!

Attached: mnuchin-linton.jpeg (4000x2667, 1.36M)

hmmmmmmmmmmm

Attached: think.jpg (552x468, 21.6K)

Pic somewhat related

Attached: euros-smoke-Jews-at-Harvard580.jpg (580x785, 130.7K)

INTERESTING!
Oh lord.
Yeah, wouldn't want to accept that some people ARE actually orders of magnitude higher in efficiency and skill, so just throw that out right off the bat.

So you're trying to tell me that high level physics is done by lucky fools? That michael jordan and LeBron James are just "lucky", not skilled? How about musicians that make money, like first-chair violinists or concert pianists?

Right. It was all luck, and that's why you're not REALLY pathetic after all, you're just "unlucky".

At some point resource efficiency for consumption/population will have improved enough that no more culling is needed.

IQ isn't a linear scale, you ignorant fuck.

t. Mautist turd-worldist

Dear OP, this is retarded and you are retarded.

Eddie Van Halen sucked the first day he picked up a guitar. After 20 years of practicing, he all of a sudden "got lucky".
Warren Buffett read mountains of investment books and researches companies all day. He too is "just lucky".
Steve Jobs fluked it out by realizing that making products people will want to buy will be a good idea. So "lucky"!

Wait a sec, OP craps out a crappy thread and everyone disses him for it. He's NOT lucky. It's not his fault, he just had bad luck that day and every day after until he changes his behavior to the correct behavior of not being a loser.

Bad luck is superstition and idiocracy. It doesn't exist. Make the correct decisions and you will prosper. Make the wrong decisions–and then refuse to realize you're making the wrong decisions and thereby refuse to shift course–and you will fail until you change.

but nice try at pushing blackpill communism and class warfare.

"A dentist makes more than me not because he's more valued by society, but because he's lucky. DUH."

IT'S NOT IQ OR TALENT AS MUCH AS IT IS MAKING THE RIGHT DECISIONS AND INCREASING YOUR CONTRIBUTION TO SOCIETY AS JUDGED BY CONSUMERS, BUT IQ AND TALENT HELP YOU MAKE THE RIGHT DECISIONS

[insert smug noose picture here] ←- …right decision, OP?
[insert extreme turbo autism picture here] ←- OP's portrait

The original point is incredible wealth is luck. The maker of minecraft lucked out when microshit bought his game for over 2.5 billion dollars.

I bet he is just an average retard, I mean he just did something 99% of the people simply could not, but I'm sure it's only luck..

its luck because the game is pure shit. i never understood the appeal and im sure the Swede that invented it never thought it would become the phenomena is it today.

you dont expect me to believe it was all planned do you?

Kim Kardashian,like Hilton, had the social savvy to let her be seen "accidentally" sucking big black cock and use that notoriety on social media.

Attached: kim-kardashian-ray-j-sex-tape-004.jpg (318x240, 16.22K)

Ignorance is the key of happiness, that and social relationships. When you have this two things you will be so happy, even ir you eat shit everyday. Its like been on heroin all day.

Well, my kids love that game and are pretty addicted to it along with millions of other customers, so the game's not really undeserving of its success…. But the maker may have conned M$FT by demanding more money than it was worth. But luck didn't play any part in it. I don't think luck exists in a free market, really. Mistakes exist, and sometimes people get paid more than they're worth, but that's because no system is perfect. In general, you end up where you deserve to be based on your actions. A super high IQ guy may end up at the bottom because he doesn't want to work for Goldman Sachs and instead opts for teaching. It's not bad luck, its his priorities and decisions. A dumbass can get rich by doing the right thing at the right time, but it's not luck, it's being aware enough to take advantage of opportunities. My dumbass friend is rich now because he was a musclehead in high school who was upset there were no healthy snacks in candy machines at school. So later he went to the school board with a proposal to put protein bar machines in the schools, and now he's a millionaire. He's still a lunkhead (seriously) but his one decision changed the entire path of his life. It's not that he was lucky, he was just the right guy in the right place at the right time with the right idea. I was there too, I didn't think of it, and I'm waaaaaay smarter than he is. On paper anyway, but he's the guy with the Porsche, so….

Lottery winners are just lucky I suppose, but not really since if you look at the system as a whole, 99.9999999% of people buying tickets are paying for the random winner's payout. The chance of winning is basically zero and there's no skill required to succeed. Lotteries are based on luck or random chance, but a billionaire is usually just smart and (((shrewd))) and very focused on success and money.

We're not saying you are not entitled to your property. We are just reminding you that you are untalented and have below-average intelligence. Relax.

In other words, he was lucky.