On 8/27/2021 10:40 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> writes:
>> On 8/27/2021 8:53 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> writes:
>>>> On 8/26/2021 1:40 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>> Interesting observation. Maybe we were just poor, or extremely
>>>>>> intelligent. Rich people today could not poor piss out of a boot with
>>>>>> out an assistant.
>>>>> I would expect rich people to be smart enough not to piss in their
>>>> One would expect! My boss 25 years ago, owner of the company I was a GM
>>>> for, was a few months younger than me. AND a college graduate I might add.
>>> Generalizing from a single example is fraught. The distribution of
>>> intelligence (and pretty much everything else) falls along a bell
>> I can give you many examples but this is the one that a middle school
> A very intelligent person can have trouble with math. That doesn't make
> them not intelligent, just not perfect. Not all college degrees require
> mathematical skills.
Certainly but this example is not even algebra, simply multiplication
BUT you may have a point, many people have problems with doing simple
math in their "head". We know a couple and she is no dummy but if she
did not have 10 fingers simple addition would be impossible for her.
> Anecdotal evidence is isn't. (evidence, that is).
> Personally, I know quite a few people in the 1%, including many scientists,
> venture capitalists and CEOs. They're all quite intelligent and don't ever
> piss in their boots (nor would they have any difficulty doing so
> were it necessary; as well as subsequently pouring it out).
Do you have proof of that? '~)
> As I noted, it's a bell curve; you'll find rich folks on either end,
> although the lower end is generally inherited wealth, not self-made.
Yes there is that. Inherited wealth does not make one even smart.
Watch how fast it disappears after acquisition. I have a couple of
cousins that fall into that category.
And then there are those that you see every day on TV. Entertainers,
actors, and professional sports figures. They are rich and as history
points out most are not terribly smart. The majority are talented but
not smart. The college scandal comes to mind and pro athletes that are
broke a few years after retirement.
>>> A net worth of ten million puts one in the soi distant 1%.
>> Actually a millionaire in 1960 would need ten million to have the same
>> buying power. Net worth is the addition of assets, not buying power.
> assets and buying power (which leverages assets) aren't as different
> as you think.
Leave credit out of this. ;~)
> My point was that the term 'millionaire' doesn't have the same
> cachet today as it had when you were growing up, particularly given
> current real-estate valuations - although as you correctly noted,
> those assets aren't liquid, they can be leveraged.
Yes and that is possible future value but not actual wealth, leveraging.