Self-made billionaires are a myth?!

[Ayush_]

View: https://youtu.be/316nOvHUS8A



Thoughts?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[SEBASTlAN]

Not even sure what the point of this post was, but a simple search would say otherwise:

Billionaires by wealth source worldwide 2022 | Statista

As of 2022, a majority of the world's billionaires had earned their wealth themselves.

www.statista.com

Most Billionaires Are Self-Made, Not Heirs

Some 32 percent of the Forbes 400 in 2011 belonged to very rich families, down from 60 percent in 1982.

www.chicagobooth.edu

The majority of billionaires in the world are self-made

Self-made billionaires have a total of nearly $5 trillion, according to the Billionaire Census for 2019, the annual report on the world's billionaire population published by market research firm Wealth-X.

www.cnbc.com

 

[Black_Dragon43]

This video was posted here before and discussed…

To become a billionaire it’s not enough to be a smart, hard working and disciplined guy. In addition to all that, you also need to work on the right opportunities and be lucky. The higher you go in terms of wealth, the bigger the effect of luck.

So to become a millionaire in the Western world takes almost no luck. Just smarts, discipline and hard work.

To become “Elon Musk”-rich, then apart from the above you’ll need a big dose of luck + working on the right opportunities. Elon Musk came super close to losing everything several times. It’s not a result of his genius that he didn’t.

The effect of meeting some of the richest people is usually disillusionment - you realize that they aren’t really much different from you (that’s assuming you’re a smart/disciplined guy to begin with).

 

[heavy_industry]

In addition to what @Black_Dragon43 said, I think that the same factors that get you to the millionaire level can get you to the billionaire level if they are taken to the extreme.

Millionare:

• Intelligence: 100 - 125 IQ
• Wisdom/insight: Basic understanding of business and economy. Using CENTS principles.
• Work ethic: Ability to get shit done.
• Opportunity: Literacy, basic education, internet access.

Billionaire:

• Intelligence: ~ 150 IQ
• Wisdom/insight: Visionary.
• Work ethic: Robot-like execution.
• Opportunity: Dot com era. Be surrounded by the smartest people on earth.

"Luck" will always play a role at any level of wealth. But the fact that we are alive in this day and age is the luckiest thing that could have happened to us. Never in the history of mankind have we had this level of education, literacy, sanitation, medical care, means to communicate, freedom and opportunity.


PS: That video had socialist vibes and made me cringe.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Justalex2]

In addition to what @Black_Dragon43 said, I think that the same factors that get you to the millionaire level can get you to the billionaire level if they are taken to the extreme.

Millionare:

• Intelligence: 100 - 125 IQ
• Wisdom/insight: Basic understanding of business and economy. Using CENTS principles.
• Work ethic: Ability to get shit done.
• Opportunity: Literacy, basic education, internet access.

Billionaire:

• Intelligence: ~ 150 IQ
• Wisdom/insight: Visionary.
• Work ethic: Robot-like execution.
• Opportunity: Dot com era. Be surrounded by the smartest people on earth.

"Luck" will always play a role at any level of wealth. But the fact that we are alive in this day and age is the luckiest thing that could have happened to us. Never in the history of mankind have we had this level of education, literacy, sanitation, medical care, means to communicate, freedom and opportunity.


PS: That video had socialist vibes and made me cringe.

I can't let you say that the Iq play a role in the success.
You can simply see that the rule is false when you listent to Jack Ma (the founder of Aliexpress, 20.7Md Worth).
This man don't have an big Iq but he know how to manage a team and make people work together to achieve Goals.
And the Iq can't define your success due to his source, Iq test was made to discover who at School will needs help to learn (Students) - source

 

[heavy_industry]

I can't let you say that the Iq play a role in the success.
You can simply see that the rule is false when you listent to Jack Ma (the founder of Aliexpress, 20.7Md Worth).
This man don't have an big Iq but he know how to manage a team and make people work together to achieve Goals.
And the Iq can't define your success due to his source, Iq test was made to discover who at School will needs help to learn (Students) - source

IQ is the most reliable predictor of success in life, followed by the personality trait conscientiousness / industriousness (work ethic, goal orientation, organization etc.).

The reason for this is quite straight forward: the more intelligent you are, the faster you can learn and adapt, and the more effective you can work. Most billionaires are 1 or 2 standard deviations smarter than the average person.

It doesn't matter what Jack Ma thinks, this is a well established fact.

 

[Black_Dragon43]

It doesn't matter what Jack Ma thinks, this is a well established fact.

Agreed, Jack Ma is just an exception.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[heavy_industry]

Agreed, Jack Ma is just an exception.

Outliers are part of every data set.

Some people don't believe he is a genius, and perhaps he is not. But he's certainly on the lower spectrum of very smart people. You simply cannot run a large scale organization without the ability of deep abstract thinking and pattern recognition.

Some billionaires have had speech or learning disabilities, but that doesn't make them less smart.

If you take the top 1000 richest people on earth, the most striking common denominator is an exceptionally high intelligence. One or two standard deviations from the average.

 

[Kak]

I have been wanting to do this since this was posted... There is just so much to talk about.

Kyle Keegan Radio Show

Get premium access to Kyle Keegan Radio Show

www.spreaker.com

I wanted a “what really is self made” discussion and I dove a lot deeper.

 

[heavy_industry]

I have been wanting to do this since this was posted... There is just so much to talk about.

Kyle Keegan Radio Show

Get premium access to Kyle Keegan Radio Show

www.spreaker.com

I wanted a “what really is self made” discussion and I dove a lot deeper.

Legend!

Can't wait to listen to this tonight.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Vinz]

Outliers are part of every data set.

Some people don't believe he is a genius, and perhaps he is not. But he's certainly on the lower spectrum of very smart people. You simply cannot run a large scale organization without the ability of deep abstract thinking and pattern recognition.

Some billionaires have had speech or learning disabilities, but that doesn't make them less smart.

If you take the top 1000 richest people on earth, the most striking common denominator is an exceptionally high intelligence. One or two standard deviations from the average.

I would also argue that an High IQ needs to be paired with an high self esteem, tolerance of risk and failure, and just awareness of expectation, self reliance.
In this video the argument is that being a smart "gifted" kid can create great expectations on the kid, and as he/she coasts through school, everything seems easy, then when life hits they lack the work ethic (which you mentioned) to get shit done, but they keep the high expectation given to them by others of achieving things easily.
Ultimately it supports your point, but adding Emotional Intelligence let's say.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUjYy4Ksy1E

 

[heavy_industry]

I would also argue that an High IQ needs to be paired with an high self esteem, tolerance of risk and failure, and just awareness of expectation, self reliance.
In this video the argument is that being a smart "gifted" kid can create great expectations on the kid, and as he/she coasts through school, everything seems easy, then when life hits they lack the work ethic (which you mentioned) to get shit done, but they keep the high expectation given to them by others of achieving things easily.
Ultimately it supports your point, but adding Emotional Intelligence let's say.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUjYy4Ksy1E

I fully agree with you, I share the same opinion.

Being intelligent is like having a car with a powerful engine. It doesn't necessarily mean that you are going to win the race, and you might in fact get into a car crash and die if you do not handle it properly.

But out of those that do manage to win the race, one of the things that they share in common, is a damn powerful engine. There are many other factors at play, but this is by far the most consistent one.


PS: I've watched that video a while ago, he is right about it. This is why you should never praise your kids for being "smart". Always praise them for the effort they put into something (e.g. school homework).

 

[Creative_Name]

I agree that intelligence probably helps a lot with business, but does that mean a dumb person with aspirations should just give up?
I get the feeling if they don’t have the other factors, they’ll just decide to quit.

What even is a dumb person anyways?

I’ve been thinking, a dumb person is someone who can’t understand common sense and makes poor decisions consistently because they don’t understand good reason.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Kak]

The video doesn’t really discuss the luck aspect as much as you guys are discussing actually.

Intelligence matters. More than intelligence, willingness to learn matters. What matters most? Leadership abilities.

To say that the mind and abilities of one person at the very top of the organization are THAT important is incorrect. At this level of scale, the raw intellectual horsepower of a leader is less important than the people they lead.

Though they’re likely smart, capable, and have impressive motivation levels… They are also not superhuman that can outthink everyone at 3x normal pace, they don’t have more hours in a day, the difference is that they recognize these facts and transcend it anyway.

So how do they do that? They build an organization because they know they can’t do it alone. So so much more important than anything listed above, IMO, is leadership. I also have experience with these types of people and have observed this, so I have a reason for my opinion.

The point the video makes is creating something that employs others is somehow exploitive which is pure BS.

 

[Kak]

Legend!

Can't wait to listen to this tonight.

Let us know what you think!

 

[Ing]

The IQ system is made for to compare children. What tests can a child solve compared to the other children of his age.
So in time the IQ level changes. And as people get older, its hard to determine someone’s IQ.
Because experience can outdo IQ after some time.

I m a good example: My dad was a teacher and did IQ tests all the time. I allways was quite high ( he showed me the results, when I was about 16).
What did it bing for me? Not the millionaire status.
I know some millionaires, but I cant see a direct connection ti IQ.
Sometimes its much better, if you can’t overthink the things.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Vinz]

The IQ system is made for to compare children. What tests can a child solve compared to the other children of his age.
So in time the IQ level changes. And as people get older, its hard to determine someone’s IQ.
Because experience can outdo IQ after some time.

I m a good example: My dad was a teacher and did IQ tests all the time. I allways was quite high ( he showed me the results, when I was about 16).
What did it bing for me? Not the millionaire status.
I know some millionaires, but I cant see a direct connection ti IQ.
Sometimes its much better, if you can’t overthink the things.

Sure, part of my point on why IQ can sabotage your success oftentimes.
I always was considered kinda smart and went through school pretty easily.
But when it with real life, those who weren't successfull at school had a better life than me.
Mainly because I was an emotional wreck.
Have to think about this, but it might be that IQ and "EQ" (emotional quotient) are equally important. Ability to reason in pair with the abilty to control feelings, failure, etc.

 

[Robdavis]

I have been wanting to do this since this was posted... There is just so much to talk about.

Kyle Keegan Radio Show

Get premium access to Kyle Keegan Radio Show

www.spreaker.com

I wanted a “what really is self made” discussion and I dove a lot deeper.

Thanks for posting this. I enjoyed listening to the show.

I'm sure you're aware that this idea / issue is a regular socialist idea that comes up everyone so often. I assume you remember the infamous "You didn't build that" speech that Obama did once when he went off script. This must have been about ten or so years ago. Same tired old ideas. Wrong then and still wrong now. But they think that their ideas are shiny and new; 'progressive'.

I think that the fundamental problem with Marx's claim around employers exploiting their workers is that it seems to me it undermines the morality of an economic transaction. Let me illustrate with an entirely hypothetical example.
Imagine you and I are neighbours (I know we aren't but just go with it) and your lawn looks a bit of a mess. If I've got some free time, I might come round to your house and offer to mow your lawn for you immediately for say, 20 bucks.

Now for you to agree to this, two things have to be true, one, the 20 bucks is worth more to me than my time it takes me to mow your lawn and the cost of me running my mower; and two, that the 20 bucks is worth less to you than the cost to you of mowing your lawn. If so, we can do a deal, if not, no deal. However, at this point Marx walks up the driveway and says, look guys, you can't agree the deal on those terms because you would be exploiting me. You have to pay me an amount equal to the value add that I would be giving to you. Which in this case is the cost to you of mowing your own lawn. In order to keep Marx happy the deal has to no longer make sense and so we can't agree the deal. Therefore no transaction takes place.
Now I think that this is generally true and so Marx's criterion forbids anyone exchanging anything with anyone else, otherwise there is exploitation.

In simple terms, profit is simply a manifestation of an economic value add, so if profit is exploitation, then value add is exploitation and so both can't be allowed to happen.

Keep going with the podcast, I'll keep an eye out for future editions.

 

[Kak]

Thanks for posting this. I enjoyed listening to the show.

I'm sure you're aware that this idea / issue is a regular socialist idea that comes up everyone so often. I assume you remember the infamous "You didn't build that" speech that Obama did once when he went off script. This must have been about ten or so years ago. Same tired old ideas. Wrong then and still wrong now. But they think that their ideas are shiny and new; 'progressive'.

I think that the fundamental problem with Marx's claim around employers exploiting their workers is that it seems to me it undermines the morality of an economic transaction. Let me illustrate with an entirely hypothetical example.
Imagine you and I are neighbours (I know we aren't but just go with it) and your lawn looks a bit of a mess. If I've got some free time, I might come round to your house and offer to mow your lawn for you immediately for say, 20 bucks.

Now for you to agree to this, two things have to be true, one, the 20 bucks is worth more to me than my time it takes me to mow your lawn and the cost of me running my mower; and two, that the 20 bucks is worth less to you than the cost to you of mowing your lawn. If so, we can do a deal, if not, no deal. However, at this point Marx walks up the driveway and says, look guys, you can't agree the deal on those terms because you would be exploiting me. You have to pay me an amount equal to the value add that I would be giving to you. Which in this case is the cost to you of mowing your own lawn. In order to keep Marx happy the deal has to no longer make sense and so we can't agree the deal. Therefore no transaction takes place.
Now I think that this is generally true and so Marx's criterion forbids anyone exchanging anything with anyone else, otherwise there is exploitation.

In simple terms, profit is simply a manifestation of an economic value add, so if profit is exploitation, then value add is exploitation and so both can't be allowed to happen.

Keep going with the podcast, I'll keep an eye out for future editions.

Great write up!

I did one quite a while back on the “labor theory of value” vs “the subjective value theory.”

Essentially, the world operates on subjective value, but these Marxists prefer to count the inputs and assign a cumulative value to them.

I used the example if someone set out to build “the best bicycle in the world” and spared zero expense in building it sending the price into the stratosphere, thinking 6 figures worth of materials and labor, for a bike… Everyone knows it would only be marginally better than the best stuff already out there.

Under Marx’s labor theory, that bike should be worth that cumulative input. We know if no one is there to buy it, however, it isn’t actually worth what Marx would suggest it’s is worth. A good example would be, if there is one single better bike on the market for say $20k, the entire concept is moot. People will buy that instead.

The same goes for the labor market. Companies compete to offer opportunities to the best employees they can profitably attract. Payment has to be less than the cost of labor or it doesn’t matter, extrapolated out, that opportunity (company providing jobs) would cease to exist.

My favorite line of your post is “he undermines the morality of an economic transaction.”

For those of you who are interested, this is how marxists actually think: Labor Theory of Value

This is how the world works:

Subjective Theory of Value: Definition, History, Examples

The subjective theory of value states that the worth of an object can change based on its context and appeal.

www.investopedia.com

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Robdavis]

Great write up!

I did one quite a while back on the “labor theory of value” vs “the subjective value theory.”

Essentially, the world operates on subjective value, but these Marxists prefer to count the inputs and assign a cumulative value to them.

I used the example if someone set out to build “the best bicycle in the world” and spared zero expense in building it sending the price into the stratosphere, thinking 6 figures worth of materials and labor, for a bike… Everyone knows it would only be marginally better than the best stuff already out there.

Under Marx’s labor theory, that bike should be worth that cumulative input. We know if no one is there to buy it, however, it isn’t actually worth what Marx would suggest it’s is worth. A good example would be, if there is one single better bike on the market for say $20k, the entire concept is moot. People will buy that instead.

The same goes for the labor market. Companies compete to offer opportunities to the best employees they can profitably attract. Payment has to be less than the cost of labor or it doesn’t matter, extrapolated out, that opportunity (company providing jobs) would cease to exist.

My favorite line of your post is “he undermines the morality of an economic transaction.”

For those of you who are interested, this is how marxists actually think: Labor Theory of Value

This is how the world works:

Subjective Theory of Value: Definition, History, Examples

The subjective theory of value states that the worth of an object can change based on its context and appeal.

www.investopedia.com

Thanks for your reply.

I was thinking about the video that you were replying to in your radio show and I thought that if the socialists wanted to critique billionaires, they should be more focused on what some of these people do with their money rather than how most of them got it.

 

[Kak]

Thanks for your reply.

I was thinking about the video that you were replying to in your radio show and I thought that if the socialists wanted to critique billionaires, they should be more focused on what some of these people do with their money rather than how most of them got it.

Agreed, even then however, it’s none of their business.

To amass the type of business that makes billions of dollars (without government cronyism) one must provide value to an enormous amount of people that include investors, partners, employees and finally customers. That business existing is unquestionably good if that many people chose it over all of the other available alternatives.

In short, the phrase “giving back” implies that they took something, when they were giving all along. I believe in being a charitable person, but not out of some guilt that I made “too much” by “exploitation.”

 

[Antifragile]

Thoughts?

Only one thought I can’t get out of my head:

I bet I could buy this guy.

With a big enough “donation”, his views can be anything I want them to be. What would it cost to get him to create a video on how killing puppies is good for puppies?


You guys keep debating the principles. I’ll just focus on substance. He wants sensationalism to get eyeballs on his video to get donations. Just like mass media works.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[jdm667]

The advent of software (among other things) has made the concept of "no self made billionaires" ridiculous to me.

Nowadays, it is conceivable that I build a simple no-code app and sell a subscription for $10 per month.

If I can get 2 million people to sign up, I am making $20 million per month. At a 50x monthly multiple, my app is worth $1 billion.

Since I alone built and own the app, I am now worth $1 billion. Who did I exploit?

 

[Funky Monkey]

In addition to what @Black_Dragon43 said, I think that the same factors that get you to the millionaire level can get you to the billionaire level if they are taken to the extreme.

Millionare:

• Intelligence: 100 - 125 IQ
• Wisdom/insight: Basic understanding of business and economy. Using CENTS principles.
• Work ethic: Ability to get shit done.
• Opportunity: Literacy, basic education, internet access.

Billionaire:

• Intelligence: ~ 150 IQ
• Wisdom/insight: Visionary.
• Work ethic: Robot-like execution.
• Opportunity: Dot com era. Be surrounded by the smartest people on earth.

"Luck" will always play a role at any level of wealth. But the fact that we are alive in this day and age is the luckiest thing that could have happened to us. Never in the history of mankind have we had this level of education, literacy, sanitation, medical care, means to communicate, freedom and opportunity.


PS: That video had socialist vibes and made me cringe.

Funny you say socialist vibes

 

[Kak]

Funny you say socialist vibes
View attachment 45993

Yeah, he flat out explains/supports Karl Marx labor theory of value in the video.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[heavy_industry]

Funny you say socialist vibes

It's concerning that he has almost 1.5M subscribers and high approval rating (likes/dislikes ratio).

Take a look at this:


Discussing Marxist theory and promoting socialism while living in the comfort of the United States, one of the most capitalist countries in the world.

If socialism is so wonderful, why doesn't he F*cking move to a socialist country for 5 years and see how awesome it is:

Venezuela: Starving children forced to feed off rubbish dumps

Sky News discovers youngsters scavenging at rubbish dumps, devouring unrecognisable scraps hungrily and gratefully.

news.sky.com

 

[Guest-5ty5s4]

Yeah you don’t need a high IQ to be successful… you need to know what to do and do a lot of it! This is what is meant by “work hard” when people give that advice. Not “work hard” in a crappy job, but “work hard” within the right variables - something that resembles CENTS.

For a farmer it means growing their farm business
For a landlord it means acquiring more houses or properties
For a saas entrepreneur it means getting more monthly users

You might not need to be that smart at all! You just need YOUR thing and you need to do your thing like a madman!