Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Behind Blue Eyes who wrote (57379)	12/21/2004 3:05:03 AM
From: Seeker of Truth	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74559

Brain power does not lead to money, political power, the presidency etc. Brain power leads to jobs as doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers, and other intellectual specialists. Rapacity leads to money and power. Of course there are exceptions but that's basically the situation as I see it.

To: Behind Blue Eyes who wrote (57379)	12/21/2004 4:59:32 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

< the wealth gap is widening and that this will not be good for the rich people either if it gets too wide... as anomie and hopelessness set in with the underclasses... then encroaches upon the dwindling middleclass... you know what follows.. EDIT: I believe Mr. Chen made a related post on this sub theme a long time ago ? <<It's not the parental money and education which cause the upward mobility. It's the brain-power and work.>> Again.. I would submit more folks on the upper end of the wealth spectrum actually do make it to better schools and likewise professions... Why is that ? It would seem by your reasoning they are necessarily more intelligent than poorer folks ?> I used to think that a gap was a bad thing [having grown up in egalitarian New Zealand, where rich and poor were not very far apart - well, they were really, but not sociologically]. Now I don't think it matters at all, provided the rich don't get hold of the state and start funding themselves. Democracy prevents that - and an equal danger is the poor getting hold of the state and bludging off the producers. Looking at those graphs over the decades, the poor have got wealthier, but each decile above has got wealthier a bit faster. But the relative proportions are about the same, which makes sense as there is no barrier between each wealth level. The bottom of the heap can always, with talent and work, make progress. The problem is they generally don't have talent so generally can't progress into the top decile. Some do. Now I think a gap is a good thing. Those at the wealthy end fund developments which otherwise wouldn't happen. They can afford to do it and can afford the risk. In regard to education, the offspring of the wealthy generally have a double advantage - they inherit brains and the funds to pay for the education. Those at the bottom of the heap with brains have a harder row to hoe, but they can do it. Especially the very talented who can get all sorts of scholarships. Individual wealthy offspring are not necessarily more intelligent than individual poor offspring, but generally that's true. Genetics just do what they do and brains are strongly causal in getting money. The wealthy have the money mostly because they have the brains and that gives a head start to their offspring, who unfortunately regress to the mean. It's tough to keep a dynasty going in the face of genetic averaging and lack of motivation. Mqurice