His philosophies are intended for people who aren't lucky enough to be a Googler, or to inherit wealth, etc.
Sailing True North and the Voyage of Character
Getting a job at Google is way easier than starting a large successful software company. And both are effectively impossible for many people in the world. His advice is meant to be applicable for people who aren't lucky enough to have either of those options. The option to invest in income-generating assets over costly status-signalling devices is available to far more people in the world.
So he's arguing buying stock instead of a nice car will make you wealthier? No argument here. Well yes, buying stock, sure - though a small shareholding in a mature stock is not going to get you very far. Sp Average real return is 6.
The First Million Might Be The Easiest: How To Become A Millionaire By Age 30
Many people don't. Some people who do have that amount to invest may want to get better returns and invest in something over which they have more control. But let's not get stuck in the weeds over the specifics. Either path is far better than wasting money on costly, depreciating status symbols.
How easy is it to go from nothing to a position where you can afford to make a "significant shareholding" in a small-medium business? If you have nothing to invest in it, and if it needs capital to get started, then you need to borrow funds to invest or sell part of the company to an investor. In the former case your net worth will be the value of the company less the value of your debt.
In the latter case you'll own less of the company, but you can still own most of it. This applies whether you're in a rich western country starting a company that needs big amounts of capital, or in a developing country and starting a small business with micro-loans or micro-investments through bodies like Kiva. But none of this is about what is easy. It's about what decisions will give the greatest probability of the outcome you want, given the opportunities and resources that you have available to you.
One starting a successful large software business is still much harder than the other getting an offer at google, which people like me have got. It's a matter of order of magnitudes of difference. Sure, that may well be true for you, because you're lucky enough to have at least one of those options.
Naval's advice is applicable for many more people in the world than the few who are lucky enough to be able to get a job at Google or start a successful large software business. That's the whole point of his list of recommendations. True, but usual you do not start with a large and successful software company.
I think starting a small software company is much easier than getting a job at Google. However, growing a small company into a large and successful one will be significantly harder. If for nothing else, it will take much more time and effort.
How to increase your luck
But when they do, they cooperate only in packs where they co-evolve together, and they share blood, so they have some shared interests. Pretty certain that lots of animals co-operate. Dogs and Cats are two examples. Dogs will "take care" of your babies. I thought humans used horses but it is more complicated than that when I visited a farmer.
He does have a genuine relation with his horses and without co-operation the horse will throw you out of his back. Still he is comparing different species to different races of the same specie. Not quite a fair game.
How to get rich without getting lucky () | Hacker News
EliRivers 5 months ago. Oh yes, lots. Here are some really interesting ones betweens species. There are many more. As for cooperation "across genetic boundaries" within a species, I can think of lots without even having to search. Vampire bats sharing blood with unlucky fellow bats who didn't find anything comes to mind. It seems that almost every time someone often someone trying to make a point about human exceptionalism without having bothered to actually check if they're talking nonsense makes a statement that "humans are the only creature to exhibit behaviour X", a counter-example is only a websearch away.
I've come to strongly suspect that there isn't any special or unique quality humans have that no other species does; we differ only on the scale of some of them and perhaps got lucky with a few physical characteristics that lent themselves to additional uses although that's very speculative; we built ourselves a society and a way of life perfectly suited for our shape and characteristics, so of course that shape and characteristics look really helpful.
Almost invariably capitalists try to define capitalism as being intrinsic to "human nature" or "society", and are always wrong. If you read the higher upvoted comments -- that statement is believed and taken at face value. If you have to take the time to defend that your accumulation of material wealth is ethical when there are millions of people dying from a lack of resources I don't know what to say. I just hope HN grows to stop believing the obvious lies. I listened to the Rogan podcast and was definitely confused by some of the arguments he makes e.
I don't believe that for a minute. I was also a bit surprised by the discussion around questioning the truth behind climate change. Yes, we should be scientific about validating hypothesis about anything, but to nod along as Rogan said "there's no evidence" was a bit shocking. It may be survival bias in that I remember what I hear and no one reports on the sober celebrity, but it seems like a very fair amount of our richest, most creative, and most lauded persons in this world have their fair share of mental and substance troubles.
I can easily believe that about celebrities. Wouldn't be at all surprised if the rate of mental health issues is much higher than average in celebrities.
- La Petite Roque (Classiques t. 1191) (French Edition)?
- As a man thinketh. By James Allen.;
- Law 1: Never Outshine The Master.
- White Rajah: A Biography of Sir James Brooke.
- Maritime Engineering and Technology.
- Rotator Cuff Injuries Solved!!
In other words, own productive capital and live off the rent it generates. The "freedom" the article author is speaking of is the freedom to leech off the labour of others. I agree, it's disgusting. If you are willing and able there should be no free lunch -- and the rich are the ones who leech the most out of society. Ironic that they criticize those who have worse outcomes for not working hard enough or focusing on the wrong things when it is those poor people who are working the hardest.
Here's an airline pilot. They're not being paid for the full value they produce, because some of it is going to pay of capital owners. And why should they receive some of the money? Because they put up the 70 million dollars to buy the airplane. The pilot didn't have that kind of money. And why does the plane cost that much? Because there are , people at Boeing who also want to be paid for the value that they produce. You seem to want those with capital to invest it in companies for no return.
If you want the tools, and you or your company don't have the money to buy them yourself, then you have to make it worthwhile for the people who do have the money. But perhaps we can think a bit farther outside the box. Now, capital is always going to be required for economic activity to take place.
And they should be paid for the labor, not for the leverage they have as owners of capital. How that is to be accomplished is.. Here's a tool that increases productivity.
There are three people who need to get paid: the tool maker, the one who buys the tool, and the worker who knows how to use the tool. The worker should be more productive with the tool, and therefore worth more than the worker who does not know how to use the tool. If you're saying that the one who bought the tool and the worker who uses the tool should profit equally from the tool, I might agree with that.
I'm not sure; I'd have to think about it some more, but it's not a clearly wrong position. Now here's someone richer than that.
The James Allen Free Library
He buys two of the tools. If you say he should get as much as the worker for the first tool, and as much as the worker for the second tool, again I might agree. If you say he only gets as much as any one worker, no matter how many tools he buys, I disagree. I even think that you should disagree, for selfish reasons.
- The Ballad of Nihal Armstrong!
- What would you do with a free $1,000?!
- 17 Motivating Quotes About Becoming Rich | SUCCESS!
We need these people to buy the tools for the overall growth of productivity. If we have to bribe them with returns on their investment, so be it. The alternative is that the rich person only buys one tool, and then stops, because they would get nothing from buying the second tool. That may feel good, in that it doesn't let the rich earn more than anyone else, but it doesn't help grow the economy.