Even aside from the obvious point that the outcome of this gamble is luck, there’s another more subtle point that I think is more important: For people will significant wealth and resources, it is very cheap to take gambles like this. For some people, dropping $10k into some high-risk gamble is just a bit of fun, but for other people that’s their entire savings; and for other other people - they’d never be able to afford to do that even if they were starving themselves to save money.
How do people get into that kind of position of privilege and power in the first place? … the luck of where they were born.
You’re right, one thing I didn’t consider is the vast majority of people investing are probably already significantly wealthy. Birth lottery is by far the largest contributor to chance of future wealth.
Makes you realise how many moving parts there are to this conversation. It’s undeniable that those ones who were born lucky were not all gamblers though. I was born into a western family which isn’t in poverty and I’ve never invested in a nothing company.
This is a silly distinction you are trying to make and it serves no purpose. And I don’t even agree it is a real distinction… The act of deciding to gamble doesn’t in any way mean the payoff or losses are anything but luck.
“than I thought you were”? I’m not the person you were talking to before.
What is your actual point? Why do you think it is important for you to argue that “actually gambling isn’t pure luck”? And what, in your estimation, is “pure luck”?
The way I see it people are talking about specific phenomenon, and how they have entirely luck based outcomes (ex like the lottery), and you are trying to increase the scope of the context of the discussion to, in this example, include people who do not participate in the lottery, to try and argue that phenomenon does not have entirely luck based outcomes. But you haven’t proven your point, you’ve been socially obtuse and attempted to derail the conversation from where it was because you have a bizarre point you want to make.
I know, my point still stands.
It’s not lucky that they decided to gamble.
They bought the lottery ticket and won, not everyone buys tickets.
Even aside from the obvious point that the outcome of this gamble is luck, there’s another more subtle point that I think is more important: For people will significant wealth and resources, it is very cheap to take gambles like this. For some people, dropping $10k into some high-risk gamble is just a bit of fun, but for other people that’s their entire savings; and for other other people - they’d never be able to afford to do that even if they were starving themselves to save money.
How do people get into that kind of position of privilege and power in the first place? … the luck of where they were born.
You’re right, one thing I didn’t consider is the vast majority of people investing are probably already significantly wealthy. Birth lottery is by far the largest contributor to chance of future wealth.
Makes you realise how many moving parts there are to this conversation. It’s undeniable that those ones who were born lucky were not all gamblers though. I was born into a western family which isn’t in poverty and I’ve never invested in a nothing company.
This is a silly distinction you are trying to make and it serves no purpose. And I don’t even agree it is a real distinction… The act of deciding to gamble doesn’t in any way mean the payoff or losses are anything but luck.
You think the choice of deciding to play the lottery doesnt change your chances at winning it?
If you truly think that you’re even more lost than I thought you were, not worth my time
“than I thought you were”? I’m not the person you were talking to before.
What is your actual point? Why do you think it is important for you to argue that “actually gambling isn’t pure luck”? And what, in your estimation, is “pure luck”?
The way I see it people are talking about specific phenomenon, and how they have entirely luck based outcomes (ex like the lottery), and you are trying to increase the scope of the context of the discussion to, in this example, include people who do not participate in the lottery, to try and argue that phenomenon does not have entirely luck based outcomes. But you haven’t proven your point, you’ve been socially obtuse and attempted to derail the conversation from where it was because you have a bizarre point you want to make.