[HN Gopher] Founding vs. Inheriting
___________________________________________________________________
Founding vs. Inheriting
Author : bdr
Score : 44 points
Date : 2021-05-09 04:38 UTC (18 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (1729.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (1729.com)
| CyberRabbi wrote:
| I want to live in a society where I can found an institution, get
| rich, and then I can rest assured that my descendants will
| inherit and benefit from the wealth I made. Otherwise what's the
| point?
| mustafa_pasi wrote:
| I cannot believe this comment is grayed out. There is really
| not point in accumulating wealth if you cannot pass it down.
| And maybe consider that you might have been lucky in your life
| and your children or your grandchild won't be. So don't think,
| "I did it easily, so they can as well".
| k__ wrote:
| Don't know, but maybe accumulating wealth isn't what life
| should be about?
| djbebs wrote:
| The good thing about being able to do it, is that you're
| not obligated to do it.
|
| I'd you dont want to pass on anything to your children,
| you're welcome to spend it all however you see fit.
| Allowing people to pass it on to whomever they like won't
| change your ability to do that.
| k__ wrote:
| True, but I'm assuming that it doesn't work as long as
| everyone does as they please.
|
| You just have to look at all the stuff paid by mandatory
| royalities like taxes or payments for public health care.
| As long as rich people can opt-out it will never work
| 100%.
| mustafa_pasi wrote:
| We are on HN, so I just assumed everyone on here was
| interested and seeking out way to accumulate more wealth
| than the average working professional. Of course not
| everyone has to have that mindset. But if you do have that
| mindset, then I find it hard to understand why you'd be
| against inheritance.
| klyrs wrote:
| > We are on HN, so I just assumed everyone on here was
| interested and seeking out way to accumulate more wealth
| than the average working professional.
|
| You may be surprised to learn that many hackers are
| passionate about tech, and see the handling of money as a
| dreadful necessity of life that brings as much joy as
| wiping one's ass. The fact that tech can be lucrative has
| attracted a bunch of folks to tech, who are only in it
| for the money. HN does skew towards the latter, but it
| certainly isn't everyone here
| k__ wrote:
| You could have the mindset that your wealth helps
| everyone and not just those who happen to be your
| offspring.
| nicoburns wrote:
| Why do you only care about your descendants, and not anyone
| else. We could create a society where everyone in the next
| generation benefits from the wealth that everyone in the
| current generation creates. Is that not a much more worthy goal
| to strive for?
| anotha1 wrote:
| Much. The parent comment reads like a mix of severely lacking
| empathy and selfish grandiosity. This guy would probably also
| agree he should have 500+ kids to spread his blessed seed to
| the world.
| listenallyall wrote:
| Right, because confiscating wealth from those that earned it,
| has worked so well across the civilizations and societies
| that tried it.
| anoncake wrote:
| It has and it's called taxation. And taxing people who have
| _not_ earned their wealth, using inheritance taxes, is even
| better.
| listenallyall wrote:
| The United States taxes its citizens in many, many
| ways... income tax, payroll tax, capital gains tax, sales
| tax, gasoline tax, liquor tax, inheritance tax, many
| more. If taxation "benefits" all future citizens, as
| described by the OP above, then the U.S. would cheer on
| its billionaires, they would be the heroes of all
| children because they would be providing almost all of
| the benefits! Funny that it doesn't work like that in
| real life...
| anoncake wrote:
| No, billionaires didn't earn their wealth. And paying
| your taxes is the bare minimum, it doesn't make you a
| hero.
| altusbrown wrote:
| Do you think Amazon would just exist if Bezos didn't do
| what he did?
|
| Do you think groups of people spontaneously collect in
| ways that produce more value than they cost to exist?
| Even if there is no way to benefit from it individually
| at scale?
|
| If you do, I can understand where you are coming from -
| it doesn't line up at all with my experience or extensive
| datasets I have, but I'd understand it.
|
| If that can't just happen, then how did he not earn it?
| CRConrad wrote:
| > Do you think Amazon would just exist if Bezos didn't do
| what he did?
|
| Something else very similar would probably exist. And in
| that universe, people would probably go "Do you think
| DeNile would just exist if Ben Jeffries didn't do what he
| did?".
| altusbrown wrote:
| Based on your comment, I'm assuming you would expect them
| to be led by someone doing the same things - which just
| highlights the role doesn't?
| anoncake wrote:
| I'm not saying Bezos didn't earn anything. But not
| billions.
| altusbrown wrote:
| Taxation is not confiscation, unless the taxation is
| punitively high. I'd argue it would likely need to be
| 100% to meet the common usage of it.
|
| The more you tax, the closer you get to banning or
| stopping activity. If a government sets a tax rate of
| 100% at say a certain threshold, it would be a poor
| planner that would be earning anything in that category
| no?
| anoncake wrote:
| That's an artificial distinction. There is no sharp line
| between "punitive taxes" and just taxes.
| CyberRabbi wrote:
| I care about other people but I care about my family more. I
| couldn't tell you why, I just do, it's my instinct. I don't
| believe in utopias nor do I commit myself to what other
| people consider "worthy" goals, this is not a popularity
| contest for me, it's about survival.
| anotha1 wrote:
| Like cancer, individual (cell) reproduction without
| consideration for the group (organism).
|
| We all know how cancer ends...
|
| Hopefully, you'll soon recognize the value (and even
| beauty) of senescence (Steve Jobs did) and not commit our
| future generations to a slow painful death.
|
| If not, your kids might also appreciate an opportunity to
| prove themselves, and just not ride your coattails. Even if
| not, after you're gone no one will praise them without an
| asterisk.
|
| But hey, who doesn't still envy the life of a trust fund
| kid. Smoking weed and buying Supreme(r) crap your whole
| life doesn't seem that bad?
| CyberRabbi wrote:
| My descendants will never need to be preoccupied with
| proving themselves to anyone, especially people who might
| otherwise compare them to cancer cells. Praise from
| others serves no useful or necessary function when they
| prosper regardless.
| altusbrown wrote:
| Pretty impressive projection and pompousness you have
| there.
|
| Fundamentally, society is a mutual agreement of
| individuals. Those individuals have needs.
|
| If someone feels a need to provide for their children -
| which could include perhaps being able to afford a good
| education without putting themselves in debt - and
| they're willing to work and save for it (which is
| fundamentally where most inheritances come from at some
| level) rather than blow it on cocaine or give it away to
| strangers, why not?
| js8 wrote:
| That's called feudalism.
| CyberRabbi wrote:
| Feudalism involves using force to take and hoard finite
| resources such as land from others without recompense. I'm
| describing a society where everyone is free to create wealth
| from their labor and is also free to have their descendants
| inherit and benefit from the wealth they created from their
| labor.
| anoncake wrote:
| Serfs were often descended from freemen who had to sell
| their freedom. The lords did hoard land, but they did not
| necessarily take it by force. Usually they inherited it, or
| they bought it.
| js8 wrote:
| > create wealth from their labor
|
| I am not sure what you mean by lasting wealth created by
| labor. Can you give some example? You mean "intellectual
| property"? You want society broadly based on that?
| usrusr wrote:
| Can you give an example for a case where someone has
| created significant wealth from their labor that isn't
| based on a laughably broad definition of the term
| "labor"?
| unishark wrote:
| IP rules restrict others' production or ownership. Wealth
| is owning of the products themselves. You don't become
| less wealthy in that sense if another person makes a copy
| of something you own.
| js8 wrote:
| Not all of them, copyright doesn't. In any case, aside
| from something like a Minecraft world, I don't really see
| how you can "create wealth" without taking from someone
| else first. Can you provide a positive example?
| unishark wrote:
| What is included in "taking from someone"? Am I allowed
| to purchase or gather cheap resources and make much more
| valuable products after applying skilled labor?
| js8 wrote:
| Yes. But I am not sure how you transfer the fruits of
| this labor to your descendants, so they would benefit
| from it. Every property needs maintenance, and "being
| rich" (as OP said), or even middle-class, means to have
| enough property that you need to hire somebody (at least
| ocassionally) to maintain it.
|
| Also OP talked about building an institution, which
| presumably means that there are other people involved.
| Unless he meant something like building a worker
| cooperative, I feel like in the arrangement he envisioned
| for his descendants, it will be other people working for
| them, providing them with their labor. I don't see that
| much different from feudal arrangements.
| vladvasiliu wrote:
| I can think of a bunch of examples not based directly on
| intellectual property (I assume you mean "royalties" and
| similar, such as from songs / books / etc).
|
| If I found a prosperous business, say Walmart, and my
| kinds inherit it, this looks to me pretty much based on
| labor and not on taxing the use of some "intellectual
| property". Same for an industrial enterprise, like an
| automaker that is privately owned.
|
| Of course, the kids would have to find a way to continue
| managing it well in order to reap the benefits, it
| wouldn't exactly be "forever free money with no work",
| though they could get close to that for themselves by
| selling the company.
|
| I guess some could question whether being a CEO of such a
| company is actually "labor", especially when considering
| the kids (when the "building" phase is over) but I'd say
| that's a whole different debate.
| js8 wrote:
| Honestly, I don't see, conceptually, a big distinction
| between building a corporation (like Walmart) and a
| nation. In both cases, there is a person which organizes
| other people and makes sure that collectively, they fight
| with other neighboring organization over resources, for
| mutual benefit within the group, and win. And then, like
| in feudalism, the descendants of the organizer himself
| inherit the organization, and the right to control it,
| and tell people what to do.
|
| Yes, technically the leader's job is still qualified
| labor (although in case of being just a shareholder,
| there is no labor involved, if you are CEO or in a board,
| you are actually paid extra aside from the dividends).
|
| But that's not the main point, the main point is, just
| like in feudalism, the founder of the institution has the
| indefinite, and hereditary, power to make decisions
| concerning the institution, in other words, he owns it.
| The other people involved in building it (and their
| descendants) do not have such powers. And that is deeply
| problematic, which is why today we reject feudalism in
| favor of e.g. democracy. For similar reasons, I believe,
| we should reject hereditary ownership of corporations in
| favor of, say, worker coops.
| vladvasiliu wrote:
| Well, to me, there is one very, very big difference
| between a company and feudalism, which makes this analogy
| break down.
|
| As a worker, I have the choice of becoming a serf to the
| owner of company A, or I may set up my own company B and
| compete with A.
|
| Or anything else in between, like starting as a serf and
| then quitting and deciding that I'm going to do my thing.
| Or even decide that I've amassed enough money as a serf
| and don't need to work anymore (see the early retirement
| folks).
|
| All this is not possible with feudalism, if only because
| joining another master would have me move to a possible
| distant land and cut me from my family.
|
| Of course, I realize that depending at least on
| circumstance, some people may not actually have that much
| of a choice. But then, the question becomes, how much
| does the owner of the company owe to the workers? Why
| would they strive to improve the company if they can't
| reap the benefits? Only from the goodness of their heart?
| Not sure how well that works out in practice.
|
| The issue, in the end, is of who's entitled to the fruit
| of one person's labor. It's not clear to me that the
| workers should have a bigger share than the owner. Of
| course, this devolves back to the classic "the owner
| can't build the company without the workers / the workers
| can't build the company without the owner" which doesn't
| have a clear-cut answer.
|
| > For similar reasons, I believe, we should reject
| hereditary ownership of corporations in favor of, say,
| worker coops.
|
| Genuine question: why don't we see more coops? I know in
| France there are some, mostly around agriculture. But
| they seem more an exception than a rule.
|
| Would you argue this is a situation where the local
| optimum (the hereditary corporation) is better than the
| global optimum (the coop)? Which would explain why
| people, given the choice, will set up a corporation
| instead of a coop, like a tragedy of commons of sorts?
| js8 wrote:
| I think your objection to that analogy doesn't affect
| much the main moral argument against it. Yes, maybe it's
| less brutal, and you have more freedom, but it is still,
| IMHO, fundamentally unfair, i.e. that of all the people
| who collectively built something, some of them get the
| hereditary right to control the institution (the owners),
| while some of them do not get the right (the workers).
|
| Who gets the fruits of labor (and how much) is IMHO
| always a matter of debate in any society. I do not
| believe there is an objective justification (contrary to
| some free market advocates). In any case, if you own
| shares of a company, your labor input can be zero and you
| still get fruits; I don't know how that is fair (unless
| this entitlement is divided among all members of the
| society, like for example all citizens of Norway share
| the oil profits).
|
| > Genuine question: why don't we see more coops?
|
| IMHO, two reasons. One is lack of legal framework. You
| have to keep in mind that legal frameworks for modern
| corporation evolved over at least 300 years, and in the
| beginning, there wasn't even things like limited
| liability.
|
| Second, in practice coops face threat of investment
| strike, because investors simply do not want that system
| and they are more connected than workers are. Sometimes
| both of these are a factor, for example many coops faced
| problems getting bank loans, etc.
|
| It's like asking in 15th century, if democracy is so
| great, why don't we see more of it? Humans are creatures
| of habit, and often there are existing power structures
| that have to be resisted first.
| chii wrote:
| if that child inheriting a business is not actually very
| good at managing, they should not try, but instead hire a
| good manager.
|
| There's nothing wrong with living off the profits of the
| business, and do no labour at all.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| It's not a different debate at all. Because these
| arguments are really about living off the value of other
| people's labour.
|
| _Sometimes_ managerial /organisational ability is
| productive and creative, but in reality it's often
| piratical and exploitative.
|
| It's much easier to get rich by limiting worker freedom
| and opportunity and herding workers towards a precarious
| existence than it is by creating genuine opportunities
| for enhanced collective wealth.
|
| Do you want wealth to be a narcissistic signifier of
| being _better than other people_ - and therefore wholly
| deserving of extra special treatment - or do you want to
| be an organiser and inventor who creates systems which
| give everyone (not just a small in-group) a helping hand
| up and makes the culture more creative, inventive, and
| interesting?
| [deleted]
| gumby wrote:
| Your position seems bizarre _to me_.
|
| I want to live in a society where I can do what I like (which
| in my case involves founding institutions that help propagate
| things important to me like free software, and als making
| plenty of money).
|
| My descendants? Some upbringing and a good education and then
| they are on their own. What would be the point of giving them
| some money or a company? Some sentimental knickknacks: fine.
|
| I consider inheritance anti-democratic and not part of the kind
| of society I would like.
| altusbrown wrote:
| That attitude does tend to align more with mine, with some
| important distinctions. It would also be interesting to
| compare long term societal/general impact and survival with
| that attitude.
|
| My reasoning is that being exposed to the influence of power
| and wealth when someone is young is a bit like having them
| snort cocaine - unlikely to produce a long term successful
| human).
|
| Is not taking wealth when it is available and not giving it
| to your progeny a long term survival/genetic benefit or not?
|
| Wouldn't really change anything, but I guess curiosity in the
| face of a unclear benefit is pretty much the definition of us
| here. :)
| CyberRabbi wrote:
| > I consider inheritance anti-democratic
|
| I consider restricting the ability for people to provide
| inheritance to their children by force of state anti-
| democratic.
| gumby wrote:
| Are you objecting to something someone suggested?
|
| Without the force of state or a private army it's pretty
| difficult for anyone to leave anything to someone after
| they kick the bucket.
| CyberRabbi wrote:
| Protecting someone's property is not the same as taking
| away someone's right to their property. When the state
| does the former, it is a liberal state, when it does the
| latter it is a tyrannical state.
|
| If you aren't suggesting the state take away my ability
| to provide inheritance to my descendants, then what is
| the function of calling inheritance anti-democratic? Are
| you suggesting that a true democracy does not allow
| individuals to leave inheritance to their descendants?
| JohnJamesRambo wrote:
| I've been reading The Millionaire Next Door and surprisingly
| few descendants stay rich. By fourth generation the wealth is
| completely destroyed. Likely because each generation didn't
| have to work as hard and value the money. Of course there are
| exceptions, but this was what their data said.
|
| Also I think only 20% of millionaires in USA inherited it,
| which really surprised me.
| giantg2 wrote:
| "Also I think only 20% of millionaires in USA inherited it,
| which really surprised me."
|
| $1M isn't as much as it used to be. You pretty much need that
| much or more to retire, so it makes sense that there is a
| large percentage making it.
| numbers_guy wrote:
| That's just because the wealth is dilluted amongst the
| descendants. The growth of the business is not strong enough
| to compensate. And statistically speaking even if all grand-
| grandkids worked as hard as the founder, a lot of them will
| fail.
| tartoran wrote:
| That is a part of the equation, but it's undoubtedly true
| that descendats of wealth are weaker wealth makers since
| they have it on a plate. Some of them greatly benefit from
| the wealth inherited from their descendants but the
| majority of them squander it away, there are too many
| temptations out there..
| altusbrown wrote:
| There is an element to that, but it is not only that.
|
| Most (but not all) sizable wealth builders I've met or done
| research on have been people with a combination of:
|
| - ability to cut through bullshit but play the game (so can
| generate bullshit when necessary, but aren't fooled or
| impeded by it) - work hard (yes - bill gates, bezos, etc.
| all worked their asses off during many important periods).
| - know the right things to work on (so avoid expending
| their effort on digging ditches when they can spend the
| effort negotiating better deals) - get in the right place
| at the right time (combination of luck, pragmatism, paying
| attention to wider trends). You can influence this, but
| never really control it. - ability to work with wildly
| different people effectively (often nicely, often not
| nicely depending on the group) to get what they needed done
| - ability to raise capital, and put it to use. (significant
| environmental, education, networking effects here) - don't
| give away the farm/give away too much of their own
| ownership or assets. - knows how to effectively address a
| market and deliver a useful product, or find and direct
| people who do.
|
| This is not a common set of qualities. If you spent all the
| money in the world on training, you'd be lucky if 1 in 10
| people could pick those qualities up. With Genetics and
| personality traits (ignoring the nurture element), even if
| they cloned themselves I doubt you'd get better than 50/50
| odds.
|
| If being a wealth builder is the result of a large
| confluence of events coming together just right, say:
|
| - right genetics & right influences in early childhood to
| produce the right world view and personality - right set of
| circumstances early on to connect useful people for
| capital, or circumstances later to connect them to capital
| - right skillset with understanding and being effective
| with others of widely different backgrounds - right
| exposure to the right potential market, and the right luck
| with with many things (all of which have elements of
| personally influenceable factors and external non-
| influencable factors)
|
| It shouldn't be too much of a surprise that what works in
| the first generation doesn't usually last very long. The
| circumstances are different, everything is different by the
| time generation #2 or #3 happen.
|
| With the right training, education, and circumstances you
| can improve the odds. But maybe a generation or two?
|
| There is a saying I've run across a bunch - first
| generation builds it, second generation spends it, third
| generation blows it.
|
| In large part because the environment each generation is in
| has fundamentally different pressures and environments 'by
| default', and a lot of our personality and approach to
| things is set in early childhood.
|
| It's also why you see societies with more stable traditions
| of wealth/nobility/etc focus so much on traditional ways of
| doing things, acting, etc. is to attempt to keep
| reinforcing what was necessary for prior success even when
| it's not obvious for the new generation. Because they do
| provide necessary coping skills and the like.
|
| Even still, a great many of them lose it all
| (statistically).
| djbebs wrote:
| Less than 20%. Around 90% of millionaires in the US are
| selfmade
| trompetenaccoun wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Schickedanz
|
| Heiress of a multi-billion dollar online retail business in
| Germany. She was the 13th richest woman in the world at one
| point. Gave her entire wealth to a private bank to manage.
| The bank got involved in shady real estate deals and long
| story short she's lost practically everything.
| listenallyall wrote:
| Anecdote. First generation, not 4th. External fraud, not
| laziness/entitlement/wastefulness.
|
| Irrelevant.
| trompetenaccoun wrote:
| Someone who doesn't understand finance and doesn't know
| how to invest is bound to lose the money sooner or later.
| There is always fraud, there's always wastefulness. How
| many generations it takes is irrelevant, that number four
| is just a meme that gets repeated because someone wrote
| this in an investment book once, and people think it
| sounds about right. It's not based on science.
|
| It's an extreme example. But you don't have to just look
| at billionaires, it's easy to observe this all around you
| with families that are worth much less. And it would be
| very concerning if it were any other way.
| Viliam1234 wrote:
| > Someone who doesn't understand finance and doesn't know
| how to invest is bound to lose the money sooner or later.
| There is always fraud, there's always wastefulness.
|
| I agree; if you don't spend a lot of time researching how
| money works, you will almost certainly get scammed. There
| are so many perfectly legal ways how to deprive a person
| of their money in a way that seems like investing. And
| the people who want to take your money will approach you,
| helpfully provide advice when you ask, get recommended by
| your friends (whom they also scammed, in a way that is
| not immediately obvious). Even the serious institutions
| provide some product that are designed to be bad.
|
| I didn't inherit anything, but since I got my first
| salary, I tried to save and invest some of the money. Two
| decades later, I see (with the knowledge I have now, but
| didn't have back then) that almost everything I did was
| pretty much guaranteed to make the money gradually
| disappear. So if I inherited money, but not a very good
| knowledge how to handle it, it would probably be all gone
| by now.
|
| The only good investments I made was real estate and
| bitcoins. Ironically, two things that many smart people
| on internet are strongly opposed to. If I knew in my 20s
| what I know now, maybe there were better options
| available. But all the other options I knew about were
| scams.
| CRConrad wrote:
| Heiress = Second generation, not first.
| listenallyall wrote:
| Noted. First generation _of descendants_ , I should have
| specified, especially since the OP doesn't.
|
| Of course, being HN, we start counting at zero by default
| anyway.
| libertine wrote:
| I think that's a bit of a myth, at least in a global scale.
|
| In Europe there's a lot of old money, or sources of income
| that only later generations can rip the benefits of their
| ancestors.
|
| The most common example in my country is people that sustain
| a lot of their wealth with cork. The thing with cork is that
| it takes decades to build up, and a large area.
|
| Basically people are living from their great+ grand parents
| buying small patches of land over many years, that had the
| trees already planted (or that just grew in the meanwhile).
|
| And I'm pretty sure this reality is probably also common
| across the Mediterranean region.
| djbebs wrote:
| Portugal? Corticeira Amorim is the exception, not the rule.
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| > By fourth generation the wealth is completely destroyed.
|
| It doesn't change the fact that free people, living in a free
| country, should be free to give their wealth to whomever they
| please, including their children.
| CRConrad wrote:
| > ...free people, living in a free country, should be free
| to give their wealth to whomever they please, including
| their children.
|
| Sure. And those children should be as free as anyone else
| to pay the appropriate tax rate on that category of income.
| (Given that it's a sudden unearned windfall, a pretty high
| rate seems quite equitable.)
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| Not if there are social, political, and ecological costs to
| other people.
|
| What makes you think that "free" should only ever benefit
| you, and everyone else's "free" is irrelevant?
| bdcravens wrote:
| Very few things don't have a social, political, or
| ecological cost to others. How that money was earned to
| being with, purchasing choices, etc.
| djbebs wrote:
| Taking away that money also has such costs.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| If everyone wants that however, it seems like an unsustainable
| game to play.
|
| > Otherwise what's the point?
|
| The answer to that question defines a society. For most of
| recent history that was true with the exception of communist
| countries and many other interludes.
| quietbritishjim wrote:
| Out of interest, because this has a substantial effect on the
| meaning of your comment:
|
| Do you literally mean all your descendents? E.g. in 200 years
| there will be 100ish people still substantially benefitting
| from your wealth? That's how your post reads and is probably
| how most people would interpret it but I suspect it may not be
| what you meant.
|
| Or do you just mean your wealth just benefits your _immediate_
| descendants? (What you 've written would be a very odd way to
| say that because most people would describe those people as "my
| children".) Obviously there would still be an indirect effect
| all the way down e.g. your grandchildren would probably get a
| better education which would let them earn more for themselves,
| etc., but that would fade out eventually through the
| generations.
| zeckalpha wrote:
| If it is well managed and a safe withdrawal rate is
| maintained, it very well could go to all descendants.
| altusbrown wrote:
| Good luck though when the person who learned how to be an
| assassin/shark and was able to build and maintain the
| wealth has handed it off to their kids (or grandkids) who
| probably never had much contact with them (what with all
| the assassin/sharkiness), and are now trying to judge well
| managed and safe from what they were exposed to as
| children. Which was probably massive wealth, and people who
| aren't always scamming you (because the filtering happened
| off screen).
|
| Especially since you either have to pick someone (or a
| small group) from the set to judge, or have to deal with an
| ever increasing and ever more distant from the original
| wealthbuilding set of decision makers.
|
| Definitely possible to do, but very, very, very unlikely
| and rare (based on clear examples around us).
| CyberRabbi wrote:
| I haven't fully considered what the best way is to ensure my
| dynasty but I imagine that my first born male son should
| inherit the lion's share of the wealth. So no, in practice it
| probably wouldn't be all my descendants, just my direct male
| line.
| CRConrad wrote:
| Wow. All hail Misogynicus Maximus.
| rrivers wrote:
| Dynastic wealth transfer is extremely inequitable. While
| everyone defines their own meaning, to frame the human
| condition as the process of generating excess capital is a
| diminishment of life and experience.
| CyberRabbi wrote:
| > to frame the human condition as the process of generating
| excess capital is a diminishment of life and experience.
|
| Yes I completely agree. Accumulating wealth should not be the
| end goal of the human experience. It's just the means by
| which we ensure the continued health and prosperity of our
| families and loved ones.
| mjfl wrote:
| As someone who grew up in middle class new england without any
| sort of inheritance, now living in southern california where
| there is seemingly an ethnic caste system in place, I think this
| article is a little circlejerky. People move to california for
| the weather.
| injidup wrote:
| Stopped reading when ... Bitcoin
| [deleted]
| cblconfederate wrote:
| why did you comment then?
| CRConrad wrote:
| Perhaps as a heads-up to those of us who now know not to
| bother clicking through.
|
| Thank you, GP!
| culturestate wrote:
| 1729 is Balaji's crypto newsletter, so you were bound to get
| there eventually.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-05-09 23:02 UTC)