Do you believe millionaires tend to be smarter, and more disciplined then the general population on average?

[Ezekiel 25:17]

Nope. A lot of them are at the right place, at the right time and around the right people. They downplay the role luck plays in their success because they want you to give them 100% of the credit.

Look at Mark Zuckerberg. He had ONE good idea which he allegedly even stole. Every one of his moves since then has been a flop. I bet yall don't remember the facebook phone and how's that horizon worlds metaverse working out?

In order to be lucky what do you have to do?

 

[Ezekiel 25:17]

“Luck” describes being born rich or hitting the lotto

“Luck” is way too vague of a term to describe someone conceiving the right idea at the right time, being disciplined enough to bring that idea to fruition, employing the right people to assist in executing it, then maintaining said idea for a long enough time to earn millions of dollars in a hyper-competitive marketplace

Some of these millionaires were born in an advantageous position but the process I just described takes way more than “luck”

This thread is yet another reason why you don't talk finances on the Coli. These dudes are completely clueless.

To receive luck you need to put in the effort. Its not some magical shyt that appears out of thin air. They call something lucky but don't mention how that person had a good business idea and had to pitch his idea to hundreds of people. If you sitting on the couch playing PS5 you won't receive Luck

 

[BaggerofTea]

More ruthless

Ding Ding Ding,

self made millionaires lack fear and doubt that hold most other people back

 

[jilla82]

anyone disagreeing about this being true (on average) is just coping

its like asking if fit people on average are more disciplined than fat people...
...of course they are

 

[David_TheMan]

Smarter and more disciplined no.
Not overall but in their specific discipline yes.

 

[Imback]

I didn't say he coded anything, when I say he didn't "make" it, I'm saying that Facebook didn't produce it under his direction or vision. They just acquired then after they were already proven successes.

Well making means coding to tech ppl. But I get where you’re coming from.

Most acquisitions fail. To downplay the success of ig is like blaming an nba team for drafting a guy who played aau. It’s commonplace.

Winners of acqui’s are winners, like nikkas that make the nba. The aau process had nothing to do with it.

Because Facebook has a shytload of money and established corporate base to leverage.

WhatsApp was one of the biggest tech acquisitions in history. No one is forced to pay $20 billion for something unless everyone already knows it's a success. It was most of the way to a billion users before Zuckerburg even got it.

Instagram was great to get, the timing was clearly right, but when you compare it with all his other failures, it's hard to say that was some great business sense and not just a lucky hit at the right time on an already hot product.

Naw this is lazy thinking. The WhatsApp founders have already tried to compete with Facebook and have failed miserably (currently). FB introduced WhatsApp to like 400+ more languages via ai.

Most acquisitions are failures. That’s why we’re not discussing IBM acquisitions right now