Murray Edwards Changes Residency from Calgary to London

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Sliver

The best and brightest equating to having the most money is probably the most ######ed thing I've ever read on this board.

Says the guy who attributes wealth to a series of lucky events. Like Edwards took the wrong bus to Calgary in the '80's, tried to open a taco stand but wound finding oil instead of salsa. Have you ever earned a single dollar in your life that wasn't given to you in exchange for your time/labour?

[Ozy_Flame]

Has Edwards confirmed he moved to London because of the taxes issue? Or are we just speculating no matter how likely the reason?

[Resolute 14]

That is kind of like the argument that we are "lucky" to live where we have oil. Neverminding the fact that nobody is actually lucky for that reason. We, our parents or our grandparents moved here specifically because there was opportunity. If Alberta didn't have a marketable resource, 90% of us would live somewhere that does.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Says the guy who attributes wealth to a series of lucky events. Like Edwards took the wrong bus to Calgary in the '80's, tried to open a taco stand but wound finding oil instead of salsa. Have you ever earned a single dollar in your life that wasn't given to you in exchange for your time/labour?

Haha, do you think the world is a meritocracy? Everybody who is rich earned every dollar? Hard workers make more? If you're not rich it's because you aren't smart enough or didn't work hard enough?

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Haha, do you think the world is a meritocracy? Everybody who is rich earned every dollar? Hard workers make more? If you're not rich it's because you aren't smart enough or didn't work hard enough?

Seriously. Have you ever earned a single dollar that wasn't given to you in exchange for time/labor? Do you know what you're talking about? And to be polite and answer your question...no obviously not. Not all wealthy people are geniuses. But in the big picture, generally speaking, people who risk capital make more money than those who don't. Generally speaking it's more difficult to earn money in that way and thus the reward is greater.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Haha, do you think the world is a meritocracy? Everybody who is rich earned every dollar? Hard workers make more? If you're not rich it's because you aren't smart enough or didn't work hard enough?

On the whole, yes it is, on a balance of probabilities. If you give 2 people a reasonably equal start, the one who is smarter is likelier to become rich. Ditto for harder worker. The third factor you are neglecting, and perhaps most important, is "willing to take a risk". A lot of people who talk about "luck" will never risk leaving their government job...
Obviously, people who inherit wealth are a separate category.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

On the whole, yes it is, on a balance of probabilities. If you give 2 people a reasonably equal start, the one who is smarter is likelier to become rich. Ditto for harder worker. The third factor you are neglecting, and perhaps most important, is "willing to take a risk". A lot of people who talk about "luck" will never risk leaving their government job...
Obviously, people who inherit wealth are a separate category.

That is quite the premise from which to start, though. I don't remember a lot from my Sociology courses, but I seem to recall the biggest predictor of future socio-economic status is the socio-economic status of your parents. Where you end up is pretty much where you start, in general.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any research anywhere in the world that would support your claim the the world is "on the whole" a meritocracy.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Sliver

That is quite the premise from which to start, though. I don't remember a lot from my Sociology courses, but I seem to recall the biggest predictor of future socio-economic status is the socio-economic status of your parents. Where you end up is pretty much where you start, in general.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any research anywhere in the world that would support your claim the the world is "on the whole" a meritocracy.

The meritocracy is self-perpetuating in that professionals marry other professionals and their kids become professionals and marry other professionals, and so on. But if you take 2 children of lawyers (for example) my rule applies. I am not saying take a kid from a trailer park vs a kid from Mount Royal.
However, being willing to take a risk is the big thing. There are many smart and hard working people who are scared to step out of the box. If you are an employee, even as a professional, you are not going to become rich - you will be well to do, but not "rich". You have to start a business (can be a professional business), and then risk the gains of that in other ventures, and so on. Taking a risk is the big deal.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

The meritocracy is self-perpetuating in that professionals marry other professionals and their kids become professionals and marry other professionals, and so on. But if you take 2 children of lawyers (for example) my rule applies. I am not saying take a kid from a trailer park vs a kid from Mount Royal.
However, being willing to take a risk is the big thing. There are many smart and hard working people who are scared to step out of the box. If you are an employee, even as a professional, you are not going to become rich - you will be well to do, but not "rich". You have to start a business (can be a professional business), and then risk the gains of that in other ventures, and so on. Taking a risk is the big deal.

Of course, taking a risk is easier when you have something (or someone) to fall back on, which again has everything to do with where you start. It also almost always means that you have something tangible to risk (money most likely). When someone is working for a low wage and paying most of their money to a landlord, it is hard to come up with the collateral to make such risks.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Sliver

That is quite the premise from which to start, though. I don't remember a lot from my Sociology courses, but I seem to recall the biggest predictor of future socio-economic status is the socio-economic status of your parents. Where you end up is pretty much where you start, in general.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any research anywhere in the world that would support your claim the the world is "on the whole" a meritocracy.

The suspect in question, Edwards, doesn't fit your premise...

https://www.horatioalger.ca/en/haa_m...urray-edwards/

Pioneering grandparents, school teacher and accountant parents, three siblings, scholarships, loans and summer jobs to pay for university, tops grades, good job as a lawyer and then the thing that sets him apart....instead of buying a wicked car with his first 100k, he invested in things that could have landed him immediately back to square one.

Any questions?

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

The meritocracy is self-perpetuating in that professionals marry other professionals and their kids become professionals and marry other professionals, and so on. But if you take 2 children of lawyers (for example) my rule applies. I am not saying take a kid from a trailer park vs a kid from Mount Royal.
However, being willing to take a risk is the big thing. There are many smart and hard working people who are scared to step out of the box. If you are an employee, even as a professional, you are not going to become rich - you will be well to do, but not "rich". You have to start a business (can be a professional business), and then risk the gains of that in other ventures, and so on. Taking a risk is the big deal.

It's easier to take risks if you have a safety net. Purely anecdotal, but my most entrepreneurial friends are also the ones that came from wealthier families. They can afford to take risks, because they won't be in line at the soup kitchen if their business fails. They can also afford - through parental help - to wait out the typical phase of unprofitability that usually accompanies the start up of a business.

If your parents buy you your car, put a downpayment on a house for you, give you a graduation present of money, pay for your university, etc., you are going to be in a way better position to start a business and "take a risk".

These are the same friends that completely inflate their own awesomeness in how they achieved success so early, too. I do believe we're all like that, though. I think there is more clarity looking up at the advantages others had over you than looking down at the disadvantages of those "beneath" you.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

The suspect in question, Edwards, doesn't fit your premise...

https://www.horatioalger.ca/en/haa_m...urray-edwards/

Pioneering grandparents, school teacher and accountant parents, three siblings, scholarships, loans and summer jobs to pay for university, tops grades, good job as a lawyer and then the thing that sets him apart....instead of buying a wicked car with his first 100k, he invested in things that could have landed him immediately back to square one.

Any questions?

I'm sorry, I thought you noticed the thread had moved to talking about wealth building in general and away from Edwards. Of course there are going to be outliers. I think it's safe to say the multi-billionaire is on an atypical trajectory.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Sliver

It's easier to take risks if you have a safety net. Purely anecdotal, but my most entrepreneurial friends are also the ones that came from wealthier families. They can afford to take risks, because they won't be in line at the soup kitchen if their business fails. They can also afford - through parental help - to wait out the typical phase of unprofitability that usually accompanies the start up of a business.

If your parents buy you your car, put a downpayment on a house for you, give you a graduation present of money, pay for your university, etc., you are going to be in a way better position to start a business and "take a risk".

These are the same friends that completely inflate their own awesomeness in how they achieved success so early, too. I do believe we're all like that, though. I think there is more clarity looking up at the advantages others had over you than looking down at the disadvantages of those "beneath" you.

That can be true if you want. But again, if you have never risked any of your own capital, you don't know what it's really like. Risking money is much harder when you have something to lose. I started with 10k in change from tips and the easiest thing ever was to roll that 10k dice because it didn't matter that much. Now I could lose 10k and it still won't matter but psychologically it is much harder to do so.

Almost every successful business person I know has left something that would have provided them security in favour of something unknown. That's the hard part. The people I know with good jobs and some savings wouldn't give that up for anything and thus will always be able to pay their bills but will never be successful in business.

[CliffFletcher]

I'm onboard with the notion that hard work and taking risks are keys to starting a successful business and making a lot of money. However, we're not just talking about someone building up a piddly $10-20 million. Once you get into the tens and hundreds of millions, you're making money because you already have a huge pile of it. Capital grows bigger the bigger the pile gets. Edward's second $100 million was a lot easier to earn than his first. Which is why the world's wealth in concentrating in fewer and fewer hands. Edward's kids will earn hundreds of millions in their lifetime, without ever needing to work, simply by starting with a billion.

It is pretty interesting how people who work for a living and earn $150K convince themselves that they share the same interests as those who earn millions a month simply from their capital.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Sliver

There's success and there's unreasonable success. I think proposing a tax on amounts above $250 million is hardly unreasonable. In the same way we buoy people up on the bottom end of the socioeconomic scale because we think it would be unfair to let people have nothing whatsoever, it's a good idea to look at people on the other end of the extreme and even things out a little on that end as well.

The best and brightest equating to having the most money is probably the most ######ed thing I've ever read on this board.

What does it have to do with jealousy? "Fair" is a basic principle we all share. I don't know of a single parent that isn't proud of their kid when they share with others. My son had a bunch of Easter chocolate yesterday and he shared it with his cousin who didn't have as much. That's the right thing to do. What changes when it comes to grown-ups with far more money than they could ever spend in multiple lifetimes where it becomes more acceptable to hoard it than disperse it to areas where it could do more good? And don't forget, I'm talking about taxing on amounts beyond obscene wealth after the guy who "earned it" dies.

Taxing amounts over $250 million after death will hardly create a society of have nots. That's preposterous.

I would rather have that capital in the hands of an entrepreneurial, private individual/family than the government. Especially our governments right now.

The ultra rich tend to give lots of money away but they hate giving it to the government and/or losing control of it. Maybe the answer is some sort of legislation that upon death and over a threshold (like your $250M), half of everything has to be put into a private foundation that is controlled either by the family or a third party manager? And thus the community benefits without the government getting their fingers into it. I could see wealthy people being on board with some sort of variation of this, by removing the government from the equation.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I'm onboard with the notion that hard work and taking risks are keys to starting a successful business and making a lot of money. However, we're not just talking about someone building up a piddly $10-20 million. Once you get into the tens and hundreds of millions, you're making money because you already have a huge pile of it. Capital grows bigger the bigger the pile gets. Edward's second $100 million was a lot easier to earn than his first. Which is why the world's wealth in concentrating in fewer and fewer hands. Edward's kids will earn hundreds of millions in their lifetime, without ever needing to work, simply by starting with a billion.

You're making an assumption that by having wealth you're going to generate more wealth. There is also a huge risk associated here, do you wonder how much Edwards has lost over the last 2 years? A staggering amount.

[OMG!WTF!]

I'm not sure how you count to 250 million. Edwards' wealth is largely shares and it's not 2.5 billion any more. Liquid assets are much different. Rich people will just work around whatever arbitrary number you give them anyway. If you really want to get that extra cash, it's gotta be a wealth tax on boats, cars, houses, all luxe things costing more than 1.95 standard deviations above the norm.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I'm onboard with the notion that hard work and taking risks are keys to starting a successful business and making a lot of money. However, we're not just talking about someone building up a piddly $10-20 million. Once you get into the tens and hundreds of millions, you're making money because you already have a huge pile of it. Capital grows bigger the bigger the pile gets. Edward's second $100 million was a lot easier to earn than his first. Which is why the world's wealth in concentrating in fewer and fewer hands. Edward's kids will earn hundreds of millions in their lifetime, without ever needing to work, simply by starting with a billion.

It is pretty interesting how people who work for a living and earn $150K convince themselves that they share the same interests as those who earn millions a month simply from their capital.

It's a lot easier to risk when you have nothing to lose. You are also a lot more motivated to succeed.
As to your assumption, how is that any different than people making 80k counting other people's money?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by heep223

You're making an assumption that by having wealth you're going to generate more wealth. There is also a huge risk associated here, do you wonder how much Edwards has lost over the last 2 years? A staggering amount.

Thomas Piketty offers some pretty convincing evidence that the bigger the pile of capital you have the more likely and faster it is to grow. From the review of his book "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" in the Harvard Business Review:

Capital (which by Piketty’s definition is pretty much the same thing as wealth) has tended over time to grow faster than the overall economy. Income from capital is invariably much less evenly distributed than labor income. Together these amount to a powerful force for increasing inequality...

Over the two-plus centuries for which good records exist, the only major decline in capital’s economic share and in economic inequality was the result of World Wars I and II, which destroyed lots of capital and brought much higher taxes in the U.S. and Europe. This period of capital destruction was followed by a spectacular run of economic growth. Now, after decades of peace, slowing growth, and declining tax rates, capital and inequality are on the rise all over the developed world, and it’s not clear what if anything will alter that trajectory in the decades to come...

Piketty’s main worry seems to be that growing wealth in Europe will bring a return to 19th century circumstances in which most affluent people get that way through inheritance...

But the basic message from Piketty’s data, that the ravages of the World Wars and the high taxes that followed put a big damper on wealth and inheritance that has now been lifted, seems irrefutable. His assumption that most of these heirs and heiresses won’t squander their fortunes can of course be questioned, but he does offer evidence for his contention that the bigger the fortune, the faster it will grow in the future: the performance of university endowments in the U.S., where the largest endowments have earned dramatically higher percentage returns than the rest...

[heep223]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Thomas Piketty offers some pretty convincing evidence that the bigger the pile of capital you have the more likely and faster it is to grow. From the review of his book "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" in the Harvard Business Review:

Yes I've read his book. Certainly having capital is a huge factor in growing capital and I don't disagree.

All I'm saying is that private investors are putting that capital at risk every single day, and there are many cases of these families and entrepreneurs ultimately going broke. In fact, most families of great wealth lose it all by the end of the third generation due to mismanaging risk, huge leverage, concentration, taxes, divorce, over-consumption, bad investments, fees and costs, ego.

You are making a huge and IMO erroneous assumption that private capital just grows every month.

Also the comparison of US endowment performance to private wealth is IMO a terrible one for a multitude of reasons.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It is pretty interesting how people who work for a living and earn $150K convince themselves that they share the same interests as those who earn millions a month simply from their capital.

Temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

- Steinbeck