http://www.physorg.com/news96694731.html - It doesn't take a rocket scientist to make a lot of money, according to new research. A nationwide study found that people of below average intelligence were, overall, just about as wealthy as those in similar circumstances but with higher scores on an IQ test.

But God still loves you more if you are rich.

That's true. How much ya got - including the offshore accounts.

> How much ya got

Not much of deity if you don't already know.

Guess it's not a meritocracy then.

I wonder how the figures would look if you factored out inheritance money (which accounts for 40% of rich people).

>That's true. How much ya got - including the offshore accounts.

Heh. Good point. Smart people hide their money.

A friend of mine was saying there are people lot richer than Gates in the Middle East. But since their laws don't require as much transparency as in the West, a lot of assets they have are hidden.

The best wealth predictor is working hard, this even works for artists - the wealthiest are the most prolific.

>It doesn't take a rocket scientist to make a lot of money

The article actually says that there's a close correlation between *income* and IQ.

What they are measuring, however, is wealth. The more you make, the more debt capacity you have (not just in absolutes, but relative to income).

So smarter people are dumb about the big paycheques they do get. Not a big surprize.

> So smarter people are dumb about the big paycheques they do get. Not a big surprize.

If they are smart then why isn't surprising they are dumb?

"Guess it's not a meritocracy then."

Uhm, your IQ is supposed to measure value in some way?

LOL.

What's merit got to do, got to do with it?

> You need to build up wealth to help buffer life's storms and to prepare for retirement.

I guess smart people feel their income-producing power will last longer than those for average smartness. They make discounts for current nest-eggs acordingly.

If you're A-Rod or Kate Moss, you should be squirelling your income away as quickly as possible in your 30's. It'll will be all downhill from here.

------"A friend of mine was saying there are people lot richer than Gates in the Middle East. But since their laws don't require as much transparency as in the West, a lot of assets they have are hidden."-------
Yea, I mean if you let on about it you might get hit by the 0% income tax, or the 0% alimony.

Maybe I was incorrect about it being in the Middle East. I was reminded of this when Colm said that smart people hide their money.

-----""Professors tend to be very smart people," he said. "But if you look at university parking lots, you don't see a lot of Rolls Royces, Porsches or other very expensive cars. Instead you see a lot of old, low-value vehicles."----

Perhaps they've used their intelligence to decide you don't need a flash car to be happy.

The rich lists leave out those who got their money from goverment. So Prince Talal features but other members of the Saudi Royal family don't.

Somehow, I don't think stashing away tens of billions is that easy.

-- Somehow, I don't think stashing away tens of billions is that easy. --

True. Maybe at smaller levels it can be done but not when it is higher and almost certainly not in the highest ones.

Exactly.  It COULD be a meritocracy, just not one based on IQ.

I would say it almost certainly must be a meritocracy by definition of currency.

Most meaningful is the misconception that malicious muscling is not meritous. In so much as such many meticulously maligned machinations are monetarily magnetic.

You see, money must mean mericy mostly. The malleable movement between men for manpower and its makings is afterall more than marginally meaningful.

Magnificiently managed.

"Most meaningful is the misconception that malicious muscling is not meritous. In so much as such many meticulously maligned machinations are monetarily magnetic. "


SIDEBAR!

Big money's easy to make.  It's almost retardedly easy.

Take on lots of responsibility and risk.  Make it your #1 goal.  Every decision you make has to be about money.  Sacrifice everything to this goal.

Most people destroy themselves doing this (myself included).  Their health, happiness, relationships all suffer.

Joel Spolsky, for example.  Every time I see a picture of him I remark to myself at how overweight he is, and how healthy that can't be for him.  Maybe the camera just adds 30 pounds?

I've seen people who have the discipline to generate big money without the outward appearance of hurting themselves, but I don't really believe it.  I suspect there's some trick or a trust fund.

I guest there are more rich people due to inheritance as compared to hard work.

Probably more due to luck than either.

In any case, there's very often not one sole factor why somebody is rich (unless it's inheritance).

Good timing also factors in more than people realize (e.g. the Russian oligarchs were in the right place at the right time when all the public properties were being sold off ridiculously cheap).

> Probably more due to luck than either.

Yes, luck plays a huge factor in determining whether someone wins the game or not, but most people don't even show up.  Their chances of winning are ZERO.

The harder I work, the luckier I get.

  --  Samuel Goldwyn

>Yes, luck plays a huge factor in determining whether
>someone wins the game or not, but most people don't
>even show up.  Their chances of winning are ZERO.

Yes, so go show them by playing the lottery.

>The harder I work, the luckier I get. --  Samuel Goldwyn

Some more amusing quotes by him:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Samuel_Goldwyn

isn't that kind of obvious?

getting rich is about being good at getting money. so it's "a certain kind of smart". But totally unrelated to, so, understanding multidimensional geometry.