Robert Frank takes the uncontroversial position that any personal economic success involves some luck. I don't see how this could possibly be controversial, since making it through any given day takes some luck. But Stuart Varney, anchor, is insulted and outraged at the suggestion that it wasn't his talent and hard-work that got him his high-paying job. Then comes this bit, at the 1:47 mark:
"That's outrageous. That is outrageous. What about the risk I took? .. Do you know what level of risk is required for this level of success?!"
Stuart Varney decides that his strongest argument in contending that luck was not involved in his success is to ... contend that luck was involved in his success. After all, what is risk but luck? Sure, he might have taken good risks, but risk by its nature has a probabilistic element. Even if he took only good risks, say gambles where the chances are 95% of winning and each is needed to "be successful," after 5 of those gambles, he only has a 77% chance of being successful. If, as he says, he was constantly taking risks early in his career, we can reasonably assume that the probability of his having won all those gambles he was taking is pretty small. But he's successful, despite all of his risky behavior. Lucky him.
No comments:
Post a Comment