Hacker News Reader

> Suppose a aboriginal guy from the Amazon wakes up naked on a snowy Manhattan street... He could be the best Tapir hunter in the five valleys, but that doesn't count for much if he inevitably either freezes or gets locked in a cell for indecent exposure

You seem to be making OP's point for them.

I don't think they are. I think "Aboriginal helpless in Manhattan" means that any skill you may have is dependant on environment, is an specialization, and you shouldn't judge a fish by its cycle-riding skills.

Definitely not.

The OP's point is that wealth is created and bestowed by society. The rebuttal is that it is an interaction between skills and environment, which may or may not involve other humans.

The Amazonian hunter has a form of wealth with no dependence on other humans. And yet it is as fragile as the rich person's wealth once you change the environment. To that rebuttal I would add that merely bestowing riches on people does not generally result in wealth. The classic case in point being that lottery winners generally wind up no better off than they were previously, and this reversion is surprisingly quick.

What human society and industry has done is create the possibility of great wealth. Untold wealth. Wealth undreamt of in the past. Aristocracy in Elizabethan times would envy the average US citizen today. And not for the technological marvels that we would normally list - topping the list of things they would wish that they had is that our medical care lets us expect to see our children grow up, and our dental care means that we do not regularly go through a level of pain that they took for granted.

But wealth remains an interaction of skills and environment. It is not merely granted by society.

It is when society defines the environment though, to a certain extent. When wealth can be used to change the environment to tailor it to your skills, then you do get an advantage.

I'd like you to elaborate more your idea in terms of the relation between skill, society and environment. Assuming all three influence each other.

> The rebuttal is that it is an interaction between skills and environment

That's the main point. It is not. You need society: > Suppose any rich man wakes up in the Amazon jungle with nothing to his name, no clothes and no money. He may in fact be the richest man on earth, but in the jungle it doesn't matter.

He has his skills, and a rich environment full of resources. But he lacks what society provides: law and order, education, skilled workers, media that spread ideas, etc...

> Suppose a aboriginal guy from the Amazon wakes up naked on a snowy Manhattan street... He could be the best Tapir hunter in the five valleys, but that doesn't count for much if he inevitably either freezes or gets locked in a cell for indecent exposure.

That is true, but it's a different point. The point of the rich man is that, in society, he can use his wealth to get other people to just give him stuff and do things for him. But that power evaporates in contexts where there aren't other people around, or they don't care about money.

The analogy to what you said about the aboriginal guy would also apply to the rich man: the rich man's skills (eg. business) that he might use to actively work at making a living might not apply in a different context.

It seems to be essentially the same point. In the Amazon the best Tapir hunter is a rich man indeed.

I think Arnold realizes this. I think he's just using this shift or reframing to highlight his point that while people can succeed with sticktoitedness, vigor and ambition, etc. despite not inheriting success directly from someone, that despite this, they do owe something to the system and people which and who allowed them to succeed.

I think that above all, what Arnold is saying is that the blueprint for success is "standing on the shoulder of giants", or listening to successful people advice, which, though it's probably good advice, happens to lead right to the book his article is advertising.