Lewis' graduation speech to Yale a few years ago covered some of the same territory regarding luck.

In this podcast with Bill Simmons, investor Chris Sacca offers a principle that's never let me down since I took it to heart: Anyone who makes eye contact with you wants to meet you.

Interesting on the eye contact thing. I can't listen now -- writing day and working with my editor later -- so can you explain a little?

Nassim Taleb, in The Black Swan, also covers how a good deal of what we (and especially Wall Street traders) attribute to skill is actually attributable to luck.

"a good deal of what we (and especially Wall Street traders) attribute to skill is actually attributable to luck."

I don't think there is a bright line between the two things. In auto racing, they have a saying: "Luck is where preparation meets opportunity". The point being, you may have been "lucky" to win the race because the car that was leading ran out of fuel on the last lap, but you and your team worked hard to get into second place so that you were in position to capitalize on that break. If you had been running 18th, the leader running out of fuel would not have mattered to you.

I tell young people that career success is highly non-linear, and this sort of thing is why. Many years ago, when I was working for a minicomputer (remember those?) manufacturer, I wrote a device driver (a piece of software that interfaces directly to the computer's hardware) for a thing called an electrostatic plotter. We were switching our department's computers to a new operating system, and the out-of-the-box OS didn't support that device, so I wrote a driver for our internal use. It wasn't really that much work; I had studied the computer's hardware manuals, I knew the assembly language, and I had a template to work with. The department needed it, so I wrote it. As it turned out, the company had a large customer that they were trying to sell new computers with the new OS to, and that customer needed to be able to use electrostatic plotters with their systems. Someone in sales found out that I had written this driver, and all of a sudden I was a rock star. They flew me to customer sites where I installed the driver and checked it out, and the company was able to close a large sale because of it. I got a raise, a bunch of notice, and a (small) piece of the sales commission out of it.

So in a sense, yeah, I was lucky; I had no idea that I was writing something that would turn out to be crucial to closing a big sale. But the point is, I had the opportunity because I knew how to write drivers for that computer; I had done the study and the preparation to be able to do it when the need arose. Up to that time, I had been pretty anonymous outside of the department I worked in, even though I had completed assignments that were a lot more difficult than writing the driver was.

This is the way a lot of my career has gone, in discrete steps rather than the linear progress that we often lead young people to believe is the nature of a career. There have been a lot of steps up, and a few steps back too. Most of the steps up have been due to an opportunity that presented itself (luck), but also because I was in position to take advantage of the opportunity (effort and skill). I suspect that the same is true of a lot of those Wall Street traders; yes, some of them hit on big bets when a rising market came along, but that happened because they had the skill and did the research to suss out the bets with the best odds, and the right time to place them. Put some average joe who doesn't know anything about high finance (like me) in that same position, and we'd lose our shorts under the same "luck" conditions.

If the last Presidential election had been Hillary Clinton vs. me, Hillary would have cleaned my clock, even though most observers agree that she was a stunningly bad candidate. Donald Trump was lucky to have Hillary, and a party with a badly formed message, as his opponent; if this was the 1960s and he was running against, say Hubert Humphrey, he almost certainly would have lost. But he was in position to take advantage of the opening because of all of the work he had done over his lifetime, which made it possible for him to become the GOP nominee at exactly the right time.

"The more I practice, the luckier I get." - Arnold Palmer

Offered as a gentle retort to those who think "privilege" and "luck" are all you need for a life of riches and satisfaction.

To be in the race, you have to stay on the track, not sit there parked hoping somebody brings you a trophy.

Love your stuff, Amy. But as someone who has had plenty of "little people" jobs I disagree with your advice on how to treat us. Treat us with the same dignity because there is the same dignity in all honest work; what gives it the dignity is the honesty of it. Treat us with the same respect because we are both people; one is not more people than the other. I think you are mixing dignity and respect with consideration. That can be tricky. Sure it's great to be considerate and separate the cans and bottles to make it easier for the can/bottle collector. But a proud collector may leave you a tip for that!

Donald Trump was lucky to have Hillary, and a party with a badly formed message, as his opponent; if this was the 1960s and he was running against, say Hubert Humphrey, he almost certainly would have lost. But he was in position to take advantage of the opening because of all of the work he had done over his lifetime, which made it possible for him to become the GOP nominee at exactly the right time. ~ Cousin Dave at July 7, 2017 7:09 AM

Likely as not, without Hillary as the Democratic candidate, the Republican base would have chosen someone other than Trump. Trump was a response to the coronation of Queen Hillary, as much as he was a response to Washington's tone-deaf dealings with working class Americans.

Early in the campaign, it was obvious the deck was stacked for her to be the party's nominee. Her "it's her time" attitude likely turned many primary voters onto Trump, voters who would have chosen a boiler-plate Republican without Queen Hillary on the opposing ticket.

> I don't think there is
> a bright line

Certainly, Obama was wrong when he said "You didn't build that."

If you paid your taxes and created something good, you built it.

Barack Obama never created 10¢ worth of value in his miserable life. He thinks money comes from telephone calls... Why wouldn't he think so?

It is interesting that those most likely to well in STEM fields or start their own business are children of immigrants or children of working class parents. Perhaps this is because they had a solid upbringing but also it was clear that no one was going to buy them a store or hire them into dad's business.
Here is the thing about bad luck: the 2008/2009 crash was not good for me, of course, but for people who did risky things it meant bankruptcy. And of course, how you respond to bad luck matters too.

Amy, are you sure you picked the right link for Instakid? I don't get it.

And anyone who doesn't believe in recycling to begin with is not going to go to the trouble of separating the bottles and cans from the garbage.

"Likely as not, without Hillary as the Democratic candidate, the Republican base would have chosen someone other than Trump."

Well, yeah. Circumstances played into it. Had things gone differently, it might have been an opportunity for someone else instead of Trump, and then Trump likely would live the rest of his life without becoming President. But Trump has certainly had other types of opportunities in his life, and he's exploited a lot of them to the hilt. Because he was prepared to.

"If you paid your taxes and created something good, you built it."

Yes. And the "something" can be a lot of good things: a building, a business, an invention, a career, a family.

"It is interesting that those most likely to well in STEM fields or start their own business are children of immigrants or children of working class parents."

Hmm. As I have been told the family history, I'm four generations removed from immigrants. But I'm only two generations removed from Kentucky hillbillies, which I guess is sort of the same thing. My father's generation were the first ones to go to college. There are a lot more Southerners going into STEM than there used to be, and I suspect that a lot of them have backgrounds similar to mine.

"And of course, how you respond to bad luck matters too."

Sometimes even bad luck can contain an opportunity. I was laid off from my long-time employer in February 2011. It appeared to be a terrible break at the time. In May, my former employer lost the contract I had been working on, and they laid off everyone who remained on that program. It was then that I realized I was the lucky one: I'd been given a three-month head start, over a bunch of other people with talent similar to mine, on finding another job. Which I did, and it has worked out pretty well.

Entrepreneurship is founded on bad luck. Talk to a number of small business founders and you will find a common thread that they didn't believe anyone would ever hire them. So they hired themselves.

Chief Justice John Roberts confirms his belief in Marxist style social justice by his remarks above. We have seen this before in his saving of ObamaCare, miraculously either/both a tax or a regulation as needed depending on the legal requirements.

He wishes bad luck to 14 year olds for their own good. They are in a better school than average and have wealthier parents than average, so they deserve some bad luck to compensate and literally to teach them a lesson about their white privilege.

This is not "noblesse oblige", which would be to recommend that they use their good fortune to live a great life by undertaking projects which can improve the world. By the way, operating any productive project works to do that.

Roberts is recommending equalization. They should not be proud of their wealth and brains, because they didn't create these through their own manual labor. If not proud, should they feel guilt? I think Roberts is saying Yes. If they don't "deserve" their luck, then who does? The collective?

Roberts' bad message is that people are determined by the circumstances of their birth. Born lucky, you will get undeserved benefits. Born unlucky, you will get undeserved hardship. Your hope is that a concerned Marxist will wield power over you both to even out the results of an unfair universe.

The proper message is to achieve all that you can, lucky or unlucky to start, within a society of personal responsibility, private ownership of property, and a free and fair market. Neither the lucky nor unlucky should be applying to a government for privileges.

If Roberts wants to improve the world for the lucky and unlucky, he could support:

() Deregulate work rules. Enforce contracts, but let people negotiate freely to find the workers and jobs they need.

() Let employers use any test or process they desire to qualify employees. Don't see race discrimination under every employment practice. Stop the idiocy that only schools can administer IQ tests, tests for admission to schools but not for admission to employment.

() Stop spreading the message of soft discrimination, that almost all white people are undeserving of their success, and that almost all brown people need government support if they are to accomplish anything in life.

() Oppose the Rawlsian (Marxist) philosophy that some overseers should be given the power to equalize outcomes by taking from the lucky what they can produce, and giving to the unlucky what they need. History and experience shows that even if the first overseers are angels, they are replaced in following rounds by megalomaniacs "of the people" who use that power to impose totalitarian control for their own benefit.

Fidel Castro of Cuba died with $800 million in the bank. Hugo Chavez' daughter of Venezuela has $4 billion. Castro and Chavez were champions of equality for the people.

>Certainly, Obama was wrong when he said "You didn't build that."

Oh, for fuck's sake, stop with this OUT OF CONTEXT quote.

>If you paid your taxes and created something good, you built it.

No. That is an insult to the people who actually built it.

"Trump was a response to the coronation of Queen Hillary"

Trump was also the response to the - what was it, 15? - lame-o Republican candidates.

Trump brought the GOP to victory over a despised opposition candidate. Let's not forget that about 50 million Democrats refused to vote - as well as 50 million Republicans.

Personally the idea that Jeb Bush had half a chance is as repugnant to me as Hillary "inheriting" the White House - and obviously the family's next move is to pimp out Chelsea and regain influence, if not office.