You've got the quote, but completely misunderstand the meaning ...

I was referring to the area of making predictions (with the monkeys at a typewriter), and seeing the future.  In an area where you have a large number of people making predictions, like on the Internet, you are bound to run into a few that are correct.  This links back to what one knows and making sound decisions on what the future would be and position themselves to capitalize on trends that may be coming down that have a platform to act.

In the case of Shakespeare, there were circumstances that came together that enabled his works to be recognized.  And the same goes for Einstein and intelligence.  Change a few things, and possibly they aren't known.  We have a different timeline, or circumstances happen that prevent them from doing what they did, or their works get buried. 

Also show, in this that Einstein or Shakespeare ever became rich.  Did they?

First off, success on the internet is not some random unpredictable thing; and it is primarily driven by people producing a product that meets a need for people. Every software developer I know (including myself) has "kicked themselves" because they have seen the opportunity of several of these breakout successes but failed to act on their instincts; and even those that do act tend to only put in a half-hearted effort and fail to make a service that matches the ones that were eventually successful. The reason why the creators of these sites are rich and successful (above and beyond all else) is because they took the risk and acted on their instincts.

On the topic of the wealth (or lack thereof) of Einstein and Shakespeare I don't see why that really matters ...

Wealth is one of many possible results of extreme success, but there are others; incuding power, fame and respect. The end result of someone's success doesn't change the fact that their success was determined by rational factors and not luck.

Ok, my answer to this is generally.... what?

I mean, why would you think information theory is relevent.  That's like me trying to argue about gay marraige by using the law of thermodynamics.

Information theory is about language and computer programming, that you'd try to use it when talking about assessing the strengths and weaknesses of a market is just... strange.

We aren't talking about a blind search through a bunch of words with no context, like information theory deals with.  We are talking about looking at a society with context and interpeting it.

If your looking at it from a viewpoint where context is irrelvent, that would explain why you think everything is luck.

Complete lack of context.

A market isn't a blank database of words that's invisible.  It's a visible market with every changing variables.  That are visible.  To claim it's luck is like claiming science is luck.

Something I was thinking about today:

If extreme wealth was a product entirely of luck, and nothing else, wouldn't that mean that no studies could be done to attribute wealth to anything but luck? Wouldn't it then be reasonable that wealth, being entirely existent on luck, would be evenly distributed among all countries, and among all socio-economic backgrounds?

If luck was indeed the primary attribute of extreme wealth, then there could be no trend charts or studies to prove otherwise. However, in reality, many studies have been done that can attribute wealth to various factors - none of which are luck.

Since that is the case, from an empirical standpoint, there can't be *luck*, as luck is the absence of skill, talent, or abilities. One can attribute some generic qualities of *luck* like being at the right place at the right time, having certain parents, but I don't think that really qualifies all wealthy people as merely being the ones with luck. Again, if that were the case, then all countries with have a similar statistical distribution of extremely wealthy, which is far from reality.

And Richard, being a Christian, why are you attributing things to something that the Bible is inherantly against? Both James and the writer of Ecclesiastes 3 as well as the book of Proverbs were certainly against the idea of major events being random luck or happenstance. James emplores Christians to pray and ask God for guidance in business decisions, which should make one assume that decisions or success isn't in luck, but in the hands of God. Ecclesiastes (as well as Proverbs) maintains that wisdom, not luck, are attributes of wealth. These ideas agree with the other posters on VGC.

I didn't say ask anyone to prove that possession of extreme weath isn't the case of entirely luck.  What I said was prove that it was NOT MOSTLY luck.  What you have when you go by skill vs luck is the base point to start is

I don’t want to make any claims about anyone on this forum, but many extreme political positions can only be defended by unsupported and irrational beliefs. In the case of extreme wealth redistribution a person has to believe that all economic outcomes (positive or negative) are the result of factors that are either irrational (luck) or unfair (exploitation of the poor). The reason for this is quite simple, people must believe that their political beliefs are "good", "fair" and "correct" and few people could maintain this personal image while supporting significant wealth redistribution if they believed that most people’s economic outcomes were based on rational factors that were within their own control.

Essentially, if you believe that the wealthy small business owner is reaping the benefits of decades of hard work and self-sacrifice, and the high-school drop-out crack head is suffering from the result of selfish and poor decisions, it becomes nearly impossible to argue that the wealthy person should give up the bulk of his income to support the lifestyle of the crack-head.

I would say that it can be argued that the belief a person has in society as a whole to engage in wealth redistribution by government, or other societial entities, to give funds to those who have less, would connect to how much a person believes that where someone in life is, is based on their efforts or not.  In short, how "just" one believes life is without there being intervention by humans to readjust outcomes. 

I would say this is interesting, because take another argument: Why should people who win lotteries or at other forms of gambling in a big way be taxed at all?  Didn't they risk their money?  Why get taxed?  It seems this is seen as less correct then to say that the person was an entrepreneur or investor who took a big risk with their money, and it paid off.  Why should the amount of effort put in be a determinant of how much they would get taxed? 

I can't speak for every country in the world, but in Canada you're not taxed for gambling/lottery income ...

Personally, I believe that all forms of income and all levels of income beyond what is needed for the essential living expenses should be taxed at the same rate.