Are we a society in decline?
>>8141096
because there are now multiple and more exciting mediums of entertainment.
reading was never a very exciting thing to do, it just had no competitors.
>>8141096
There is no correlation between intelligence and literacy. I have met complete morons who read daily. Reading even seems to make some morons think they're anything but, which is far more unpleasant than an illiterate fool.
>>8141106
*tips*
>>8141112
Case and point
>people don't read anymore
Reading for pleasure is a new thing, as is widespread literacy.
Stop talking out of your ass. Post some statistics or fuck off.
>>8141096
>we
>society
Fuck off.
>>8141104
>what is reading fever in the 1700s?
This shit again? People are reading more than ever. Delete this thread.
>>8141119
case IN point.*
>>8141119
>and
Now who's the moron, moron?
>>8141119
>case and point
>and
Case in point
>>8141130
There's was no Internet or tv in the 1700s
>>8141141
Teens still loved reading, regardless. It wasn't boring to them. It was a very exciting medium
>>8141141
The old folk's reaction was pretty much the same as posted by OP.
Every generation has it. I remember my grandpa saying how the feeling of frustration caused by seeing how there was no "real" connection with people because of smartphones seemed trivial to him because he felt the same about newspaper back in the day.
>>8141158
We do it out of love for you, anon.
>>8141158
You should have pointed out how you got 3 replies to a typo and a troll to an "argument".
>>8141158
The balls on this guy.
>>8141096
I go to my library almost daily and the amount of kids and young adults there reading is outstanding. Warms me heart
>>8141531
Wow that's definitely the exception to what's going on around this country.
I'm addicted to stimulus. Trying to nip that in the bud
>>8141531
whenever i go to the library all i see are homeless people
>>8141106
Recreational reading correlates highly with academic success:
>http://www.ala.org/aasl/sites/ala.org.aasl/files/content/aaslpubsandjournals/slr/vol3/SLMR_IndependentReading_V3.pdf
Reading literary fiction in particular also improves empathy.
>>8141122
>>8141131
>>8141531
>>8141643
Pic related
>>8141531
>YA
>reading
>>8142050
wait, so if i read 2 hours a day in a chosen field would that make me an international expert in 3.5 years, and 3 hours a day an international expert in 2.3 years?
>>8142062
I mostly just wanted to point out the statistics on buying and reading books. But if you bought a subscription to jstor and read 1000 scholarly articles in your field, you would probably be pretty knowledgeable, don't you think?
>>8141096
Yes, society is in decline. We are growing dumber on average, while bright minds have more tools to gain information, dull minds have all the necessary means to never have to think.
I suppose a mentally retarded population is better for the smart people though, retards are easier to exploit.
>>8142103
>I suppose a mentally retarded population is better for the smart people though, retards are easier to exploit.
Who is going to do my root canal or fix the fuel injection system on my Porsche? It would obviously be better if everyone was >100 IQ We need smart people to do complex tasks. Pretty much everyone complains about the dearth of skilled doctors, surgeons etc etc.
>>8142129
The smart people are going to do it. While I do believe we're either living in or transitioning to an idiocracy, I believe there will still be bright people present.
>>8141096
Stupid people breed faster and make more noise. The readers are hard to spot.
>>8141531
>YA and Comics
>Reading
Pick one
Reading doesn't make you smart. Reading has been surpassed in terms of effort/enjoyment ratio. Only literal fedoras read to look smart and claim anyone that doesnt is dumber.
>why yes of course, people that don't read are dumber by default.
>>8142103
>We are growing dumber on average
patently false
what's with people and their need to spew nonsense
also OP people read much more than they have at any point in history
>>8142170
Hey look, you put a statement of fact next to an edgy retard, I guess that means the fact is wrong.
>>8142186
Really? How do you explain the massive voter base of Trump and Bernie Sanders? One is a retard, the other is reviving socialism.
I suppose you don't believe smartphones have destroyed the memory of a generation, right?
>>8142194
>Really? How do you explain the massive voter base of Trump and Bernie Sanders
There have been far far far far worse examples of what you're trying to do in the past you're seeming to romanticize.
>>8142200
He didn't say any of that though.....
>>8142095
>But if you bought a subscription to jstor and read 1000 scholarly articles in your field, you would probably be pretty knowledgeable, don't you think?
No, in fact this is why STEMlords shit on humanities retards so hard, because of this belief. Just reading a bunch does not make a person knowledgeable, anybody can memorize random crap via rote. It's actually having the cognitive capability to apply that knowledge that makes the ability to obtain greater knowledge possible, it's why STEM pros have obvious skills and produce concrete results, while being a literature "expert" just means you're some faggot with an opinion. Such an "expert" much write a book which is about as productive as such expertise can be, but even that is hampered by relativity.
If you begin the practice of disregarding the "education" of humanities bullshitters and only listening to people who have proven their knowledge by producing an obviously complex product that unquestionably requires high intelligence/knowledge, you will find yourself reading much smarter authors. Just sayin'.
>>8142211
>much write a book
*might write a book
>>8142200
Huh? Socialism is the worst cancer. I am a constitutional conservative.
>>8142233
>I am a constitutional conservative.
>>8141096
>reads whiney books from each decade
>literally nothing has changed
>people just whine about "the world isn't the way I want it" and people buy their bullshit because of purple prose
>>8142211
>STEMfag claiming STEM requires more than harsh memorization to succeed
>Bashing fields like philosophy, which require critical thinking and analyzing existing concepts
WEW
>>8142211
How does STEM actually increase knowledge? Other than pure science or math, all you guys do is design more durable bicycle tires or more efficient outboard motors. Useful, productive, to be sure, but not really important to the wider human experience. 99% of pure science and math is also completely uninteresting to people outside specialist fields. Just because you're ignorant of the complexities of literature, philosophy, history etc etc, doesn't mean it's worthless. I hate to use the "A" word, but you people really do sound like autists. Sort of a provincial mindset common among lower middle class people and Asians.
>while being a literature "expert" just means you're some faggot with an opinion. Such an "expert" much [sic] write a book which is about as productive as such expertise can be, but even that is hampered by relativity.
>It's a STEMfag thinks art is all relative episode!
Why are you even here m8? Go back to /sci/
>>8142239
>I have never had to solve problems with maths, programming, etc
says more about you than me t.b.h.
>>8142257
practical STEM applications are very much about problem solving and philosophy of design is very much about critical thinking and part of STEM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_design
there's zero point to STEM without a critical approach to design, which ultimately deals with the philosophy behind human experience. it's just the practical side of human experience, things that are actually relevant to a person's day to day life, versus the humanities version which is a bunch of old dudes verbally shitposting about obscure analytic memes which doesn't really matter to anyone outside of academia
>>8142296
>versus the humanities version which is a bunch of old dudes verbally shitposting about obscure analytic memes which doesn't really matter to anyone outside of academia
Why does it have to matter to anyone? This says enough. Most people not in academia should not have a practical grasp of all subjects, if they do it's far too simple to be a field. People are just as likely to have a marine biologists understanding of shark anatomy, ie moot point.
>>8142235
I see you watch anime / read manga, I'll assume that means you are a bernie or trump supporter.
>>8142319
I'm an anarchist actually.
>>8142306
>Why does it have to matter to anyone?
It doesn't, but in that case you should admit that it's just masturbation. STEM isn't masturbation, it's useful both to who applies and potentially other people. Being able to program my own bot is more useful to me and potentially other humans than understanding obscure Taoist dogma in the 18th century.
Nothing wrong with jerking off, just call it what it is.
>>8142325
>STEM isn't masturbation
To who? Where? In what regard? There's plenty mental masturbatory about it. This is transparent.
>>8142331
Producing useful things for other people to experience doesn't seem like masturbation to me. Have you every done so with sick knowledge of philosophy alone?
>>8142336
STEM isn't about production.
>>8142341
nice one liner, I guess it must be true because you said so
>>8142323
PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT
>>8142361
Sorry Jeb Bush didn't get the nomination Mr. Constitutional Conservative
>>8142144
good point, and the stupid people are way too sure while the intelligent are often not sure enough
>>8142296
>>8142325
>>8142336
The humanities are useful enough to people that they buy thousands of non fiction books every year. Laymen are interested in these fields and are willing to buy books by experts. And guess what, these experts had to get a phd from a good school and read articles, and books, and write papers and pass exams, and defend their dissertations. It's been a long time since intellectuals without degrees have held professorships at universities. At the end of the day people are willing to pay for these degrees and pay for the more accessible products of these scholars, and it's their money and they can do what they want with it. Maybe I'm biased since I come from an affluent family, but the banks wouldn't lend art students money if it wasn't profitable.
I don't really see what is exciting or interesting about calculating the eccentricity of Pluto's orbit or whatever, but that doesn't mean I dismiss it as "masturbation." That's because I'm not an arrogant cunt. But maybe you're not an arrogant cunt, maybe you're just confused. I think you have a narrow view of usefulness, in your mind something is only useful if it a) is profitable, or b) solves, an immediate, physical problem, like a water pump or a power generator. It's both, pretty much, since if you design a useful thing and nobody wants to buy it, it's never leaving the lab and it's not going to help all those people you seem to care so much about.
In my view, if something is valuable or desirable to me, then it's useful. I'll pay money for it, and the person who produced it will keep working. Anders Zorn's paintings don't solve anything practical at all, but I would sure like to buy a nice hardback retrospective of his work. I'd argue that philosophical ideas have practical utility as well, considering that the entire Late Modern Period from the Bastille to the end of the Cold War has been jerked around by philosophical ideas like a kitten with ball of yarn.
>tl;dr: why must value depend on profitability?
>are we in decline
Entropy is the only universal constant anon. Of course we're in decline.
>>8141096
I'm reading your 4chan right now, friendo.
>>8143303
Great post, pal
>>8141147
Yes???? Because there was no internet or tv in the 1700s, the fuck are you on about?
People read because it was the medium where one could experience exciting stories and whatnot, which is why pulp-novels were so big.
The medium changed, that is all.
the decline is more reflected by the fact that some people who actually read are still idiots anyway.
>>8141096
The fuck you care if people read? If you like reading then read, leave others alone
>>8142194
And people support Hillary who is an outright criminal and a serial liar. What is your point?
All the candidates are awful this time.
>>8143419
There's nothing wrong with Bernie Sanders
>>8143439
You really think Bernie is a communist lmfao. Go read blood meridian you fucking country blumpkin
>>8143439
>I'm okay with the status quo because I don't know how politics work, and will vote for whatever candidate my party selects for me.
Hate all presidential candidates. Hate Trump.
>>8143457
>he isn't he's a step in that direction
Hahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaha
>>8143459
Good argument, jobless + worthless degree holding bum. Whatever, your candidate is out, go fuck yourself.
>>8143457
> All communists and communist sympathizers should be round up and shot
you must be a HUGE Mussolini fan
>>8143464
>my candidate
hee hee hoo
>>8143466
No, Mussolini was an awful leader and fascism is a weak form of government.
Calling everybody that wont drink the commie koolaid a fascist is a great strategy though, keep it up!
>>8143443
>socialist scum
>you really think Bernie is a communist
>country blumpkin
If country blumpkins are the only ones who can discern socialism from communism, maybe I want to be a country blumpkin.
>>8143469
If you aren't read enough to be an anarchist, you aren't read enough to be here.
>>8143467
Let me know when you have something to say
>>8143470
What was the point of those quotes, they're totally post structuralist
>>8143472
How much do you need to read to become an anarchist? I'd assume it is 0 books, since Anarchism is a fairy tale for bitter retards.
>>8143473
Ok I'll let you know when I have something to say.
>>8143469
Literally, you are arguing for fascism
>>8143475
check yourself shitlord faggot. our realities are made entirely out of language, nigger cockboi.
>>8143480
I wont hold my breath, I know you have nothing to say.
>>8143479
Hahahaha
A lot actually. It's a bit too deep for the alt-right though. Which requires, I think around zero books read and lack of a high school diploma.
>>8143479
Well, technically, an anarchistic state that doesnt degenerate into a bunch of delinquents would require smart, competent individuals, so at least 7 books
>>8143482
The alt right lunatic collapsing in on itself.
>>8143485
The alt right are disgraceful, keep making assumptions though.
Really? Anarchism isn't a ridiculous fairy tale? How in the world do you plan to realistically maintain order in low IQ communities?
I'd imagine anarchism has the same requirement as communism / socialism: A home in university, and zero experience in the real world
>>8143494
>Really? Anarchism isn't a ridiculous fairy tale? How in the world do you plan to realistically maintain order in low IQ communities?
when did you start posting here. What have you even read on the matter.
That's my point.
>>8143499
Nope. Nobody with "a low IQ", has to die. It is absence of state.
>>8143491
Hey, man, I'm a part of history. I'm poor and climb trees all day despite being white. I'm a fucking legend.
>>8143499
>so Id assume youd kill every low IQ person? Sounds interest.
No, just the ones that apply """implies""" from my words.
You cant have a bunch of dummies not being smart, whos gonna make the food
>>8143500
I havent been posting here long, though I have read up on anarchism on both sides. I find left, communist style anarchism is garbage, and I find the right, Anarcho capitalism style of anarchism to be garbage. How do you deal with stupid people in either of these systems?
>>8143503
The Alt Right lunatic collapsing in on itself
>>8143507
Reading up is not reading. You read a Wikipedia article wow congrats psued.
>>8143510
>can you try again in English?
No kill. How food, yall
>>8143510
Figure it out lol. I'm not here to give you a bed time story
>>8143514
>Wikipedia
Not in a million years. Are you not used to dissenting opinions? Its okay, I'll leave your safe space soon.
I agree that the government is too large, okay? I think that if it were possible to live without a state, that would be the way to live. However, a rational person cannot simply dismiss the stupid people that rely on the state when dreaming up a stateless utopia.
>>8143519
Okay, we'll kill them. That seems plausible.
Get on the treadmill, that weight isnt healthy.
>>8143521
I don't think you're used to dissenting opinions actually. Stop having the vernacular of Trump for shit posting purposes, it's actually really annoying
>>8143509
Hate me if you want; I eat pulled pork and pack lips of Grizzly tobacco, sit on my front porch drinking Bud heavies and yelling at cars, 'SLOW DOWN! IT'S A FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD.'
Perhaps, more importantly, I match with hundreds of girls on Tinder and use gifs of Slavoj Zizek to undermine their world views.
>>8143524
Nope. We don't kill them. We do what we're currently doing structured differently in the absence of state and market power, through orginization in different unexplored means.
If you can't figure out ideas this simple to grasp, again, you shouldn't be posting here.
>>8143526
Enjoy your early death due to
A. cancer
B inactivity
>>8143526
The alt-right lunatic collapsing in on itself
Only people who don't read, and people who've read too much, think that reading doesn't make you smarter.
>>8143525
Good argument, you fucking mouth breathing retard.
>HE INVADED MY SAFE SPACE AND IS TRYING TO GET ME TO EXPLAIN MY IDEAS!!! WHAT DO I DO!?!?!?
>>8143536
That's actually not what I said. I said you're clearly not used to dissent.
>>8143539
I'm waiting for an argument, you arent saying anything.
>>8143524
Fun Fact: Milton Friedman proposed a social safety net for those that need it, even considering that it would mean minarchy
>>8143531
Man, I told you I climb trees. I'm also the face of the alt-right because I look like I was carved of marble by the gods. I can live without gums.
The real cause of death will be Parkinson's developed after years of playing rugby and sustaining head trauma.
>>8143534
Tinder girls are soft in the brain, ready to be molded. I send them my screenplays and they unmatch me.
>>8143541
Im waiting for you to actually find a book about the subject and read from the source so you have an excuse to be here right now
>>8143546
I didn't realize that drinking the anarchist kool-aid was a requirement for posting here.
>>8143545
So you have brain damage? That's why you're in the alt-right.
>>8143545
I did not see that.
Enjoy your life, my mentally unstable /fit/ friend.
>>8143550
If you want to talk about a subject, read from the source. this board is about literature, fiction and non-fiction, agreeable or disagreeable.
If you can't stomach it, you're right, you shouldn't post here. This is less of an echo chamber then other boards are.
>>8143555
Okay sure, which books should I read on the subject, then? I hope you'll give me that at least.
>>8143555
>then
>>8143558
I'd start with Bakunin. Work your way around Spanish Civil War thinkers. You don't have to read all of it, enough to understand the working logics. I'm going to bed.
I'm just reading the end of Some Rain Must Fall By Knausgaard, and the literary culture in Norway in the 1980s / 90s is so great. He writes a handful of reviews and gets job offers to become a professional reader or a full-time reviewer. He meets the editor of a publishing company and two of his buddies are published in their early 20s.
>>8143551
to assume that society as a collective does not have brain damage is the real crime here. Look at the furry orange peel heading my movement. He's never looked as pure as I do in his life. He's never read thousands of pages of philosophical texts only to become embittered at the world, yet people flock to sappy attar.
>>8143553
chicks love mental instability. You haven't lived until you've been insane in a tree.
>>8143558
Also Kropotkin is a must
>>8143558
Put down Art of the Deal for a second and listen to /lit/.
Also, check this one out too
>>8143561
Sure, I'll read them thank you for the suggestions.
>>8141096
DUDE I KNOW LIKE
PEOPLE
WHO LIKE
DONT READ N R SMART
HA! TAKE THAT BIGOT
UR ARGUMENT IS INVALID ;)
No, but seriously, one of the signs of a civilization in decline IS the decrease in literarcy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h3qDNMe7rA
Here, McLuhan weighs in on it.
>>8143566
The art of the deal was a shit book, stop making assumptions.
>>8143570
My bad
>>8142237
11 hours since this was posted, no one replied.
Really?
I can only add: /thread.
>>8143587
Gee, i wonder why, you ass.
hey /lit/ I heard you don't read books, let me show you something
>>8143691
That's a big garage
>>8143745
fuck you
>>8143748
Hey easy pal, I just like garages ok!
>>8141096
>anymore
First, you're mistaken if you think the majority of the world used to read. Just a few centuries ago, give or take one or two, a good amount of people were too illiterate to read anything beyond the simplest children's books.
Second, the number of people reading today has actually grown tremendously from the past, if you count all of the genre fiction, and the internet as reading, or middle aged women reading pop fiction. Just think of all the women who read anything Oprah recommends and shit like that. There are a ton of people reading today.
Not to mention all the writers who work in the entertainment industry. There are a lot of fucking employed creative writers in the world today. Most of them read, they have to.
If you look at book sales for new genre fiction books, they are pretty damn high all things considering.
Third, if you're just referring to non-fiction, there was and will never be a large body of people reading it. Today, the entertainment industry has grown and there are so many more enjoyable ways to relax than genre fiction, but non-fiction can never be replaced by any other medium other than books. However, non-fiction will never appeal to most people. It will always be a very, very, minuscule group of people in the world who are interested in it.
>>8143303
Awesome post.
Also, that pic is sad. Makes me realize how much all the guys on the right are essentially comedians / celebrities, but they're listened to way more often. It almost betrays the fact that not much has changed in the world despite the supposed increased literacy of the world.
Jesus and Socrates didn't write anything down.
Why should we take them seriously if they weren't /lit/erate?
Maybe they were just leaders inan insane asylum.
You're being ridiculous if you seriously assume that reading is on the decline when literacy rates have never been higher and the quantity of literature has been increasing exponentially. Of course, the real question is the quality of the writing and where they are receiving it from, which is mainly in blurbs and tweets rather than long form or books. But really, reading has never been as popular as it has.
These are purely anecdotal observations, but I think the reason that there is an apparent decline in people reading is that there are more avenues for entertainment. In the 1980s, there was only television and a nascent video game industry. In a third-world country such as ours, there were no cable channels then. As a result, people either had the choice of television, or reading. I was lucky that my parents chose reading.
Contrast the time then to now, where there are just too many options with the Internet, a well-developed video game industry, and many avenues for entertainment. Reading takes effort and much thought, and lesser human beings tend toward laziness: as a result, less people read as extensively as people did then. Consequently, there are fewer intelligent people.
One pediatric journal published a report, however, that because of parents' reliance on technology, there is an increase of children developing ADHD and a decrease in the general IQ of a lot of these children. Their reason is simple: the abuse of technology during the child's earliest years stultifies their ability for imagination, and this affects their mental development. I do think there is credence in this belief, seeing that millennials, among them my brother, are less intelligent than the generation prior to them.
>>8142197
>trump, the intellectual's candidate
>a retard
Don't be a cuck, friend
>>8143536
Haha, persecution complexes! They're not just limited to one side of the political spectrum, folks!
>>8145829
>the quantity of literature has been increasing exponentially.
it is a matter of proportion
>>8145914
>makes billions
>retard
come on, you can atleast be less biased and say "too boisterous a personality" or etc etc but someone has some idea of what they're doing after that much success.
Gj falling for the bias politics meme.
>>8143717
Are you going to the Olympics :)
>>8142162
I only read in the privacy of my home. I don't ever talk about it with my friends. I don't necessarily think it makes me smarter, but there are definate benefits. I also watch TV/movies. I don't own a fedora.
I feel like most /lit/ posters are in the same boat as me, besides the maybe the fedora part.
>>8146335
>makes billions
you mean
>inherits billions
>>8146591
He inherited took a loan of a milliion from his father. He turned that into over 10 billion. Nice try, though.
Even among the population that reads I don't think many read nonfiction. It's nowhere near as enjoyable.
>>8141104
I'd say so, yeah. Reading is even harder phisically, you have to hold a book heavier than a phone or tablet, you have to force your eyes even more than if you were watching a screen. You need to be in a place with good light, you are expected to make a bigger mental effort.
But for the most part, I'd say there's no percived value in reading anymore. All entretainment is avaliable in faster and easier ways, and people normally don't care for learning that much. They want to have fun rather than watching a story unfold or a character develop.
People won't care if you read, nor will find it attractive by itself, and it don't make good conversation theme since most people don't read and when they do, they read simple, supperficial things and/or don't care about discussing it.
Plus, in some countries (like mine) books are very expensive and only popular stuff can be found in bookstores. This can be bypassed by getting an ebook reader but if you don't read that much to begin with, you won't spend your money on it.
>TL;DR: Reading is more unpractical than watching Youtube on an IPhone and its seen as an obsolete, complicated hobby.
>>8142257
I love literature and philosophy, and also study hard science, and I can assure you, both need one and the other to exist. Take self referential recurssion, for example. Things that reference themselves to do stuff (a=5, if a <= 10, print "OP IS A FAGGOT" and add 1 to a, etc). The example is crude but when you go deeper on that, things that reference themselves, in highly complex ways, have philosophical implications to them. All math and logic, and even quantum physics (universe has a probabilistic nature) embed huge human questions and should always be looked at from that perpective. If you just thing they are stupid numbers you add up to make bycicles, well sure, science is just a bunch of cold, sterile numbers on a screen.
Not to mention, philosophy has always take scientific concepts to evolve and find inspiration, all the way back to the greeks (who, aside from philosophers, where mathematicians).
Just an opinion.
>>8142331
What's wrong about literally or metaphorically jerking off? I hear this all the time. Its fun and gives you pleasure. Just don't make a big deal out of it.
test
>>8144065
>essentially comedians / celebrities, but they're listened to way more often
I'm not trying to sound like an elitist because I know that the average person isn't really that stupid, but they are just so lazy. They only listen to people who can make a point in a 3-5 minute youtube video and then go about accepting that knowledge as absolute truth because the man they heard talking had a bar the said "professional scientist" floating at the bottom of the screen.
I think most people on /lit/ have had that "existential crisis" at one point where they freak about about it all being meaningless, and while it is childish to brood on this for a really long time, I don't understand how some people just don't care at all; it's like they're too lazy to think about it hard enough to actually get upset.
>>8147090
he was given $1 million out of school by his father after school.
>Trump's campaign didn't respond to CNN's question about when his father gave him the $1 million loan -- though it appears to have happened before Trump entered the Manhattan real estate market in the early 1970s.
If Trump's father made the loan in 1968, the year his son graduated from the University of Pennsylvania, that $1 million would be worth $6.8 million in today's dollars, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index inflation calculator.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/26/politics/donald-trump-small-loan-town-hall/index.html
then he INHERITED $200 million when his father passed away in the 80s
>In the early 1980’s Trump inherited $200 million from his real estate tycoon father and in the past 30 years he has managed to grow his fortune to an estimated $4 billion.
>Trump claimed in a recent press release that his net worth was $10 billion, but most estimates place his fortune somewhere around $4 billion. He also was accused of overestimating his wealth in 1982 when he said he was worth $500 million. Either way, this is certainly a ton of money.
>Ironically enough, however, he would have made more money had he done absolutely nothing, and just let the money sit in a mutual fund to collect interest.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/business-genius-numbers-paris-hilton-entrepreneur-donald-trump/
He claims to be worth "over 10 billion," but that number does not hold up to any scrutiny. He's like those Oprah "the Secret" people, he says stuff as a positive affirmation that he can make it true. He's a bullshit artist.
>>8142050
>have spent an hour shitposting every day since 2006
>am apparently an international expert in my field
>>8148135
I just started reading again for the first time since graduation, and I hadn't realized how much I missed it.
It's like TV for your brain.
>>8148217
He turned a relatively small amount of money into lots more money. Thanks for all those articles I didn't read though.
>>8148217
>he would have made more money had he done absolutely nothing, and just let the money sit in a mutual fund to collect interest
I always see people post this, but which fucking mutual fund are they talking about? $500mil to ~$4bil is a 800% increase, and those figures are based on his overestimate and the accepted underestimate for his wealth (i.e. the least growth possible).
Can you really say people read in the first place? I mean, for most of history only few could read, and widespread literization efforts didn't start until relatively recently. Also, do you think most people who can read, and have read in the modern era, read deep philosophical shit, or book equivalents of what would be shitty TV shows or porn now?
