i don't understand the point? if i have multiple billions of dollars and my kids want to do something who is going to ask them where they went to school? in fact why are they even going to school?
it's like this thought i had about superman being buff - he's the last person that needs to lift weights
The point is that shaw understands how much luck plays a role in everything that happens. (This is why most of the money in his firm in treasury bills, and even those are disrupted by negative interest rate).
He is extremely risk-averse, even with all of his money.
Hence, if you judge his action trough the lanes of risk minimization, it will all make sense.
> He is extremely risk-averse, even with all of his money.
Perhaps he's extremely risk-averse _because_ he has all this money. Making more money would not have much impact on his life, while losing it would make a significant difference.
That's what struck me from the article. So much risk aversion! And why not? If you have billions, what's a million here and there to guard against potential roadblocks?
It launders and legitimizes their privilege. Presidents and supreme court justices only come from a handful of schools. This is why Joe Kennedy, the most wealthy and famous Catholic in America in his day, had his kids go to elite WASP schools rather than somewhere Catholic that would lock them out of the ruling class. Then again going to Harvard didn't stop his sons from being assassinated, but one did manage to reach the presidency.
it's like this thought i had about superman being buff - he's the last person that needs to lift weights