>Where management is helped more by having resources than it is by understanding it.
There are many examples of lottery winners, athletes, and celebrities who came across considerable resources yet still went broke because they didn't understand how to manage it or the concept of exponential growth.
A fool and his money are easily parted, as the saying goes. People who don't have financial literacy will lose their money over and over again regardless of how much you give them.
There are, but there are also plenty of examples of lottery winners, athletes, and celebrities that came across considerable resources and then lived quite well on said resources. Probably more of those, but the stories are far less dramatic.
You are also picking a category of people that come across enough resources that make them a target to plenty of others. Such that it is almost an adversarial game, at that point.
>Probably more of those, but the stories are far less dramatic.
Evidence shows that having an excess of resources actually leads to more financial irresponsibly, not less. Or as the Illustrious Notorious B.I.G. eloquently put it: "mo money, mo problems":
"The CFP Board of Standards says nearly one-third of lottery winners eventually declare bankruptcy, and lottery winners are more likely to declare bankruptcy within three to five years than the average American."
I love that that evidence actually supports both of us. My claim was that more people that win the lottery do fine than otherwise. Your own evidence is that 2/3rds of them do so. You are focusing on that fact that 1/3rd of them declare bankruptcy, which is higher than the general populace.
That is to say, yes, you have to rack up some bad debts in order to declare bankruptcy. The kind of debts that just aren't possible for most people.
And this is ignoring the selection bias that almost certainly exists here. Buying a lottery ticket is, basically by definition, not a savvy financial move. That it basically works out for 2/3rds of the people that do it speaks to the power of additional resources. :D
The vast majority of lottery winners are not of the instant robber baron generational wealth level. "1/3 of lottery winners" has to be qualified with what the minimum payout was that we're talking about here because obviously a lot of lottery winners are exactly the sort of people who are going to be living paycheck to paycheck, or even in such dire circumstances that they are likely close to bankruptcy anyway. A 50000 or 100000 or even 500,000 dollar/euro lotto windfall is likely to exacerbate their fundamental problems rather than solve them.
There are many examples of lottery winners, athletes, and celebrities who came across considerable resources yet still went broke because they didn't understand how to manage it or the concept of exponential growth.
A fool and his money are easily parted, as the saying goes. People who don't have financial literacy will lose their money over and over again regardless of how much you give them.