Because being smart is only a tiny part of becoming rich and most rich people aren't that smart?

Because being rich isn't important existentially?

um....most of my professors are pretty well off.

Plus, a lot of them enjoy what they do and don't care that they aren't making as much money as others.

TC, you are an ignorant moron. If you don't understand how the Free Market works, then why do you try to make such heinous comments about it all the time?

I mostly disagree with the statement that "money can't buy happiness." Not trying to say that money is required for happiness, but not having to be conscious of money takes a lot of things off the laundry list of things that can make happiness difficult.

Yeah +1 abge. I'm taking a class taught by one of the authors of Freakonomics. Between the Ralph Lauren polos and the trips to the golf course and the shelf full of pretentious wines I would say he's living well off the royalties.

Because I got a job that means alot more to me and will make me alot happier than money...

How about you ask half the millionaires out there why if they are so smart why are so many of them miserable

Because they've discovered that by using their impressive intellect they can live a very comfortable and enjoyable life without using too much effort. It always amazed me the number of bank managers and business owners who would work 70-80 hours a week for most of their lives, only to retire and die. On the other hand they could afford a really expensive funeral...

All about priorities, really.

How can any economics professor claim to be knowledgeable without being rich?
The answer you get from the academic is some mumbo jumbo about their being more important things than money.
Of course this notion is thrown right out the window by academics when they are talking about someone else's money that needs to be taken by government to fund their salaries, benefits, and retirement pensions.
Back to the point though.
Academics aren't rich because you only get rich when you take risks.
Academia is antithetical to risk. Academics demand tenure. No matter what they do they run absolutely no risk of losing tenure once it is granted as long as they don't rape the cat so to speak.
Individuals in business bath in risk. They swim in it, eat it, live it, and breathe it.
Risk either devours the business owner or they devour it and become rich.

So an economic professor knows next to nothing about real business.
One of my personal favorite academic economicsts, Nouriel Roubini, started a consulting firm. The firm lost money and Nouriel had to seek new investors and reorganize giving up substantial control to the new investors who were better businessmen.

Because being that rich would make anyone miserable. Lottery winners lives are destroyed, just the weight and responsibility of having to manage that much public wealth would be heavy. I'm absolutely not saying "poor rich man," but I can see how even if the grass is greener, it still has to be watered, cut, and clear of dogshit.

And if TC really put that question to academics at cocktail parties (surprised academics go to cocktail parties) they would laugh at him. What a tell tale sign of a poor insecure soul.

I swear he just copy pastes shit from some retarded ass mailing group that single-handedly proves all the stereotypes.

just another TC fantasy

Abgemacht, so "pretty well off" is rich? If they are rich then did they forego their government pensions and benefits?
I would argue than individuals who are "rich" don't need government pensions or benefits at all because they provided for themselves at a level far superior to anything that government subsidies provide.

I can understand why you would have a problem comprehending "rich."

OK
First, I don't know what most of you even bother because I can tell you right now, TC has almost the entire forum muted.

Second, a *lot* of professors work in industry. My professors have come from Intel, Xerox, and some even had/still have their own businesses. So, there goes that argument of yours.

Of course economics professors don't know business or finance (necessarily). They study economics. The trends of how businesses behave and how the economy runs. Business and finance deal with how to run a business, economics deals with how actors, firms and economies behave. You're basically asking a sports doctor why he can't start over Peyton Manning.

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH stale fart goes your point AGAIN

"I can understand why you would have a problem comprehending "rich.""

Only to TC would this be considered an insult.

Why are you surprised academics go to cocktail parties? Every party I've been to since I was nineteen has been a cocktail party.

Professors may forgo being rich to lead a career devoid of risk, like you say. Honestly, a job where you will likely get paid 100K + per year and have virtually definite job security as tenure track is appealing to a lot of people

I had a good laugh when Levitt was chosen by Time as one of the 100 people who shape our world.
Again, Steven isn't rich, but more people don't understand "rich."
He did do well with his bestseller.
As far as author's go, Steven King is "rich" etc. etc.

So why aren't these professors "rich?"

Facts should insult abgemacht. They are simply facts.
When your idea of "rich" is a college professor living on a government pension as being "rich" it's painfully obvious the term escapes you.

What is rich then TC? Are we talking over a million a year?

Abgemacht, I'm sorry you feel insecure without a mob to give you strength. Try to struggle on by yourself. I know it's something you are uncomfortable with.

Wrong TC. Rich and wealth are relative terms. A professor living on a government pension would be considered rich in more parts of the world than in parts where he/she is not.

I wonder what would happen to TC if everybody agreed with everything he said. We should push the envelope and start saying really fascist shit to see if he'll just come out and admit it.

Because most of us aren't into asking cliched lines from an old superhero cartoon show that leads to us all becoming crazed men in green suits with question mark hats and umbrellas?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYuBJIVmshE

Riddle me this, folks...

Who has two thumbs and is intelligent enough to laugh off TC's attempt at wit?

(Answer: Everyone else reading this...)

If "university elite" are so intelligent then why are so many university systems around the country running record deficits and going broke?
Don't the "university elite" know how to do it better than everyone else?
Aren't the "university elite" the best and the brightest.
You can do research, write "Freakonomics" and make money, but what did you build with it?
The author of "Freakonomics" teaches at a school established by a grant from a businessman.

hey obi you saying I'm stupid? I mean, I'm not rich, so I MUST be!

"Academics aren't rich because you only get rich when you take risks."

Umm... yeah? Try going to a top-tier medical school or law school and see how big a risk you have to take to get rich.

A lot of academics probably are stupid about money. Others aren't. But the main point is, smart and rich just don't correlate that well. Lots of smart people are extremely curious and would much rather spend their time learning things to satisfy and expand that curiosity than doing the kinds of things money would allow them to do. Of course, they do often need people to pay for that research, but that's why they're so happy that somebody will, and they usually don't care for much more than that.

And yes, certainly they complain when somebody cuts their funding. You're quite right that they wouldn't have to if they made money for themselves and used it to conduct their research, but the thing is, that would take lots of time doing things other than research, and they don't want to.

This isn't all of them, of course, but it's a lot.