If I were a Rich Man
88Have you ever dreamed of being rich? What were those dreams like? What does being rich mean to you? What would you do if you were rich?
Would it surprise you to know that there is no universally agreed upon definition of wealth, and that what it means to be rich is a very personal thing? According to the Wikipedia: "The concept of wealth is of great importance in economics, especially development economics, yet the meaning of wealth is not straightforward and there is no universally agreed-upon definition."
To some, wealth is measured in currency. To others in land or cattle. To some, wealthy people are those with a relatively high income. To others, it is net worth that matters. After all, if you own enough to live on all your life and several more lives in the future, who needs income? To some, wealth simply implies controlling the assets belonging to others. For them, wealth is the ability to consume on a large scale while not claiming any ownership or income.
To some, wealth is relative to what other people have. The wealthy are those who have the highest income or the most assets, no matter how little that really amounts to. In a poor country, the wealthy may be those who have enough to eat and a roof over their heads. To others, wealth is absolute, so that you might be a middle or lower class member of a wealthy nation, and even though you have no more than the average person in your country, you have more than enough to eat and plenty of gadgets and space and freedom to make decisions about your life.
These definitions clash. They are not mutually consistent. When demagogues tell us to loot the wealthy, many of us with modest assets and non-existent income get nervous, because we feel wealthy! Do they mean us? we ask ourselves.
What does being rich mean to you? What would you do if you were rich? Do you think that being rich is something to be ashamed of?
And most important of all, would being rich in fact be as good a thing as we imagine it to be?
Cost of the Crown: Noblesse Oblige
The Proportions of An Adult
Wealth as Responsibility
I think that in some sense, to each of us that elusive dream of wealth is a little like a very small child's dream of what it would be like to be a grown up. When we are little, the thing we see as the greatest advantage of adults is their ability to do as they like. Grown ups don't have to ask permission. They make their own decisions. They have lots and lots of money and they buy whatever they want to.
Because the freedom of a small child is so restricted, because everyone is bigger and stronger, because a child is spared most of the heart-breaking decisions that adults have to make every day, a toddler or preschooler might get the impression that the life of an adult is mostly a matter of gratifying every possible whim. As we get older, we see the other side of adulthood, the part that involves taking responsibility and exercising self-restraint. We learn that being a grownup is often about not doing what you want. Sometimes it is about doing what you would rather not do.
Is it possible that if we were actually wealthy (by whatever our own definition of wealth might be) we would never allow ourselves to do the things we dream of doing now?
Babies have an unsually large head and an underdeveloped body
Child's of six or so: The height is 5.5 times the head
- geometry of child proportion 2
towards a geometrical and algebraic understanding of child proportions
Wealth as Maturity
To have wealth and to keep it requires a certain level of maturity. Having money doesn't make people wealthy, as many lottery winners have learned to their detriment. When someone unprepared for the responsibility of handling money comes into a lot of it, the money is soon squandered, and the person who had it is often no better off than before, and sometimes a great deal worse off.
To assume that a wealthy person is just like any other person, only with more money, is to mistake size with maturity. Some babies are born very large. Others are born small. But it is not their size that determines how mature they are. To estimate who is an adult and who is a child, we have to look at the proportions, not the absolute size. A six foot tall baby is still a baby. An adult who only weighs eighty pounds is still an adult. Any artist knows that it's the proportions that betray real maturity.
Fetuses are parasites who prey on the host mother. Babies are dependents who consume but do not produce. As children mature, they are able to do more and more for themselves, until eventually they arrive at a point when they begin to support their own weight and consume an amount equal to that which they produce. To be an adult capable of reproducing, you have to do more than that. You need to produce more than you consume, so that you can support dependents who are unable to support themselves.
The proportions of a child are the proportions of a consumer. The proportions of an adult are those of a producer.
In economic terms, what this means is that an adult is someone who has finished growing and is not always engaged in consumption. When we start earning, our concern is that we be able to feed ourselves. This concern never goes away, of course, but as maturity sets in, less time and energy is spent on getting and using, and more is spent on conserving, protecting and maintaining what you already have.
An immature economy, like a small child, is concerned only with growth. But when maturity sets in, growth ceases, and a period of relative stability sets in. Nobody keeps growing indefinitely. A really wealthy person is not one constantly engaged in making more money. A wealthy person is one concerned with maintaining the economic status quo for himself and his dependents.
Lottery Winners Squander Wealth
- Financial planners: Winning the lottery isn\'t always a dream
It seemed as though Michael Begin was deliberately trying to rain on Lincolns parade when he and his partner, Darl
I wouldn't have to work hard --- Yubba Dibby Dum
Many of our ideas of what it would be like to be wealthy fail to factor in the maturity of an adult into having a great deal of power. It is like the fantasy of a child about what he would do if given unlimited wealth and set free in candy store.
Take the lyrics to the song "If Were a Rich a Man". Don't they represent some of our more naive dreams of what having wealth would mean? Is it true that the rich don't work hard? Or are they workaholics who got rich by working very hard? And, anyway, what would we do with our time, if we didn't have to work hard? Wouldn't we get bored?
Complicating the question is the fact that "work" like "wealth" means different things to different people. Is work doing something that you hate? Or is it just being engaged in productive effort?
I'd build a big tall house with rooms by the dozen, right in the middle of the town!
We'd build a big, tall house with rooms by the dozen right in the middle of the town? Right in the middle of the town?! Why? Do you know the cost of real estate in urban areas? Why pay that much when you could do more for less out in the countryside? Consider the pollution, the zoning regulations, the overcrowding and the crime? Why do people live in cities? Isn't it because they can't make it out there on their own and they want someone to give them a job? If you didn't need a job, why would you live in the city?
To make a big impression on all your friends? How mature is that?
I'd fill my yard with chicks and turkeys and geese, sqwacking merrily as they can
Okay, now it's very nice to fill your yard with chicks and turkeys and geese and to listen to them sqwacking merrily as they can. But, aren't there ordinances that would keep you from doing this right in the middle of the town?
The lyrics to "If I were a Rich Man" are amusing, precisely because that's what a poor man might dream that a rich man would do. But a real rich man would in all probability not do that at all.
The wealthy avoid ostentation. They don't want to make a display of their wealth that will cause envy. It's only the nouveau riche who are known for that sort of thing.
The most important men in town would come to fawn on me
Do the most important men come to call on the wealthy, just because they are wealthy? Or do the wealthy have to hire lobbyists to influence the most important men in town?
Wealth and power may be closely allied, but having money does not automatically give you power, and the most powerful men are rarely the most wealthy. The wealthy have much to fear from demagogues. It's whoever appeals to the people that has the most power.
And I'd discuss the holy books with the learned men seven hours every day
Whether one has dreams of being a scholar or a scientist, one finds that the learned men are not easily influenced by money. The wealthy get their names placed on endowments and university buildings and funded chairs, but academicians rarely allow the wealthy to set the curriculum or make a contribution to knowledge. Being wealthy does not always give one a voice.
Pressures on the Wealthy in Today's Political Climate
Surprisingly, many of today's "rich" appear to behave quite a lot like someone fulfilling an immature dream of what wealth would be like. They take risks to acquire wealth, and then they keep taking the same sorts of risks in order to maintain that wealth. (See the Dvorak story as an example.)
While acquiring wealth requires one to take risks and to gamble, keeping wealth requires much more cautious behavior. In the same way that risk taking diminishes as we mature, a wealthy person is less likely to engage in economically risky behavior. At least, that would be true, absent the sorts of government interventions that are meant to encourage unlimited growth.
(c) 2010 Aya Katz
Monty Python's Flying Circus on the Redistribution of Wealth
Related Hubs
- How Potatoes Changed The World
The Irish Famine -- Scene at the gate of the work-house Appearing in practically every color in the rainbow, the lowly potato has changed the world for many centuries in ways that most have never imagined.... - Elderly and Hoarding
Hoarding is a behavior that comes from fear. Many older adults fear loss. The income has dwindled, and they do not want to go without necessities. Often their idea of useful means holding onto EVERYTHING....
- The rise and fall of Peter Dvorak
Peter Dvorak, the hero of our morality play, in a dunking booth. Our story takes place in the town of Bloomington, Indiana where I live and work. Bloomington, of course, houses Indiana University at...
- Be a Success and Live with Less
Are happiness and peace of mind found behind the wheel of a Ferrari, flying in a private jet, or salivating over the annual growth percentage of your stock market portfolio ? Can we still be a success and be satisfied with less?
The War on Poverty
CommentsLoading...
Ralph, thanks. I'm against Robert Frank's proposal. I think the less the government interferes in the economy, the better. I also think that hounding people for behaving like Ebenezer Scrooge is what gets them to become conspicuous consumers. Leave the misers alone. They know what they're doing.
Well, Frank's proposal would might represent less of a government interference in the economy than our current laberinthine tax code. If we're going to collect taxes to pay for the programs our elected representatives adopt, why wouldn't Frank's proposal to tax certain consumption expenditures be an improvement? My understanding of Frank's proposal is just as you suggest--leave the misers alone and tax the conspicuous spenders--the people who build McMansions and own several vacation properties and perhaps a Bentley automobile.
Well, if we're going to require taxes to pay for programs adopted by our elected representatives, what's wrong with Frank's proposal to tax certain expenditures. This might be simpler than our current laberinthine tax code. My understanding of Frank's plan is to do just what you suggest, leave the misers alone, and tax the big spenders--the guys with McMansions, Bentleys and several vacation homes.
Ralph, if people, rich or not, overspend, don't you think they will reap their own just rewards? Why should the government step in and bail them out?
I'm all for repealing the tax code. I don't mind substituting a flat sales tax, either. But why discriminate? Why not just treat everyone the same?
Have you read any of Thomas J.Stanley's books? I heard the Millionaire Mind four or five years ago, quite good. He has about seven titles, including this:
F.L. Light, thanks for recommending the Thomas J. Stanley books. I will check out the link!
You presented many aspects of the idea of being wealthy. It is subjective of course. Like you pointed out--a person may perceive himself wealthy until he meets another wealthier guy. There is where unhappiness arises.
Thanks for your insightful hub.
Instead of increasing taxes and things to tax, leaning out the government would reduce the need for excessive taxation.
The IRS and Congress have made the definitive meaning of wealthy in their graduated tax scheme. Those that are considered wealthy are classified by their marginal tax rate. The really wealthy are at the top, and the lesser wealthy are below them, and so on.
Aya, I agree with you on repealing the tax code. It is invasive of your privacy, not fair and it is just to darn complex and voluminous.
Anglnwu, thanks! The idea of wealth is very subjective, and how we feel about what we have is very much dependent on our attitude toward life. The happiest people are those who don't compare with others, but who only ask themselves what they would like to have and what they would need to do to get it.
OpinionDuck, thanks! Looks like we're in complete agreement on this one. Thin out the government. Repeal the tax code. Let the economy develop naturally.
To a large extent I think you're exactly right when you question how wealth may be defined, because even for a guy like myself, I consider myself to be well-off, but not wealthy. I own a rental property and own my own home. I am invested in the stock market and keep a large cache of savings close at hand, and I have multiple sources of income. Maybe that's wealthy by some people's measure. My cousin, in fact, thinks I'm rich. Little does she know.
When it comes to taxes and taxing the rich, I think its generally counterproductive. When you tax the rich you tax yourself essentially. The rich, and corporations in particular, have the power to pass along their expenses to others and they do it all the time. A big giant corporate tax, for example, results in lower wages, less benefits, and higher prices for the products we buy at the register. You don't think those companies are going to eat those taxes themselves do you? Of course not. They're going to pass them along in order to maintain their margins.
What I AM for, however, are tax incentives offered to companies who pay strong wages and solid benefits, and tax incentives to companies operating factories outside the United States who bring those jobs back. I firmly believe that on the flip side, the only way you can reduce taxes is by reducing the group of people who would ultimately require services from the government. If people are making money they'll spend money, tax rolls will go up. They'll buy property and tax rolls will go up. They'll be making better incomes and yes, tax rolls will go up.
It's complicated and this is getting long, but that's my two cents.
Great hub by the way. :)
Springboard, thanks! Your examples concerning your own financial situation and the way your cousin sees it is pretty much the way it works for any two people. I know people who think I am well off. I know other people much better off than me, but who would scoff at the idea that they were rich.
I agree with everything you said, except for the part about creating incentives for employers to make jobs available. I don't believe in giving incentives for economic activity, because all subsidies eventually back-fire and create corruption. On the other hand, we would not need incentives, if it were not for all the dis-incentives for hiring people locally, such as, for instance, the minimum wage. Why don't we repeal those, and the jobs will come back on their own?
I love your ideas about what it means to be wealthy. People used to think economics was a dry science for statisticians, but it is a personal thing. Your definition of wealth is similar to mine, without the chickens in the yard. My definition of wealth could be defined "self-sustained security." But being at one with nature is a huge component of this. I've bookmarked this article. Keep writing. Love your stuff!
An interesting article, and lots of good key words to boot, I suspect!
I often ponder these issues too. The meaning of wealth is certainly relative. In my extended family, I'm the least affluent of my generation. So I guess I'm considered something of a failure career-wise, and comparisons of acquisitions like home, car, flat screen TV, etc. are sometimes downright embarrassing. But of the 6 or 7 billion people in the world, I figure I'm easily in the top 10 per cent, maybe much higher. Remembering that always helps put things in perspective. And the reality is I wouldn't trade lives with any of my relatives. I honestly feel I'm the most wealthy in nonmaterial assets-a happy marriage, a well-adjusted kid, good health, and a source of income (though meager) for work that I enjoy-tutoring kids. I must credit my dear husband for affording me the luxury of pursuing what I want to do by being a hard-working executive in a local non-profit.
You must be familiar with Dr. Irene Pepperberg who gave up a potentially lucrative career from a Harvard PhD in chemistry in favor of pursuing her dream of studying language and cognitive abilities in parrots. She has always struggled on an uncertain, shoestring budget, yet I consider her a great success and someone whose choices and achievements I greatly admire. There seem to be many parallels between your career path and hers. I wonder, do you consider her a role model for your own work?
Wannabewestern, thanks! Self-sustained security sounds right to me! I'd add ducks and geese and turkeys to my flock, except that feeding the chickens and keeping their water from freezing is about all we can handle at the moment.
Let's not forget the line 'If I were rich, I'd have the time that I lack to sit in the synigoge and pray - that would be the richest thing of all' which shows Tevya's sincerity and goodness.
I-scribble, thanks! It sounds as if you are wealthy in all the ways that truly count.
I do admire Irene Pepperberg very much, and I am aware of her struggle with funding issues. We met at a linguistics conference in 2007 (before Alex died), and I followed her work for years before that. But, oddly enough, I hadn't heard of her until after I embarked on Project Bow.
Dolores Monet, thanks for mentioning the line about sitting in the synagogue and praying. I chose to quote the one that came right afterwards: "And I'd discuss the holy books with the learned men seven hours every day..."
Let me explain why I chose that line. Tevye prays all the time, not just in the synagogue. He talks to God throughout the day. Even this song, "If I Were a Rich Man" is really addressed to God. So he doesn't really need time to sit in the synagogue and pray. And yet he wants it. Why?
Because he really longs to be a scholar! He really wishes he had time to study the Talmud and argue with the other learned men. What he doesn't realize is that the learned men would turn up their noses at him, no matter how much money he had. That's the reality that all of us face.
Wealth is required for the betterment of life but wealth making a man rich is injurious to life as it will increase agony and anxiety instead of peace of life. Thanks.
HP Roychoudhury, thanks for your comment! The problem is that there is no such thing as disembodied wealth. Wealth, in order to be wealth, has to belong to somebody. Whether it becomes injurious to the person it belongs to very much depends on what he decides to do with it. Hopefully, we each have been given enough wisdom to handle whatever modest amount is available to us.
Currently, in relation to my community of friends and associates I would consider myself the poor one. Yet I have a vehicle and a roof over my head, so I am well off in other comparisons. So that is what I remember each day. I do not live in "poor poor pitiful me" and I attempt everyday to change my circumstances. But recently we were talking about a jackpot winner who won 33 million dollars and pondered how we would spend that, (newer car, travel, give the kids money) when our friend told us that 33 million just really wasn't that much money and suggested all the things that money could be spent on quickly. On that day I had a full tank of gas, a pound of ground beef and a bag of rice and I was feeling pretty content. It's all relative. I have a few wealthy friends and I'm not sure their toys and possessions add one measure of happiness to their lives.
being wealthy is not a bad thing,and unless you stole robbed and killed to get wealthy it is not something to be ashamed of if you earned it the right way.my mother was a millionaire,and I grew up in a very nice neihborhood,the rest of my family thought we was rich and use to call me richie rich,but at the same time I barely saw my mother growing up because her money was coming from two seperate businesses she was running,so she was either at one or the other,so she didn't have time to really enjoy the fruits of her labor.And now that I'm "grown" I feel like I have to live up to the standard that she set.its really hard to explain,but I feel like I have to become a self made millionaire,because my mother was one.Being rich to me means not having to report to a job everyday,being rich to me means having the freedom,and the TIME,to do what you want to do when you want to do.When I become rich I'm going to do whatever I feel like doing,most likely I will play in the creative fields,art,music,writing,movie production..etc. would being rich be as good a thing as I imagine?probably not.It might be better,having grown up the son of a rich woman,I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that being rich is better than working fifty to sixty hours a week for a paycheck.
Band_girl, thanks for your comment! I agree, it's all relative. You appreciate what you have, so you can feel content with less. Many people will never be content no matter how much they have, because no amount is too big for them to spend away. Happiness is an internal state. We each have to find our own, and it's not so much the circumstances, as how we handle them. Thanks for sharing!
Bill Yon, I agree. Being rich is nothing to be ashamed of, however you may define wealth. If your mother was wealthy, and she was also happy, then good for her! Did everything work out okay for her after you grew up?
It's a shame that she didn't get to spend as much time with you as you might have liked, though.
Why do you feel that you have to live up to her standard? Can't you just do whatever makes you happy? I'm not saying don't try to make money. I'm just saying, focus on what you want to do with your life and do that. The money will come. But if you work on the money without doing what you like, thinking that you will later be able to do what you like, once you have the money, I don't think it will actually work out that way. If the way you make money and what you like to do are completely unrelated, then there will always be a conflict between making money and being happy. I don't think there has to be such a profound conflict.
I don't know why I feel like I have to live up to the standard she set.But it seems like I am expected to.all my life I have been expected to excel even higher than my mother.it seems that people around me just know I'm going to shatter the glass ceiling,and you are right,I should do the things I like,and I do,but,I'm an Artist by birth,that is my gift,but that doesn't translate into money so easily,so I have created another way to generate cashflow,I will all ways have my art,my writing,and my music.
Bill Yon, I don't have it all figured out, either. I'm still finding my way, and I am not that young. I feel that I understand what you are going through, because I've been through something similar. What I've learned in my own life is that it isn't always smart to do what seems like the sensible thing -- the thing that is supposed to earn more money. I think really successful people don't get there by selling themselves out. Instead, I think they capitalize on what they do well and enjoy doing. I'm not saying it doesn't take a lot of hard work, but it's work that doesn't violate your sense of who you are.
If you are an artist, there's probably something of a commercial nature that you can do with your art. If you do action figures, for instance, have you thought of going into animation? Whatever you are good at, there might be a way to find how it can be useful to others, too, and that's where the money comes in.
yeah,I'm working on a graphic novel and I have a publisher waiting on a childrens book that I'm working on,but in the mean time....
Bill Yon, that's great! Keep me posted on your progress!
interesting comments and of course even more interesting hub. I love your hubs, keep writing. thanks.
Karina, thanks! It's always very encouraging to get all these great comments and to hold a dialogue with others about issues that I like to think about.
To have 'wealth', surely, must be interpreted as being spiritually and physically fulfilled - which, actually, has nothing whatsoever to do with money. However, I was impressed that you mentioned 'noblesse oblige' which was an ancient concept and one with great validity for those with money. Thankfully, it appears that Bill Gates and many other tycoons understand this - to their credit
Nicks, yes, that's certainly one interpretation of wealth: spiritual and physical fulfillment. However, I do think that for those of us who live in society, money has something to do with that. Unless you are completely self-sustaining, you must trade with others for goods or services, and money is just the means whereby we do that. Noblesse oblige is a very important concept, I agree. But in order for individuals to take responsibility for their dependents, including their employees, the government should stop trying to do that for them.
Thought-provoking hub, Aya. Yes, 'wealthy' is such a relative term. In itself, not bad I should think unless one were to consider how the wealth was acquired!
Shalini, thanks! I wasn't referring to ill-gotten wealth. That is a completely different story! Unfortunately, too many people assume that great wealth is always a result of malfeasance, hence the phrase: "Wealth is theft," or even "property is theft" -- which is one of those stolen concepts, as "theft" pre-supposes property rights.
I think I put that badly Aya - not ill gotten gains but wealth is usually acquired with others helping. That's why I like what you said up there that wealth brings along with it a responsibility.
Shalini, yes, I agree. Acquiring wealth cannot be done without cooperating with many others. There is responsibility that goes along with that, and most truly wealthy people recognize that.
I'm a free market republican, but I think the minimum wage is actually—and I would say unfortunately—a necessary evil. I would not be against a repeal of the minimum wage if I were to see evidence that employees are on the asset column of the ledger sheet instead of on the expenditure side. Employees are as important in the delivery of profits as are sales, as without people to maufacture and deliver goods, you can have no sales.
Too many employers would pay less than a fair wage, I think, in this particular case.
Not to sound my own horn, but I wrote a hub about my ideas; "As A Matter of Fact, American Companies Should Be Patriots."
Springboard, yikes, I'm not sure what to say. In order for employees to be on the asset side of the ledger, then employers would have to own them! That is what's known as slavery. In order for a signed and sealed employment contract to be a real asset to an employer, it would have to be enforceable by specific performance. But they're not. Anyone can quit when they want to. Sometimes there's a money penalty, but you can't hold a gun to their head and make them keep working. That's illegal.
I think if we're really going to have a free market, we have to believe that employers don't unilaterally set wages. Employees are people. They have free will. They have rights. They can negotiate their own contracts. And whatever both sides agree to is fair by definition.
Great hub, thanks for sharing!
Most people dream only about getting rich, but what to do with the money if goal is achieved? That is really tricky question. For many people money could become the sense of existence. I don't blame them. We all need to have some goals. But keeping just for keeping and earning just for earning seems like something not very good...
Great hub - wonderful videos! Wonderfully done - 5 stars! The Fiddler brought back great memories and the first video - wow was that moving - beautiful voice and song. Rated it up! Excellent!
Askjanbrass, thanks!
Thomas Catmark, thanks for your thoughtful comment. The goal cannot be merely to acquire more and more wealth. In the long run, eternal growth is not possible, and mature people understand and accept this. Sometimes we can learn to make better use of the resources we have, and that way we can build a better life without constantly expanding.
KellyEngaldo, thanks! Glad you enjoyed the videos. The juxtaposition of "Cost of the Crown" with "If I were a Rich Man" can be disconcerting, but I think they are two sides of the same coin. And of course, Monty Python is hilarious!
Wow! What an insightful hub. Wealth means different things to different people I guess. A man in India earning the minimum wage in Europe would probably be considered rich back home by many of his friends.
In my opinion, "real" wealth does not come from monetary things. Look at all the so called wealthy people who are depressed, lost focus and literally do not know what they're living for?
The way I see it, wealth only brings out or highlights more the traits that one already had when he or she was not wealthy ... for example selfishness, generosity, self-indulgence, etc ...
I think that it also depends on the amount of wealth that one has ... for example, do you have enough to live comfortably your whole life or do you have so much money that you don't even know how much you have? That also makes a difference to the importance and appreciation that one attaches to wealth.
I don't think that wealth is a bad thing per se (especially if it comes from hard work), it's how you use your resources that makes the difference.
Loved reading your hub and comments + seeing that Monty Python video again was hilarious lol
Cheers,
Marica
Malta Bulb, thanks! I agree: real wealth does not come from "monetary things" -- on the contrary, monetary things sometimes come from real wealth!
My point about fulfillment was that rather than be driven by wealth, is it not better to be driven by passion - with the wealth element a natural add on?
Nicks, I agree! It is far better to be driven by passion, and for wealth to be a natural by-product.
I agree with being driven by passion and constant improvement can lead to wealth.
It seems all of your fans have made all the points I wanted to make about this well written and researched hub. Thanks for sharing is all I can really say at this point.
Dan Carson, thanks! And welcome to Hubpages!
Bearclawmedia, thanks. I'm very pleased with all the varied comments, too. They all had good points to make.
Can I be an apprentice in this fascinating thing called wealth?
Sounds good, if heathen, to me
Katyzzz, what an intriguing idea! "The Rich Man's Apprentice" -- sounds like a great title. Heathen? Well, I'm not sure what makes you say that. Wealth is an equal opportunity calling. As far as I know, there are wealthy people in every faith and denomination...
Now that you made a complete and well defined picture of what a rich man looks like, please allow me to remind everyone of an old proverb”
“A poor man is not the one that has little possessions; it is the one that never has enough”
I believe that to be true and I have seen too many wealthy people losing sleep over unimportant material stuff, so I agree with you it is more than anything else about control. The point about having the maturity to manage wealth is the highlight of your hub
Petra, I'm in complete agreement. It's those who never feel they have enough who are poor, in more than one sense of the word.
One of the best hubs I have come across! I am of the poor, I have little to lose other than my wealth!
Thanks, Jeremey! Hold on to that wealth!
Great Video..lol..if I were a rich man..lol
HTodd, thanks! Glad you liked the Topol video.
This is worth reading. Nice vids too
Thanks, Chris.
 | Amazon Price: $11.76 List Price: $20.00 |
 | Amazon Price: $9.99 List Price: $22.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $9.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $10.99 List Price: $18.99 |
Hot Hubs by Aya Katz
- Why Prejudice is Bad
Everybody agrees that prejudice is bad. I have never in my life met anyone who was in favor of prejudice. There is such universal agreement on this topic that it makes us feel united. Except when it comes to actual instances of prejudice. Then... - 2 years ago
- Gary Cooper, Patricia Neal and Family Values
I am neither liberal nor a conservative. There are things about the liberal platform that I find abhorrent. There are things about the conservative agenda that make me shudder. A friend of mine, who happens to be pagan (but who otherwise harbors... - 2 years ago
- Avarice versus Greed
Avarice and greed are often used as interchangeable synonyms, with greed having the higher frequency of use and avarice appearing only rarely. However, if you look at the finer distinctions in their connotations and their etymology, you will find... - 3 years ago
Ralph Deeds Level 6 Commenter 2 years ago
Interesting exploration of what it means to be rich. What do you think of economist Robert Frank's proposal to tax "positional" (keeping up with the Joneses) expenditures?
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2009/07/08/w
http://libertycorner.blogspot.com/2007/12/superfic