Uneasy With Wealth and Riches?

1. 84

   gmwilliamsposted 9 years ago

   
   Why is the subject of wealth and rich a contention among some people?  Why do some people abhor wealth?  Money is only an instrument and a means of exchange.  However, don't people realize that wealth creates opportunities for others and helps one lead a better life filled with myriad choices.
   
   Wealth means that one has better quality of food, education, and health.  Wealth means being able to travel and to have ownership of one's life.  Wealth means not having to depend upon others and having to live on crumbs.  Wealth means multiple opportunities for oneself and family.   Let's discuss this.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Dear gmwilliwams,
         Wealth is something everyone wishes they could win through the lottery. Therefore no one is opposed to wealth. I would say they abhor OTHER people's wealth.  Perhaps, to them, wealth means others are somehow better and more powerful than them.
      If they could just realize the actual hard work and constant grueling effort it is to become and stay wealthy. It is something very hard to pull off unless you have been born into it.  Even then, some loose their inherited wealth. (Of course, others learned how to manage it while growing up and are therefore successful at managing and growing their inheritance.)  I really think that being wealthy is a matter of Karma. It is rarely just dumped in to one's lap. Those who do win the lottery generally loose it through mismanagement.
      So, in conclusion, one should aim to hit the ball where it lies.  And get off the golf course when it rains.
      TWISI

      replyreport
      1. 84

         gmwilliamsposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         While some are born into wealth, others become self-madevwealth wise by attaining the prerequisite education, making sacrifices, working smart, and organizing smart.  Wealth entails a positive mindset regarding money and WORK.  It is sad how many people have a negative or in the least, a less than positive mindset regarding money.  These people view wealth as so negative and this attitude explains why they are constantly struggling, keeping one's head above water socioeconomically.
         
         Wealth is a great thing.  It affords one a life beyond barely and merely existing.  Wealth is the difference between always budgeting and scrimping and getting anything one's heart desire.  Wealth is the difference between living in a safe neighborhood with all the conveniences and living in a neighborhood where one MUST constantly watch his/her back.  Wealth is the difference between excellent healthcare and modicum healthcare.   Wealth is the difference between great education and schools and inferior education and schools that could negatively impact on a child's future. 
         
         Wealth is the difference between happiness and despair.  When one is socoeconomically struggling, looking for a way to put a roof over one's head and food on one's table, one is NOT HAPPY.  Wealth is being financially free, not being two paychecks from homelessness.  Wealth is besides an excellent salary in the high five figures or more, myriad investments and enough monies to live life at a TOTALLY OPTIMUM LEVEL!  Wealth = having the monies to have COMPLETE OWNERSHIP of one's life and destiny!
         
         Wealth and success DON'T come easy,   Want wealth and success? Be ready for the long haul of HARD, SMART WORK.
         Be ready for the long haul of MAKING SACRIFICES and DELAYING WANTS in order to OBTAIN FUTURE GOALS.   
         Be ready to PLAN, STRATEGIZE, and ORGANIZE towards one's goals.
         Be ready to choose a FULFILLING CAREER that is ALSO FINANCIALLY LUCRATIVE.  Having a job/career one loves and is passionate about is oftentimes equal to success beyond one's wildest dreams.
         ABOVE IT, have a WILL ACHIEVE and CAN DO mindset!
         

         replyreport
   2. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I don't abhor wealth nor am I jealous of others who have more wealth than I do.  I get tired of being accused of hating the wealthy when I point out that the wealthy become so with a little help from their friends, usually friends who work for them, and that those friends should be fairly compensated.  They also take substantially more advantage of a vast infrastructure created and maintained by taxpayer dollars and should contribute accordingly.
      
      [Yes, I know the definition of "fairly compensated" is debatable and has been debated ad nauseum and I'd rather not get into it again.]

      replyreport
   3. 75

      Rod Raineyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      "Chaos in production and unlimited competition in the market have led to the organization of powerful monopolistic Capitalist associations -- trusts, cartels and syndicates, which, since the beginning of the twentieth century, have gained tremendous influence on the economic and political life in each industrially-developed country. From that time onwards the development of Capitalism followed the path of combining industrial and financial capital. It entered a new phase in its evolution -- the phase of Imperialism, which is the final stage of Capitalist development.
      
      Capitalism in its present stage has reached the full maturity of Imperialism, when financial capital has assumed its most commanding positions. Beyond this point, the road of Capitalism is the road of deterioration, a process which will be painfully reflected in the lives of the working population. The specific characteristic of Imperialism is the concentration and centralization of capital in syndicates, trusts and cartels, which at the present time have a decisive voice, not only in the economic and political life of their countries, but also in the life of the nations of the world as a whole.
      
      The intensive export of financial capital to other countries, the organization there of industrial enterprises, the great interest in the exploitation of natural resources and of the human labor force, are all so closely linked with the interests of the national imperialists that they have actually abandoned the idea of the "fatherland" as a mere prejudice, leaving it to those they exploit, and have themselves become internationalists.
      
      Capital knows no fatherland. In our own days gigantic trusts have enveloped a number of States. All these associations have one and the same purpose -- the domination of the world -- and they find themselves in deadly conflict with each other. Such a condition of capitalist society brings forth a bitter struggle for markets. This struggle keeps the countries in a state of "armed peace", periodically turning into war, as it did in 1914-18. This Imperialist war resulted in an unequal division of the world among the victors, and has brought about a new and more intense rivalry which will inevitably lead to a second and even more terrifying world war at the expense of the proletariat and the peasantry. Imperialism is the source of war, and humanity will suffer from wars as long as Capitalism exists." ~ G. P. Maximoff 1927
      
      Don't hate the players, hate the game.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Sure. But what other game is there?

         replyreport
2. 61

   janesixposted 9 years ago

   I am not opposed to wealth, or money, in and of itself.
   
   I am opposed to people having so much wealth that it is a detriment to other people and society as a whole. I am opposed to Americans using up the majority of the world's resources (which equates to wealth). I am opposed to any individual, corporation, nation or institution (such as the Catholic Church) having such a huge amount of the wealth of the world that half of the world lives in poverty.
   
   If the world had a never ending supply of resources, I wouldn't care less who had billions of dollars.
   
   The world isn't a cornucopia. The supply of almost everything is limited.

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      How can being wealthy be a detriment to others?  Because they are jealous?  Blaming wealth for emotional reactions from others doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? 
      
      Bill Gates has billions of dollars, and a big house.  Neither hurt anyone else and neither are a detriment to others that I can see.  He uses a little more energy, but it's not like we don't have enough to go around, and what Gates uses is mostly pollution free to boot, so how is his wealth a detriment?

      replyreport
      1. 61

         janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         But we don't have enough to go around. Not by a long shot. We don't have enough of almost everything to go around. I explained it in my post.
         
         There is a limited supply of the worlds resources, which are QUICKLY running out. Probably not in our lifetimes, or even those of the next generation. But it starts to get tight after that. Once one domino falls (like available clean water for agriculture) the others will probably shortly follow. The infrastructure is all tied together, and based on limited resources. Easily available oil may run out sooner rather than later as well.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            How do the wealthy have anything to do with all of that?
            Specifics if you can. (I promise I won't edit myself since it bugs you so.)
            Looking Forward to Being Enlightened.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               You and Wilderness have basically the same question, and I answered you guys both in the response to him.
               
               (I do appreciate you not editing, by the way, and thank you for addressing that issue. I like you and our discussions ,and would like to continue to do so)

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Thank You!

                  replyreport
         2. 95

            wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            No we don't, but only if you consider it world wide - there is plenty for everyone in the US.  And Bill Gates mansion has exactly zero effect on some starving villager in Uganda; if he didn't have it the villager would still be starving.
            
            So all his wealth (mostly just bookkeeping entries) does not negatively hardly anyone.  Why is it detrimental?  Or am I not making sense?

            replyreport
            1. 78

               Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               How/who world wide?

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  There might be enough food to feed everyone in the world, but it cannot be distributed so some will go hungry.  There is certainly not enough energy being produced to give everyone what Americans have.  Nor is there enough cars, homes, computers or anything else.

                  replyreport
            2. 61

               janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               "No we don't, but only if you consider it world wide - there is plenty for everyone in the US."
               
               This is possibly true. We can feed ourselves, and we could probably supply our own energy, we have quite a big reserve of our own oil etc. But there are things that still need to be addressed, such as how corporations dump chemicals into our water supplies, and the worldwide effect of deforestation. That's the very air we breath. Deforestation in Asia and the Amazon are real problems, or will be if not stopped.
               
               "And Bill Gates mansion has exactly zero effect on some starving villager in Uganda; if he didn't have it the villager would still be starving."
               
               I would say little effect, but not zero. The effect of ALL the people, corporations etc. has a cumulative effect. (Even I contribute, yes, because I use more that my fair share of the world's resources.)
               
               "So all his wealth (mostly just bookkeeping entries) does not negatively hardly anyone.  Why is it detrimental?  Or am I not making sense?"
               
               Think of it this way. He has a lot of "stuff", which takes resources to produce. Again, the effect is cumulative.

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  … specifics are needed.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     What specifics, exactly? Like on resource depletion?

                     replyreport
                     1. 78

                        Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        More than half of the world's timber and 72% of paper is consumed by 22% of the world's population (the United States, Europe, and Japan). Worldwide, industrialized countries consume over twelve times more wood products per person than non-industrialized countries. The United States has less than 5% of the world's population yet consumes more than 30% of the world's paper (Rainforest Action Network).
                        
                        Deforestation occurs around the world, though tropical rainforests are particularly targeted. Countries with significant deforestation currently or in the recent past include Brazil, Indonesia, Thailand, the Democratic Republic of Congo and other parts of Africa, and parts of Eastern Europe,according to GRID-Arendal, a United Nations Environment Program collaborating center.
                        
                        Though deforestation has increased rapidly in the last 50 years, it has been practiced throughout history. For example, since 1600, 90 percent of continental United States’ indigenous forest has been removed. The World Resources Institute estimates that most of the world’s remaining indigenous forest — about 22 percent of its original amount — is located in Canada, Alaska, Russia, and the Northwestern Amazon basin. The Amazon is a highly targeted area of recent deforestation.
                        
                        Causes of Deforestation:
                        
                        Deforestation is typically done to make more land available for housing and urbanization, timber, large scale cash crops such as soy and palm oil, and cattle ranching. The World Wildlife Fund reports that much of the logging industry that contributes to deforestation is done illegally (about half of it used for firewood).
                        copied from this site:
                        http://www.livescience.com/27692-deforestation.html

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           The problem seems to be way worse than that. Look at my new thread on it if you want.

                           replyreport
                           1. 78

                              Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              - will do.

                              replyreport
               2. 95

                  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  He does have lots of stuff, but that isn't the point.  The point is that his collection of resources (minor compared to his wealth) is not detrimental to others.  No one suffers and consequences from it.  Were those resources not in his control it still won't help that villager, it won't even help the homeless in Seattle.  All it would do is put the houskeeper, butler, maid and cook out of work.
                  
                  Even if you talk about your wealth and mine, pitiful as it is, it isn't detrimental to anyone else.  It won't help the villager if you give up your computer, home and car, or if we all do.  It will just mean that we  will now be as poor as the villager, as hungry and as unable to support ourselves as he is.  Only by teaching the villager to produce his OWN wealth can we help him, not by giving ours up.
                  
                  There are notable exceptions, such as pollution, but very few people can negatively affect the world in any measurable amount that way.  The people of the US can, but to change will put us all in the same state as the villager.

                  replyreport
                  1. 84

                     gmwilliamsposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     Total logic used Wilderness.  Excellent logic indeed, YOU always present inductive and deductive logic in your responses!  Why are some people in angst over others having wealth?  Why are some people have a negatively visceral response to wealth and riches?
                     
                     Wealth insures a better quality of living and life than poverty.   What makes people abhor wealth, glorifying in a poverty consciousness of want?   Humankind is meant to live at the MOST OPTIMUM socioeconomic level possible.  It is not wealth that causes ills, but POVERTY and BEING POOR.  It is poverty and being poor that causes much of the malaise in the world, such as many sorts of crime. When will PEOPLE GET THAT?
                     
                     The reason why so many people are poor in the United States as that they CHOOSE to be such by their mindset and life choices.  No one forces one not to achieve at his/her most optimum level and not to use his/her human potential.  People choose to be poor by succumbing to their negative environment via listening to negative people in their family, their peers, and environment. 
                     
                     People choose not to educate nor better themselves, being satisfied with very little.  They also were inculcated with the premise through their religions that wealth and being rich is EVIL.  They are further told by such religious authorities to attain their wealth and just rewards in another life but to SUFFER while on earth!  If one is physically, mentally, and psychologically able, there is NO EXCUSE not to better oneself.

                     replyreport
                  2. 61

                     janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     Still, I'm saying the effects are cumulative. The US uses a HUGE chunk of the worlds resources. We not only use our own, we are the major consumers of other countries resources.
                     
                     I'm just saying the worlds resources are limited, and we are using them up quickly. Mostly the US, and big corporations.
                     
                     I'm saying, this can't be sustained.
                     
                     Can ANYONE agree with that?

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        I agree with that.

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           Thank you.
                           
                           That some people are able to acknowledge there actually is a problem, is hopeful to me.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              I think many people recognize the problem and many grass roots movements have been created to combat the problem.  However, big money fights legally and fights dirty to keep their stranglehold on resources and power.  It is difficult to make real headway.
                              
                              Edited to add:  Some people are incapable of thinking globally.  Also, some people are incapable of moving forward with new ways of dealing with resources and people due to fear and paralysis.  Some posts on this thread are from people like that.

                              replyreport
                              1. 61

                                 janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 This is unfortunate.
                                 
                                 I don't think anything major will be done until things reach the crisis point, and then it may be too late.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 95

                                    wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                    Unfortunately the crisis point has already been reached, particularly with China quickly developing their industrial base.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 61

                                       janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                       Has it? I didn't realize that.
                                       
                                       Maybe there's really nothing to be done then.
                                       
                                       I see the US surviving, although at a much reduced quality of living. And other countries who can both feed themselves and produce energy. Maybe Russia.

                                       report
                                       1. 95

                                          wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                          Well, I see it as a crisis point.  If something isn't done quickly, the rapidly increasing standard of living in China will require resources currently being used else where.  And that's what causes wars.

                                          report
                                          1. 61

                                             janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                             That would suck. I haven't even thought it through that far. I was just thinking about running out. Fighting over what's left though, I guess it could come to that.

                                             report
                     2. 95

                        wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        I, too, agree with that - I just don't see it as particularly "detrimental" to use resources to live with.  We simply cannot sustain the rate of population growth in this world, but at the same time I don't see anyone volunteering to die to preserve resources.  We all continue to use them.
                        
                        And either way, to say that it is "detrimental" to have a huge stock portfolio just doesn't make sense.  Nor is preventing, somehow, accumulation of wealth a solution to over using earth's resources; the only thing that will help there is to reduce the population.  Perhaps Ebeneezer Scrooge had it right - just reduce the surplus population.

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           It's a combination of population growth and overuse of resources.
                           
                           I'm not saying it's all our fault. In fact, "developed" countries don't add to the population growth problem. We have an average of 2 kids or something like that. Our problems stem from a combination of these things.

                           replyreport
                           1. 95

                              wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              Actually, the reproductive rate of American citizens is well under replacement value.  Less than 2 kids per couple, in other words, with population growth coming from immigration.

                              replyreport
                     3. 75

                        Rod Raineyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        Agreed

                        replyreport
      2. 84

         gmwilliamsposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         In TOTAL agreement!

         replyreport
   2. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      +1
      
      I agree with everything you said.  I would add, from Warren Buffett:
      
      “The truth is I have never given a penny away that had any utility to me,” Buffett told the 150-plus billionaires and near-billionaires, who gathered at the United Nations Delegates Dining Room. “I am very grateful for this award, I accept this award. But I’d like to accept it not only for myself but for those millions of people who really give away money that’s important to them because they see somebody else where they think they can do more good.”
      
      Buffett concluded with a message for those who haven’t yet taken his Giving Pledge, a commitment by billionaires to give away at least half of their fortune during their lives or when they pass: “If you have trouble living on $500 million, I’m gonna put out a book, How to Live on $500 Million . Think about whether the other $500 million might do more for humanity than it will for you and your family.”
      
      The 50 philanthropists who have given away the most money

      replyreport
      1. 84

         gmwilliamsposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Again,wealth is fabulous and good.  There is nothing inherently wrong in being wealthy.  Being wealthy improves one's quality of life as well as others.  There is nothing wrong with living a luxuriant life.  Life is to be savored and-ENJOYED!
         

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Agree.

            replyreport
3. 84

   psycheskinnerposted 9 years ago

   I think great power brings with it responsibilities and great wealth is a form of power.  So people who do not use at least some of it to advance the greater good are not living up to their responsibilities.  And that includes me--I give a lot of thought to what proportion of my income (which is far more than I would need to subsist on) should, ethically, go to charity.

   replyreport
   1. 84

      gmwilliamsposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000-wealth is to be used for the improvement of others in addition to the elevation of one's self and lifestyle.  Being wealthy affords one MORE responsibility to help and improve others in need.  That is what wealth is for-making other's lives qualitative as well as one's own.
      

      replyreport
   2. 61

      janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I agree. There are some who do give quite a bit to charity, and to worthwhile causes. Bill Gates comes to mind.
      
      But the majority don't, and there lies the problem.

      replyreport
4. 60

   moneyminditposted 9 years ago

   If people abhor wealth, it is typically due to a lack of it. Money can be elusive.  The more we pursue it, the more it evades us. However, one can become a master of money.  Becoming a master is like anything else.  The mastery of money requires discipline and practice.

   replyreport
   1. 84

      gmwilliamsposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      A like soul, a multillion applauses. Totally concur with YOUR premise!

      replyreport
      1. 61

         janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Have you even heard a thing I've said?
         
         Do you care that the world's resources are being depleted?
         
         Is the only thing you care about is luxuries for yourself?

         replyreport
5. 0

   PrettyPantherposted 9 years ago

   This is how I see change happening, at least here in the U.S.  Some of us are drastically changing how we spend our money, choosing to purchase locally grown food and cutting back on unnecessary material goods.
   
   No, it is not too late.  It's easy to sit down and give up or sit back and criticize new initiatives.  It takes effort to believe something can be done and then do it, but more people are stepping up.
   
   Why the new American workforce wants better consumption not just more

   replyreport
6. 61

   ThussaysNanaMarieposted 9 years ago

   I think each to his own.
   However, health, peace and contentment are the most important factors. Some have all the wealth with no peace. All is not always as it seems. Simple, fulfilled, creative living is the best. All of Patrick Swazi's wealth and fame did not cure his pancreatic cancer nor MJ his pains or Lady Diana's her  love lost life.

   replyreport