"Being rich isn't about how much you have, but how much you can give."

[scorpiomover]

Many African families live on $1 a week. We can survive for 3 months without food. We can live with very little indeed. So what is being rich or poor? Usually, a state of mind. It's about psychology.

We know about the placebo effect. If I give money away, then I'm telling my subconscious that I can afford to give money away, because I have a lot. Then the subconscious treats the money that I have, as if it is worth a lot. So it shows me things that Donald Trump would think of. So I see many opportunities to make more money, and see the value in them. I see many ways to make my money go further. My money actually becomes much more valuable. I seem rich, to myself, and to others.

When I used to not give, the reverse happened. I'd be always thinking that I can't afford to give money away, because I was poor. All my subconscious would show me, were things that I needed but couldn't afford. I felt poor, acted poor, and seemed poor.

As this is just down to psychological perception, I'd prefer to be rich, and so give, because it makes me rich.

 

[Red myst]

I feel rich when I don't need anybody to "give" me anything. And that allows rich people to have more to "give" so they can feel even richer. So I am contributing by not needing.

 

[Absurdity]

Sorry I was a bit flaming at some point, was a bit over-excited. Can we please drop the polemic/derogatory attitude, both of us? There's no reason for pointless conflict when we can argue stuff perfectly well without it...

You're right, I'm sorry. I was having a bad day when I first started posting in this thread.

 

[Emerson]

I thought that was a nice quote. A little one-sided perhaps, and in places lacking truth, but a good quote nonetheless. Anyone care to disagree or provide a personal opposing perspective?

It is a nice quote.

In one instance, this quote can be perceived as being anti-rich. Rich meaning wealthy in terms of money and assets. The way it could perceived this way is the logic that one can give intangible assets: unconditional love, guidance, support, etc. that could help a person or people perhaps more than money, so therefore that person is a rich person in quality rather than monetary quantity. Or, in other words, that or a person doesn't need money to be rich, which doesn't always indicate being anti-rich, but it can often be interpreted as such.

Despite that interpretation, I suspect that is not what the quote is implying, but it is definitely up for interpretation, as all quotes are.

What I suspect the quote is trying to say is that when someone is rich monetarily, they should give back to the society or people that have helped them become rich. It is of my personal philosophy that when I die, all my monetary wealth (99%) will go back to society in the form of charitable donations. 1% shall be left to my kids and family. Why the disparity, so seemingly? Because my kids and family, at the time of my death, will have had little to do with the amount of wealth I amassed during my lifetime, I suspect. It is today's society and my parents that have enabled me to lead the lifestyle I want and have allowed me to cultivate the ability to amass wealth, but they both, current society and my parents, will be long gone before I pass away. This interpretation is the interpretation I have as of now as it relates to me in this specific manner, but this doesn't necessarily mean I couldn't change my personal view of this quote later on in life.

It can also be true, in my opinion, that this quote is referring to not just the rich giving back to those who made that person monetarily rich, but perhaps all of society that has been given an opportunity by the help of other people inside of that society. For example, Starbucks paying tuition for some of their employees is a huge deal to those employees. They, as one could argue, now have the ability to have an opportunity that allows them more successes than others who have to pay for college on their own dime; therefore, the Starbucks employees are rich in opportunity as they get financed by others. Though again, this can fall under the first interpretation of how rich does not necessarily mean cash and other forms of assets contributing to high net worth, but rather concepts that can lead to assets but don't promise to do so.

Perhaps it is only fair, as the quote may suggest, that these said individuals give back to society as well by attempting to, whether it by their own monetary success or contributions through effort, give back as much as they have gained to those who have made them successful. It may not be Starbucks that they decide to give back to, but perhaps they invest their money in innovative ideas that will help society, or create a charitable organization, or volunteer their time to help others that haven't had the ability to create a life they may have wanted to create.

In the end, all is speculation as it is a quote and only the author, unless the author wrote it down, will know the meaning of his words truly. Though that too is up for debate, I'd like to assume that it is most often the case.

In the end, there are more interpretations I'm sure, but the second interpretation is that of my own opinion. The first is merely a contrast, and I am sure many of you have offered other viable alternatives of thought.

 

[sushi]

no its about buying slaves and materials, and use their products to make money

 

[EditorOne]

It's a pleasant platitude.

Some 'master of the obvious' stuff: Clearly you have to get it before you can give it to others, so it is always about how much you have.

 

[Prion]

I hate quotes like this. If the speaker/writer of the quote wanted to say "altruism is better than greed" they could've just said it without bastardizing our language by creating their own definitions.

A good example of this, is a quote by Rollo May: "the opposite of courage in our society is not cowardice, it's conformity." I'll assume it's so obviously flawed that it doesn't need an explanation.

Anyway, as far as the meaning of the quote itself: If giving feels good to you, better than getting rich, then it's good. Personally, I'm a bit more selective about who or what I give to, and it depends on how much (of something) I have, of course.

 

[Double_V]

I like it. It points out one does not have to have money/assets/things to be rich.

Giving of oneself can make oneself rich.

 

[EditorOne]

Nucky Johnson, the political and rackets boss of Atlantic City, NJ, in the 1920's, got a cut of every illegal profit made in the resort, from public contracts to a $6 'surcharge' on illegal whisky brought ashore through town to money from prostitution and gambling.

He took a big wad of that money with him every day on his Boardwalk excursion, and routinely gave money to just about any poor person who needed it.

He addressed the horribly cyclical nature of life there -- everyone flush in the summer tourist season, everyone starving in February -- by having his henchmen and political operatives keep tabs of every family on every street, and distributing food as needed. In winter he paid for truckloads of coal to be brought into town and dumped in empty lots so the needy could have heat.

When a charitable cause approached him to sell him tickets, he took off his silk tophat, had them fill the hat with tickets, and bought as many as filled the hat.

He drove a luxurious, over-the-top powder blue Rolls Royce, and made it available to take a grieving family to the cemetery after a death (no cemeteries in the resort, so it was a long haul to the mainland.)

He operated the town this way: The police vice squad was there to make sure no non-Atlantic City vices operated in the town, and to make sure every single one that was in operation paid into the syndicate (Republican Party plus racketeers).

It was as bold an illegal and sinful operation as you could ever expect.

So was he good or evil?

Seems like Nucky Johnson embodies one of the recurring themes in this thread: Money is amoral, but there are immoral ways to get it and moral ways to use it. When you get someone like Johnson, you're just kind of left adrift in a sea of ambiguity about where he fit on the morality scale.

 

[Reluctantly]

^ Personally I don't see Nucky Johnson as moral because if he was, his focus wouldn't have been on charity and the politics of being seen as generous or magnanimous, but more on helping his citizens to increase their economic wealth for continued prosperity, rather than momentary prosperity. Because to sustain poverty and force those in need to rely on generosity is a form of control and manipulation. It's a very political form of control.

 

[Coolydudey]

^ Personally I don't see Nucky Johnson as moral because if he was, his focus wouldn't have been on charity and the politics of being seen as generous or magnanimous, but more on helping his citizens to increase their economic wealth for continued prosperity, rather than momentary prosperity. Because to sustain poverty and force those in need to rely on generosity is a form of control and manipulation. It's a very political form of control.

Well, you don't know he was doing it for control. He probably just saw himself as a Robin Hood type character.

 

[EditorOne]

Oh, he did it for political power. Everything he donated meant votes. Votes kept him in power and able orchestrate more graft, from which he made more donations.
But in the end, was that a good thing or a bad thing? (We know his graft was blatantly illegal, but that's not the interesting question. The question is, "who benefited?" and if your answer is "everyone," then we may have a really interesting moral corner we've painted ourselves into.

 

[Coolydudey]

Oh, he did it for political power. Everything he donated meant votes. Votes kept him in power and able orchestrate more graft, from which he made more donations.
But in the end, was that a good thing or a bad thing? (We know his graft was blatantly illegal, but that's not the interesting question. The question is, "who benefited?" and if your answer is "everyone," then we may have a really interesting moral corner we've painted ourselves into.

The legal system never was and never will be a good approximation to morality.

 

[Grayman]

The legal system never was and never will be a good approximation to morality.

Who's standard is good then?

 

[Reluctantly]

Oh, he did it for political power. Everything he donated meant votes. Votes kept him in power and able orchestrate more graft, from which he made more donations.
But in the end, was that a good thing or a bad thing? (We know his graft was blatantly illegal, but that's not the interesting question. The question is, "who benefited?" and if your answer is "everyone," then we may have a really interesting moral corner we've painted ourselves into.

Do you mean that he's more moral than those that would not have given money to those in poverty, making him the lesser of two evils? If so, I think I see you mean then. I wish life wouldn't come down to morality being the lesser of all the evils, but I guess that tends to be the realist reality. And it sucks because it often feels so stupid.

 

[Grayman]

Do you mean that he's more moral than those that would not have given money to those in poverty, making him the lesser of two evils? If so, I think I see you mean then. I wish life wouldn't come down to morality being the lesser of all the evils, but I guess that tends to be the realist reality. And it sucks because it often feels so stupid.

Morality doesn't exist anyways. There is only the end goal.

 

[EditorOne]

Do you mean that he's more moral than those that would not have given money to those in poverty, making him the lesser of two evils? If so, I think I see you mean then. I wish life wouldn't come down to morality being the lesser of all the evils, but I guess that tends to be the realist reality. And it sucks because it often feels so stupid.

He obtained money and power immorally and used some of it to do moral things. Those moral things also kept him in power where he could get more immoral money.

Don't look at me for a judgmental analysis of this! I am INTP to the bone, and merely find this an unusual and very interesting constellation of actions and events. :-_

Footnote to history: My newspaper brought down Nucky Johnson's successor, Hap Farley, in the 1970s. I was there for some of it but was not in the bureau where the investigative work was being done. I had my hands full with the much smaller scams of illegal auctions on the Wildwood boardwalk. They finally got tired of me taking pictures every damn summer Sunday of them breaking city ordinances with their hawking and sales techniques, and gave up. People were quite annoyed with me, including the mayor.

The prevailing ethic in those resort towns was that it was good for business, it was good, even if it were illegal. The auction scam was good for $8,000 a day in the summer, money coming from tourists to locals. Everybody got a slice; one of my best photos was a fat Wildwood cop deliberately looking out to sea while he walked by a hawker who actually had his hands on a mark and was dragging him back into the auction.

The logic used is much the same as the marijuana legalization arguments; People want this, overwhelmingly, the same way they wanted booze in AC and Wildwood during prohibition, along with prostitutes, burlesque, risque music (like jazz, at the time). Therefore it should not be illegal. And if it is, we'll have it anyway, and between lukewarm prosecutors and witnesses with bad memories and witnesses who don't mind lying, we'll make it nearly impossible for anyone to get a conviction.

This is all a limited case in a very broad philosophical issue. I just thought it would be interesting for some of you to see what that broad idea can look like in the real world. Seemed like a more interesting example than Bill Gates spending his legally gotten big bucks on charity.

 

[Grayman]

Seemed like a more interesting example than Bill Gates spending his legally gotten big bucks on charity.

When the real wolf is nowhere to be seen, we create our own.

 

[Reluctantly]

@EditorOne Interesting, thanks for sharing that. I decided to look up his wikipedia page and it looks like he made a lot of money by providing services during the prohibition. So if I got this right, he allowed businesses to profit from gambling, prostitution, and alcohol, if they paid him a cut for "protection money". It seems he also paid people government employees to do things for him, kickbacks it was said, I imagine to avoid having to pay as much in taxes or some such thing. And he gave money to the poor.

But yeah, it's hard for me to judge him knowing that now. Alcohol and gambling are only bad when people become addicts; with prostitution - I'm sure there are modern day escorts and prostitutes that are safe and selective about what they do and have fun with it, not exactly making it immoral. And he helped his city increase their wealth, even if he became greedy rich in doing so. And he also gave money to the poor. I think I get what you mean by his situation being morally ambiguous. It really seems that way.

 

[Mithrandir]

Many African families live on $1 a week. We can survive for 3 months without food. We can live with very little indeed. So what is being rich or poor? Usually, a state of mind. It's about psychology.

We know about the placebo effect. If I give money away, then I'm telling my subconscious that I can afford to give money away, because I have a lot. Then the subconscious treats the money that I have, as if it is worth a lot. So it shows me things that Donald Trump would think of. So I see many opportunities to make more money, and see the value in them. I see many ways to make my money go further. My money actually becomes much more valuable. I seem rich, to myself, and to others.

When I used to not give, the reverse happened. I'd be always thinking that I can't afford to give money away, because I was poor. All my subconscious would show me, were things that I needed but couldn't afford. I felt poor, acted poor, and seemed poor.

As this is just down to psychological perception, I'd prefer to be rich, and so give, because it makes me rich.

The most insightful post in the whole thread and not a single person acknowledged it. Props.

How much you have and how much you can give is always the same. It's the psychological perspective: The one who is always wanting more never has enough, but the one who is always giving away always has too much.

Glass half empty or half full.

 

[Analyzer]

A man is rich in proportion to the things he can afford to let alone.