The Paradox In Why The Rich Are Bankrupt
- David Mugun
- Jun 26, 2022
- 2 min read
Does rich mean wealthy or happy? One can be well-invested and affluent but still be one with gloomy weather. Equally, one can be extremely poor and jealous of a church mouse and still wear a broad smile consistently.
So when the rich gloomy guy meets the smiley poor guy, the poor guy smiles even more hoping for a free drop from the rich guy, while the affluent man gets gloomier on sighting the poor man.
But the poor man's smile costs nothing while the rich guy's, requires the amalgamation of deals, luck, ego boosters and a good life to generate a rare grin from just one corner of the mouth.
The amount of effort and resources needed to keep a monied person happy is enough to keep a village going for quite a while. The poor guy is tickled by so little including a simple "hello" at him.
From an efficiency ratios perspective, the poor guy needs close to nil to stay happy while the rich guy needs the breaking of goodies seals, banks and ego packs to get them to normal operating conditions, let alone getting to the smiling point.
I ask. Is it the poor man's efficient ways that are meant to make him richer over time, or is it this attribute that the wealthy use to exploit the poor to get richer? Pack that for another day.
The banks that cater for the poor are always the most liquid. The poor guy has a lifelong target to save up his money hoping for a brighter future, but the bank lends these savings in their billions to the affluent to generate for themselves even more wealth.
A million poor people create a single billionaire and several millionaires without knowing it. Poverty doesn't always breed poverty.
If we all have different value systems, then it follows that the words "rich" and "bankrupt" also assume several dimensions. For the guy in Nairobi's Zimmerman estate, the amount needed to call him wealthy is a fraction of what the guy in leafy Karen needs to stay comfortable.
How different is life for the kid that is chauffeured to school and for the one that strolls to school? When there is no car, the kid gets troubled. But the one on foot loses no sleep worrying about how they arrive at school. Sophistication has its price, including mental depression.
Having said all these, we still haven't found riches. It is not in the money as that comes and goes. It is in the richness of character. Many wealthy people are morally bankrupt because their real selves are brought out by their money at that instant. It takes money to tell if one is morally rich or bankrupt. That is the paradox.
People cannot define class. It is self-defining and cannot be forced on oneself. So, even if you are a billionaire but of a mouse's character, you are bankrupt, nothing more than a well-dressed pauper.
In agreement with most of your drift. For me richness of character is critical as that is what brings out the real person, beside being a quality that transcends generations.
Interesting, but complex topic, for the following reasons:
Wealth or riches aren't a permanent states, but an intra-generationally and inter-generationally transitive one.
It may subsequently mean that the near-permanent part of the trait in humans, as passed over genealogically, that tells our happiness (or otherwise) levels, go beyond the temporary status of one's wealth status.
Notable differences may be drawn between happiness due to satiable levels as per the facilitative role of money, on the rich man against his expectations and the same satiable levels on the poor man against his own expectations. The poor man's satiable levels will be achieved easily due to lower expectations, comoared to the rich man.
Equally, the satiable levels of the poor and the…