So its 11.44pm now and I just came back from watching 'Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps' at Rialto in Dunedin...great place, big screen...however it was a little empty, I suppose mainly because its the month before exams and...well either everyone is studying, or nobody wants to watch a movie about the stock market.
But I like the stock market...though I haven't invested anything into any stocks, bonds, derivatives or anything just yet, though I intend to ONE day, when I have learned enough to not kill myself. But enough of that. For now, seeing as how I just came back from a movie about money, I figured it'd be best to do a quote about money.
SO, "The real measure of your wealth is how much you'd be worth if you lost all your money". This quote actually has no...source? Citation? But it is a good quote nonetheless. How true this quote is can be evaluated simply by asking yourself one question: "If I lost all my money today, how long would it take me to get it back?"
If the answer to the aforementioned question is..."Never"...then what you are essentially saying is you are worthless, because it means you are acknowledging that you do not have the skillset necessary to create the wealth you had. That is the main point of this quote: Real wealth lies not in the amount of money that you have, but the ability to create it.
How many times have you heard this one: "Millionaires are lucky. They got opportunities in life that no one else got, and because of that, they are where they are today". The truth is (for the majority anyway) that if they lost it all tomorrow, chances are they would be able to make it back in a few years anyway, because they have the necessary skills to do so.
What I believe this quote is telling us, is that the value that society places on us is not based on the amount of money that we HAVE, but the amount of money that we can MAKE. Who would you rank as the one better off; The multi-millionaire who inherited his wealth, or the millionaire who created it on his own? I would pick the latter, because he/she (referred as he) would have shown that he can create it on his own, and can most likely do it again if needed.
I'm not saying that everybody who has inherited their wealth is doomed, on the contrary some inheritors, upon inheriting their wealth gain the wisdom to start learning about how to conserve their money. But not all (e.g Andrew Luster). But I suppose the ultimate point is thus: The world will value you on not what you have, but on what you can do.
As always, anybody who reads this is welcomed to comment on what they think is a fair interpretation of the quote above. And as always, I shall catch you once again soon.
~
"Real wealth lies not in the amount of money that you have, but the ability to create it." Actually, no. The quote is interpreted to ask, how is your worth truly measured? Is it by what you've given to others, the service you've rendered, the time you've devoted to make the world a better place, or is your worth just measured by money? If you just had money and that was the only measure of your worth, then losing it would mean that if you lost your money you'd be worthless. On the other hand, those who have real self-worth measured by what they've done in service to humanity, would still have that same worth even if they lost all their money.
ReplyDeletevery much agree to your comment sir
ReplyDelete