3 ms·
"it's much easier to become wealthy if you're already wealthy or have access to wealth" If this was true in reality, then why are there so many new wealthy peo
by raspasov 6y ago
"it's much easier to become wealthy if you're already wealthy or have access to wealth"
If this was true in reality, then why are there so many new wealthy people that didn't come from wealth? [1] How do you define "access to wealth"?
[1] My definition of wealth: having more money than you can spend in a lifetime.
- RHSeeger 6y agoYou seem to be making the assumption that "A is easier if B" implies "A is impossible without B", which is not what is being said. I guess the question is, of the new wealthy, how many came from a situation of already having access to wealth (either directly or by proxy)?
- raspasov 6y agoI didn't make such an assumption. I ask again: How do you define "access to wealth"?
- irq 6y agoBased on what you wrote, I agree with RHSeeger that you did indeed make that assumption. That you can’t see it speaks volumes about your analysis not matching the facts.
- raspasov 6y agoStill no answer to my question about definition of "access to wealth". It's like "access to God", for what I know.
- irq 6y agoI don’t see how your unanswered question relates to RHSeeger’s statement, but your transparent attempt to deflect by continuing to bring it up, again, says more about the flaws in your thought process than it achieves your aim.
- raspasov 6y agoThe unanswered question is half of the statement. One part: "wealth", another part: "access to wealth".
- RHSeeger 6y ago> If this was true in reality, then why are there so many new wealthy people that didn't come from wealth? The way I am reading this is you are saying > It is easier to become wealthy if you're already wealthy or have access to wealth is disproven by the fact that > There exist people that became wealthy without already <being wealthy or having access to wealth> I do not see any other way to take your statement. If you meant it some other way, please explain. Since the original statement is "it's easier with" not "it's impossible without", it is not disproven by the second item. As to how I define "access to wealth", I mean you either have wealth yourself or are in a position to get it (borrow it from a bank or family, etc). To take an extreme example, a penniless, homeless person with no friends or family has 0 access to wealth; they do not have their own money available, nor can they borrow from a bank or family. Everything between that and "has 200 million under a mattress" is a matter of scale in between; and the definition of what counts as "wealth" depends on the context.
- raspasov 6y agoFair enough.