3 ms·
I think a 70 year old has less to lose and more incentive to take a risk on things he really wants to do than a 57 year old. No matter how rich you are, you can
by Johnny555 5y ago
I think a 70 year old has less to lose and more incentive to take a risk on things he really wants to do than a 57 year old. No matter how rich you are, you can't stop aging (yet).
And when you risk sudden catastrophic death, I'm not sure that the wealthy person really has more to lose than a poor person, we all only get one life. His heirs will be taken care of either way, how can his life be valued higher than, say, one of his pilots?
- CryptoPunk 5y ago>>I think a 70 year old has less to lose and more incentive to take a risk on things he really wants to do than a 57 year old. No matter how rich you are, you can't stop aging (yet). That is perhaps true, but I was just making a point about his wealth, and comparing him to another person who is the same in all respects but that. >>And when you risk sudden catastrophic death, I'm not sure that the wealthy person really has more to lose than a poor person, The life of a billionaire is incredible relative to the life of a poor person.
- Johnny555 5y agoThe life of a billionaire is incredible relative to the life of a poor person. The point I was trying to make is that that's not necessarily true. There are many non-billionaires that have led incredible lives and have made a big impact in the world and there are billionaires whose biggest contribution to humanity is increasing their own wealth and power.
- CryptoPunk 5y agoI was making a generalization, not implying this is a hard and fast rule. And I wasn't talkig about the positive social impact they have on the world. I was talking about they personally have to lose in terms of high quality living.