4 ms·
Indeed, no real wealth was destroyed. Well, a few cars were set on fire in London, but that was unrelated. Part of the secret to my happiness is this: I permit
by hugh3 15y ago
Indeed, no real wealth was destroyed. Well, a few cars were set on fire in London, but that was unrelated.
Part of the secret to my happiness is this: I permit myself to feel happy on days when my stock portfolio goes up, but not to feel sad on days when my stock portfolio goes down. In this particular case I'd much rather be happy than consistent.
- ars 15y agoCars are not real wealth, they are negative wealth since they cost money, but don't make money. Wealth is owning things that can make money, not things that are money or that were bought with money.
- hugh3 15y agoYou're using a rather odd definition of "wealth" there. Cars are wealth because they are useful... and indeed can be used to make money.
- pchristensen 15y agodon't make money A lot of people live farther than walking distance away from work.
- dpark 15y agoYour definition of wealth is broken. A car is wealth. It may be a depreciating asset, but it is still wealth. It has value in its materials. It has value in its construction. It has value in its utility. A car most certainly can make money. Wealth consists of all things that have value. Shares in a company are wealth. Dollars in your pocket are wealth. A house is wealth. A coal mine is wealth.
- rfurmani 15y agoAre you thinking Robert Kiyosaki's adamant distinction between asset and liability? Wealth is a different thing and cars are a form of it.
- gnaritas 15y ago> Wealth is owning things that can make money No, that's an asset. A car is wealth, and could be either an asset or a liability, depending on the car and what you do with it, but it's still wealth.