4 ms·
However small, isn't it better than losing them? I think yes. Because you can't bring that "quality of life potential" in the grave
by GDC7 5y ago
However small, isn't it better than losing them? I think yes.
Because you can't bring that "quality of life potential" in the grave
- kadoban 5y agoIt's not small, it's zero or even negative. If you already have everything you want, buying more is just extra crap you have to deal with.
- Spooky23 5y agoMany people with money like this flip; preserving capital and reducing risk becomes the destination, not the journey. It’s the way humans are wired, and there’s a whole industry of lawyers, accountants and others to support it.
- gabrielhidasy 5y agoReally depends, I can see a lot of quality of life on leaving family set for the next few centuries. And a lot of headache on managing the next personal island.
- Jasper_ 5y agoThe FT runs a magazine called "How To Spend It" with ideas for what cheeky stylish thing to buy this month after you already spent it on what you want to. That this is apparently a lucrative business possibly tells you that you can max out your quality of life and still have money leftover. https://www.ft.com/htsi https://www.ft.com/htsi