3 ms·
I think the OP demonstrates the compounding effects of wealth, just not in a direct money-creates-money way.
by candiddevmike 3y ago
I think the OP demonstrates the compounding effects of wealth, just not in a direct money-creates-money way.
- jncfhnb 3y agoShrug. It’s a tiny drop in the bucket.
- ben_w 3y agoWhen you're rich, it is. When you're poor, you can't afford the bucket.
- jncfhnb 3y agoHaving the drop in the bucket is not, however, a path to being rich.
- ben_w 3y agoIt is when your standard for "rich" is framed in terms of "can afford to buy good boots".
- jncfhnb 3y agoWhich is not the definition implied by the original quote so great. We agree.
- ben_w 3y agoWhat are you even talking about? This is literally called "boots theory" and is explicitly giving boots as an example. That's what "framing in terms of" means.
- jncfhnb 3y agoIf you read the discussion, the quote responded to included the claim > The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Which is a dumb claim. As you’ll note, I said that the general effect was true but this claim was wrong. You appear to be arguing something tangential