I like the article and agree with the main points, but I don't really understand the fixation on terminology. Who really cares about what one person defines as

I like the article and agree with the main points, but I don't really understand the fixation on terminology. Who really cares about what one person defines as wealth vs having money? Isn't the real point here that people who are capable of making a living will always have means to live and those who don't may get by from time to time when they come into money but don't have a lasting ability to generate it for themselves? On a larger scale, I think this same idea could be used to describe the success and failure of most companies. Companies that can create products or services that sell will succeed in the long run whereas those that have large cash reserves but no ability to produce products or services that sell will eventually run out of cash and fail.