Bad health. You just said so.

So for a human beings brief and short existence on this planet the accumulation of such wealth can become an unhealthy obsession.

To what end ? — Deus

A very ancient question. Even the bible has 'easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.' I use this, just to suggest that even the ancient theists didn't have many positive things to say about rich people. Typing as an atheist, I concur with those who hold that the existence of the 'rich, powerful and sycophantic few,' is one of the main causes of the threat of extinction, currently faced by the human race.

I did say so but I must contradict myself here. The accumulation of wealth and worldly possessions can be healthy until you die of course so there is that.

So let me then delve into human happiness and selfishness at what point do we truly realise that we in fact are happy and not just feeling a chemical biofeedback mechanism that tells us what we are doing is right ? Is it just happiness itself and the general feel good factor ? I would go as far as to say so.

At some point it doesn’t matter how rich you are that at a basic human level you will have to interact with other human beings for no man is an island although you might own an island.

Perhaps the janitor that works on can simply say … I am not your property or your slave but then another dependent idiot will take their place so it’s not a win win but a lose lose.

Creating dependability on someone worse off than you is parasitic at best and at wirst exploitative.

Where there is not universal healthcare the accumulation of wealth is a reasonable defensive strategy. This does not mean that more is always better, but how much is enough to pay for medical bills and loss of income in the case of serious illness? Even with health insurance life savings can be wiped out.

To what end ? — Deus

For our children.

Contrast this to say Gates amongst others who although ultra wealthy do not feel the necessity to pass on this wealth to them.

Perhaps it’s right … spoiling your offspring with such flattering wealth can perhaps be depriving them of the real struggle of being a human being and the importance of earning your way

Contrast this to say Gates amongst others who although ultra wealthy do not feel the necessity to pass on this wealth to them. — Deus

He's leaving his children enough that they'll never have to work again if they don't want to. This is much more than I would ever be able to leave to mine.

Where there is not universal healthcare the accumulation of wealth is a reasonable defensive strategy. — Fooloso4

Seems like a good argument for demanding free universal healthcare for all from cradle to grave.
The human invention called money seems an unsatisfying reason given by those who don't support such.

Seems like a good argument for demanding free universal healthcare for all from cradle to grave.
The human invention called money seems an unsatisfying reason given by those who don't support such. — universeness

I am in favor of universal healthcare, but the fact is we do not have it in the US. In the absence of what should be we must act on the basis of what is.

It's called 'aristocracy'. It's the default system of government of which capitalism is a manifestation. The alternative is the communal ownership of wealth which is disgusting, as every schoolboy know.

Ah yes the posh Eton going twats that are doing an excellent job of ruining the economy.

Still I prefer this circus to communism

The queen is dead, long live the king!

I am in favor of universal healthcare, but the fact is we do not have it in the US. In the absence of what should be we must act on the basis of what is. — Fooloso4

I support your fight for free at point of delivery, universal health care in the US.

We cannot take our millions nor our mansions nor our fancy cars to the grave with us.

Wealth and wealth management then is an excercise of power and influence to those who have that kind of capital but even that is short sighted in the face of the reality that we are mortal.

So for a human beings brief and short existence on this planet the accumulation of such wealth can become an unhealthy obsession.

To what end ? — Deus

Have you inherited anything?

Inheritance, a family farm or a beautiful rare painting is something you pass on to the next generation. Or then you are that selfish asshole who sells it and spends the money on alcohol, drugs, sex and driving in a taxi. Because you don't care the fuck about anything or anybody else but pleasuring yourself. You aren't taking anything with you when you die!

And then your children remember this wonderful summer place or this rare painting that the family had which awed everybody, but then you came and now it's just a distant memory.

It's called 'aristocracy'. It's the default system of government of which capitalism is a manifestation. The alternative is the communal ownership of wealth which is disgusting, as every schoolboy know. — unenlightened

you beat me to it, but YES.

The USA has an untitled aristocracy of heirs and entrepreneurs who began accumulating about 15 minutes after they landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620 (figuratively speaking). Land was the basis for the first big fortunes, especially when speculation was rampant. Agricultural production produced by slaves was a major wealth builder. After that, minerals (petroleum, among others) and manufacture produced great wealth. It still does.

Manipulation of money (a buck, a yen, a ruble, or a pound) and its various derivatives is a major source of wealth growth -- you have to be pretty flush to even begin that game.

Getting and holding wealth seems to be the point. A man whose assets less debts is maybe a quarter million dollars isn't wealthy, but can weather more storms than somebody without a pot to piss in. A man with 3, 30, or 300 billion dollars is practically no safer than a man with 1 or 2 billion dollars.

So, Jesus, the good steward provides for his family's well being and can help a few poor people, but a rich man owns most of Jerusalem and won't be getting into heaven.

wealth management — Deus

I believe that's a skill one has to learn, the easy way or the hard way. Saving for the lean season is a good idea, but sometimes people go overboard and hoarding results. How large does one's safety net need to be before one feels safe enough to use the money that one's piled up in the vault?

It’s an outdated trait and hoarding can be unhealthy not just for self but others

It’s an outdated trait and hoarding can be unhealthy not just for self but others — Deus

Money!

It might buy you everything on earth but not love.

It might buy you everything on earth but not love.

I’m not saying your wife is a whore just saying you ain’t really in love. — Deus

True, true, but you know what, money does buy ... everything. We just have to quote the price right, oui mon ami?

Can you really put a price on love ?

Can you really put a price on love ? — Deus

I dunno, but it seems possible and actual in some cases.

It may indeed be the case in any case a blonde is fair in all states rich or poor.

If a man loves a woman but the woman only loves the man for the money thats not love. Although it could be in fair circumstances.

Maybe I've watched too many movies; life is a movie too, oui mon ami? One thing I learned though is not to generalize from a small sample.

It [i.e. money- ED] might buy you everything on earth but not love. — Deus

True. Very true. But the lack of money may stop you from making someone you love fall in love with you. And I ain't sentimental or callous.

One thing I learned though is to not generalize from a small sample. — Agent Smith

How large samples did you go through to get to this generalization?

How large samples did you go through to get to this generalization? — god must be atheist

Statistical question. If memory serves, 30 is the magic number.

If a man loves a woman but the woman only loves the man for the money thats not love. Although it could be in fair circumstances. — Deus

The major factor is of course the human relationship when to people are in love. Yet then comes then question when people look for a mate to start a family that our in our society money is important. It's not just the income, but in a meritocracy usually the more talented people end up in jobs paying more. We still have these old ideas that a man should take care of his family, even if it usually is now that the parents should be able to take care of their children.

Yet then comes then question when people look for a mate to start a family that our in our society money is important. — ssu

Most romantic relationships stand and fall by the ability of the male to provide for economical stability, love has much less to do with any long term success. From an anthropologist's perspective it is a logical conclusion in the context of reproduction and safety of progeny.

The guise of romantic love merely tries to cover up for our animal origin but in the end it is all about reproduction and the consideration of any material means nevertheless just as the same holds true for any other social mammal.

Yet then comes then question when people look for a mate to start a family that our in our society money is important. — ssu

:up: :sparkle:

Most romantic relationships stand and fall by the ability of the male to provide for economical stability, love has much less to do with any long term success. From an anthropologist's perspective it is a logical conclusion in the context of reproduction and safety of progeny. — Seeker

Agree :up:

To be honest, I even think love doesn’t exist or is just merely a state of mind where someone feels obsessed with a person. As you perfectly said, the romantic side of a relationship would disappear in long term. I like how you compare economical stability (inside relationships) with safety. Sadly, this principle is fading away in youngest generation.