Originally Posted by
Joseph Camel Jr
Originally Posted by SuperAntigen
I mean, Shaq is paid--but I don't consider him to be wealthy. He's just really rich.
To me, wealth--as someone already pointed--is something that transcends time, and generations. It survives economic depressions on the local and global level.
Additionally, I equate wealth with "social power"-- the kind that affords luxuries, and furnishes privileges which money can't buy. So even if by some freak accident, a wealthy individual/family becomes destitute, they can still reap and procure those aforementioned luxuries and privileges normally reserved for their "class."
If Shaq were to lose all of his money right now, i doubt he could rely on some surreptitiously amassed "social power" to help him and his family through their predicament. Why--because dude is just a BBall player. Furthermore, it's very possible for him to lose everything in this lifetime. It only takes one or two bad investments.
Now, when I think of wealth, I think of the English monarchy, the Bush's, the Clinton's, the Rocafella's, and soon enough--the Obama's. I hope you're seeing a pattern with some of the names...lol.
...
um so to be wealthy you need a name w/a pedigree? because shaq has george w. bush's money many many times over, for example.
these comments are getting ridiculous, no offense.
wealthy = rich, they're synonyms, look at a dictionary. and we're talking strictly wealth in a financial sense.
all this talk about "making money work for you" and "transcending time" is nonsense.
you can make $1 million last generations and you can blow $100 million in a year. $100 million makes you wealthy, $1 million doesn't. wealthy does not mean "fiscally responsible" or "frugal," it means rich. period.
You don't need a name w/a pedigree to be considered wealthy. Although, often times, the two are linked.
Now as for Shaq and George W. Bush--consider this. If both of these men were to lose all their money tomorrow, whosefamily would have it tougher. The honest answer to this question highlights the difference between "rich" and "wealthy". The Bush"family" could still live very lavishly, comfortable at the very least, if Dubya were to lose his money. Youcannot say the same about the O'neal "family" is Shaq were to lose everything tomorrow. Again, this is the difference between "wealth"and "rich".
Now as for wealth and rich being synonymous in the dictionary--sure, yea, I understand and believe that. But what I think you fail to understand is the factthat words can have underlying meanings and connotations which make them unique, regardless of their relatedness to other words. For example, the words"worship" and "idolize" are synonynmous, but--individually--they signify and imply very different things--with "idolize" beingviewed, often times, as an extreme form of worship.
Furthermore, in the case of "wealth" and "rich", there are implications, of the social kind, which serve to further seperate these words.This is exactly why we're having this discussion right now...
Lastly, I understand that you want to define "wealth" strictly in the financial sense. But realize that, that in of itself, is a problem--especiallywhen you realize that, as previously stated, the term "wealth" implicates more than finances. This is something the dictionary will never tell you.This is why that Wall Street guy, living in Greenwich--land of the Hedge Fund managers-- with a net worth of 80 million, didn't consider himself"wealthy".
I said it and I'll say it again:
Point of emphasis-- "Wealth" is not just about money...
...
