BEFORE I go into relieving myself of all the thoughts that are welling up in my head, there's a free book that I want you to read. It is a new book that Robert Kiyosaki is currently working on and he wants feedback from readers. http://www.conspiracyoftherich.com/chapter
____________________________________________________________________
I recall my first encounter with Communism.
How I abhor the idea that everyone shares the same amount of wealth no matter how hard you work.
I recall being exhilarated when I read about Adam Smith's invisible hand.
How free market will thrive without having any form of governing.
One is absolute control; the other is freedom in risk of chaos.
It led me to think, who is to say what is right and what is wrong?
As history proved, it is just the matter of which one being more widely accepted and outlasting the other.
Could it be that the subject of money has no right or wrong?
Unlike physics, chemistry, mathematics or even literature, there is no absolution as to how one should view money.
Money is a man-made tool unlike gravity, it creates its own rules.
It does not extinguish with a "pop" like a glowing splint in hydrogen.
Its behavior can only be perceived and proven by time alone. Constant variables produces variable results.
Though mathematics is closest to the subject of money, money sometimes defies 1+1=2.
Input does not necessarily equals to output.
$100,000 X 10 years in a real estate does not equals to $100,000 X 10 years in another real estate.
There is no universal rule with regards to money. Everybody plays by the rule they are comfortable with.
The winners are those with everything thing they want in life.
The losers are whiners who complaint that they don't have enough.
If that is the rule of money, then, the objective of playing the money game is to have as much money as possible without sacrificing pleasure.
With this objective, one can devise the strategy to play the game.
Laws are man-made tools written to govern other man-made tools.
It can be bent, and sometimes broken. It can also be re-written to benefit those who wrote it.
Laws undergo revolution just like dynasties. Revolution do come, but it takes time. Why? Because the rule of money need time to be verified for its effectiveness.
To quote that book, we started off as "cave men" in the Hunter-Gatherer Age, to the Agrarian Age, to Industrial Age and to today's Information Age.
I observe that the time lapse between each revolution gets shorter and shorter.
The theoretical explanation could be, more people are educated, more brains to spot the errors in the rules.
Then it dawned on me that the next revolution could be coming up soon, and my generation could be the ones leading it.
The pattern observed in the revolutions was that, with each age, more and more percentile of the population are getting richer.
The number of rich people multiplied like rabbits over the past centuries.
So the bottom line?
Could it be that there's a way to get rich that still eluded those who aren't rich yet?
If getting rich becomes less and less of a privilege and more and more of a Right, what then?
Would it cause a disaster that is unforeseen?
Or would it finally create an Utopia that was so sorely sought after ever since the dawn of civilization?
What if the new rule now is that everyone can get rich?
What would you do if there is such a rule?
Would you find out more the game?
Or would you resist the change so much until you are eradicated by time?
If so many people are becoming rich, does it necessarily mean that the rules they play by are the blue prints of the next revolution?
It comes back to the question, what is right and what is wrong?
If there is no right and there is no wrong, only the best way to survive. What would you do?
Survival instincts are hardwired? Or is it nurtured by our own experiences?
If the ultimate objective in the game of life is to live the dreams, does your strategy of winning involve becoming rich?
If the ultimate goal is to live the dreams, does what you do to get there matter so much even as it conflicts your right and wrong instincts?
If your right and wrong instincts are nurtured by your experiences, who is there to tell you when you are wrong about your experiences?
What if those who tell you that you are wrong, are wrong themselves?
Who is there to tell them they are wrong?
What determines the right to judge?
Is it safe to say: if you want to get to somewhere, ask direction from those who had been there?
If you want to be rich, ask a rich man how.
Would it come down to a point where there is no longer a need for a right or wrong?
It is just what needs to be done to get you where you want to go.
We play the game of life.
We win when we win.
We lose when we die.
If we don't die, we haven't lose.
If we don't win, we will eventually die and lose.
To win is to live the dreams.
No dream comes free. If its free, its not worthwhile.
Rules are written by someone to win his own game.
Choose to play by his rules or write your own rules.
You only get to play the game of life once.
No comments:
Post a Comment