Forum Post: How Rich People Think
Posted 11 years ago on Nov. 16, 2012, 11:09 a.m. EST by Shayneh
(-482)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
For those of you who think you can't succede you may be correct because of the way you think.
There are numerous differences in the way that the rich think vs. how the middle class think according to Steve Siebold, author of the new book How Rich People Think. Some of those differences include:
Middle class focuses on saving. World class focuses on earning.
Middle class believes hard work creates wealth. World class believes leverage creates wealth.
Middle class believes money is earned through labor. World class believes money is earned through thought.
Middle class worries about running out of money. World class thinks about how to make more money.
Middle class sees money through the eyes of emotion. World class sees money through the eyes of logic.
Middle class believes getting rich is outside their control. World class knows getting rich is an inside job.
Middle class has a lottery mentality. World class has an action mentality
Middle class is waiting to be rescued from financial mediocrity. World class knows no one is coming to the rescue.
Middle class equates money with stress. World class equates money with peace of mind.
It seems like those who are jealous of people with money always have an emotional reaction to the rich.
They are bad people, they are "Evil Rich and Wealthy." It is this emotional reaction that may keep them from ever earning more.
Maybe if they quit emoting at the rich, they might think through more logically how to make a few bucks themselves.
What a piece of crap. So you're saying it's all psychological? lol. lol. rotflol.
The fact that capitalism is a Darwinian system of winners and losers is not psychological.
You think the extreme wealth disparity that has occurred over the past 30 years happened because 1% or 10% of society had a psychologically superior frame of mind???
You're absurd. But thanks for the snicks and giggles.
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/incomeshare.jpg
http://www.thenation.com/image/extreme-inequality-chart#
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3629
Here. Try this nitwit.
''When the regulation, therefore, is in support of the workman, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters.'' Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations.
So tell me why do people become successful - it it because they are "greedy bastards"?
I think there are lots of reasons people are successful. Great innovative ideas is one of them. But I don't think being a 'greedy bastard' is a prerequisite for it exactly.
There's always been greedy bastards. Throughout history. But we have not seen this level of wealth disparity in over 100 years. So it can't be because of greedy bastards. I think it's safe to presume they've always been around.
But I would say it's important to note that there is a difference between 'self-interest' and 'rational self-interest'. Rational self interest knows certain boundaries, ethics and respect for society and has a certain level of self control. Self interest by itself is infantile.
The problem is when government policies favors wealth accumulation. Wealth naturally accumulates. It's the nature of capitalism. Wealth accumulation. It doesn't need government policies to favor what happens naturally anyway. Except under truly extraordinary circumstances. I wouldn't say 'never'. But it would be quite extraordinary for there to be circumstances that the government truly needed to regulate or protect the 'masters'. In a macro economic sense anyway.
It's ok for some people to be wealthy. So long as everyone else has enough. Capitalism is not going to work otherwise.
Adam Smith knew this. He knew that it would be the 'masters', or those at the top of the economic scale that would be making the 'rules'. That's why he said regulation should be in support of the worker, that it would be 'always just and equitable'. Because he knew that the 'masters' making the rules would make them in their own favor.
It's not about capitalism or not capitalism. It's about the rules that we play by. And whether those rules are just and equitable. Or in favor or the wealthy.
We've been employing mainly right wing neo-liberal economic policies for the past 30 years since Reagan. It's pretty clear who has been favored. Neo-liberal/policies were supposed to promote growth and economic prosperity. We have 30 years of middle class wage stagnation that says otherwise. Supply side/trickle down economics is just a sad, destructive fallacy. That has given us 30 years of increasing wealth disparity. This is not normal. Wealth disparity at these levels is extremely harmful to the economy.
Sorry. This is the result of economic policies. Not some psychological mumbo jumbo.
And by the way, Adam Smith also believed in progressive taxation.
"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
It's only the right wing neo-libs that have turned Adam Smith into a socialist now.
Adam Smith has contributed so very little to the world. And either has political science or economics.
How much wealth do you suspect your hatred will extract from the rich, perhaps 2 or 3%? You need a better plan. That plan lives within you, it has little need of the words of others.
lol. 'That plan lives within you'. wtf is that supposed to mean? Wait! I know! It's from Star Wars right?!
An example of what happens after you've spent 6 hours watching the original Star Wars Trilogy, carrying over your night time drinking binge into the day, and then start tapping away on an internet forum. Hilarious jibberish. Excellent spelling while drunk though. Bravo.
Jeesh. In 1940 FDR and Congress must have really hated rich people! When they raised the top tax rate to 90%. That's some serious hatred going on according to you. Wow. Yeah. That's what FDR was all about. Hatred. He's known as the 'hatred' Pres. Hate hate hate hate hate. Yep. That's what all the history books say about FDR. How FDR just hated people.
Yeah. You're an idiot.
But you have fun with your drunken philosophicals - 'That plan lives within you'. lol. I'll stick with Adam Smith.
I have never watched so much as a single Star Wars episode.
What FDR actually did was prolong the Depression by stifling growth; during his presidency the unemployment rate hung steady at over 17%.
What brought us out of the Depression was WAR!
And following that war the jobs created by big business poured billions into our economy leading to the eventual rise of a comfortable working class that has since adopted the moniker of "middle" class.
If some remnant of survival instinct does not sufficiently live within you to enable you to reach out and grasp some of the dollars that continuously circulate throughout your economy, and retain them for yourself, then it is either a deficiency within you or a depressed economy - move!
It's not rich against poor - it is us against government.
Do you want to know what enlightenment philosophy really is? It's prosperity; a prosperity that granted the rich time to think, to study, and write. And to profit tremendously from the sale of those writings through the ownership of a license, granted by the state with permission of the guild, to print, bind, and distribute. The Enlightenment was about profiteering through the sale of books.
It doesn't matter; it's time to embrace truth and halt this culture of hate. Self flagellation, self degradation, historically, has never served economy.
stinkle
when it comes to most people in that "class" who did not invent or create anything on their own.... "it's not always what you know, it's who you know."
A friend of mine who got a 100,000 dollar loan to start his own business from his friend who was rich because of his family tree told me that. For example I was working with him because he was best friends with my mom. That connection allowed me to build up my resume and demo reel which has got me the job I have now. Most of the people I went to college with have not been able to find jobs in our field. Or at least jobs that pay more than 10 bucks an hour.
My advice.... create something.
Well it's apparent that you had an "opportunity" presented to you, not because it was given to or because he was your "moms best friend" but because you had something to offer him in return.
Do you think the friend of yours would have gotton the $100,000 dollar loan to start his own business if he didn't have something to offer in return - his knowledge, his skills and business knowledge.
In return for the opportunity you had, you built on it and made it what you have today and I am sure what you have wasn't given to you - you worked for it smartly.
That's how people become successful - in some instances opportunities are presented to people for a reason - not because someone wants to "just give it to them" but because they believe in them.
I am not a millionaire but my success came from having goals - if I didn't have goals then I would still be where I was when I first started out - and probably complaining about what a bad break society gave me.
Naw, I am an agressive person when it comes to doing things and won't take no for an answer - in most circumstances - because I know that's how you reach your goal.
I did indeed work hard for it. But at the same time if I did not have that connection I wouldn't be where I'm at now.
I acknowledge both aspects.
I wonder how many people who read what you posted will take it the wrong way making it sound like you and your friend were given a "free ride" by the weatlhy.
While I might have worked hard to seek an opportunity.... I also know for a fact the opportunity would not have been there had I not known who I know.
Not everyone gets those opportunities. The job I have now I got without knowing anyone. But I would not have been able to get that job without my resume of experience from my previous job.
I would agree, especially with your closing statements - some relative wealth is within the grasp of all.