Lately would be a few years ago I think, as the industry is stuck in producing derivative blockbuster crap that I find to be a waste of my time. At almost 72, I am a lot more focused on using my time wisely as it's in much more limited supply. Back to lotteries, etc. if I were king for a day I would simply require honest presentation. Something like:
Give us your money and we'll keep half (or whatever the house cut is) and give the other half back to a handful of you suckers. Oh, by the way most of our big winners soon go broke because to gamble is to prove that you fundamentally lack a grasp of managing money over the long term.
But that's just me.
Give us your money and we'll keep half (or whatever the house cut is) and give the other half back to a handful of you suckers. Oh, by the way most of our big winners soon go broke because to gamble is to prove that you fundamentally lack a grasp of managing money over the long term.
But that's just me.
I hear what you are saying, but responsible "gambling" within one's means is completely harmless. You will throw away much more money by far by going out for a couple of drinks and dinner once or twice a week!
If you are re-mortgaging your house to buy lottery tickets or gamble at the casino, then you have a problem just like an alcoholic that cannot stop drinking excessively has a problem. Or someone with a serious drug or porn addiction problem. But all of these behaviors can also be done conservatively and safely, and are part of normal society.
IMO the problem with many "big winners" is that they fall for the idea that the money is endless and start spending as if that is the case. You have to continue to live within you means, even if those means are expanded...
If you are re-mortgaging your house to buy lottery tickets or gamble at the casino, then you have a problem just like an alcoholic that cannot stop drinking excessively has a problem. Or someone with a serious drug or porn addiction problem. But all of these behaviors can also be done conservatively and safely, and are part of normal society.
IMO the problem with many "big winners" is that they fall for the idea that the money is endless and start spending as if that is the case. You have to continue to live within you means, even if those means are expanded...
@CharlieLaub exactly.
i rarely gamble at casinos, but have no misconceptions about my odds. i just set a budget, and consider losing it all (which will happen) as part of the cost of going out for the evening. like treating yourself to an expensive dinner.
the other problem big winners have is that anyone you've ever said hello to will be contacting you.
i rarely gamble at casinos, but have no misconceptions about my odds. i just set a budget, and consider losing it all (which will happen) as part of the cost of going out for the evening. like treating yourself to an expensive dinner.
the other problem big winners have is that anyone you've ever said hello to will be contacting you.
I'd be afraid to suddenly own a billion dollars. My life wouldn't be my own anymore, what with every Tom, Dick & Harry begging me for some. It would be like flies completely covering a piece of rotting garbage. Me and my money would be the garbage in that analogy. I'm satisfied with what I have, which isn't huge but is adequate.
A billion being a thousand million, you could make more people "happy" than you could imagine. What a chore it would be dolling it out too; could it be that's why it's just easier to hang onto it for those that posses such sums? Too much work to give it away "properly", easier to just have, keep and do nothing; just let the possible legitimate beneficiaries continue to suffer. With that "so what - they didnt make it" rationalization.
I could see a million, but a billion is simply too much. That large a bundle of money ends up flying around Wall Street trying to fatten itself up anyway, not doing much for any local economy.
It seems to me that it would be an effort to give out money to individuals, charities, organizations, fundraisers, etc. i would want them to be thoroughly vetted first. i wouldnt be comfortable supporting organizations that under the surface have views i disagree with.
its sort of like avoiding certain products or companies that you might take issue with. they may support one or another political candidate, or an extreme religious view, social issues, or have caused great environmental impact through their business. without running afoul of diyaudio rules, i can say i no longer buy gasoline from certain companies, nor do i order pizza from another, etc.
thats not to say its not worthwhile to make thst effort. with a billion $, i bet you could hire a team to do it.
as an example, look at bill gates and his charitable foundations. he cant give away money fast enough, not kidding. he was asked how it felt to be only the 3rd richest man, and that was his answer. he wanted to be lower but can't give it away fast enough.
so its not as simple as writing a bunch of checks.
that said, id love to have that complexity in my life!
its sort of like avoiding certain products or companies that you might take issue with. they may support one or another political candidate, or an extreme religious view, social issues, or have caused great environmental impact through their business. without running afoul of diyaudio rules, i can say i no longer buy gasoline from certain companies, nor do i order pizza from another, etc.
thats not to say its not worthwhile to make thst effort. with a billion $, i bet you could hire a team to do it.
as an example, look at bill gates and his charitable foundations. he cant give away money fast enough, not kidding. he was asked how it felt to be only the 3rd richest man, and that was his answer. he wanted to be lower but can't give it away fast enough.
so its not as simple as writing a bunch of checks.
that said, id love to have that complexity in my life!
What was meant was it’s not possible to get ahead (ie, financially secure) without exploiting people. Even if all you have is a good job, no debt, an diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds, you are exploiting poor people. The companies and institutions those investments are in are exploiting poor people to give shareholders (read: you) a return.
If the investments weren‘t exploiting someone, they’d be losing money.
If the investments weren‘t exploiting someone, they’d be losing money.
That's a curious hypothesis...any profit implies exploitation? If I build an amp for $150 in parts and offer it here for $250 and someone willingly buys it, who precisely was exploited?
Who? The people in the factories that made the parts. Getting exploit-free materials it might have cost you $3500 to build the amplifier.
You need to consider what the folks in the factories would be doing and earning if the factories disappeared. In general measures of well being like lifespan and standard of living improve with development. My Irish coal miner ancestors did much better in the steel mills of Pittsburgh than the coal mines and fields of Ireland and England.
People would be knocking on my door 24 hours a day to beg. I already have a plague of men wanting to buy my house for 50% of what it is worth. When I lived in Spring Valley Village in Houston (1956-1973) the parent's phone rang 3 times an afternoon with people that wanted to buy our house for half what it was worth. I'm too old to spend $500000000 (after taxes). I never had a drug habit that required piles of cash now. Some VIncent put up a billboard 2 blocks from my house inviting to purchase our houses for cash now. He thinks his beard and mustache makes him look attractive. I think his beard makes him look like the Europeans that took this land from us at gunpoint or with treaties with old drunks that they never paid the benefits. Pres Grant & Gen Sherman had beards & mustaches. Sitting Bull & Red Cloud did not. Neither do I.
I will do my gambling on the stock market. So far 4.5% positive. I am wagerng I will never require a patented drug for some disease that costs $1000000 a year.
Last edited:
Rich is a relative value; it requires that one possess significantly more wealth than those being compared to. So everyone rich is not possible.
A million dollars is the value of an average suburban house in Australia, so the answer is "No."
Unless you're 20 years old and trying to buy one, anyhow.
Not only Oz, NZ and the UK and all because governments were determined to bail out the ultra rich and the bankers in 2008/9 instead of letting them go bust. Take note the Swiss government didn't bail out the bond holders when Credit Suisse went bust, they lost everything. The price of residential property in these 3 countries is totally insane but if your a mortgage lender which would you prefer to do - lend on a property which has a rational price of 100K or an irrational price of 1 million.
It's worth taking a look at what the first 3 presidents of the new United States thought about bankers.
I reckon winning about €70 million on the Euro lottery would do me fine - I could buy an efficient 5 seater aero prop aircraft and a sea plane, hire a pilot, buy a nice piece of land somewhere on the west coast of Scotland and another probably in Morocco - sorted for life.
It's worth taking a look at what the first 3 presidents of the new United States thought about bankers.
I reckon winning about €70 million on the Euro lottery would do me fine - I could buy an efficient 5 seater aero prop aircraft and a sea plane, hire a pilot, buy a nice piece of land somewhere on the west coast of Scotland and another probably in Morocco - sorted for life.
You have about the same odds of winning as being struck by lightning 7 times while being eaten by a shark.
On top of that string of probabilities, one of those strikes causes the shark to spit you out, surviving with only "minor lacerations".