I would like money only in moderation. I would know how to spend a windfall by starting a school and orphanage but to protect it from grabbers, thieves and relatives would be nightmarish. I am more scared of the friends and relatives that who’d start crawling out of the cracks.
PK Maheshwari
Ankur Gupta : Should we therefore say : Be rich to yourself and poor to your friends?
Money gives me meaning. I believe that more money makes things better and yet there will never be enough money. You list points like “There will never be enough money.” and “there will always be enough money”. How can they lead to self-destructive financial behaviours?
Manak Pincha
AG : “Money scripts” by themselves cannot be wrong or right. But a rigid belief in any of them without the flexibility in various situations could be detrimental.
Since everything in the universe is God’s creation, so is money. God is everywhere - in the temple as well in the bank. The only problem is that if one spend all the money on oneself or hoards it, it starts giving negative results. I for one, find it extremely difficult job to determine how much is enough for me and how much to spend for the needy.
Shailesh Agrawal
AG : Perhaps we could even view money as simple survival necessity like air or water. Who parcels what for whom, then becomes a pertinent thought.
In modern society, money is a powerful motivator for innovation. It is what drives the entrepreneur to take risks and without it, many of the recent advances in science and technology would not have occurred. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be rich (or richer).
So how much money is too much? The answer must be that no amount is enough. To draw a line at some point is to ask one to snuff out his/her passion, to stop living when he/she reaches that threshold.
The key issue is what one does with personal wealth. A lifestyle devoted solely to ever increasing personal consumption and self glorification (Laxmi Mittal comes to mind, the Ambanis might fit the category too) seems unsatisfying, even disdainful. Why is that? Why should the onus for “greater good” be borne just by the wealthy. I believe that the answer is that it shouldn’t. All of us, regardless of income level or personal wealth, should give a portion of it to worthy causes (whether it is 1 or 5 or 25 percent is a matter of personal choice.) When enough people do it, the collective impact can exceed that of a few billionaires.
Rakesh Mital
AG : That is a wonderful articulation and expression about what money means.
Next week, we move on to Fears. Keep sending me your suggestions, questions and responses
.
Thought for the Week
“Money is better than poverty, Thought for the Week
if only for financial reasons.”
Woody Allen (1935- )
American Humorist
.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
First published in Gray Matter - The Hindustan Times
No comments:
Post a Comment