Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina  Not quite. That isn't really the point. You're close, but you didn't take it far enough.
The point isn't to try to get you to spend money you don't have. It's to get you to see that you're the one who sets your standards and defines your financial equilibrium, and if you want to afford something that costs $2000 when you only have $600, you'll need to raise your standard of contribution to get there.
So if you only have $600 in the bank, you've only generated $600 of social value more than you spent. If you want to afford something that costs $2000, then it's up to you to generate that extra $1400 of social value by making a bigger contribution.
The idea is to push you to stop holding back on the contribution side. Go out and generate more value than you're doing now. Start associating with people who are more contribution-focused and don't waste time complaining about how little money they have (because they're hardly created any value for others).
In order to afford something that costs $2000, you have to go out and give $2000 worth of value to other people. This is a good thing.
Since money is social debt, having lots of money means that you've given much more value than you received.
If you only have $600 to your name, it means you're pretty darned selfish, doesn't it? You've only given society a net $600. Is that the best you can do? What's stopping you from creating a million dollars worth of value for other people?
Money is simply a note from society that says, "You've given more than you've taken out, so we owe you X amount of value in return for the service you've already rendered."
The more money you have, the more you've given to society. Having lots of money is a result of generosity, not greed.
* Note: This assumes a contributor mindset towards income generation, not a moocher mindset like thievery. |
Interesting...
So, people who don't quite have the skills/talents/education/etc. to make and have more than $600 in the bank are selfish?
People who are doing important but low paying jobs (working with children, senior citizens etc.) are not being generous (enough) and hence don't have more money but some others (e.g. P. Diddy, as someone used as an example) has displayed more generosity and hence has more money?
I know, you will talk about societal value as opposed to personal value - meaning the society values stuff that someone like P. Diddy dishes out rather than what a volunteer at the senior center (Just an example. There are other people who have given society a lot more of less questionable value than the person in this example) does.
You talk about providing value worth $2000 so that I can actually have that cash to spend on things I want to have. Combining that with a previous response where you point out the difference between personal value and societal value (which has the underlying premise that since society is paying more for something, it values it more) basically you are saying....
"deliver what people in the society are willing to spend money on and you will be wealthy."
Marketing 101, though implementation takes a bit of skill and knowledge.
But yes, with that perspective, I totally agree with you!