What are you interested in?

Your Alternative to Becoming Wealthier

When you get your idea about money straightened out, most everything else in your life will straighten itself out.  If you hold to the idea that money will make you happy, you are in for a colossal disappointment.  At the same time, if you defend your lack of material wealth and resources because you entertain the idea that wealth and joyfulness are diametrically opposed to one another, then you are limiting yourself from accomplishing the nobler things in life.  Limiting yourself in such a manner actually inhibits your ability to enjoy fulfillment and thus you are essentially destroying wealth and happiness instead of attaining either.

In truth, the alternative to becoming wealthy is to become indifferent.  That is because to reject wealth you must remain self-absorbed and unconcerned about others.  You have to ignore your responsibilities of what you could and should be doing to make the lives of others better.  This world view encourages you to retain a narrow-minded and restricted vision, otherwise, on seeing, you would become purposefully involved in the lives of others. And once you become purposely involved in other people’s lives you expand your own horizons.

In other words, the alternative to becoming wealthy is to remain selfishly wretched.  And this isn’t merely referring to your material goods and possessions because many have an abundance of these things but remain the poorest among us.  Everybody knows that the richer we become in material things the greater chance we have of becoming attached to things instead of people.  But this doesn’t mean that you must avoid owing and managing material things in life.  To do so would leave you with only one option, to be selfishly wretched.

Only when you step-up and step-out of your comfort zone will you begin to impart something of value for another person(s).  Ironic as it may seem, it is this action that increases your own wealth and contentment.  It is this action that defines the true definition of wealth and well-being.  And so, when you have honestly helped others there is no shame or trepidation that your wealth, which you have earned, should be something you should attempt to marginalize.  Bluntly put, the greater your wealth, the more evidence you have that you have benefited other(s).

Theft is another attempt to amass wealth.  But theft is an involuntary contribution where one party confiscates material and/or social wealth from another party.  This happens in business, in speculation, in government and in interpersonal relationships.  Every time this happens, the party involuntarily forced to give up their valuable goods or services, is relegated to servitude to the party confiscating those goods or services.

This breeds ill will and resentment on the first party but even more destructive, it breeds greed, dissatisfaction and disappointment for the second party, the party that confiscated the goods and/or services.  Because of these facts, redistribution programs, whether they be run by your local neighborhood thief or the US government, never produce the contentment that they were initiated to supply.

Many today are screaming for the wealthy to pay their fair share.  And of course, this brings up the question as to what that fair share would be.  Jeff Bezos, the wealthiest person in the world at this time, has a net worth of $137.2 billion.  If you were to divided Bezos’ net worth by the roughly 320 million persons living in the US today and distribute Bezos wealth evenly amongst them, everyone would receive around 430 bucks.

First of all, that would obviously be more than Bezos fair share regardless of what opinion you have regarding what “fair share” means.  Nobody should have to give up everything.  But then $430 isn’t a lot of money and certainly wouldn’t make anybody in the US wealthy today.  So, what would a redistribution like this really accomplish?  Here are the only three things that this distribution would accomplish.

  1. It would reduce the ability of every one to purchase goods and services at the low prices that Amazon.com offers.
  2. It would destroy the lives of those who work for Jeff Bezos.
  3. It would take away the incentive for other retailers and online stores to keep prices low because they would no longer have to compete with Amazon.

Redistribution of Jeff Bezos’ wealth would actually destroy the wealth of millions instead of increasing their wealth.  And this is the same reason why your alternative to becoming wealthy would destroy wealth instead of making things better for you and everybody else.  You may not have as big of an influence on the world’s economy as Jeff Bezos, but you do have an influence.

You have heard, of course, of the Butterfly Effect.  This is where a small change in a determined nonlinear system can produce massive changes in a later state of this same system.  And that is exactly what your contribution to this deterministic, nonlinear world we live in can become, or not become, depending on if you become wealthier or choose not to become wealthier.

It has been said that “Hell begins when we meet the person we could have been.” Only time will allow you to see the person you could have been, but in the meantime, you can be doing all that you possibly can to become who you are supposed to be.

Obviously, a team of minds can better discern what one mind can only begin to discern.  That is what Life Benefits is, a team of minds working to help people discover what is feasible and possible. If you want this team of minds working for you, call us at 702-660-7000.  We can help.