[ SECRET POST #3790 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3790 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 45 secrets from Secret Submission Post #543.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Amended, thank you anon :)

[(Anonymous)]

But... what would count as a "substantial" level of capital? 1 million? 2 million? 10 million? 20 million?

I think describing "rich" requires either hard numbers or a milestone or else it is always either "more" or "the next level up" and therefore, to answer your question, you will never be, because there's no concrete definition of the point you're trying to achieve.

This is why I personally prefer using milestones like "no longer having to work, at all, and be fine." I may need 1 million to do that, so 1 million would be rich to me. Someone with more expenses may need 5 million to do that, so 5 million would be rich to them.

At what minimum point would you stop and consider yourself rich, or consider your numbers substantial? Once you got there, are you certain would you find it enough, or would your goalposts move?

Re: Amended, thank you anon :)

[(Anonymous)]

I agree with your point about milestones; I would consider having a substantial amount of capital to invest a milestone in the same way that having long-term financial security is a milestone. And in much the same way, it's hard to define with numbers. I accept that there's going to be some ambiguity here. What I really want to underscore more than anything else is the extraordinary concentration of wealth that does already exist.

Once you got there, are you certain would you find it enough, or would your goalposts move?

I mean, to me, that's a problem of self-understanding and attitude and stuff like that, not really related to any definition of wealth. You can be a person who always wants more at any level of wealth, or you can be a person who's satisfied at (almost) any level of wealth, or you can be someone who sets specific targets for themselves.

Re: Amended, thank you anon :)

[(Anonymous)]

Your point about the extraordinary concentration of wealth in a few people in the USA makes sense, but I would call those people extraordinarily generationally wealthy, not mere "rich" people. The rich neighbors with the swimming pool are peons to the Waltons, aren't they?

I was speaking about the thread topic mostly. It's difficult to answer "how to get rich?" without knowing what rich or substantial means to you. Unless underscoring the wealth disparity was the point of asking how to get rich? Have I taken your question too literally?