Anyone can make more money, but no one can make more time. People with lots of time are the truly rich among us.
Some people acquire wealth by doing what they like.
Many people acquire wealth by working, just so they can afford to do things they like when they are not working.
While the first scenario is the ideal to strive for, the law of probability tells us that, as observed in the world, only a small percentage of people actually succeed in living this way.
Majority of the people and majority of the products fall in the second scenario.
It is ideal to make products the way you would like it to be, and still have a sustainable demand for it. But there are only a handful of products in the world, about which this can be said.
The rest are under pressure to earn more revenues, more profits, more market share or some other metric that its makers are judged against. And the principles which were in place while the product was first envisaged are sidelined to make headway in search for higher performance on the metrics.
This implies that there are a lots of people who are willing to turn a blind eye to the sourcing policies, labour practices, detrimental effects on the environment in making the product, all for lesser prices and easier access.
I see a correlation. The weights attached to the two definitions of wealth will correspond with the weights they attach to the kind of products they demand, the kind of governments they elect and the kind of societies that evolve.
Some people acquire wealth by doing what they like.
Many people acquire wealth by working, just so they can afford to do things they like when they are not working.
While the first scenario is the ideal to strive for, the law of probability tells us that, as observed in the world, only a small percentage of people actually succeed in living this way.
Majority of the people and majority of the products fall in the second scenario.
It is ideal to make products the way you would like it to be, and still have a sustainable demand for it. But there are only a handful of products in the world, about which this can be said.
The rest are under pressure to earn more revenues, more profits, more market share or some other metric that its makers are judged against. And the principles which were in place while the product was first envisaged are sidelined to make headway in search for higher performance on the metrics.
This implies that there are a lots of people who are willing to turn a blind eye to the sourcing policies, labour practices, detrimental effects on the environment in making the product, all for lesser prices and easier access.
I see a correlation. The weights attached to the two definitions of wealth will correspond with the weights they attach to the kind of products they demand, the kind of governments they elect and the kind of societies that evolve.
CONVERSATION