Why do some people need so much money?

So, I was reading about this President over in Uruguay—man, talk about living life on the edge. He drives a tiny little economy car, just hands his whole paycheck over to the state, gave up all those fancy security details and perks, and actually lives in a studio apartment. Like, seriously. As for family assets? His wife just has a small greenhouse full of flowers. Nothing crazy.
Then you look at his Vice President, and it’s a total 180. That guy is out here driving luxury SUVs and owning a bunch of massive estates...

Zachary Mendoza2 says:

Honestly, why wouldn't someone want power? The world is huge and filled with so much you can reach out and grab. There's plenty to enjoy. And when you actually have something, you can share it. You can actually change things.

Why frame it that way? Why assume it's a good thing for one person to hold everything just to decide who gets a slice and who doesn't? To me, that’s just pure ego. It's basically trying to play Bog.

Plus, you mentioned changing the world. Who's to say their standards are actually good for everyone else? They're the ones making the calls, and there's no guarantee their version of "better" works for the rest of us.

It really just comes down to having the guts to fight for it. Sadly, a lot of people lack that drive. They just retreat into their shells and accept being powerless. It's a shame, because I bet a lot of them could do great things if they actually stepped up.

Usually, people see those in charge as corrupt megalomaniacs, while those in charge look down on anyone unsuccessful as just being cowards.
I think that kind of resentment and class divide pushes a lot of decent, smart people in the wrong direction. They decide not to seek influence just so they don't end up becoming "them."

When capable, honest, and bright people fail to reach their potential, it might be due to a lack of grit, but I don't think it's because they don't want power. More often than not, they get crushed by others who are desperate for control and willing to use any means necessary to get it.

Anthony Garcia19 said:Zachary Mendoza2 says:

Honestly, why wouldn't someone want power? The world is huge and filled with so much you can reach out and grab. There's plenty to enjoy. And when you actually have something, you can share it. You can actually change things.

Why frame it that way? Why assume it's a good thing for one person to hold everything just to decide who gets a slice and who doesn't? To me, that’s just pure ego. It's basically trying to play Bog.

Plus, you mentioned changing the world. Who's to say their standards are actually good for everyone else? They're the ones making the calls, and there's no guarantee their version of "better" works for the rest of us.

It really just comes down to having the guts to fight for it. Sadly, a lot of people lack that drive. They just retreat into their shells and accept being powerless. It's a shame, because I bet a lot of them could do great things if they actually stepped up.

Usually, people see those in charge as corrupt megalomaniacs, while those in charge look down on anyone unsuccessful as just being cowards.
I think that kind of resentment and class divide pushes a lot of decent, smart people in the wrong direction. They decide not to seek influence just so they don't end up becoming "them."

When capable, honest, and bright people fail to reach their potential, it might be due to a lack of grit, but I don't think it's because they don't want power. More often than not, they get crushed by others who are desperate for control and willing to use any means necessary to get it.

Would it be better if nobody owned anything, leaving nothing to share?
And who should decide who gets what? Why do you believe someone else should make decisions instead of the individual? 😕

If you expect a mature person—someone capable of making their own choices and creating value for themselves and society—to follow a mandate rather than exercising their own freedom and autonomy, then you are essentially advocating for servitude, or perhaps mindless obedience🤷.

Similarly, you suggest they can change the world. But are his standards appropriate for everyone else? He alone decides that, no one else. Will his actions benefit others?

Bog handed the management of this world over to humans long ago. I cannot say whether a driver will make decisions that are safe for the passengers and other motorists, but I know things will not go well if there is no one behind the wheel.

The fact that some capable, honest, and intelligent individuals fail to reach their potential might stem from a lack of courage or fighting spirit, but it has nothing to do with a lack of desire for power. Rather, they failed because their efforts were stifled by others' excessive hunger for control, often through unscrupulous means.

Perhaps. But if you believe the problem lies with ruthless power-seekers who obstruct brave and intelligent people (who also desire influence) from reaching their potential, how can you simultaneously advocate for limiting personal achievement and decision-making freedom?

Anthony Garcia19 said:It's true that power can buy you freedom, but you don't need to be powerful to be free. Financial independence is enough. Once you achieve that and keep stacking cash just for the sake of it, it's no longer about being free—it's about wanting to control others. That's where the hunger for power comes in.

So, saying people without a drive for power have "small needs" doesn't really track. If someone is chasing total personal autonomy, their needs aren't small. Honestly, craving power isn't a sign of big ambitions; it's just a sign of a small mind...

I don't understand how you can label people as small-minded while simultaneously claiming that freedom means having just enough for oneself, yet treating anything beyond that as something to be dismissed. What about the people you care for? What about those who truly deserve better?
It doesn't seem to occur to you that a powerful individual can actually create jobs, improve society for everyone, or fund researchers, charities, schools, healthcare, and local development. Is helping others really considered being "small-minded"?
I would call such a perspective selfish. 🤷

The big shot said:says:
The President of Uruguay drives a tiny car, gives away his salary, gave up all his protections and perks, and lives in a studio apartment. As for family assets, his wife just has a small greenhouse for flowers.
Meanwhile, his Vice President has a luxury vehicle and multiple estates...

I don't know much about the President of Uruguay, but the late Stipe Šuvar used to drive an old beat-up car and took nothing for himself beyond a modest paycheck. I respect him deeply, though I suspect I am one of the few who does. No one showed up to his funeral, and his name is hardly mentioned anymore. It is a tragedy that by being so selfless and handing over his power to others, he allowed far more damaging individuals to seize control of it.

Anthony Garcia19 said:Zachary Mendoza2 says:

Honestly, why wouldn't someone want power? The world is huge and filled with so much you can reach out and grab. There's plenty to enjoy. And when you actually have something, you can share it. You can actually change things.

Why frame it that way? Why assume it's a good thing for one person to hold everything just to decide who gets a slice and who doesn't? To me, that’s just pure ego. It's basically trying to play Bog.

Plus, you mentioned changing the world. Who's to say their standards are actually good for everyone else? They're the ones making the calls, and there's no guarantee their version of "better" works for the rest of us.

It really just comes down to having the guts to fight for it. Sadly, a lot of people lack that drive. They just retreat into their shells and accept being powerless. It's a shame, because I bet a lot of them could do great things if they actually stepped up.

Usually, people see those in charge as corrupt megalomaniacs, while those in charge look down on anyone unsuccessful as just being cowards.
I think that kind of resentment and class divide pushes a lot of decent, smart people in the wrong direction. They decide not to seek influence just so they don't end up becoming "them."

When capable, honest, and bright people fail to reach their potential, it might be due to a lack of grit, but I don't think it's because they don't want power. More often than not, they get crushed by others who are desperate for control and willing to use any means necessary to get it.

Look, there's nothing wrong with having stuff.
But let's be real: right now, it’s impossible to own anything without essentially taking it from someone else. That whole dynamic won't change until we actually invent Star Trek-style replicators and tap into basically infinite energy sources.
As it stands, anyone holding onto wealth—whether directly or indirectly—has taken it from somebody else.
That other person probably wasn't given the chance to sell their labor for what it was actually worth. Maybe they were just crushed by circumstances or stuck in a broken system where their hard work isn't valued.
Meanwhile, you’ve got the first guy who’s a master at selling hot air, doing practically zero actual work while raking in massive amounts of cash.

The fact that some talented, honest, and brilliant people never reach their full potential might have something to do with them lacking guts or drive, but it has absolutely nothing to do with a lack of desire for power. More likely, they failed because their efforts were suffocated by everyone else's desperate, cutthroat grab for power, where people don't care what methods they use to get ahead.

Suffocated doesn't even cover it. They're constantly being undervalued. Think about it: why is a farmer working the soil treated like nothing compared to some corporate middleman? Those middlemen are parasites that destroy actual value, yet they get paid through the nose. Farming is essential; it's a top priority for survival. So why does society treat that work like it's worthless?

wanderingcrane5 said:Look, there's nothing wrong with having stuff.
But let's be real: right now, it’s impossible to own anything without essentially taking it from someone else. That whole dynamic won't change until we actually invent Star Trek-style replicators and tap into basically infinite energy sources.
As it stands, anyone holding onto wealth—whether directly or indirectly—has taken it from somebody else.
That other person probably wasn't given the chance to sell their labor for what it was actually worth. Maybe they were just crushed by circumstances or stuck in a broken system where their hard work isn't valued.
Meanwhile, you’ve got the first guy who’s a master at selling hot air, doing practically zero actual work while raking in massive amounts of cash.

The fact that some talented, honest, and brilliant people never reach their full potential might have something to do with them lacking guts or drive, but it has absolutely nothing to do with a lack of desire for power. More likely, they failed because their efforts were suffocated by everyone else's desperate, cutthroat grab for power, where people don't care what methods they use to get ahead.

Suffocated doesn't even cover it. They're constantly being undervalued. Think about it: why is a farmer working the soil treated like nothing compared to some corporate middleman? Those middlemen are parasites that destroy actual value, yet they get paid through the nose. Farming is essential; it's a top priority for survival. So why does society treat that work like it's worthless?

This premise is incorrect. If it were true, the total value of everything would always be zero, since nothing could ever be created. There is labor that generates value—an example you provided yourself: a farmer working in a field. Then there is labor that merely shifts value from one pocket to another, and even labor that destroys value. Furthermore, value concentrated under a single manager can either accelerate or hinder the effects of labor, depending on many factors. It is not simple.

Not just stifled. Frequently undervalued. Why is the work of a farmer not valued as much as the work of a corporate middleman? Middlemen destroy value; they are parasites, yet they are paid handsomely. Fieldwork is not only essential, it is a top priority. Why, then, is that labor not appreciated?

Corporate middlemen can be creators just as easily as they can be destroyers of value. They are necessary for a market to function, providing everyone with an opportunity to develop. Without them, we would still be in the Middle Ages. While there are some positive aspects to that, I believe the prevailing opinion is that we do not want that.

Fieldwork is certainly valued. We provide massive subsidies to farmers and ranchers, protect them through import tariffs and export incentives, and guarantee the purchase of their products, even when we could buy cheaper and often better quality goods from abroad. We compensate them for damage caused by natural disasters and other risks. We value them so much that we take food out of our own mouths just so they can continue doing what they do, even though under pure market conditions, they wouldn't even be able to feed themselves.

If we all just lived in tiny little communities and traded goods instead of using actual money, I bet there wouldn't be nearly as many wealthy people out there.

Zachary Mendoza2 said:Would it be better if nobody owned anything, leaving nothing to share?
And who should decide who gets what? Why do you believe someone else should make decisions instead of the individual? 😕

If you expect a mature person—someone capable of making their own choices and creating value for themselves and society—to follow a mandate rather than exercising their own freedom and autonomy, then you are essentially advocating for servitude, or perhaps mindless obedience🤷.

Similarly, you suggest they can change the world. But are his standards appropriate for everyone else? He alone decides that, no one else. Will his actions benefit others?

Bog handed the management of this world over to humans long ago. I cannot say whether a driver will make decisions that are safe for the passengers and other motorists, but I know things will not go well if there is no one behind the wheel.

The fact that some capable, honest, and intelligent individuals fail to reach their potential might stem from a lack of courage or fighting spirit, but it has nothing to do with a lack of desire for power. Rather, they failed because their efforts were stifled by others' excessive hunger for control, often through unscrupulous means.

Perhaps. But if you believe the problem lies with ruthless power-seekers who obstruct brave and intelligent people (who also desire influence) from reaching their potential, how can you simultaneously advocate for limiting personal achievement and decision-making freedom?

I don't understand how you can label people as small-minded while simultaneously claiming that freedom means having just enough for oneself, yet treating anything beyond that as something to be dismissed. What about the people you care for? What about those who truly deserve better?
It doesn't seem to occur to you that a powerful individual can actually create jobs, improve society for everyone, or fund researchers, charities, schools, healthcare, and local development. Is helping others really considered being "small-minded"?
I would call such a perspective selfish. 🤷

Looks like we had a bit of a misunderstanding!

I never meant, nor did I say, that it would be better if nobody owned anything. I was suggesting a different system than the one we have now—one where distribution isn't handled by powerful people with questionable morals. It would definitely be better if distribution were decided by a consensus of everyone who contributed through their work to create what is being divided (don't ask me how I envision that consensus working, because I don't know, but I believe it's possible once a society reaches a higher level of maturity).

So, I'm not denying an individual the right to freely build things for themselves and others. I'm questioning the right to unilaterally distribute what was acquired through
collective effort. Whatever someone earns strictly through their own solo work, they should be free to spend however they want.

You compared running the world to driving a bus. Sure, a bus has a limit on how many people it can carry, but there are many ways to manage a society. The current way, where a few financially powerful people call all the shots, isn't necessary, and it certainly isn't fair.

And regarding your last point... I think it's clearer now. You are free when you have enough to fully realize your potential as a human being, but everyone deserves that same freedom, not just a select few. Once you achieve that freedom as an individual (at least by that point!), you should step up and realize that almost everything you earn comes from working alongside others. Because of that, you should share it with them, rather than deciding alone who gets what, how much you keep, or how much you'll give away to charity.

wanderingcrane5 said:Look, there's nothing wrong with having stuff.
But let's be real: right now, it’s impossible to own anything without essentially taking it from someone else. That whole dynamic won't change until we actually invent Star Trek-style replicators and tap into basically infinite energy sources.
As it stands, anyone holding onto wealth—whether directly or indirectly—has taken it from somebody else.
That other person probably wasn't given the chance to sell their labor for what it was actually worth. Maybe they were just crushed by circumstances or stuck in a broken system where their hard work isn't valued.
Meanwhile, you’ve got the first guy who’s a master at selling hot air, doing practically zero actual work while raking in massive amounts of cash.

The fact that some talented, honest, and brilliant people never reach their full potential might have something to do with them lacking guts or drive, but it has absolutely nothing to do with a lack of desire for power. More likely, they failed because their efforts were suffocated by everyone else's desperate, cutthroat grab for power, where people don't care what methods they use to get ahead.

Suffocated doesn't even cover it. They're constantly being undervalued. Think about it: why is a farmer working the soil treated like nothing compared to some corporate middleman? Those middlemen are parasites that destroy actual value, yet they get paid through the nose. Farming is essential; it's a top priority for survival. So why does society treat that work like it's worthless?

In today's globalized world, that's pretty much the reality. One way or another, our work and everything we earn is tied to the labor of countless others, many of whom end up getting the short end of the stick because of unfair distribution.

Still, I don't think unlimited energy is the only fix (though it would definitely speed things up). I actually believe in people—in our spiritual growth and our ability to build a fairer system ourselves. 🙂

Anthony Garcia19: I see your point. You lean toward socialism, whereas I have been pushing capitalism. It isn't that I favor it or believe in its perfection; it simply exists because the people demand it.
In my view, these are merely frameworks. A system itself is neither good nor evil. It is the individuals within it who possess character. There is no such thing as "fair distribution" if the people themselves aren't improved first. Since humans are inherently flawed—slow to learn and quick to forget—and since capitalism thrives on selfishness as its core value, my advice is this: acquire influence so you can provide for yourself and your loved ones. As for a global spiritual awakening or a more equitable society, forget it. Perhaps in another lifetime, or several generations from now. Today's generation won't make it happen. 😳

Zachary Mendoza2 said:Moral values are ultimately subjective matters.

Consider this line of reasoning:

The world should be guided by those who actually understand what they are doing, rather than just any random fool. Intelligent people make sound decisions; fools only make mistakes.
I consider myself intelligent—my track record proves it. I know exactly how I achieved my success through hard work, strategic thinking, and overcoming everyone in my path, including the best of them. Besides, everyone believes they are smart; why should I hold a different opinion of myself?
God created fools so that the intelligent would have someone to take money from. If that weren't the case, what would intelligence even be for? Without it, everyone would be equal, whether smart or not, and we know that isn't true. Even if equality were possible, it wouldn't be fair.
It is immoral to allow a fool to keep their money. If they hold onto it, they will only waste it on something stupid, whereas that capital could do something productive in the hands of someone smarter. In any case, someone more capable will eventually take it from them anyway; why shouldn't that person be me?
The more strictly I follow these undeniable moral principles, the better and greater a man I become. 👋

🙂

Look, this is basically true most of the time—it’s just not something everyone can handle. That whole greed thing? It almost always stems from some deep-seated psychological issues, sure. But then you’ve got those people who actually get it—they realize that if they don't grab the cash themselves, someone else is just going to swoop in and snatch it up without even knowing what to do with it...

Zachary Mendoza2 said:Anthony Garcia19: I see your point. You lean toward socialism, whereas I have been pushing capitalism. It isn't that I favor it or believe in its perfection; it simply exists because the people demand it.
In my view, these are merely frameworks. A system itself is neither good nor evil. It is the individuals within it who possess character. There is no such thing as "fair distribution" if the people themselves aren't improved first. Since humans are inherently flawed—slow to learn and quick to forget—and since capitalism thrives on selfishness as its core value, my advice is this: acquire influence so you can provide for yourself and your loved ones. As for a global spiritual awakening or a more equitable society, forget it. Perhaps in another lifetime, or several generations from now. Today's generation won't make it happen. 😳

That's a pragmatic way to look at it! 🙂

I actually agree with almost everything, except for the idea that systems are neutral. Some systems nudge people toward doing good, while others push them down the wrong path. Focusing primarily on material gain for oneself, under the guise that it's necessary for personal freedom and prosperity, just leads to widespread greed and misery.

But, without a "better" human being, a better system won't work anyway. So—to repeat—I'm totally with you on this one!

Hannah White2 said:Look, this is basically true most of the time—it’s just not something everyone can handle. That whole greed thing? It almost always stems from some deep-seated psychological issues, sure. But then you’ve got those people who actually get it—they realize that if they don't grab the cash themselves, someone else is just going to swoop in and snatch it up without even knowing what to do with it...

Yeah, but the big question is always: who gets to decide how money (or assets) should be handled? Since everyone thinks they're the chosen one, you end up with the more capable taking from the less capable. That naturally leaves the latter feeling pretty frustrated.

The truth is, being "more capable" can go either way. It could mean someone smart and selfless, or it could mean someone ruthless and selfish. Ultimately, who ends up holding the purse strings just determines how much resentment the people left empty-handed feel. But let's be real—that resentment is always going to be there.

Zachary Mendoza2 said:Anthony Garcia19: I see your point. You lean toward socialism, whereas I have been pushing capitalism. It isn't that I favor it or believe in its perfection; it simply exists because the people demand it.
In my view, these are merely frameworks. A system itself is neither good nor evil. It is the individuals within it who possess character. There is no such thing as "fair distribution" if the people themselves aren't improved first. Since humans are inherently flawed—slow to learn and quick to forget—and since capitalism thrives on selfishness as its core value, my advice is this: acquire influence so you can provide for yourself and your loved ones. As for a global spiritual awakening or a more equitable society, forget it. Perhaps in another lifetime, or several generations from now. Today's generation won't make it happen. 😳

I really can't agree that capitalism is in charge simply because of the will of the people. From the rise of television to this very moment, so much has been manipulated to keep things this way.

Andrew Sullivan8 said:I’m posting this here in the spirituality section, too, since I’m not really sure where it fits best... 😉

"Every single day, you open the papers and see more scandals involving millions of dollars in fraud. It seems people will go to any lengths to get rich—stealing, killing, cheating, just committing any kind of crime imaginable...

What's interesting is that almost all these dishonest schemes are pulled off by people who don't actually need the money to survive. We aren't talking about someone on the brink of starvation or someone who can't afford basic clothes and is struggling to stay alive. It's usually the middle class or the wealthy elite—people who have plenty, but simply never have enough. So much for that idea that greed is driven by necessity...

Sometimes these folks have so much wealth that three generations of their descendants couldn't spend it all, yet they still pull dirty stunts just to stack up even more.

There's something deeply tragic about money, isn't there? How it manages to ruin so many lives..."

If we look at this through the lens of humans being essentially addictive animals, then money stops being a tool for survival or luxury—it becomes just another addiction.

silverranger742 said:I really can't agree that capitalism is in charge simply because of the will of the people. From the rise of television to this very moment, so much has been manipulated to keep things this way.

If it wasn't by the people's will, then how can we say modern America was founded by the will of its people? The entire movement toward secession and adopting a Western economic model was supported. Our representatives voted in a new constitution. Social ownership was abolished, privatization took place, and the Constitution clearly establishes private property as a fundamental value. Niko didn't force this on us; we made a clear, unambiguous choice through democratic elections, and we continue to choose it every single time. There isn't even a mention of a worthy opposition to this, even though the system is democratic and could easily allow for an alternative model to compete on equal footing.

That’s your take, Zachary Mendoza2? I still don't see it your way.

Anthony Garcia19 said:Power is an interesting thing.
I have to admit, I just don't get it. I've never felt that itch myself.
To me, finding joy in controlling others or pulling strings is just a sign of insecurity, low self-esteem, or narcissism. And honestly, that leads right back to what I said earlier about amassing massive wealth—hoarding way more than anyone could ever actually need.

Most "power players" would probably agree with you, though—mostly because nobody wants to admit they're narcissists or that they're just compensating for being insecure.
Look, I'm not out here judging anyone who doesn't act the way I think they should. Everyone has their own baggage.
Maybe I'd change, or maybe you would, or maybe any of us would if we were suddenly pulling in astronomical numbers.
Everyone claims they wouldn't go down that path, but let's be real—nobody actually knows how they'd behave when the money hits the bank. 🙂

silverranger742 said:That’s your take, Zachary Mendoza2? I still don't see it your way.

I don't know where you stand politically, but even with all the complicated stuff shaping our economy and politics today, the will of the people is still just that—the will of the people.

Who in America would actually give up private property—the whole backbone of capitalism—voluntarily? Aside from people who don't own anything to begin with, I doubt anyone would. To me, that's the ultimate litmus test for what most Americans actually want (if we look past the voting process itself).

I'm no expert here, but as far as I know, "democratic socialism" doesn't actually get rid of private ownership. It’s more about incremental reform and regulation—basically just a slightly more social version of capitalism. Nobody is actually out there asking for collective ownership.

Bradley Wood3 said:Most "power players" would probably agree with you, though—mostly because nobody wants to admit they're narcissists or that they're just compensating for being insecure.
Look, I'm not out here judging anyone who doesn't act the way I think they should. Everyone has their own baggage.
Maybe I'd change, or maybe you would, or maybe any of us would if we were suddenly pulling in astronomical numbers.
Everyone claims they wouldn't go down that path, but let's be real—nobody actually knows how they'd behave when the money hits the bank. 🙂

So, you think they won't agree?😕

I get where you're coming from. I'm not judging anyone either. I was just sharing my take on why some people acquire and hold onto massive wealth. Insecurity and low self-esteem aren't things to judge. And sure, narcissism isn't exactly charming, but it's still human nature, right? If my posts sounded negative, it's just because I feel bad that material stuff becomes everyone's top priority—it's not great for the individual or for society at large. It wasn't meant as a judgment.