
If you want to be rich, first stop being so frightened (2006) - revorad
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article1084093.ece?print=yes&randnum=1246357554256
======
petercooper
I read this book a couple of years ago and it wasn't quite what I expected -
it was better.

Felix drags you in with the "how to be rich" message but actually ends up
convincing you that you really don't want to be megarich at all and that there
are far more important things in life to focus on or give priority to. He says
he'd give anything to be young again and that no matter how much money he has,
he'll never get time back.

~~~
sho
_"He says he'd give anything to be young again and that no matter how much
money he has, he'll never get time back."_

Indeed. And yet I don't see his name in "the 300".

Why aren't these rich people _throwing_ money at SENS research?

~~~
dennisgorelik
> Why aren't these rich people throwing money at SENS research?

Because at this moment science is very far from solving human aging problem,
and significant investments wouldn't likely help much.

~~~
Eliezer
If you're that old then you should be investing in cryonics. Same logic. Death
is for people who don't understand technology.

~~~
dmm
You and I have different understandings of death.

You've been dying since the moment you were born. I was once a child. That
child is nowhere in the world. He is dead. In his place is a young man. Some
day, very soon, that young man will no longer exist and in his place someone
else will live.

Death and rebirth are constant processes. You cannot live without changing.
And what is death but change? Three weeks ago I was a man who was ignorant of
opengl. That man is now dead forever. In his place, reborn, is a man who has a
passing knowledge of it.

The event we normally call death is simply a dramatic version of what occurs
every day, every possible moment.

~~~
sho
While I can sympathise with anyone who has learnt OpenGL, I think he is
talking about non-metaphoric, actual death, the kind that results in you being
actually dead, ie heart stopped, not breathing, will never see or speak again
- that kind of death.

~~~
dmm
Oh I know. I was just trying to challenge the statement "Death is for people
who don't understand technology." by pointing out a different view.

Duality is one of the triumphs of western thought. It has allowed us to escape
superstition and is the basis of science and engineering. It keeps the bridges
from falling down, but it is not a perfect description of reality and it falls
apart if expected to be.

What I'm saying is that so far as it is meaningful to specify things* are
"you" and parts of "you", these things do not end or disappear with real,
physical, heart-stopping, rotting in ground death. The things which are lost
with physical death are in constant flux, so they are constantly being lost
anyway.

* No need for a soul or some sort of material ectoplasm. You are in constant subtle contact with everything.

~~~
arakyd
_The things which are lost with physical death are in constant flux, so they
are constantly being lost anyway._

Actually, no. When the Great Flux fluxes and the flux that is you goes away,
it is not exactly the same thing as when the flux that is you fluxes and the
flux that is some property of you goes away. Let's not interpret Taoism as yet
another rationalization of death.

~~~
dmm
Ha I'm lost. Sorry if my posts didn't make any sense. I don't know anything
about taoism.

------
paulsingh
+1 for "If it flies, floats or fornicates, always rent it - it’s cheaper in
the long run."

~~~
vaksel
I'd say it also applies to new cars too(leasing). if you plan to replace your
car after 3-4 years, I found out that you end up losing the same amount of
money, and in many cases you actually save money.

i.e. you lease a car, you end up paying 10K in payments. But if you finance
it, you end up paying 25K in payments, and get 15K back when you sell it
privately. And the number is even less if you trade in, which you might
consider since selling a car is a pain in the ass(unless you are sell it way
below market value)

But when you lease, you don't have to worry about selling it, you just turn it
in. And even if you ever end up going over the limit, pretty much every dealer
will forget the overcharges/damages, if you lease another car from them.

And even if you plan to keep the car, leasing is the best option, since
essential it's a 3-4 year test drive. You pretty much get to find out
EVERYTHING about the car, before you decide to keep it long term. And in the
end, you will be able to see what the market is like...in many cases when you
lease a popular car that keeps it's value, the buyout is less than the current
market value of the car.

~~~
teej
If your priority is to always drive a new car, then leasing might make sense.
If your priority is building wealth at the expense of looking flashy, it is a
terrible, terrible, terrible idea.

My priority is to make my first $1M, then worry about the model year of my
car.

~~~
msluyter
Indeed. Simple formula for minimizing car expenses: Buy a used (3-5 yr old)
Honda or Toyota sedan. Drive it until total annual cost of repairs exceeds the
cost of another used Honda/Toyota, and/or it falls apart. Repeat.

~~~
yan
That's the most economical way to own a car, sure, but there is opportunity
cost to driving something you don't enjoy when you're young enough to enjoy
it. If you don't care about cars or driving, this is the best option, but if
you do, it might not hurt to spend a few extra dollars on something you'd
actually enjoy.

~~~
ibsulon
That's raising my level of ramen profitibility, no thank you.

~~~
jpwagner
Not agreeing or disagreeing with OP, but ramen profitibility sucks if your
life sucks...

------
wheels
I expected this to be crap given the title, but ended up being quite
entertaining. The only annoyance in the style was that it started with the
"everyone can be rich" and then followed with a bunch of stuff that very few
people have the constitution to in fact do.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
I felt the same. Also, there are some statistical issues with everyone being
rich, unless being rich is about absolute numbers, in which case Zimbabweans
are all super rich ;-) It boils down to the difference between "everyone" and
"anyone" I guess.

~~~
marvin
Being rich is half about having more money and power than others and half
about having freedom to do pretty much whatever you want. The latter is
absolute. So possibly a richer society in the future will have a higher
standard of living, better health and lifespan and greater possibilities for
how an average person can live his/her life. Not being obliged to work is
probably the greatest improvement that can conceivably be available to most
people.

But the relative "richer than"/"more powerful than" thing will never disappear
- it has been here through all of human history and has to be there pretty
much by definition.

~~~
Periodic
There definitely does seem to be two types of "rich". There is (and my
terminology here has nothing to do with his) the comfortably rich and the
sociably rich.

The comfortably rich seek to make more money in order to live more
comfortably. I see a lot of geeks like this. They like to work their
investments more for fun and to build up a nicer retirement fund than to buy a
nice car.

The sociably rich seek to gather wealth to change their social status and
thereby both attract a different set of peers/partners and increase the number
of people below them on the social ladder.

In terms of the former the US is definitely very rich now. The ability of so
many people to go to college and enter various job markets or make a living in
a small business is amazing.

In terms of the latter only a few can win, because it is a zero-sum game.

------
edw519
I love his book. I read it once a year whether I need to or not.

[http://www.amazon.com/How-Get-Rich-Greatest-
Entrepreneurs/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/How-Get-Rich-Greatest-
Entrepreneurs/dp/B001R23FN4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246363245&sr=8-1)

+1 for "If it flies, floats or fornicates, always rent it - it’s cheaper in
the long run."

I also think of Felix Dennis every time I hear the Pet Shop Boys - he has a
great story about that.

~~~
sivers
You can read the cliffnotes from the book, here:
<http://sivers.org/book/HowToGetRich>

(Though it's very worth getting the real book.)

One of my favorite quotes: "Money is exactly like sex. You think of nothing
else if you don't have it, and think of other things if you do."

~~~
icey
When will you be writing a book? Everyone knows you have one in you; and I bet
more than a few people would buy it.

~~~
wallflower
In case you have not yet read it, Derek has written an e-Book that shares his
insights and personal stories (it is about marketing your music but all
marketing is marketing)

<http://sivers.org/pdf>

"When I think about every big leap that happened in my career, it was always
because of 'someone I knew.' Always friends of friends. People in some
position of power who I kept in touch with, did favors for, and got the same
in return."

"You can break someone out of their drab life as an assistant sales rep for a
manufacturing company. You might be the coolest thing that ever happened to a
teenager going through an unpopular phase. You can give them a mission!

If they’re a fan of your music, invite them over for pizza to spend a night
doing a mailing to colleges."

------
thalur
"If I had my time again, I would dedicate myself to making just enough to live
comfortably (say £30m or £40m) as quickly as I could, hopefully by the time I
was 35. I would then cash out immediately and retire to write poetry and plant
trees. "

I thought this was an interesting remark, particularly as it would 'only' put
him in the "lesser rich" band defined at the end of the article. It makes me
wonder why he picked that particular amount, whether it marks a decent balance
between effort and reward, or just a decent income off the interest for
savings.

~~~
copenja
I find the notion of getting rich in order to write poetry kinda silly.

It does not take a million dollars to write great poetry.

It takes a pen, a piece of paper, and a poet.

~~~
sho
It takes more than that. It also takes a lack of other concerns, like how you
are going to pay the rent. Stress kills artistic creativity, for me at least.

~~~
jessewmc
Then you're not cut out to be an artist. Being an artist is the same as
getting rich--you have to have the fight in you for it. The payoff is just
different (usually).

~~~
sho
Maybe that is true for a very specific, romantic type of artist but in the
general case art flourishes in societies rich enough to "humour" them. Why do
you think American and Japanese art dominate the world?

~~~
copenja
Your arguing shades of Grey here.

Are you honestly saying that majority of artists (musicians, painters, poets)
in history have been independently wealthy?

~~~
ahpeeyem
Maybe not independently wealthy, but they were patronised by those who were
very wealthy.

For example, Michelangelo: <http://www.geocities.com/rr17bb/PatrMich.html>

------
bendtheblock
If you haven't already seen it, here is a poetic recital he did at TED:
[http://www.ted.com/talks/publisher_felix_dennis_odes_to_vice...](http://www.ted.com/talks/publisher_felix_dennis_odes_to_vice_and_consequences.html)

With his poetry, he again aludes to some of the pitfalls of wealth he mentions
in the article.

~~~
revorad
Awesome! Thanks.

(That link's broken. This should work -
[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/publisher_felix_dennis_ode...](http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/publisher_felix_dennis_odes_to_vice_and_consequences.html))

~~~
bendtheblock
Thanks! I've fixed the original link too.

------
Hexstream
"Five homes. Three estates. Fancy cars. Private jets. (The jets are always
rented. If it flies, floats or fornicates, always rent it — it’s cheaper in
the long run.) Thousands of acres of land. Art on the walls and libraries
stuffed with first editions. Bronze statues littering up the garden.
Chauffeurs, housekeepers, financial advisers and other personal staff coming
out of my rear end. Oh, and thousands of bottles of fine wine in the cellars.
Never forget the wine."

All this overhead is definitely not for me. I want to get rich but to gain
maximum independence and peace of mind, not to clutter my mind with countless
possessions.

I don't think I'd live very differently whether I had 10 millions in the bank
or 100 millions. I'd just want a ridiculously top-notch workstation (like in
Matrix?), really fast connection and a big architecture in the cloud for my
world domination fantasies ;P (and maybe a private island or something)

~~~
CamperBob
Which is kinda what he's saying. He explicitly says that if he could do it
over again, he'd have stopped at the point where he could live comfortably but
not extravagantly.

I used to wonder how people like Bill Gates could resist walking away once
they'd made their first ten billion, and doing something fun or personally
fulfilling. If I were Gates, I'd be living on the Moon and looking through a
telescope at Mars. But upon thinking the question through a little farther, I
realized that if Gates were the type to do something like that, he'd never
have made that first ten billion in the first place. He would've quit after
his first ten million, without the resources to do anything _but_ live well on
Earth with the usual expensive toys.

A depressing paradox, when you think about it.

------
revorad
It's an interview of Felix Dennis I found on the yc website. Not sure if it's
been posted before.

As much as I enjoyed reading it, it also made me cringe.

Oh and you got to love the wealth guide at the end of the article.

------
Gimbal
As far as advice on economy goes, I'm still reading what PT Barnum has to say
about it: <http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/8581> PS Reportedly, PT Barnum did
not say "There's a sucker born every minute", cf
<http://sniggle.net/barnum.php>

I guess I can only take one source of advice about it, at a time, heheh. I
will say, though, that I think it's great if the subject of economy (in a
transitive sense) is still coming up in contemporary discourse

~~~
wyclif
I recently picked up "The Fabulous Showman" in a used book store, a good read
for entrepreneurs.

------
wmorein
To me one interesting thing about this article is that -- relating
specifically to the question of whether you can get rich by picking a "safe"
job -- it is actually incorrect. The changes in corporate compensation
practices are such that, particularly in financial industries, you can work in
a everyday job and end up rich, even by the definitions he uses in this
article. It will be interesting to see if that continues after the current
crisis. I would have guessed no a few months ago, but now it is seeming more
likely to continue.

~~~
rjurney
If you look, by his standards that would only make you comfortably poor, not
truly rich :)

------
jbr
I'm most interested in: "If you have artistic inclinations and fear that the
search for wealth will coarsen such talents, you will never get rich. (Because
your fear, in this instance, is well justified.)"

This stuck out as something I've never heard anyone else say, perhaps because
it's difficult. I wonder how much truth there is in this statement, and
whether it is a necessary truth or a truth of default. Is creativity truly
stifled by financial success? It seems more likely that we get good at what we
practice and few business people carve the time for creative pursuits.

Does this quote concern other HN readers?

~~~
drusenko
i took it a little bit differently, that the actual _search_ for wealth with
coarsen artistic talents, ie the epitome of creativity is searching for
perfection, while getting rich involves a lot of down and dirty pragmatism. i
would imagine that pragmatism sort of ruins artistic talent.

------
grellas
Good points about the risk-taking required to become rich. Very helpful to
entrepreneurs.

The author does simply assume, however, that becoming rich should be an
overriding goal in itself.

He does not consider this goal in relation to others - for example, character,
contentment, learning, relationships, etc. (other than to mention in passing
the wreckage in such areas that can sometimes accompany the gaining of
wealth).

Not that he should. He is not trying to be philosophical. But the approach is
inherently limited in omitting any larger discussion.

Good thought-provoking discussion within its limits, though.

~~~
whatusername
read the book. He almost tries to discourage people from attempting it - and
certainly points out the pitfalls.

------
Emore
Very interesting article. I myself have a fairly strong ambition to become
rich. Not for the money in itself but for the -- as Dennis mentions -- the
making of the money.

"Problem" is that I'm Swedish and thus live in Sweden. Becoming rich here is
almost impossible, just as it is impossible to be poor.

So, what are the geographic constraints for becoming rich? I guess it boils
down to the US?

~~~
dhs
I found the claim that "you can't get rich in Sweden" quite interesting, so I
looked up some data. Here's my calculation:

    
    
        Rank 	Nation 	Number of billionaires 	Population  People/Billionaire (rounded)
    
        1 	 Germany 	54 		 82,210,000	1,522,407
    
        2 	 Russia 	32 		141,950,000	4,404,687
    
        3 	 UK	 	27 		 60,587,300	2,243,974
    
        4 	 Turkey 	13 		 71,517,100	5,501,315
    
        5 	 Italy	 	12 		 59,337,888	4,944,824
    
        6 	 Spain 		12 		 46,157,822	3,846,485
    
        7 	 France 	10 		 64,473,140	6,447,314
    
        8 	 Sweden 	 9		  9,234,209	1,026,015
    

According to this, about one in a million Swedes is a billionaire, a ratio
better than anywhere else in Europe.

Sources:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_the_number...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_the_number_of_billionaires#Europe)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_p...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_population)

Edit: For comparison, I calculated the ratio for the USA (population
306,798,000, billionaires 859, according to the Wikipedia), and found that
about one in 357,147 US citizens is a billionaire. So while it's appearantly
relatively easy to become a billionaire in Sweden compared to the other
European countries, it seems to be even easier in the US. I guess that means
you're about half right...

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Note1: This looks great in the link view but the format sucks on the general
comments page. Could be a bug?

Note2: Since I'm already here for that comment, the number of billionaires is
not a very good measure of how easy it is to become rich. "Becoming rich"
means moving from middle class to, say, millionaire status. So the metric
would be around income changes at that level, not how many super rich people
decide to live somewhere or another.

------
10ren
Odd. His shortlist consists of you-will-never-be-rich's... except for:

> If you are not prepared to work longer hours than almost anyone you know,
> despite the jibes of colleagues and friends, you are unlikely to get rich.

------
inovica
If you've not read his book its worth reading. Made me laugh anyway!

------
erlanger
This guy has a huge mouth. Why would he do an interview with the Times again
if his previous interviewer there claimed to disclose information told in
confidence, alleging murder no less?

[http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/cele...](http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/celebrity/article3660995.ece)

~~~
emhc
It's not an interview, rather a book excerpt, and was published two years
before the link you provided.

