Losers In The Game

Immediate setup for failure

Another weekend marks the end of another full week of misinformation recirculated through convenient medias like Twitter, Facebook, and CNN.  This morning, I was perusing Facebook, and I encountered rather troubling propaganda from the anti-rich contingent. It mimicked the game of monopoly, farcely excusing the 99% for losing the game immediately, topped with a sarcastic conclusion that they're lazy.

The biggest problems are two-fold.  One, the propaganda invites and encourages The Simpsons "can't win; don't try" mentality.  People may not understand the basics of personal finance, so when they have an excess of their greatest asset, they do not hedge it against monetary assets, specifically time.  Maybe the wealth of youth is wasted on the young, or maybe I got lucky that I understood it correctly when elders briefed me on the concept years ago.

Little amounts now can grow over time in two ways. First, the accumulation of those unnoticeable pennies eventually fill a jar and create a substantial sum out of nothing (figuratively speaking, but almost literally). Likewise, small, unnoticeable amounts out of each paycheck build up and eventually create a financial cushion for emergency protection. Second, invested assets are not doing nothing. That money is put to work and it similarly earns its own paycheck, creating two paychecks: income that you earn on the job and dividends that your money earns for you.

My mother taught us the financial philosophy that "you can either work hard or let your money work hard for you." For her, that was an unloaded, non-judgmental notion since her two kids each took a different direction. My sister wanted luxuries; she knew she had to work for it. On the other hand, I opted to go without extravagance in favor of a more simplistic lifestyle. "A penny saved is a penny earned" was my mentality, and I filled the metaphoric jars. For the record, my mother's philosophy had one flaw in that those options are not as mutually exclusive as they sounded. I'm confident that my sister's money is working for her as sure as I have my own work ethic.

The second problem with the monopoly graph is the implication that personal finance is a game, dividing players into a winner and losers. That's an absolute loser mentality. There is no need to view money in terms of a game, or in terms of winners and losers and financial success is not lessened by others' wealth. There is no need to gauge personal wealth by other portfolios. "Keeping up with the Joneses" exists, but their excess or deficiencies have no direct effect on other's personal wealth. When I saw the graph on Facebook, I commented that the game would not be over until someone quit. The sarcastic conclusion that the "losers" are lazy is missing the point that they are actually justifying their decision to quit.

Another problem with the whole graph is that Monopoly is a skillful game of entrepreneurship. The "lazy" judgments are typically applied to people expecting hand-outs and freebies to get by.

I had to laugh this week reading through comments by CNN trolls and how often they unwittingly call me rich. Making statements that the "rich were the only ones who gained from the 2008 stock market decline" qualifies me as rich. Maybe some of my Facebook friends would think I'm rich, too. The difference is that my actions don't prevent them from doing the same.