Money Myths: Busting the lies you believe

~ Thread ~

1. Wealth Building is mostly luck.

"I was born poor, So I can't die rich,

Millionaires just inherit their wealth"

Remember, 80% millionaires are first-generation millionaires.
2. Banks are your saviors

Banks are not there to protect your money,

Rather they lend your money to make more money.

Bank is a business model for them, not a service for you.
3. Investing in markets is too risky

$SPX price raised by 4,000% since 1980.

In long run, Stock market is money-making machine.

Don't be afraid to invest, afraid to money eaten up by inflation.
4. Looking rich will make you rich

What's the use of a Lambo purchased on debt to look rich?

Looking rich will make you poor from inside.

Only spend what you can afford comfortably.
5. Savings will help you retire rich

By the time you will retire,

Inflation would have eaten up half of your money's worth.

Invest your money to beat inflation.
6. More degrees means more wealth

Find demanding future skills and pursue expertise for them,

Else more degrees simply means more debt.

Quality >>> Quantity
7. All debts are bad

Though carrying a debt may feel bad psychologically,

But certain debts like mortgages can help you move forward in life.

While taking debt, make sure to have low interests
8. Showing-off sets your standards in society

No one admires you for being wealthy

It creates jealousy, hate among people for you

You only bring troubles for yourself by showing off
9. You don't need financial planning

"I don't desire to be a millionaire, why should I care about finances"

Only way to escape the 9-5 cage is managing your finances well and retire young.
Thanks for reading.

If you have learned something from it, Retweet the first tweet to help others.

https://t.co/Bfd9XfDxAf

More from Wealthy Brains

More from Life

"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."


We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.

Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)

It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.

Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".

You May Also Like

Funny, before the election I recall lefties muttering the caravan must have been a Trump setup because it made the open borders crowd look so bad. Why would the pro-migrant crowd engineer a crisis that played into Trump's hands? THIS is why. THESE are the "optics" they wanted.


This media manipulation effort was inspired by the success of the "kids in cages" freakout, a 100% Stalinist propaganda drive that required people to forget about Obama putting migrant children in cells. It worked, so now they want pics of Trump "gassing children on the border."

There's a heavy air of Pallywood around the whole thing as well. If the Palestinians can stage huge theatrical performances of victimhood with the willing cooperation of Western media, why shouldn't the migrant caravan organizers expect the same?

It's business as usual for Anarchy, Inc. - the worldwide shredding of national sovereignty to increase the power of transnational organizations and left-wing ideology. Many in the media are true believers. Others just cannot resist the narrative of "change" and "social justice."

The product sold by Anarchy, Inc. is victimhood. It always boils down to the same formula: once the existing order can be painted as oppressors and children as their victims, chaos wins and order loses. Look at the lefties shrieking in unison about "Trump gassing children" today.
I think a plausible explanation is that whatever Corbyn says or does, his critics will denounce - no matter how much hypocrisy it necessitates.


Corbyn opposes the exploitation of foreign sweatshop-workers - Labour MPs complain he's like Nigel

He speaks up in defence of migrants - Labour MPs whinge that he's not listening to the public's very real concerns about immigration:

He's wrong to prioritise Labour Party members over the public:

He's wrong to prioritise the public over Labour Party
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x