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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There's more to death than just getting old, and expecting to buy one's way out of it with technology is a bit over-optimistic. You don't have to accept it passively, but nor is it fundamentally awful.
One might question, for example, the overall value of medical enhancements which lead to gerontocracy, and the subsequent economic and political disadvantage to the generation that comes along afterwards, a problem that the developed world is beginning to experience.
I don't see how you came up with the conclusion about investing into cryonics.
If person A offered me blue pill for $1000 and I refused [because I don't see any proof] -- does it mean that I have to accept next offer for the red pill [which also have no proof] whatsoever?
A lot of very intelligent people notwithstanding, the burden of proof is still on those who claim that the first person to live for a thousand years is sixty years old today. Even De Grey is sensible enough to realize that he's going to have to show some pretty remarkable results in mice before efforts to combat aging get serious amounts of funding.
Very true - we do have a long way to go. And I am pretty sceptical of that "is sixty years old today" claim myself - that's a pretty short window.
But "significant investments wouldn't likely help much"? I rather think they would, actually. There is a lot of research to be done, a lot we need to know. This is going to take significant investment; it is hard to think of any comparable research project that hasn't.
This guy, Felix Dennis, is over 60 now. He's worth somewhere north of half a billion. What else does he plan to use the money for? He even says, and I quote:
"Could you turn the clock back for me by forty years, I would willingly swap you every penny and every possession I own in return. And I would have the better of the bargain, too!"
If he believes that, then why not at least throw the dice on aging research? Just 20% of his (largely unnecessary) loot would have an unimaginable effect on the project. Especially if he could shame other rich old coots to match him. And who knows, they might find something quickly enough to give him his extra life. As opposed to doing nothing, that is, and all those zeroes in his bank balance being transferred directly to Her Majesty's Finest the moment he predictably keels over. Why not try and throw a spanner in the works? Mix things up a bit? See what the judicious application of Amount of Funds A to Promising Line of Enquiry B can come up with?
Maybe I lack the perspective of being a grizzly rich old goat but geeze, with their own lives on the table you'd think they would find more productive uses of their money than paintings and bonds. Where altruism fails, naked self-interest should start kicking in. Why isn't it?
Why do you think that pouring half a billion dollars into anti-aging research would give a good chance of accomplishing something in that field?
Spending tons of money guarantees only one thing -- spending money.
If there were promising results in anti-aging research -- savvy investors would be heavily investing into that field.
But they don't, because savvy investors understand that it's not practical at this point, even considering HUGE demand for anti-aging technology.
Tell me why you're not just another dude with a cause who wants to tell other people how to spend their money, because that's what you sound like. Not to be combative, and I want to live for a thousand years as much as the next guy, but this is why I lean libertarian. My naked self interest is my naked self interest.
I'm not telling others how to spend their money, I'm wondering aloud why they don't do what seems to be best for them. Sorry if I implied otherwise.
If your net worth ran into the hundreds of millions and you'd expressed the heartfelt desire to live longer, as Mr. Felix has, then upon noticing you hadn't taken any action in furtherance of that desire I'd suggest your investment in life extension research, too. But it's just a suggestion, of course.
That said, sometimes compulsion is reasonable. I would not argue with tax money going towards SENS research. A better use than guns and foreign bases, certainly.
maybe because they don't know about it. Not many people have heard about the ageing research and I think the project would gain a lot of funding if they started raising awareness by targeted advertising and marketing.
Perhaps because when we finally do conquer aging, it's going to cause societal disruption unseen since humanity's beginnings. Chances are good that you won't want to live through such a time.
Think about it. It takes time and money to commoditize any new technology; wealthy early adopters are often required to help the technology evolve to the point where it's ready for the masses. Remember when only the "rich" had phones in their cars? And the way ordinary people would often snicker at the very idea of such an indulgence?
Now imagine a time in which only the "rich" can live forever. Suddenly there's not so much snickering, as there is the sound of axes being sharpened.
Hm. I am not so sure about that. There are many societies around the world in which the rich live in near-obscene luxury while mere kilometres away the masses huddle in abject poverty, dying of curable illnesses, helpless and starving while their betters fly past in their Mercedes and helicopters. They do not rise up.
I think the rule of law will prevail for the most part, and private security will make up the gaps. Whether this is just or injust is left for the reader to ponder but I don't think radical life extension for the rich will prompt revolution.
Well, relatively speaking a middle class living is privileged, sure. I wouldn't describe $60k/yr in a country like this as "fabulously wealthy", though, and doubt even an inhabitant of the Sao Paulo Favelas (whom I had in mind writing the above) would consider it as such. However, we have at least the opportunity to reach for the stars - or to continue in relative middle class comfort. They don't have this and yes, it is unfair.
But what can we do? Is not the solution to raise the tide for all, rather than scuttle our own ships? There is no reason our planet, properly ordered, cannot provide all its inhabitants a comfortable, dignified, even prosperous stay.
Would that I live to see it happen. Everything good comes from the middle classes. Multiply them and you multiply everything - technology, culture, progress. Expanding the middle class should be the goal of any technocrat with an eye to the future. Helping the poor isn't just altruism, it's self-interest too because while they suffer we cannot conspicuously splash money around on more useful things.
With some combination of telomerase, nanomachines, and time travel, it may be possible in the near future to reverse the aging process or at least achieve negligible senescence. Who will be able to afford these treatments first? The VERY RICH.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I know someone who drives a Ferrari and really enjoys it - and he's nearly 50. You've got to be pretty old before you're too old to enjoy driving a nice car.
Drive it until the total annual cost of [repairs, inconvenience of breakdown, time lost due to failed vehicle] exceeds the cost of another used Honda/Toyota.
As someone who remembers their first high-school vehicle too well, there's value in a level of reliability.
Agreed, but the quote was from when you are already filthy rich. But it applies to many people in this country, since getting a new car every 4 years is so popular.
Personally I'm a fan of finding a good deal on a used car, buying it, driving it for 1-2 years, and then selling it for the same amount I paid for it. Pretty much the only cost this way is a) insurance(which you can save a few extra bucks by getting only liability) b) gas c) 2-3 oil changes.
And since you are owning the car for a short period, you won't get hit by any costly repairs.
The costs of buying and selling the car, as well as adjusting to a new car, are non-trivial for most people.
It's another case of doing more work to make more money. The question should be, "Is doing a better investment of time and effort than simply buying a newer car and keeping it longer?"
In my experience if you plan to keep the car, leasing is a horrible option financially at least. My girlfriend recently bought out a 2006 Honda CRV after a three years lease, and she ended up paying more than $10k above the nominal price. [To add insult to injury, in CA when Honda gives you the buyout quote, it doesn't include the sales tax and (I think) the registration fee. Once the transaction is finalized you may realize you have to pay a few more k to the DMV.]
If you want to drive a new car every three years, then I'm guessing leasing could be better or similar than buying if you finance close to 100%. Whether you should change cars every three years if you can't afford the downpayment is another question.
I'll see your "lease a car" and raise you "learn the auto market, buy a car, drive it for 3/4 months and sell it at a profit."
Lots and lots of people do this for a living; they're called "wholesalers". You can pretty easily get a wholesale dealer license (go to your local DMV if you're in the United States). Once you have this, it will allow you access to dealer-only auto auctions, and the ability to sell more than 3-4 cars a year (I forget what the law is).
Granted, this is a considerable amount of work, with a pretty high risk, but it can be really profitable if you know what you're doing.
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.
To an extent. But if you assume that "constitution" or its parts is heritable to the degree that most IQ and personality traits are (roughly 60%) there is still a lot most people can do to improve their situation and abilities.
I assume that most of the properties that would determine one's constitution as relative to the requirements he lists are largely fixed by the point in life that someone is reading stuff about becoming rich.
Not necessarily. I was 42 before I found out I was a high-functioning autistic or Aspie. The last 6 years I have been able to make substantial changes in my life using that knowledge. I suspect most people, especially those with fewer deficits, could relatively easily adjust their life styles/"constitutions".
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.
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.
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.
I agree with most of what you say. But I don't think that being able to do "pretty much whatever you want" is absolute.
Much of what we want depends on other people working for us. I don't think that's going to go away, quite the contrary. Services are an increasingly bigger share of what we want than ever before.
So you're right that relative wealth/poverty will not disappear and that it's here by definition is what I meant by "statistical issue". But that also means that some of us will not be able to do pretty much whatever they want.
Ah, in that case I wasted my time reading about how to get rich. I am already rich! :) But if you include all people living in past times wouldn't it be consistent to include all people who will live in the future? Compared to them we might all be very poor and there is no way for anyone to become rich.
Sorry, but cryonics is a scam.
The chances of extending life using cryonics are so low, that any investment into cryonics would decrease you current quality of life, not improve it [by extending your life into future].
http://aidevelopment.blogspot.com/2008/12/cryonics.html
Actually those FAQs do not challenge the central point of that blog post, which is that reasonable people can have wildly different estimates of the likelihood of successful preservation and reconstruction, and that most people judge it too much of a long shot to be worth the money.
Cryonics advocates are by and large not very interested in trying to justify estimates that give a reasonable chance of success (I'll make an exception for Robin Hansen), and would rather talk about the importance of participation and securing more funding based on the fact that the probability of success is non-zero, and pro-life-esque ethical arguments about the value of human life.
Cryonics advocates are by and large not very interested in trying to justify estimates that give a reasonable chance of success
Sounds simply wrong to me, and I know a lot of cryonics advocates. The ones I know try to explain why current vitrification technology ought to preserve neural microstructure. Others work on better vitrification technology. I really don't know where you're getting this from.
Sorry, it would be more accurate to restrict that to "Based on the above FAQs and other discussions on Overcoming Bias and Less Wrong, cryonics advocates don't seem...."
The chance that cryonics will work depends greatly upon the conditions under which a person is cryopreserved. [...] Probability estimates of future technology cannot be anything other than guesswork, although molecular repair technology does appear to be inevitable. [...] Rather than passively attempting to calculate probability, a person is better advised to realized that preparation to prevent potential problems will greatly affect the probability of success for that person and his/her loved-ones. The chance that cryonics will work also depends greatly upon how much money and effort is put into the technologies and organizational enhancements that can make cryonics work. [...]
[...] The likelihood that technologies capable of the required analysis, repair, and tissue regeneration will be developed.
The practicality of maintaining cryopreserved people long enough for such technologies to be developed. [...]
The ethics of not cryopreserving people until cryonics is proven to work.
There certainly is plenty of discussion about vitrification, but that is a relatively small part of the equation. Looking at Robin Hansen's post again, he links another breakdown of the total chance of success at http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/WillCryonicsWork.html. These are the only two attempts I know of, and they do a pretty good job of showing how speculative the whole thing is and how much variation that produces in the estimates.
Well, yes, it's still a bit of a leap of faith. But a slim chance is better than none at all, right?
As long as it doesn't influence one's life choices - ie, relying on a successful reanimation to fulfil some goal or what not - I don't see why anyone would not at least give it a shot. Best case scenario, you wake up healthy and hearty in the magnificent future. Worst case scenario, you're dead. But if you don't freeze you're dead anyway, for sure. So why not?
It sounds pretty good when you focus on the payoff, gloss the probability of success (as if the difference between 77% and 0.002% is negligible, or either estimate is anything other than pure speculation), and ignore the costs entirely.
Well, we're obviously unable to estimate the probabilities accurately, but from what I know of the subject 0.002% is exceedingly pessimistic. I am no expert, but do follow this stuff, and IMO the chances are actually pretty good. And the payoff, if successful, is basically infinity.
The Harris essay (on the Amcor site) you linked to, by the way, I have many problems with. It purports to take a scientific approach to estimating the probably of success and yet has many inexplicable red herrings that bring down the final total, for example a fanciful excursion into numerous world disaster scenarios which, while entertaining, are pretty tangential to the question at hand. Other "risks" he factors in, like the company going out of business or the storage becoming illegal in that country, are not related to the technology per se and would be handled by the suspendee's descendents or trustees - they are only reasonable if one assumes a complete lack of preparation for the execution of your wishes, and a complete lack of action by your living representatives if you had. They do not belong in the final estimate either. I would take his "optimistic" estimate and multiply it by three, or more.
The cost is somewhere around $250k. That's not insignificant but certainly not out of reach for many, especially in their old age. What else would you do with the money? Even if it's unsuccessful, at least you're capitalising companies doing research for the good of the species. And what's the alternative? Certain oblivion, rotting in the ground, with the money going to general revenue?
When the payoff is infinity it is rational to take any non-zero bet, and the entry price is not even that high. I'll be taking that bet. Don't know why you're so down on it really.
Haven't read the full paper, but this caught my eye: The world economy, which now doubles in 15 years, would soon double in a week to a month
According to the book "The Birth of Plenty" by William J. Bernstein, the world's wealth has been growing at a steady rate of 2% since 1820. Not sure where the disagreement comes from. Maybe the author of the article doesn't make a correction for inflation?
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)
"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."
"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.
I used to argue with a close friend about this a lot...
This is the difference between what I called "hippies" and "fascists" (this was a joke, I don't actually mean that the people I'm talking about are fascists or hippies).
Both of these groups of people have the same fantasy. It is almost always something along the lines of "I want to wake up in the morning with absolutely nothing to do. I want to sit on the end of my dock in a cabin far away from anything and catch fish all day without having to worry about anything" or "I want to sail around the world".
The hippie approach to this is almost always some derivative of "You can DO IT! Quit your job, get a cabin or boat or whatever, and just LIVE THAT LIFE!".
This is ignoring what the actual goal is; not having to worry about anything. The fantasy is not having to think about paying rent, or electricity, or gas, or medical bills, or anything at all ever. The fantasy is having enough money that the only things you ever have to consider are things that you WANT to do, like fishing, or writing poetry.
This is why the "fascists" take the approach of "I am going to work my ass off while I'm young, then retire on a boat".
This approach ALSO has a major problem. Often times the "work my ass off" period results in the worker alienating themselves from everything that they love and are working towards spending time with; their friends, family, and loved ones.
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.
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).
It certainly requires a strong inner drive, but we don't always choose our drives. Some artists are wise and talented enough to also operate a business career, but the Van Goghs of this world don't always get to enjoy the fruits of their labors.
Mind you, I know some rich people that are so money obsessed they don't enjoy the fruits of their labors either...I'm thinking of one guy who collects fast cars but can rarely tear himself away from the office in order to drive them.
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?
I agree. Some of the best poetry I've ever read has been about hardship. I think I would rather read a poem that was scrawled on the back of an unpaid utility bill than the musings of a comfortable millionaire.
"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)
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.
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
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.
His main point was, the more responsibility you take on, the richer you can become. In the financial industries, only the best talents get the type compensation that would qualify them as "rich". It's basically like becoming a Major League Baseball player, so I wouldn't call it a "safe" job. At that level the rewards are high, but the leash is even shorter. I'd go as far as saying that the unreasonable amount of risk these institutions took on was mainly because of that short leash (much like MLB players taking steroids, and how that whole saga played out). The pressure to perform is astronomically higher. These guys handle quite a few more figures than your typical everyday banker, and thus fit the criteria.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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...
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.
Look up "Swedes in richest men list". Some people seem to manage.
I'd even suggest that "geographic constraints" is thinking it wrong, if you re-read Dennis, or look at actual facts. Discarding the formality of money accounts, there were "rich people" in Stalin's USSR and Mao's China. The degree of unpleasantness of the process varies, of course.
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?
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.