Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I suppose the meaning of the OP is for us to imagine that we have millions and millions of dollars to spend or give away. If that were my case, I would second the motion on supporting contraception. It's difficult for me to imagine anything that would produce more benefit for humanity, both short-term and long-term. Failure to practice contraception is at the root of almost all the world's current problems.
However, this whole thing is highly philosophical. I am 68, retired, middle class, and already money is no longer an object for me. I live modestly but comfortably and already do what I want. If I had millions and millions, I would spend relatively little of it on myself because I already have what I need and want (being that my needs and wants are simple and modest).
To the holier-than-thou poster A Common Anomaly, who wrote, "If money is an object for you, then you are living your life wrong", I would respond that the addition of a single word into that sentence would change it radically and I would sign on in agreement. I would say, "If money is the sole object for you, then you are living your life wrong." Yes, money is a legitimate object to us who were not born rich; there is nothing wrong with providing for ourselves and our families and for being able to have hobbies that are meaningful to us but which cost of bit of money, such as boating or skiing or motorcycling or many other such things.
I would have more time to explore and travel, save some, invest some ... I would still work, but then I will be able to afford a bit more balanced life instead of constant pressure of making ends meet.
I thought everyone understood the common English expression "Money is no object". For those of you who don't, it means that something is possible without the hindrance of not having the money to afford it.
So, what specific or general goal in life would you strive to achieve, if you never needed to concern yourself with money that it would cost to do so, or to maintain yourself while working toward that goal?
I'd create a polarized political system funding both sides where both agendas are beneficial to me. More government could allow me to say created complex licensing that cannot be had for less than 1 million in lawyers fees to stop all that pesky competition. On the other hand if it looks cheaper to win on the other side then I think with less government I could dump product and then buy them for pennies on the dollar. I just want people to feel like they can chose which way I can't lose.
Then to insure against getting caught doing anything bad, I would fund a small group that hates me. Then when one of my enterprises is caught doing something naughty, like illegally dumping toxic waste, then I would feed it to my haters before the press would ultimately get to it while also revealing that I had alien giant monkey DNA. That should create enough chaff to head off any real damage. Dumping toxic waste? "Yeah like he's a alien monkey too I hear...."
I'd also create a foundation and donate much of my estate into a charitable trust that keeps me on to manage it. I could enjoy using its assets but not have the misfortune of having to pay any taxes. I could travel on vacation while billing it out to the trust because charity is best administered in nice weather.
I certainly would not buy the media...just kidding, of course I'd buy some media.
Well that is some of the fun stuff I think some people can have....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.