Get rich quick versus getting rich slow

I don't trust get rich quick schemes. People claiming they make thousands of dollars a day, no experience necessary, etc. But what is the alternative? Getting rich slowly. Is this really the way you want to do it? Save and save and save until retirement. That does not seem like any fun. Where is the happy medium between the two? Is it possible to become wealthy over a short span of 10 or 20 years, without saving every penny you earn? I believe the answer is in creating passive income. I've been reading a lot of Rich Dad, Poor Dad books recently and the term assest is starting to make some sense. Things that create a positive cashflow include: starting a successful business, writing a book, copywriting information, creating intellectual property, tenants, inventions etc. I will motivate as much of my free time to these pursuits

1 comment:

  1. Just want to caution you on Rich Dad who probably has gone bankrupt at least once.

    I also have a related post here:

    I think passive income is a thing that looks good on paper. Oftentimes, it's more that. For example, having rental properties, it's not really a passive income. It's a semi-passive investment that you have some control over. For an investment to work out, you must carefully study the ROI. It's almost like saying dividend investing is great, when in fact, the dividends needs to be judged on its merit of return after-tax and after inflation.


Add to the conversation