As a specific rule, I don't look at televised versions of wealth. In fact, I don't consider most of what's shown in the world as my form of dream wealth.
Not that those forms of wealth don't exist, but that just because they do exists, that don't make them right or the ones worthwhile of a pursuit from a place of lack. Think about it: Why do so many people who come from nothing grow up to attain something only to impose strife and fights around the attainment? Why do so many people destroy the ideas of wealth and abundance? They destroy the concepts by flaunting the very images of bicker and discord around money which we see around being broke and despair. Why would i want to dream of becoming rich only to continue to remain in the fight over value in life? Why would I want to destroy my version of wealth attainment by paying attention to the actions of fools with money?
Most of the examples shown on televised dramas are examples of strife battles around money.Take a look at what Fox's "Empire" does, for example: It reflects the image of an "Empire" as a battlefield to be fought over. And just who are the show's biggest audience? Try the very people who probably have never known the makings of an Empire. It just seems a blatant evil to chalk what could otherwise be a beautiful existence- the existence of wealth building- into an existence of a rat fight over cheese. Those are been-there-done-that storylines
Why can't we see examples of money working together in real revenue sharing formats that generate greater return possibilities; something that isn't reflected on tv but exists in examples in the real world. The world has no standard for how to work together to harness value, and our biggest mediums don't attempt to make up for that lack. Instead, we use our greatest forms of sharing information to destroy the virtues of wealth creation.
All that glamorized bickering and discord on television- around money!
Imagine that. What if it was never meant to be like that?
That televising of fights around money seems too preposterous to me. Not preposterous as in outlandish, but preposterous as in lame. And when I see examples of it in the real world, I think the same thing. That's not my idea of wealth, it's not the pursuit of mine and I have no appreciation for it.
The making of money and the acquiring of it is a principled agenda full of objectivity, and objectivity never engages in a fight- it prefers win-win.
I mean, I've never physically known what real wealth looks like. I've not yet seen my first million bucks, and don't know anyone who has. So here's the deal: Why would I from a place of lack, from a place of never having acquired real wealth, why would I want to romanticize the notion of acquiring wealth for the purposes of still remaining in the chaos?
Why would a broke man, one who've witnessed all the chaos of misery and of idleness up close and personally, why would that man want to taint his dreams of his eventual success with visions of strife inherently embedded in his dreams? Can we not see the cheat of that? That is the ultimate form of being beat into submission: The form where your dreams were destroyed from within your own concepts of them by you allowing other people's ideas to be your own dreams as well.
To cheat a personal dream out of its dreamy rewards by lacing them with misery has to be the greatest form of self-abasement. One could surely not abdicate his sense of self much further from there. And to accept the standard that wealth should be strife-laced is to accept that life should have no marvels, no wonderments whatsoever.
For what it boils down to is: Even in examples where life should flourish, we have to taint it with subjective images of fights over life's abundance.
Think about it.