Individual and national rights to wealth rest on the basis of civil and international law, or at least of custom that has the force of law.
To Western parents that want to adopt a child, I would say to people that money is not everything, wealth does not matter.
Wall Street has too much wealth and political power.
The idea of a world where all people are alike - in wealth or in anything else - is a fantasy for the stupid.
Capitalism and market forces are very powerful in producing wealth and innovation. But we need to ensure that these forces act in the common interest.
With wealth, one is in a position of responsibility. You must try to help others. It is as simple as that.
The - the early Rockefellers made their wealth from being in certain businesses and - and remained personally very wealthy. Tatas were different in the sense the future generations were not so wealthy. They - they were involved in the business, but most of the family wealth is put into trust, and the family did not, in fact, enjoy enormous wealth.
Wealth after all is a relative thing since he that has little and wants less is richer than he that has much and wants more.
Great wealth could make an enormous difference over the next decade if they sensibly support the scientific elite. Just the elite. Because the elite makes most of the progress. You should worry about people who produce really novel inventions, not pedantic hacks.
Bottom 10 Percent progressives are not enthusiastic about concentrations of wealth. But that's not what keeps them up at night. Their focus is on deprivation and lack of opportunity. They're motivated by empathy for people who are suffering, rather than outrage over unjustified wealth.
What is the society we wish to protect? Is it the society of complete surveillance for the commonwealth? Is this the wealth we seek to have in common - optimal security at the cost of maximal surveillance?
Corporatist attitudes against capitalism came to the fore in the 1920s. Corporatists, with their conservative values, hated the invasion of towns and regions by new businesses, upsetting traditional ways, wealth and status.
Do I appreciate my wealth? Absolutely, yes. I'm trying to embed in my children's heads that if you don't earn it, you don't appreciate it.
Industry, thrift and self-control are not sought because they create wealth, but because they create character.
I feel that India lacks a level of philanthropy that is proportional to the wealth that is here, particularly among the top 5,000 industrialists and entrepreneurs.
Having a decent share of the national wealth for the middle class is not bad for growth. It is actually useful both for equity and efficiency reasons.
The lesson of travel seems to be so banal, but so great, which is that people are just so amazingly decent the world over. Given the disparity of income and wealth, it's amazing not just that you don't get robbed everywhere - it's amazing you don't get eaten.
The crusade to convince us that global warming can only be dealt with by wealth destruction and higher energy prices began with an effort to 'raise awareness,' which turned into some delicate nanny-state prodding before efforts to artificially inflate prices.
In Mexico, wealth and poverty live next to each other and are cordial with each other - in my experience.
The free market economy is supposed to be the only path leading to the happiness of humanity by promoting wealth and prosperity, power and influence of nations.
I don't spend any time at all thinking about my personal wealth. I suppose if I had nothing, I might think, 'I have nothing.'
The men who have furnished me with my greatest inspiration have not been men of wealth, but men of deeds.
Wealth and compassion are opposites.
A vacation home is a wonderful 'extra' as you start building wealth. Remember, though, it's still basically a very large, very expensive toy.
I distributed my wealth among my children and set aside a portion for endowment to run charity projects.
There is no tax policy that better describes how out of touch America's liberals are with the rest of the country than the estate tax. According to the Left, government seizure of a large share of the wealth of an American taxpayer is a moral imperative that serves social justice. Most Americans disagree, big time.
We exist to have our wealth moved up the economic chain out of our reach.
In the end, all new schools, public or private, snobby or not, add value to the education market, making it bigger and more efficient, in the same way that Zuckerberg added wealth to the economy even for non-Facebook fans.
No one is so miserable as the poor person who maintains the appearance of wealth.
What is wealth? A dream of fools.
For rich children, it'd be very easy and convenient never to take any steps to build an identity outside of your association with your family's wealth.
I don't think you can measure wealth in dollars and cents. I really don't believe that at all because there are some things that money cannot buy. One of them is health. And the other is security in your relationships and friends.
I know that a man who shows me his wealth is like the beggar who shows me his poverty; they are both looking for alms from me, the rich man for the alms of my envy, the poor man for the alms of my guilt.
I've been very lucky to have achieved a lot of the things that I dreamt of achieving as a young man. But, at the end of the day - and I truly believe this - it is not about achieving great wealth or success. Because they don't bring happiness, ultimately.
Oil wealth has been a curse on us, made us weak and docile.
You will notice that the Occupy Wall Street crowds - and the progressives who support them - focus on bringing the wealthy down to earth rather than lifting the 99 percent. They have a nearly religious belief that too much wealth is fundamentally immoral and unhealthy for society.
