What truly determines richness? Is it all about money?
Whenever we encounter the term “rich”, we subliminally conclude on our heads, “Ah! A million dollars and a giant mansion!” Conceivably, wealth is always associated with lifestyle. Nevertheless, money is only one factor of one’s richness.
Try for example this logic:
A luxurious Audi A7 car can be bought by money, and money is earned with one’s salary, and a salary is a major indicator of one’s wealth. Therefore, if I own a luxurious Audi A7, I am rich. It’s cost-production perspective, think about it.
Perhaps, but that is an over generalization, and one can always engage in reductio ad absurdum—a form of argument wherein a premise is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence. Take a real estate property in Zurich, for example; properties like cars can be bought too. What differs between the two are the intrinsic value and deterministic properties they both hold. I would say better indicators of wealth would be health (specifically age and intellectual faculties), assets (monies and properties, etc.) and networks. There seems to be a focus on asset value, which I agree is arguably the most pertinent of the three, but the body is useless without the head.
We are so focused on the material factors of wealth that we are not aware of it being justified wrong. A man cannot simply be called rich because of the visible variables he owns, rather as a set of factors acting upon him. Subsequently, if a man owns all the factors but is unable to sustain it, he would not be called rich for long.