“The rich are a discriminated minority.”

A very provocative statement. It comes from a German billionaire, and he actually meant it. But what is this claim supposed to tell us?
AI Grok says: No, it is not true that the rich are a discriminated minority. The rich are a minority, but they are not discriminated against. Their wealth and position of power protect them from the forms of discrimination that affect other groups. Prejudices against them may exist, but these do not affect their quality of life or opportunities to an extent that justifies the term “discrimination.” Therefore, the statement that the rich are a discriminated minority is inaccurate.
The AI weighed up different interests and balanced the advantages against the disadvantages. The result was predictable. The AI starts from a certain basic assumption that we also learn in school, from society, and from the media. Wealth is potential power and protects me from all kinds of discrimination. Wealth is not earned through honest work and opens up more opportunities than other people have. Furthermore, by increasing their wealth, rich people take money away from others. They have influence and are better able to assert themselves.
But is that really true? And above all, what is wealth?
According to Wikipedia, wealth means the abundance of material or intellectual values. However, there is no universal definition, as the concept of wealth depends on subjective and, in some cases, highly emotional or normative values that are shaped by cultural factors . In modern industrialized countries, wealth is often measured exclusively in quantitative terms, such as prosperity and standard of living, although it cannot actually be reduced to material goods. The importance of intellectual wealth is often underestimated.
I agree wholeheartedly with the last sentence. More on that later.

Since wealth is commonly associated with money, we will initially consider wealth to be the possession of a large amount of money and break this basic assumption down into a slogan: Money is power, or those who have money can rule over other people. This raises the question of whether it is people themselves who exercise power or money itself, or whether people use money as a vehicle or tool to exercise power.
And now we are right in the middle of the question: what is money?
Here is a brief history. In general terms, “money” was originally a medium of exchange. Initially, goods were exchanged for other goods or services, a barter economy. Problem: The goods and services exchanged had to have the same attributed value. If this was not the case, there were so-called intermediate exchange goods. With the Neolithic Revolution around 10,000 BC and the development of a division of labor in production, bartering became increasingly complex. To reduce this complexity, people began to use certain goods as a means of payment. These so-called “commodity money”, such as shells, grain, livestock, or cocoa beans, served not only as a concrete means of payment, but also as an abstract measure of value and unit of account. The Aztecs, for example, used cocoa beans as commodity money. This early form of money led to the development of accounting and mathematics, first in Mesopotamia and then in Egypt.
The choice of commodity money varied greatly between different cultures and geographical regions. For example, cowrie shells were used in China, shell and snail money in Africa, Asia, and Oceania, wampum in North America, and fur money in Europe. Disadvantages of using them as a means of payment: They were either too heavy to transport, difficult to estimate in value, perishable, or simply not wanted by the trading partner. Thus, the idea of producing coins was a logical consequence, especially since they were easier to use as a store of value, always had the same size, weight, and appearance, and could therefore be easily counted to estimate their value.
The first “real” coins were minted between 650 and 600 BC in the Lydian Empire, consisting of shapeless chunks of electrum, a natural gold-silver alloy. Around 550 BC, the Greeks minted the first silver coins on the island of Aegina. The Roman Republic minted the first round coins made of copper or bronze in the 3rd century BC. Roman silver coinage began around 211 BC with the denarius. Julius Caesar was the first living person to be depicted as a god in full profile on a Roman coin in 44 BC.
The invention and development of coinage revolutionized trade and the economy. Coinage also reflected social and political conditions. The depiction of rulers and deities on coins served not only to spread political messages, but also to legitimize claims to power. Coins became a means of communication and propaganda, spreading the ideologies and achievements of states and rulers across borders.
The next logical step was the creation of paper money. These were securities with which the holder could demand a quantity of coins specified on the note from the issuer of the respective paper money. The first known paper money appeared in China in the 6th century, at a time when coins could no longer meet economic needs. This led merchants to start issuing debt and credit notes, establishing the first paper currency. This development was so profound that even the deceased were buried with paper money instead of coins. In Europe, it took several centuries longer for paper money to become established. In 1483, Spain introduced the first European paper money due to a shortage of coins, which were no longer sufficient for economic transactions in the country.
So far, so good. With paper and coin money, the first banks also emerged, because the money had to be stored somewhere. The owners of coins received a receipt/banknote in return, which another bank in another city or country was obliged to pay out to the owner in the form of the corresponding amount of coins. In the 19th century, private central banks licensed by governments increasingly took over the issuance of paper money. From the 20th century onwards, countries around the world established central banks that centrally controlled the monetary system and made banknotes the main means of payment in cash transactions. It should be noted that monetary systems were based on the gold standard, but this will not be explored in depth here. Ultimately, the gold standard system was shaken by the global economic crisis and was finally replaced in 1973 by the Bretton Woods system, which sought to combine the advantages of the gold standard with those of a flexible exchange rate system. In the end, the gold standard was abandoned.

In any case, since the 20th century, our modern money has consisted almost exclusively of the fiat money system, i.e., currencies that have no intrinsic value in the form of metal or guarantees of exchange into valuable metal. The word comes from the Latin word fiat (“Let it be done! Let it be!”). One could also say that the 20th century was shaped by the way money is created, used, and perceived. The main reason for this was the global economic crisis, which was triggered by the excessive printing of paper money, demonstrating that this form of money is also prone to error. Ultimately, this led to increased control of the money supply by central banks. The result was greater centralization and thus increased control.
At the same time, the introduction of computer technology and the internet changed the way financial transactions were carried out. Electronic payment transactions were born. PayPal was a milestone, by the way. Suddenly, it was possible to transfer large sums of money instantly over long distances, which greatly accelerated and simplified global trade.
These successive logical developments show how adaptable and dynamic the concept of money is and how it continues to be an essential part of our economy and society.
But that’s not all, because the central monetary system and its strong control lead to certain restrictions. Central banks aim to ensure stable prices, stabilize the currency, and promote employment. However, they use instruments such as setting key interest rates, controlling the money supply, and monitoring the banking system to maintain a balance between the money supply and inflation. This system has become inflexible, and many changes to key interest rates tend to lead to destabilization, especially since political factors ultimately stand in the way. The logical consequence was therefore to create something decentralized, which led to the birth of cryptocurrency in the 2000s as a new form of value storage, investment, and transactions independent of banks and governments.
Overall, these developments show the ongoing digitalization and dematerialization of money. We are slowly coming to the crucial point.
Basically, money is a social convention. Before money existed, things were exchanged, which is why money is often seen as a tangible object, although this is hardly comprehensible in the age of digitalization. This alone shows that money is actually much more than that and cannot be limited to an object. What do I need to produce exchangeable products in the natural exchange economy and to produce a Bitcoin? Exactly, energy. Money is therefore a form of energy, a tool that represents our exchange of time, talents, and resources. Money represents the energy we expend through work, creativity, or time to create value.
Energy is neither good nor bad; it depends on how it is used. Money as a form of energy is therefore neutral and neither dirty nor smelly. The belief that money is inherently dishonest, smelly, or bad is therefore untenable.
According to the flow principle, money shows where our priorities and goals lie, i.e., what it is used for. Money, in whatever form, follows a cycle. It is earned, spent, invested, and passed on in various forms. In short, it is not gone, just somewhere else or in a different form, just like any other energy.
Money has no intrinsic value. Its value comes from the trust we place in it and, of course, the values we associate with it. The question is therefore what we invest our money in. Do we invest money in accordance with our values or in unnecessary consumption to set ourselves apart from our neighbors? Incidentally, the second example is quite crucial. Most people who receive a pay raise or a dividend, for example, spend it on consumer goods to improve their standard of living without considering that they have gained nothing. They may have a can of caviar or an expensive pair of pants, but they have no lasting value. Ultimately, they are where they were before they had more money. Their financial situation has not changed. At best, they have impressed their neighbors and limited themselves. Why on earth should I want to imitate someone or impress them? That borders on self-abandonment.
Back to energy, or rather to your own mindset and thus to your beliefs.
Most people save money. That’s fine to a certain extent, or if I need an emergency fund for unexpected expenses, i.e., a reserve. But does it make sense to park money in your account for your entire

life? If you look at inflation or the meager interest rates you get, it becomes clear that your money isn’t growing, it’s shrinking. You might as well keep it in cash in a shoebox somewhere. It will lose value there just as quickly and won’t multiply. No one who is wealthy would act that way. Really, no one.
Karl Lagerfeld once said, “You have to throw money out the window so it comes back in the door.” And in the words of Titus Maccius Plautus, “You have to spend money to make money.” What does that mean? To at least maintain the value of your money, you have to invest it, and not just in consumer goods, but in tangible assets or in yourself, i.e., in your education. In Europe, this idea is only slowly being propagated in the media. Until now, the fear that speculative investments are pointless and can lead to losses has been played on. And what about inflation, bank crashes, national bankruptcies (see Spain, etc.)? Believe it or not, parking money in a bank account can also be very speculative.
On the other hand, giving can also be very fulfilling. Okay, that sounds a bit esoteric, but according to the theory that money is energy, it pays to donate money or share knowledge. Donating pays off in that I do something for the community, which in turn functions better, and I ultimately get more money out of a potential investment. Most people don’t think that far ahead; they just want to do something good and do something good for themselves by enjoying it. However, be careful that appeasing your guilty conscience is more than dishonest. It also suggests that I don’t really want to let go. It’s kind of like a project where I don’t delegate tasks because I don’t trust anyone else. This means that the project is probably doomed to failure. It’s similar when I don’t want to let go of money out of fear of scarcity, etc. Thoughts are energy, and energy tends to materialize or manifest itself, according to the motto “mind over matter.” What I think is also directed in that direction. So if I have fear of loss or scarcity, then I will also experience scarcity.
Does that sound mystical? It may be, but anyone who has studied quantum physics knows that it is physically correct. The doubleslit experiment showed that matter behaves differently when it is observed. And it is not only what is observed that matters, but also how it is observed. Or, more drastically, whether it is observed at all. This means that the observer plays an active role in creating reality.
Max Planck, Nobel Prize winner and one of the founding fathers of quantum physics, put it this way: “Matter would not exist at all without the mind.” And Niels Bohr, another pioneer of quantum physics, said: “Reality is created by observation.” This also makes it clear that our observations and thoughts do not merely passively reflect reality, but actively shape it. We do not observe objectively, but give meaning to everything. We are not just spectators in the universe, but co-creators of our reality, the directors of our lives, so to speak. Of course, we are still in the early stages of understanding quantum physics. However, it is already clear that the beliefs and thoughts we hold play a decisive role. To pick up the thread again: money follows intention and planning. Those who have clear financial goals or a corresponding mindset direct their energy toward them. So pay attention to your thoughts and your motivation when dealing with money.
And that brings us to the next thought, which has already been mentioned several times in what has been said before: beliefs. There are many widespread beliefs about money that are also taught in school.
Here are a few examples: Money is dirty or bad. We have already dealt with this belief. I am not worth it. Money does not make you happy. Money makes me independent. If I earn more money, someone else has less money. All people who have a lot of money have not earned it honestly and exploit other people or rule over them.
This almost closes the circle, because this belief was defined as a basic assumption at the very beginning of this discussion.
With everything that has been said about money and ultimately about wealth, the quote from a billionaire mentioned at the beginning can now almost be answered. But let’s take another look at the beliefs before we draw our conclusion at the end.
The fact that many people believe they are not worthy of something is based on a personal limitation. They believe they are not good enough. This sounds almost pathological, but it is not innate; rather, it is learned and acts as a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is important to question this belief and reflect on

what you have achieved yourself. It doesn’t have to be a big house or starting a company. Having a profession and enjoying it, being healthy, having friends, etc. are all successes. The question is always what meaning I attach to things. Just because I don’t have a yacht doesn’t mean I’m poor. Maybe I’m rich in other ways and have let opportunities slip by out of fear of making a mistake. Because in the end, having money is just the result of something else.
Or, in the words of Ayn Rand: “Money is just a tool. It will get you where you want to go, but it won’t replace you as the driver.” “You’re not poor if you don’t have money. You’re poor if you think you need it.” – Assiel Mahmoud
What about the assumption that money does not make you happy? Scientists Daniel Kahnemann and economist Angus Deaton found that people do not become happier with an annual salary of more than $75,000. Conversely, this means that having money makes you happy to a certain extent. Once you have reached this limit, it depends on what you do with the money beyond that. If it is invested or used to help other people, then nothing should stand in the way of personal fulfillment. It is important, and it is so easy, to do things you love and not make money your only goal, as Maya Angelou used to say.
And does money make you independent? Financially secure, at least to a certain extent. As Henry Ford so aptly put it: “If money is your hope for independence, you’ll never have it. The only real security in this world is in knowledge, experience, and ability.” Exactly, because no one can take that away from you. If you lose money, you can earn it back with your experience and knowledge.
It’s starting to get exciting. What about the assumption that I’m taking money away from someone when I earn more money? This basic assumption is based on the zero-sum game from game theory, which means that one player’s gain is exactly equal to another player’s loss. Without going into the specifics of the industry, making money in general cannot be considered a zero-sum game, because more value is created rather than someone else losing value. For example, an entrepreneur can develop a new product, create jobs, and generate added value for themselves, their employees, and their customers. The economy is dynamic, and through innovation and trade, the “pie” can grow rather than remain the same size. There may be scenarios that come closer to a zero-sum game, such as speculative financial transactions. But overall, the global economy tends to follow a growth perspective, where profits do not necessarily mean losses for others. And yes, for anyone interested, Bitcoin is not subject to the zero-sum game either, as the asset is based on supply and demand. Its value is determined by market forces, and profits or losses depend on when and at what price someone buys or sells. And no, even if earlier investors had advantages, they only had the advantage of investing earlier and riding the wave, i.e., investing sensibly in order to participate in the increase in value.
This brings us full circle. Is it true, with the exception of criminal offenses, that everyone who has a lot of money has not earned it by honest means and exploits or dominates other people? This generalized view is definitely not true. People who have a lot of assets have one thing in common above all else: they have done what they do best and what they enjoy doing most. For them, money is a tool/energy source, and they do not base their actions on the desire to have a lot of money per se, but rather invest money in assets so that it grows and can be used for other things. These can also be speculative things. They are not illegal. They use their knowledge, their skills, their ideas, and they do so with passion. Yes, they also skillfully exploit the systems. If I receive subsidies from the government for my business, why shouldn’t I use them? Or do you not use them when you receive a government grant for further education or child benefit? Does anyone blame you for that? Wealthy people don’t spend money on useless things, they invest it. Sure, some people flaunt their wealth and show off, but they are often the ones who lose a lot in the end because they may have invested too much in their image rather than in lasting things. This is precisely the problem with many people: when they have more money at their disposal, they prefer to spend it on useless things instead of investing it in assets, and then in the end they have no more money that could grow, but instead an expensive handbag that may raise their standard of living in the short term, as it is a consumer good, but does not represent an asset.
What is the conclusion? Ultimately, it is about learning the meaning of wealth and, therefore, money. How do we define these words? “Money has never made anyone rich,” said Seneca, meaning that wealth is not based on money alone. It is not for nothing that we talk about being rich in experience or spiritual wealth. It is about recognizing what personal relationship we have with wealth or money and what negative beliefs we associate with it. Among the rich, as among ordinary people, there are

friendly and unfriendly people, criminal and honorable people, people who help others and people who are stingy. In the end, we are all the same, except that those who have more assets have understood how to create wealth. That, in turn, is not the majority. It is a minority with a fabricated bad reputation. And does wealth protect against discrimination? It does not protect against a bad reputation based on wealth. Nor does it protect against going bankrupt in risky business ventures. Once you have figured out how to generate money, you can do it again. And yes, I have more influence, no question, and I can perhaps afford better medical care with money, but in the end, it’s not about what I do with the wealth I have acquired, but solely about what I have personally invested to achieve what I want to achieve.
Are rich people a discriminated minority in this context? Answer: Yes. Book recommendation: The Richest Man in Babylon
Unterhaching, April 27, 2025
Nancy Stork