A wise man once said, "A bird in the hand is better than two in the bush."
But is it always better? Is it always better to stay safe with what you have? Or, is it better sometimes to let the one go to go after the other two?
I ask because I came to a realization the other day; I always do the "safe" thing. It was a sad thing. I realized that I lack the fortitude go after the things that are risky. I always considered myself as one who would jump to an opportunity, but when one came I faltered.
So, is it better to be safe or to take risks when it comes to finacial stability?
Posts: 1244 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Usually I would say that it's better to be safe.
But there are times, I've discovered, when you're not safe anyway. When your finances are really low, it can actually pay to take risks that would seem crazy any other time. What have you got to lose, after all?
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, when your finances are low, you are least advised to take big chances. When finances are low, you must conserve and save where ever you can. Once you have money to burn, then you can risk it on the lotto or the stock market(although they are similar).
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: and by the way, paintball, two days after X-mas, in mom's backyard.
December 27th?
(Trust me on this, if you'd said December 27th, someone would have come along and said, "Two days after Christmas?")
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
mom says okay, provided 'paintball' is changed to 'paint the walls' and 'backyard' is changed to 'sewing room.'
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't think of any chance I've taken that I regret, but I can think of many chances that I regret not taking.
And I think I know the reason why.... chances taken that end of failing can normally be undone. But chances that have been allowed to go by usually don't come back.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
