Summary by
BrainToonLast updated
Share this with a friend or colleague
How to Be Rich by J. Paul Getty argues that real wealth is a matter of outlook, habits and responsibility, not a bank balance, drawn from the career of America's richest man of his day.
If the richest man in America sits down to write a book called How to Be Rich, I'd expect a manual for making money. Is that what this is?
That's the surprise. J. Paul Getty wrote these pieces in the early sixties, and his whole complaint was that everyone obsessed over getting rich and nobody asked what being rich actually means. So it's far more about outlook than about tactics.
How did he end up writing it at all? He doesn't strike me as someone who needed the work.
He didn't. Playboy magazine asked him in 1960 to write a series on men, money and values, and he nearly said no. He wasn't sure anyone cared what an oilman thought. What won him over was a feeling that business was constantly criticized and almost never defended, and that young men going into it had no real sense of its principles.
So the audience was young executives and students, basically the next generation of bosses.
Exactly. And the central idea he wanted to give them is that wealth is capital that has to keep working. That was his father's belief, and Getty admits he was slow to absorb it. He made his first million before he was twenty-four and promptly retired to Los Angeles to enjoy himself.
Honestly, that sounds like the dream. Why would that be a mistake?
Because within a couple of years he was bored out of his mind. He went back to the oil fields at twenty-six, slightly embarrassed to be coming out of retirement. He tells that story against himself because it shows the gap between having money and being rich. A pile of cash doing nothing, in his view, is just a number. Being rich means your resources are producing something, and you feel responsible for them.
So the framework is really about responsibility and outlook, with money as the tool rather than the goal.
That's the claim. And everything else in the book, the investing advice, the leadership rules, the cultural grumbling, hangs off that one idea.
He has a phrase for this, doesn't he? The millionaire mentality. What does he actually mean by it?
He means a habit of mind that is always conscious of costs and always aware of where profit comes from. And the key is that you don't need to be a millionaire to have it. His best example is a superintendent named George Miller who ran Getty's oil properties on a salary. Perfectly competent, nothing special.
And then?
Getty gave him a share of the profits, and the change was almost immediate. Costs dropped, output rose, and both men ended up making more money. Miller hadn't learned anything new. He just started treating the operation as if it were his own.
That makes sense, but it also sounds like the lesson is just pay people more. Isn't that on the employer?
Partly, and Getty does believe in giving people a stake. But he's also sorting workers into types. Some thrive running their own business, some need profit-sharing, some are reliable salaried people who want security, and then there's a type he calls the postal clerk, who genuinely doesn't care whether the firm makes money. He thinks that last type does the most damage.
How would you even spot that from the outside?
He ran a slightly mischievous experiment. He had three disengaged executives underpaid by five dollars each, then watched how fast they noticed. They spotted the five dollars instantly, while they'd walked past much larger waste in the business for months. Two of them took the point and reformed. The third didn't, and was let go.
That's a little cruel, but it does make the point vividly.
It does. And he's careful to say this mentality isn't penny-pinching for its own sake. It's treating the company's resources as a trust held for shareholders and employees alike. Spotting small savings, fixing processes, keeping the big picture in view. He says anyone doing that is already on the road.
Let's talk about the investing side, because that's where most people will want the practical takeaway.
The anchor story is the stock market break of May 1962. The Dow fell nearly thirty-five points in a day, the biggest drop in over three decades, and the headlines were comparing it to 1929. Reporters asked Getty what he was doing. He said he was buying.
Which is easy to say when you have his kind of money. A regular person can't just absorb a crash and go shopping.
That's fair, and he'd partly accept it. But his point is about reasoning, not scale. He saw stocks that had been pushed to silly prices by emotional herd buying, so a correction was overdue. The underlying economy was sound, few jobs were lost, few firms closed. That's very different from 1929, when speculation ran on borrowed money and the economy had real structural problems.
So the skill is telling a correction from a collapse.
Right, and doing your homework so you're not guessing. He gives a checklist: the company's history, the quality of management, demand for its products, earnings and dividend record, debt levels. And one test he especially likes is whether the net assets per share are worth more than the share price. He mentions Honolulu Oil trading around thirty dollars while its assets turned out to be worth roughly a hundred per share.
That's a hidden cushion. Even if the stock stays flat, you own more than you paid for.
That cushion is close to what Benjamin Graham calls the margin of safety in his book The Intelligent Investor. He says that for stocks, the gap between the price you pay and the true value is your buffer if things go wrong.
So two investors from different eras are reaching for the same protection, a price low enough that you can be wrong and survive.
Exactly. And his own proof is Tide Water Associated Oil, which he started buying in 1932 at just over two dollars a share. It took nearly twenty years of proxy fights and lawsuits to gain control, but it made him a fortune. His phrase is that big profits go to the patient investor, not the eager speculator. The same thinking applies to real estate in the book, with the added warning that cities don't always grow where you expect and taxes keep coming whether or not values rise.
Does he ever admit to getting it wrong, or is it all triumphs?
He's actually quite open about three costly blunders. Early in Oklahoma, a single geologist told him a lease was worthless, so he sold it. The area turned out to be rich in oil. In 1931, fellow directors panicked and pressured him to sell his stake in Mexican Seaboard Oil, a company he'd studied carefully and believed in. The stock went on to multiply in value exactly as he'd predicted.
And the third?
In 1932 he walked away from negotiations for an Iraqi oil concession because crude prices had temporarily collapsed. He didn't see that the dip was short-term and demand would only grow. When he finally bought into the Middle East in 1949, it cost him twelve and a half million dollars upfront for what might have been a fraction of that.
Those feel like three very different errors, though.
He sorts them into three categories. Mistaking opinion for fact, which is the geologist. Failing to follow through on a well-researched plan because others panic, which is Mexican Seaboard. And refusing a calculated risk after you've done the homework, which is Iraq.
The last two don't sound like missing knowledge. He'd done the homework both times, and he still lost his nerve.
That connects to another book, The Psychology of Money. Morgan Housel argues that doing well with money depends more on behavior than on intelligence or technical skill, because knowing the right thing and actually doing it are separate problems.
The second one is interesting, because we're usually told to listen to colleagues. He's saying sometimes the room is wrong.
He is, with a condition. He had done the research. If you've genuinely studied something and the only thing changing your mind is other people's nerves, that's not new information. He quotes Cicero, that to stumble twice over the same stone is a disgrace. Mistakes are inevitable. Repeating them is the real failure.
I was surprised to see a wealthy oilman in the sixties writing warmly about unions. That's not what I expected.
It surprises a lot of readers. His best story is a contract negotiation where his own advisers wanted the standard game: offer nothing early, inch upward under pressure. Getty refused. He walked into the first session with straightforward financial reports showing exactly what the company could and couldn't afford, and stated his offer plainly.
His team must have thought he'd lost his mind.
They were horrified, and the union side was stunned. After a short recess the union spokesman shook his hand and accepted. A year later profits had improved enough that Getty granted the second half of the raise he'd promised. His claim is that organized labor is fundamentally fair but it demands honest facts, and workers can spot massaged figures a mile off.
I can see that working once. But doesn't it depend on the other side being reasonable too?
He'd say it depends on trust, and trust is built by being predictable. He's scathing about executives who complain about unions while enjoying job security, raises and pensions themselves. And he hates the staged factory visit, where a vice-president wanders through a plant he's never seen, fumbles a worker's name, poses for a photo and retreats to his office. What actually builds morale is a boss who shows up for real and fixes the broken washroom basin before anyone files a grievance.
That connects to his leadership rules, doesn't it?
Very directly. Lead by example. Take responsibility for your department's failures, not just its wins. Never ask someone to do what you wouldn't do yourself. Be fair but firm. And praise in public, criticize in private. Above all he wants executives who think independently. He tells of one of his own men who caught a serious error in Getty's instructions and pushed back. That, he says, saved real money.
He spends a lot of the later chapters warning against conformity. Why does that matter so much to him?
He tells of a young executive who dressed, spoke and thought exactly like everyone around him, and then complained he wasn't advancing. Getty's advice was blunt: stop copying people and be an individual. He doubted it landed. His argument is that every big success he knows went against the crowd, like building Rockefeller Center in the Depression or his own buying in 1932.
But most of us aren't going to build Rockefeller Center. What does nonconformity look like for an ordinary career?
He gives a small example. At a management meeting he deliberately proposed a disastrous plan to see who would object. Six executives agreed immediately. One pushed back. The dissenter was the one who kept his job and thrived. So at a minimum it means being honest when the room is nodding along.
That ties back to the Mexican Seaboard lesson in a way. Trust your own work.
It does. And then he turns the lens on himself. He describes his cousin Hal, a man of modest means who lived exactly as he pleased and considered himself far richer than Getty in freedom and time. Getty concedes the point. He says that for all his fortune he has long felt poor in time, unable to read the books he wanted or take the long African safari he dreamed of.
That's a real tension. Does anyone try to build wealth without paying that price?
In the book The Almanack of Naval Ravikant, Eric Jorgenson collects Naval Ravikant's ideas on building wealth and happiness without sacrificing yourself. Naval puts health first in his priorities and treats happiness as a skill you can train. It's a useful counterpoint to Getty's regret, though Getty's account comes from his own life.
That's still a melancholy admission from the richest man in America.
He's frank about the cost. He says his five marriages failed largely because business always came first, and no amount of money buys a happy marriage or a real friend. He also cites research linking status-obsessed communities to higher rates of stress illness. His conclusion is that no social standing is worth your health, your integrity or your sense of self.
So if someone takes one thing from Getty, what should it be?
That the question isn't how much you have but what it's doing and what it's costing you. He wants you to treat whatever resources you control, large or small, as capital that should be working, and to do your own research so you can hold your nerve when everyone else panics.
And the honest counterweight is Hal, the cousin with no fortune and all the time in the world.
Right. A useful question to sit with is which of those two you'd actually rather be, and whether the way you spend this week reflects the answer.
