Early on, Vikram suggests that money and assets are as effective as weapons for protection. Do you agree with this philosophy?

Early on, Vikram suggests that money and assets are as effective as weapons for protection. Do you agree with this philosophy? In which ways does the Shahs' recently accumulated wealth protect them? In which ways does it fail them?

I think money and assets are an advantage in every country. It gives one advantages in advancement, education, and being able to afford protections others can't. Despite the advantages the Shah's have acquired, they are still judged by their race. Money can't change the color of their skin.

It's clear in most societies, money gives one status, freedom, and the ability to pay for good attorneys. However, there are certainly biases from many people. Most prejudiced people are rigid in their philosophical thinking which wouldn't help the Shahs.

I like what Marcia wrote and do agree with her.

Vikram felt that living in a gated community with some land separating neighbors and children attending schools of affluent families provided protection. However, the children were required to compete and maneuver life with children who have grown up in a different way with privileges that some have not experienced. While wealth has many advantages, I do not know that it always serves as protection, except that it pays for skilled attorneys and allows some indiscretions to be overlooked.

I also agree with Marcia and Patricia Ann.

Money and assets can only help to a certain extent. As illustrated in this novel, you can pay a lot of money to live in a gated community with other wealthy people, but that doesn't isolate you from neighbors in same community who may have their own beliefs/prejudices/biases that can differ from your own.

Vikram's suggestion that money and assets are as effective as weapons for protection did not prove entirely true, even for himself. And the amount of money and as an Indian immigrant, the amount of money and assets he had to acquire to reach his point of "safety" is extreme.

The Shahs' accumulated wealth may have actually served them better had they stayed in Irvine. Had Priya and Ashok not been off soaking in the rich and famous lives of their elitist friends, they may have been more in tune with their son's needs.

The Shahs' accumulated wealth was not enough for the elitist school to want all of their kids to attend. It wasn't enough to make them "good enough" for everyone.

I think its very difficult to compare wealth and and weapons as effective protection. A weapon can actually harm someone whereas money cannot cause physical harm unless you are using it to hire a "hit" man. So, I guess I do not agree with Vikram's statement. Wealth and or a weapon can be useful if needed, but not the same.

Yes, wealth can be good or bad depending on the intentions of the person who is wealthy. It may not "protect" a person but it will definitely help him or her correct the problem if possible. For example, when someone is ill being wealthy helps that person find medical treatment when insurance, time and other issues might interfere.

I do agree with this. We have seen time and time again how people who have more money and more resources are better protected than anyone else. They live in the safest neighborhoods, attend better schools, thus obtaining better education. They are well connected. They can afford the best lawyers. They can afford healthcare, better food, nicer homes, and if they commit a crime, they are more likely to be treated better and get less jail time or even get off altogether.

Rather than write a repetitious post, I too agree with Marcia and Patricia Ann.