Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

churchlifejournal.nd.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 243 posts

Re: You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

#81

Post by clarry »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #40
thefounder wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. It's not like you are workibg all your life to "earn" oxygen and water. Fortunately(for most of us) we are living in an utopia as far as oxygen and water is concerned. You get them for "free"/with minimal effort.

First time I’ve read that providing clean water on demand to everyone at a sufficient pressure is “minimal effort”. To me, the infrastructure and experimentation and science that leads to all homes having reliable, potable water is miraculous. There’s very large swaths of the planet where you are supposed to drink only bottled water, from a bottle unsealed in front of you.

> First time I’ve read that providing clean water on demand to everyone at a sufficient pressure is “minimal effort”.

Let's look at it from this perspective: what percentage of your country's workforce is actively involved in providing clean water?

If it were such a huge effort to provide for relatively basic human needs, then I'd imagine we'd have more people working on that and less people working on advertising, entertainment, rent-seeking, making & marketing disposable novelty products, etc.

Re: You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

#82

Post by ghastmaster »

The term Neoliberalism attributed to post 1980 political figures is appropriate in that they tout themselves as classical liberal(hayek,mises,etc.) ideals proponents, but in reality they do not apply or conform to classical liberal ideals. The author does not understand that classical liberal interpretations of economics is an explanation of markets underlying principles. Reading mises, hayek, etc. Is akin to reading the code rather than using the software. The religious references in classical liberal writing is a reflection of how awesome it is to understand how something so seemingly complex works under quite simple principles.

The author conflates modern pseudo classical liberal rhetoric and application with intellectually sincere thought. It is hard to read this article and take him serious. Boiled down, this is just a piece of rhetoric. There is very little intellectual value.

Re: You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

#83

Post by Retric »

foldr wrote: post #77
RHSeeger wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They could have chosen simpler individual words And they should have. I can put together a sentence using a lot of words most people won't know. It will be a valid sentence, and it will mean what I want it to mean, but a lot of people won't be able to understand what I intended it to mean.

It's so easy to look words up in a dictionary these days, but for some reason the tech community likes to take a perverse pride in reading at an 8th grade level. "How dare you use a word that happens not to be in my limited vocabulary?"

hoi polloi is a redundant phrase that’s intended to hide the simplicity of the idea. It’s simply lazy writing to mask lazy thinking.

Re: You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

#84

Post by tomrod »

payattentionhm wrote: post #62
noir_lord wrote: post #7

Other than the author having the ability to use large words I'm not sure what I was supposed to have come away with from this piece at all, it's just word salad.

This comment says more about your reading comprehension skills than anything else. Maybe try making a more substantive comment once you've had a proper crack at understanding the author's piece?

Nah, this article dresses up a fancy view of traditionalism. This clearly has been surpassed in many minds due to its failures to distribute power.

That author is spending a lot of pathos to say little.

Re: You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

#85

Post by chongli »

wegs wrote: post #18
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Professors don't "live on charity" any more than anyone else with a job does. If you disagree, stop paying them and see how that works out for you.

The majority of their income comes from government subsidies and from charitable donations. At some universities, over time, that's built up into endowments which support professors. That's very much the definition of "live on charity."

Charitable donations from wealthy people who, for some reason or another, feel indebted to their alma mater. How successful would these people be without the education they received from their professors?

Educators produce enormous externalities that their students capture and build their lives around. To turn around and say they "live on charity and lecture us on money" is the height of ingratitude.

Re: You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

#86

Post by payattentionhm »

dangus wrote: post #75
payattentionhm wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment says more about your reading comprehension skills than anything else. Maybe try making a more substantive comment once you've had a proper crack at understanding the author's piece?

I’m looking for your substantive comment on the article but I haven’t found it yet. Pot, kettle, etc. And I realize the irony in the fact that my pointing this out to you is the main subject of my not-substantive comment. However, I won’t resort to accusing you of being simple minded, as I wouldn’t call someone who couldn’t make it though an article like this simple minded either. The concepts and history presented a…

I'm not sure why you're rushing to defend their comment, given they those chose to insult the author's work with derogatory term "word salad", a psychiatric term used to indicate the jumble of words present in some neurological and mental disorders.

They were basically calling the author a retard, because they couldn't be bothered to take the time to understand the author's piece.

Re: You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

#87

Post by foldr »

Retric wrote: post #83
foldr wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's so easy to look words up in a dictionary these days, but for some reason the tech community likes to take a perverse pride in reading at an 8th grade level. "How dare you use a word that happens not to be in my limited vocabulary?"

hoi polloi is a redundant phrase that’s intended to hide the simplicity of the idea. It’s simply lazy writing to mask lazy thinking.

I don't think so. It's chosen because it reflects a particular attitude towards the working classes. (The hoi polloi don't call themselves the hoi polloi.) It's also not in any way an obscure phrase. In the UK at least it's in common usage.

Re: You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

#88

Post by tomrod »

dangus wrote: post #75
payattentionhm wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment says more about your reading comprehension skills than anything else. Maybe try making a more substantive comment once you've had a proper crack at understanding the author's piece?

I’m looking for your substantive comment on the article but I haven’t found it yet. Pot, kettle, etc. And I realize the irony in the fact that my pointing this out to you is the main subject of my not-substantive comment. However, I won’t resort to accusing you of being simple minded, as I wouldn’t call someone who couldn’t make it though an article like this simple minded either. The concepts and history presented a…

100% agree. Flowery prose has its place, but an article calling on a return to traditionalism and denouncing the benefits of neoliberalism isn't it. Doubly on-the-nose is that the article would be inaccessible to many due to being steeped in elitism.

Re: You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

#89

Post by [deleted] »

payattentionhm wrote: post #86
dangus wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m looking for your substantive comment on the article but I haven’t found it yet. Pot, kettle, etc. And I realize the irony in the fact that my pointing this out to you is the main subject of my not-substantive comment. However, I won’t resort to accusing you of being simple minded, as I wouldn’t call someone who couldn’t make it though an article like this simple minded either. The concepts and history presented a…

I'm not sure why you're rushing to defend their comment, given they those chose to insult the author's work with derogatory term "word salad", a psychiatric term used to indicate the jumble of words present in some neurological and mental disorders. They were basically calling the author a retard, because they couldn't be bothered to take the time to understand the author's piece.

[deleted]

Re: You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

#90

Post by mdorazio »

xvector wrote: post #15
buf wrote: post #5

If you want wealth, stop renting out your time. Lean towards equity. You need to be able to make money even while sleeping.

How should one go about doing this?

Realistically, most people can't and/or shouldn't do this by building a business or working at a startup. Both of these are very risky and won't generally accomplish what I think the parent comment implies. Instead, the more reliable way is to invest as much of your income as you reasonably can in securities like stocks and bonds so that over time you are indeed making money doing nothing. Also, if your company offers stock options, opt for those if you think the company is going to do well in the future.
Post reply on HN