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

171–180 of 243 posts

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

#171

Post by achillesheels »

lazyjones wrote: post #117
hudibras wrote: post #106

Here's the paragraph that's making everyone mad: >Like the student and other forms of personal debt that prepare undergraduates to say two words—“Yes, boss”—the ideal of the entrepreneurial self serves a fundamentally disciplinary function: reinforcing the precarious nature of work in today’s digitalized, low-wage, precariously employed, and increasingly automated capitalism, one in which you are casually expendable…

Reading this, one might think capitalism is cruel and entrepreneurship is a horrible struggle. Or one might conclude it perfectly mirrors nature and life. I'm not sure what the fuss is about.

The moral worth of the individual has been lost, leading to more and more what I would define as “market barbarism.” Social relations are now completely profane and not objectively striving for meaning beyond the temporal.

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

#172

Post by SolaceQuantum »

esotericn wrote: post #165
SolaceQuantum wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does the reasoning of buying stocks and bonds work over time given the current crisis has wiped out all the gains for many people made in the past several years utilizing this strategy, and before that was 2008 which did the same?

You don't need to make gains. You need to spend significantly less than you earn. If you can work for 4 months and survive for 12 then you're there. Compound returns are a nice bonus if they come, but not necessary. Sensible frugality is the important part.

This doesn't work for people who want to have children, who may have healthcare conditions, who need to take care of their parents, etc. Spending significantly less than you earn won't mean much if inflation means anything you earn is worth less year over year.

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

#173

Post by UncleSlacky »

enkid wrote: post #32
UncleSlacky wrote: post #21

Money, particularly fiat currency, is a useful fiction. You're not a slave of money as such, it's a tool of enslavement by those who control how much money is allowed to exist and how much is allowed to circulate. As Iain M. Banks put it, "Money is a sign of poverty".

The act of enslavement is in fact a two way street. You have to choose to want whatever you can buy with money in order to be enslaved. It's a choice most people just don't know they are making. For many, it's also a choice that makes sense if they want to survive. Money lets you buy food, clothes, and shelter. Making a choice to be enslaved for those is clear(but still a choice). Making a choice to be enslaved beyon…

Eat or starve isn't much of a choice, though.

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

#174

Post by lcall »

lcall wrote: post #166

Having learned for myself that life has a purpose and there is life after death, with a just judge (and merciful, for the merciful), and that all things will be put in good order (my wording, emphasis on good): that all changes everything, for me at least. Today is Easter, when we commemorate the empty tomb....

With any downvotes, I would appreciate a courteous, thoughtful comment. I have not understood the possible harm in what I said, only likely disagreement. Disagreement is OK, but it seems that it could be better to write clearly rather than just quietly hide.

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

#175

Post by billfruit »

throwanem wrote: post #150
billfruit wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but left seems more critical of change/possibility of change than the right.

I don't understand in what context this can seem accurate, unless it's one of confusing liberalism and leftism. The US presidential candidate favored by the left, in the current and prior election cycles, is a democratic socialist whose candidacy and appeal are both founded on the promise of restricting the power of, and ameliorating the consequences of, the same laissez-faire (ie unregulated) capitalism so beloved o…

Who is the more vocal critic of the disruptive changes that has happened in our lifetime like the rise of social networks, and gig economy, disruptive innovation, etc. It appears to me the American left is more vocal than the right in criticising/opposing changes.

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

#176

Post by esotericn »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #172
esotericn wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need to make gains. You need to spend significantly less than you earn. If you can work for 4 months and survive for 12 then you're there. Compound returns are a nice bonus if they come, but not necessary. Sensible frugality is the important part.

This doesn't work for people who want to have children, who may have healthcare conditions, who need to take care of their parents, etc. Spending significantly less than you earn won't mean much if inflation means anything you earn is worth less year over year.

You need to maintain value or decrease at a very low compounded rate.

You don't need compound gains.

> This doesn't work for people who want to have children, who may have healthcare conditions, who need to take care of their parents, etc.

I'm not sure what this has to do with my point. You need to save more than you earn. If you can't or don't want to, so it goes. Not everyone's a winner.

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

#177

Post by tomrod »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #159
tomrod wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tends to work well, outside black swan events.

Yes, if black swan events happen every 10 or so years, and the black swan events wipe away all the gains of before... is that really helpful advice?

For people who never want to look at their balances and don't have a coherent strategy? No, it's terrible, use ETFs and target funds.

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

#178

Post by tomrod »

achillesheels wrote: post #167
tomrod wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That particular priest of the priestly class seeking to justify their predation of their bronze-age neighbors is probably dead. So, unfortunately, we are only left with their hagiographal and/or mythical prose.

You must be fun at parties.

A blast, yes. Thank you for your personality assessment on a scant sub-tweet sized comment.

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

#179

Post by Ghjklov »

lcall wrote: post #174
lcall wrote: post #166

Having learned for myself that life has a purpose and there is life after death, with a just judge (and merciful, for the merciful), and that all things will be put in good order (my wording, emphasis on good): that all changes everything, for me at least. Today is Easter, when we commemorate the empty tomb....

With any downvotes, I would appreciate a courteous, thoughtful comment. I have not understood the possible harm in what I said, only likely disagreement. Disagreement is OK, but it seems that it could be better to write clearly rather than just quietly hide.

Isn't it obvious that dark retreats as light approaches? :) That's why you are downvoted, despite not writing anything even remotely offensive or wrong.

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

#180

Post by throwanem »

billfruit wrote: post #175
throwanem wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand in what context this can seem accurate, unless it's one of confusing liberalism and leftism. The US presidential candidate favored by the left, in the current and prior election cycles, is a democratic socialist whose candidacy and appeal are both founded on the promise of restricting the power of, and ameliorating the consequences of, the same laissez-faire (ie unregulated) capitalism so beloved o…

Who is the more vocal critic of the disruptive changes that has happened in our lifetime like the rise of social networks, and gig economy, disruptive innovation, etc. It appears to me the American left is more vocal than the right in criticising/opposing changes.

I can't speak for how it appears to you, but to claim that the right has been uncritical or even less critical than the left, of recent changes in US and global society, is frankly absurd.
Post reply on HN