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

The real use of money is to buy freedom

paraschopra.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 303 posts

Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom

#141

Post by bermanoid »

gnaritas wrote: post #127
dbecker wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real problem is: This additional freedom you can buy with money means less freedom for somebody else. This assumes that wealth is a zero-sum game, so it can be traded around but not created. It's hard to reconcile that view with the fact that standards-of-living have been growing, more or less worldwide , for the two centuries.

> This assumes that wealth is a zero-sum game, so it can be traded around but not created. And you assume that because it's not always zero-sum, that it never is, a position just as fallacious.

To swat down an argument one need only show that it's flawed, not that its converse is proven.

Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom

#142

Post by coldtea »

miles wrote: post #21

Tim O'Reilly on money: It’s easy to get caught up in the heady buzz of making money. You should regard money as fuel for what you really want to do, not as a goal in and of itself. Money is like gas in the car — you need to pay attention or you’ll end up on the side of the road — but a well-lived life is not a tour of gas stations! Source: http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/01/work-on-stuff-that-matters-...

>You should regard money as fuel for what you really want to do, not as a goal in and of itself.

A little ironic coming from Tim, who cheapened the whole publishing house he had built, and then added those horrible techno-babble conferences for quick bucks.

Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom

#143

Post by gnaritas »

bermanoid wrote: post #141
gnaritas wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This assumes that wealth is a zero-sum game, so it can be traded around but not created. And you assume that because it's not always zero-sum, that it never is, a position just as fallacious.

To swat down an argument one need only show that it's flawed, not that its converse is proven.

True, but you can do so without fallacious reasoning that make you both wrong. Wealth is sometimes a zero-sum game and sometimes not a zero-sum game; not everyone who makes money is creating value for the world, but they usually are.

Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom

#144

Post by coldtea »

dbecker wrote: post #91
nexttimer wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The real use of money is to buy freedom The real problem is: This additional freedom you can buy with money means less freedom for somebody else. Inequality (wealth-based) means nothing else than domination. If you are richer, then you dominate the poorer people. And richer countries dominate poorer countries. This is the most basic and fundamental injustice [0] we seem to accept in our Western culture. Because we…

The real problem is: This additional freedom you can buy with money means less freedom for somebody else. This assumes that wealth is a zero-sum game, so it can be traded around but not created. It's hard to reconcile that view with the fact that standards-of-living have been growing, more or less worldwide , for the two centuries.

>This assumes that wealth is a zero-sum game, so it can be traded around but not created.

And it very much is.

>It's hard to reconcile that view with the fact that standards-of-living have been growing, more or less worldwide, for the two centuries.

Those are not personal wealth.

Increased standards of living are a kind of background element, as they are more or less shared by the population. Statistically they even out, and only differences from them matter.

A guy living in a trailer park today, with a tv, microwave, electricity, some medical access etc, would be considered living like a king, compared to a 1600's peasant working in some feudal farm. That doesn't mean he feels (or is viewed) as such in our society.

Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom

#145

Post by privong »

> And, although it might be true that certain people just get kicks out of making money, science definitely tells us that certain things make us predictably more happy than others. So people who are irrationally attracted to hoard are just victims of uninformed biases.

While the statement on science is accurate, those kinds of results are statistical. So, it's incorrect to extend that result to every individual. While people who chase money may be statistically likely to be "victims of uninformed biases", not everyone will be.

Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom

#146

Post by reginaldjcooper »

marknutter wrote: post #140
reginaldjcooper wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just what we need, some more Objectivism. If the free market ensured that all people were given a wage that adequately reflected their value, the bottom 40% of earners would be getting more than 10% of the income. Bill Gates paid 30 cents of every dollar in exchange for access to an educated and healthy workforce, use of the interstates for shipping, use of the police and military for protection, and use of a contrac…

> Bill Gates paid 30 cents of every dollar in exchange for access to an educated and healthy workforce, use of the interstates for shipping, use of the police and military for protection, and use of a contract law system. You make it sound as though it's a willful transaction between two parties. Yes, taxes go to those things, but it's compulsory. If I don't like Microsoft I can choose not to buy their products. If I…

Right? But the GP was asserting minimum wage is a willful transaction also. Actually if the laborers don't like their minimum wage, they cannot opt out of it either, they need to eat, pay for housing, and get medical insurance from somewhere.

It's absurd to me that someone would assert that Bill Gates is being dominated by paying taxes whereas these other people are somehow not being dominated by accepting a low wage in the same system.

Also Bill Gates has the resources to change citizenship if he thinks there's a better deal elsewhere. Many of these other people would not be financially able to move to another country and work there legally. So it's definitely more willful for him than for the minimum wage workforce.

Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom

#147

Post by coldtea »

randallsquared wrote: post #125
ashray wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the standard of living really growing for everyone ? Or are there more people now (%wise) in poverty ? This is an honest question as several people have mentioned the standard of living argument before on HN. I've read however that the rich-poor divide is growing and thus am just wondering about this..

Both can be true at once. The richest are farther ahead than the richest were, in monetary terms, but the poor have made huge strides in absolute wealth as well: it's possible to live a 1950s upper middle class lifestyle on almost the same dollar amount in 2013. Our idea of what a middle-class lifestyle entails, though, is now far above that.

Well, there are also intangibles that nobody cares to measure, that matter a lot.

A 2013 "middle class lifestyle" might be far ahead a 1950 "middle class lifestyle" in pocessions, access to products, etc, but there are important differences too.

For example, in all likely the 1950 "middle class" family could get all they needed by only one person working. And that person work an 8 hour day, with benefits and security. He was also quite sure that'd he keep his job if he was half decent at it permanently. He rarely was in debt.

Today's middle class starts of with a large debt (college loans), both in the couple have to work their asses of, and are not very far from falling off middle class, should anything bad happen (from a market crash to a medical emergency).

As for the increased luxuries and such (compared to 1950), those don't mean nothing to them, as they are the assumed zero-level for all middle class in their time.

Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom

#148

Post by coldtea »

mathattack wrote: post #132
nexttimer wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The real use of money is to buy freedom The real problem is: This additional freedom you can buy with money means less freedom for somebody else. Inequality (wealth-based) means nothing else than domination. If you are richer, then you dominate the poorer people. And richer countries dominate poorer countries. This is the most basic and fundamental injustice [0] we seem to accept in our Western culture. Because we…

I disagree. If have a $100,000, and somebody else has zero, neither of us have any value until I spend the money. If I spent the $10,000 to have someone do my laundry for the year (increasing my free time), then they have $10,000 with which to buy things that they might value more than the time doing my laundry. It may be groceries, it might be books, it might be a vacation. If I invest the remaining $90,000 (let's s…

>Nobody forces them to accept it.

In fairy tales maybe. In real life, need to feed the family, debt, hunger, mortages, need for shelter, medical treatment needs, etc etc are forcing them to accept it.

>Unless I stick the money under my mattress, putting money to use helps others.

The same thing happens with giving slaves food. It helps them. That doesn't mean it's the best kind of help they can get.

Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom

#149

Post by kingraoul3 »

Artistry121 wrote: post #116
nexttimer wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The real use of money is to buy freedom The real problem is: This additional freedom you can buy with money means less freedom for somebody else. Inequality (wealth-based) means nothing else than domination. If you are richer, then you dominate the poorer people. And richer countries dominate poorer countries. This is the most basic and fundamental injustice [0] we seem to accept in our Western culture. Because we…

As I see it there are two options available: 1) People freely exchange goods and services. 2) Wealth is distributed without free exchange. It's a spectrum not an absolute. In free exchange (me trading with my boss or with Google or with a grocery store) I will never enter into a trade that has a lower expected value than the dollar value I'm giving up. In other words in every exchange I will either gain value or matc…

The Capitalist order was created with the closure of the commons, creating large masses of people with nothing to sell but their labor. The resulting 'Enclosure Riots' where put down with great force.

As a consequence, 'Free exchange' then consists of people with massively unequal bargaining powers coming to an agreement. To see this arrangement as fair, one has to twist their sight up quite a bit.

A defense of the free market without redistribution to counter the effects of this and other historical crimes is a defense of oligarchical privilege.

Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom

#150

Post by chatmasta »

c3o wrote: post #124
flyinglizard wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same logic applies to each of them. It is assumed they chose to work for Apple, and that their salary reflects whatever value they bring the company.

That assumption is an oversimplification, concealing myriad dependencies, power/negotiating imbalances, information asymmetry, imperfect markets, lack of choice, restricted individual freedom, etc.

Yeah, down with feudalism! Employment is bad! /s
Post reply on HN