Live data from Hacker News

The real use of money is to buy freedom

paraschopra.com

271–280 of 303 posts

Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom

#271
post #91

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.

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.

Much of that standard-of-living increase has been dug or pumped out of the ground in the form of coal, oil, or gas:

http://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/08/29/the-long-term-tie-betwe...

Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom

#272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I believe your assertions about the 1950s need substantiation. I'd like to see some empirical data about things like poverty levels, life expectancy, job security, bankruptcy, and so on. Keep in mind that this is only a couple of decades (at most) from the Great Depression. Even if the 1950s were clearly better, it's a rather cherry-picked data point considering how much worse the 1930s clearly were. That being said,…

I'm not too excited about the intangibles of the 1950s.

It actually was a pretty good time, if you were American and white. The post-war boom was in full swing, American economic growth was at its highest in the 20th century (stats for earlier periods are harder to estimate, though long-term data series such as those collected by Angus Maddison might show this -- and the railroad and industrialization booms of the 1840s and 1880s were likely close). The US was the world's largest producer of oil (though it had just begun importing from Saudi Arabia), and it had essentially no rivals for industrial production (Europe and Japan had been seriously damaged by the war and were rebuilding, Korea and China wouldn't emerge for decades).

The Korean War was in the 1950s

For three years, 1950-1953. The US's troop commitment was 300,000. That compares with 16 million US troops in WWII. Fatalities alone were nearly as much as the Korean War deployment at 292,000. Korea was significant, but much less significant.

and Jim Crow was in full swing.

And starting to crack. Though it peaked in the 1960s, the Civil Rights movement had its roots in the 1950s, particularly the 1955 Montgomery Bus Boycott. No, it wasn't great, and there's still a huge amount of inequity, but things were finally starting to change.

And yes, there's a reason Nina Simone (and many others) left for France. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBiAtwQZnHs

Life expectancy was much lower.

Not all that much especially when compared with improvements over the prior 50-100 years. Life expectancy at birth was about 66 years in 1951 for white males, 72 for women, vs. 75 and 80 years in 2004. That compares with 38 and 40 in 1850. The biggest single-decade jump for men was between 1911 and 1919 (six years), about the same for women. Much of that came from improved safety (particularly industrial conditions and automobiles), some in behavior and environment (decreased smoking, drinking, and air pollution). It was earlier advances in antiseptics, anesthesia, sanitation, waste disposal, food preservation, nutrition, and pharmaceuticals which accounted for the big jumps. For men, 1900 - 1950 saw an 18.08 year increase, 1950 - 2000 an 8.49 year increase.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html

Just about any consumer good from today is clearly superior to the 1950s equivalent.

I'll grant increased capabilities, complexity, and decreased costs, though overengineering (or lack of corner-cutting) meant that many electrical and mechanical products were more durable then. There's also the question of just how much such advances impact on quality of life.

Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom

#273
post #210
post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Houses affordable by single wage earning families? I think not.

Bingo! People talk about single wage earnings supporting a family and owning a house. Keep in mind that house was likely small by today's standards. I don't think it's reasonable to complain that you can't sustain a family and a house that is 1.5x what they were in the 1950s, on a single income.

In the UK and much of Europe houses are not any bigger.

Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom

#274
post #224
post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depression is also rising to epidemic proportions, suggesting that improving economic indicators may simply not have anything to do with quality of life.

More like, mental health is not directly correlated with quality of life. Freed from the preoccupation of having to fight or work hard for basic needs, many people fail to find meaning in their life.

Are you seriously suggesting that there are more incidences of mental health issues because people have easier lives?

Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom

#275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This assumes that wealth is a zero-sum game, so it can be traded around but not created. >And it very much is. You may be confusing wealth with money, which is in fact a zero-sum game. Wealth, on the other hand, can be created and it's been constantly created all the time throughout history. The section on the Pie Fallacy in this article may help clarify it: http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html

> You may be confusing wealth with money, which is in fact a zero-sum game. Wealth, on the other hand, can be created So can money. Neither wealth nor money is zero-sum.

Unfortunately money can be created for some by restricting access to wealth.

Restrictions on housebuilding is a perfect example in the UK with its dysfunctional housing market. The older generations are happy to have their house prices artificially inflated by not allowing enough homes to be built for the younger generations and immigrants. Keeps rents and prices high while not creating any wealth.

Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom

#276
post #91

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.

>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.

Inequality has been growing a lot the last three decades

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/17/living-standa...

Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom

#277
strange that here's such a hype around this article. Money is a tool. That's it. Use that tool. If you begin to worship a hammer, you're fucked. If you see people who are fucked, help them for the first time. If you see that they like being fucked, then these people are tool. Use that tool.

Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom

#278
post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course houses are cheap in places with no jobs.

A basic income would help jobs follow people.

I've never seen this argument for a basic income, but it's a super interesting one to think about.

Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom

#279

Yeah, I think I largely agree with this. A few years ago, my grandmother died and left me a healthy pile of money. Enough that I don't have to have a day job for several years yet, even if I hadn't invested a bunch of it. I live alone in a two-bedroom apartment in a very walkable part of Seattle. I don't own a car, I don't have kids. I spend my days mostly drawing comics, without troubling myself much with deadlines,…

Sounds like an amazing lifestyle, I'd love to see some of your work

Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom

#280
post #51

>>A life spent mostly hoarding money and possessions is a wasted life Having seen the kind of advantage some of my friends born in rich families enjoy, I would love to hoard and posses tons of wealth even if its purely to give away in inheritance. Rich kids enjoy privileges and advantage poor kids can't even dream of. The biggest of which is attitude of course. Rich kids are born with an assumption they are supposed…

No matter how hard you work, you will never be able to truly compete with a rich kid

Not sure where you live, but the beauty of a class-free, highly mobile society is that the two dramatically wealthiest people I know started out from the very low end of the economic ladder. If anything, it gave them the freedom to take risks since they were never scared of going back to having nothing.

If you've already decided that you can't compete with "rich kids" then you won't be able to.

Post reply on HN