Freedom has been my main goal for money. As my business has grown I'm happier, but I can see the monetary goalposts shifting as I go. I started two years ago. My initial goal was to build recurring income. I wanted enough to cover expenses, as an initial goal. Achieved that. But I saw I was vulnerable to sudden expenses, or a temporary decline in business. So I wanted an emergency fund. Achieved that. But then I real…
The real use of money is to buy freedom
281–290 of 303 posts
Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom
#282"money only buys you choices" I lived nearly homeless for a year. never felt more free, didnt cost a dime.
Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom
#283Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty sure that if the commons had been divided up equally among the people who previously had the right to use them, we would be exactly where we are now. Capitalism results in inequality regardless of initial conditions, because people differ in their abilities, and in their luck. A much more powerful argument for redistribution than capitalism original sin, is that (1) we all live in a society, where we rely…
I agree with you (excepting that the violence evidenced in primitive capital accumulation is a historical accident), but the thrust of my argument was to demonstrate that Libertarian philosophy is wrong on it's own terms. There are a variety of other arguments you could advance against it - for example that the self is social fiction with no scientific basis, the increasing communality of all labor, the inherent inst…
I don't have the stamina to debate with libertarians, but I also have found that "beating them at their own game" is not a useful strategy.
Suppose, for example, you manage to prove to a libertarian that the current distribution of wealth is the result of unfair actions in the past. Then for them, the next best option would probably be to redistribute wealth, and then press "play". Which isn't what you wanted to argue for in the first place, so why make that argument?
You say you have lost your taste for intellectual debate online, but I think you would regain it if you were to engage in real debate rather than point-scoring.
Your starting point is that you know the truth, and it is "material" factors that prevent others from knowing this truth. But to have this point of view underestimates the power of debate and reason. But of course I can't really convince you that I haven't been subconsciously made blind to the intellectual power of Marxism by my comfortable middle class lifestyle.
Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom
#284Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Value for the world != things I happen to think are worth a lot. Your view is hampered by your ignorance of the definition of the word value. If people are making money (i.e. selling a product or service for a profit) they are by definition creating value by default. The fact that you may not find what they are doing valuable is as irrelevant to the equation as the fact that I don't like broccoli.
> Your view is hampered by your ignorance of the definition of the word value.
Given your reply, I'd say it's your ignorance on display here.
> If people are making money (i.e. selling a product or service for a profit) they are by definition creating value by default.
False. This naive notion assumes everyone is honest and consumers are informed, both of which aren't true. Plenty of people make money by duping customers into thinking they're providing value when they aren't and relying on customers laziness to take the loss when they figure out it was a scam.
That someone voluntarily gave you money does not mean you provided them value. There is no value in Homeopathy, there is no value in fake magic aura balancing bracelets; these are simply people scamming stupid people for money by pretending to add value.
Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom
#285"money is a side effect of excellence, and if it's not - at least you're still excellent"
- me
Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom
#286Earlier quoted context omitted.
For me personally I know it's way more than $75k but less than $200k. I have expensive hobbies and like to to travel without blowing my savings.
Of course expensive hobbies require more money. However the point of that article is (vaguely and generally across the people they studied) your expensive hobbies and traveling do not increase your happiness as much as the pursuit of the extra money decreases it. In other words, you get some combination of diminishing returns on happiness per dollar, and increasing cost of happiness per dollar. $75k is the proposed s…
To put it another way, for me, I am way less happy making $75K than I am now. That's even considering I have to do more to get the extra income.
The way I read the original article is that most people pursue things like luxury goods, houses, and cars which don't increase your happiness. If you keep your standard of living low, but income high, you can do more traveling, use the money to spend time on your hobbies or with your family.
Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom
#287Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course expensive hobbies require more money. However the point of that article is (vaguely and generally across the people they studied) your expensive hobbies and traveling do not increase your happiness as much as the pursuit of the extra money decreases it. In other words, you get some combination of diminishing returns on happiness per dollar, and increasing cost of happiness per dollar. $75k is the proposed s…
To put it another way, for me, I am way less happy making $75K than I am now. That's even considering I have to do more to get the extra income. The way I read the original article is that most people pursue things like luxury goods, houses, and cars which don't increase your happiness. If you keep your standard of living low, but income high, you can do more traveling, use the money to spend time on your hobbies or…
I disagree a bit on houses not increasing happiness. I enjoy owning my house much better than renting.
Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom
#288Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The real problem is: This additional freedom you can buy with money means less freedom for somebody else. There are three wrong assumptions here: 1) that wealth is zero-sum 2) that wealth is the only possible way to obtain freedom 3) that for each individual the same quantum of wealth buys the exact same quantum of freedom. Prime-facie, neither of these three are true. There are all kinds of problems with associate…
there's also the flawed assumption that freedom is a zero-sum game!
That one is very obviously and patently flawed: me to raise my arm in the air right now does not decrease your freedom. The only it could have been true about particular kind of freedom is if the assumptions the parent poster were true.
Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom
#289Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They can't opt out of minimum wage because there are laws, not because it's otherwise coerced. You missed the point. Let's get rid of the minimum wage. Suppose Alex is looking for a job, but all the jobs they can find that will hire them pay less than what they think is fair. Does Alex have a choice? No; if they doesn't get a job they will starve and die.
The point I made was that workers can't opt out of it because that would be illegal. There are, I'm certainly, many who are starving that would otherwise be thrilled to earn $4 an hour, but they can't. There are also a myriad of scenarios wherein paying someone less than the minimum wage doesn't mean that they starve and die. The minimum wage prevents those earners from finding a place in the market. Even further, th…
I think you and the GP (or whatever) are talking past each other. Their original point was that it's essentially impossible for a person to opt out of the labor market, because without money they can't buy food and will starve to death. This is true regardless of any kind of minimum wage laws.
Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point I made was that workers can't opt out of it because that would be illegal. There are, I'm certainly, many who are starving that would otherwise be thrilled to earn $4 an hour, but they can't. There are also a myriad of scenarios wherein paying someone less than the minimum wage doesn't mean that they starve and die. The minimum wage prevents those earners from finding a place in the market. Even further, th…
I think you and the GP (or whatever) are talking past each other. Their original point was that it's essentially impossible for a person to opt out of the labor market, because without money they can't buy food and will starve to death. This is true regardless of any kind of minimum wage laws.
Holy cow. With that mentioned, my re-reading of the GP and your prior comments make me wonder how I missed it at all. I remember replying to you before, then editing my reply after realizing that we seemed to be in disagreement, while my original apply had assumed agreement, then editing again to just reiterate my point, with no idea whether we agreed or disagreed.
That clears things up completely. Thank you for the clarification, and apologies for the confusion.