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

291–300 of 303 posts

Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom

#291

Post by rahimnathwani »

archangel_one wrote: post #157
xioxox wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5k seems absurd, though there is a big differential in the UK between those who own a house and those who do not. If I lived in London, 1e6 GBP would be necessary for housing alone, a ridiculous sum compared to the average wage.

I do live in London, and while it's expensive, I can't see how you could need £100k annually simply for accommodation. Unless you have a very large family to support too?

1e6 is a million. I assume he's talking about buying a place rather than renting.

Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom

#292

Post by philwelch »

collyw wrote: post #274
ak217 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Why does that seem implausible?

Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom

#293

Post by philwelch »

waylandsmithers wrote: post #98
base698 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you've missed the point. The point is there is some amount of money that affords you the ability to do what you want. Possessions have the effect of tying you down. Buying a house, assuming you get a mortgage, is a huge expense requiring you to work to pay for it. It ties you to one geographical area and puts stress from having to make the payments. You could spend the downpayment on a house as a down payment…

| Possessions have the effect of tying you down. This is getting to be a little off topic, but I see comments like this often from people who imagine a mortgage as a massive amount of debt hanging over your head. While I agree that home ownership is not the right move for everyone, and it's definitely true that you can't just up and leave, you can sell your house. It will probably take longer than the 30 or 60 days n…

If you're moving, it's likely because the house you live in has become less desirable for some reason, like "all the jobs are gone". So in most cases, if you want to move you're also likely to have trouble selling your house.

As far as investment value goes, it goes against every rule of investment to hold a highly leveraged position in a single, undiversified asset. If you can own several houses you might be okay.

Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom

#294

Post by mathattack »

coldtea wrote: post #251
mathattack wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the alternative is not buying things or services from people who need the money?

No, the alternative is to have some guilt when taking advantage of people that work for minimum wage, and not feel like Mother Teresa about doing it.

You're putting Mother Teresa into other people's mouths.

If there is large unemployment, and lots of people need work, is it morally better to spend $1,000 hiring one person or $500 each for 2 people, or $100 each for 10 people?

Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom

#295

Post by kingraoul3 »

yetanotherphd wrote: post #283
kingraoul3 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 argu…

>I don't have the stamina to debate with libertarians...

Probably true; I guess my comment can thought of more as counter-propaganda.

>Suppose, for example...

I imagine if I could get someone to question the premises of their hateful, retrograde philosophy I could get them to engage in further inquiry, which might open their eyes.

>You say you have lost your taste for intellectual debate online...

True, but I could also cultivate other interests. I'm sure eventually it will entice me again,

>Your starting point is that you know the truth

Marxists don't believe in absolute truth.

Do 'debate and reason' derive their power from the material world? It seems to me that they only exercise power in shaping one's consciousness to the degree that they reflect facts about the material world.

Following on the heels of that, what facts about a humans physical presence in the world carry more import for every other facet of their life than their economic position (position meaning, in particular, class)?

For what it's worth, people can and do argue against economic determinism. The degree of success that they have in that regard is a matter of continuing debate.

Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom

#297

Post by pigeons »

bmelton wrote: post #214
gress wrote: 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.

I would probably be inclined to agree with that. From a report I read recently (which I can't find again, sorry) pertaining to my home town of Memphis, TN, apparently the general conclusion was that Memphians were happier than Nashvillians, despite the latter having better access to health care, better access to higher paying jobs, better community features (arts, entertainment, etc.) The report didn't postulate on w…

Nashvillians don't want to be happy or else many wouldn't be able to effectively do their jobs of writing and performing country music.

Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom

#300

Post by Artistry121 »

kingraoul3 wrote: post #149
Artistry121 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

My argument is practicality as well as theory. First - who had "the commons" before it was closed? From what I understand there has always been someone who had more control over property than another.

Who will redistribute in a practical way? Who watches that person to make sure they are both efficient and fair?

Also - look at a list of the richest people in America. You'll notice that most came from middle or low class backgrounds. It seems like redistribution occurs fairly rapidly (within one or two generations) compared with other times.

Also - please explain who in America has massively unequal bargaining powers?

In another comment you said you needed to use "counter propoganda". The internet and forums are largely dominated by your way of thinking. Maybe it's because people who hold your view would rather type about issues than do solid work.

And I've also been thinking about this practically. It is right that claims on property, the foundation of many forms of capitalist forms of economies, are not inherent. However couldn't powerful property taxes be useful as this? If we defined property well and taxed ownership then redistribution would be built in and taxes would fall on the richest (those who use the most resources)? I'm just playing with that idea.

Also - there is one prominent example of someone living on $7,000 a year comfortably (early retirement extreme) which is far below the minimum wage. This person lives a lifestyle far better than almost anyone two generations ago and most a generation ago.

Post reply on HN