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

Golden Rules for Making Money (1880)

fourmilab.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 186 posts

Re: Golden Rules for Making Money (1880)

#51

Post by popmystack »

carlosnunez wrote: post #20
lr4444lr wrote: post #8

I love this part: The poor spendthrift vagabond says to a rich man: "I have discovered there is enough money in the world for all of us, if it was equally divided; this must be done, and we shall all be happy together." "But," was the response, "if everybody was like you, it would be spent in two months, and what would you do then?" "Oh! divide again; keep dividing, of course!"

Don't show that to the Universal Basic Income diehards...

Aggressive commentary on some vague, yesteryear-email-forward-esque story is a good enough standard for you to solidify preconceived notions?

Please, don't expound on what your political positions are because you'd only be doing everyone a disservice.

Re: Golden Rules for Making Money (1880)

#52

Post by jjoonathan »

angersock wrote: post #34
carlosnunez wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't show that to the Universal Basic Income diehards...

Even a cursory reading of the story should suggest to a reader a difference between the proposed action (divide equally riches amongst all), and UBI (fund a fixed-amount per citizen per annum). Least of all, if one believes in the ability of capital to be reinvested to create more capital, it is obvious that the second case need hardly injure an economy while still helping the people who are broke. The former case, o…

> it is obvious that the second case need hardly injure an economy

I think an even stronger statement holds true: if you don't actively redistribute then you're effectively making an open-loop amplifier which will amplify noise (who happened to be in the right place at the right time) in preference to signal (effort input) -- which is just as harmful to the cultivation of a beneficial incentive landscape (i.e. one that promotes effort input, since that's tautologically all anyone ever gets to decide) as a failure to reward success would be.

Alternatively: it's often better to reduce the transition-state energy than to improve the final reward, which is exactly the opposite of what happens when decisions are made by people who have 1 metric shitton of money to invest in building a moat with the aim of returning 2 metric shittons of money.

Re: Golden Rules for Making Money (1880)

#53

Post by teddyh »

carlosnunez wrote: post #22
iagooar wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I took a credit once, for buying a car, and will never do it again. Although I never had problems with paying the money back, I was paying a lot more money back to the bank, so when I finished paying the credit off, the car was worth half of the price I bought it, almost having paid double the price because of the credit interests. But the worst part was that it didn't feel right. So now my policy is to never buy any…

Here's the biggest reason why I don't mind taking out a loan on a car, one of the most aggressive and most expensive depreciating assets out there: Comfort. Immense comfort. I spend a lot of time in my car. I enjoy the car that I have now (a 2012 Honda Accord EX-L), but the only reason why I didn't take out a lease on something more expensive (like a 535i or an E-class) is because we're planning to move very soon and…

“Let’s suppose you want the latest iPad. You want it because it is convenient to be able to look at pictures and websites and books and play music around the house. Sure, you already have other computers that do those things, but the iPad is special because it lets you do them while holding it in one hand, sitting on the couch.

Wow, that couch is pretty convenient too, isn’t it? It is comfortable, enjoyable, convenient, and joyful to sit and lie on your couch. In fact, wouldn’t it be best to just lie on that couch all day? Forever? Yeah! Maybe you could even hook it up with a catheter and a bedpan, and a friend or robot could bring you all your food on the couch too. With each release, the latest iPad could be delivered to you, and you’d have the most convenient and comfortable and effort-free life ever.”

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/09/18/is-it-convenient-w...

Re: Golden Rules for Making Money (1880)

#54

Post by mc808 »

carlosnunez wrote: post #20
lr4444lr wrote: post #8

I love this part: The poor spendthrift vagabond says to a rich man: "I have discovered there is enough money in the world for all of us, if it was equally divided; this must be done, and we shall all be happy together." "But," was the response, "if everybody was like you, it would be spent in two months, and what would you do then?" "Oh! divide again; keep dividing, of course!"

Don't show that to the Universal Basic Income diehards...

UBI just lifts the wealth distribution curve up a bit so the long tail approaches something above zero. You could also call it a "tax prebate" as in the FairTax proposal if that's more palatable. The poorest poor are going to get their basic necessities somehow, whether it's by participating in the economy or by digging through your garbage or your garage.

Re: Golden Rules for Making Money (1880)

#55

Post by alwaysdownvoted »

lr4444lr wrote: post #8

I love this part: The poor spendthrift vagabond says to a rich man: "I have discovered there is enough money in the world for all of us, if it was equally divided; this must be done, and we shall all be happy together." "But," was the response, "if everybody was like you, it would be spent in two months, and what would you do then?" "Oh! divide again; keep dividing, of course!"

In 1880 there was no Federal Reserve system.

"Money" was backed by commodities of finite quantity.

Re: Golden Rules for Making Money (1880)

#56

Post by jjoonathan »

icebraining wrote: post #50
jjoonathan wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> spendthrift vagabond An obtuse mischaracterization of the poor; a more typical "sin" would be failure to hop over the ever-rising bar that denotes the ability to secure money by threatening to withhold labor. Circulation goes both ways and it isn't the ability of producers to secure profits that seems to be most endangered at the moment.

An obtuse mischaracterization of the poor Why do you think it's a characterization of the poor at all? Circulation goes both ways and it isn't the ability of producers to secure profits that seems to be most endangered at the moment. The working poor are themselves producers.

> Why do you think it's a characterization of the poor at all?

Because they're the ones who the type of policy we are discussing would actually be intended to benefit. Voicing that side of the argument through a "spendthrift vagabond" is disingenuous at best.

> The working poor are themselves producers.

I was using the term with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek, I thought it would be clear enough from context that I was referring to capital-holders.

Re: Golden Rules for Making Money (1880)

#57

Post by icebraining »

iagooar wrote: post #14
vlunkr wrote: post #9

Our credit card driven culture could certainly use his advice on avoiding debt.

I took a credit once, for buying a car, and will never do it again. Although I never had problems with paying the money back, I was paying a lot more money back to the bank, so when I finished paying the credit off, the car was worth half of the price I bought it, almost having paid double the price because of the credit interests. But the worst part was that it didn't feel right. So now my policy is to never buy any…

Have you considered that your personal feelings are preventing you from taking what can actually be a good economical decision?

For example, imagine you had taken a loan to buy the scooter, then used the money put aside to pay the installments instead. You might have paid somewhat more for the scooter, but on the other hand, you could actually own the scooter earlier, which might even save you money in the end (for example, if you drove a car instead and therefore spent more in gas and such).

Buying a house is similar; the "point" is that you end up saving money, since you stop paying for it, but never stop paying rent. Also, there are incentives (such as tax breaks) that make it cheaper still.

Does it mean that you have an extra obligation "tying" you? Sure. But that doesn't mean it's always a bad choice.

Re: Golden Rules for Making Money (1880)

#58

Post by audi100quattro »

lr4444lr wrote: post #31
PaulRobinson wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is the correct answer. When you spend money, it doesn't disappear. It's just moved.

Yes, but the goods it can buy on the next round of division still don't come from the spendthrift vagabond, and if his way of life is incentivized while the producers' is disincentivized by this redistribution, then that circulation won't continue so innocuously.

...and if you incentivized the producers (which is also redistribution) while disincentivized the spendthrift you will not be left with much of a population to keep redistributing from. Ultimately this is bad for the producers, I am not sure why they don't realize it. Short-term thinking and greed, maybe?

Increasing inequality does in fact encourage deflation. Redistribution in forms of common services and education (for um.. jobs) is very necessary.

Re: Golden Rules for Making Money (1880)

#59

Post by SwellJoe »

carlosnunez wrote: post #20
lr4444lr wrote: post #8

I love this part: The poor spendthrift vagabond says to a rich man: "I have discovered there is enough money in the world for all of us, if it was equally divided; this must be done, and we shall all be happy together." "But," was the response, "if everybody was like you, it would be spent in two months, and what would you do then?" "Oh! divide again; keep dividing, of course!"

Don't show that to the Universal Basic Income diehards...

Surely the straw in that man has dried up and blown away during the past 156 years?

Re: Golden Rules for Making Money (1880)

#60

Post by jacquesm »

switch007 wrote: post #37
carlosnunez wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the biggest reason why I don't mind taking out a loan on a car, one of the most aggressive and most expensive depreciating assets out there: Comfort. Immense comfort. I spend a lot of time in my car. I enjoy the car that I have now (a 2012 Honda Accord EX-L), but the only reason why I didn't take out a lease on something more expensive (like a 535i or an E-class) is because we're planning to move very soon and…

BMW fan here! (To an extent). BMWs have their flaws (buy a 15+ year old E46, I dare you), but damn, it feels much more like they thought things through. Nothing in the interior of my E46 annoyed me. I've driven the F30 as hire cars many times and love it. However, I drove a 2015 Mercedes E-class for 3 days last week...: - The parking brake is a PEDAL and the release is a totally separate lever. - The button to disabl…

> The parking brake is a PEDAL and the release is a totally separate lever.

That has two functions in one go: first of all it stops your potentially deranged passengers from pulling on the handbrake and second it allows for much more force to be applied to the pedal than you could ever achieve while pulling on a lever. This means that if you need the parking brake for it's backup emergency brake function it will likely have a lot more effect.

> The gear selector is a weird stalk (drive is down, reverse is up, and park is a separate button you push inwards?!).

Gear selector is a matter of taste, it's actually the same as it would be in some other EU cars (and even some ancient ones, the (original) DS for instance). The reason why park is separate is so when you reverse and you still have a little bit of speed you don't accidentally lock the wheels.

> Cruise control setting being 1 km below what you set is

Similar to the speedometer erring on the side of caution. In case of doubt, check with a GPS and adjust accordingly if you really feel like riding that fine line between a fine and a freebie.

> No button on steering wheel to directly change radio station.

First world problems ;)

> To wash the windscreen, you need to push inwards a small button on a stalk to the second level! The first level activates the wipers without water. I dry-wiped the windscreen a few times before realising.

RTM :)

Post reply on HN