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

Anthony Bourdain on not having debt

wealthsimple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 366 posts

Re: Anthony Bourdain on not having debt

#61

Post by mi_noi_noi »

ethbro wrote: post #23
refurb wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if you're living in the US, but I do and I have the exact opposite viewpoint. The amount of waste, corruption and poor planning by the gov't makes me feel like I'm throwing money away. I'd rather give it a charity since then I'd know a majority of it had an impact. I think if the gov't was a bit more efficient and could be shown to be good stewards of money I'd probably hate paying taxes a lot less.

Having worked for some charities, there's sausage being made there too. Just like the government has spots of greater than free market efficiency. I don't think one or the other is strictly better. You point at corruption and waste wherever you find it, then you work to make it less.

You could say charities are better in the sense that:

- You at least have more than one choice. If the charity you give to performs poorly by whatever metrics you value, you can give to another one next time.

- It is voluntary. Nobody with guns will put you in a cage if you don't donate to a charity, as is the case if you don't pay your taxes.

Re: Anthony Bourdain on not having debt

#62

Post by edanm »

yequalsx wrote: post #32
refurb wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if you're living in the US, but I do and I have the exact opposite viewpoint. The amount of waste, corruption and poor planning by the gov't makes me feel like I'm throwing money away. I'd rather give it a charity since then I'd know a majority of it had an impact. I think if the gov't was a bit more efficient and could be shown to be good stewards of money I'd probably hate paying taxes a lot less.

I believe there are no examples of charity ever being able to provide the basic needs of all but a small percent of the poor of a nation. It was not charities that provided clean water. It was not charities that largely ended hunger or gave healthcare to the poor. It was not charities that educated the masses. Government is necessary. It can be done badly but it doesn't have to be.

You might be right but I'm not sure what you prevented is any kind of proof that charity couldn't provide those needs. It's just that in most cases, governments effectively have a monopoly on providing these kinds of services, making charity either redundant, or legally unable to provide said services.

Re: Anthony Bourdain on not having debt

#63

Post by ryanhuff »

mi_noi_noi wrote: post #61
ethbro wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having worked for some charities, there's sausage being made there too. Just like the government has spots of greater than free market efficiency. I don't think one or the other is strictly better. You point at corruption and waste wherever you find it, then you work to make it less.

You could say charities are better in the sense that: - You at least have more than one choice. If the charity you give to performs poorly by whatever metrics you value, you can give to another one next time. - It is voluntary. Nobody with guns will put you in a cage if you don't donate to a charity, as is the case if you don't pay your taxes.

Couldn't you say that about whatever city that you live in? Many people voluntarily live in their choice of city or state (in the U.S.). If you don't like that government's priorities, you could move elsewhere.

Re: Anthony Bourdain on not having debt

#64

Post by shostack »

charlieflowers wrote: post #59
kevinmannix wrote: post #3

I wish more people thought this way. Debt can be be used effectively, but as Uncle Ben said, "With great power comes great responsibility." It seems that too much of America is wooed into a false sense of security by their ability to obtain debt without judging their ability to pay that debt off.

Most Americans are using debt to buy consumer goods. So the question most should ask themselves is, "As a citizen of a first world country, with a good job and a super high standard of living, why is it that I need to consume some of tomorrow's dollars to get myself even more stuff right now?"

Then there's the flip side of using credit cards to get a 1%+ discount on things and paying it off in full. If you have the cash and discipline, debt can be used for very low risk benefit.

Re: Anthony Bourdain on not having debt

#65

Post by Mikeb85 »

If your return on capital is higher than the interest rate, you should take on debt. If it's not (and for most it's not), then you shouldn't. Pretty simple.

Anyhow, the article is an interesting anecdote about Bourdains life, but has little to do with money. He makes money from TV and books, can live comfortably because he makes quite a bit, but he's no financial savant.

Re: Anthony Bourdain on not having debt

#66

Post by icantdrive55 »

appleiigs wrote: post #49
nkozyra wrote: post #12

Debt is a manifestation of risk. As general financial advice, "don't take on debt" is akin to "don't take risks." It depends. On a lot of things.

Debt can reduce risk. Many corporations use leverage up a project, say 90%, so they only need to put in the 10%. If something goes wrong, they lose the 10% and they walk.

Yea, but they are usually LLC's. If I could have a do over, I would enter society as an LLC. "Here's my baby--Donald J. Liability proof LLC. Hell--Lawyers do it. Doctors used too, but I don't see it as much. I don't know why? I recall LLC's are easily broken up when used by certain professions.

I see nothing wrong with debt as long as your Judgement Proof, or you can count on a clean Chapter 7. I have no love for CC companies.

Re: Anthony Bourdain on not having debt

#67

Post by mi_noi_noi »

ryanhuff wrote: post #63
mi_noi_noi wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could say charities are better in the sense that: - You at least have more than one choice. If the charity you give to performs poorly by whatever metrics you value, you can give to another one next time. - It is voluntary. Nobody with guns will put you in a cage if you don't donate to a charity, as is the case if you don't pay your taxes.

Couldn't you say that about whatever city that you live in? Many people voluntarily live in their choice of city or state (in the U.S.). If you don't like that government's priorities, you could move elsewhere.

What if you don't like any cities or states?

With charities you can always make your own. Don't have that option in your system.

I'm not American, but aren't some taxes that go to education/welfare/healthcare on a federal level? If so, are you going to tell people to leave the country? It's very expensive and for many practically impossible.

Besides, is the goal not here to spend the money as efficiently as possible? In that case we need as much competition and experimentation as possible. Something I think is achieved to a much higher degree with my system than yours.

Also, your suggestion still doesn't make it voluntary. In my system someone can not donate to charity, but use their money for something else. Charities are not the only way to help the worse off.

Re: Anthony Bourdain on not having debt

#68

Post by CJefferson »

edanm wrote: post #62
yequalsx wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe there are no examples of charity ever being able to provide the basic needs of all but a small percent of the poor of a nation. It was not charities that provided clean water. It was not charities that largely ended hunger or gave healthcare to the poor. It was not charities that educated the masses. Government is necessary. It can be done badly but it doesn't have to be.

You might be right but I'm not sure what you prevented is any kind of proof that charity couldn't provide those needs. It's just that in most cases, governments effectively have a monopoly on providing these kinds of services, making charity either redundant, or legally unable to provide said services.

In the time before governments provided these services, or in countries where the government is too broken to provide them, charity makes a good effort but fails to provide basic complete coverage.

Re: Anthony Bourdain on not having debt

#69

Post by hueving »

ryanhuff wrote: post #63
mi_noi_noi wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could say charities are better in the sense that: - You at least have more than one choice. If the charity you give to performs poorly by whatever metrics you value, you can give to another one next time. - It is voluntary. Nobody with guns will put you in a cage if you don't donate to a charity, as is the case if you don't pay your taxes.

Couldn't you say that about whatever city that you live in? Many people voluntarily live in their choice of city or state (in the U.S.). If you don't like that government's priorities, you could move elsewhere.

Nope. If you have a problem with the federal government (e.g. US military spending) of the country you are a citizen of, then you actually have a lot of difficulty moving to another country (unless you are rich).

Re: Anthony Bourdain on not having debt

#70

Post by [deleted] »

p_eter_p wrote: post #24
refurb wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if you're living in the US, but I do and I have the exact opposite viewpoint. The amount of waste, corruption and poor planning by the gov't makes me feel like I'm throwing money away. I'd rather give it a charity since then I'd know a majority of it had an impact. I think if the gov't was a bit more efficient and could be shown to be good stewards of money I'd probably hate paying taxes a lot less.

People always say this, but nobody can ever point to a solid example. Do you have hard numbers that government social programs are less efficient than charity?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN