many Americans are the worst with money...this is a crisis in the US

From what I can see from your argument, you are quite anti-secular (at least in this current thread). I assume youre being hypocritical because I would assume, as like the extremely vast majority of people, you frequently commit to this instant gratification that you are opposed to.

Btw, thanks for giving me a decent argument for a change. Hard to find on the internet.

 

By anti-secular I am implying a sort of romantic, not literally a religious ideology supporter

 

there is definetly not 400 brands of toilet paper.

stop making things up you pervert

 

Can you point to where I am being anti-secular?

Sure, at times, like all of us, but it's not what floats my boat or drives my thoughts and passions. But as you don't know me, it would be a useless thing to go into. Suffice it to say..well, forget it; We don't know each other and never will. I won't go into it here - bits and pieces are around on this forum, and if you are interested, I'd be happy to talk about it more fully.

This is the only reason for any of us to do this, it seems to me. The other stuff (as evidenced on this thread alone), does get old, and I enjoy an honest exchange as well, Spam.

 

Well, I don't agree with her conclusions, generally, but I am proud to say I am a romantic, and in this I stand with Ayn Rand. Ever read her Romantic Manifesto, for example?

There is nothing wrong, to me, with being a romantic; it is an individual proclaiming his or her individuality in a world predisposed to extinguishing it, I would say.

 

Not saying there is anything wrong with being a romantic, just saying it isnt for me

 

In a way, I see the Romantic outlook as very much like what you might call the entrepreneurial spirit; in my case, applied to art and what I have sunk my teeth into, including the mounting of business ventures. Actually, thinking on this, this is Rand's point.

 

I am not a very good consumer. I myself buy very few things. But, I don't feel that I have any moral justification for claiming that my personal preferences are better than anyone elses in this regard. Most people love "stuff". It makes them happy and there is very little in this life more important than happiness.

Progress is making more people happy. (Props to Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill!)

I would have to say that wealth is better than neutral.

If you asked a thousand people if they would like "wealth", would 500 say yes and 500 say no?

I absolutely love this lyric from Everclear's I Will Buy You a New Life:

I hate those people who love to tell you
Money is the root of all that kills
They have never been poor
They have never had the joy of a welfare Christmas
​

Here's a reasonable formula for life: MONEY + GUNS + LAWYERS = FREEDOM.

 

I wouldn't impose my preferences, Will, but I would say it is better to be satisfied with a few things you know and love well, than to need a constant refresher to fill an unfillable need. As I said, and as earthfaze ably also said, it goes, I think, to this perception that people aren't really happy, but think they can be, by buying more crap. It's a value judgment.

When I say wealth is neutral, I am speaking to wealth as a sum - a figure. Money itself isn't any more imbued with intrinsic value than any other means of exchange, to me. What you do with it, though, does matter, in my book.

Here's my formula for freedom:

Enough money to buy time, and place.

 

It's getting philosophical now
Happiness is something to be found within. It is related to concepts of self-worth and social acceptance as well as other very nuanced aspects of the human condition. There are many ideas of what constitutes a healthy environment in a human being but some of the key ones for me are summed up in Maslow's hierarchy of needs and very few of those seem to support the buying of stupid shit

 

I like to roll around naked in a king size bed covered with C-notes. <j/k>

That makes me feel happy because I know that those C-notes are not in the economy, which raises the value of every other dollar in the economy. (Supply and Demand, dontchaknow?)

But, if I didn't have those C-notes, I could not do this thing and I would not be happy. Therefore, money is not neutral. Money gives people options and having options is always better than not having options.

It doesn't matter what options people choose (unless those options cause harm to others, of course). What matters is that they chose. That is, to my mind, an intrinsic good.

As to whether people who make choices different than my own are really happy, well... I am forced to claim humility here. I cannot say whether they are happy. But, I can say that I do not believe they would not be more happy with less money (i.e. fewer options).

Or, as you friend Gandhi said, "Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err."

 

What exactly is money any more? Is it a measurement of the worth of your labor against the worth of every other Americans labor? Not really. Is it a measurement of the worth of your time averaged against the worth of every other Americans time? Not really. Is it some abstract division of the worth of America? Doesn't seem like it.
Money is definitely a measure of your personal power though. Without it your choices are limited. What exactly is this money representing that has so much control it equals power of freedom in your daily life? It sure as hell isn't a promissory note from the government. Money is an abstract now for sure though. What it means to you is as varied as the rainbow, but I tend to believe it does not mean anything like happiness, nor does the spending of it, the exercise of power on the other hand seems to make all the difference.
So one more time I say, don't waste your power (money) on stupid shit and America (or wherever you live) will be a better place for it.

 

nobody here cares what the hell money is

shut up

 

You mean because with money you can buy guns to shoot all the lawyers?

 

no he didnt mean that at all..those are plus signs...

WOWOWOW

 

Yep

The same reason people watch American Idol like it's the most important thing in their lives.

I've been meaning to post a thread about that. It's not just a complain about the government thread. I wonder if anyone understands how just as we have way too many people in jail per capita to be called the land of the free, we have other areas that present a similar paradox.

 

But I would. And because there is a bunch of stuff I can do that I enjoy that doesn't require money, I still say it's neutral. To approach it from your angle, and let's just call something "basic needs," as we are talking about "wealth." If one is content to do activities, say, requiring $5,000 yearly disposable income. Adding $50,000 yearly will allow the individual to do $50,000 of "more" things. If the individual sees no appreciable difference in, well, let's call the "utility" here "pleasure." If one derives little to no marginal increase in pleasure, what use is that extra $50,000 to that person?

This more or less describes me. I value time, and the freedom to write. Past a certain threshold, I just don't really care about the acquisition of more money. It doesn't do anything for me. Hence, more is not necessarily better. Because of the nature of my (former, now) work, which is to serve food to really loaded people, I mixed with some seriously well off people - progeny of the builders of the Empire State Building kind of well off, for example. Some were quite happy, and some were completely unhappy. In all honesty, of my wealthiest clients, many were just bored by life - their wealth had given them carte blanche to buy whatever they wanted, but from my honest read - they were just essentially, existentially unfulfilled.

Something in this vein about the "hole in the chest." We've placed too much emphasis on the acquisition of "stuff" and too little on the acquisition of ontological fulfillment.

 

You better hope that the above is not true for your own sake. You will probably need to at least serve 1,000,000,000 hamburger in the burger king before you can have your freedom.

 

I buy very little stuff. Stuff takes away space and costs me time. Time working to pay for it. Time cleaning it as well as the space to store it. There was a telivision show back in the late 1980's called "Moonlighting" with a character played by Bruce Willis. He lived in a large apartment with nothing more than his bed and clothes. No stuff. No furniture or anything. If you could live like that then you would truly be free. Buying a piece of land or a piece of equipment for your business is way to have your cake and eat it too.

The issue is that most people spend for pleasure first using credit cards and then don't have enough left over to pay for 'basic needs'or don't having savings to cover a job loss or problem.

Wealth or more money is a medium for you to have to work less. Owning your own home should cut your monthly expenses in not having to pay rent or mortgage. Interest income or investments adding to your income will allow you to work less to. So the idea of wealth accumalation is to met your "basic needs' with less work required.

 

I agree Americans spend excessively, despite having the world's largest economy they still borrow the most money!

Extremely inefficient and the majority of them, will deny the fact that when it comes to money the American are extremely in effective.