Gyroscopic Investing

If you get the idea that I am somehow a nervous wreck that is allowing my life to be spoiled by all of this, I am not. I'm a pretty happy and well adjusted.  I get the feeling though if someone proposed to stop the killing of dolphins you would come back at them with a "ces't la vie" type response.

Ok. Great. You've made a rather obvious point. Are we done? Anything else you need to add? Because unless you have a solution beyond that opinion, there's not much else to say.

I don't have anything to add other than my original point to this thread which was that $30,000 dollar checks written to each person to temporarily increase consumption and reduce unemployment is a fundamentally flawed proposition because it is based off the mistaken notion that increasing consumption is going to improve our lives.....I mean, the last time I checked, that is why we undertake all action on this planet ...to improve our happiness. I don't know of people who make decisions that run counter to their interests unless......what is that....oh yeah...their decision making capabilities (the lenses that they see the world through) are all fogged up by a particular ideology that more consumption = more happiness.

Our leaders are proposing that this is the solution. We need to be more productive, work harder and longer hours, buy more things, etc. etc. I'm not proposing a solution instead of this, I'm saying that people need to find that solution themselves and we as a society need to work things out.  BUT, I can say very clearly (and the studies bear this out) that the proposed solution presently on the table (stimulus and increased consumption) will NOT increase human happiness beyond a certain point. So if happiness is our fundamental goal (and maybe it is not) then why are we persisting with the present plan of increased consumption if there clearly is no correlation? That might sound stupid, or inane to you...but it is a fundamental philosophical question that undergirds this entire planet and which you choose to blithely throw off as irrelevant......Now, I'm going to put a smiley face here to lighten the mood some...

It's hard to see what could possibly satisfy your desires… an existence in which we are totally free to pursue whatever idea we can think, but without affecting our environment, and in which our environment can't affect us? Perhaps you should look into video games!

Maybe the Libertarians should be looking into video games since this is the utopia like view of our planet that they possess. I recognize deeply that we affect our environment and it affects us. We affect other people and they affect us. Which is why I have a problem with an economic system that is trying to convert our world is one giant consumer orgy.

l82start wrote: we can all live like shire hobbits in our round houses, doing simple farming and animal husbandry to keep us fit and connected to our environment, with plenty of free time to hang out at the pub drink, dance, sing and flirt with the cute girls...

it doesn't sound all that bad actually...   

the problem with post consumerism in the real world is in order to have the free time to pursue art, music, inventing,  and simple living we need the consumer society that creates the products that make that lifestyle possible, agrarian living is actually very time consuming and involves a lot of hard work without those modern world tools and know how..

Yes, your last point is a bit of a conundrum. Im not proposing returning to 18th century life though. Im proposing that we need to find a way to find meaning in our lives once our material needs have been satisfied. Up until recently, our entire lives were consumed with getting the material needs taken care of. We seem to still have this "surivival DNA gene" of "voracious acquisition" inside of us that is screwing things up and causing us to overconsume just like an obese fat person who has lost track of the "appetite off" switch.

doodle wrote: MT,

You make a lot of good points in your "surf the wave" post....but I think you start to drift out of reality into what I would call "libertarian fantasyland" which I have discussed before as overlooking the interdependency and interconnectedness of nature. This fundamentally myopic view of reality is what leads libertarians over at Von Mises Institute to praise the wisdom of hands off governance in the Tao Te Ching, while completely overlooking the deep interconnectedness and oneness that that book speaks of. Depending on the level of magnification, MT is either an organism unto itself, a small part of a much larger organism, or just a random amalgamation of smaller cellular organisms for which MT is the greater "universe". We are working with somewhat arbitrary lines and concepts when we talk about me and mine and you and yours. It is kind of like the question of asking where does the body stop and the head begin? People have a vague idea that it is somewhere around the top of the neck, but there isn't one agreed upon specific point. And besides, even if you could draw a line you can't seperate them because they are interdependent.

I'm afraid you are completely missing my point.  I am a decision-making "unit".  I decide what actions to take and how to direct my energies.  By seeking freedom in the way I make these decisions, it enables me to enter into exchanges, relationships and bargains with others that provide maximum benefit to all parties.  If you tell me that you are going to decide how I make these decisions rather than me, it is by definition an inefficient process because you can't know what will maximize MY sense of well-being.  Only I can know that.

Freedom is not so that we can each be islands.  Freedom is so that we can work collectively in the most optimal way possible.  People are social animals.  They LIKE working together.  It's just a question of what the framework will be for collective action--will it be voluntary or coercive?

When you say to leave people alone and "only concern yourself with how you live" I say that sounds fine and dandy, but that it is absolutely meaningless. The choices that I take as an individual have repercussions on society. The choices that society makes have huge repercussions on me. In a sparsely populated world of 500 million people (as things were a few hundred years ago) that concept is maybe possible. In a technologically advanced world of 7 billion that concept is pure fantasy.  If I want to go surfing like that guy in the picture, but the beaches have been turned by a consumption crazed society into toxic waste dumps, then I am being restricted and do not have freedom to live how I choose.

The thing is, though, the ONLY thing that I can concern myself with is how I live.  I don't know anything about what would be best for anyone but me.  In fact, if I was in charge of telling other people what was best for them I'll bet I would be a miserable failure because I simply don't know enough about what makes other people happy to tell them how they should live.  I agree that there are some ways of living that are highly destructive, but is it my job to stop people from living this way because it is out of step with my concept of "right living"?  Does that entitle me to use force against these people to bring them in line with my notions of what they should be doing?

What is the basis for your authority to tell people who are "wasting" the earth's resources or consuming too much that they should stop?  Aren't you just saying that if all people were like you that we would be consuming less?  But of what relevance is that if not all people are like you? 

I agree with you that the world is full of people who are irrational according to my definition of rationality, but one option is to just accept that without feeling the need to change them to be more like you.  What you will find is that you WILL change people along the way, but it will typically be because of the WAY you live and not because of the pronouncements you make about the value of your way of living.

MediumTex wrote: I am a decision-making "unit".  I decide what actions to take and how to direct my energies.  By seeking freedom in the way I make these decisions, it enables me to enter into exchanges, relationships and bargains with others that provide maximum benefit to all parties.  If you tell me that you are going to decide how I make these decisions rather than me, it is by definition an inefficient process because you can't know what will maximize MY sense of well-being.  Only I can know that.

I think we're getting to the root here. Doodle, do you believe that individual people are in the best position to know what makes them happy? And if not, when who does?

doodle wrote:

l82start wrote: the problem with post consumerism in the real world is in order to have the free time to pursue art, music, inventing,  and simple living we need the consumer society that creates the products that make that lifestyle possible, agrarian living is actually very time consuming and involves a lot of hard work without those modern world tools and know how..

Yes, your last point is a bit of a conundrum. Im not proposing returning to 18th century life though. Im proposing that we need to find a way to find meaning in our lives once our material needs have been satisfied. Up until recently, our entire lives were consumed with getting the material needs taken care of. We seem to still have this "surivival DNA gene" of "voracious acquisition" inside of us that is screwing things up and causing us to overconsume just like an obese fat person who has lost track of the "appetite off" switch.

i think the AK47 of everything thread we have going is in some ways the solution to the conundrum, i have a frying pan a coffee grinder and a vacuum i will never need to buy another or work to earn the money to buy another... my time has been freed, i don't know what would happen to the worlds economy if everybody decided to participate in a "quality revolution" and only bought stuff they never need to replace and can get parts for and up keep easily, and i am not sure i care, one because i doubt it will happen in my life time and two i suspect it would all sort itself out some how..

i think "by example" is the only way you can hope to lead the world in that direction if enough people see others finding liberty and peace of mind through quality consumerism over rampant consumerism eventually you will get a hundredth monkey effect and it will begin to become the norm instead of the exception

I agree that there are some ways of living that are highly destructive, but is it my job to stop people from living this way because it is out of step with my concept of "right living"?  Does that entitle me to use force against these people to bring them in line with my notions of what they should be doing?

Yes, when their activities begin to affect my ability to follow my concept of "right living" I do have the right,  because they are interfering with my freedoms. Its like the farm cases with Monsanto seed cross pollinating with farmers who want to reuse their non-Monsanto seeds year after year. The seeds of this farmers fields eventually become adulterated with the Monsanto genes and become the property of the Monsanto company. If the farmer tries to save his seed for next year he is brought to court. Guess who wins these cases in our present system? It isnt the small guy just trying to live according to his individual concepts of "right living".

If I want to go out and eat the fish in the bay in front of my house but all these a-holes with power boats have dumped gas and oil into the water polluting everything, you are damn right I have the right to get pissed and try to change these people's behavior.

Pointedstick wrote:

MediumTex wrote: I am a decision-making "unit".  I decide what actions to take and how to direct my energies.  By seeking freedom in the way I make these decisions, it enables me to enter into exchanges, relationships and bargains with others that provide maximum benefit to all parties.  If you tell me that you are going to decide how I make these decisions rather than me, it is by definition an inefficient process because you can't know what will maximize MY sense of well-being.  Only I can know that.

I think we're getting to the root here. Doodle, do you believe that individual people are in the best position to know what makes them happy? And if not, when who does?

Humans stand a much better chance of doing this when they are properly educated and surround by a rational cultural dialogue and reasoned thought. In this crazy mess of a profit mad consumer culture dominated by snake oil salesmen, I don't think most people are capable (both individually and as a society) of thinking rationally....unfortunately to the detriment of us all. I think that things have been getting better in some ways as information is more freely accessible, but then again these mediums (like the internet) have just become other avenues for the system to ensnare people with its tentacles.

I realized something else important. When I say "not this" and it upsets people I can now understand why. If "this" is all you know...or are comfortable with....then "not this" or even "that" can be terrifying. This is very similar to the way people cling to "this life" because they are afraid of "that death".

doodle wrote:

I agree that there are some ways of living that are highly destructive, but is it my job to stop people from living this way because it is out of step with my concept of "right living"?  Does that entitle me to use force against these people to bring them in line with my notions of what they should be doing?

Yes, when their activities begin to affect my ability to follow my concept of "right living" I do have the right,  because they are interfering with my freedoms. Its like the farm cases with Monsanto seed cross pollinating with farmers who want to reuse their non-Monsanto seeds year after year. The seeds of this farmers fields eventually become adulterated with the Monsanto genes and become the property of the Monsanto company. If the farmer trys to save his seed for next year he is brought to court. Guess who wins these cases in our present system? It isnt the small guy just trying to live according to his individual concepts of "right living".

If I want to go out and eat the fish in the bay in front of my house but all these a-holes with power boats have dumped gas and oil into the water polluting everything, you are damn right I have the right to get pissed and try to change these people's behavior.

So you will use force to change their behavior and they will use force to resist your efforts to change their behavior and where does that leave you?

As Harry Browne once said, the only reason you should engage in political movements and assorted efforts to change the world is if you enjoy engaging in these activities and perhaps think you will meet some interesting people at the rallies and meetings.  As far as these efforts actually changing the world, however, they normally don't, and ironically they often achieve the exact opposite of what they set out to achieve.  Perhaps the best example is the worker's paradise promised by communism. 

Once you take that first step down the path of feeling justified in using coercive action against others to make them more like you, it just gets tougher and tougher because this basic approach simply doesn't work unless you are willing to literally exterminate every single one of your opponents and most people are not ready to do this.

doodle wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

MediumTex wrote: I am a decision-making "unit".  I decide what actions to take and how to direct my energies.  By seeking freedom in the way I make these decisions, it enables me to enter into exchanges, relationships and bargains with others that provide maximum benefit to all parties.  If you tell me that you are going to decide how I make these decisions rather than me, it is by definition an inefficient process because you can't know what will maximize MY sense of well-being.  Only I can know that.

I think we're getting to the root here. Doodle, do you believe that individual people are in the best position to know what makes them happy? And if not, when who does?

Humans stand a much better chance of doing this when they are properly educated and surround by a rational cultural dialogue and reasoned thought. In this crazy mess of a profit mad consumer culture dominated by snake oil salesmen, I don't think most people are capable (both individually and as a society) of thinking rationally....unfortunately to the detriment of us all. I think that things have been getting better in some ways as information is more freely accessible, but then again these mediums (like the internet) have just become other avenues for the system to ensnare people with its tentacles.

That's not what I asked. I don't care whether or not people can think rationally; I was asking if people can determine for themselves what makes them happy. Can they?

I have to do some productive work at the moment and feed the system...   I'll re-engage with this a bit later!

MediumTex wrote:

doodle wrote:

I agree that there are some ways of living that are highly destructive, but is it my job to stop people from living this way because it is out of step with my concept of "right living"?  Does that entitle me to use force against these people to bring them in line with my notions of what they should be doing?

Yes, when their activities begin to affect my ability to follow my concept of "right living" I do have the right,  because they are interfering with my freedoms. Its like the farm cases with Monsanto seed cross pollinating with farmers who want to reuse their non-Monsanto seeds year after year. The seeds of this farmers fields eventually become adulterated with the Monsanto genes and become the property of the Monsanto company. If the farmer trys to save his seed for next year he is brought to court. Guess who wins these cases in our present system? It isnt the small guy just trying to live according to his individual concepts of "right living".

If I want to go out and eat the fish in the bay in front of my house but all these a-holes with power boats have dumped gas and oil into the water polluting everything, you are damn right I have the right to get pissed and try to change these people's behavior.

So you will use force to change their behavior and they will use force to resist your efforts to change their behavior and where does that leave you?

As Harry Browne once said, the only reason you should engage in political movements and assorted efforts to change the world is if you enjoy engaging in these activities and perhaps think you will meet some interesting people at the rallies and meetings.  As far as these efforts actually changing the world, however, they normally don't, and ironically they often achieve the exact opposite of what they set out to achieve.  Perhaps the best example is the worker's paradise promised by communism. 

Once you take that first step down the path of feeling justified in using coercive action against others to make them more like you, it just gets tougher and tougher because this basic approach simply doesn't work unless you are willing to literally exterminate every single one of your opponents and most people are not ready to do this.

Hmmm...kind of ironic that an American would feel that way. Something about this country's history tells me that a small group of vociferous radical people can cause massive change.

doodle wrote:

MediumTex wrote:

doodle wrote: Yes, when their activities begin to affect my ability to follow my concept of "right living" I do have the right,  because they are interfering with my freedoms. Its like the farm cases with Monsanto seed cross pollinating with farmers who want to reuse their non-Monsanto seeds year after year. The seeds of this farmers fields eventually become adulterated with the Monsanto genes and become the property of the Monsanto company. If the farmer trys to save his seed for next year he is brought to court. Guess who wins these cases in our present system? It isnt the small guy just trying to live according to his individual concepts of "right living".

If I want to go out and eat the fish in the bay in front of my house but all these a-holes with power boats have dumped gas and oil into the water polluting everything, you are damn right I have the right to get pissed and try to change these people's behavior.

So you will use force to change their behavior and they will use force to resist your efforts to change their behavior and where does that leave you?

As Harry Browne once said, the only reason you should engage in political movements and assorted efforts to change the world is if you enjoy engaging in these activities and perhaps think you will meet some interesting people at the rallies and meetings.  As far as these efforts actually changing the world, however, they normally don't, and ironically they often achieve the exact opposite of what they set out to achieve.  Perhaps the best example is the worker's paradise promised by communism. 

Once you take that first step down the path of feeling justified in using coercive action against others to make them more like you, it just gets tougher and tougher because this basic approach simply doesn't work unless you are willing to literally exterminate every single one of your opponents and most people are not ready to do this.

Hmmm...kind of ironic that an American would feel that way. Something about how this country's history tells me that a small group of vociferous radical people can cause massive change.

Most revolutions ultimately lead to a different kind of tyranny.

We were very lucky in the U.S. to have a group of founders who understood the benefits of enlightened self-interest and the good things that can happen in society when government leaves people alone.

Some revolutions do work, but I would still say that if you want to march in a rally you should do it because you think you will enjoy it, not because you think it will change the world.  If it does change the world, then that's just a bonus.

MediumTex wrote:

doodle wrote:

MediumTex wrote: So you will use force to change their behavior and they will use force to resist your efforts to change their behavior and where does that leave you?

As Harry Browne once said, the only reason you should engage in political movements and assorted efforts to change the world is if you enjoy engaging in these activities and perhaps think you will meet some interesting people at the rallies and meetings.  As far as these efforts actually changing the world, however, they normally don't, and ironically they often achieve the exact opposite of what they set out to achieve.  Perhaps the best example is the worker's paradise promised by communism. 

Once you take that first step down the path of feeling justified in using coercive action against others to make them more like you, it just gets tougher and tougher because this basic approach simply doesn't work unless you are willing to literally exterminate every single one of your opponents and most people are not ready to do this.

Hmmm...kind of ironic that an American would feel that way. Something about how this country's history tells me that a small group of vociferous radical people can cause massive change.

Most revolutions ultimately lead to a different kind of tyranny.

We were very lucky in the U.S. to have a group of founders who understood the benefits of enlightened self-interest and the good things that can happen in society when government leaves people alone.

Some revolutions do work, but I would still say that if you want to march in a rally you should do it because you think you will enjoy it, not because you think it will change the world.  If it does change the world, then that's just a bonus.

Well, I guess its a good thing that you weren't around to talk the founding fathers out of their folly of resistive political action. Movements are comprised of passionate individuals with big philosophical ideas. We are currently living in the greatest country the earth has ever known because of people who thought their lofty ideas had the power to effect positive change, but you seem to buy into the notion that somehow through a consumptive capitalist economic model we have reached the "end of history"...the pinnacle of human development. When I talk about the problem with the present economic model of consumption, I'm not advocating the overthrowing of an entire society. I'm talking about an evolution in people's thinking. The same kind of evolution that led to women's rights, civil rights, gay rights. etc.... These were movements that were forced onto society by groups of passionate people. Although some conservative nabobs probably thought they would lead to the end of decent civil society, they in fact have resulted in great improvements for humanity.  You keep masquerading passivity and disinterest as some sort of enlightened libertarian philosophical ideal. That is pure nonsense......no offense. 

Mr. Money Mustache and Jacob Lund Fisker are just the Jefferson and Adams so to speak of this new movement. I wouldn't even qualify to be invited to the Continental Congress :-)

doodle wrote: I'm talking about an evolution in people's thinking. The same kind of evolution that led to women's rights, civil rights, gay rights. etc.... These were movements that were forced onto society by groups of passionate people.

You're absolutely right that these movements were caused by evolutions in people's thinking, but it's not because groups of passionate people forced them to think differently. It's because slowly, they changed their minds at their own paces, and those who didn't eventually died off.

I am a passionate person who has tried many times to change the minds of people I care about by convincing them in arguments (many of which ended in yelling and hurt feelings). It didn't work. It's never worked. It's pure hubris to suggest that people like us change anyone's mind by pushing them. All we can do is show them the door. If we try to push them through it, they just dig in their heels further.

Some of the most destructive humans in history have been absolutely convinced that they were doing the right thing by forcing others to do something they didn't want to do. The part of you (and me, and people like us) that wants to force people to think or act differently is dangerous and must be kept in check. We have the potential for great evil nestled within us.

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote: I'm talking about an evolution in people's thinking. The same kind of evolution that led to women's rights, civil rights, gay rights. etc.... These were movements that were forced onto society by groups of passionate people.

You're absolutely right that these movements were caused by evolutions in people's thinking, but it's not because groups of passionate people forced them to think differently. It's because slowly, they changed their minds at their own paces, and those who didn't eventually died off.

I am a passionate person who has tried many times to change the minds of people I care about by convincing them in arguments (many of which ended in yelling and hurt feelings). It didn't work. It's never worked. It's pure hubris to suggest that people like us change anyone's mind by pushing them. All we can do is show them the door. If we try to push them through it, they just dig in their heels further.

Some of the most destructive humans in history have been absolutely convinced that they were doing the right thing by forcing others to do something they didn't want to do.

Right but if those passionate people dont inject their ideas into society, then they are never there to be heard by the next generation. Don't tell me that Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Frederick Douglass and other voices for movements had no impact. Is this what libertarianism is? Just a weak neutered acceptance of the way things are?

doodle wrote:If you get the idea that I am somehow a nervous wreck that is allowing my life to be spoiled by all of this, I am not. I'm a pretty happy and well adjusted.

You could have fooled us. A year ago you were so worried about the debt that you were convinced that the country was about to crumble to the ground and you couldn't bring yourself to buy and hold a few Long Term Treasuries. It ended up biting you in the ass, despite our trying to convince you that the future you envisioned was not guaranteed. A few weeks ago you warning us that we all need to worry about global warming, yet you have no solutions to global warming other than that we "need to stop it". And now you're convinced that our consumer culture has "got to stop" for us all to be happy. It's an awful lot of negative preaching about things that you can't solve. What exactly are you happy about? And why exactly are you trying to bring us down all the time?

doodle wrote:

Ok. Great. You've made a rather obvious point. Are we done? Anything else you need to add? Because unless you have a solution beyond that opinion, there's not much else to say.

I don't have anything to add other than my original point to this thread which was that $30,000 dollar checks written to each person to temporarily increase consumption and reduce unemployment is a fundamentally flawed proposition because it is based off the mistaken notion that increasing consumption is going to improve our lives...

You do realize that every animal on the planet attempts to consume as much as it can, right? Bacteria, Lions, Penguins, Humans, Spiders, Jellyfish... I mean, that's sort of the whole point of hunting and gathering. You think just because the caveman felt comfortable in his antelope toga, bearskin blanket and fire-heated cave he should have stood up to his fellow cavemen and said... "Hey guys, we are consuming too much! We need to stop. We don't need wheels or running water. You have your legs and your arms so just be happy with what you have." You would have been stoned to death or cast out of the caveman society for interfering with other people's happiness.

Doodle, I have to assume that you don't have any children. This whole preaching of the Mr. Money Mustache lifestyle and being so proud of the idea of consuming less makes very little sense when children are involved. Does Mr. Money Mustache — who retired in his 30s and lives a frugal life — have children? No. There's no way. If he does, he's either rich or he's a deadbeat. So, getting on your soapbox and telling everyone that they should stop consuming is a ridiculous proposition when children want and need things. And this is compounded by the fact that it is human nature to want to provide your children with more than you were afforded. Even cavemen desired to give their children a better life than their own. If you don't have kids, you probably won't ever understand that side of human nature.

The whole point of increasing consumption in order to reduce unemployment is to give people jobs so they can provide for their families. You have offered ZERO ideas on how the unemployed can provide for their families, and until you do it all just sounds like mindless complaining about consumption when endless consumption is a key component of being a hunter gatherer.

doodle wrote:..I mean, the last time I checked, that is why we undertake all action on this planet ...to improve our happiness. I don't know of people who make decisions that run counter to their interests unless......what is that....oh yeah...their decision making capabilities (the lenses that they see the world through) are all fogged up by a particular ideology that more consumption = more happiness.

You're wrong. Every animal consumes as much as it can. Elephants in a particular geographic region will consume as many trees as they can until all the trees are gone and their herds starve to death. Then trees regrow and the cycle begins again.

E. coli bacteria reproduce every 20 minutes under ideal conditions. At this growth rate, after 36 hours, the descendants of a single bacterium would cover the entire surface of the earth one foot deep. One hour later it would be over our heads, and within a few days weigh as much as the visible universe and be expanding outward at the speed of light. But, guess what? It doesn't happen because the environment the bacteria create prevents that from happening.

So, when you sit around and complain about how elephants or humans or bacteria are consuming too much, it's a waste of our time because you are stating the obvious.

doodle wrote:Our leaders are proposing that this is the solution.

Our leaders are trying to give everyone a job, which is really a very important thing when you have children to provide for. Again, I don't think you are able to relate to that when you live a MMM lifestyle.

doodle wrote:We need to be more productive, work harder and longer hours, buy more things, etc. etc. I'm not proposing a solution instead of this, I'm saying that people need to find that solution themselves and we as a society need to work things out.  BUT, I can say very clearly (and the studies bear this out) that the proposed solution presently on the table (stimulus and increased consumption) will NOT increase human happiness beyond a certain point.

Says you. Most people are happy when their kids are happy, and are able to grow up and become happy and pass their happiness along to future generations. That's all most people want.

doodle wrote:if happiness is our fundamental goal (and maybe it is not) then why are we persisting with the present plan of increased consumption if there clearly is no correlation?

Again, says you. We are hunter/gatherers by nature. We evolved that way for millions of years. Like bacteria, our appetite for consumption will never wane until our environment prevents us from consuming any more. We are nowhere near that point (yet).

doodle wrote:Which is why I have a problem with an economic system that is trying to convert our world is one giant consumer orgy.

Our world has always been one giant consumer orgy. Since the cavemen. Since wild dogs roamed in packs eating everything they could hunt down. The appetite for consumption never wanes. That's the essence of life, reproduction and caring for our young. It's a universal principal.

Gumby,

Yes, Mr. Money Mustache has two children I believe. He's not rich and he's not a deadbeat.

Your arguments are based on your own particular philsophical interpretation of reality which I happen to disagree with.

Gumby, MMM has a child. I think you misunderstand the MMM lifestyle; he lives off investments because he's rich as the result of an 80% savings rate over a decade of high earning. That's what it's all about. MMM is quite happy to be a consumer of many things.

For that matter, I have a child too and I am not rich (yet! ), but I subscribe to the MMM lifestyle and save a large percentage of my income. It's not about deprivation. My wife and I partake of fantastic luxuries all the time. We just don't go nuts about it to the point where we have no savings, which is unfortunately what many people do.

Gumby,

You're wrong. Every animal consumes as much as it can. Elephants in a particular geographic region will consume as many trees as they can until all the trees are gone and their herds starve to death. Then trees regrow and the cycle begins again.

Hmmm...that sounds like a great solution. What you are saying is that humans are as dumb as elephants. I happen to disagree. I have more faith in my species if they have the right information and perspective on things.

doodle wrote:Yes, Mr. Money Mustache has two children I believe. He's not rich and he's not a deadbeat.

Pointedstick wrote:MMM has a child. I think you misunderstand the MMM lifestyle; he lives off investments because he's rich as the result of an 80% savings rate

So, which is it guys. Is he rich? Or is he not rich?

Does he have one child? or Two children?

These things matter because most people are not rich and you need a society to maintain a slightly-greater than 2 child birthrate if you want to avoid an aging population that can't support itself.

And furthermore, if everyone saved 80% of their earnings, there would be very little economic activity in the world — and few people would be able to provide for their own families.

What is your definition of rich? I have a comfortable condo, food, and clean clothes. I feel pretty rich.

doodle wrote:What you are saying is that humans are as dumb as elephants.

Elephants are likely smarter than humans. You should learn more about elephants.

And furthermore, if everyone saved 80% of their earnings, there would be very little economic activity in the world — and few people would be able to provide for their own families.

Which is why I think MMM is skirting the big questions related to this movement...I am attempting to address these questions here.

doodle wrote: What is your definition of rich? I have a comfortable condo, food, and clean clothes. I feel pretty rich.

Great. Good for you. How did you get rich? Did you sit on your ass and always live a MMM lifestyle? Do you have children? How do you plan on providing for your children?

Gumby wrote:

doodle wrote: What is your definition of rich? I have a comfortable condo, food, and clean clothes. I feel pretty rich.

Great. Good for you. How did you get rich? Did you sit on your ass and always live a MMM lifestyle? Do you have children? How do you plan on providing for your children?

Children are way "overprovided" for in my opinion. Raising a healthy, intelligent, well adjusted child requires little in the way of resources.