Given "spending is irrelevant"/fiat money, why not give every poor person 30K?

[Pointedstick]

MMM's assets are a large, paid-off house, two vehicles, and probably about $800,000. I personally call that rich.

I think it's important not to over-focus on macro though. Yes, not everyone can save 80% of their income. But not everyone can have a mansion, or 100 acres of land. That's no reason for individuals to stop trying, is it?

[Pointedstick]

Let's not be too dismissive, Gumby. MMM has repeatedly written about how he parents his son. He's well-provided-for with many material pleasures as well as something most families can't provide: two full-time parents to care for him.

You don't need to spend tens of thousands of dollars on your children if you don't want to, and you're not depriving them by spending efficiently. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater here. Efficient spending is a virtue, no? Clearly we don't need to mindlessly spend and spend and spend all the time in order to be happy, right?

[doodle]

MMM's assets are a large, paid-off house, two vehicles, and probably about $800,000. I personally call that rich.

I think it's important not to over-focus on macro though. Yes, not everyone can save 80% of their income. But not everyone can have a mansion, or 100 acres of land. That's no reason for individuals to stop trying, is it?

I somewhat feel a bit like a slavemaster in the MMM lifestyle. I do somewhat have a bit of an ethical problem with a philosophy that is attainable for only a few because it would fall apart if everyone did it. It feels parasitic.

[Gumby]

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

Do you plan on having children? If so, how many do you envision?

I only ask because before the modern conveniences of life — all of which required massive consumption and work to produce — people used to have very large families (more than 10 children sometimes). These additional children were essentially robots to help work the land and provide for the family.

So, I don't see how you can criticize consumption when the very consumption you're criticizing built the modern conveniences that allow you to provide for only one or no children with little to no work.

[Gumby]

You don't need to spend tens of thousands of dollars on your children if you don't want to, and you're not depriving them by spending efficiently. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater here. Efficient spending is a virtue, no? Clearly we don't need to mindlessly spend and spend and spend all the time in order to be happy, right?

Never said people need to spend tons and tons of money on their children. But, as doodle just pointed out, the system would fall apart if everyone tried to live a MMM lifestyle. Nobody would be able to provide for their 2.1-child families because there wouldn't be enough employment with demand so low. It just wouldn't work.

[Gumby]

I do somewhat have a bit of an ethical problem with a philosophy that is attainable for only a few because it would fall apart if everyone did it.

Exactly my point. So, why are you trying to get everyone to consume less when it would clearly cause the entire system to fall apart?

[Pointedstick]

Never said people need to spend tons and tons of money on their children. But, as doodle just pointed out, the system would fall apart if everyone tried to live a MMM lifestyle. Nobody would be able to provide for their 2.1-child families because there wouldn't be enough employment with demand so low. It just wouldn't work.

Sure. And society would have no food if everybody followed me into a tech job. I don't see what the point is of focusing on macro in that way. Of course all of society can't do what I do. It's a society instead of an ant colony or a Borg collective precisely because we're all doing our own things!

[doodle]

Plan on having two children....probably adopted. Will raise them with lots of time and attention....something money cant buy. Will provide them wonderful experiences don't have to necessarily involve $5000 dollars family vacation to DisneyWorld.

Children robots have been replaced by industrial ones.

I'm not criticizing capitalism...I'm commending it in the same way that Marx did. It is a fantastically productive system that creates enormous wealth. I just think that it is time for forward thinking leaders and people to start considering a slight transition or evolution in the system away from what I term overconsumption to a focus on things that studies show lead to more happy societies.

[Gumby]

Never said people need to spend tons and tons of money on their children. But, as doodle just pointed out, the system would fall apart if everyone tried to live a MMM lifestyle. Nobody would be able to provide for their 2.1-child families because there wouldn't be enough employment with demand so low. It just wouldn't work.

Sure. And society would have no food if everybody followed me into a tech job. I don't see what the point is of focusing on macro in that way. Of course all of society can't do what I do. It's a society instead of an ant colony or a Borg collective precisely because we're all doing our own things!

Well, that's what I'm saying. Doodle is basically trying to convince everyone that they have to live a MMM lifestyle in order for us to be happy. If we all did that (i.e. the Macro) we'd all be screwed.

[doodle]

Never said people need to spend tons and tons of money on their children. But, as doodle just pointed out, the system would fall apart if everyone tried to live a MMM lifestyle. Nobody would be able to provide for their 2.1-child families because there wouldn't be enough employment with demand so low. It just wouldn't work.

Sure. And society would have no food if everybody followed me into a tech job. I don't see what the point is of focusing on macro in that way. Of course all of society can't do what I do. It's a society instead of an ant colony or a Borg collective precisely because we're all doing our own things!

Well, that's what I'm saying. Doodle is basically trying to convince everyone that they have to live a MMM lifestyle in order for us to be happy. If we all did that (i.e. the Macro) we'd all be screwed.

Which is why (although I have benefitted from MMM) I realize that it is not a solution. I don't necessarily want to destory capitalism, I just want to harness it with a more enlightened philosophy that doesn't overemphasize the role that consumption of material goods plays in our happiness. Certain things like clean environments, safe neighborhoods, good education, and free leisure time have a value too.  Turning our attention away from material goods to focus effort and energy on things that maybe dont carry a dollar sign might be beneficial.

[Gumby]

Plan on having two children....probably adopted. Will raise them with lots of time and attention....something money cant buy. Will provide them wonderful experiences don't have to necessarily involve $5000 dollars family vacation to DisneyWorld.

Do you plan to do all this with or without a job? If you do it without a job, how can society follow your model when people need to jobs in order to build their own nest egg? And without enough demand from the population (of people living the MMM lifestyle) how do these people find jobs to build their MMM nest egg?

I'm not criticizing capitalism...I'm commending it in the same way that Marx did. It is a fantastically productive system that creates enormous wealth. I just think that it is time for forward thinking leaders and people to start considering a slight transition or evolution in the system away from what I term overconsumption to a focus on things that studies show lead to more happy societies.

Sorry, but you kind sound like a future James Bond villain. You see the world as this imperfect place that needs to be fixed when you fail to realize that people want to consume and provide for their families (i.e. hunter/gatherer).

[Gumby]

Which is why (although I have benefitted from MMM) I realize that it is not a solution. I don't necessarily want to destory capitalism, I just want to harness it with a more enlightened philosophy that doesn't overemphasize the role that consumption of material goods plays in our happiness. Certain things like clean environments, safe neighborhoods, good education, and free leisure time have a value too.  Turning our attention away from material goods to focus effort and energy on things that maybe dont carry a dollar sign might be beneficial.

There is nothing that prevents a fiat government from spending money on just cleaning up the planet and building schools. I mentioned that about 5 pages ago, but you were too busy complaining about consumption. When full employment is reached, you bring down the spending.

[Pointedstick]

Certain things like clean environments, safe neighborhoods, good education, and free leisure time have a value too.  Turning our attention away from material goods to focus effort and energy on things that maybe dont carry a dollar sign might be beneficial.

You do understand that capitalism is what is fixing these problems, right? Before capitalism, how clean were the streets? How safe were neighborhoods? How good was education? How much leisure time did people have? Do you really think these things were better 500, 1000, or 2000 years ago?

[doodle]

Which is why (although I have benefitted from MMM) I realize that it is not a solution. I don't necessarily want to destory capitalism, I just want to harness it with a more enlightened philosophy that doesn't overemphasize the role that consumption of material goods plays in our happiness. Certain things like clean environments, safe neighborhoods, good education, and free leisure time have a value too.  Turning our attention away from material goods to focus effort and energy on things that maybe dont carry a dollar sign might be beneficial.

There is nothing that prevents a fiat government from spending money on just cleaning up the planet and building schools. I mentioned that about 5 pages ago, but you were too busy complaining about consumption. When full employment is reached, you bring down the spending.

Who controls that government, if not corporations?

Certain things like clean environments, safe neighborhoods, good education, and free leisure time have a value too.  Turning our attention away from material goods to focus effort and energy on things that maybe dont carry a dollar sign might be beneficial.

You do understand that capitalism is what is fixing these problems, right? Before capitalism, how clean were the streets? How safe were neighborhoods? How good was education? How much leisure time did people have? Do you really think these things were better 500, 1000, or 2000 years ago?

Yes, capitalism has resulted in massive improvements in human life. I just happen to think that in certain western societies we need to be looking past capitalism for answers. Capitalism is great at providing the necessities and luxuries of life. But there comes a time where these provide decreasing marginal returns. Based on psychological evidence showing a flatline in happiness, I would say that we have reached that time and by forcing the consumption model are perhaps going to start heading down the other end of the curve.

This doesn't apply to Africa or other areas of the world where people are still starving to death. These are areas that need more consumption. We on the other hand in the west are overconsuming. How else do you explain the explosion of the storage industry and the subsequent multiple TV shows that just show us bidding on all the crap that we abandon? It is absurd, Gumby....there is no other word for it.

[Gumby]

How else do you explain the explosion of the storage industry and the subsequent multiple TV shows that just show us bidding on all the crap that we abandon? It is absurd, Gumby....there is no other word for it.

It may be absurd, but some level of overconsumption is embedded in our genome. It plays a very important evolutionary role for us (and every living being on the planet). We've been hunter/gatherers for millions of years.

[Gumby]

Who controls that government, if not corporations?

Well, then. We really aren't going to solve this one then, are we?

[doodle]

How else do you explain the explosion of the storage industry and the subsequent multiple TV shows that just show us bidding on all the crap that we abandon? It is absurd, Gumby....there is no other word for it.

It may be absurd, but some level of overconsumption is embedded in our genome. It plays a very important evolutionary role for us (and every living being on the planet). We've been hunter/gatherers for millions of years.

I agree. Anger and violence is embedded in our genome as well....that is why we design societies and systems that try to keep these aspects of out genome from manifesting themselves. Without the system we live in of laws and regulations, conducting business would look more like what is happening in Mexico between the crime families. It would be eye for an eye....total disaster.

Just because something is a natural part of our genome doesn't make it appropriate for our survival in a world of 7 billion people.

[MediumTex]

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. 

You're still not following me.

I'm not talking about passivity, I'm talking about focused efforts in directions that can actually provide a meaningful contribution to the world.

Who made a bigger difference in the world, Steve Jobs or George W. Bush?  Was it a mistake for Steve Jobs not to become a politician and grandstand about all of the problems of society with no good solutions?

One true innovator is more valuable than 100 politicians, monarchs and bureaucrats.  That's what I'm saying.

The fields of politics and coercion are not areas where meaningful innovation has occurred since someone came up with the idea of democracy thousands of years ago.  The fields of science and technology have, however, enjoyed enormous advances in recent generations. 

I would say to a person who wanted to change the world to go where the innovation is happening, pick a field and try to push it forward in some way.  That's what I am doing in the investment field with this website and our book.  I'm trying to push that body of knowledge forward in a way that will benefit anyone who is interested in PP-style investing.

Simple recognizing that most political crusades are useless is NOT an argument for passivity; rather, it's an implicit argument to make your efforts count by applying them in a way that they may actually have some positive impact.

Was Harry Browne passive because he felt that the system was not designed to be changed through the efforts of a single person?  Of course not.  He provided ideas that people used to change themselves when they were ready for these ideas.

[Gumby]

Just because something is a natural part of our genome doesn't make it appropriate for our survival in a world of 7 billion people.

I agree. So, go out and lobby for laws and ideas that make sense for our survival in a world of 7 billion people and stop complaining about the system.

[doodle]

Gumby, I'm getting mixed messages from you and MT about how to proceed.

I do have some ideas for a possible market based solution to the problem of overconsumption....I'll start a new thread though.

MT,

How would your suggestion apply to the civil rights movement? In addition, I am all for market based solutions to environmental problems (creating a pollution market so to speak) except that these ideas are vehemently opposed by industry who also happens to control our corrupt government and the majority of means of mass communication in the media.

[MediumTex]

MT,

How would your suggestion to the civil rights movement?

If I lived in an area where people didn't like me because of the way I looked, I might try moving somewhere else.

The alternative is changing the people who don't like me for an irrational reason.  How on earth can one person hope to change the bigoted attitudes of a whole society?  Everyone who tries this seems to get killed.  I would just prefer to spend my own limited resources on something besides making people hate me so much that they want to kill me, even if my arguments are validated after my death.

I'm not saying that people like Martin Luther King shouldn't go out and do their world changing thing, because that is apparently what people like that want to do.  It's just not what I want to do.

I would rather build something or come up with a better way to invest than march in protests, carry signs and get bitten by police dogs.

[doodle]

MT,

How would your suggestion to the civil rights movement?

If I lived in an area where people didn't like me because of the way I looked, I might try moving somewhere else.

The alternative is changing the people who don't like me for an irrational reason.  How on earth can one person hope to change the bigoted attitudes of a whole society?  Everyone who tries this seems to get killed.  I would just prefer to spend my own limited resources on something besides making people hate me so much that they want to kill me, even if my arguments are validated after my death.

I'm not saying that people like Martin Luther King shouldn't go out and do their world changing thing, because that is apparently what people like that want to do.  It's just not what I want to do.

I would rather build something or come up with a better way to invest than march in protests, carry signs and get bitten by police dogs.

You force people to change their bigoted ideas by forcing them to confront their own humanity. That is what Martin Luther King and Ghandi did. You live in a more just society because of these people whose bravery and sacrifice you poo poo. I would rather come up with a better way to invest...than get bitten by police dogs?? Yes, what are those people clamoring for out there...they are disrupting my investments. Harry Browne was a smart guy in many ways, but he was incredibly naive in others.

[Gumby]

Gumby, I'm getting mixed messages from you and MT about how to proceed.

Well, there's a difference between complaining about the system and coming up with solutions. Feel free to come up with solutions, but just saying "this has got to stop" is not something anyone wants to listen to until you have an idea on how to proceed.

[Pointedstick]

You force people to change their bigoted ideas by forcing them to confront their own humanity. That is what Martin Luther King and Ghandi did. You live in a more just society because of these people whose bravery and sacrifice you poo poo. I would rather come up with a better way to invest...than get bitten by police dogs?? Yes, what are those people clamoring for out there...they are disrupting my investments. Harry Browne was a smart guy in many ways, but he was incredibly naive in others.

I don't think there's anything wrong with not wanting to sacrifice yourself to change society. Think of the infinitesimally small number of people who do this successfully. I can admire King or Gandhi without wanting to suffer as they did, and while appreciating their sacrifices.

Fundamentally, Browne was concerned with the problem of individual happiness. And his major point was acceptance of things you can't control. Trying to forcibly change society may be noble when the change sought is to defeat oppression, but it's dangerous, and therefore a high-risk strategy for an individual to take. Think of how many blacks and indians resisted their oppressors but were simply killed, to no benefit to society at all.

Personally, I am not interested in banging my head against society to the possible imperilment of my life. It would be terribly irresponsible to my wife and son. We can't all be King or Gandhi.

And in the end, they were both murdered anyway. That's not how I'd like my life to draw to a close.

[MediumTex]

You force people to change their bigoted ideas by forcing them to confront their own humanity.  That is what Martin Luther King and Ghandi did.

You can never force people to do anything that they aren't ready to do.  With the U.S. in the case of King and Britain in the case of Gandhi, those societies were ready for certain changes and those happened to be the guys who were agitating for change when the shift occurred.

If you study the history of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 you will see that it was mostly a result of the political genius of LBJ combined with exquisite timing following the assassination of Kennedy.  King's efforts were perhaps 1% of the causal factors that got the legislation passed.  He was only considered a saint long after he was murdered.

You live in a more just society because of these people whose bravery and sacrifice you poo poo.

Wait a second, why am I poo pooing something just because I don't want to do it myself?  I don't want to have my limbs blown of by an IED either, but that doesn't mean that I don't respect the courage of those who are willing to do that kind of work.

I would rather come up with a better way to invest...than get bitten by police dogs?? Yes, what are those people clamoring for out there...they are disrupting my investments. Harry Browne was a smart guy in many ways, but he was incredibly naive in others.

Was he?  Take all of the big campaigns and efforts of people through history who wanted to change society to make it better.  Most of those big efforts involved a lot of coercion and the replacement with one form of tyranny with another.  The fact that a few of them succeeded doesn't mean that banging my head against the system is a good way to spend my time and energy.

Are you saying that the efforts of a person who chooses to focus his energy on something besides big world-changing campaigns are somehow less important than the person who can say he got bitten by a police dog while standing up to the man?