3 ms·

> the two goals are not mutually exclusive. Every dollar you spend on your bunker is a dollar you don't spend helping the world keep out of the sort of trouble

> the two goals are not mutually exclusive. Every dollar you spend on your bunker is a dollar you don't spend helping the world keep out of the sort of trouble that would make your bunker necessary. I'm not saying you aren't entitled to spend your time and money however you like, but there is a mathematical sense in which the goals do conflict, even if only via opportunity cost.

arouqa 10y ago
But how much money would you need to spend to keep the world out of trouble? Especially if you don't have any political clout or an army to back it up. Would donating $5 million really help in some catastrophic event? Especially when compared to the multi-billions that nations spend each year?
- erikpukinskis 10y ago
  Armies have never been less valuable than they are today, and they are getting less valuable very fast. Money is probably at peak value: more valuable than it has ever been, but people are realizing its limitations and it will probably never again be as valuable as it is today. Other forms of value are ascending. That's why people who rely on money and armies for their livelihood are so scared. If you want to help the world, money and armies are not the tools to use. Start with your time, human time will never be less valued than it is today.
djrogers 10y ago
> Every dollar you spend on your bunker is a dollar you don't spend helping the world keep out of the sort of trouble that would make your bunker necessary. But it's also a dollar that's been spent - paying for school supplies for the daughter of the welder employed by the manufacturer, the medicine the truck driver's mom needs, and a few drinks at the bar for the retired vet who ran the backhoe for the bunker. The economy isn't a closed system, so anything that gets the super rich to spend their money rather than stockpile it will benefit the economy as a whole.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- rstupek 10y ago
  Totally this, but also it's a misnomer that money can be "stockpiled" and not benefiting the economy.
- Apocryphon 10y ago
  This sounds like a variation of the broken window fallacy

arouqa 10y ago

But how much money would you need to spend to keep the world out of trouble? Especially if you don't have any political clout or an army to back it up. Would donating $5 million really help in some catastrophic event? Especially when compared to the multi-billions that nations spend each year?

erikpukinskis 10y ago
Armies have never been less valuable than they are today, and they are getting less valuable very fast. Money is probably at peak value: more valuable than it has ever been, but people are realizing its limitations and it will probably never again be as valuable as it is today. Other forms of value are ascending. That's why people who rely on money and armies for their livelihood are so scared. If you want to help the world, money and armies are not the tools to use. Start with your time, human time will never be less valued than it is today.

djrogers 10y ago

> Every dollar you spend on your bunker is a dollar you don't spend helping the world keep out of the sort of trouble that would make your bunker necessary. But it's also a dollar that's been spent - paying for school supplies for the daughter of the welder employed by the manufacturer, the medicine the truck driver's mom needs, and a few drinks at the bar for the retired vet who ran the backhoe for the bunker. The economy isn't a closed system, so anything that gets the super rich to spend their money rather than stockpile it will benefit the economy as a whole.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
rstupek 10y ago
Totally this, but also it's a misnomer that money can be "stockpiled" and not benefiting the economy.
Apocryphon 10y ago
This sounds like a variation of the broken window fallacy