5 ms·

It would be nice if our culture taught people how to be happy with less expensive things, since it's kind of a waste from a utilitarian point of view if a multi

It would be nice if our culture taught people how to be happy with less expensive things, since it's kind of a waste from a utilitarian point of view if a multi-millionaire is spending all of their money on giant houses they live in one week a year and so on and only getting a small amount of utility. Better if they didn't have a taste for giant houses, and gave the money to someone who needed it, or invested in something doing more useful things.

cyberferret 9y ago
I can see how people may consider some of these things a 'waste', but a lot of the time, they fail to see the 'down river' consequences of the spending. I remember there was a great deal made in the press a few years back about a famous Indian movie star spending several million dollars on his wedding in a poor city that he grew up in. He was criticised for his 'wastefulness'. However, a follow up report on the event a few months later pointed out that his one wedding actually was massively beneficial for the entire city's economy. Catering and hire companies made several year's profits in one day, and were able to hire more people and take them off the streets. Similarly, we may criticise the extravagant marble entrance stairway in a startup founder's mansion, but that stairway may have probably put the stonemason's kids through college or helped to extend that dying artform for another generation. If they have an empty house, they still contribute to the local government's activities via land tax or rates bills, and they probably also employe local cleaners, garden maintainers etc. Far better than just snorting it all away in cocaine and other heavy drugs.
- wpietri 9y ago
  This is perilously close to the broken window fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
- sliverstorm 9y ago
  True, the money doesn't evaporate. But it's also true that if the house(s) built with that money were occupied full time, that would be even better.
- yorwba 9y ago
  > Far better than just snorting it all away in cocaine and other heavy drugs. But when they buy cocaine they still contribute to the income of local dealers and the activities of gangs. Their money may well put a gang leader's kids through college. And drug lords can have huge weddings as well. It seems to me like you as well fail to see the downstream consequences of that spending. I do agree that building a house and letting it sit empty is usually slightly better than spending the money on drugs, but that can easily reverse itself depending on the specific building materials and drugs in question. More importantly, there are not just two alternatives. Why spend money on a house you don't need and pat yourself on the back for helping the people you paid, when you could have used the money much more efficiently to directly improve people's lives?
  - cyberferret 9y ago
    Touche. You make a good point. The fact is - no matter how it happens, that money sloshing around is good for the economy. I guess the worst thing they could do is to convert it to bank notes or gold bars and bury it somewhere.
    - didibus 9y ago
      I think spending it on a house is one of the worst ones though. If the money was kept in the bank it would at least go to reinvest into other companies or help people get loans, etc. But a big house, it just reserves land away and wastes material. P.S.: I'd love to have a big house, and don't jusge people who can afford it that do. Luxury is fun, but in this case its wasteful non the less.
      - cyberferret 9y ago
        Yep. That's why I was careful to say 'bury the money/gold' rather than leave it in a bank account. At least in a bank account it earns nominal interest, and the bank can reinvest that money to generate more. I guess some of the worst investment advice ever was repeated to us as kids - viz Scrooge McDuck swimming in his vault full of money, or pirates constantly burying their loot... :)
- tspike 9y ago
  Huh. I initially had the dilemma framed in my mind as an environmental, not economic one. Interesting perspective shift.
0xbear 9y ago
They already “give money to those who need it”, by buying all those expensive things. I want the opposite. I want them to spend every dollar they have on the most ridiculous bullshit and thus move the economy forward.

cyberferret 9y ago

I can see how people may consider some of these things a 'waste', but a lot of the time, they fail to see the 'down river' consequences of the spending. I remember there was a great deal made in the press a few years back about a famous Indian movie star spending several million dollars on his wedding in a poor city that he grew up in. He was criticised for his 'wastefulness'. However, a follow up report on the event a few months later pointed out that his one wedding actually was massively beneficial for the entire city's economy. Catering and hire companies made several year's profits in one day, and were able to hire more people and take them off the streets. Similarly, we may criticise the extravagant marble entrance stairway in a startup founder's mansion, but that stairway may have probably put the stonemason's kids through college or helped to extend that dying artform for another generation. If they have an empty house, they still contribute to the local government's activities via land tax or rates bills, and they probably also employe local cleaners, garden maintainers etc. Far better than just snorting it all away in cocaine and other heavy drugs.

wpietri 9y ago
This is perilously close to the broken window fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
sliverstorm 9y ago
True, the money doesn't evaporate. But it's also true that if the house(s) built with that money were occupied full time, that would be even better.
yorwba 9y ago
> Far better than just snorting it all away in cocaine and other heavy drugs. But when they buy cocaine they still contribute to the income of local dealers and the activities of gangs. Their money may well put a gang leader's kids through college. And drug lords can have huge weddings as well. It seems to me like you as well fail to see the downstream consequences of that spending. I do agree that building a house and letting it sit empty is usually slightly better than spending the money on drugs, but that can easily reverse itself depending on the specific building materials and drugs in question. More importantly, there are not just two alternatives. Why spend money on a house you don't need and pat yourself on the back for helping the people you paid, when you could have used the money much more efficiently to directly improve people's lives?
- cyberferret 9y ago
  Touche. You make a good point. The fact is - no matter how it happens, that money sloshing around is good for the economy. I guess the worst thing they could do is to convert it to bank notes or gold bars and bury it somewhere.
  - didibus 9y ago
    I think spending it on a house is one of the worst ones though. If the money was kept in the bank it would at least go to reinvest into other companies or help people get loans, etc. But a big house, it just reserves land away and wastes material. P.S.: I'd love to have a big house, and don't jusge people who can afford it that do. Luxury is fun, but in this case its wasteful non the less.
    - cyberferret 9y ago
      Yep. That's why I was careful to say 'bury the money/gold' rather than leave it in a bank account. At least in a bank account it earns nominal interest, and the bank can reinvest that money to generate more. I guess some of the worst investment advice ever was repeated to us as kids - viz Scrooge McDuck swimming in his vault full of money, or pirates constantly burying their loot... :)
tspike 9y ago
Huh. I initially had the dilemma framed in my mind as an environmental, not economic one. Interesting perspective shift.

0xbear 9y ago

They already “give money to those who need it”, by buying all those expensive things. I want the opposite. I want them to spend every dollar they have on the most ridiculous bullshit and thus move the economy forward.