3 ms·

It seems like you maybe have slightly missed the point by overly focusing on the examples in the article though.

• aidenn0 8y ago
  Not when the article says flat out: > In its simplest form, the long game isn’t really debatable. Everyone agrees, for example, we should spend less than we make and invest the difference. Which conveniently brushes aside the fact that there are good reasons not to play the long game. Here's a very non-standard example: If I do not have nor can I afford health insurance, then I shouldn't invest the difference between expenses and wages: As time goes on the probability that I have a bankruptcy due to medical bills approaches unity, so any money I save I will likely never get to see the results of.
  • profalseidol 8y ago
    Emphasis on "In its simplest form" I read that as "in general" it is accepted that one shouldn't spend more than what one can afford. Generally on luxury. But if it's a necessary need. Then you will indeed need to make a deal with the sharks. I'll copy paste the last paragraph: > In everything you do, you’re either playing a short term or long term game. You can’t opt out and you can’t play a long-term game in everything, you need to pick what matters to you. But in everything you do time amplifies the difference between long and short-term games. The question you need to think about is when and where to play a long-term game.