3 ms·

I have had the sense that guilt plays a part in dissatisfaction with wealth, whether consciously or subconsciously. The way the economic system is set up, a per

I have had the sense that guilt plays a part in dissatisfaction with wealth, whether consciously or subconsciously. The way the economic system is set up, a person can only have money, wealth at the expense of others. I only have what I have because someone else has been deprived of it. Its difficult to enjoy something when at the back of ones mind, it is earned off the suffering (real or imagined) of others. I came to this conclusion one night whilst walking along the street some time back. I wanted to buy myself a packet of fries. Not far from the door of chips shop, there was a woman there with three children, laying down cardboard preparing to sleep for the night. The sense of what turned out to be guilt and shame that came upon me was palpable. It actually hit me that I could casually walk in and buy myself something I didn't really need whilst here was a woman with three kids sleeping on the street with nothing. Investigating my feelings further brought about I had so much compared to them. And what I had was not enough to make a real difference in their lives. Further investigation and thought brought about the idea that this might be the same not just for me, but for all people, getting progressively worse the higher up the wealth steps you go. The basic idea being that as currently set up, economics means that it is a zero sum game. In terms of money, either I have the 100 dollars or you have 100 dollars, we cannot both have the same 100 dollars. This means, (and I am open to being corrected) that what I have is at the expense of another - my boss, my brother who is having a hard time making ends meet, or all the others who have to walk kilometres to get to work to save on money used in public transport. My take away and current struggle is that at some point, in order to just live, we have to find a way to deal with this feeling of guilt - which in my case, took on the form of first denying responsibility and assigning blame on others (government & other institutions, parenting, poor decision making, lack of intelligence etc), or just ignoring it because 'there is nothing I can do' about it because 'I also have problems and I dont have enough to make a meaningful difference'. I still don’t have a good answer to this. Thats my 2 cents.

badpun 8y ago
> I only have what I have because someone else has been deprived of it. This is clearly incorrect. If you made something and now own it, the thing did not exist until you made it - hence no one could have been deprived of it.
- rejberg 8y ago
  Maybe the making of the thing deprived no one, but once it's made it could always be given to someone else, so owning it means that someone else who could own it doesn't.
drjesusphd 8y ago
You might really enjoy this essay. It changed my life. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Ph7EnkrHDRoJ:www.aaronsw.com/weblog/handwritingwall+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=se&client=opera http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Ph7Enkr... I came to terms with ideas like this by changing careers to a profession which, at least abstractly, benefits humanity. I've taken upon myself a modern/global idea of "noblesse oblige". The fortunate have an obligation to use their vast resources in a way that benefits others. We are fortunate to live in the West during this time, but that also means we have access to tremendous knowledge and ability that we are uniquely equipped to make good use of. Of course, I may just be fooling myself and the resources I consume would still be better spent directly helping others. I try to be clear that I'm far from a saint in this respect, but it's difficult to discuss these things with others without inducing guilt and defensiveness. I think these kind of things needs to be discussed though, so I'm glad you brought it up.
- IllusoryReverb 8y ago
  Thanks for the link to the essay. It captures the struggle I alluded to in my comment rather well. I find like my mind is resistant to actually going ahead and helping, the aforementioned excuses rear their head and the justifications come hard and fast and anything else seems like I am being an idealistic, wide eyed naive hippy. On some level I can recognize the need the writer points to, and what is being said. I feel there is a flaw in my thinking and in how I am approaching the world and living my life. Then the selfishness (is there a better word for it?) stares right back at me. There is safety in its coldness. I recognize it. I know it. I hate it too, but I know it. It is familiar. Leaving its cold embrace is too scary. I will be sharing the essay with like minded people when I can.
MockObject 8y ago
> The basic idea being that as currently set up, economics means that it is a zero sum game. In terms of money, either I have the 100 dollars or you have 100 dollars, we cannot both have the same 100 dollars. It's a common misconception. A voluntary exchange of, say, a loaf of bread for $5, occurs when the seller values the $5 more than the loaf, and the buyer values the loaf more than the $5. After which they've both increased their total value.
hueving 8y ago
Economies aren't zero sum. Fractional reserve banking means your 100 dollar example is wrong. Additionally, someone who truly provides net positive social utility will improve the average persons life even if they make a bunch of money that was going to be spent elsewhere. People spending money on magic cures for lung cancer from Phillip Morris is vastly different than people buying cigarettes from them, even if they are the same price.

badpun 8y ago

> I only have what I have because someone else has been deprived of it. This is clearly incorrect. If you made something and now own it, the thing did not exist until you made it - hence no one could have been deprived of it.

rejberg 8y ago
Maybe the making of the thing deprived no one, but once it's made it could always be given to someone else, so owning it means that someone else who could own it doesn't.

drjesusphd 8y ago

You might really enjoy this essay. It changed my life. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Ph7EnkrHDRoJ:www.aaronsw.com/weblog/handwritingwall+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=se&client=opera http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Ph7Enkr... I came to terms with ideas like this by changing careers to a profession which, at least abstractly, benefits humanity. I've taken upon myself a modern/global idea of "noblesse oblige". The fortunate have an obligation to use their vast resources in a way that benefits others. We are fortunate to live in the West during this time, but that also means we have access to tremendous knowledge and ability that we are uniquely equipped to make good use of. Of course, I may just be fooling myself and the resources I consume would still be better spent directly helping others. I try to be clear that I'm far from a saint in this respect, but it's difficult to discuss these things with others without inducing guilt and defensiveness. I think these kind of things needs to be discussed though, so I'm glad you brought it up.

IllusoryReverb 8y ago
Thanks for the link to the essay. It captures the struggle I alluded to in my comment rather well. I find like my mind is resistant to actually going ahead and helping, the aforementioned excuses rear their head and the justifications come hard and fast and anything else seems like I am being an idealistic, wide eyed naive hippy. On some level I can recognize the need the writer points to, and what is being said. I feel there is a flaw in my thinking and in how I am approaching the world and living my life. Then the selfishness (is there a better word for it?) stares right back at me. There is safety in its coldness. I recognize it. I know it. I hate it too, but I know it. It is familiar. Leaving its cold embrace is too scary. I will be sharing the essay with like minded people when I can.

MockObject 8y ago

> The basic idea being that as currently set up, economics means that it is a zero sum game. In terms of money, either I have the 100 dollars or you have 100 dollars, we cannot both have the same 100 dollars. It's a common misconception. A voluntary exchange of, say, a loaf of bread for $5, occurs when the seller values the $5 more than the loaf, and the buyer values the loaf more than the $5. After which they've both increased their total value.

hueving 8y ago

Economies aren't zero sum. Fractional reserve banking means your 100 dollar example is wrong. Additionally, someone who truly provides net positive social utility will improve the average persons life even if they make a bunch of money that was going to be spent elsewhere. People spending money on magic cures for lung cancer from Phillip Morris is vastly different than people buying cigarettes from them, even if they are the same price.