11 ms·
Want less stuff cluttering people’s lives? Divorce them from having to ensure their basic survival and self worth in a zero sum economy. I genuinely think if pe
by ianai 7y ago
Want less stuff cluttering people’s lives? Divorce them from having to ensure their basic survival and self worth in a zero sum economy. I genuinely think if people didn’t have to sell the largest, most productive parts of their lives to someone else they would focus more on social connections instead of social status. It feels pretty humbling to spend almost all of your day doing something you otherwise would never do, perhaps hate doing, only to be passed by a car worth more money than you’re likely to earn in your entire life summed altogether. But if I spent my day doing things I love doing, and would gladly do them over and over every day, I just might see that same car and not internalize it.
- Bakary 7y agoIf you value your freedom this strongly, then it's time to make bold choices regarding the rate at which you save money. Since there is such a huge gap between people who hold a lot of material status and the rest, why even play the game at all?
- djrobstep 7y agoMost people like not being homeless and not starving, I guess?
- Bakary 7y agoThis is a false dichotomy. I'm not advocating for living in the woods, but just taking a hard look at the choices you make everyday and how much actual utility and satisfaction you get from them. Are those expensive clothes and cars worth it to you? Maybe they are. But you have to compare them to the months or years of labor you could avoid if you saved that money instead, or perhaps even invested it. Perhaps our world is extremely proficient at generating insane amounts of envy, but that doesn't mean you are completely powerless to respond in a life-affirming way.
- ianai 7y agoUltimately your way asks people to change their innate behavior.
- Bakary 7y agoSounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me. I seriously doubt that there is an innate barrier against regulating your consumption at least a little bit. If you blame external factors exclusively then you will obviously never change anything about your life and never discover what was inevitable and what wasn't. You can try your best and still fail, but what you can't do is pretend that you don't have a choice presented to you from the outset.
- dang 7y ago"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: while I have you—could you please stop posting snarky and/or unsubstantive comments to HN? You've done it a lot, unfortunately, and we've had to ask you multiple times already. Continuing this way eventually gets your account banned. I don't want to ban you, so it would be good if you'd fix this. We're trying for a different sort of internet discussion here, as the site guidelines should make clear if you review them.
- JamesBarney 7y agoI think they would focus less on wealth as a driver of social status, but they'd definitely still focus on social status. Instead it would be based around what hobbies you had, how important your volunteer work is etc...
- perceptronas 7y agoHow is ability to choose a bad thing? I disagree with your statement about economy: it's not zero sum economy. Everyone's quality of life is getting better as economy grows, if it was zero sum - you earning money would mean somebody losing it. Even basic survival requires smaller part of income, while more comfort will take a bigger cut (better house, better bed, better food and etc.). There is housing that's getting more expensive, but it still is affordable outside of big cities reach
- zaro 7y ago> if it was zero sum - you earning money would mean somebody losing it Earning money means somebody loosing it. It is only possible to earn w/o somebody loosing by either narrowing the definition of somebody, or limit the time frame in which the process is occurring. For example, most of the animals are not considered somebody, that's why their loss of habitat, is not considered somebody loosing money. I think in economics these are called externalities. It's not that they don't have a cost, it's just that we prefer to ignore it, because there's nobody to complaint about it,
- zygimantasdev 7y agoSure, I agree about scope of the process - if we consider all particles in universe part of economy discussed- exchanges are zero sum. However, I was appealing to the parent's basic survival and self worth zero sum economy where humans making money will mean others losing. That is simply not true, simple natural resources, ideas, innovations are making our economy non zero sum.
- zaro 7y ago> That is simply not true, simple natural resources, ideas, innovations are making our economy non zero sum. Thats exactly what I am talking about. Natural resources sre making the economy non zero sum game. This is the reduction I am talking about, its easy to think the natural resources are simply there to use and nobody owns them ( thus breaking out of the zero sum) but is this smart thing to believe? Where does it end? When everything that can be turned into money has been, what happens then? "According to sustainability experts, we currently need 1.7 planets to support humanity's demand on Earth's ecosystems."[0] How long do you think this fairy tale about natural resources being something there outside of our economics game will last. [0] https://m.dw.com/en/the-earth-is-exhausted-were-using-up-its-resources-faster-than-it-can-provide/a-39924823 https://m.dw.com/en/the-earth-is-exhausted-were-using-up-its...
- Dolores12 7y agoEconomy is not zero sum. By working you create added value.