4 ms·

"I'd have spent that time working on some of the ideas I had for software projects instead." Then this takes off, makes you money, and you are higher class than

"I'd have spent that time working on some of the ideas I had for software projects instead." Then this takes off, makes you money, and you are higher class than those who keep their skills "for fun" EDIT: Not sure if this was understood, this was meant on a commentary on how capitalism and class can find its why back into such a system

mumblemumble 6y ago
Given the idea I had at the time, probably not. But I'd like to think it would have enriched the lives of myself and others, all the same. In broad strokes, I'm more capitalist than communist, so I don't really disagree with the whole "greed is good" thing. Where I part ways is the unstated - often, I suspect, un-recognized - premise that it's the only good. Money's only useful for what it can buy, and its value has been artificially inflated by a social structure that makes it something that you just can't live without.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  > Money's only useful for what it can buy, and its value has been artificially inflated by a social structure that makes it something that you just can't live without. That's a good point. And makes me think of videogames analogy, particularly MMORPG. In a typical MMO, you need to labor to earn money (known as "grinding") to buy all the stuff you'll need to make progress easier (and/or possible). But at any time, you can just stop, take time off, go explore the places you've been to (i.e. not containing enemies stronger than you can beat), or even just log out and leave your character be for a week. You lose nothing except time and perhaps your rank in some completely optional competition with other players. But your character won't go hungry, won't starve or freeze to death, won't be evicted for not paying taxes. That illustrates the difference between money being useful, versus being necessary. And even if it's only useful and not necessary, that doesn't mean you won't be motivated to earn it - you will want more money if the things you can buy with it are interesting enough.
  - kaybe 6y ago
    That is a very interesting analogy! I'm going to steal that.

mumblemumble 6y ago

Given the idea I had at the time, probably not. But I'd like to think it would have enriched the lives of myself and others, all the same. In broad strokes, I'm more capitalist than communist, so I don't really disagree with the whole "greed is good" thing. Where I part ways is the unstated - often, I suspect, un-recognized - premise that it's the only good. Money's only useful for what it can buy, and its value has been artificially inflated by a social structure that makes it something that you just can't live without.

TeMPOraL 6y ago
> Money's only useful for what it can buy, and its value has been artificially inflated by a social structure that makes it something that you just can't live without. That's a good point. And makes me think of videogames analogy, particularly MMORPG. In a typical MMO, you need to labor to earn money (known as "grinding") to buy all the stuff you'll need to make progress easier (and/or possible). But at any time, you can just stop, take time off, go explore the places you've been to (i.e. not containing enemies stronger than you can beat), or even just log out and leave your character be for a week. You lose nothing except time and perhaps your rank in some completely optional competition with other players. But your character won't go hungry, won't starve or freeze to death, won't be evicted for not paying taxes. That illustrates the difference between money being useful, versus being necessary. And even if it's only useful and not necessary, that doesn't mean you won't be motivated to earn it - you will want more money if the things you can buy with it are interesting enough.
- kaybe 6y ago
  That is a very interesting analogy! I'm going to steal that.