4 ms·

The way "esteem" is distributed today is if you produce something I want I "esteem" you by buying it. If you don't produce anything I want I "disrespect" you b

• clairity 5y ago
  that's an odd and quite uncharitable interpretation. there's not even a remote connection to (restricting) freedom of association, much less with my own hands (how would that even work?). the underlying point is that money isn't the be-all-and-end-all of what we value and what we exchange in our socioeconomic lives. money collapses a multidimensional social calculus into a single-dimensional metric, with all the undesirable consequences of that kind of collapse. hoarding wealth is selfish, but it's worse when it also hoards power and esteem along with it. not many wealthy people deserve respect (or power) along with their riches. people who make stuff with their hands and brains, not passively through wealth (e.g., rents), deserve esteem. that's the point.
  • thegrimmest 5y ago
    The binary metric you're referring to is simply an answer to the question "are you interested in an exchange?". This question is fundamentally binary. "Consumerism" is just the interaction of private property and freedom of association - which of these would you get rid of to abolish it?
    • TaylorAlexander 5y ago
      > "Consumerism" is just the interaction of private property and freedom of association No, you have misunderstood. I am 100% for freedom of association and freedom of contract. "Consumerism" is not just exchange, it is something more specific. It is the idea that buying more is directly tied to happiness and well being. Look. "Consumerism is the idea that increasing the consumption of goods and services purchased in the market is always a desirable goal and that a person's wellbeing and happiness depend fundamentally on obtaining consumer goods and material possessions. " https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/consumerism.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/consumerism.asp
  • malthuswaswrong 5y ago
    Would you change your opinion if you were presented with hard data proving that 80% of wealthy people earned that wealth by delivering goods and services to people who voluntarily paid for it, and only 20% of the wealthy inherited it and that inherited wealth does not last more than 3 generations?
    • TaylorAlexander 5y ago
      > 80% of wealthy people earned that wealth More likely they hired workers who created that wealth. And while in today's system we say that the person at the top "earned" that wealth, we could just as easily arrange firms differently so they are cooperatively owned. And in doing so they would not produce super wealthy people but instead a society with broader wealth distribution.
      • malthuswaswrong 5y ago
        >More likely they hired workers who created that wealth. More likely they hired workers and everyone created wealth together. A worker can't work until someone builds the assembly line, buys the materials, and sells the final product. If it's so easy to do the whole process that anyone can do it, what's stopping you? Marxists claimed the capital class denied the funds to the working class to start their own companies. Well since the world went off the gold standard there is no lack of funding. It's the opposite now. Inflation is an attack on wealth. Wealthy people are ravenous to get their wealth out of currency and into "things" like property and businesses. Venture capitalists will fund the most ridiculous ideas in the desperate hope that one of them will "hit".
        • TaylorAlexander 5y ago
          Nothing is stopping me and I am working on this.