3 ms·

Kickstarters? Pateron? Boy Scout popcorn? That water bottle that an NGO was supposed to ship you for anything over a $20 donation? There are some uses of money

by AlanSE 5y ago

Kickstarters? Pateron? Boy Scout popcorn? That water bottle that an NGO was supposed to ship you for anything over a $20 donation? There are some uses of money which are primarily philanthropic or social messaging. In these cases, the utility of the good or service is ancillary to the purchase. As overall economic welfare continues to improve, the niche for these things increases. The split between purpose and utility varies, maybe 5/95 for that chocolate bar that says it is protecting the rainforest (doubtful) but 40/60 for Girl Scout cookies. It's hard to straddle anywhere near that 50/50 line, but again, as the niche expands, the markets will eventually figure out more products for the space.

chmod775 5y ago
> That water bottle that an NGO was supposed to ship you for anything over a $20 donation? "This NGO better be honest". It's not about the water bottle. When I spend money, I expect something (to happen) in return. It doesn't have to benefit myself. If you enjoy wasting money on books you are not going to read, I suggest you just set the money on fire instead. Or bury it and take the location to your grave. You'll do everyone else a favor by driving down the cost of goods, and nobody had to labor or waste resources on something you weren't planning to use. The economy will instead find something useful to do it with that labor and those resources. Alternatively donate it as in your example - if you want to benefit someone specific. Maybe to the author whose book you weren't going to read?
- vba616 5y ago
  >nobody had to labor or waste resources on something you weren't planning to use If someone buys a collectible book with no intention of reading it, is it really a waste of resources? Stuff is collectible because it's not being made any more and can't be. A signed first edition of something can't be sending an economic signal to produce more. The money paid represents labor and resources forgone, and the more that the collectible costs, the more labor and resources is reserved for better purposes. It is depriving someone else who would like to own it and possibly read it, but is that honestly a loss to society?
  - pjerem 5y ago
    Here you are describing an edge case with collecting things because : - You still need to manage / expose / dedicate space / maintain your collectibles to enjoy them - It can be an investment so it’s really different than buying something to use it. It’s buying something hoping to resell it. Still, we could say you also pay with incertitude, maybe stress and responsibility if it’s something expensive.
    - vba616 5y ago
      >You still need to manage / expose / dedicate space / maintain your collectibles to enjoy them This is true. A sense of proportion is always useful. Wouldn't you expect maintenance to be orders of magnitude smaller than creating things in the first place, very generally? >It can be an investment so it’s really different than buying something to use it I don't know what you are trying to say. Investment is inherently deferred consumption, and the higher the value, the more consumption is deferred. That leaves more resources for people who need them. Imagine a stylized society with one rich person who has a billion dollars, and everybody else is poor. If that person spends their billion dollars on a rare book, then the only thing that has been taken away from society is that book. And usually there is more than one copy of a book, so other people can still read the story, they just don't have the specific physical object. But if they spend their billion dollars on, say, constructing a palace, then the resources could have been used to build thousands of homes for ordinary people. Money is not a resource.

by AlanSE 5y ago

chmod775 5y ago

> That water bottle that an NGO was supposed to ship you for anything over a $20 donation? "This NGO better be honest". It's not about the water bottle. When I spend money, I expect something (to happen) in return. It doesn't have to benefit myself. If you enjoy wasting money on books you are not going to read, I suggest you just set the money on fire instead. Or bury it and take the location to your grave. You'll do everyone else a favor by driving down the cost of goods, and nobody had to labor or waste resources on something you weren't planning to use. The economy will instead find something useful to do it with that labor and those resources. Alternatively donate it as in your example - if you want to benefit someone specific. Maybe to the author whose book you weren't going to read?

vba616 5y ago
>nobody had to labor or waste resources on something you weren't planning to use If someone buys a collectible book with no intention of reading it, is it really a waste of resources? Stuff is collectible because it's not being made any more and can't be. A signed first edition of something can't be sending an economic signal to produce more. The money paid represents labor and resources forgone, and the more that the collectible costs, the more labor and resources is reserved for better purposes. It is depriving someone else who would like to own it and possibly read it, but is that honestly a loss to society?
- pjerem 5y ago
  Here you are describing an edge case with collecting things because : - You still need to manage / expose / dedicate space / maintain your collectibles to enjoy them - It can be an investment so it’s really different than buying something to use it. It’s buying something hoping to resell it. Still, we could say you also pay with incertitude, maybe stress and responsibility if it’s something expensive.
  - vba616 5y ago
    >You still need to manage / expose / dedicate space / maintain your collectibles to enjoy them This is true. A sense of proportion is always useful. Wouldn't you expect maintenance to be orders of magnitude smaller than creating things in the first place, very generally? >It can be an investment so it’s really different than buying something to use it I don't know what you are trying to say. Investment is inherently deferred consumption, and the higher the value, the more consumption is deferred. That leaves more resources for people who need them. Imagine a stylized society with one rich person who has a billion dollars, and everybody else is poor. If that person spends their billion dollars on a rare book, then the only thing that has been taken away from society is that book. And usually there is more than one copy of a book, so other people can still read the story, they just don't have the specific physical object. But if they spend their billion dollars on, say, constructing a palace, then the resources could have been used to build thousands of homes for ordinary people. Money is not a resource.