5 ms·

If you want to donate five dollars to charity, by all means do it yourself. If you want to buy a stand-up film for $5, then do that. He made no promises that he

If you want to donate five dollars to charity, by all means do it yourself. If you want to buy a stand-up film for $5, then do that. He made no promises that he would use the money for charity, or for anything in particular up front. How does the fact that he's giving some of the money to charity affect your purchase in any way? Do you also feel bad that he's using some of it to pay his employees and care for his children? Would you be happier if he bought a hovercraft or something? The value of the thing you bought doesn't change no matter what he uses the money for. As long as he's not like, using it to fund terrorism or something. Then I could see being upset that you supported him.

masmullin 15y ago
I (who am not the OP) would feel better if he gave the money to himself, then he used the money for charity. In the blog post, Louis states that money is "the money" not "his money," and that "the money" is going towards charity. What he should have said was "I am receiving 500k of "the money" to which I am giving 280k of it to charity" It's a semantic argument, but for some reason it means something to me.
- joel_ms 15y ago
  Louis CK: 'I never viewed money as being "my money" I always saw it as "The money" It's a resource. if it pools up around me then it needs to be flushed back out into the system.' I don't think his point is that this money exists in some sort of limbo where it's not his, because however he views it, it's still his money. I think he's making a general statement about how he views money: as a resource to be used, not a collectible to be amassed.
cottonseed 15y ago
> The value of the thing you bought doesn't change no matter what he uses the money for. While this is true, I don't think it is the whole story. Money is also a signal, and understanding how you signal is part of being an aware consumer/investor. You might not like Nike's labor practices (how it uses the money it makes when you buy a pair of sneakers) and therefore not buy Nikes, although you find genuine value in their product.

masmullin 15y ago

I (who am not the OP) would feel better if he gave the money to himself, then he used the money for charity. In the blog post, Louis states that money is "the money" not "his money," and that "the money" is going towards charity. What he should have said was "I am receiving 500k of "the money" to which I am giving 280k of it to charity" It's a semantic argument, but for some reason it means something to me.

joel_ms 15y ago
Louis CK: 'I never viewed money as being "my money" I always saw it as "The money" It's a resource. if it pools up around me then it needs to be flushed back out into the system.' I don't think his point is that this money exists in some sort of limbo where it's not his, because however he views it, it's still his money. I think he's making a general statement about how he views money: as a resource to be used, not a collectible to be amassed.

cottonseed 15y ago

> The value of the thing you bought doesn't change no matter what he uses the money for. While this is true, I don't think it is the whole story. Money is also a signal, and understanding how you signal is part of being an aware consumer/investor. You might not like Nike's labor practices (how it uses the money it makes when you buy a pair of sneakers) and therefore not buy Nikes, although you find genuine value in their product.