2 ms·

"Who are you to say what he needs? Obviously by your values, the cigarettes aren't "correct", but it's really not your life to live." I'm not moralizing. Godin

"Who are you to say what he needs? Obviously by your values, the cigarettes aren't "correct", but it's really not your life to live." I'm not moralizing. Godin was talking specifically of getting further ahead financially, rather than falling further behind. There are many things that people want to spend money on that actually put them further behind. To get further ahead financially, you either need to save your money now, or spend it on something that will pay off +ve, later (while not experiencing bad enough cash flow that you die before the expected benefit). This is simple arithmetic. Many, many projects or expenditures fail to live up to their initially expected benefit. Beyond that, at any moment, we're not aware of all the investments we could make, nor are we certain of their outcomes. So, it's foolish to write, as Godin does: "When someone in poverty buys a device that improves productivity, the device pays for itself (if it didn’t, they wouldn’t buy it.)" I like the rest of the piece, I was just pointing out the obvious flaw in his uncritical, simplistic, free-market claims. EDIT> You seem to be reacting emotionally to the smoking issue. What about this example instead? Suppose someone offers to sell some poor sod a supposedly productivity-enhancing perpetual motion machine, and the potential buyer believes it will work. Is it incorrect for me, as a third party, to say that this would be a foolish investment (from the perspective of increased finances/productivity)? After all, it's not my life to live. Who am I to interfere?

CWuestefeld 17y ago
Suppose someone offers to sell some poor sod a supposedly productivity-enhancing perpetual motion machine ... Is it incorrect for me, as a third party, to say that this would be a foolish investment Since you say "perpetual motion machine", I assume that you're saying that the purchaser is being defrauded, since we know that there's no such thing as perpetual motion. But that's exactly the second point I was making in my first response. For a market to work, there needs to be some protection of the sanctity of a contract. When the buyer discovers that all he's got is snake oil, when he contracted for something real, he should be able to seek restitution. Without this, the market's not going to get off the ground.

CWuestefeld 17y ago

Suppose someone offers to sell some poor sod a supposedly productivity-enhancing perpetual motion machine ... Is it incorrect for me, as a third party, to say that this would be a foolish investment Since you say "perpetual motion machine", I assume that you're saying that the purchaser is being defrauded, since we know that there's no such thing as perpetual motion. But that's exactly the second point I was making in my first response. For a market to work, there needs to be some protection of the sanctity of a contract. When the buyer discovers that all he's got is snake oil, when he contracted for something real, he should be able to seek restitution. Without this, the market's not going to get off the ground.