Not a very deep thought, but a thought no less. While cleaning up my computer room I had to move around a couple of toy cars I bought from 7/11 (you know, those Tommy ones.) The ones I’ve bought are ones I suppose I wouldn’t mind owning in real life (an RX-7, RX-8, an S2000 and a Subaru Impreza.)
I then realized that somewhere out there lives a person that could own all of these cars (include maintanence costs if you like) and what he would spend on the real things would represent less (in terms of his net worth) than I did on my 80NT versions.
That post about the guy that made 140,000US/day for X days, old posts discussing whether it’s morally OK for someone to own a 1.5 million dollar yatch, and seeing CNN reports about people that raise a family on $1/day made me wonder if anyone is in a position to say anything about how “the rich” should spend their money.
Or is my percentages way of looking at things off?
I grew up around people who were lucky if they had a few hundred bucks in the bank. Everyone always said they wished they had a million dollars. Too bad they didn’t know all they needed was 2 or 3 hundred thousand, which is easy enough to save if you know how and know what to do with it.
proabably… but interesting none the less. Just kidding, Interesting point you make, plus the moral thing brings up the question of who sets the morals, and is it right to place your morals on someone else. If I were rich… I sure as hell wouldn’t think anyone had any say about how I spent my money. Hell I’m poor and I don’t think anyone has any say (myself included it feels like sometimes).
proabably… but interesting none the less. Just kidding, Interesting point you make, plus the moral thing brings up the question of who sets the morals, and is it right to place your morals on someone else. If I were rich… I sure as hell wouldn’t think anyone had any say about how I spent my money. Hell I’m poor and I don’t think anyone has any say (myself included it feels like sometimes).
Miltown, keep playing with your 7/11 cars. It’s cheaper than the real thing and less trouble.
[quote]Sheriff’s deputies have arrested the Swedish video game executive who crashed in a rare Ferrari in Malibu in February, alleging that he didn’t own that car and others in his $3.5-million exotic car collection, authorities said Sunday.
Stefan Eriksson faces grand theft charges after detectives raided his gated Bel-Air estate Friday night, spent six hours searching it and then took him into custody Saturday night.
Los Angeles County sheriff’s spokesman Steve Whitmore said detectives concluded that the wrecked Ferrari, a red Enzo
[quote=“Mother Theresa”]As for your question, sure it’s right to question why someone with a billion dollars feels a need to keep accumulating more and whether it’s morally wrong for that person to go helicopter skiing in Banff, yachting in the Mediteranean, have a 50,000 square foot home and a stable of exotic cars, when millions of people in the world are starving to death and have nothing.
Of course many will respond that the billionaire employs thousands of people and contributes immensely to the economy through his investments and taxes. And of course that’s mostly just BS. It is morally wrong, but you only get one shot in life, so if you’re lucky enough to have unlimited money, hell, who wouldn’t want to have a little fun. . . though many have discovered that one doesn’t need all that stuff to be happy. But maybe they’re just rationalizing because they don’t have it.[/quote]
I agree with the notion that the vast amount of resources available to the many billionaires and millionaires could be used in a way to help curb the poverty issues around the world (poverty meaning people can’t get the basics for life.) But what makes it OK for us to hold rich dudes to standards higher than our own (statistically/percentages speaking)?
I found this post in a Google cache (wasn’t on the site anymore):
I understand the guys point. Why is it we (people everywhere) have to look to the rich or wait to be rich for acts of philanthropy? Anyone posting on Forumosa is rich enough (in my mind) to be doing something to help make the world a better place (if you don’t want to, that’s cool too.) Contributions of a little time or money from everyone would go a long way.
I guess the how much is too much question is linked to other questions. How much is enough? and When someone has more than enough are they (morally) obligated to help others? Seems like almost anyone with the means to post a yes response to the second question should be using a hefty portion of their resources combating world hunger (to put themselves in a position to criticize “the rich”.)
That’s quite a chunk of change. Should it be more? Less? or is whatever he gives just right?
a) buy all the food I need
b) provide a comfortable roof above my head
c) give me enough to play around with by buying CDs, books, and stuff in my free time
What more do I need?
Honestly, what more does anyone need? The more you work, the more money, but the less free time you have. And the entire point in working is to provide you with luxuries to enjoy a happy life. There’s absolutely no point in working just for money’s sake. If you are working so many hours that you have no time to enjoy life, that is misplaced priorities. I really, honestly don’t need very much. Yes, I am richer than 90% of the people on the planet, the majority of which live in hovels in Africa, mainland China, and Latin America, and I definitely don’t want to live their lifestyles. So money is important to an extent. But excess is excessive. I have my computer, my stereo, my TV and DVD player. I can only sleep with one woman at a time. I can only sleep in one room at a time. I do not need 15 rooms in my house, 15 women in my bed, 15 DVD players, 15 computers, or 15 yachts (how many times a year are you going to use only 1 yacht? Are you fishing on the sea more than 4 or 5 days a year? Really.) I already have more books in my home than I can physically read. I have more CDs than I need to listen to. There are limits to human consumption. That is why rich folks go for “designer” shit, which has no inherently greater value than a non-designer cheapo watch that you bought at K-Mart for $3, but is much more “prestigious”. It’s all a SCAM. Designed to extract money from rich suckers’ wallets. There is no reason for anyone to want or desire anything more than the typical middle-class modern lifestyle…why are people greedy for more? A nice house in the suburbs with a nice lawn is enough for me. Anyone who wants more, they are not struggling for comfort, they are greedy to fill the empty hole in their soul, and the sad fact is, money will not bring them happiness. They think that the more they have, the happier they will be, but after a certain comfort level (nobody wants to starve in a tin shack) money and happiness do not correlate.
Why would it be moraly wrong to be very successful in life and make shit load of money and as a result have a 2million dollar house on the beach, own a yacht and go and do whatever you want?
What would be moraly wrong is if that person wouldn’t invest himself in helping good causes.
But being successful or very very successful and making lot of money isn’t moraly wrong at all in my book!
[quote=“mod lang”]Let’s see, I have enough money to:
a) buy all the food I need
b) provide a comfortable roof above my head
c) give me enough to play around with by buying CDs, books, and stuff in my free time
What more do I need?
Honestly, what more does anyone need? [/quote]
In theory you’re right, but some people are less healthy and secure and have greater needs. If Imelda Marcos says she needs 10,000 shoes, who are you to say she doesn’t? Do you know the suffering she would endure if she were restricted to only a 1,000 pairs? Maybe she’s such a screwed up mess that depriving her of her vast closets full of shoes would cause her serious emotional distress accompanied by physical symptoms such as sleeplessness, anxiety and depression. If so, then doesn’t she need all those shoes?
Unless you get off on making money. Some people enjoy kicking back in front of the telly. Others like fishing and camping. Others like to hang out with their friends. And some get the most enjoyment from working long hours and counting their piles of money. Who are you to tell them their activity is less meaningful, satisfying or important than yours?
But it’s not misplaced priorities if working fanatically is the thing you cherish more than anything else is it? I know we’re all gonna die some day and conventional wisdom has it that the time spent with family and friends is most precious and when we die that’s what we’ll wish we had spent more time on. But is that necessarily the case? Isn’t it possible for some people the hours in the office were most satisfying and on death they’ll look back at all their great occupational accomplishments? Whose to say they are wrong?
Sure, it seems that way. It seems to be true by definition. But is it necessarily the case? For many people excess is not excessive; it is never enough. Sure, they may never be completely satisfied, as they always want more, but if they enjoy the game of always striving for more, maybe that’s the most satisfaction such people could ever have in life. They could never be content with a quiet, peaceful, slow life of moderation. They thrive on excess. For such people, is excess really excessive?
Isn’t that a somewhat narrow, conventional perspective? Try broadening your perspective, visit Thailand some time and see what a few Baht can buy you.
Who’s to say that more than one is excessive?
Is that really the case? Maybe I want to drive a different color Ferrari every day of the week. Maybe I need to. And next month I want to drive a different color Lamborghini every day. I would posit that there are no limits to possible consumption.
Really? Sure, you may feel Bill Gates doesn’t need a $100 million house, but I’ll bet it’s pretty damned cool, with all kinds of gadgets and doodads not found in your run-of-the-mill middle-class home.
What’s the cut-off then between necessities and useless crap to fill an empty hole in the soul? Couldn’t one argue that you don’t need your books and CDs and only desire them out of a greedy need to fill an empty hole in your soul?
Who is qualified to judge what others need and don’t need?
Saw a piece on Manute Bol last night on CNN. This guy is a true modern day hero. He gave up most of his baketball earnings to help Sudanese refugees and now lives a very modest life in the states.
[quote=“mod lang”]Let’s see, I have enough money to:
a) buy all the food I need
b) provide a comfortable roof above my head
c) give me enough to play around with by buying CDs, books, and stuff in my free time
What more do I need?
Honestly, what more does anyone need? [/quote]
More money doesn’t only buy you more stuff, but better-quality stuff. As a rich guy you don’t buy 5 steaks because you can afford it, you buy only 1 steak, but that steak is premium-quality meat. I can still rememeber how amazed I was the first time I ate lobster, damn that stuff IS yummy!
The same goes with just about everything. A 200 US$ T-shirt just feels way better than the 10$ Tee from Walmart. The 500 US$ pair of tailored shoes will open a whole new world of walking comfort, compared to the 50$ sneakers.
For years I only wore cheap shoes and was happy with it. When I bought my first pair of 200US$ shoes I really couldn’t believe the difference.
No clue who said it, but there is some truth to it:
“Money can’t buy happiness? If poor people had any clue how much happiness money can buy you, they would kill themselves immediatly!”
I also don’t think it’s morally wrong to be so rich that the time it takes for you to pick up a $100 bill you’ve made $500. If someone worked hard, invested, educated themselves in business, and owns a few million dollar houses round the world, it isn’t wrong. They may not be well-liked by those less rich around them, but if they worked hard for it, they deserve it.
Now, a mega rich person who doesn’t forget where s/he came from and is actively involved in helping their communities is what we’d all like to become. I would like to believe if I became super rich I would still be the same person I am right now, but I’m sure all rich people have said that. Money and power change you, man.
As long as I can afford dining out every night, I’m content. A couple of nights a week, a real good dinner with real silverware and good wine! For me, that’s a measurement of comfort level. When I have children, I will not use “…we cannot afford…” with my kids. I just don’t think as parents, you need to tell your kids that they can’t have what other kids have. (Of course, within reason.)
I spent a bit of my childhood on free lunchs and food stamps. To me, having a roof over my head, food on the table, clothes on my back, and a few hundred books to read (oops…how did that slip in there?) is all I need in life.
I feel the same way. I guess if I grew up rich I’d want more, but I grew up relatively poor, so I’m happy just to have my basic needs met. Lots of cash is fucking great, however. I’d love to have millions of bucks and a big house and yacht. But I don’t feel like I’m deprived because I don’t have a fancy car or trophy wife.
My dad grew up in the prairies, and I remember hearing him tell about the newfie family that moved there. The kids were overjoyed that they could have bologna sandwiches for lunch on a regular basis - back in Newfoundland it was lobster, lobster, lobster day in and day out. Yuck! They had it in their minds that lobster was food for poor people. Rich people ate bologna.
My dad grew up in the prairies, and I remember hearing him tell about the newfie family that moved there. The kids were overjoyed that they could have bologna sandwiches for lunch on a regular basis - back in Newfoundland it was lobster, lobster, lobster day in and day out. Yuck! They had it in their minds that lobster was food for poor people. Rich people ate bologna. :p[/quote]
And being a Newfie, I can tell you that it’s true. King crab, too. :raspberry: Can’t believe what people pay for that here. “baloney” is Newfie caviar.
I think economically it is important for rich people to spend their money unwisely. This is the multiplier effect. Some richer drops a million on a boat, well thats better for me than if he had just kept it in the bank.
We all produce and so we should all consume. If Ted Turner started wearing three dollar shirts, then I’d say he was being a bastard!
One of Japans biggest problems is stored wealth. Keeps the economy stagnant and the poor poor.
proabably… but interesting none the less. 
Just kidding, Interesting point you make, plus the moral thing brings up the question of who sets the morals, and is it right to place your morals on someone else. If I were rich… I sure as hell wouldn’t think anyone had any say about how I spent my money. Hell I’m poor and I don’t think anyone has any say 
(myself included it feels like sometimes).