Money does not cause happiness, but it sure as hell is often necessary
for the conditions within which _other_ things can bring about
happiness.
Didn't Lou Reed say Money can't buy you love, but it can get you a
Cadillac to go look for it?
Tom
--
Tom
In a message dated 4/1/03 2:56:55 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
With my post I was hoping to encourage a discussion -- and get an answer
-- of how to make clear to the vast majority that their dreams of being
rich will never be realized. Any help?
Gene Coyle
The
Better, I say, to have a political program
that speaks to individuals' ability to take
the most practical route out of wage slavery --
going into business for themselves.
I presume you mean collectively, in coops and the like? jks
Facilitating coops is important, but I also mean
That's nuts. You know the failure rates for small business better than I do. I just know that it is veryhigh. And how amny of self-employed or entrepreneurs go into their 60s (or 70s) with enough to retire on decently? jks
"Max B. Sawicky" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Better, I say, to have a
Wierdly enough, the idea that people can become rich worked less during
the 60's when the likelihood of becoming well off was higher. How much is
the fear of being poor operative today rathern than a dream of becoming
rich?
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 01:02:19PM -0800, Devine, James wrote:
it makes
What's the difference?
The individual will prefer to be the judge of whether he or she
ought to put in the effort required to beat the odds.
mbs
I don't tell people that they'll never get rich. Rather, I present the
evidence and logic that says that only a small percentage of them will.
I know the failure rate is high.
But a person could fail more than once
and still make it eventually. The real
issue I think is mobility. We know there's
a lot of immobility. Make it numbingly simple.
Suppose you have a 90 percent chance of getting
nowhere, and a 10 percent chance of getting
At 02:53 PM 04/02/2003 -0800, you wrote:
There is a minor branch of economic (twig?) that studies the determinants
of happiness. Happiness does not seem to increase once a society reaches
about $15,000 a year. Happiness instead is determined by relative status.
Economists are clueless. To quote
In a message dated 4/2/03 2:17:41 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I know the failure rate is high.
But a person could fail more than once
and still make it eventually. The real
issue I think is mobility. We know there's
a lot of immobility. Make it numbingly simple.
Suppose
In a message dated 4/2/03 2:54:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
People expect, according to surveys, more wealth to make them happy, but
happiness seems to depend upon relative status. So if the person in the
mirror wants to get rich, on some level he needs to know that
- Original Message -
From: Max B. Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Following the wisdom of my guru, the Sage of Saskatoon,
I would qualify my remarks by noting that the interest
in 'getting rich' is culture dependent in a society where
incentives are biased in favor of individual
joanna bujes wrote:
At 02:53 PM 04/02/2003 -0800, you wrote:
There is a minor branch of economic (twig?) that studies the determinants
of happiness. Happiness does not seem to increase once a society reaches
about $15,000 a year. Happiness instead is determined by relative status.
Having nothing to back this up other than observation, I think happiness is much more related to community than it is to wealth. Unfortunately, the wealthiest countries seem to lack or even have destroyed community. By community I am meaning that you know and have an investment in your neighbours
troy cochrane wrote:
Having nothing to back this up other than observation, I think happiness
is much more related to community than it is to wealth. Unfortunately,
the wealthiest countries seem to lack or even have destroyed community.
By community I am meaning that you know and have an
14 matches
Mail list logo
