I respect money, but I don't worship it. I have no problem with people who want to buy a nice home (and perhaps even a second home,) a nice car, exotic vacations, etc. But it seems to me that at a certain point, money becomes problematic. If you own an enormous yacht, you have to pay big bucks to maintain and staff it. If you own a great estate on the order of the manor used in Downton Abbey, then you have a ton of headaches in repairing it and keeping it going.

When is enough, enough? When do you have enough money to not only support yourself and your living descendants in style, but also your descendants far into the foreseeable future? At what point does the money that you own become an obscene amount?

This week, a banana duck taped to a wall sold as a work of art for $120,000. A second "edition" of the same also sold for $120,000. A third "edition" is on offer for $150,000.

https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/art-basel-miami-maurizio-cattelan-banana-scli-intl

Now perhaps the people who paid this ridiculous amount of money for a banana duck taped to a wall were simply trying to support a known artist. Perhaps they paid that amount as a joke. Who knows? But I find the news of these sales revolting. This is money that could feed a starving child. This is money that could pay for a deserving student's college education. This is money that could pay for vaccines or clean drinking water. This is money that could make someone, somewhere, feel loved and cared for, someone who desperately *needs* to feel loved and cared for.

This is money that appears to have been thrown away, instead.

I will relate this to the Mormon church, with its relentless demands for tithing -- tithing that often breaks and impoverishes families. This is the season when tithing demands are made. This is the season when Mormon families put heavy loads on their credit cards or take out loans that they call ill afford in order "to be right with the lord."

I read once that the average church donation per family in the U.S. is 2.6% of income per family. This is for churches that generally pay their local staff (which takes up about half of their incomes.) With a volunteer local clergy, the Mormon church would likely only need 1-2%. Not ten percent. Not even close.

And President Nelson has the audacity to ask for 10% from church members who live in third world countries. He has the audacity to ask for 10% from struggling families in first world countries. He has no shame whatsoever. Evidently the god he worships has no shame, either.

The Mormon church has extensive investment holdings. It has an extensive real estate investment portfolio. It owns dozens of businesses. And yet the leaders ask for more.

At what point would the leaders feel ashamed for asking? At what point would the yawning needs of humanity speak to the truly impoverished souls of Nelson and his brethren?

When is enough wealth, enough?

From what I can tell, the people who DO worship money never have enough. If they got enough money to buy the world twice, they would still want more.

And the Morg is just barely a step away from "sacrificing virgins to the spirit of Adam Smith" level of money worship.

My TBM dad once told me a story about meeting with a big wig of a company that made a big salary. This would have been in the 50's or 60's. He said the guy told him no matter how much money he makes, he could always use another 50 bucks at the end of the month.

So yeah, for some people, no matter how much they have, it isn't enough, and some ultimately end up with nothing.

I've heard a number of stories illustrating how poor some rich people are!

And how rich some poor people are.

How about how some poorly rich people are and other richly poor people are?

Everything in the world is bullshit and fake. Money is a big part of it. The materialism of capitalism has invaded our lives the lives of children etc. Back in the day you would hear phrases like: money isn't everything and money can't buy happiness. You rarely hear that anymore it is not a good thing for the capitalist bullshit.

I hate the world we live in. It is all, and I mean all - fake bulshit. Especially CMAS - bahhumbug

I love the world we live in. It’s all one big miracle. I don’t have to die to live with God. I already live with the God with 7 billion faces. I and everyone else could have been anywhere in an endless multiverse, but here and now we are. This place is that special.

Is there a Jesus? I dunno, maybe he is fake news. But the idea of Jesus, that’s real because love is real. Goodness is real. Miracles are real.

As for the social ills of money, that’s been studied. Income inequality is the main problem. Income inequality in the US is the highest it’s ever been.

If the rich spend money on stupid stuff, it goes into the economy. That’s better than money that sits in an account doing nothing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/05/2019 10:37PM by babyloncansuckit.

As a nerd, a few comments.

1) I like your idea that "the idea of Jesus" is real. If the name or the image stands for the principles in, for example, the sermon on the mount, it is valuable whatever the factual basis.

2) I'm not sure income inequality in the US is the worst it's ever been. I'd personally focus more on wealth inequality, since that is the sum of income inequality and the basis for a sustained class structure.

3) Wealth inequality may or may not be worse than ever before; the late 19th century was terrible in that regard too. But the situation in the United States today is close to as bad as ever, and that is unwelcome news for democracy since that form of government depends largely on the size and resilience of the middle class.

4) Rich people don't spend much. As a proportion of their income, they are very conservative. The vast majority of their earnings go right into the bank or the financial markets. If you want to increase consumption, spending on actual things, you want the money in the hands of the poor.

That is what was so bad in the Fed's reaction to the Great Recession. They lowered interest rates and expanded quantitative easing in a way that funneled money to the rich and ignored the poor. That's why demand in the economy is still so weak and inflation too low; it's also why the distribution of income and wealth have worsened so dramatically.

babyloncansuckit -

"Is there a Jesus? I dunno, maybe he is fake news. But the idea of Jesus, that’s real because love is real. Goodness is real. Miracles are real."

This is why I argue with Benson about Santa :P.

I think in some ways the amount of money is a way certain competitive types keep score.

I saw the banana and duct tape story too. I've always been puzzled at how things in the art world get valued. A picture of a stripe that my kid could have drawn might go for millions. For me it's hard to distinguish skill or genius in the art world. It seems to be a lot about cult of personality, shock nonsense and pretentiousness. When it comes to art, I just defer to how it makes people feel and move along.

Money can represent security. It's nice to not be frightened you might starve or be on the street. When it comes to billions, there seems to be a whole different level of entitlement.

Religion should not be about investments. If they are, they should be taxed because their priority is not charity, IMO. Their priority is self-perpetuation and self-preservation.

> I saw the banana and duct tape
> story, too. I've always been
> puzzled at how things in the
> art world get valued.


A puzzlement that I shared. Remember the flawless painting of a soup can by Warhol, and the crucifix in urine by Serrano?

I recently read "Before the Fall" by Noah Hawley. Besides being a totally wonderful read, a plausible answer was offered: It's all the doing of a very narrow range of art lovers, or probably better stated, artist lovers.

I think most of you would enjoy the book.

Thanks. That sounds like a good read. Adding it to my list.

Perhaps if you have billions of dollars, then $110.7 million for a Monet or $81.3 million for a Van Gogh (both sale prices are within the past two years) is just pocket change.

I love both artists, but I think paying that much money for a painting is absurd. It seems to reek of artist worship.

The only reason my fellow Spanish-major roommate and I found ourselves in a Modern Art Appreciation class was that during our senior year, they slapped another "arts" course in with our required classes for graduation. The one about Modern Art was the only one that we could fit into our schedules.

It turned me into a modern art lover for life. If I visit a major city, I try to see any museums there. When I got to see the Louvre, I wish I could have spent a week there. It felt like I had died and gone to Heaven. So many of the art works I had studied about, right there in front of me!

You can't put a price tag on that kind of enjoyment.

+1

Money is for the world what language is for the mind. It communicates explicit distinct values/information where words do the same in the mind.

We aren't built to function explicitly only so therefore words fail and money is the root of all evaluations.

AS for bananas, they are great pieces to study and draw upon for inspiration, in comprehending how shadow hits curves. Some of my best work in Junior high art class were of drawing bananas. I try to eat one everyday as well for protein or potassium (one or the other, Cant remember) What this world needs more of is bananas!

But as for money the amazing thing is that through our competitive system of putting people to work, creating new ideas, inventing, experimenting with capitalism, our wealth increases, more people have been lifted out of poverty and created wealth through our own ingenious industry, than any other system has been able to accomplish.

Can everyone be rich with lots of money and spending power?
Yes!

There is lot's of money outhere, and poverty is not on a bellcurve, it's lazy thinking and waiting for progressives to deliver on promises, that keeps people in poverty (Latin America comes to mind).

I'll put myself out there as an example. I entered an entry level no skills job 7 years ago after a failed career, a retarded waste of time spent at school, where learning useful stuff is really tough, I stuck with my boring no brain job, and looked for ways to advance, and found one. Now after investing at just the right times in my spare time and getting lucky, and understanding the market better than most, I've probably got about a 1/2 million now. If I can do it, a rough, backwards, climate change denier can do it, anyone can! There's vast mountains of money and business to be made everywhere in this world.

But yes I agree mormondom did me no favors, and only helps a few connected families up on the bench.

> it's lazy thinking and waiting
> for progressives to deliver on promises, that
> keeps people in poverty

If that is true, then there would be no poverty in conservative countries. Can you name one conservative country that has no poverty? If not, your argument is false.

What do you do when your theories and facts prove incompatible?

He doesn't use math.

Nor logic.

The beauty of illogic lies in the implication that you can stick with your prejudices no matter what. Your beliefs are true regardless of any facts that may get in the way. You should try it, EB: life is easier when you are always, imperviously, ineluctably right.

But don't confuse that system of thought with religion. That would be offensive.

Money aside, the banana selling at those prices is not the scary part. The fact that it echos where we are as a society is the scary part--bananas.

In the art world the objective is not to be brilliant or even good. The object is to be collectable. A gimmick will inspire a demand for your work much faster than having beautiful pieces. The Richard Prince joke Nurse paintings are now up to 3 or 4 million. Still there is something about them . . .

Once something is deemed collectable the prices can skyrocket. A painting or even a banana that sells for one million one year will be worth ten million in another few years. Beats what the bank will give you in interest or investing in a Broadway show.

But what is enough wealth? As Horace Van der Gelder explained, "Money is like manure. It is no good unless you spread it around."

> In the art world the objective is not to be
> brilliant or even good. The object is to be
> collectable.

Preferably while you are still alive.

Bonus points if you can get a building named after you before you die.

But what if the building named after you is an outhouse?*


*Asking for a friend.

"For $2,000, a Dixie State College of Utah donor could have been the namesake of a porcelain castle complete with a locking door, a generous supply of off-brand toilet paper and an occasional copy of yesterday’s sports section."

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/02/06/colleges-sell-naming-rights-bathrooms

Jeremiah Latrine, who died at the age of 104 in 1984, was not at all impressed by that feat.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jeremiah Latrine, who died at the age of 104 in
> 1984, was not at all impressed by that feat.


I knew Jerimiah, he was considered a god in his lifetime.

Very impressive.

When I read Summer's post about Downton Abbey it occurred to me that they provided employment for a lot of people and provided for a dandy TV series. Our money system is not a zero sum game.

Is our standard of living better than 70 years ago?

Capitalism has many evils. But it is still the only system in the world capable of creating true prosperity for average people and of generating real wealth for whole societies. So we support the system that works best for us. When we try to change the system to equalize things financially for everyone, prosperity disappears. So to limit how much money others may earn or have is immoral because those same actions would harm everyone.

Money is never problematic. If others work for you, they are earning a living and spending money that goes to yet others who have kids to feed. When money sits in an account unused, it still gives its owner the potential means of exerting their will and when they exert their will, others will get some of that money. That is something of value. When they do spend it, that money transfers to yet others who benefit from it. The appearance of waste only occurs when we try to decide for others, what should be important to them based on our own priorities. Although human life is sacred, we share a few things with all other life. If you supply an unlimited amount of food to farrel cats, you very soon end up with a much higher number of farrel cats to feed. The idea isn't about how to come up with an exponentially increasing amount of food to meet the unlimited demand. The idea certainly should not be to intentionally actually create an unlimited demand either. This sounds cruel and it is. But then again, not many of us would want the government to place a limit on how many kids a couple can have either. So the growth of the society is regulated by throttling the wealth of the average family to a level that is sustainable for the overall society to support without damaging productivity too much. Every time the federal reserve changes the interest rates, that is what is happening. They don't want us to starve. They don't want to quit working either. They can't let too many of us escape the requirement to work at once if the society is going to continue thriving. Most of us don't go hungry and a majority of us enjoy some luxuries. Some societies have a much higher birth rate and a corresponding much lower survival rate. Most of those societies have to deal with starvation and lawlessness. At least in a free capitalist society, everyone has an opportunity to improve their situation and we have an effective system of laws to protect us.

If everyone who wanted to fly and the number of airplanes is limited, could we solve the problem by simply printing more boarding passes so that more people would posess more boarding passes, without adding more airplanes? If everyone wanted to fly and the executives of the airline could enable all of their own families to fly, while other families could not get tickets for even one family member, should we prevent all air travel, just to achieve fairness? These metaphoric airline tickets are like the money in our society.

So the only fair and prosperous answer is to only reward people who contribute to the best of their ability to society, and for their own selfish reasons as a motive. The most successful at providing value to the society can break free of these limitations. If you take away their money to feed your children, you steal their modivation to even earn that money in the first place, which means that they quit providing value. To accommodate illness, infirmity, and abject poverty, we support charity to a degree that is limited and prevents abuse and gives everyone some incentive to try to improve their position. The best way to improve your position is to provide something of real value to society, not to legislate the wealth of others away from them. The result is that people do contribute, a lot towards the overall wealth of the society. If your job is to build yachts or to work on a yacht, you probably don't see yachts as a waste of money that could have been spent on better things. Why not sell that second house that you don't mind people having, to feed more children since you don't have a problem with it? To those who might have more children, the added wealth of your second house might give them the courage they need to have one or two more children who of course, need to also be fed.

When it comes to the Mormon church, it's a bad product at an outrageous price. It's a rich person's church and has been ever since the Mormon church became a business with people who are naive enough to give it money and to work for it for free even after it has far surpassed them in wealth. People should quit paying tithing and give nothing at all to the mormon church, until after the brethren start apologizing for their mistakes, abuses, and false docterines. If they refuse to capitulate, they should be quickly forced out of business like any other fraud would be.

“The most successful at providing value to the society can break free of these limitations. If you take away their money to feed your children, you steal their modivation to even earn that money in the first place, which means that they quit providing value.”

The most successful don’t work for money. In countries where the highest earners are taxed at a sufficient rate and haven’t been been brainwashed to see government as a necessary evil, they still produce and the children are fed and have healthcare.

The elephant in the room is the US health care system. It’s a great illustration of how our political system works. Why is it so bad? Because we don’t live in a democratic republic. It’s a corporatocracy. The exorbitant cost of healthcare funnels money into the pockets of people rich enough to influence the political process to protect their monetary vacuum cleaner. Its inefficiency makes it a vast “busy work” program that’s a kind of privately run socialism funded by a regressive tax.

I teach Sunday School, so I know about these things.

>If you own an enormous yacht, you have to pay big bucks to maintain and staff it. If you own a great estate on the order of the manor used in Downton Abbey, then you have a ton of headaches in repairing it and keeping it going.


You clearly have no idea what it means to actually be rich. All of these "headaches" you mention are easily taken care of by all your other money.

I heard one public speaker once say "money isn't everything.... but once you solve that money problem, you can work out all of your other problems in style".

Good title

Good OP

Good thread

Thank you

”When is enough wealth, enough?“

I guess when you can get up in the morning and do what you want. That was my goal. Ten years ago, nearing the end of a two week vacation, I asked that question - why was I going back to work - when is enough enough?

So I stayed on the island for six months, wrapped up some loose ends and sold my businesses. It helps my tastes are simple. I have no drive to keep score and make more. But, I never would have considered working that hard, taking the risks and putting so much of my time on the line without the potential reward. I was hell-bent on escaping young.

Yes, I worked for money. Not banana on a wall money. Just enjoy the day money.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/08/2019 04:26PM by jay.

There is no morality of money itself. There is morality of how money is acquired and spent.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2019/12/08/rogue-artist-ate-duct-taped-banana-art-basel-its-performance-he-said/

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

Performance art he said. Pulled the banana off the wall and ate it right then and there in the art gallery.

He called his eating of the banana "Hungry Artist." I would have gone with "Starving Artist," because who eats an overripe banana?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/08/2019 12:50PM by Beth.

Someone ATE the banana! Then the gallery people duct taped a fresh one in its place.

I'm the only one who gives a fig about the banana? Say it isn't so!

For $150,000, the artist needs to visit the buyer's place to replace the banana every week.

Time Flies Like An Arrow
Fruit Flies Like A Banana
_Grouchy Marx ? Said

The Mormon church is (like) a beggar.
Always asking for more. Never enough.

Rich men don't beg for more.
Poor men do. Mormon poor men.

It's evil doing. Not feeding the poor.
Asking the poor to feed it. Lame.

Your comparisons aren't accurate.

MONEY isn't evil.
Mormonism is.

I like how fungible money is; don't let it get too damp or fungibility will completely overtake it!!

If you have enough fungible money, you can mold your asset-holding structure. I know a lot of fun guys who sporadically offer mold-enhanced fungible money management services.

It's about diminishing marginal returns.

If you earn $30,000 per year, and double your earnings to $60,000 in the next year--your standard of living is likely to be substantially improved.

If you earn $10,000,000 per year, an extra $30,000 is barely noticeable.

If you earn $10,000,000 per year, and double to $20,000,000 in the next year--you might not notice much difference in your quality life either. What you do notice is probably not much related to money.

So if you are a church and you receive $10,000,000 per year and you donate to charity $30,000 is that barely noticeable?

Cops asking $200,000 for a donut.

https://www.breitbart.com/local/2019/12/10/florida-police-department-asks-200k-donut-taped-wall/

Incidentally, cops by-and-large don't eat donuts. Bagels, sure, and coffee by the litre, but not donuts.

Those who have billions and trillions are usually trapped in a vanity-fueled game of keeping score. They usually have lost the ability to enjoy simple pleasures and peace of mind (if they ever had that ability to begin with). They're so entrenched in the game that all they care about literally is who can outboast whom in any of their hideous social gatherings. Who do the most sycophants flock to? Who can buy whom? They're stuck in a sick game and they can't get out because it's all they know.

My father blessed himself with money. He was moral, and therefore had the biggest pile. It was something he had to prove.

You can buy anything in this world with money, or so I heard somewhere.

"Money can't buy happiness." But it helps alleviate misery.

I read a quote by some (Hollywood?) celebrity, can't remember "Lots of money doesn't make you any happier, but it lets you be miserable in a very nice part of town."