The REAL Reason You're Broke

In article > , wrote:

> I wouldn't dispute that point, but it has nothing to do with
> your first claim. Money has got zilch to do with happiness.

My happiness is proportional how much I am left alone and not bothered.
This society has been moving such that only money can buy the ability to
simply be left alone. It shouldn't be that way, but that's the way things
have been moving for a long time.

In article > , wrote:

> Comfort is relative. E.g. rich people, regardless of how much
> they insist otherwise, cannot begin to appreciate a good meal
> as much as a poor person. Nor can they appreciate nice
> housing, decent clothing, transportation etc as much as poor
> people. Simply put, and within practical limits, wealth and
> power are misery, while poverty is happiness.

Poverty means being subject to other people's whims and power games all
the time. It means being weak and a target.

Poverty can be happy if one is a monk living behind walls and never
needing to deal with the outside world while in the pursuit of whatever
intellectual or spirital interests he has. It is not happy if one is doing
back breaking labor 12 hours a day and barely making enough money to
live. It is not happy if one is spending their entire day surving.

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 04:40:51 GMT, > wrote:

>"Matthew T. Russotto" > wrote in message ...
>> In article > ,
>> > wrote:
>> >"Matthew T. Russotto" > wrote in message t...
>> >> In article >,
>> >> Fred G. Mackey > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >My point is that it's a bit more complicated than just starting a
>> >> >business - you have to start a successful business, which is a bit more
>> >> >difficult.
>> >> >
>> >> >As for me, I think there are more important things than wealth. I'd
>> >> >rather be poor and happy than rich and miserable.
>> >>
>> >> It's easier to be rich and happy than poor and happy.
>> >
>> >Like hell it is. Read any biography or autobiography of a
>> >rich person and you'll find the exact same stories of misery,
>> >substance abuse, spousal abuse, self-abuse etc etc.
>> >Absolute hell.
>>
>> Watch any of the courtroom shows in the "Judge Mathis" or "Jerry
>> Springer" vein and you'll find all the same, only with poor people.
>> They just don't write books about it... or no one buys them, anyway.
>
>I wouldn't dispute that point, but it has nothing to do with
>your first claim. Money has got zilch to do with happiness.
>

Oh, yeah? All the happiness in the world can't buy happiness. So
there!

"Brent P" > wrote in message . ..
> In article > , wrote:
>
> > Comfort is relative. E.g. rich people, regardless of how much
> > they insist otherwise, cannot begin to appreciate a good meal
> > as much as a poor person. Nor can they appreciate nice
> > housing, decent clothing, transportation etc as much as poor
> > people. Simply put, and within practical limits, wealth and
> > power are misery, while poverty is happiness.
>
> Poverty means being subject to other people's whims and power games all
> the time. It means being weak and a target.
>
> Poverty can be happy if one is a monk living behind walls and never
> needing to deal with the outside world while in the pursuit of whatever
> intellectual or spirital interests he has. It is not happy if one is doing
> back breaking labor 12 hours a day and barely making enough money to
> live. It is not happy if one is spending their entire day surving.

That's why I included the term "within practical limits". I'm
not claiming happiness is working 12 hours a day. I'm saying
a person can instead choose to work 8 or 9 hours a day, do
without payments for a brand new car, a ****ing cell phone
etc, and he'll wind up a lot happier.

In article > ,
> wrote:
>
>I wouldn't dispute that point, but it has nothing to do with
>your first claim. Money has got zilch to do with happiness.

You only think that because you have sufficient money.

--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article > ,
> wrote:
>
>Comfort is relative. E.g. rich people, regardless of how much
>they insist otherwise, cannot begin to appreciate a good meal
>as much as a poor person.

On the contrary, a rich person will appreciate a good meal more than a
poor person; the poor person is less likely to appreciate the
distinction between an average meal and a good one. And the poor
person is a lot less likely to GET a good meal.

>Nor can they appreciate nice
>housing, decent clothing, transportation etc as much as poor
>people. Simply put, and within practical limits, wealth and
>power are misery, while poverty is happiness.

I take it you're posting from a public library, then?
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

"jdoe" > wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 04:40:51 GMT, > wrote:
> >
> >I wouldn't dispute that point, but it has nothing to do with
> >your first claim. Money has got zilch to do with happiness.
> >
>
> what none of you are grasping is the fact that money is only a tool,
> it can be used to fund happiness or sadness, like any tool it can used
> properly or improperly, it all depends on how and who is using the
> tool.

I used to believe that. But after 45 years of being both very
poor and very rich, and seeing the experiences of others I've
reached the conclusion money makes people miserable of its
own accord. When Jesus said it's easier for a camel to pass
through an eye of a needle, than for a rich person to enter
heaven, do you think he was exaggerating?

To Matthew, "sufficient" (like "comfortable") is also a relative
term. Again, I'm not advocating dire poverty for anyone, only
honest separation between needs and wants.