Showing posts with label money. Show all posts
Showing posts with label money. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
The Value Of Money
Many, typically those of limited means, self-righteously claim that “money isn't everything”. And this certainly is true. But conversely, “money isn't nothing” either. What does this suggest? That “money is something”. To what degree of something(ness) money is is purely subjective. It is more or less something to some than others.
Monday, August 31, 2009
A Verdict On The Issue Of Health Care
How could something like the health and well-being of our citizens be relegated to the arbitrary whims of bureaucracies? On the other hand, to view health care from the perspective of each human being's every specific need and desire, how are we to expect this kind of personal care to be at all affordable?
It is essentially a debate about treating health care in a utilitarian versus an emotional manner. This is difficult because though the well-being of human beings is perhaps the most sacred of life's issues, it, like any other difficult issue, has severe restrictions placed upon it because we live in a finite world. If only it was infinite!
Unfortunately, there is neither enough money, nor doctors, nor organs to be transplanted, etc. to meet every personal need and desire of every citizen such that we are all treated with the utmost care.
It may be difficult to stomach for many of you but the world does not revolve around you, your parents, your children or Grandma Gertrude. It might be true to say that your world revolves around them. The problem with this is that obviously we all have our own ideas as to whom and what the world revolves around, many of which are in opposition to one another as they are vying for the same limited resources.
Alas, the “World's World” revolves around a collective One, many people and issues of which you could not care less about because they are not part of your world! But the problem with trying to approach health care in a utilitarian manner is that it will by its very nature foment accusations of being cruel and callous simply because this is perhaps the most emotional and fragile issue known to man. How dare we dehumanize our fellow brethren like this!
But to approach it in a purely emotional manner seems to necessitate astronomical expenditures of which nobody seems willing to take responsibility. How do we address this utilitarian/emotional dichotomy? Any response to this that places the answer “somewhere in the middle” simply obfuscates the problem all over again. The middle means a thousand things to a thousand people!
My opinion on this, depressing as it may be for many, leans more toward the “coldness” of utilitarianism. Of course this view will likely incite feelings of dehumanization, but I see this trend taking shape quite nicely in many of our other affairs, so perhaps this is our inescapable destiny?
It is essentially a debate about treating health care in a utilitarian versus an emotional manner. This is difficult because though the well-being of human beings is perhaps the most sacred of life's issues, it, like any other difficult issue, has severe restrictions placed upon it because we live in a finite world. If only it was infinite!
Unfortunately, there is neither enough money, nor doctors, nor organs to be transplanted, etc. to meet every personal need and desire of every citizen such that we are all treated with the utmost care.
It may be difficult to stomach for many of you but the world does not revolve around you, your parents, your children or Grandma Gertrude. It might be true to say that your world revolves around them. The problem with this is that obviously we all have our own ideas as to whom and what the world revolves around, many of which are in opposition to one another as they are vying for the same limited resources.
Alas, the “World's World” revolves around a collective One, many people and issues of which you could not care less about because they are not part of your world! But the problem with trying to approach health care in a utilitarian manner is that it will by its very nature foment accusations of being cruel and callous simply because this is perhaps the most emotional and fragile issue known to man. How dare we dehumanize our fellow brethren like this!
But to approach it in a purely emotional manner seems to necessitate astronomical expenditures of which nobody seems willing to take responsibility. How do we address this utilitarian/emotional dichotomy? Any response to this that places the answer “somewhere in the middle” simply obfuscates the problem all over again. The middle means a thousand things to a thousand people!
My opinion on this, depressing as it may be for many, leans more toward the “coldness” of utilitarianism. Of course this view will likely incite feelings of dehumanization, but I see this trend taking shape quite nicely in many of our other affairs, so perhaps this is our inescapable destiny?
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
The Machine That Is Greed
Concerning the recent financial meltdown, who are we to blame? Of course we must blame somebody or at least something. And how could we not? Isn't this one of humanity's most cherished and, dare I say, obligatory pastimes?
How about blaming “greedy” executives? O.K. Now we seem to be getting somewhere. But deep down I can't help but think much of their greed is motivated and fed by a collective greed which includes, I am afraid, all of us.
What presumably would be the primary motivation for these upper echelons we so readily pin the blame on to engage in “greedy” practices? To maintain their jobs. And what would be the most fundamental criteria by which to “grade”, say, a money manager? His or her character? Integrity? Attractiveness? Alma Mater? Intelligence? Political philosophy? Sense of humor? Favorite professional football team? Religion? Sex? Sexual orientation? Not likely!
The only thing the majority of us gives a damn about in this case is his or her ability to produce return on our investment. Why? Because we like money! And why would we not? Money is good! It is the love of it that is a sin, supposedly. But where does this “love of money” begin? It is just like “greed”. It brooks no discrete, definable answer! Needless to say, if not for “fat” returns, we would all too happily withdraw our money and put it in the hands of somebody more capable, or should I say “greedy”.
Before one blames “greedy” executives for the ills of the economy, I feel compelled to ask this: would you willingly accept an 8% return on investment if you could easily obtain a 10% return on investment given the same (purported) level of risk? If you say yes, you are either in the minority or a pathetic liar.
So the fact that the typical person would promptly take his money elsewhere will likely encourage money managers, greedy or not, to “push the envelope” so as to increase returns to the max and make their customers happy. I say greedy or not because, obviously, for the sake of remaining competitive, would not a money manager be almost obligated to play by similar standards lest he be run out of business?
And so ensues an “arms race”, in turn seducing money managers to take ever riskier chances to compete with “the guy next door”. Then, KABOOM! An explosion of biblical proportions splatters, ahem, shrapnel of the stinkiest kind all over everybody! The proverbial shit hits the fan!
Who will we blame? Whoever is caught with their pants down.
With this in mind, I often wonder how many of us might be at least as “greedy” as the ones caught naked? Perhaps the shit has not hit our fan just yet.
Who among us might be at least as greedy? How are we to know? Therefore, do not judge lest ye be judged!
How about blaming “greedy” executives? O.K. Now we seem to be getting somewhere. But deep down I can't help but think much of their greed is motivated and fed by a collective greed which includes, I am afraid, all of us.
What presumably would be the primary motivation for these upper echelons we so readily pin the blame on to engage in “greedy” practices? To maintain their jobs. And what would be the most fundamental criteria by which to “grade”, say, a money manager? His or her character? Integrity? Attractiveness? Alma Mater? Intelligence? Political philosophy? Sense of humor? Favorite professional football team? Religion? Sex? Sexual orientation? Not likely!
The only thing the majority of us gives a damn about in this case is his or her ability to produce return on our investment. Why? Because we like money! And why would we not? Money is good! It is the love of it that is a sin, supposedly. But where does this “love of money” begin? It is just like “greed”. It brooks no discrete, definable answer! Needless to say, if not for “fat” returns, we would all too happily withdraw our money and put it in the hands of somebody more capable, or should I say “greedy”.
Before one blames “greedy” executives for the ills of the economy, I feel compelled to ask this: would you willingly accept an 8% return on investment if you could easily obtain a 10% return on investment given the same (purported) level of risk? If you say yes, you are either in the minority or a pathetic liar.
So the fact that the typical person would promptly take his money elsewhere will likely encourage money managers, greedy or not, to “push the envelope” so as to increase returns to the max and make their customers happy. I say greedy or not because, obviously, for the sake of remaining competitive, would not a money manager be almost obligated to play by similar standards lest he be run out of business?
And so ensues an “arms race”, in turn seducing money managers to take ever riskier chances to compete with “the guy next door”. Then, KABOOM! An explosion of biblical proportions splatters, ahem, shrapnel of the stinkiest kind all over everybody! The proverbial shit hits the fan!
Who will we blame? Whoever is caught with their pants down.
With this in mind, I often wonder how many of us might be at least as “greedy” as the ones caught naked? Perhaps the shit has not hit our fan just yet.
Who among us might be at least as greedy? How are we to know? Therefore, do not judge lest ye be judged!
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Mirror Mirror On The Wall, Who Is The Densest Of Us All?
Most tend to look at a dog chasing his tail as being particularly dense. One might suggest the dog lacks adequate intelligence to realize he will never catch it which probably explains his "dogged" pursuit of it. However, this seems to be predicated on the notion that he necessarily intends on catching it. Might his ultimate goal just be chasing it as opposed to actually catching it? As such, might the dog actually be aware that he will never catch it yet continue the pursuit regardless?
Similarly, might a dog view us as being dense just the same what with our penchant for running on treadmills? Other metaphors to a treadmill could implicate all of us, I'm afraid. What is the point of trying to make more money to sustain a higher life style when in all likelihood this will only necessitate making even more money to support an even higher lifestyle ad infinitum? I can say this self-righteously because I am not motivated by money.
On the other hand, my desire revolves around an insatiable appetite for wisdom. But this is just like money to me. They are essentially the same. Both revolve around wanting to want. Is this not like chasing our tails? Or perhaps like trying to touch a mirage when we know it to be but an illusion? Or being motivated only to win when losing is at some point inevitable? This is akin to chasing a rainbow.
Maybe we are all dense?
Similarly, might a dog view us as being dense just the same what with our penchant for running on treadmills? Other metaphors to a treadmill could implicate all of us, I'm afraid. What is the point of trying to make more money to sustain a higher life style when in all likelihood this will only necessitate making even more money to support an even higher lifestyle ad infinitum? I can say this self-righteously because I am not motivated by money.
On the other hand, my desire revolves around an insatiable appetite for wisdom. But this is just like money to me. They are essentially the same. Both revolve around wanting to want. Is this not like chasing our tails? Or perhaps like trying to touch a mirage when we know it to be but an illusion? Or being motivated only to win when losing is at some point inevitable? This is akin to chasing a rainbow.
Maybe we are all dense?
Monday, July 13, 2009
Incessant Wanting
I always want more wisdom! This is the same as always wanting more money! Except that it entails wisdom, not money! It seems we always want more of something. Be it fame, sex, money, influence, godliness, righteousness, wisdom.....it's all the same. Wanting to want! The fundamental insanity of the ego!
I readily admit that as much wisdom as I already possess, I will never be rid of my want for more! How is this any different from wanting more fame or sex or money or influence or power or even godliness and righteousness? Seemingly not much! Certainly these pursuits produce a wide range of effects on society, from terrible to wonderful, but they are all ostensibly based on wanting to want more than wanting to have!
What could be insane about wanting to want any of these? There is no finality! In other words, it never comes to fruition. It is like tomorrow. It never is! In my opinion, this is the principle reason we always think something should be other than it is! It implies an incessant wanting to want.
Why might this be? Perhaps this keeps us busy? In other words, because we Homo sapiens have “progressed” so much, we have to keep ourselves constantly challenged. And what bigger challenge might there be than wanting to want! It is unquenchable by definition because once you have something you want, you can no longer want it because you have it!
Once again, the fundamental problem with this is that we are never where we want to be. Is this good or bad? It is likely neither good nor bad in itself. It just is. If other less aware animals knew what we human beings obsessed over, might they have pity on us? Why can't you humans ever be completely fulfilled and content exactly where you are?
I readily admit that as much wisdom as I already possess, I will never be rid of my want for more! How is this any different from wanting more fame or sex or money or influence or power or even godliness and righteousness? Seemingly not much! Certainly these pursuits produce a wide range of effects on society, from terrible to wonderful, but they are all ostensibly based on wanting to want more than wanting to have!
What could be insane about wanting to want any of these? There is no finality! In other words, it never comes to fruition. It is like tomorrow. It never is! In my opinion, this is the principle reason we always think something should be other than it is! It implies an incessant wanting to want.
Why might this be? Perhaps this keeps us busy? In other words, because we Homo sapiens have “progressed” so much, we have to keep ourselves constantly challenged. And what bigger challenge might there be than wanting to want! It is unquenchable by definition because once you have something you want, you can no longer want it because you have it!
Once again, the fundamental problem with this is that we are never where we want to be. Is this good or bad? It is likely neither good nor bad in itself. It just is. If other less aware animals knew what we human beings obsessed over, might they have pity on us? Why can't you humans ever be completely fulfilled and content exactly where you are?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
