Yes, not being able to meet basic needs, like having enough food, clothing, and shelter, threatens the most fundamental human instinct, (eg the survival instinct), but once basic needs are meet, the law of diminishing return sets in.
What I mean by the law of diminishing return is that each additional unit of stuff above and beyond what is needed to meet basic needs, exponentially diminishes in true value to its owner. For example, If I have a large pot of unpeeled, boil shrimp in front of me, and I'm really hungry, the first shrimp I peel and eat has great value to me. As I continue eating shrimp, each additional shrimp has less value to me than the one before. At some point, any additional effort I spend to peel another shrimp is not worth the reward. Stuff including money, which is a claim to stuff, is like that. Eventually a point is reached where an individual has so much there isn't enough time left in his life to get around to it all. It become just more stuff to worry about. The law of diminishing return is what makes a progressive tax system so fair; thus appealing. Most people around the world are content when they reach a point where their basic needs are meet, and who can judge whether a man with much greater wealth is happier. If the man of greater wealth is happier, based on the law of diminishing return, the greater happiness would not be in proportion to the amount of greater wealth. The man with the greater wealth would only be modestly happier that the man content with having his basic needs met, even though the happier man may have tremendously more stuff. Still, real happiness will always come from within. Regards, LelandJ On 11/26/2010 02:31 PM, Nicholas Geti wrote: > There is a point when lacking wealth becomes detrimental to your happiness. > Everyone has to make a decision when that occurs. One has to be able to > cover sickness and health issues without worry about being thrown out on the > street or depend on neighbors to support you. And everyone should have some > kind of hobby that doesn't break the bank (probably something on the order > of 5 or 10% of ones income) just to keep one's interest in something other > than the stress of the day. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Leland Jackson"<[email protected]> > To: "ProFox Email List"<[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, November 26, 2010 11:46 AM > Subject: Re: [OT] Ephemeral wealth > > >> Yes, if you want to build and retain wealth, then you should learn to >> live frugally. Charles Dicken's "Ebenezer Scrooge" in his novel "A >> Christmas Carol" comes to mind, which seems to reinforce the idea that >> affluence is a false measure of happiness, and can even be a source of >> grieve as Nick Martin from your article teaches. Happiness comes from >> within; not from external stuff. >> >> Regards, >> >> LelandJ >> >> >> On 11/26/2010 09:47 AM, Nicholas Geti wrote: >>> Leland, here is another interesting article I got from the NY Times. No >>> point to it just interesting how a person with $14M lost it all and is >>> now destitute. What a shame. I could easily live the rest of my life on >>> half that amount. >>> >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/26/business/26fall.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=a25 >>> >>> >>> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- >>> multipart/alternative >>> text/plain (text body -- kept) >>> text/html >>> --- >>> [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
