My rich friend has a solid philosophy in life.Our…

Show me the muny

About this Entry
Posted by: chanctw Original: 12/9/2006 4:36 AM Views: 2 Comments: 4 eProps: 4 Read Comments Post a Comment Back to Your Xanga Site

Who gave the eProps?
2 eProps from: glai82 johnlai2004

Read or Post Comments

Saturday, December 09, 2006

My rich friend has a solid philosophy in life.

Our conversation led me to think about the way I purchase airline tickets when travelling. I have always thought of price being measured by money. But when I really think about it, I realize that price is not measured in money; it is really measured in time. And of the assets of time and money, time is really the more precious asset.

If I want to go to Vancouver from Toronto, I can go by air or by ground. It'd probably cost $100 to go to Vancouver by train; $500 by plane. Why would you pay so much more for a ticket on a plane? I'd probably pay $100 for the train because it's so much cheaper.

One would pay more for the jet ticket because he is saving time. Actually, one pays more to buy time. A lot of people use the words "save" or "saving" a lot, and they think that how much they have in savings is important. They may work hard at trying to save but they waste a lot of time. I've seen shoppers in grocery stores spend hours trying to save a few dollars.

One can achieve financial independence by saving and being cheap, but it takes a heck of a long time, just as you can go from Toronto to Vancouver by train so you can save money. However, your real price will be measured in time. In other words, it takes 5 hours by plane for $500 or it can take up to five days by train for $100.

The average measure in money and the wealthy measure in time. That's why I'd pick the train, while my rich friend would take the jet.

This leads back to the concept introduced in the previous post about mastery of a skill. Price is actually measured in time. Many people want to get rich, or invest in the investments the rich invest in, but most are not willing to invest the time to learn. They are in such a hurry to make money, they eventually lose both time and money. They say things like "it takes money to make money" or "I don't have time to learn. I am too busy working and I have bills to pay."

Posted 12/9/2006 4:36 AM - 2 views - 4 comments

recommend
recs0
give stars
votes0
share
email
sent0

Give eProps or Post a Comment

4 Comments

I agree with this too, partially.
I like your rhethoric, but it is sometimes too
simple to make bold statements and bring about a situation
which is concretely "either" "or".

The bane of your argument, like ALL WELL WRITTEN arguments/essays, is
that it attempts to generalize a complex issue. You bring to the table
a dichotomy that is, in reality, neither totally true or false. But OHHHH does it sound
good on paper. And it does.

I think it is inaccurate to say that the average measure in money and the wealthy measure in time.
Human behavior is often unpredictable and irrational. I know of wealthy people who measure in money
when, in my opinion, they should measure more in time.

In reality, what you are talking about isn't as "rational" or binary as you make it out to be.
You are neglecting unquantifiable factors that relate to culture, phenotype and psychological make-up (and
there's great variation in what's considered "normal").

To be more accurate, perhaps it is better to say that the rich have more options and if they choose, they have
the option to measure in time more so than the average. But then again, that would make for a weaker argument eh?
It doesn't flow as well...the rhetoric is gone. Your blog becomes less exciting and less impactful.

Posted 12/9/2006 7:00 AM by glai82 - reply

Continuing on glai82 comment:

Williams has a habit of abstracting and generalizing as many things as possible. He assumes the reader is smart enough to figure out all the exceptions in his arguments. So I've learned not to debate anything with him because he's already 50 steps ahead in rebuttles.

Anyway, my thoughts on this Post:
I keep thinking that anytime you give up 'time' over money, there's probably an opportunity cost. One store sells 10 apples for 2 dollars. The store across the street sells 11 apples for 2 dollars. It takes 5 minutes to walk across the street to the other store just to save a few cents on apples.

So the equation is [Net Value] = [money saved on apples] - [opportunity cost from 5 minute walk]. People always forget the second term of the equation.

The second term on the right is probably better described as a function: opportunityCost(timeToExecuteEvent, unquantifiableFactors, others=null), where 'timeToExecuteEvent' is the time it takes to walk across the street to the apple vendor, 'unquantifiableFactors' is the unquanitfiable factors glai82 mentioned, and 'others' is anything else I've neglected to mention. So depending on these three arguments, the opportunity cost will vary, and thus, heavily influencing the Net Value.

I say do an experiment and put this equation to the test, record the results, and see if it supports or debunks the original hypothesis outlined in this post.

Posted 12/9/2006 7:43 AM by johnlai2004 - reply

What William is proposing is akin to an idealogy.
An idealogy does not account for all the naunces of the world
and is an inaccurate depiction of how the world, or anything, works.
It sounds fucking good, it is very persuasive and 99% of the people
would sink their teeth into it. And therein lies the problem.

Idealogies have been destructive. Using urban planning as an example..
Look at the way cities are planned. Many cities were built
according to a well argued master plan by an individual. Cities like Algiers etc.
It's realization was driven by an architect who could speak well, who can write well and
could argue well. Well, in due time, the generalizations, abstraction and rhetoric that
drove the city to its fruition were inaccurate. The city became derelict and it was used
in a way that was unintended. The master planner was wrong because you can never really
account for the unpredictable, emergent behaviours of humans, human patterns, idiosyncracies etc.
Many other cities conceived by a master planner have been disastrous.

William is talking like a master planner.

Posted 12/9/2006 8:12 AM by glai82 - reply

Idealogies/generalizations/abstractions/etc... are good provided you're willing to acknowledge the exceptions, and deal with them accordingly. If something generally works, then use it, but be mindful of the conditions that make these generalizations irrelevant or inapplicable.

Yes, most people can be pursuaded by rhetorics rather than by arguments supported by empirical results. Why is that? Because the average individual is incapable of, or uninterested in understanding the well thoughtout sophistimicated doo-wackies. So eventually, it boils down to ideologies/generalizations that can be easily preached with rhetorics (you can make catchy slogans out of simple ideas). And why does this work? Because effective speaking can, more often than not, be associated with confidence or assertiveness. So, if I don’t understand what the hell is going on for whatever reason, then I will choose the guy with more bravado to be the alpha. I’d rather have a strong leader than a weak one.

Obviously there’s something wrong with this approach. But there’s also many things right with it as well. Where would humans be without rhetorics and ideologies? Generalizing, like any other tool, is only as good as the person who uses it. Sure it can be destructive when used improperly.

So now a message to williams: “With great power comes great responsibilities.” Use your powers wisely man. Don’t exploit people’s ignorance for your own amusement.

Generalizing, like any other tool, is only as good as the person who uses it.

Posted 12/9/2006 12:12 PM by johnlai2004 - reply

Choose Identity

Xanga Network

Anonymous (Sign up for free!)