On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:11 AM, andie_nachgeborenen < andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Money can't buy everything it's true
> What it can't buy I can't use
> I want money
> That's what I want
>
>
> ► 2:40► 2:40
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpJvrBt_HwQ
> Barrett Strong - Money (That's What I Want).
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On Jan 5, 2014, at 10:29 PM, Eubulides <autoplectic at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Jan 5, 2014, at 7:54 PM, Charles Brown <cb31450 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> This is plagerized from Doug on facebook. He might have to put me on
> moderation.
> >>
> >> Charles
> >>
> >> Thought for the day, from C. Wright Mills' The Power Elite:
> >>
> >> "The idea that the millionaire finds nothing but a sad, empty place at
> >> the top of this society; the idea that the rich do not know what to do
> >> with their money; the idea that the successful become filled up with
> >> futility, and that those born successful are poor and little as well
> >> as rich - the idea, in short, of the disconsolateness of the rich -
> >> is, in the main, merely a way by which those who are not rich
> >> reconcile themselves to the fact. Wealth in America is directly
> >> gratifying and directly leads to many further gratifications. To be
> >> truly rich is to possess the means of realizing in big ways one's
> >> little whims and fantasies and sicknesses…."
> >
> > ==============
> >
> > [Anyone’s guess as to how this applies to Buffett, Gates, Slim etc.]
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/business/you-cant-take-it-with-you-but-you-still-want-more.html
> >
> > January 4, 2014
> > You Can’t Take It With You, but You Still Want More
> > By MATT RICHTEL
> >
> > All work and no play may just be a result of “mindless accumulation.”
> >
> > So say scholars behind research, published in the journal Psychological
> Science in June, that shows a deeply rooted instinct to earn more than can
> possibly be consumed, even when this imbalance makes us unhappy.
> >
> > Given how many people struggle to make ends meet, this may seem a
> frivolous problem. Nonetheless, the researchers note that productivity
> rates have risen, which theoretically lets many people be just as
> comfortable as previous generations while working less. Yet they choose not
> to.
> >
> > To explore the powerful lure of material accumulation, the researchers
> constructed an experiment in two phases. In the first phase, subjects sat
> for five minutes in front of a computer wearing a headset, and had the
> choice of listening to pleasant music or to obnoxious-sounding white noise.
> >
> > They were told they could earn pieces of Dove chocolate when they
> listened to the white noise a certain number of times. Some participants
> had to listen fewer times to get each piece of chocolate, making them “high
> earners”; some had to listen more times, making them “low earners.”
> >
> > All were told that there would be a second phase to the experiment, also
> lasting five minutes, in which they could eat the chocolate they earned.
> But they were told they would forfeit any chocolate they couldn’t consume,
> and they were asked how much they expected to be able to eat.
> >
> > On average, people in the high-earner group predicted that they could
> consume 3.75 chocolates.
> >
> > But when it came time to “earn” chocolates, they accumulated well beyond
> their estimate. On average, they listened to enough white noise to earn
> 10.74 chocolates. Then they actually ate less than half of that amount.
> >
> > In other words, they subjected themselves to harsh noise to earn more
> than they could consume, or predicted they could consume.
> >
> > “We introduce the concept of ‘mindless accumulation,’ ” said one of the
> paper’s authors, Christopher Hsee, a professor of behavioral science and
> marketing at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. “It’s a
> waste of effort,” he added, “But once people are in action, they can’t
> stop.”
> >
> > The impulse seemed less pronounced, even mixed, with the low earners.
> They earned less chocolate than they predicted they could eat. But the high
> earners and the low earners listened to about the same amount of obnoxious
> noise in the five-minute period, which Dr. Hsee said strongly suggested
> that both groups were driven by the same thing: not by how much they need,
> but by how much work they could withstand.
> >
> > How applicable is this to the real world, where people earn money, not
> chocolate, and can’t predict how long life will last, or whether they will
> need resources to prepare for a calamity? Hard to say, but the study does
> show that even when people know clear boundaries — that they absolutely
> can’t take the candy with them when they go — they still earn more than
> they can possibly use.
> >
> > Michael Norton, an associate professor at the Harvard Business School
> who is familiar with the field, said the study’s implications were
> “enormous” in part because they can enlighten people to an unconscious
> motivation that leads to shortsighted, even unhappy choices.
> >
> > Still, he said, choosing happiness or leisure over earning is
> challenging, in part because accumulation of money — or candy — is easier
> to measure than, say, happiness. “You can count Hershey’s Kisses,” Dr.
> Norton said. Being an involved parent or partner is not so quantifiable.
> “Most of the things that truly make us happy in life are harder to count,”
> he said.
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk