That’s a good article, but it assumes one fallacy at the very start: a family with median income buys a median house. Which is patently untrue since, if it were true, home ownership would be evenly spread throughout income levels (e.g. the very poor would be equally likely to own a mortgage as the upper middle class… in reality, the very poor almost always rent because it’s cheaper in the short term).

Think of a mortgage, or any other loan, as a 50 pound bag of dirt. Now you can carry that bag of dirt for several feet, yards, or even a couple city blocks. But when you try and carry that bag of dirt say 5 miles, it gets really really heavy. So then as well goes the mortgage. Usually when you get one (mortgage, car loan, other) your rather chipper in your youth or finances. As time drags by, you –lose your job, incur health problems, get sued, or something along those lines. This is when the bag of dirt gets too heavy to carry. People just simply won’t live within, or better, below their means. There is no risk management considered on the mortgage. No “What if I–what if this happens or that happens–how am I protected and covered so I can continue to service my obligation”? For most people to even “get it” with what Jacob is teaching us, they have to get out of these spend till you drop mindsets.
That’s all I am saying.

That’s a good article, but it assumes one fallacy at the very start: a family with median income buys a median house. Which is patently untrue since, if it were true, home ownership would be evenly spread throughout income levels (e.g. the very poor would be equally likely to own a mortgage as the upper middle class… in reality, the very poor almost always rent because it’s cheaper in the short term).

The above article appeared today and is well worth reading. This illustrates what I posted some much about in this particular topic.

I would add that money is a “variable” resource.
A stack of dollar bills could equal the purchase value of either one loaf of bread, or several. The variable depends on the money supply in effect at the time of it’s valuation. The price of the loaf of bread depends on supply and demand, cost to produce, and transportation. There is also a factor of what the public will bear on the price of the loaf. Bread of course is considered a necessity by those who cannot or will not bake their own, which is the majority of people, so it is a demand item, mass produced at the lowest ratio of cost to profit, and sold at that price. Money must then be variable in value to make the bread and purchase the bread.
Money, the resource or tool, must equal the ability to purchase the bread. When we settle into a “fixed” income, our money resource is somewhat threatened by the rising costs of “the bread” or whatever you wish to portray as the need.
If bread is one dollar a loaf, and we have one dollar, then we are balanced. If bread goes to two dollars and we cannot support the rise in price, our resource has failed us.

http://www.becomingcapitalist.com/2010/02/what-is-money.html

http://www.becomingcapitalist.com/2010/02/really-what-is-money.html

However, my basic synopsis dictates that:

$ = ?t

Money is a derivative of time and defined as such, money then is simply a resource.

Why? Here’s my humble opinion:

1. Because being different from everyone else is uncomfortable.

2. Because of the importance that we as a society put on social class. I can reason my way around social class logically, but on a habitual irrational level, I’m still kind of taken aback to learn, for example, that I’m not a member of the middle class based on common definitions. By default, I find myself a member of the lower class based on society’s definition–I can make up my own definitions, and argue that class distinctions are silly and arbitrary social constructs (which they are!) but I’m alone in arguing that.

I’m fascinated by psychology and have often read that the way people around you see things can influence the way you see them yourself–including your ability to judge something right before your very eyes. So I guess it is human–although it’s kind of annoying.

I’m leaning towards pretty much everything being discovered rather than invented.

You may still have come up with it on your own, too – or the Aborigine you were in a previous lifetime thought it through you…

Interesting to hear you say that you still measure yourself up to the Joneses once in a while – I guess that’s just human, but you probably have more freedom than they do, and that’s probably more important (they only have the possibility for freedom).

For the record, I’m female. And technically, I guess I’m commenting on this post. So that means that at least one female has now commented.

But actually I’m not commenting on the post itself. I’m just commenting on those making comments.

(Not to be politically incorrect, but guys seem to really like numbers.)