Comments on: Which morals are most useful for personal finance?

By: Jacob

Jacob — Sat, 12 Feb 2011 18:02:35 +0000

@Carl – I agree on the rarity numbers, as is, elite athletes measured by rank and the dedication work against the law of diminishing returns are much rarer than average people. What I meant was absolute numbers. An average person can lift 150 pounds, an elite can lift 450, and a unfit person can only move 50 pounds. An elite guy can swim three times faster than an average guy. If we set the average one mile run at 12 minutes instead (I think this is more realistic), that’s three times slower than a 4 minute mile. The slowest people won’t even be able to make a mile, so 36 minutes is a useful number.

Anyway this was just meant as a rough guide line.

By: anne bentham @ mobile condo

anne bentham @ mobile condo — Sat, 12 Feb 2011 17:56:07 +0000

I was going to leave basically the same comment as Matt G. because there is an important difference between morals and ideals, but I do like the connections you’ve made here.

Morally I don’t fall into either category, but financially I can relate to both of them in some ways.

By: krantcents

krantcents — Sat, 12 Feb 2011 17:10:13 +0000

Since I can not change other people’s behavior, moral or values, I am responsible for my own. My moral system includes right and wrong, but I adhere to doing what’s right.

By: Carl

Carl — Sat, 12 Feb 2011 13:01:20 +0000

On a side note, I think you are underestimating the difference in physical ability between humans.

I was a college athlete at a small liberal arts school (NAIA). In high school, I was an elite distance runner (top 30) in my state. In college, I was average in the NAIA.

The difference between me and an average human was vast. An average human can probably run an 8:00 mile. I could run a 4:30 mile. An average human probably can’t run three miles at once. I could run 5k in 15:38. The average human absolutely cannot run a mini-marathon. I ran a 72:00 mini (you do the math).

Now, that’s all fine and dandy. However, the difference between an elite athlete and me is ten times the difference between me and an average person. The difference between a 4:30 mile and a 4:00 miles is far, far greater than the difference between an 8:00 mile and a 4:30 mile. The difference between a 72:00 mini and a 65:00 mini is far greater than the difference between barely being able to walk a mini and running a 72:00.

In other words, truly elite athletes are probably 1,000x better than average people.

By: jc

jc — Sat, 12 Feb 2011 01:21:57 +0000

“if you reach for a star you might not get one, but you won’t come up with a handful of mud either.”

Leo Burnett

By: Moneymonk

Moneymonk — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:44:43 +0000

” I don’t want to work 80 hour weeks or take business risks just to be rich”

love it

I think once a person reach contentment, they can relax

The problem is that no one ever have “enough”

By: Chad @ Sentient Money

Chad @ Sentient Money — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:32:39 +0000

Morally, I fall into the postmodenistic, as I can’t stand hypocrites.

Financially, I would have to define myself as Victorian. As, I like big goals for this aspect.

By: Philip Brewer

Philip Brewer — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:43:00 +0000

It seems pretty context dependent to me.

For example, it’s one thing for you to set a high goal for yourself, accepting that you might fall short.

For someone else to do so is another thing all together. For example, I’m sure you’d be very annoyed if you hired a contractor to build you a little 2-bedroom bungalow, only to have the contractor decide to “strive” to build you a cathedral–and fall short, leaving you with a great foundation and some very expensive copper roofing over a rickety shack on top, because (no matter how he strove) there wasn’t enough money.

By: matt g

matt g — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:41:20 +0000

I don’t really think morals apply to personal finance goals the way you set it up. Morals might be viewed as providing a structure to limit hedonism (i.e. it’s not viewed as bing okay to kill someone to take his/her goods, etc). Morals seem to me to be much less about achieving goals than imposing some limits and order on otherwise selfish actors. As far as setting goals, different techniques work better for different people, but I’m actually in the same camp as you. I don’t see how it translates to morals, however. You said yourself that your view applies “where success can be quantified,” and that’s precisely where the disagreement lies between the two moral systems you outlined.

Not that the conclusions in the piece weren’t interesting, but I hate to see specialized language used in ways it wasn’t intended.