That pretty much outweighs anything positive about the guy. It's hard to understand other people sometimes, but that is unacceptable.Originally Posted by freshstart
That pretty much outweighs anything positive about the guy. It's hard to understand other people sometimes, but that is unacceptable.
Yes. The irony that his "15 things" lifestyle can only be possible because he knows people who actually own things, like houses he can shelter in, and couches that he can sleep on, and kitchens in which food can be prepared.
I'm not saying his ideas are all bad. But to promote a lifestyle that relies so heavily on other people doing what you say you are against--that's just weird.
Or if he knows people who share things.
He certainly does not ascribe to the Kantian categorical imperative, does he?
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."
I could re-read things, but it's not to say that he didn't repay his friends in some way. I have stayed with friends for a time. If it were for an extended period it was some offer of rent money, but more often it was some sort of manual labor.
He could even be paying them with all the two dollar bills he is carrying around with him. I'm not saying that the friends don't get anything out of the deal.
Still doesn't change the fact that someone has to own/rent the roof he is sleeping under, the couch/bed he is sleeping on, the kitchen where his food is prepared. That *someone* could be a friend, or the owner of a hotel.
If all his friends opted for his lifestyle and gave away everything, where would they all sleep? Sure, he apparently has the money to rent a hotel room, but his entire system is based on the fact that other people own things and are willing to share them. And that could be a friend with a sofa to sleep on, or a hotel with a room to rent. So while his system might work for him as an individual, on a larger scale, it would seem to fall apart.
I think it might be a smaller detail, but don't most people sleep in a place that is owned by someone else, whether it's the bank that holds a home mortgage or the landlord renting out a place. I don't think the masses or even a large few are going to adopt his lifestyle, so there will never be a larger scale. From my viewpoint, the guy might be a crock pot with a horrid attitude about parenting, but is putting for an example of frugal living. By getting into the media, maybe it gets people to just think about getting by on far less than they do.
I guess I don't see him as an example of frugal living at all. He does not own enough to live on his own. He must take advantage of those who have spent their money on the things he needs, but is unwilling to spend money on. I just can't see that as frugal.
Staying at AirBnB? Might be frugal. But could everyone do this? People with kids? People who need a permanent address for any reason?
My point is that the lifestyle he is promoting is unsustainable for more than a few, because it relies on most people not following it, so that they can provide what he needs.
To me, it's like the folks who live in 75 square feet, but have a storage unit they visit frequently. Or live in a teeny, tiny apartment in the city, but have a home in the country where they spend weekends. Yes, they live in a small space, but that's not their only space. Yes, James Altucher does not have many possessions (apparently not even underwear), but he still needs to use those things he got rid of, on a daily basis. So he's not owning them, he's renting them, or borrowing them, or mooching them.
Sounds like that's your final answer. About the only other thing I might mention is that I think there is a difference between frugal living and simple living.
yea but what is wrong with that, unless he is insufferable and preaching at everyone (which he might well be :)). So he chooses one side on the self-reliance, community-reliance continuum. Since it's a continuum there are many different choices. Extreme self-reliance would not combine any finances even when married (it would be all pre-nups, and separate checking accounts, and splitting the bills, all the way down). This guy chooses another side, to get by with a little help from his friends. So what? His friends may not mind (actually if they are communitarians (aka hippies) they really might not, because they don't subscribe to such a hard-core individualists view of the world - remember the western world is aberration in many ways).I guess I don't see him as an example of frugal living at all. He does not own enough to live on his own. He must take advantage of those who have spent their money on the things he needs, but is unwilling to spend money on. I just can't see that as frugal.
Of course maybe they do mind and don't speak up, but that's kind of their fault for being pushovers unable to say "no". And if he goes to their house and lectures them on their number of forks he's just a jerk ok. The community reliance viewpoint is far more psychologically beneficial I suspect than the extreme self-reliance viewpoint. It's less focus on accumulation, owning etc..
I notice how little he has to prepare and eat food as making healthy food is very important to me. But a lot of people eat out all the time (not ideal from a health standpoint but very common). And if he's staying in AirBnB's they usually have everything you need to cook. The lack of even a bandaid could be problematic.
There's a lot of things not everyone can do. You could tell people to invest in a Vanguard IRA, but can a person earning minimum wage and supporting 5 kids do that? Almost certainly not. So probably vastly less people can be this guy than can throw some money in a IRA. Ok, but not everyone can get rich, but that doesn't stop people from writing "get rich" books. Not everyone will start a successful business but that doesn't stop people writing books about that. Not everyone can even pass college classes but that doesn't stop society saying "get a degree".Staying at AirBnB? Might be frugal. But could everyone do this? People with kids? People who need a permanent address for any reason?
well it still might use less resources than if he too bought into everyone else's lifestyle. It's probably like a claim about dumpster diving food, that it is only made possible by a wasteful society that throws away food. Definitely, but the dumpster divers just make something useful out of it.My point is that the lifestyle he is promoting is unsustainable for more than a few, because it relies on most people not following it, so that they can provide what he needs.
Trees don't grow on money
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote