[tps5]

Here's Keynes with another perspective:

> When the accumulation of wealth is no longer of high social importance, there will be great changes in the code of morals. We shall be able to rid ourselves of many of the pseudo-moral principles which have hag-ridden us for two hundred years, by which we have exalted some of the most distasteful of human qualities into the position of the highest virtues. We shall be able to afford to dare to assess the money-motive at its true value. The love of money as a possession — as distinguished from the love of money as a means to the enjoyments and realities of life — will be recognised for what it is, a somewhat disgusting morbidity, one of those semi-criminal, semi-pathological propensities which one hands over with a shudder to the specialists in mental disease.

[dsacco]

I like that quote, but I disagree with it. I don't think "love of money as a possession" is a good thing, but I think it's pretty rare compared to the "love of money as a means to the enjoyments and realities of life."

One of the most life-changing experiences I've ever had was swimming in a bioluminescent bay in Puerto Rico. I've never seen so many stars overhead in contrast to absolute darkness (you have to be in remote darkness to enjoy the bioluminescence). The sky was absolutely clear and every sensory detail felt enhanced and euphoric.

That vacation was a relatively expensive week for me. It didn't have to be as expensive as it was, but it couldn't have been significantly cheaper either. With $100M, I could fly down to Puerto Rico and do that every weekend, weather permitting.

But here's the thing - I'm sure that experience can be had (in principle, not exact detail) in every country in the world. With $20,000, you can carefully plan a backpacking trip through Europe. With $100M, you can have virtually any experience in Europe with instant gratification. Have you ever looked at Myspace Tom's Instagram? All the man does is travel around the world to interesting places taking photos. He doesn't necessarily do things people can't do with significantly less wealth, but he 1) doesn't have to choose which things to do and 2) does them casually, because he is virtually immune to financial catastrophe.

Money is freedom, because you can (in limited effect) trade it for time. I think most people love money because they love the time it can buy them, not because it is an end in of itself.

[chx]

But the discussion is about why do you need more than $100M. All you are describing is well within the realm of $100m. Even low ten millions is plenty -- let's say you arrive to 20M when you are 30 years old and expect to live another 60 years. This means that if you set aside 5M for safety etc you still can have a $20k "salary" every month if the money is invested in a way that it keeps up with inflation. That's a $5k plane ticket, 200 USD/night hotel room and 300 USD/day on food and such. Forever. And that's just 20M.

[snitko]

One simple reason why I think it may make sense to want more money is to do interesting important things. If you earn more money, the market obviously thinks you're good at producing things that sell. It's not perfect as sometimes the market (e.g. the people) prefers something rather stupid. However, in general, I think entrepreneurs are the ultimate redistributors of money in the society. I don't believe government is effecient at doing the same job: it doesn't care whether it wastes it, it always knows it will get its share (taxation is not voluntary) and it's filled with people who have no idea how to actually make a useful product. An entrepreneur earned his money by people voluntarily giving it to him for something they want. He knows what a failure is.

So yeah, I think wanting to earn a lot of money is great and no one should feel ashamed of wanting that.

[tps5]

If "love of money as a possession" is so rare, then how come so many people who have huge amounts of money don't spend it?

Anyway, the general point here is that as you acquire more dollars, the relative value (to you) of a dollar diminishes. That's all the parent post was saying.

It does seems somewhat bizarre to see someone so successful still behave so ruthlessly in order to make money. Of course, that's my snap judgement. Levandowski may not be motivated by money at all. Although I doubt he's motivated by weekend trips to Puerto Rico either.

[HillaryBriss]

Love of money as a possession: Warren Buffett was at a party where the wine they were serving to everyone cost about $150 a glass. When they came to him with a bottle, offering him a refill, he said "No thanks. I'd rather have the cash."

He didn't say: "No thanks. I don't like wine. I'd rather have a Cherry Coke." It wasn't an issue of taste preference.

People like Buffett love to play the game of maximizing return on a dollar invested, maximizing the quantity of dollars owned. Dollar accumulation is a game, a fascination, an obsession. For these people, the experience of having more dollars is not only the bioluminescent bay, it's every bioluminescent bay. There's nothing else that feels as great as increasing the dollar horde.

[dsacco]

I take your point, but that story sounds really apocryphal. It's hard to imagine someone refusing wine like that. Why not just say, "No thanks!"?

[infomofo]

Also that party sounds tacky as hell.