I have never understood why people think that if someone has something means they don't need more of it.
Because almost everything in life works this way. Once I have a place to live, I don't need to find a second one. Once I've eaten enough food to be full, I don't need to keep eating. Maybe by buying enough clothes you can avoid doing laundry, though…
Because almost everything in life works this way. Once I have a place to live, I don't need to find a second one. Once I've eaten enough food to be full, I don't need to keep eating.
Except that's not how it works, at all.
Overweight people are overweight because they eat when they don't need to.
People with money pursue ever greater amounts of it.
I think the causality you were trying to invoke goes "If you eat more than you need, you could become overweight." As such, it describes ways people can become overweight, not the cause for obesity or food cravings.
People are overweight for reasons other than "eating too much," just as drug addicts relapse for reasons other than "trying meth once." I'm actually comfortable thinking about greed as a symptom of a disconnected world view as well. Just one that none of the afflicted are inclined to treat.
Sure, I'm not parent but still agree. You are right with your analysis but parent is right as well. There are a lot of overweight people. Have a house? Everyone wants a nicer one. Ca
> Overweight people are overweight because they eat when they don't need to
That's a massive over-simplification, but by the same token, okay? We've now established that over-accumulation of wealth is comparable to an eating / mental disorder? Has anyone looked into treating this disorder?
Buying clothes to protect you from the elements, are you? Many people buy them for entirely different reasons, like signaling social status and other things. Even if you do this very conservatively, you need to keep up because fashions change and what your dress signaled last year is not what it signals this. Sheesh.
What I meant is money is one commodity where even the super rich wants more, not less. Just because they have a lot of money doesn't mean they stop caring about it.
Because the percentage increase is likely to be so small as to be unnoticeable. That's why most economic utility models are logarithmic. If Luck already has $1B then making another few $M is unlikely to make any difference other than for social affirmation reasons.
If you think that Lidar technology for border security can only be used at national boundaries, I have a bridge in NY to sell you.
This. I have never understood why people think that if someone has something means they don't need more of it.
Though I can't speak for Palmer Luckey's intention behind doing this.