Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by agent008t 2590 days ago
You seem confused. It is much, much better for the world if the money is invested than if it is spent on frivolous personal consumption.
1 comments

It doesn't really make much difference.

If you invest it directly you support whatever you invest in. (you might or might not get it back depending on if the investment is successful) The best case you supported a new things that everybody buys, thus creating a company that employees a lot of workers.

If you buy luxury goods you directly support all the employees of the companies that make those goods, keeping them in a job.

Even if the investment choice was a life saving drug, the luxury purchase means those employees have money and they are likely to donate to research of life saving drugs.

Consider what happens to the actual resources in the different cases:

1. You spent the money on consumption. By definition, consumption means that whatever you buy ends up being less valuable after you are done with it (otherwise we would consider it investment - note that unsuccessful investment is also a form of consumption under this definition). Consider an extreme example, where you commission a massive yacht to be built for you, then use the yacht recklessly and sink it. All of the time of many people, all of the materials that went into building it have been wasted. In aggregate, we are all poorer as a result. The fact that the yacht company now has more money just means that they now have a relatively larger claim on a smaller overall economic pie than they did before.

2. You invest. Instead of spending money on yourself, you instead use the resources you have a claim to that the money represents (e.g. the people and the resources that could have resulted in a yacht for yourself) to create real value for others. This makes the overall economic pie larger (and also changes the distribution of claims on this pie that people have).

3. You donate money to other people, burn the money - neither consume nor invest. The overall economic pie is unchanged, but the distribution of claims on this pie by various people has changed.

Of course, there are caveats and nuances, but in general option 2 makes society richer in aggregate, option 1 makes it poorer, and option 3 merely changes who gets to decide what to do with the resources that we have while neither growing nor shrinking this resource base.