[histriosum]

Except that money DOES buy time. When I have money, I can convert it to time to do things I enjoy. When I don't have money, I need to spend my time to get money in order to survive. I find the statement that "money can't buy time" something that only a fairly wealthy person would believe, and not at all accurate in practice.

[robertlagrant]

> I find the statement that "money can't buy time" something that only a fairly wealthy person would believe, and not at all accurate in practice.

Most people with money are old, because that's how you get money in general: provide value over a long period of time. But they would probably all trade that money for being 22 again, and having a lifetime ahead.

[histriosum]

I would agree with the statement that money can't buy time that has already passed, because nothing can do that. Money can definitely buy time in the present moment, though.

[prewett]

Someone asked a substitute teacher if she would make that trade, and she said she wouldn’t, not unless she could retain what she knew now. So, buy a renewed youth? Sure. But do 22 again as a 22 year old? Nope. Now that I’m “over the hill”, I see what she meant. Being 44 is similar to the difference between 11 and 22; not as drastic, but the stuff I understand about life I would not even be able to communicate to 22 year old me. Definitely would not want to relive my 20s. “Life starts at 40” is not just cope, there’s some truth in there, too.

[robertlagrant]

Yes, but you're not 70 and wealthy. 44 is still pretty young[0].

[0] this may be cope