[arjie]

Fascinating. I was able to escape the suffering by simply not purchasing a top hat. An interesting lesson that the pursuit of conspicuous consumption is the root of one’s own suffering.

A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

[xattt]

Once I realized I couldn’t decline, I left the website and left the top hat on the table.

[ricardobayes]

That's easier to do in a video game, but I guess the real life analogy would be to sell it all and move off-grid to Alaska?

[tjohns]

I'd argue it's not about selling everything. Instead, avoid buying things by default and trying to keep up with the Joneses. You don't need to move to the wilderness, you just need to choose to escape consumerism.

For example:

- Do you really need a new car, when a lightly used one will do just fine and will be more economical?

- Do you really need to upgrade to a new phone every year when your current one is still working fine?

- Do you really need to buy premium clothes from the mall when the ones from Target are much cheaper?

[grahamburger]

Trying to be gentle here but this is pretty out of touch.

- I have bought a new car exactly once in my life, and likely never will again. This is the same as pretty much every other person I know personally. The last vehicle I bought had over 300k miles on it.

- Does anyone buy a new phone every year? I've never met them.

- Do you really need the fancy clothes from Target when the ones from Walmart or Goodwill are much cheaper?

[righthand]

> Does anyone buy a new phone every year? I've never met them.

Look around where your posting and remember that Apple has an upgrade program as well as most US cell carriers that will push you to upgrade your phone. Let a lone the thousands of Apple product release threads where people brag about buying the latest and greatest device.

> Do you really need the fancy clothes from Target when the ones from Walmart or Goodwill are much cheaper?

Now I’m confused, are Target brands considered fancy?

[tjohns]

I just grabbed random things I've seen from behavior in other people. If you don't fall victim to those consumerist traps, then that's legitimately great.

Yes, I absolutely know folks who buy new phones every year, and who lease new cars and upgrade every 3 years. Most of whom really can't really afford to do these things but do it anyway and end up in increasing debt.

And sure, buy clothes from Walmart if you have a Walmart location near you. I just picked the nearest big-box store to me, for some reason Walmart doesn't have much of a presence out where I am.

(The takeaway I got from the game is "don't try to buy the hat, it's a trap". I'm curious what your takeaway was?)

[grahamburger]

I think I just took issue with what seemed like trite advice about what it takes to win at life or whatever. Your other comment on the thread cleared it up well enough:

> I'm absolutely not saying this alone is sufficient - particularly if you're unemployed or your job truly doesn't pay a living wage.

and I agree with that completely. I can definitely get behind not buying the hat (or buying a cheaper hat) but at some point it's not a hat, it's a vehicle that you need to get to work or a home repair or medical bill or something and your options become a) buy the cheap thing (and buy it again in six months when it breaks and is now more expensive) or b) walk away and suffer the consequences. I've done both, and neither really feels like winning.

[nvader]

Let's continue:

- Do you really need to keep your children in school or contribute to their higher education, when you can just let them roam free on the streets or better yet, work down at the factory and earn their keep?

- Do you really need children at all, when an AI digital pet might satisfy that need much more economically?

- Do you really need expensive dental crown implants or dentures, when you can whittle yourself some chompers out of beechwood and call it a shuccshesh?

- Do you really need to own a home in a neighbourhood that is safe and close enough to your place of employment, when you can rent in a rough area of town and spend hours commuting on public transport?

[tjohns]

I don't think any of those fall under the umbrella of consumerism. So no, that's not a continuation of my list at all.

Looking after your health or taking proper care of your kids is really not in the same category as spending less on veblen goods.

(I'm noticing that people are getting very different messages from this game.)

[drivebyhooting]

The items he listed are far more expensive and recurring the car and electronic purchases.

[mossTechnician]

How does that go for Americans who cannot afford to pay for a $400 surprise expense out of pocket?

https://www.federalreserve.gov/consumerscommunities/sheddata...

[ThrowawayR2]

That was debunked as a misleading interpretation, e.g. https://www.jpmorganchase.com/institute/all-topics/financial... . The graph very specifically says "...using cash or its equivalent".

[mossTechnician]

> 77 percent of low-income households can cover an unexpected $400 expense, though many must cover it with disposable income or short-term credit... 43 percent of low-income households unable to weather small expense shocks might be able to pay them with access to additional credit.

I'm not sure if credit is the ideal solution, nor if additional credit would be beneficial.

[californical]

Generally, lots of debt, but they still do it. I know people who go into debt for “fun” purchases, then complain that their credit card bills are so high they can’t afford anything

[jxf]

Let them eat crow.

[tjohns]

I'm absolutely not saying this alone is sufficient - particularly if you're unemployed or your job truly doesn't pay a living wage. There are absolutely people who don't make enough to survive - and that's a bigger problem of course.

[bix6]

Sell what all? Isn’t everything just for rent now?

[the_af]

Your reply reminded me of the free game Oiligarchy by Molleindustria (which made quite a few indie hits in my opinion).

In that game, if you played "well" you ended up destroying the world. The only winning move was, indeed, not to play.

[shaftway]

I think OP is referring to the 80's movie WarGames - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WarGames

At the end a strategic defense computer is asked to play Tic Tac Toe against itself and suddenly "learns" about no-win scenarios. Then it does the same with nuclear launch scenarios, and finds that they're all no-win. It decides that nuclear war "is a strange game", and "the only winning move is not to play".

[the_af]

Thanks, I caught the WarGames reference. Is there anyone not familiar with it? It's one of those pieces of widespread internet lore (though, of course, I actually watched the movie too, back in my youth).

I very intentionally meant that it also applies to Oiligarchy [1], an actual game (not a movie) where the winning move was not to play :)

---

[1] https://www.molleindustria.org/en/oiligarchy/

[kennywinker]

But rent is due

[UncleOxidant]

Fun fact: Crows never pay rent.