Hacker News Reader

Comment by ooz | Hacker News Reader

I'm certainly allowed an opinion and yes I will quite happily judge the validity of those things. Why shouldn't I?

The item has no inherent value to anyone other than the status of aquiring it.

This is a fine example of why the majority of people live in poverty, nothing more.

As I said elsewhere in the replies, if someone spent $900k on crack and whores, I'm sure you'd be right up there judging the purchaser and drawing arbitrary comparisons againt "you could have done X or Y with it" and I bet none of them were "buy an Apple 1 assembly"

View on HN

Everyone who spends money beyond the ascetic-level can be judged by others. Many of us buy new $650 phones every two years, which I'm sure seems incredibly wasteful to people in third-world poverty.

I agree entirely. Perhaps they should be seen as wasteful here and it certainly shouldn't be beyond judgement.

For reference, I do practice such things. My entire computing and mobile outlay has been about $250 in the last 5 years.

For reference only, and I post this purely to illustrate why it's folly to pass judgement on what people and institutions spend their money on, your $250 could have fed the Chadian family of six from the below Time article, for over 200 weeks.

http://time.com/8515/hungry-planet-what-the-world-eats/

My entire computing and mobile outlay has been about $250 in the last 5 years.

That's more than some people make in a year.

So in this one context you can sit on your high horse, how convenient. I'm sure you spend large amounts of money on other frivolous things that others could judge and crucify you for.

Not sure why I'm feeding you but there it is.

And mine has been $89 for the used computer I bought on eBay for my kids two years ago. What's your point? Am I somehow now better than you?

You've made a common mistake in thinking economics is a zero-sum game.

You can't simply transfer money from luxury goods to food and expect money to be 'worth' the same.

I'm not making that comparison. Not sure where you got that from. If you want me to make that comparison:

The net effect of taking that cash out and burning it or spending it on an Apple 1 assembly is the same. It devalued the moment you bought it as you have shrunk the market.

Could have thrown it at a charity.

The net effect of taking that cash out and burning it or spending it on an Apple 1 assembly is the same.

How so? Now, whoever sold the Apple 1 assembly has $900k. What will they do with that money? Presumably not burn it.

Burned cash no longer exists. (Which, by imputation, slightly raises the value of existing cash.)

This Apple 1 continues to exist (as does the money paid for it), and may be sold again - likely for much more than it cost the current owner. It didn't devalue, being a unique historical artifact (ok, 1 of about a dozen functioning Apple 1s), instead it likely increased value precisely because he won't sell until someone is willing to pay more for it - and with the increasing influence of Apple, and increased prices paid for artifacts, there likely will.

Your grasp of basic economics is...fractured.

How is purchasing a good analogous to burning money? How is donating to any charity somehow immediately more appropriate?

I'm not sure anyone knows the absolute correct way to allocate goods, services, and resources. Charities don't always prove beneficial to the cause they are supporting and investors and corporations can do a lot of good.

Who knows where this money will go eventually, but it certainly won't magically burst into flame. Perhaps preserving and apple 1 will provide a huge benefit to society one day?

People thought computing and lasers were pointless endeavors for decades as well.

Crack dealers and whores would not be so judgmental as you and everyone else you presume would be.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com