The need for money: by Dietrich J Cheung 7/2/2008
Basically Peter asked me a hypothetical question in a tute a few weeks back (several class cancellations due to holidays), the question went a little bit like “What would you do with $2m AUD? and the follow-up ‘would you be happy?‘.
After a short objection on whether the likely-hood of suddenly receiving that amount of cash was feasible, Peter again defied logic with his answer: “this is philosophy”.
So granted I was to log into NetBank this week to find the total sum of $2,000,000.00, what would I do?
Who would I be? Where would I go? Who would I be with?
Money, the medium of modern life. Most people want a lot of it- and (as usual) a lot is relative to each individual. $2m is excess to me, but It may not be for the current owners of Facebook ($1.5bn+). Although the quantity is relative, there are principles that can be applied to both. If money is a means to purchase needs such as: a warm house to live in, physiological needs: food, health care, water etc, transport. It can be used as a tool to sustain relationships: gifts, education, entertainment. This is money as a neccessity, as a means for survival. This is no doubtedly a contributing factor to the wide-spread popularity of money, however this does not explain the overwhelming love of money, excess of money to be specific. So when Peter asked this question it sort of threw me in a deep ponder- one I’ve been wrestling with for a certain period of time. Of course, I had been used to handling money for the majority of my life- but i wasn’t used to excessive amounts.
When someone comes to me telling me they want to become wealthy and I ask why, there are often a handful of reasons that keep resurfacing. The main ones include: ‘freedom’ ‘helping others’ ‘family’ ‘consumption’ and ofcourse there are endless reasons. However these reasons seem to be most popular.
So yes, the most likely thing I’d do with $2m would be to go with the flow and use it for those reasons. Go out to nice dinners with my family, purchase modern and stylish furniture, spend recklessly on motorsport, take care of the girl I like etc etc. These are the first things that come into my mind. It sounds very enticing to me, indulgence. Swimming in cash does also bring freedom- no longer would I have to wait 40minutes per say to transmute from home to the city. Live on a Spencer street penthouse more like it.
Isn’t that what most people would do though? Consumption, indulgence, freedom . . . for the self. Perhaps giving some to family, perhaps some to charity. But no matter what we do with the money, be it buy a fresh looking car or build a ‘charity’ under your name, I don’t think its the money itself we are attracted to.
We are allured to the feeling of importance that money can bring. Tell me if I’m wrong but would wearing Louis Vutton as opposed to Target matter if you were in the middle of a jungle? Consumption feeds off people’s perceptions of importance- thus rapidly increasing the range of ‘faster’ ‘bigger’ ‘more expensive’ goods and services. Isn’t media king of this? On the flipside, there is nothing morally wrong with driving a $60,000 car at all. I know many people who are extremely passionate about their motorsport. It’s just all about affordability and practicalities. In my mind, even giving to ‘charities’ may not have a good moral angle if what you are actually desiring is a measure of importance. I guess what I’m getting at is that people in first world countries people are confusing what one can do with money and having lots of money itself. The consumption cylce continues: things will always get nicer – but the principle is still the same: we want these nicer things to make valid our importance as humans.
So yes, I will splurge I’ll be honest about that. But as in the article sent out by Peter ‘Affluenza’ I am skeptical of the lasting fufillment materialistic goods can bring. Up to a point I will think. “am I only important because I have x or y?” “do people enjoy my company for me as a person?”. This interesting double-edged sword presents itself, on one hand I present myself to others with surpreme importance, on the other I am heavily skeptical of the source of this importance.
I was honest with my list. These actions of how I would potentially spend $2m expose my values- things that may verify my importance. I did not list many, and the ones I did list were things I would do anyway whether I had excessive money or not. One might say to me: “Dietrich, why not give some away to charity?” I didn’t say I wouldn’t, it just didn’t come up in my mind as the first things I would do, honestly. Why? Because money is a means , it surely helps that institutions such as Oxfam, World Vision, Unicef have financing to support their operations. If the ends is helping people, why not give them your time? Your sacrificing of time is much harder is it not? Why give them the means when you can help them more by teaching them, educating them to help themselves?
My final proposal is this. If money is only a means (the quantity being relative), to get these wonderful emotions we feel… do we really need excessive amounts? Are we all so un-creative in that we can generate these deep feelings of importance without the particular amount? A medium that will confuse you into thinking that it alone will bring you all the happiness in the world? Peter your question really hit home. I still want to make in excess of $2m in my life, greater still I want to be valued so significantly with what I do with it. It is a challenge worth acomplishing, yet also need to keep reminding myself that the money is not the be all and the end all.
As I pursue my career in business, this post will remain a testimony of my once upon a time philosophical view on money, I may well change. Maybe in 10 years time (Peter you still will be just as good looking 
You can refer a bitter, money enslaved me back to this post.
Thanks again.
Kudos, (more…)
