Rather than sounding like “a liberal preaching to me about how to live my life…” the summary sounds like conservative evangelical preachers who try to convince us that Jesus was a businessman.

Does anyone seriously expect the working poor to believe scarcity is a great lie?

I’m not at peace with that, but I’m still putting money into that fund for now :\.

Because if it’s the former, then it sounds like a book that might be worth making myself read, adjunct to YMOYL et al–I was, after all, brought up in the religious left and now belong to the agnostic left (the religious part totally didn’t take, but the Methodist social gospel and the Mennonite pacifism kinda did). But if it’s the latter, well, I don’t like being preached to from the left much more than I like being preached to from the right. (8

YOU decide “what is enough.” You have apparently decided that your house is reasonable for you. And you think it will continue to be so. Great. Hold onto that thought. And when the guy who works next to you gets a fancier house and brags about it, don’t be swayed into thinking you should upgrade into a house that will be more impressive to others. That’s the philosophy at work here: Finding your own comfort point, not pointing fingers at someone else’s greed.

Decide what is excessive for you, and I’m happy to leave you alone. However, if you can’t figure out what you want in life other than “things” and “more stuff” and find yourself unhappy in spite of your stuff, then track down this book and the others that Trent has recommended.

Trent, keep pointing your finger towards the path you are finding for yourself, because people are clearly happy to follow you.

An example of the difficulty of determining “What is enough?” would be my own housing. Some people think I could live in a 2 or 3 bedroom house while I think our current 4/5 bedroom is quite reasonable, even later on. Who is “right”?

I do agree with the idea that much more is available than people want to acknowledge. Crying out against “greedy” people makes for great politics, but it is ultimately harmful to a society.

Brad

I was wondering when someone was going to comment on Trent’s gift. I haven’t read Dawkin’s book. But if the “it” in the comment is atheism, the atheists I know have strong bases for morality based on, variously, responsibility to other people, responsibility to society as a whole, and responsibility to the Earth. Anyone can see that society and humanity can only function if its members, in general, behave in a ethical and respectful way. And, there you go, no God involved.

Anyway, Dawkins himself doesn’t seem to live in a “feel good in the moment” way.

As for the book reviewed here, the emphasis clearly seems to be on non-materialist values. If someone wants to read in justification for their own materialist values, nothing is going to stop them. You could probably give them Gandhi’s writings, and they would still find justification for their own values. A book, especially a book like this, is only useful if you are willing to read it in the spirit in which it was written.

“there is abundant resources for all ”

Then chapter 4

“Most people strive for abundance, but the truth is that abundance means that you always have more than you actually need, and acting on this basis means that in fact you are denying things to others in order to create an overflow for yourself.”

The phrase “you are denying things to others” really implies that there IS scarcity doesn’t it? If life is a zero-sum game then there isn’t an abundance-meaning there is more than people need in life. If life isn’t a zero-sum game then there IS emore than enough for everyone and it’s OK to have an abundance because my gain isn’t someone else’s loss.

Does the author take a position or is it all huggy-feely-do-good-so-you-feel-good-and-impress-others?

Trent, while I suspect we are politically worlds apart, I appreciate that you try to place your concern for personal finance in the larger context of your values. Sometimes reading around the PF blogs frightens me: the authors can give the appearance (usually unintentionally, as a result of the subject matter) of caring for little besides their net worth. But money is a tool, not a goal, and I don’t think you can make your financial choices wisely without carefully considering your values.

How much is “enough”? Does that change? Is it forever constant?

The main problem seems to be with the Dawkins’ book Trent gave as a gift last month – it has no real basis for morality, ultimately basing things on what “feels good” for the moment. Not a good way to either build an ultimately fulfilling like or even to be very frugal. Such unattached moorings float like untied boats in a harbor – nothing is ultimately stable and satisfying.

Brad