The argument was being phrased, above, by parties other than yourself, as if the two were equivalent.
My opinion -- and it's only an opinion -- is that the needs come first, and then we deal with the wants.
People who say that they need something because they want it give me a headache. I don't care how much they make. The distinction is clear enough: If you will die without it, it's a need. If you will be crippled without it, it's a need. If you will be bummed out or annoyed without it, it's a want. If you will have less fun without it, it's a want. This goes for your lady with the Corvette. It also goes for the kid yesterday who "couldn't afford" $0.30 in printer fees for his homework, but had a dollar for the soda machine in the basement when there was water for free out of the fountain next to the rest rooms. (I was "mean", pointed this out, and held his homework hostage for the $0.30. One more blow for fiscal education. ;) )
I would like to see all the needs taken care of first. Then those with leftovers can get as many wants as they can afford. Grownups can have toys. I resent paying for them in higher interest rates to cover credit card defaults just as much as others resent paying for medical coverage for the poor. They say the government holds a gun to their heads; I say consumerism without responsibility picks my pocket. They say they can go to jail if they don't comply, and they can, but so can I. When will I hear equal outrage over the erosion of the buying power of people who try to define the difference between what they must have and what they would like to have by those who consume indiscriminantly?
I don't know how to get people to understand the difference, and to speak as if it mattered. I do know, from bitter experience, that those with little or no margin suffer inordinately greater penalties because of their ignorance.
What I'm after here is a little more clarity in our thinking about things. We can't act responsibly if we think of everything as a need or a right.
Regards--
Mary Anne
Flame » in reply to re: No toys for adults
The difference between a need and a want
The whole thread (56 posts)
- FLAME ON!
- Conspicuous Consumption
- Here, this proves my point "Fuel consumption wasn't a consideration" (SUV owner)
- Oil will be worth more than diamonds
- re: FLAME ON!
- Interesting.
- I feel like I'm arguing with Ed Begley Jr. and the hardcore leftist brigades.
- Are you freekin serious?
- I'm happy to know you know so much about living with, and transporting, children.
- re: Interesting.
- I feel like I'm arguing with Ed Begley Jr. and the hardcore leftist brigades.
