Hey Jacob and ERE community,
Rob here. Found my way through Ran Prieur's link a couple days ago. Really digging the scene. I've been living a largely ERE-inspired lifestyle for a few years, though I've not been making much money generally, so my savings are fairly low. But I've no debt, and keep my expenses pretty low (probably around $9k this year).
I'm looking to relocate soon after finishing up seasonal work as an innkeeper, and will continue to try to keep expenses low, while perhaps building some savings if I can find a job that allows me to save that suggested $1500-2000/month.
I think what most draws me to this approach is the emphasis on quality possessions that really contribute to quality of life, and a ruthless excising of everything that doesn't. Ridding myself of the mental clutter that results from physical clutter is a draw. A few years ago I gave away much of my stuff (and left more of it with family) and departed with just a big camping back on my shoulders. Even that was a bit heavy and cumbersome to carry along, but the sense of exhilaration of having everything I need right at hand, ready to be packed up in a few minutes, was great.
I'm wondering if folks who come from a permaculture/energy descent/anti-fractional reserve banking background have grappled with the ethics of having money invested and bearing interest. I'm not opposed exactly, but do feel strange about it. If returns on investment have come mainly due to energy supply increases channeled through the economy, and those are declining, does it make sense to invest? Is it ethical to feed a system that wants 'Earth, plus 5%'?
Charles Eisenstein says that increases in money (from increased goods and services) can be understood as simply turning more of the living world into dead commodities (goods) and monetizing functions (education, child care, health, etc.) that previously were done through relationships (services). A part of me doesn't want to live in a world that sees that continue and thus can't bring myself to feed it with my surplus money. If I advocate and believe in negative interest, to discourage hoarding and combat the leveraging of power/wealth into more power/wealth, how can I reconcile that with a 3 or 4% return on investment each year?
I could be wrong- maybe there are other ways to look at this. Maybe it's worth it because it's in the service of living a life with a small footprint and lots of free time to learn how I can uniquely contribute.
Any ideas, y'all?
Semi-nomadic 27 year old, just found ERE
-
George the original one
- Posts: 5406
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:28 am
- Location: Wettest corner of Orygun
If you settled onto some land and farmed it in accordance with your principles, would that not meet your ethical qualms? You could sell the excess product to meet property taxes, but mostly plan on feeding yourself.
The first step would be to accumulate enough cash to purchase the land unless you've got someone who will give it to you.
The first step would be to accumulate enough cash to purchase the land unless you've got someone who will give it to you.
Hey George,
I've thought about that and have spent time doing some farming/gardening. The short and probably most honest answer as to why that doesn't work for me is, I'm not much of a farmer and don't care to be.
And I want to be clear: I'm not trying to attack you or anyone here about the decision to invest money. In fact, I want to be be given a good reason to do it. It makes sense; the logic behind it is clear to me. What I'm asking for is feedback from anyone else who may have grappled with the same questions I'm grappling with, and why they chose to invest (or not). I've no intention of presuming moral superiority to anyone here because I don't (currently) invest money and earn dividends.
I've thought about that and have spent time doing some farming/gardening. The short and probably most honest answer as to why that doesn't work for me is, I'm not much of a farmer and don't care to be.
And I want to be clear: I'm not trying to attack you or anyone here about the decision to invest money. In fact, I want to be be given a good reason to do it. It makes sense; the logic behind it is clear to me. What I'm asking for is feedback from anyone else who may have grappled with the same questions I'm grappling with, and why they chose to invest (or not). I've no intention of presuming moral superiority to anyone here because I don't (currently) invest money and earn dividends.
-
George the original one
- Posts: 5406
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:28 am
- Location: Wettest corner of Orygun
> I'm not much of a farmer and don't care to be.
Perfectly valid answer!
I'm more vested in the world of profit, so can't provide much guidance on the ethical considerations other than my obvious suggestion. I do feel that trade and commerce are important to the well-being of society, but wish that less crap were produced.
Perfectly valid answer!
I'm more vested in the world of profit, so can't provide much guidance on the ethical considerations other than my obvious suggestion. I do feel that trade and commerce are important to the well-being of society, but wish that less crap were produced.
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17131
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
There are some things I won't invest in (like certain mining companies that are known for actively supporting human rights violations). However, I don't see anything inherently wrong with investing. The problem is that currently, most of the stockmarket investments have to be in companies whose mission I don't support. However, I'm not more committed to those companies, that is to say, my investment is just a legal contract that gives me money.
It is my hope that once more people adopt this lifestyle and decrease demand for junk while increasing demand for quality, the companies that one can invest in will be replaced with better companies.
As it is, I think it's more important to focus on personal change and and that local change, because trying to influence an entire company by not investing $5000 in is, from their perspective, practically irrelevant. It simply raises the price of equity financing for them to a point where the money becomes better than the morals. For example, tobacco stocks would be more expensive if people have no issues investing in them. However, they're not significantly cheaper than similar companies.
If the stock market is unsavory, there's also landlording. You could completely bypass WallStreet. You could invest in timberland. Farmland. You could, if you're connected,enter private equity---someone needs money to start a business, you have it. Of all those Wall Street is the most convenient... it is also the lowest ROI of all of them.
I still think the most important aspect of ERE is the ability to live well on little. If you don't want to take advantage of/help people who need money now (two sides to that story), ERE can be financed by a part time minimum wage job ... and obviously if wages are higher than minimum, even less.
ERE doesn't go "all the way" ... mostly because I haven't figured it out yet. But the homesteading approach is one way to bring the budget down even further. We're currently have a middle class standard of living at 25% of the cost. Homesteading might bring this down to 10% ... aiming for 0% would likely be too much effort due to the law of diminishing returns.
It is my hope that once more people adopt this lifestyle and decrease demand for junk while increasing demand for quality, the companies that one can invest in will be replaced with better companies.
As it is, I think it's more important to focus on personal change and and that local change, because trying to influence an entire company by not investing $5000 in is, from their perspective, practically irrelevant. It simply raises the price of equity financing for them to a point where the money becomes better than the morals. For example, tobacco stocks would be more expensive if people have no issues investing in them. However, they're not significantly cheaper than similar companies.
If the stock market is unsavory, there's also landlording. You could completely bypass WallStreet. You could invest in timberland. Farmland. You could, if you're connected,enter private equity---someone needs money to start a business, you have it. Of all those Wall Street is the most convenient... it is also the lowest ROI of all of them.
I still think the most important aspect of ERE is the ability to live well on little. If you don't want to take advantage of/help people who need money now (two sides to that story), ERE can be financed by a part time minimum wage job ... and obviously if wages are higher than minimum, even less.
ERE doesn't go "all the way" ... mostly because I haven't figured it out yet. But the homesteading approach is one way to bring the budget down even further. We're currently have a middle class standard of living at 25% of the cost. Homesteading might bring this down to 10% ... aiming for 0% would likely be too much effort due to the law of diminishing returns.
@George- haha, thanks. I don't think I'm opposed to commerce, but as Jacob mentions, so much that's produced and traded is wasteful and irresponsible. I'm all about supporting folks financially doing good work.
@Jacob- Good points. Thanks especially for other ideas of ways to invest. I can liken investing to doing other things I don't altogether like ethically (like having a car or flying on planes)- my tiny bit of abstinence is not likely to make a difference. The key, maybe, is the attitude going into it- having some flexibility and willingness to adapt, and not feeling so invested in an unsustainable system that I lose that adaptability. Agreed also that the key of ERE is the living well on little, and it can be supported with part time work, even if I don't make money with my money.
Also, as someone who has done a (tiny) bit of homesteading, I definitely agree that the diminishing marginal returns issue is real. Over the long haul, it may work out well, and I love that folks are experimenting and trying to drive the costs down with maintaining a high standard of living. But it gets very hard very fast when working with raw land and trying to keep spending low and comfort high. One adage I came across: 'When it comes to building, you can have it good, fast and cheap, but only two at a time.'
@Jacob- Good points. Thanks especially for other ideas of ways to invest. I can liken investing to doing other things I don't altogether like ethically (like having a car or flying on planes)- my tiny bit of abstinence is not likely to make a difference. The key, maybe, is the attitude going into it- having some flexibility and willingness to adapt, and not feeling so invested in an unsustainable system that I lose that adaptability. Agreed also that the key of ERE is the living well on little, and it can be supported with part time work, even if I don't make money with my money.
Also, as someone who has done a (tiny) bit of homesteading, I definitely agree that the diminishing marginal returns issue is real. Over the long haul, it may work out well, and I love that folks are experimenting and trying to drive the costs down with maintaining a high standard of living. But it gets very hard very fast when working with raw land and trying to keep spending low and comfort high. One adage I came across: 'When it comes to building, you can have it good, fast and cheap, but only two at a time.'
I've been thinking about this recently, too. You might say that those able to accrue money/power are the most able to wield it in powerful ways with big ideas. Obviously, those ways may be bad, but The Giving Pledge and the Gates Foundation are some counter-examples to that.
I know that there are plenty of people that have an insatiable appetite for consuming/controlling, but surely there is a point where they realize those things do not truly bring happiness. And surely our society/government will progress to diminish these activities.
Anyway, I do think this discussion would make for an outstanding blog post!
I know that there are plenty of people that have an insatiable appetite for consuming/controlling, but surely there is a point where they realize those things do not truly bring happiness. And surely our society/government will progress to diminish these activities.
Anyway, I do think this discussion would make for an outstanding blog post!