The ERE Wheaton Scale

[ertyu]

The trick is to not get stuck inside it, because the table itself becomes a form of external motivation and you're isolated from what you actually desire as your own person.

good insight

[unemployable]

https://www.reddit.com/r/fijerk/comment ... r_wheaton/

Note that is a satire sub

[bostonimproper]

The r/financialindependence subreddit is also going through the ERE 21 day makeover right now, inviting similar commentary. My guess is that’s how some folks are discovering the blog/forum right now.

[PhoneticNachos]

Reminds me of Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions Theory.

[JenniferW]

We are like level 7, leaving out the public authority part..we're modest but we do offer suggestions/advice to relatives and friends.

[black_son_of_gray]

The table is based on more than a decade of observing what could be called the main road from consumerism to post-consumerism in hundreds of journals and interactions. There are other roads, such as growing up like this already, but these are less common. The table is therefore not normative. You don't have to use this road. It is pretty rare to see someone jumping levels though. This is because it's not only about what you do but also how you think about what you're doing and that kind of rewiring can take many years. Whether you do it from age 4-16 or from age 24 to 36 is no matter. None of this is particularly complicated. It is complex though. As such WLs also contains an increasing development of internal complexity---more things to think about and more ways to think about them. What e.g. WL7 understand by using systems-theory is not how WL5 would think of it when hearing the word "system".

Unless it has changed, I'm seeing (ERE Wheaton table v2, 2021 ed.) that Level 10 is described as "embodying philosophy, leading by example, virtuous fulfillment", "infinite games".

I have a few interrelated questions/observations.

• Progressing up the ERE Wheaton Levels may move a person from consumerism to post-consumerism, but it doesn't move a person away from capitalism. At least, not for the vast majority of people here--probably the opposite.
• Is capitalism an infinite game? (I'm not asking about "in theory", I'm asking about how it actually manifests in the world right now. Also, I doubt that companies being "going concerns" qualifies their outlooks/orientations as "infinite", but feel free to argue that point.)
• If ERE Wheaton Level 8 focuses on waste and "closing the loops", why isn't having a gigantic wad of cash/investment considered a flaw of the system? Nature abhors a vacuum. But equally, it also abhors excess. Why isn't having too much money considered waste?
• Is having a gigantic wad of cash/investment benign from an "infinite game", "embodying philosophy, leading by example, virtuous fulfillment" perspective? In particular, I mean to say a giant stack of cash invested* in a corporation engaged in extractive, environmentally degrading, unsustainable, "finite game" behavior? Especially since, by this point in the high ERE Wheaton Levels, money is "irrelevant"?
• In ERE Wheaton Level 10, are the "embodied" philosophy and "virtues" assumed to be of the "infinite game" flavor?
• If it is easily possible to "opt out" of a system that may have or likely does have nasty knock-on effects, why wouldn't someone? Is it "embodying philosophy, leading by example, virtuous fulfillment" if the answer to that question is largely, "because it's convenient" or "because I benefit"?
• Is it more likely for someone at ERE Wheaton Level 10 to have $1MM+ dollars invested in various broad-market funds or for them to be (nearly?) fully divested? If divested, how much cash do they have/keep? *It doesn't even have to be kept in a bank account (a bank could make loans based on that). It could be just be cash in a safe deposit box.
• People more than 2 ERE Wheaton Levels away from 8-9-10 are likely to find people at 8-9-10 to be absolutely nuts.

*Investment in e.g. stocks, after all, can be equated in some sense to partial ownership.

If these kinds of questions have already been thoroughly discussed, could someone kindly link me to those threads?

[jacob]

Unless it has changed, I'm seeing (ERE Wheaton table v2, 2021 ed.) that Level 10 is described as "embodying philosophy, leading by example, virtuous fulfillment", "infinite games".

That's still the most recent version. The stages are described a bit in more detail here: https://wiki.earlyretirementextreme.com ... ton_Levels

• Progressing up the ERE Wheaton Levels may move a person from consumerism to post-consumerism, but it doesn't move a person away from capitalism. At least, not for the vast majority of people here--probably the opposite.

Just like having learned to walk doesn't move people away from using their legs. However, progressing up the WLs, money moves from #1 priority to one of several priorities to just an afterthought.

Basically, there comes a point where money becomes like tap water. Now, it might be that you're the rare bird who likes to measure out their tap water, tell other people about how to get water on tap, and blog about it for years and decades ... but I think the majority just start taking [the tap water money] for granted. It's just there when you need it and there's always enough of it.

• Is capitalism an infinite game? (I'm not asking about "in theory", I'm asking about how it actually manifests in the world right now. Also, I doubt that companies being "going concerns" qualifies their outlooks/orientations as "infinite", but feel free to argue that point.)

At its heart capitalism is just the [interobjective] idea that every individual (or their representatives) can own private property AND that they can profit from using it (personally or via others). This idea is by no means trivial!!

This [capitalism] idea is certainly infinite. If you're interested in finance and business, there are any number---an infinite number---of ways to privately own something and figuring out how to profit from it. Modern capitalism is in that sense one of the deepest reality-based games that humans have ever invented.

Zooming in to the level of the individual business [as a going concern], one could argue that the purpose of a business is to solve a problem and that once this problem is solved, the business should go out of business. This sometimes works. I would say that a particular business is semi-infinite or finite-but-large in that regard.

Zooming in to the level of the individual, capitalism is only useful for achieving financial independence. FI is very much a finite game with a goal and a process. Once the FI is achieved, there's really not much left to do. I think this is also why people who are FI tend to stop talking about money and most lose interest in accumulating more. If they do get wealthier, it's not because they're trying but simply because the market goes up.

• If ERE Wheaton Level 8 focuses on waste and "closing the loops", why isn't having a gigantic wad of cash/investment considered a flaw of the system? Nature abhors a vacuum. But equally, it also abhors excess. Why isn't having too much money considered waste?

Sort of depends on the situation. This reminds me of the argument that "billionaires" should pay for everything "because they have so much money". However, billionaires rarely have all that much money. Instead what they have is control over money (and sometimes they don't even really have that---it's in-name-only). Now, running a portfolio of $1M or $1B is not all that different than running a portfolio of $100k or $10k. As such the effort is the same.

(I see it as a feature rather than a bug that those who are good at controlling equity gets to control more of it. I'm an elitist meritocrat who do believe in capitalism.)

I think the only way that the waste argument could be made is if one was running a real-estate "empire" personally managing 30 houses making $30,000 each month but only needing $500/month to live on. Presuming this takes a lot of effort, all that effort would indeed be a waste if it was done for the purpose of making more tap water. That's basically the "one more year"-syndrome writ-large. That's not a problem of capitalism as it is a problem of more wanting more.

• Is having a gigantic wad of cash/investment benign from an "infinite game", "embodying philosophy, leading by example, virtuous fulfillment" perspective? In particular, I mean to say a giant stack of cash invested* in a corporation engaged in extractive, environmentally degrading, unsustainable, "finite game" behavior? Especially since, by this point in the high ERE Wheaton Levels, money is "irrelevant"?

I would say it's neutral. You can use it for good or evil but you are responsible. (I do wonder if it would be a good idea if shareholders were liable for more than their actual investment. It would certainly change the nature of the game. The fact that shareholders aren't is an arbitrary legal decision.)

• In ERE Wheaton Level 10, are the "embodied" philosophy and "virtues" assumed to be of the "infinite game" flavor?

Never really thought about it. Keep in mind that WL9 and WL10 are only there because "we" realized that there's more to life than reaching WL8. My current perspective is that one's [embodied] philosophy and virtues better make it possible to pursue infinite games.

When I ponder WL9 and WL10 I mainly look outside the forum to see what happened in similar movements. I consider myself a solid 8 by now. I think @AH is closer to 9 than I am. I think Vicki Robin is a 9. As noted in the wiki, 10 is just a place holder "to be figured out".

• If it is easily possible to "opt out" of a system that may have or likely does have nasty knock-on effects, why wouldn't someone? Is it "embodying philosophy, leading by example, virtuous fulfillment" if the answer to that question is largely, "because it's convenient" or "because I benefit"?

In practice it's not that easy. This where the "render unto Caesar's what Caesar is"-argument comes from. The government(s) want their taxes paid in dollars. I don't get to pay taxes in pounds of zucchini, nor will they let me skip payment because "I'm a unique beautiful person" or somesuch. Even "moneyless" people like Mark Boyle only succeeded in pushing out the money problem to those he interacted with.

As far as I can tell, once people cross WL6, their spending goes down and becomes detached from their NW or actual cash flows. (The Tap Water metaphor.)

This is conceivably because I suffer from selection bias and those who decide to go fatFIRE as they get wealthy disappear from the ERE forum. As far as the table is concerned, fatFIRE is stuck somewhere around WL3-5. They don't build bigger WL7 systems... they just buy bigger beach houses and fancier cars.

• Is it more likely for someone at ERE Wheaton Level 10 to have $1MM+ dollars invested in various broad-market funds or for them to be (nearly?) fully divested? If divested, how much cash do they have/keep? *It doesn't even have to be kept in a bank account (a bank could make loans based on that). It could be just be cash in a safe deposit box.

Yeah, so the number of people are WL9 or 10 is very small, so this is all speculation. We're nowhere near having the N(umbers) to talk about likelihoods.

However, I think the main difference between someone at WL9-10 (actually, anyone at WL6+) will be much less focused on $$$ as a framework than someone from WL1-5. After WL6, money is simply one other tool in the toolbox, whereas before it is pretty much the only one. At WL6 is realized that "not everything worth having/doing" can be bought from money. As such, the idea framing the world in terms of what's affordable falls away. It's no longer about how much money you have but how skilled and creative you are. At that point money is only useful to resolve various frictions in the general design [of your own making].

From WL6 onward you also have an abundance of other capitals, like social, technical, ... The focus of WL9 essentially turns to connecting these capitals to other people instead of hoarding them for yourself.

Basically, at WL9 one operates from an extreme level of privilege. One can therefore afford to be magnanimous.

• People more than 2 ERE Wheaton Levels away from 8-9-10 are likely to find people at 8-9-10 to be absolutely nuts.

This [underlying structure] holds at all the levels. It's part of the design.

[black_son_of_gray]

Progressing up the ERE Wheaton Levels may move a person from consumerism to post-consumerism, but it doesn't move a person away from capitalism. At least, not for the vast majority of people here--probably the opposite.

Just like having learned to walk doesn't move people away from using their legs. However, progressing up the WLs, money moves from #1 priority to one of several priorities to just an afterthought.

I was thinking more along the lines of the broader systemic importance of money and its usage system (i.e. capitalism) rather than shifts in someone’s personal perspective (i.e. #1 priority shifting to one of several priorities shifting to afterthought.)

If a philosophical aim of ERE is, as the forum’s subheading proclaims, “resilient post-consumerist praxis”, then I start to wonder about the systemic links between consumerism and capitalism (again, not in theory, but as “consumerism” and “capitalism” actually manifest currently in the real world). Consumerism seems to be anathema to ERE, surely. But modern-day consumerism also seems to be inextricably linked to modern-day expressions of capitalism, which is to say that the vast majority of business ventures (particularly a lot of the largest ones that make up a typical Western economy) are selling products and services that are ultimately unnecessary to a continued, reasonably comfortable life on earth and those companies "do better" the more consumerism there is. Case in point, this is precisely why it is possible to reduce spending some 90%+ from typical levels—most of the spending is consumerism! The raison d’etre underlying most modern capitalism seems to be consumerism.

To accumulate a massive chunk of capital and then use it to bankroll/buy partial ownership in corporate activities that are, ultimately, driving forces in consumerism (and then benefiting financially when said consumerism is successful) feels a little like a half-baked philosophy that makes sense narrowly but not systemically.

How are we to think of a doctor specializing in mesothelioma who takes a sizable chunk of their earnings to invest in an asbestos manufacturer? Certainly they help their patients in the clinic, but are they really working toward a broader solution?

Is capitalism an infinite game?

If I understand your response: At the level of the individual, no. At the group (business level), “semi-infinite or finite-but-large”, which I would classify as “no” (explanation to follow). At the top level, you say “yes”. But I think we are using different definitions of “infinite game”.

I was assuming Carse’s definitions as: “A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing the play.”

To that end, I don’t think blends like “semi-infinite or finite-but-large” actually exist in that framework*, nor does the number of possibilities matter (i.e. one might dream up an infinite number of different sports, but if they are framed as “winning vs. losing”, they are all “finite” games.)

*To the extent that business have a broader outlook, "a going concern", their orientation is, to my thinking, much more concerned with "winning more over time" than "keeping the economic system afloat for everyone's continued benefit". Perhaps I'm a cynic, but I see how the C-suite compensates themselves.

I think your definition of the heart of capitalism is very useful! I could maybe see how (1) owning private property and (2) profiting from it might in theory be removed from a “winners vs. losers” framework, but at the same time, I think most people in the world--including the titans of industry that actually have power in the system--don’t think of it that way. There’s only so much stuff in the world at any given time, and so owning some of it (winning) in practice means that others don’t get access (losing). Similarly with profiting, those with more profits have more ability to make more profits (winning) while those with less have less ability (losing). Again, I’m just talking about the current world as I see it.

But maybe I'm way off. To the extent that capitalism as a system is actually an infinite game, is actually interested in the “long-term continuation of play”, it’s difficult to reconcile the trajectory of the world towards multiple existential crises over the last ~200 years while capitalism has been the dominant system. One might think capitalism would have steered away from the iceberg by now if that was an actual goal of the system.

I'm an elitist meritocrat who do believe in capitalism.

What is gained from thinking that way? What is lost?

I think the only way that the waste argument could be made is if one was running a real-estate "empire" personally managing 30 houses making $30,000 each month but only needing $500/month to live on.

So then you wouldn’t call spending years of your life earning/allocating* financial capital that you will not need (and may ultimately work contrary to your own beliefs about consumerism) in any way a waste?

*I assume even ERE Wheaton Level 7+ continue to spend, over the course of their lives, quite a few hours researching/trading stocks/managing accounts/balancing portfolios etc. These are hours they will not get back for money they do not need that will ultimately just fuel more of the consumerist economy. Why?

Also, isn’t hoarding resources to a level that is way beyond personal marginal utility when other people might make use of it…isn’t that known in common parlance as “greed”?

You can use it for good or evil but you are responsible. (I do wonder if it would be a good idea if shareholders were liable for more than their actual investment. It would certainly change the nature of the game. The fact that shareholders aren't is an arbitrary legal decision.)

Agree.

My current perspective is that one's [embodied] philosophy and virtues better make it possible to pursue infinite games.

Agree. I suppose the only reason why these questions have been bouncing around in my head is because the infinite game, the continuation of life on earth, seems to be under such serious strain...and the trajectory is so bad.

In practice it's not that easy. This where the "render unto Caesar's what Caesar is"-argument comes from.

So then money is not irrelevant at the higher levels as the ERE Wheaton Level table suggests? (Or is this just an “it would be inconvenient” argument?)

I get that one needs government money to pay government taxes, but I don’t see how that justifies having e.g. 500+ times annual property tax “just in case”, especially if that money is sitting in stock certificates for companies strip-mining the earth or producing PFAS or anything else that ultimately damages “the pursuit of infinite games”.

I guess I should clarify that I’m not considering “opting out” a binary. It seems like it wouldn’t be difficult to set aside a reasonable amount of cash, e.g. in a safe deposit box, for Caesar’s cut/reasonably unavoidable cash expenses, while also largely removing one’s financial capital from contributing to consumerism.

Part of the "problem of money" comes from what John Hussman might call its "hot potato" quality: it is issued and then becomes a "hot potato" (i.e. someone must hold it) until it is "retired". We don't want too much just sitting around because it is unproductive (see the capitalism-speak seeping through?) and so we loan it out to businesses or a bank so that we can make more money and they can put it to productive use. Nevermind the fact that usually "productive use" ultimately just means more consumerism. It's easy to convince ourselves that this is somehow morally/ethically good (the language around these actions is certainly positive), and that we aren't ultimately responsible for what the person with the hot potato does with it...but that also seems like a half-baked philosophy, especially coming from a point of view that is specifically focused on thinking in systems.

The focus of WL9 essentially turns to connecting these capitals to other people instead of hoarding them for yourself. Basically, at WL9 one operates from an extreme level of privilege. One can therefore afford to be magnanimous.

Agree! Isn’t that, therefore, a goal? When and for whom along the journey does it become a goal? The handful of people categorized as WL9?

I mentioned the 2 levels away statement simply because I assume that many readers, even on this esteemed free-thinking forum, won’t want the boat rocked about the giant wad of money they have spent so much time and effort accumulating and investing.

[Smashter]

I think you’re giving being a little harsh on capitalism @bsog. To my mind the biggest crisis of the last 200 years in terms of existential risk was the Cuban missile crisis, and that was only half the fault of a capitalist country.

That said, I really appreciate you brining up this topic! I have been thinking a lot about how my ethics are not reflected by investing the way I do. For instance, I vehemently oppose the practices of our biggest meat producers and factory farming companies, yet I invest in them by virtue of buying the S&P 500. I don’t feel great about it, but I haven’t been able to muster the energy (courage?) to only select stocks where I am ethically aligned.

Has your investing style changed, given all your concerns?

[jacob]

@bsog - I think it all comes back to "render unto Caesar's". ERE is first and foremost a pragmatic strategy for individuals to deal with the system AS IT IS while bringing about the [next] system as it could be. ERE1(individual)->ERE2(city)->ERE3(inter-nation)->.... EREn

If we could trade/invest in each other ala ERE3 or ERE5, sure ... but the fact of the matter is that this world does not exist [yet?], so we're stuck being ERE1 and dealing with the baseline of the world (ERE0). Emergence builds on itself. I'm more of a pragmatist than an idealist. I'm interested in walking the talks I can do. Not talking about the walks I can't do.

I think what sets ERE apart from most other philosophies is how it focuses on what you can practically do rather than adding yet another monologue of "1. Here's the problem. 2. Here's my idea of utopia. 3. Collect underpants?" The stuff you're pondering went through my mind many many years ago as well but I ultimately accepted that dealing with the world is less about what you can dream (or complain about) than what you can actually do. In terms of convincing others, most people are not materially swayed by words or holding placards---indeed, oftentimes people get annoyed by such. Instead they look at what other people do and proceed to follow in a simplified (convenient to them?) matter. If you want to change the world, prioritize walk over talk. WL10 basically inspires WL9 which inspires WL8 ... and so on. Note how the inspiration changes form along the way. This is very important!! The Scrooge McDuck focus on money and investments peaks around WL3-5. Once it becomes tap water it fades in relevance---as is also evident by the WL table. Those who talk and think about money (or oxygen or water) are those who don't have enough of it. Once people have enough, they stop talking about it ... as seen in progression of the journals.

[AxelHeyst]

bsog I think this is a great set of questions/inquiry, thanks for this. I have more to mull but I had a couple points:

*I assume even ERE Wheaton Level 7+ continue to spend, over the course of their lives, quite a few hours researching/trading stocks/managing accounts/balancing portfolios etc. These are hours they will not get back for money they do not need that will ultimately just fuel more of the consumerist economy. Why?

I don't think this is a good assumption. Some might indeed spend a lot of time trading, but if so it's because they enjoy it (assuming a highly homeotelic wog, which we are because high WL). Beyond an appropriate threshold of "enough" and "low-risk", the high WL person (who isn't intrinsically interested in trading) will set their stash on autopilot and ignore it, roughly speaking.

Also, isn’t hoarding resources to a level that is way beyond personal marginal utility when other people might make use of it…isn’t that known in common parlance as “greed”?

But most other people would make use of that wealth to buy egg cookers. Only half joking. If I have really low expectations of what use other people will make of my wealth, I don't have much moral incentive to spread it around. The high WL person got high WL by internalizing the idea that One of the Big Problems Round Here is that everyone assumes money is the solution to all problems. That somewhat deflates the notion that it'd be easy or trivial to 'do good' by making their excess wealth available to other people.

That said, I vaguely plan on dumping any excess wealth I happen to generate (very theoretically at this point) in excess of a healthy margin on top of an FI stash into making a dope permaculture testbed and maybe seeding other similar projects. The lifeboat flotilla and all that. But even while I'm typing that, I'm thinking to myself, "but wait, isn't money not really the problem? what if I create more problems than I solve by attempting to 'buy' permaculture/lifeboats?" Tricky business! Not trivial! I don't feel qualified to make those kinds of decisions yet, although I'd take it a point of responsibility to become qualified to answer those questions, if and when it becomes a 'problem' I'll have to deal with.

Last point: Perhaps you are completely correct and basically anyone who ascends to the exalted heights of WL10 will indeed figure out some way to disperse their excess wealth. But anyone on the normative WL path, if they follow the script, will go through the phases of wealth accumulation in excess of their needs, 'hoarding', not knowing what to do with the embarrassingly large sum, and then finally figuring out a way to disperse it per their WOG (of wogs). Perhaps figuring out how to have $$ on tap in this profound, NW-is-irrelevant way we theorize about, requires an education phase that can only really be supported by the freedom of FI. No skipping steps.

ETA - yes my last paragraph is related to what Jacob says about pragmatism, I think. I really like the idea of figuring out how to be a post-consumer with radically high freedom-of-action without having to be involved in the icky business of having my money support the System (maaann)... but at my current level of abilities/wisdom/skill/opportunity, my pragmatic options are "work for the system and make sure not to earn more money than I need" or "invest my money in the system and be 100% time-free". I choose the latter, and to work on development of my abilities/skills etc and maybe in the future I'll figure out how to purge my wog of this whole icky capitalism business. My ears are entirely open to pragmatic solutions in the meantime.

ETA2: Also, semiERE might be a viable path to NW-is-irrelevant without going through a Big Stash phase.

[daylen]

Prioritizing walk above talk influences confluent walking based on the unspoken, and confluent talking influences walking priorities based upon the uncharted. Without an imagination of what has been or could be different we will be doomed to loops of our own construction. A love and/or curiosity for the uncharted, unspoken horizon breaks chains while assuring some viable paths ahead.

[xmj]

I'll take a crack at this as well because I think it poses a few interesting questions to which capitalism itself has developed a few interesting non-traditional answers not yet mentioned in the responses.

I was thinking more along the lines of the broader systemic importance of money and its usage system (i.e. capitalism) rather than shifts in someone’s personal perspective (i.e. #1 priority shifting to one of several priorities shifting to afterthought.)

If a philosophical aim of ERE is, as the forum’s subheading proclaims, “resilient post-consumerist praxis”, then I start to wonder about the systemic links between consumerism and capitalism (again, not in theory, but as “consumerism” and “capitalism” actually manifest currently in the real world). Consumerism seems to be anathema to ERE, surely. But modern-day consumerism also seems to be inextricably linked to modern-day expressions of capitalism, which is to say that the vast majority of business ventures (particularly a lot of the largest ones that make up a typical Western economy) are selling products and services that are ultimately unnecessary to a continued, reasonably comfortable life on earth and those companies "do better" the more consumerism there is. Case in point, this is precisely why it is possible to reduce spending some 90%+ from typical levels—most of the spending is consumerism! The raison d’etre underlying most modern capitalism seems to be consumerism.

I see the reason spending can be reduced 90%+ from typical as twofold: 1) changing desires - by forgoing certain "wants" you'll automatically spend less and 2) increasing skills - by becoming a producer in various fields, you should be able to capture more of the producer surplus (on top of your already-present consumer surplus) while at the same time enjoying the process of getting better at production.

If I understand your response: At the level of the individual, no. At the group (business level), “semi-infinite or finite-but-large”, which I would classify as “no” (explanation to follow). At the top level, you say “yes”. But I think we are using different definitions of “infinite game”.

I was assuming Carse’s definitions as: “A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing the play.”

To that end, I don’t think blends like “semi-infinite or finite-but-large” actually exist in that framework*, nor does the number of possibilities matter (i.e. one might dream up an infinite number of different sports, but if they are framed as “winning vs. losing”, they are all “finite” games.)

*To the extent that business have a broader outlook, "a going concern", their orientation is, to my thinking, much more concerned with "winning more over time" than "keeping the economic system afloat for everyone's continued benefit". Perhaps I'm a cynic, but I see how the C-suite compensates themselves.

I see "winning more over time" as a subset of "keeping the economic system that allows us to win for our stakeholder's benefit" and thus, infinite. With respect to individuals, you can construct discrete "win conditions" (early retirement! generational wealth! etc) if you must, but as you proceed higher and higher on ERE Wheaton levels you might want to focus on non-pecuniary capitals (social, human, intellectual & spiritual, per Hughes) - and discover that interrelations between those are nigh-infinite.

I think your definition of the heart of capitalism is very useful! I could maybe see how (1) owning private property and (2) profiting from it might in theory be removed from a “winners vs. losers” framework, but at the same time, I think most people in the world--including the titans of industry that actually have power in the system--don’t think of it that way. There’s only so much stuff in the world at any given time, and so owning some of it (winning) in practice means that others don’t get access (losing). Similarly with profiting, those with more profits have more ability to make more profits (winning) while those with less have less ability (losing). Again, I’m just talking about the current world as I see it.

But maybe I'm way off. To the extent that capitalism as a system is actually an infinite game, is actually interested in the “long-term continuation of play”, it’s difficult to reconcile the trajectory of the world towards multiple existential crises over the last ~200 years while capitalism has been the dominant system. One might think capitalism would have steered away from the iceberg by now if that was an actual goal of the system.

What is gained from thinking that way? What is lost?

Having spent enough time volunteering for, consulting with, and (part-owning) cooperatives, there's many uses of profits. One of them is better facilities/equipment/services at cheaper prices for coop members. Vanguard's continuous focus on reducing fees is but one example.

In Switzerland, a lot of agricultural produce (billions in annual turnover) passes through coops with shared 'corporate functions'. Any process improvement in the shared functions benefits any and all members. In the town I live, one co-working space is organized as a coop - and the current member+revenue growth is helping it obtain and spread to a second location, greatly benefiting the existing members.

So even within capitalism, people have developed interesting plays around private property that are non-rivalrous and not-quite-exclusive.

So then you wouldn’t call spending years of your life earning/allocating* financial capital that you will not need (and may ultimately work contrary to your own beliefs about consumerism) in any way a waste?

Is an aquarium within your living quarters a waste? Or an aesthetic pleasure?

At some level you can use a somewhat tiny amount of financial capital to greatly benefit your social, human and intellectual capitals. One somewhat funny way of doing this that I'm aware of is procuring stock in breweries which are known for generous annual shareholder meeting lunches and dinners, as well as natural dividends (paid, obviously, in beers). This gets a lot more entertaining as your friends join (and you make friends with the other brewery shareholders). You're using some financial capital to greatly enhance social capital, perhaps even intellectual capital (you're now getting access to, and free lessons by, the master brewer)

[comandante]

To accumulate a massive chunk of capital and then use it to bankroll/buy partial ownership in corporate activities that are, ultimately, driving forces in consumerism (and then benefiting financially when said consumerism is successful) feels a little like a half-baked philosophy that makes sense narrowly but not systemically.

Would you think it worthy to actively invest in companies with the aim of changing its focus from short-term consumerism (high dividends, buybacks, crappy products, big bonus for executives) to long-term quality products and a preference for investment instead of remuneration? Isn't it one way of dealing with the system as is, and to align our unwillingness to support consumerism with the tools at hand?

[7Wannabe5]

I would suggest that saving/hoarding/stock-piling enough of anything towards the ability to be/feel magnanimous is psychologically heterotelic, because in order to do/feel the first you must be future-oriented and in order to do/feel the second you must be present oriented. The future holds infinite contingencies, so it is difficult to boundary the stock of virtually maintenance-free money one should hold, especially if you don't trust/respect the judgment of other humans and you believe they have nothing of value to offer in trade or essence. An imagined future-world in which everybody is so well-stocked in money that they are only motivated to trade in other forms of capital is also an unrealistic basis for present behavior. It is a variety of dream of virtuous society.

[jacob]

Some of the anti-capitalism sentiment reminds me of this: viewtopic.php?t=12146

It's funny/interesting, because the counter-arguments I encounter in [fairly SD:Green] Denmark (my other "general interface with the public") is rarely ever about the "evils of capitalism". Instead, the focus is on people owing a living to society ("society paid for your education in salt-engineering, so don't you have a duty to spend you life working in the salt mines? #rhetorical". Answer: "We don't live in the Soviet Union"/"I never signed this unspoken contract") or concerns about what would happen to "our welfare" if people stop paying taxes. (Answer: "FIRE'd people still pay taxes"/"welfare should not be exclusively thought of as a tax-funded government-provided service.") These answers work very well these days.

Overall---I think this has been noted before---is that WL9s and WL10s are extremely rare individuals. Their purpose is not to find a one-size-fits-all solution or solve the world's problems for that matter. Their purpose is to show an(y) alternative to Plato's Cave after WL7 and WL8 have shown where the door is.

I would even go so far as to say that the main purpose of WL9/10 is to inspire WL7/8 but best kept away from the seething masses. I think this holds all the way through the table by the way. Hence the importance of picking your battles. Whatever you do, someone is going to think it's too much while someone else is going to complain that it's not enough. I think it's best not to get stuck in the middle of such arguments. WL9/10 are basically arguing with their feet rather than their mouth. This is likely a very INTJish perspective. For an ENFJish perspective, see Vicki Robin. ISFJ, maybe Mark Boyle. And so on ...

[7Wannabe5]

"welfare should not be exclusively thought of as a tax-funded government-provided service."

Yes, I agree, but this constitutes a default to Level Blue unless/until welfare issues are integrated into systems design at Level Yellow/Turquoise. IOW, if welfare is not a tax-funded government provided service then the default is that it will fall upon unpaid or underpaid females to provide welfare/social/comfort services. For example, there are no young men tutoring disadvantaged kids in math and reading for $18/hour in the county where I reside.

[jacob]

...until welfare issues are integrated into systems design at Level Yellow/Turquoise.

Which is exactly where/why WL8+ is going, no?

ERE is Yellow level systems design. So the few WL9-10 individuals getting blamed for the fall of capitalism or the welfare state are indeed contributing to the general welfare/wealth of society. Just not in the traditional ways that people expect or are habituated towards. Like filial piety, lentilbaby, or 57 Ferraris.

Here's basically a middle-aged-white-guy running a website for free (actually at a slight loss, but I can afford it, thanks to capitalism) when my skills could be earning high six figures and paying taxes to the general economy producing environmentally destructive stuff that people who don't need it would happily buy anyway. I also occasionally do handyman work for local senior citizens w/o charging. Explain why that even makes sense. Hint: It does, except not from traditional methods and values.

I'm reminded of the [??] to either "lead, follow, or get out of the way". Originally ascribed to Thomas Payne but popularized by General Patton. This is kinda where I am with WL9. "General Patton in the land of Teletubbies". This is also why I'm personally likely peaking out around WL8ish.

[black_son_of_gray]

That said, I really appreciate you brining up this topic! I have been thinking a lot about how my ethics are not reflected by investing the way I do. For instance, I vehemently oppose the practices of our biggest meat producers and factory farming companies, yet I invest in them by virtue of buying the S&P 500. I don’t feel great about it, but I haven’t been able to muster the energy (courage?) to only select stocks where I am ethically aligned.

Thank you! I’m trying to do the same thing – the point of all my questions is to try to understand underlying assumptions that I and others have and whether they align with the values I’d like to live by. In other words, I’m concerned with “embodying philosophy,” “virtuous fulfillment,” etc. I certainly don’t have all the answers.

Has your investing style changed, given all your concerns?

No, but then again, I haven’t been in stocks for some time now. My asset allocations are not due to this kind of inquiry (yet?).

@jacob
Could you please explain what you mean by “render unto Caesar”? I believe I understand the scriptural interpretation as something along the lines of “the money has Caesar’s head stamped on it, so if Caesar asks for his money back in the form of taxes, you should do that.” Is that not what you are thinking? Because again, I don’t see how needing to pay taxes implies that simply not investing in the most conventional equity sense is somehow impractical. (I mean, investing is literally more steps than just holding cash?! How is that more practical??)

You are using specific terms: ERE is pragmatic, practical as opposed to idealism, utopia, “what you can dream”. I don’t think this is fair characterization.

The higher levels on your own ERE Wheaton Level table are filled with talk of “virtuous fulfilment”, “embodying philosophy”, “positive effects on the world”, “generating serendipity”, and so on. All of this something to aspire to as a result of leaving “Plato’s Cave” of industrialized consumerism, which, I’m told, is incredibly difficult to do as it is so deeply ingrained in society. You wouldn't say that ERE has at least a little tiny bit of idealism, utopian language, or “what you can dream” in it?

ERE is pragmatic. ERE is practical. Things like double-digging garden beds by hand or building a computer controller from individual components? Look, I’m not poking fun at these activities—I like that you do them. I do very similar stuff. But they aren’t practical from an economic or financial sense. Doing them by hand vs. purchasing the solution only keeps a tiny amount of money out of the consumerist system. You at most save something like ~0.1% of net worth on those veggies annually. Point being, ERE as people practice it is filled with impracticalities, and something like clicking a few buttons on a brokerage firm’s website, going to the bank and filling out some paperwork, or paying in cash vs. a card for most of the few purchases someone makes, doesn’t seem to me to be any more impractical than those other behaviors. Honestly, where is this reasoning wrong? Why is it such a burden to simply not invest in consumerism-driven companies?

I did not present any vision of a ‘utopia’ nor do I think my questions reflect “dreamy” thinking– why are you addressing it that way? I’m providing specific examples that do not seem to be beyond the capability of “what you can actually do.” And I would argue, have argued, these relatively easy to do actions are in complete alignment with anti-consumerist “ideals”. The goal here (at least as it related to my inquiry) has nothing to do with convincing others or changing the world—it’s about alignment of values and actions.

If we could trade/invest in each other ala ERE3 or ERE5, sure ... but the fact of the matter is that this world does not exist [yet?], so we're stuck being ERE1 and dealing with the baseline of the world (ERE0). Emergence builds on itself.

I feel like there is a “be the change you want to see in the world” in there somewhere. If some of one’s ERE1 behaviors are supporting rather than challenging the ERE0 status-quo, and it is trivially easy to be less supportive of ERE0…
To use your water tap metaphor: if all it took was a pipe-wrench and an afternoon’s tinkering to change the water source (less impurities! better taste!) before it entered your house, wouldn’t you do it? I mean, you’d still have all the tap water you wanted, on demand, same as before.

Those who talk and think about money (or oxygen or water) are those who don't have enough of it. Once people have enough, they stop talking about it ... as seen in progression of the journals.

I would think it’s a good idea to periodically check the underlying assumptions of a worldview? Am I only asking these questions because I don't have enough money?

I don't think this is a good assumption. Some might indeed spend a lot of time trading, but if so it's because they enjoy it (assuming a highly homeotelic wog, which we are because high WL). Beyond an appropriate threshold of "enough" and "low-risk", the high WL person (who isn't intrinsically interested in trading) will set their stash on autopilot and ignore it, roughly speaking.

I get that some people enjoy trading. If it is an entertainment thing, which is fair, there are plenty of trading simulators out there, right?
“Autopilot” is a fair point about not taking up much, if any, time or effort. Still doesn’t address the pro-consumerism externalities though, right?

If I have really low expectations of what use other people will make of my wealth, I don't have much moral incentive to spread it around. […] That somewhat deflates the notion that it'd be easy or trivial to 'do good' by making their excess wealth available to other people.

I dunno, I think there are a lot of creative options possible. Effective altruism is not particularly new. Moreover, I think it is worth distinguishing “doing good” and “not doing harm”. One could argue that not providing capital to corporations that feed consumerism is more along the lines of primum non nocere: “given an existing problem, it may be better not to do something, or even to do nothing, than to risk causing more harm than good." Which is a main point of the questions I’m asking. When it comes to whether or not a person should use their excess capital to “do good”, I’m honestly not sure what I think.

my pragmatic options are "work for the system and make sure not to earn more money than I need" or "invest my money in the system and be 100% time-free". I choose the latter, and to work on development of my abilities/skills etc and maybe in the future I'll figure out how to purge my wog of this whole icky capitalism business. My ears are entirely open to pragmatic solutions in the meantime.

It’s interesting to think about these two options, in particular what happens to one’s overall impact on consumerism as investments become very large and/or expenses become very small. Let’s use an extreme case as an example: Let’s say someone accumulates $100MM and invests it in “the stock market”, say the S&P500. That is a lot of money supporting pro-consumerist forces in society. Let’s say this investor makes a tidy 2% dividend (and also assume that none of the corporation’s earning are retained and reinvested with a business—this is clearly not reality). Then the investor reaps $2MM a year in pro-consumerist profit-taking, which is then either 1) spent (pro-consumerism), or 2) re-invested (pro-consumerism, but compoundingly so). In contrast, if that same individual had no investments to speak of, but worked for a company that generated $30k revenue on the individual’s labor and paid out say $20k in wages/benefits...which option is overall more pro-consumerism? Of course, the accounting of how pro-consumerism it is for a given chunk of cash invested in the stock market is horrendous and probably impossible. Maybe even impractical. How much investment would it take to be more pro-consumerism than working a basic job? $100MM? $10MM? $1MM? Conceivably, the cross-over point could be well within range of some people's stash (vs. very low lifestyle expenses), and one might start to wonder if the biggest support for consumerism in one’s life comes from investing, not from lifestyle…

I see the reason spending can be reduced 90%+ from typical as twofold: 1) changing desires - by forgoing certain "wants" you'll automatically spend less and 2) increasing skills - by becoming a producer in various fields, you should be able to capture more of the producer surplus (on top of your already-present consumer surplus) while at the same time enjoying the process of getting better at production.

I mean, if we take the Wikipedia definition of consumerism, “a social and economic order in which the aspirations of many individuals include the acquisition of goods and services beyond those necessary for survival or traditional displays of status,” it sounds like you’ve just made my point for me. Your (1) is essentially reducing the purchase of goods that you might “want” but don’t need for survival, and (2) upping skills so that you don’t have to purchase services you might “want” but don’t need for survival.

I see "winning more over time" as a subset of "keeping the economic system that allows us to win for our stakeholder's benefit" and thus, infinite.

I think we might be using different definitions of “infinite” here. Wanting to preserve a system that one benefits from is not necessarily “infinite game” play, per Carse’s framework. What do you think the time horizon is for the typical Fortune 500 company? When was the last time that a corporation willingly gave up capital, profits or competitive advantage for the long-term health and survival of society? (Yay, 1% for the planet! One whole percent!) Is that the standard way that corporations operate? Is that the standard way that capitalism operates?

Coops are interesting structures, thanks for bringing them up. Switzerland sounds pretty interesting! Jacob provided a nice definition of capitalism in an above post, and it is nice to see how systems can be constructed to perhaps be more prosocial while keeping concepts like private property or profits. (Though people may draw conclusions from my questions, I am not “anti-”capitalist. I am simply asking questions.)

Is an aquarium within your living quarters a waste? Or an aesthetic pleasure?
At some level you can use a somewhat tiny amount of financial capital to greatly benefit your social, human and intellectual capitals.

Oh, I agree! I don’t mean for my questions to suggest asceticism at all. I think a lot of things at the small scale collapse down to matters of preference. Do you want an aquarium? By all means, go get you one (they are probably difficult to build, but maybe that is also an option?). Live your life! I think most of us would agree, given participation on this website, that buying an aquarium on a whim and then throwing it away in a few months and then moving on to the next whim, ad nauseam, is a waste. An aquarium purchased used, taken care of for years (decades?), then eventually sold to another person, just as an example, does not sound like consumerism to me.

Would you think it worthy to actively invest in companies with the aim of changing its focus from short-term consumerism (high dividends, buybacks, crappy products, big bonus for executives) to long-term quality products and a preference for investment instead of remuneration? Isn't it one way of dealing with the system as is, and to align our unwillingness to support consumerism with the tools at hand?

You mean like voting as a shareholder? Being an activist shareholder? If you think that would actually be possible/effective, I don’t see why not. It would be trying to get people to go against their short-term economic interests, though, which would be tough.

Aaand sure enough, the conversation is now all about acronyms and color palettes.

[AxelHeyst]

I dunno, I think there are a lot of creative options possible. Effective altruism is not particularly new. Moreover, I think it is worth distinguishing “doing good” and “not doing harm”. One could argue that not providing capital to corporations that feed consumerism is more along the lines of primum non nocere: “given an existing problem, it may be better not to do something, or even to do nothing, than to risk causing more harm than good." Which is a main point of the questions I’m asking. When it comes to whether or not a person should use their excess capital to “do good”, I’m honestly not sure what I think.

I agree that lots of creative options are possible, my point is that the field of iatrogenics/understanding unintentional negative effects of well intentioned effort must be well understood before one goes schlanging around millions of dollars, and thus isn't a trivial endeavor. You can find lots of critiques of EA etc.

--

May I attempt to make this conversation concise? I think what you are saying, phrased as a statement, is something like:

A ~WL10 individual, who believes that capitalism is inherently linked to consumerism, and is anti-consumerist, [note that this does not apply to Jacob as he is an anti-consumerist capitalist], will either not maintain a very large stash because money is on tap anyways, or will have their stash in something other than capital (stocks, businesses, etc), or will be deploying their stash to do good in the world in some way consistent with their values.

I can't find any reason not to agree with this?

I think the question is a little tautological, though. "Won't a high WL individual have a wog perfectly aligned with their values?" Well, yes, that's part of the definition of WL10. You might be projecting *your* values onto WL10. You are assuming that any anti-consumer will be anti-capitalist, but note the existence of Jacob, an anti-consumerist capitalist. I think a capitalist WL10 could exist just as well as an anti-capitalist WL10. An anti-capitalist WL10 will be more perfectly decoupled from capitalism than an anti-capitalist WL7 or 8 who is still trying to figure out how to balance freedom and values.