Bricker If I have ten million dollars and burn 90% , which I feel I can afford am I being frugal? What about if I burn 10%, which I feel I can afford? What if I burn $1?
Do you consider the deliberate burning of money to be frugal, even if I’m a millionaire?
A friend of mine just explained his concept of frugality and it crystallized what I was driving at.
“Frugality is about sacrificing ease or luxury for the sake of saving money.”
No, I don’t consider the deliberate burning of money, in any amount, to be frugal.
But as you might imagine, I believe I can distinguish gambling and “burning money”.
So please answer my question: if I spend $50 on an opera ticket, am I being frugal?
I think, if you buy that definition, your arguments make perfect sense.
I don’t agree. I think the word to describe that state of affairs is stingy or parsimonious.
Or do you believe those are simply synonyms for frugality?
Sure, being frugal is also matter of not wasting money. Enjoying the opera, IMO is not a waste of money. IF you purchased the tickets, knowing at the time you weren’t going to go, THAT would be a waste of money and therefor not frugal. Selfish too, as you’re denying that seat to someone else.
It may be that the nature of gambling, which requires the physical loss of money, with little chance of reward, save the RUSH; is what taints it for many people. I don’t know, but for me gambling is no different than burning money; the odds of winning are so low.
You may not enjoy the Opera you see, but that’s not a deliberate act on your part; gambling with the idea that you’re going to win; is delusional; unless you do it for a living and that’s not really gambling is it?
Go right ahead and try it, then. Show us what principle, not result-driven reasoning, allows you to not only make that distinction, but make it the obvious place to define a moral standard that can appropriately be used to judge others’ alleged conduct.
But you haven’t, and obviously cannot. Note, btw, that your inability to do so does *not *, as you would prefer to tell yourself, constitute a potshot on anybody else’s part, it is simply evidence of the lack of any basis to your own claims here - which, as you will notice, no one is joining you in making. No one.
But you can keep whining all you want instead.
Ultimately it’s all a matter of relativism v. objectivism. Bricker is a relativist: $8 million (or whatever the figure is) isn’t a lot of money when compared to a $60 million income. I’m an objectivist: regardless of how much the guy’s income was, $8 million is enough to generate a trust that will fund several university chairs, or open and run a homeless shelter, or open a First World medical clinic in an impoverished area, and run them into perpetuity. Relatively, he’s frugal. Objectively he’s wasteful. I don’t think that relativism v. objectivism is going to be merged in this thread.
No. “Stingy” is selfishness, unwillingness to share.
“Parsimonious” is frugality taken to excess.
There can be some overlap, but not necessarily.
A person can be generous to others but still frugal. A person can’t be generous to others but still stingy.
I should have continued:
A person can spend a ton of money on herself but still be stingy. A person can’t spend a ton of money on herself but still be frugal.
(Excluding, of course, things like healthcare.)
Ah ha!
I enjoy gambling in the same way I enjoy the opera. I don’t approach gambling thinking I’m going to win money; I don’t buy opera tickets thinking I will somehow sell them for more money. I attend the opera because, expensive though the tickets are, I enjoy the entertainment value the opera provides. I gamble because, expensive though the process may be, I enjoy participating in it.
In other words, gambling is simply a form of entertainment.
I lost $50 to you.
I just did. Gambling is entertaining, just as opera or NASCAR or attending a football game is.
You approve of the opera as an entertainment expense, but not of gambling? Why?
Heh.
well, that being the extent of it, i can see how you might be soured on the experience.
But put yourself in my shoes. I won. 
Actually, that’s only a sidelight. Win or lose, didn’t you derive some anticipatory excitement from the buildup?
Bricker The whole purpose of gambling is that against the odds, you may win. You confuse the rush of chance, the thrill; with other types of pleasure. Notice you mentioned the selling of tickets, what does that have to do with enjoying the Opera? Nothing.
Unless you’re telling us, when you gamble the thought of winning money doesn’t enter your mind?
I’ve been reading this thread with great interest, so far I find myself agreeing with Bricker on almoost all his points, mostly because he is defining the words correctly and carefully applying those definitions.
Some of the posters seem caught up in arguing whether gambling is wasteful or not, fun or not, whatever.
I personally do not gamble, but in some places, many different kinds of gambling is legal. So it’s a choice.
While I can hold the opinion that someone is an ass for blowing that much money, that does not automatically make him a hypocrite if he has come out in favor of frugality. I own his book, have not read it in a while.
I believe a person can be frugal and still buy a lottery ticket. After all, I consider myself frugal and I still buy cigars.
I disagree. But I can see how confusing this could be. The word “frugal” could be percieved as having several shades of meaning i.e: “avoiding waste”; “careful when using money or food”; “economical” etc.
Some. I agree with with you that it is entertainment. There is a thrill to gambling for some people, others find their thrill in concerts, or hiking the Appalachian Trail. It’s all the same, really.
Not really. I know that in the long run, I may lose. But I play blackjack. I generally play basic strategy, in which the house edge is about 1%. Now, basic strategy is not outrageous complicated, but it’s far from trivial. I enjoy playing it immensely; I would liken the experience to a formal dance. No matter who your partner is, even if you’ve never met before, you both know the correct steps to take. So, too, playing blackjack. It’s almost a Zen calm sort of thing… I have an A-5 against a dealer’s 4. What’s the correct dance step? Getting to the point where you’re in the zone, where you can automatically reach for your chips to double down the moment you see that combination, without holding up the game as you dither… THAT’S the joy, THAT’S the entertainment.
If you don’t see that sort of entertainment in gambling, then perhaps you shouldn’t gamble. But why insist that it doesn’t or can’t exist for anyone?
Nonsense! Didn’t you hear?
Clearly you can’t be agreeing with me. ElvisL1ves Has Spoken.
In a more serious vein, I appreciate your contribution. As I type, I feel like there must be someone out there that’s nodding his head at a point I make, but not posting to register that agreement. Most times it’s no big deal; when I’m being called a weasel and a turtle and all manner of other creatures, it really helps to get a chime in from someone saying he agrees.
Thanks.
I don’t insist anything; I’m merely trying to understand your point of view. I simply found it interesting that you considered the percentage of one’s wealth to determine whether or not one was frugal in their spending, which is why I asked if I can burn my money and still be considered frugal. You say no.
While you correctly connected the dots to gambling; I consider it no different than burning money, I don’t expect, insist or demand you feel the same, but I fail to see why if burning money gives me the same pleasure playing blackjack gives you, why can’t I be frugal as well?
I love the way the flames dance on the burning money, the way the green changes color, the ZEN calm as the wind slowly turns the ash…I think I’ll light another cigar with a hundred and watch the sun set. That’s the joy, the entertainment…you would agree that for me, burning money can be considered frugal, in the same way that your dance with the cards is for you, yes?
I note a slight increase in bass in your voice, so I’ll take my leave for now, but note I haven’t called you a name, nor been less than respectful towards you.
I saw something similar to this posted several pages ago and cannot help from commenting on it, even though it has nothing to do with Bennett.
When you say “gambling”, it you’re talking about slots I agree with you. In the long run you WILL lose. The thing is though, you cannot lump all “gambling” together into a losing proposition. An expert card counter in blackjack WILL win over the long run. If you and I played 100 hours of no limit hold 'em, I WILL win. An options or futures trader with reams of data that his expert mind can interpret WILL win.*
Just because you don’t gamble or are a losing gambler, does not mean everyone else is. To many people this is a job and, quite frankly, far from “gambling”. Therefore, equating all “gambling” to burning money is quite naive and short sighted.
*One note to this though, I see no difference between playing poker and playing the stock market. A novice will likely lose in both, and an expert will likely win at both. A novice trading stocks or options is hardly “investing”.