Fundamental Flaw W/ Mustachianism

[Cowardly Toaster]

Well it's true that I'm increasingly skeptical of democracy. Some good ideas just aren't popular enough to get the votes they need.

LOL. Well I guess I'm talking about an ideal world a bit too much here. The hollywood part it is very naive.

What's your alternative to democracy?

I PM'd you about that since it's a bit of a separate discussion

[CBnCO]

Well it's true that I'm increasingly skeptical of democracy. Some good ideas just aren't popular enough to get the votes they need.

LOL. Well I guess I'm talking about an ideal world a bit too much here. The hollywood part it is very naive.

What's your alternative to democracy?

I'd suggest that a combination of voluntaryism (life dictated by voluntary association) and minarchism (minimal statism) would be superior to democracy, where 50.1% can dictate by force to the other 49.9%. Of course, the founders of the U.S. were skeptical about pure democracy enough to create a multitude of checks and balances to protect the rights of the individual and minorities.

Further, I think the fundamental genius and flaw with M that it is supported by the excesses of the masses; but, at the same time the excesses of the masses are clearly destructive to themselves, the environment, & human society as a whole (wars fought over resources required to fuel industrial growth, etc.). And, I've always interpreted the MMM philosophy as one to improve your personal path within societies madness and not a cure for itsl ills.

[Tyson]

Well it's true that I'm increasingly skeptical of democracy. Some good ideas just aren't popular enough to get the votes they need.

LOL. Well I guess I'm talking about an ideal world a bit too much here. The hollywood part it is very naive.

What's your alternative to democracy?

I'd suggest that a combination of voluntaryism (life dictated by voluntary association) and minarchism (minimal statism) would be superior to democracy, where 50.1% can dictate by force to the other 49.9%. Of course, the founders of the U.S. were skeptical about pure democracy enough to create a multitude of checks and balances to protect the rights of the individual and minorities.

Further, I think the fundamental genius and flaw with M that it is supported by the excesses of the masses; but, at the same time the excesses of the masses are clearly destructive to themselves, the environment, & human society as a whole (wars fought over resources required to fuel industrial growth, etc.). And, I've always interpreted the MMM philosophy as one to improve your personal path within societies madness and not a cure for itsl ills.

I think the core problem is that people are still very much tribal in their thinking, and we live in an increasingly global world with fewer ties to specific tribes (family, state, country, religion, etc...). 

[Mika M]

DH watches a lot of CNBC, and one thing he's noticed them talking about quite a bit recently is that retail is down and continues to drop. They go on about spending habits and how millennials are the first generation to show a sizable trend of not wanting 'things'... or to even want home-owning as part of their life's dream.

When I read recent posts from MMM about how the blog's doing on it's 6th birthday (with millions of regular visitors and over 25 million overall individual visitors), or The Minimalists who report over 20 million subscribers, the success of others such as JLCollins and ERE, I get a hunch at where these new trends are coming from.

Would it all backfire if everyone became frugal? Would our passive income become less reliable? Not necessarily, I think. The market would adapt. Companies worth their salt would innovate products that provide better value. Like Apple and their 'sticky products' as Warren Buffet says of iPhones.

[Case]

Let me state first: MMM is right about almost everything. Let it be known that I think he has laid out some excellent, even timeless, lessons for living a life of financial virtue.

My big contention? MMM and Mustachians will always be a cult. MMM's lessons will never scale up to the whole population. Most people are incapable mentally of freeing themselves from the debt-consumer cycle. Please note I said mentally, because as we Mustachians know, most Americans are in fact capable of living debt free, financially prudent lives.

The average mustachian seems to be quite a bit smarter than average. I mean just being able to entertain alternative ideas like MMM's usually denotes the ability to think outside the box.

Think about how every card is stacked against the average American when it comes to financial responsibility. It isn't taught in school. It often isn't taught in the home. It isn't taught in mass media, quite the opposite!

Is everyone familiar with psychological warfare? Where complex campaigns are used to mentally defeat an enemy, to demoralize? Advertisers are every bit as wily and sinister in this regard as the military masterminds of PsyOps are. America has quite literally been subject to a multi-generational campaign of psychological warfare with one goal in mind: too encourage bad financial habits.

Remember 2008? All anyone could think about was revving up the consumer debt cycle again. As a country, we're incapable of of breaking out of this paradigm.

I'd ask anyone who responds not to extol the virtues of Our Lord and Savior (or Saver? heh) MMM. He ideas are excellent. But what does it matter, as long as the rest of the country remains inescapably mired in their mental prisons? No matter how right these ideas are, people won't be able to get out of their current mindsets.

So what's the solution? More regulations IMO, but further than that, a whole shift in culture is needed. How do we get there, scaling up Mustachianism to whole country, a whole planet? I don't know. People are in love with the debt prison, even as it kills their souls.

Thoughts?

I don't think your argument really portrays the 'fundamental flaw' very clearly.  The fundamental flaw is that society is culturally programmed to be the opposite of Mustachianism?  That's not a fundamental flaw, my man.  It's a sad reality.  MMM is a savior to many because he takes the blinders off, and shows that there is a different, better way to live (for some).  There is nothing fundamentally flawed with that.

In my view, the more fundamental flaw of Mustachianism is that, if everyone did it, it wouldn't be sustainable.  Almost all of us our relying upon the growth of the stock market to inflate our Staches and sustain our retirements.  But, most of us aren't contributing much to consumerism and growth, which is what makes the economy grow, in it's present form.  People will argue that this is not true, that Mustachians would adapt and find ways to efficiently live in that new world... probably true, but doesn't change the flaw.

In the grander scheme, IF a large chunk of the population became Mustachian, then something bigger would need to happen.  Society would have to shift into a more benevolent form where people help each other more and everyone's goal is living responsibly and efficiently.  Sustainability, on the most grand awesome scale.  Unfortunately, I don't think the majority of the population is going to become Mustachian any time soon (or maybe ever).  In addition to society programming people the other way, the intelligence required to successfully practice it is somewhat high, and additionally there are lots of people who fundamentally believe in living their lives to the fullest no matter the consequences.  It's somewhat rooted in being American... it's somewhat rooted in being human.

Government regulation to affect the (supposedly) desired changes is a really tricky thing.  Being controlled by an external entity is going to be resisted to some degree and will be viewed by some as removing your freedom, even if the goals are altruistic.  Look at gun control, gunowners and the NRA.

As a side note, I think your post comes across as a rant (whether intended or not), and this is going to be distracting to a number of people and perhaps derail constructive argument to some degree.

[PerpetualWanderlust]

I personally don't mind that mustachianism hasn't caught on with the masses. Truth is, abundant saving is generally bad for the economy. The viscosity of money is very important to determine interest rates. With high interest rates comes difficulty for investing/raising capital, which slows job creation.

I love musachanism. It's changed my life. But with that being said, part of the reason we can do this is that we benefit from cheap product and cheap labor that our current economy provides. I don't know that we would have the same luxury if consumer confidence across the country became more like us.

[runewell]

Let me state first: MMM is right about almost everything. Let it be known that I think he has laid out some excellent, even timeless, lessons for living a life of financial virtue.
Thoughts?

No, MMM is not right about a lot of things, many things are just lifestyle choices that aren't necessarily right or wrong.

[Laura33]

I can only speak to the personal part of this and will stay away from the political.  But the fundamental concept here -- that MMM has identified the best way to live, and that everyone would be happier if they could disregard consumerism and embrace stoicism -- is just flat-out wrong. 

What you have here is selection bias in operation: this forum is filled with people who identify with Mustachianism and have found it compelling in their own lives, to greater or lesser degrees.  And because people here are naturally drawn to Mustachianism, it seems inconceivable that others wouldn't also be happier if they could just be exposed to it and convinced to give it a try! 

Yes, this is very true for many people.  But not everyone.  People have very different drivers.  I happen to know quite a few people who are not at all Mustachian and yet who have led perfectly happy, productive lives.

My boss:  millions in the bank, kids launched, he even thought about retiring a few years ago.  Then his wife opened a restaurant, so he recommitted to the job just-in-case (note: restaurant has been a huge hit, so not necessary).  But the firm has had a few tight years, and he is now completely recommitted to the job, because the firm matters to him, and he wants the people he "raised" to do well and the firm to succeed long-term.  This is also true of almost our entire older leadership, btw.  They could all retire comfortably.  They stay because they enjoy the work and care about the firm.

My dad:  worked for big company, bought his first Porsche more than 30 years ago, has never been without one except when he was overseas.  He *loves* his car and loves expensive travel -- total spendypants.  He is retired on a pension and a little savings and could choose never to work again.  But he still consults periodically so he can keep paying for the extra spendy stuff that he enjoys so much.

Me:  Yes, I am here, and yes, I can use more stoicism in my life.  But I never, ever, want to live MMM's life.  I grew up poor.  I did everything for myself because I *had* to.  I don't find joy and freedom in cleaning my own house and figuring out how to make do without spending money on anything, because I lived that way for my first 25 years, and I worked my ass off to escape that life.  [as did my dad, btw -- see the common theme there?]. So I have 100% embraced MMM's philosophy of putting FI above consumer goods, because my #1 driver my whole life was to never be poor again.  And I could retire now if I wanted to or had to.  But, dammit, I like my convertible -- I get visceral joy from driving with the top down every time.  I like my house and my neighborhood, and I am proud that I worked hard and saved hard to be able to afford it.  I am not willing to give up these luxuries, and doing so would not make me happier -- I know, because I have lived the other side of it.  Every day I drive that car, every time I come home, I am reminded of how fortunate I am to have this life, and how much I have accomplished to be here.  At this point, I am getting tired of working and some days just want to bail; but then I still work for people like the guy above, and something happens and I am reeneegized again.  So for now at least, I am still willing to continue to work a few more years to ensure I can maintain my current lifestyle for as long as I want to.  And if the day comes that I am just done, well, the good news is I have plenty of luxuries I could easily cut.

To me, the fundamental tenets of Mustachinaism that I find compelling are the realization that the power to shape your own life is in your own hands, largely based on how hard/long you want to work and how much you save, and that your spending should be intentional and focused on things that are meaningful to you and bring you joy.  And those answers are going to be different for everyone.  I have shaped a life that I am pretty damn satisfied with, and if it no longer fits at some point, well, I'll change it again.  But I'm not going to change it to fit someone else's version of "happy."

Tl;dr:  it's rather egotistical to assume that you know what will make someone else happy better than they do themselves.  People tend to be more receptive when you arm them with information and then trust them to make their own choices.

[GU]

I can only speak to the personal part of this and will stay away from the political.  But the fundamental concept here -- that MMM has identified the best way to live, and that everyone would be happier if they could disregard consumerism and embrace stoicism -- is just flat-out wrong. 

What you have here is selection bias in operation: this forum is filled with people who identify with Mustachianism and have found it compelling in their own lives, to greater or lesser degrees.  And because people here are naturally drawn to Mustachianism, it seems inconceivable that others wouldn't also be happier if they could just be exposed to it and convinced to give it a try! 

Yes, this is very true for many people.  But not everyone.  People have very different drivers.  I happen to know quite a few people who are not at all Mustachian and yet who have led perfectly happy, productive lives.

My boss:  millions in the bank, kids launched, he even thought about retiring a few years ago.  Then his wife opened a restaurant, so he recommitted to the job just-in-case (note: restaurant has been a huge hit, so not necessary).  But the firm has had a few tight years, and he is now completely recommitted to the job, because the firm matters to him, and he wants the people he "raised" to do well and the firm to succeed long-term.  This is also true of almost our entire older leadership, btw.  They could all retire comfortably.  They stay because they enjoy the work and care about the firm.

My dad:  worked for big company, bought his first Porsche more than 30 years ago, has never been without one except when he was overseas.  He *loves* his car and loves expensive travel -- total spendypants.  He is retired on a pension and a little savings and could choose never to work again.  But he still consults periodically so he can keep paying for the extra spendy stuff that he enjoys so much.

Me:  Yes, I am here, and yes, I can use more stoicism in my life.  But I never, ever, want to live MMM's life.  I grew up poor.  I did everything for myself because I *had* to.  I don't find joy and freedom in cleaning my own house and figuring out how to make do without spending money on anything, because I lived that way for my first 25 years, and I worked my ass off to escape that life.  [as did my dad, btw -- see the common theme there?]. So I have 100% embraced MMM's philosophy of putting FI above consumer goods, because my #1 driver my whole life was to never be poor again.  And I could retire now if I wanted to or had to.  But, dammit, I like my convertible -- I get visceral joy from driving with the top down every time.  I like my house and my neighborhood, and I am proud that I worked hard and saved hard to be able to afford it.  I am not willing to give up these luxuries, and doing so would not make me happier -- I know, because I have lived the other side of it.  Every day I drive that car, every time I come home, I am reminded of how fortunate I am to have this life, and how much I have accomplished to be here.  At this point, I am getting tired of working and some days just want to bail; but then I still work for people like the guy above, and something happens and I am reeneegized again.  So for now at least, I am still willing to continue to work a few more years to ensure I can maintain my current lifestyle for as long as I want to.  And if the day comes that I am just done, well, the good news is I have plenty of luxuries I could easily cut.

To me, the fundamental tenets of Mustachinaism that I find compelling are the realization that the power to shape your own life is in your own hands, largely based on how hard/long you want to work and how much you save, and that your spending should be intentional and focused on things that are meaningful to you and bring you joy.  And those answers are going to be different for everyone.  I have shaped a life that I am pretty damn satisfied with, and if it no longer fits at some point, well, I'll change it again.  But I'm not going to change it to fit someone else's version of "happy."

Tl;dr:  it's rather egotistical to assume that you know what will make someone else happy better than they do themselves.  People tend to be more receptive when you arm them with information and then trust them to make their own choices.

Great post.

[GU]

I personally don't mind that mustachianism hasn't caught on with the masses. Truth is, abundant saving is generally bad for the economy. The viscosity of money is very important to determine interest rates. With high interest rates comes difficulty for investing/raising capital, which slows job creation.

I love musachanism. It's changed my life. But with that being said, part of the reason we can do this is that we benefit from cheap product and cheap labor that our current economy provides. I don't know that we would have the same luxury if consumer confidence across the country became more like us.

Not exactly.  Personal savings increase the pool of money available for investment and make investing/raising capital cheaper, thereby increasing the productive capacity of the economy and its workforce.

More generally, "national saving" is defined as private saving minus government borrowing.  Budget deficits erode national saving, which reduces funds available for private investment in things like, machinery and technology.  This reduces the future size of and long-run potential of the economy, making people in the future worse off.  Private saving increases national saving, reducing the negative effects of budget deficits.  Saving (i.e., deferring consumption) is most definitely not "bad for the economy," especially in a budget deficit scenario such as the one facing the U.S. and almost every other Western country.

Folks, the idea that consumer spending is the be-all, end-all of macroeconomics is facile. Most businesses and smart people realize the U.S. is built on pillars of sand right now because politicians promised things they couldn't possibly deliver to a greedy, idiotic public.  The political response has been to bury their heads in the sand.  U.S. companies now have trillions of dollars in reserves because they don't want to invest in a banana republic.  The economy, and things in general in the U.S., will never be "right" again until we do something to significantly curtail the massive fiscal gap that is built into budget, at both the federal and state and local levels. Until that occurs, everyone is just biding their time until the shit hits the fan. "Spend moar!!!!1" is not going to be a successful macroeconomic policy for 21st century America.

[Cranky]

I see a lot of people who are not happy in retirement, and even more people who would rather work until they fall down dead rather than give up shopping. To each her own!

But I don't think minimalism or consuming less is some radical new idea - nonconsumption and dropping out were very big ideas when I was in my 20's, in the 1970's. By and large, people chose to drop right back in.

And I don't see a whole lot of actual non-consumers around here; people seem to aspire to a pretty plush lifestyle.

[trashmanz]

I am not looking to convert anyone, if anyone wants my opinion I will give it but I will never push it. I am more than happy being part of this cult without pushing others to join.

But it isn't that simple David. No matter who you are, liberal, conservative, libertarian, I think we can agree that this debt fueled consumer society is not only causing untold human misery, but is also unsustainable.

We're going to need Mushtache-esque principles as the norm just to survive.

Humans can't survive on earth indefinitely, that much is certain.  We are a plague on the earth and will always be the most destructive organism here.  All that can be done is delay the inevitable destruction of the planet a few more years or just enjoy what precious time we have left.  Most people seem to tend towards the latter. 

[Tyson]

I am not looking to convert anyone, if anyone wants my opinion I will give it but I will never push it. I am more than happy being part of this cult without pushing others to join.

But it isn't that simple David. No matter who you are, liberal, conservative, libertarian, I think we can agree that this debt fueled consumer society is not only causing untold human misery, but is also unsustainable.

We're going to need Mushtache-esque principles as the norm just to survive.

Humans can't survive on earth indefinitely, that much is certain.  We are a plague on the earth and will always be the most destructive organism here.  All that can be done is delay the inevitable destruction of the planet a few more years or just enjoy what precious time we have left.  Most people seem to tend towards the latter.

What if, like the dinosaurs, we'll go extinct no matter what we do?  That thought used to bother me, but it doesn't any more.  We've had a good run.  If we pass away in a few thousand years, or even in a few centuries, well it was great while it lasted.