The monkey trap (for humans)

We humans like to think we're smarter than monkeys. But we may be getting caught by a very similar trap.

The future we choose

The book I'm reading wasn't meant to feature here. It wasn't going to be one of my book reviews. I thought it was unrelated - until the subchapter on consumerism.

The author mentioned the monkey trap - a fixed container of food with a hole in the side. The hole is big enough for monkey's hand to enter, but not big enough for a monkey's fist (full of food) to be removed.

So many monkeys are caught because they can't bring themselves to let go. They thought they were holding food, but it was really the food (bait) that was holding them.

At least monkeys do need food

While it's understandable that the monkeys would desire food, our bait seems to be consumerism. It's not even the essentials - it's just things that we are told we need. And we believe it, even if it means we're trapped.

Or in the author's words, "it has become so embedded in our psyche - to the point of being instinctive - that we cannot let go."

In the UK the average person buys 65 pounds (30 kilograms) of new clothes per year. That's not the necessity of clothing. That's advertising and fashion trends telling us to go get more.

Endless wants

"In the 1920s some Americans were concerned that a new generation was emerging that had satisfied its needs".

Kind of sounds a bit like minimalists today.

"President Hoover's Committee on Recent Economic Change in 1929 concluded that advertising was necessary to create 'new wants that will make way for endlessly newer wants as fast as they are satisfied'."

That certainly sounds like advertising today.

In short

The challenge for us is whether we're smarter than the monkey. The monkey gives up its freedom because it can't let go of the bait. Can we let go of the consumerism for the sake of our financial freedom?

Comments

Adam ruins work

The TV show Adam Ruins Everything took a look at the workplace - and the 40 hour work week. It confirms my thoughts that the 40-hour work week (or at least it's relevance today) is a figment of our imagination. Very enlightening. Watch it now . The first 7 minutes are the most relevant. There were some astonishing stats coming out of it. For example, we spend only 45% of the work week doing our actual job (not including meetings etc). That's about 18 hours per week. Interestingly, that's what experts predicted. With rises in productivity, the 1950s brought talk of a 4-day work week. By 2030 they reckoned we might work just 15 hours per week. But instead we work longer hours. That results in more mistakes and safety mishaps. It also reduces brain function. We might think that it's being productive but Adam points to countries that have as much prosperity as America while working much shorter hours. A classic case of 'less is more'. PS. for the basis of ...

My mug shot

This is every mug I own. How many did I buy? Zero. They seem to just appear. I don't even drink tea or coffee. In winter I have might have a hot chocolate or cocoa. So 9 mugs seems like a lot. How does this happen? I reckon most mugs are gifts. There are two reasons for this. 1. It's a safe bet. People need to drink. It's kind of like buying your dad socks for father's day. But the difference is that socks wear out and need replacing. Cups don't. One of these mugs i received as a kid in the 90s. It still works fine. Now it has 8 friends. 2. It's often for what's on the mug. It might be a greeting card-style message, or a sports team logo, or something humorous. It's a good thing that something functional can also provide an inspiring message or pleasant memory as you use it. But the problem comes when we have too much. If I use the cup my sister gave me at Christmas, then I'm not using the 'awesome brother' one she already gave m...

Investing Less, Earning More

Could investing $13,000 be better than investing $70,000? In this case, the answer seems to be yes. In Making Money Made Simple , Noel Whittaker compares two hypothetical investors: Person 1: Invests $ 1,000 a year from age 18-30. Person 2: Invests $ 2,000 a year from age 30-65. You might think that person 2 would be better off, but here's how it goes (in chart form): Person 1 stops investing at 30, but their investment keeps growing. At that point, person 1's yearly growth is more than person 2's yearly contribution. That's why person 2 never catches up. Person 1 ends up about $ 150,000 ahead, despite investing about one-fifth of what the person 2 invested. What if growth isn't so good? These calculations assume 10% growth. What if it isn't that high? Fair point. I've run the numbers at lower rates of growth. At 9%, person 1 is still better off. At 8% it's close, and person 2 comes out slightly ahead. But that's not really the poin...

But wait... there's less!

Search This Blog