Helianthus

Value cannot be adequately quantified. At its best, money is an inadequate substitute for such a quantification that is often useful; at its worst, the failure to be mindful of that inadequacy exacerbates its inaccuracy.

I don't expect different, but pointing out that the technology sector is no less rotten than the financial sector is a pastime of mine.

Oh, I can't resist.

>You disdain the love of wanting money?

At what point has my absolute contempt for "loving money and wanting more of it" been unclear to you? Because you really should have clued in around when I said "Yes?".

>Looks like you have some personal issues, you're taking this way too personal.

This is banter while I fold my laundry.

>some people love making money and there's nothing wrong with that.

See, you just keep on repeating your disagreement with me as if it's going to change anything. Moral imperatives are, well, imperative, you know? I'm just going to reiterate: there is something wrong with that.

I'll rephrase you: some people hate the love of money and there's nothing wrong with that, or at the very least, you can't do anything about it.

You're wasting your own time and giving me more opportunity to bash greed, which is, as I said, making the folding of my laundry more enjoyable.

But I guess it might bother you that someone might think your moral compass is off center because of your position on money.

In other words, you don't want money, but you are forced to deal with it.

I'm not specifying an amount or a correctness, and I do not disagree that there is a line between means and end.

I'm saying that HN's attention span is dominated by dollar signs.

>And yes, when you call something "vulgar and utterly clueless", you're definitely making moral judgments.

I know! My point is merely that I wasn't lecturing.

>You have enough consideration to feel like posting a comment about how much you feel about it.

I suppose I enjoy throwing the moral imperative into sharp relief; making it clear just how much I disdain your vulgar acceptance of the love of wanting money.

That moral imperative alone is enough to carry weight in this thread. It has wandered in as mere sentiment without ever presenting an argument.

...Now, of course, I have strayed into lecturing you about the mechanics of this whole thing--but note I still have not lectured you with the moral judgment itself. I don't care about convincing you that money is vulgar. Sanctimony is enough for me.

You are quite right, though; I have spent enough time here.

>please stop lecturing people with cheap and meaningless moral judgments.

Ha. I'm not lecturing; I simply have no respect or consideration for your position.

You are not being lectured: you are encountering an attitude with which you disagree, and one that has no regard for your disagreement.

This seems to me to be an excellent example of the kind of poor thinking money promotes; do prove me wrong.

>If a lot of smart people thought WhatsApp was worth 14B

Why are they smart? Because they have billions of dollars? Because Whatsapp is valuable? Because Whatsapp was less useful before the smart people bought it?

Are you incapable of viewing the transaction of 16 billion as a possible utter mistake? As financial hand-waving assigning a liquid value to shares whose value might well be inflated?

Money is a poor measure of value. Plain and simple. Are you drawn to the volume of the transaction because you think it signifies true success?

> it's probably worth taking a second look at what WhatsApp did to get to this point.

Something I never contested and agreed with explicitly.

There's paying the bills, and there's lust for percentages of 16 billion dollars.

Forgive me if I'm contemptuous of those whose subjective goal is the acquisition of money.

>Is it really vulgar to desire money and take it as indicator of success

Yes? It is not only vulgar, it is utterly clueless.