Why does the west have epidemic levels of anxiety and depression?

[Javier77]

Originally Posted by bg7

Well if you're living in any country on the equator, as your post header says, that figure doesn't apply to you. So don't rush to slap yourself on the back at how brilliant you are.

You think brilliance is related to financial success?

[bg7]

Originally Posted by Javier77

You think brilliance is related to financial success?

Reread the post and try to understand it.

[Javier77]

Originally Posted by bg7

Reread the post and try to understand it.

1-A poster said he doesnt need an X amount of money in order to have a successful retirement.

2- You claim it could be because he lives in a country where living costs are lower than in the US, so he shoud not regard himself as successful.

3- From those 2 premises the obvious conclusion is that you equal success with financial gain.


4- It's okay with me, no need to go all defensive...I just find some opinions interesting, in terms of economy, finance, art, creativity, etc. And yours in particular never cease to amaze and entertain me.

[bg7]

Originally Posted by Javier77

1-A poster said he doesnt need an X amount of money in order to have a successful retirement.

2- You claim it could be because he lives in a country where living costs are lower than in the US, so he shoud not regard himself as successful.

3- From those 2 premises the obvious conclusion is that you equal success with financial gain.


4- It's okay with me, no need to go all defensive...I just find some opinions interesting, in terms of economy, finance, art, creativity, etc. And yours in particular never cease to amaze and entertain me.

3 is a logic fail (and I assume you mean equate not equal). Even if it weren't - 2 is incorrect, so 3 would be based on an incorrect assumption.




OP states the notion that one needs 2 million for a "successful retirement" but I can survive on one tenth of that. I point out the 2 million figure does not apply to equatorial countries. i.e., his self-proclaimed success at a much lower figure is not itself some indication of brilliance. Somehow you morphed that into a charge of "You think brilliance is related to financial success?"..... Must be some baggage you are carrying around I guess, but nothing to do with the concept that the 2 million figure does not apply to equatorial country. (You know - where the figure for "successful retirement" might be - oh I dunno - lets say 1/10th seeing as that what the OP had).


And now in your second post you've made a further jump that I said the OP should not regard himself as "successful". Really? How did you get there? He shouldn't regard himself as brilliant based on achieving retirement at a value 1/10th of a yardstick when the yardstick doesn't apply to him. But what's that got to do with success? In fact the implication is from him that he IS having a successful retirement. He probably is. Its no great brilliance surviving on a lesser figure in a cheaper country than the 2 million he compared himself against - but what the heck has that got to do with equating brilliance with financial success? Yea, sure you can be a success on 200K in Ecquador.


You might be "entertained" but I'm guessing you don't really comprehend the posts. In this situation, you seem to be layering on some fight you are having in your head about people who equate one thing with another that you don't subscribe to.


But I've wasted entirely too much time explaining what should be too straightforward to misunderstand. I guess the "creative corner" created a sore wound.

[Javier77]

Originally Posted by bg7

3 is a logic fail (and I assume you mean equate not equal). Even if it weren't - 2 is incorrect, so 3 would be based on an incorrect assumption.




OP states the notion that one needs 2 million for a "successful retirement" but I can survive on one tenth of that. I point out the 2 million figure does not apply to equatorial countries. i.e., his self-proclaimed success at a much lower figure is not itself some indication of brilliance. Somehow you morphed that into a charge of "You think brilliance is related to financial success?"..... Must be some baggage you are carrying around I guess, but nothing to do with the concept that the 2 million figure does not apply to equatorial country. (You know - where the figure for "successful retirement" might be - oh I dunno - lets say 1/10th seeing as that what the OP had).


And now in your second post you've made a further jump that I said the OP should not regard himself as "successful". Really? How did you get there? He shouldn't regard himself as brilliant based on achieving retirement at a value 1/10th of a yardstick when the yardstick doesn't apply to him. But what's that got to do with success? In fact the implication is from him that he IS having a successful retirement. He probably is. Its no great brilliance surviving on a lesser figure in a cheaper country than the 2 million he compared himself against - but what the heck has that got to do with equating brilliance with financial success? Yea, sure you can be a success on 200K in Ecquador.


You might be "entertained" but I'm guessing you don't really comprehend the posts. In this situation, you seem to be layering on some fight you are having in your head about people who equate one thing with another that you don't subscribe to.


But I've wasted entirely too much time explaining what should be too straightforward to misunderstand. I guess the "creative corner" created a sore wound.

The OP is the person who created this thread. And this person is Katiethegreat.

The person you responded to was Sand and Salt.


Sand and Salt said :

"Yeah. I just recently learned I needed 2 million to retire "successfully".


Hmmmm. I seem to be doing it on maybe a tenth of that..... "



Do you agree this means there is no need of any particular amount of money in order to have a successful retirement?



And you answered to that:

"Well if you're living in any country on the equator, as your post header says, that figure doesn't apply to you. So don't rush to slap yourself on the back at how brilliant you are."


So many stuff here.

Was Salt and Sand rushing to slap himself on his back at how brilliant he is?

Acording to you, yes.

Acording to me, no. He was just stating the obvious: money is just a factor in the cocktail of life. There is no mínimum X amounts needed in order to regard oneself succesful. In the US, in Ghana, or in Mars.


Is then a logical fallacy to imply you think there's some link between amount of money & amount of happiness/success/brilliance?

No, in my humble opinion, considering you think the rates of depression in South America (a place I know well ) are similar to the rates in the West. The difference is abysmal.


But hey, I totally not get what you say and stuff...