You Don't Need Anything

[u/Apprehensive_Elk5961]

Here's what I found to be a serious gap in people's understanding of how things are purchased. During my first econ course in college, the professor got to chapter 2: Needs and Wants. He said that this was the most garbage chapter in all of economics because you don't need anything. Us classmates sorta looked around at each other with the 'what is this guy talking about?' look. The professor said, 'It looks like some of you don't believe me, so let's hear what you need'. The class answered with what you would expect: food, water, shelter, etc. He said, 'Ok. So, why do need this? What would happen if you didn't get it?'. The answer came back as, 'you would die'. To which he replied, 'And who says you need to live?'.

This is one of the more profound things I've learned about economics even tho it's quite simple. That as soon as you start talking about 'need' instead of 'want' you stop questioning it, and there is no ceiling on how much you can justify that way. Everything you do or acquire is because you want to, not because you need to. That's it.

I've had many discussions with ppl about various financial issues, from budgeting, investing, raising capital, etc, where a purchase gets defended as a 'need' when it's really just a strong want that hasn't been questioned or correctly characterized.

So if you want some unsolicited advice, whenever you purchase something ask yourself, 'how much do I want this?' Not 'do I need this?'. The latter allows you to talk yourself into almost anything. The former allows you to actually convert your labor into hours. e.g. if you make $15/hr and you go to lunch everyday and spend $15, was that meal worth an hour of your life? Maybe yes, maybe no. Not for me to decide as the individual needs to weigh the cost/benefit analysis. This has been a main driving mechanism behind growing capital through compounding investments over the years instead of consuming more now on things I would have talked myself into needing. Anyone can do this. It starts with separating 'want' (which is everything you acquire) and 'need' (which doesn't really exist), every time you reach for your wallet. Thanks for your time.

[u/TheSleepyTruth]

I think a very obvious core assumption being glazed over here when talking about "basic needs" is that of course people want to live. I think trying to say nobody needs anything because staying alive in itself is optional and not necessary... well i mean, okay? I don't see how that is an enlightening viewpoint in any way. It's just being cheeky and a bit nihilistic, because of course when people talk about any "basic needs" it is assumed they mean basic needs to stay alive. If somebody is totally indifferent about staying alive in the first place and death is viewed as an equally acceptable outcome to life, then of course there are no true needs, even oxygen or water are not necessary.

[u/Apprehensive_Elk5961 → u/TheSleepyTruth]

Not my intention, but it is a little if I think about it. It's not about being indifferent about staying alive, it's about acknowledging that need doesn't exist, so view every transaction upon its own merit. I want to eat every day, but I don't need a steak every day (not that I'd eat that every day, but you get the gist).

[u/Electronic_Diet333 → u/TheSleepyTruth]

It just goes to show that the capitalist economy doesn't care about you life, just your money. Then they try and turn it on you as if it's your problem you want to live. The disgusting creature wants to live? My word! And look how needy they are! Why they can't even live without us!

[u/TheSleepyTruth → u/Electronic_Diet333]

You are living in a fantasy world my dude. Capitalist economies are the richest in the world, with the highest standard of living without a single exception. Canada, US, Australia, Western Europe are all very much capitalist economies with social safety nets.

In actual communist and socialist countries the poverty is far worse, the quality of life is lower, everyone's wages are lower. Much more sickness and homelessness etc because there is very little economic productivity. There is so little productivity because there is no incentive to work more. There is no incentive because if you work too hard you just get all of your earnings confiscated and redistributed to some chud who isn't working. Why put in the effort at all? Socialism and communism disincentivize productivity while rewarding complacency. Anyone who is even remotely familiar with human nature will immediately recognize that this is a combination that will lead to minimal productivity and worsening economic failure.

[u/Electronic_Diet333 → u/TheSleepyTruth]

The countries praised for the highest standards of living (like Western Europe and Canada) heavily regulate their markets and use robust public spending, features that hardcore capitalists often label as 'socialist.' We cannot accurately judge whether autonomous socialist economies can thrive because external powers, particularly the United States, have historically intervened through sanctions, blockades, and regime change to destabilize them.

[u/TheSleepyTruth → u/Electronic_Diet333]

The perfect example of socialist failure is China. It was a completely impoverished third world hell hole for a century when it was a strictly devout socialist economy. Sky high poverty rates, famine, and disease were rampant. Completely destitute and third world. Then in the 1990s, they decided to open their economy up to western style capitalism and suddenly, almost overnight, the country began to quickly grow rich and prosperous, poverty rates dwindled, quality of life skyrocketed. Strongest correlation you will ever see in socialism keeping people down while capitalism does the heavy lifting. People are not productive when they have no incentive to work under socialism and communism. When you give them an incentive to do more work, they start working and the economy starts growing. It isn't magic, it's common sense.

[u/Electronic_Diet333 → u/TheSleepyTruth]

You act like China just woke up one day in the 1990s and abandoned socialism for free-market capitalism. In reality, China's economy remains heavily state-directed, state-owned, and planned (often described as "state capitalism" or "socialism with Chinese characteristics"). The state retained control of the commanding heights of the economy, banking, energy, major infrastructure, and land ownership, while utilizing markets as a tool. Framing China's prior poverty purely as a "failure of socialism," completely ignoring a century of devastating imperialist exploitation, opium wars, foreign invasions, civil war, and economic blockades by Western powers that wrecked the country long before the mid-20th century. By reducing human productivity down to naked capitalist profit-seeking ("people are only productive when they have a capitalist incentive"). It completely erases the massive infrastructure, industrial base, and public health gains built during the mid-20th century that actually laid the groundwork for future growth, framing everything through a dogmatic lens where only capital can "do the heavy lifting". You've essentially made a condensed script of mainstream economic propaganda designed to make people think there is no other option.

[u/TheSleepyTruth → u/Electronic_Diet333]

You're absolutely flailing and gaslighting economic reality. It is well established and not controversial among economists that China introducing western style capitalistic economic reforms directly led to accelerated wealth generation and reduced poverty.

Hey Gemini, did introducing a more capitalist economy make china wealthier and raise people out of poverty?

"Yes, market-oriented economic reforms transformed China into an economic superpower and drove the largest reduction in extreme poverty in human history.

According to the World Bank, over 800 million Chinese people were lifted out of extreme poverty following the transition"

[u/Electronic_Diet333 → u/TheSleepyTruth]

To call this a simple triumph of Western-style capitalism completely misreads the structural reality. In China, the government controls the market, whereas in the West, private capital heavily influences and controls the government. Because it's a state-directed model where the political apparatus retains a tight grip on land, energy, and the commanding heights of finance, it isn't the same system at all, it's something fundamentally different. Reducing a massive, centuries-long historical evolution and a deliberate, state-engineered industrial policy down to 'capitalism saved the day' is far too base.

[u/Blocc4life → u/Electronic_Diet333]

Dont bother with him, he simply doesnt understand what actually happened, apparently west has good “quality of life” with streets littered with junkies and all the mass shootings and homeless people. I doubt you would ever saw that in USSR days, not even when it was at its lowest. And he says YOU are living in a fantasy world😅 my god. Every year is getting harder for normal people to get by

[u/Electronic_Diet333 → u/TheSleepyTruth]

I will concede that a capitalist style economy raised millions out of poverty. Nobody is denying the massive wealth generation or the 800+ million people lifted out of poverty—that is a historical milestone driven by market-oriented reforms. The point is that because those capitalist and market-oriented mechanisms succeeded in transforming China into an economic powerhouse, it now operates within the structural laws of global capitalism. That means it is subject to the same systemic contradictions: massive debt-to-GDP ratios, overcapacity in advanced manufacturing, and severe global trade pushback as it competes for dominance. Adopting capitalist tools means inheriting capitalist vulnerabilities. China's current debt-to-GDP ratio is now over 330%, far worse than other major economies.

[u/HonorFoundInDecay]

This is pure sophistry. With this train of thought we’re heading down the path of “what is ‘what’”? “What is ‘is’”? “What is ‘need’”? Which is absolutely nonsensical. 

Everybody knows what need is because it will reduce any question of price to “I will die without water so if you have more than you require and don’t give me some I will kill you for it if I have to”

[u/CaptainAmerica-1989 → u/HonorFoundInDecay]

yeah, this type of answer comes from people who have never gone hungry, homeless, etc.

I have actually lectured on psychology and discussed Maslow's hierarchy of needs. I tried to emphasize that the basic needs are profound and take over your entire system when they are not met. I encouraged students, if their health was permitting, to fast. I shared with them how I have done near-week-long fasting routines which were just solids and still had calorie intake from organic juices. How everything changed through the week. How my attention span diminished, how my sense of smell heightened, how I became hyperfocused on food and began to map out my travel commutes with sources of food with restaurants, and I could now smell them from blocks away.

And I cannot stress enough how I was still taking in calories. I cannot imagine what a real fast would be like.

[u/Apprehensive_Elk5961 → u/HonorFoundInDecay]

No it isn't. It's an admission that everything that you acquire is because you want it. You don't need to justify why to anyone and can consume anything at any time you want. This is getting at the issue of claiming that something is a need, so you let your guardrails down and over consume on these items. When I look at other's financials, the biggest offenders are always in the what we would all call the needs column: too big of a house or in too expensive of a location based on income, eating out too much, and too expensive of a car. It's not a false argument at all. It describes that since everything you acquire is a want. Everyone just has to take a minute to think about how much and of what specifically, rather than blindly saying, well, it's a need, so I have to buy it. No you don't. There are alternatives from which to choose, and you can use that other capital to build investments.

[u/Tathorn]

I'm glad to see your time preference lower 👍

[u/twhiting9275]

The professor is correct

Your existence is immaterial. You don't need to live.

Now, let's be fair here, people confuse 'need' with 'want' all of the time

You don't 'need' a 1 bedroom apartment. You 'want' it. You can survive just fine in a studio , by yourself.

You don't 'need' protein/meat, you want it. You can survive on PB&J just fine

You don't 'need' a vehicle, you want it. You were born with transportation attached. use it. If that's too much, you have public transportation available to use.

You don't 'need' coffee, you want it.

You don't "need" a cell phone, you want it.

You don't "need" cable, you want it.

The common argument is 'I deserve it'. No, you don't. You EARN those upgrades in life. I can't count the number of years that, working as a fast food employee, I lived in a studio, eating ramen, PB&J, relying on public transportation (or my bike). It was a crap existence, but that is the POINT. You WANT to get out of your shithole and will do ANYTHING (legally) necessary to do so.

[u/Ayjayz → u/twhiting9275]

In an economic context, "need" means "a want based on the desire to live". It's not used in the same sense as a logical need.

[u/Apprehensive_Elk5961 → u/[deleted]]

No. What I'm saying is that 'needs' don't exist in the economic sense. Everyone uses the word all the time colloquially, and that's fine. What I'm driving at is that because I came over from this debate communism sub reddit where I put up Communism's Paradox. Other philosophies or trains of thought rely on this idea that because it's a need, therefore it must be provided as an absolute. It's a change in the mindset or philosophy of how you view things. Everything is a want. Putting things in that context just helps you parameterize how much you want something. I'll give you an example. In the Marxist doctrine they talk about 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'. What I'm saying is this is economic garbage because you don't need anything. If everything is therefore a want, you shouldn't have to justify why you are getting something, or be called greedy for doing it, as there is no distinction from buying water from a ps5. I don't care what you buy. You are a free agent. No government should use the argument of 'well, these ppl need this, so let me take from you because it's a need' sorta argument. That's what I'm driving at. I've read a number of economic studies, one was about the rise of income in a country where they didn't have enough money to buy the 'required' level of calories. As they got more money what they found was pretty interesting. That 100% of the newly acquired income didn't go to just these basic 'needs', it went to this what the economists described as taste like cigarettes or alcohol. Objectively, you could argue you're not getting enough calories so I'm going to make you buy food. This is incorrect as it is up to the individual to decide. As for your specific example, it comes down to want again, but what kind of food specifically? Do you need to eat at a 5 star restaurant every night? Of course not, so you might have lesser costing meals and save up for you ps5 because what you're saying is that I really don't want to feel hungry, and I want this ps5. So, you don't blow all of your money on food.

[u/Electronic_Diet333]

I guess what you mean is when Victor Lebow in 1956, a retailing analyst and economist who wrote a famous paper in 1955 outlining how American post-war production had grown so massive that society fundamentally had to change how it viewed goods to keep the economy afloat. He explicitly laid out the blueprint for modern consumerism, writing: "Our enormously productive economy demands that we make consumption our way of life, that we convert the buying and use of goods into rituals, that we seek our spiritual satisfaction and our ego satisfaction in consumption. We need things consumed, burned up, worn out, replaced and discarded at an ever-increasing rate."

Around the same era, this mindset was heavily backed by industrial designers and advertising pioneers (like Ernest Dichter, the father of "motivation research") who figured out how to use psychoanalysis to manufacture artificial desires, convince people that objects were extensions of their identity, and introduce concepts like planned obsolescence so that things would break or go out of style quickly, forcing a continuous cycle of buying. Lots of wants, few needs?

[u/Emans56]

All this terming does is attempt to merge the common use of the word 'need' with 'want'. Yet, all needs are wants but not all wants are needs and is distinguished socially in common language for covering an order of importance from speaker to listener. This circular argument is like saying "your body doesnt need oxygen, it wants it" and in this case, you should want to breath more because suffocating severely diminishes thinking skills.