推荐一本书，看完准备卖房。。。
作者: 莱斯 时间: 前天 14:01
image.jpg (160.8 KB, 下载次数: 0)下载附件前天 13:59 上传
作者: 602032119 时间: 前天 14:05
房子卖了租房住我做不到，房东万一不租了还要搬家，心里总是不踏实。
作者: 八个鸭卤 时间: 前天 14:17
我推荐一本哈耶克的书！！通往奴隶之路
作者: teleyoung 时间: 前天 14:32
资产布局，有钱人国内外，关键是钱要能出去
作者: 泡泡虾 时间: 前天 14:55
别人没死钱没了
作者: 莱斯 时间: 前天 14:58
泡泡虾 发表于 2025-2-25 14:55
别人没死钱没了
及时行乐！别什么都想着留到最后用。
举个例子，你到了七八十岁，想起来年轻时一直想买没舍得买的摩托车，想体验下，你看买了还能不能骑得起来。。。
作者: 胡优 时间: 前天 15:03
消费是对的，只有消费了，才是自己的。
人生短短几十年，生不带来，死不带去。
作者: dadaie100 时间: 前天 15:06
卖房子没问题 你至少留点啊。。。。。。不能说要赚钱赔钱的 就拿自己舒适度去赌 不太合适
作者: double90 时间: 前天 15:27
602032119 发表于 2025-2-25 14:05
房子卖了租房住我做不到，房东万一不租了还要搬家，心里总是不踏实。
长住酒店，其实也不贵
作者: 伍佰 时间: 前天 15:28
我现在就是房子卖了租房住，卖房子亏了50w
作者: 330216851 时间: 前天 15:55
伍佰 发表于 2025-2-25 15:28
我现在就是房子卖了租房住，卖房子亏了50w
是先租房子，把东西搬到租的房子里面，然后再卖吗？
作者: 活取熊胆 时间: 前天 15:59
这书是给身家超过1000w美金的人看的。。。。普通人瞎凑什么热闹
作者: 活取熊胆 时间: 前天 16:05
Certainly! While *Die with Zero* offers a compelling philosophy for living a life rich in experiences, it has sparked debates and critiques, particularly around its feasibility, assumptions, and potential blind spots. Below is a deeper exploration of **criticisms and counterarguments** to Perkins’ ideas:
---
### **1. Underestimates the Importance of Financial Security**
- **Critique**: Critics argue that the "die with zero" approach risks leaving individuals financially vulnerable. Unforeseen events like medical emergencies, job loss, or long-term care needs could derail even the best-laid plans. Without a robust safety net, adherents might face significant stress or hardship later in life.
- **Counterargument**: Perkins does acknowledge the need for *some* savings and insurance, but critics say his emphasis on spending for experiences could lead people to under-prioritize emergency funds or retirement accounts, especially in economies with weak social safety nets.
---
### **2. Privilege and Accessibility**
- **Critique**: The philosophy is often seen as tailored to high-income individuals. Those with lower or unstable incomes may not have the luxury of "investing in experiences" when they’re struggling to cover basic needs. For many, traditional saving is a necessity, not a choice.
- **Example**: A single parent working multiple jobs may lack the time or resources to travel or pursue hobbies, making Perkins’ advice feel out of touch with socioeconomic realities.
---
### **3. Overemphasis on Youth for Peak Experiences**
- **Critique**: Perkins suggests that certain experiences (e.g., adventure sports, rigorous travel) are best pursued in youth. Critics argue this dismisses the value of later-life experiences, such as mentorship, creative projects, or slower-paced travel, which can be equally meaningful.
- **Counterpoint**: Some people thrive in their later years, with more wisdom, financial stability, and free time to explore passions. Prioritizing youth could lead to ageist assumptions about capability and fulfillment.
---
### **4. Neglects Systemic Inequities**
- **Critique**: The book’s focus on individual choice ignores systemic barriers (e.g., healthcare costs, student debt, wage gaps) that limit people’s ability to "live fully" in the present. For marginalized groups, prioritizing experiences over savings may be riskier due to societal inequities.
- **Example**: A person burdened by student loans or systemic underpayment may need to prioritize debt repayment over experiential spending, even if it delays personal fulfillment.
---
### **5. Risk of Over-Consumption**
- **Critique**: Encouraging people to spend more on experiences could inadvertently promote over-consumption or debt-driven lifestyles. Critics worry this might exacerbate financial instability, especially if individuals misjudge their ability to earn or save later.
- **Counterargument**: Perkins emphasizes *intentional* spending, but critics argue that without strict discipline, the philosophy could be misapplied.
---
### **6. Legacy and Family Obligations**
- **Critique**: The idea of minimizing inheritance clashes with cultural or familial expectations. Many people derive purpose from providing for their children’s education, weddings, or future security. Critics argue that Perkins’ dismissal of financial legacies ignores the emotional and practical value of intergenerational support.
- **Counterpoint**: Perkins suggests "experiential legacies" (e.g., shared memories) are more meaningful, but this may not resonate with families who prioritize financial stability for future generations.
---
### **7. Psychological Comfort of Savings**
- **Critique**: For some, having savings provides psychological security, even if they never spend it. The act of saving can reduce anxiety about the future, and critics argue that "dying with zero" could heighten stress for risk-averse individuals.
- **Example**: A person who lived through economic hardship (e.g., the Great Depression) might find the idea of depleting savings emotionally unsettling.
---
### **8. Overlooks Passive Income and Wealth-Building**
- **Critique**: Critics note that wealth accumulation can create passive income streams (e.g., investments, rental properties), which enable *both* financial security *and* the freedom to pursue experiences. Perkins’ focus on spending down assets might discourage strategies that allow for sustainable, long-term wealth.
- **Counterargument**: Perkins addresses this by advocating for balance, but critics say his messaging risks oversimplifying the benefits of compound growth.
---
### **9. Cultural and Generational Differences**
- **Critique**: The philosophy reflects a Western, individualistic worldview. In collectivist cultures, where family and community obligations take precedence, prioritizing personal experiences over communal financial support may be viewed as selfish or irresponsible.
- **Example**: In many Asian or African cultures, providing for aging parents or funding siblings’ education is a moral duty that might conflict with "die with zero" principles.
---
### **10. The "Zero" Paradox**
- **Critique**: The literal interpretation of "dying with zero" is impractical. Even with careful planning, timing death to align with zero net worth is impossible. Critics argue this framing is hyperbolic and distracts from the real goal: mindful resource allocation.
- **Counterargument**: Perkins clarifies that "zero" is a metaphor, but the catchy title risks misleading readers into overly rigid interpretations.
---
### **Perkins’ Defense and Rebuttals**
Perkins anticipates many of these critiques in his book and argues:
- **Balance is key**: He advocates for *strategic* spending, not reckless abandon. Savings and insurance still have a role.
- **Flexibility**: Time-bucketing allows for adjustments as life circumstances change.
- **Intentionality**: The goal is to avoid *mindless* saving, not to reject financial planning entirely.
---
### **Conclusion**
While *Die with Zero* challenges stale financial norms and inspires readers to prioritize fulfillment, its critics highlight valid concerns about accessibility, security, and cultural context. The philosophy works best for those with stable incomes, a high risk tolerance, and flexibility in their life goals. For others, a hybrid approach—blending Perkins’ experiential focus with traditional financial safeguards—may offer a more balanced path.
作者: 伍佰 时间: 前天 19:35
330216851 发表于 2025-2-25 15:55
是先租房子，把东西搬到租的房子里面，然后再卖吗？
去年10月份卖了，刚租的房子，家具家电全搬到租的房子那边。租的离学校近，没家具家电的
作者: 开市客代购跑腿 时间: 前天 21:18
这是推进内循环的中文版鸡汤
作者: licq_gm 时间: 前天 21:20
人的存续的指标不一定就是钱，我思故我在，人的存在是需要思考各种问题的，如果有钱但是不不需要动脑，那有多空虚无助？
作者: 老船长 时间: 前天 21:39
double90 发表于 2025-2-25 15:27
长住酒店，其实也不贵
大家都把房子卖了，都去租房了。你看酒长住贵不贵。
作者: ttttt1 时间: 昨天 00:50
我倒是觉得应该看看霍弗的《狂热分子》
作者: zhutian 时间: 昨天 09:15
其实许多中国家庭的做法与书中某条不谋而合，比如，书中说父母应该在子女30岁的时候把钱给子女。中国家庭子女结婚基本上都是花父母的钱
作者: cisco 时间: 昨天 09:32
伍佰 发表于 2025-2-25 19:35
去年10月份卖了，刚租的房子，家具家电全搬到租的房子那边。租的离学校近，没家具家电的 ...
你这样能长租也是好的。
就看房东了吧，人工他赶你走，也头疼的。
作者: 大海 时间: 昨天 09:33
早上刷到一条新闻上海一个老人死后财产无子女继承，法院判给他堂弟继承老人130万存款，堂弟后来发现老人还有另外300万存款想继承法院没批准。老人名下一套几百万的房子已经判给了国家，这300万存款估计也要给国家了。。。
作者: flyinne66 时间: 昨天 09:44
八个鸭卤 发表于 2025-2-25 14:17
我推荐一本哈耶克的书！！通往奴隶之路
中国社会科学出版社出的版本翻译据说是一塌糊涂，台湾殷海光翻译的好，不过好像买不到。
作者: 八个鸭卤 时间: 昨天 10:09
flyinne66 发表于 2025-2-26 09:44
中国社会科学出版社出的版本翻译据说是一塌糊涂，台湾殷海光翻译的好，不过好像买不到。 ...
多多有卖的
作者: cisco 时间: 昨天 10:58
flyinne66 发表于 2025-2-26 09:44
中国社会科学出版社出的版本翻译据说是一塌糊涂，台湾殷海光翻译的好，不过好像买不到。 ...
刚刚我找了一版，你私信我给你。
image.png (58.5 KB, 下载次数: 0)下载附件昨天 10:58 上传
作者: archer49 时间: 昨天 12:19
作者的主要观点：
人生的意义在于体验
Perkins主张人们应该将财富用于丰富人生体验，如旅行、学习新技能、参与冒险活动等，而不是单纯地积累财富。他认为，人生短暂，应该追求有意义的经历，而不是在死后留下大量未使用的财富。
“零遗产”理念
作者提倡“零遗产”的概念，即人们应该在去世时尽量不留或少留遗产。他认为，财富应该在生前被充分利用，而不是作为遗产留给下一代，因为这可能会阻碍子女的独立成长。
时间规划与财务策略
书中提到“时间分桶”（time-bucketing）的概念，即通过合理规划财务，将一生的财富分配到不同的生活阶段，确保在每个阶段都能享受生活，同时避免过度储蓄或过度消费。
消费的意义
Perkins强调消费的意义在于满足个人的幸福感和成就感，而不仅仅是物质积累。他认为，通过消费来实现人生价值是一种积极的生活方式。
对传统理财观念的挑战
作者对传统的理财观念（如过度储蓄、为子女储备财富等）提出了挑战，认为这些观念可能会让人们错过人生中许多重要的体验。
书中的核心思想：
追求体验而非积累：人生的意义在于丰富的生活体验，而不是财富的积累。
财务规划的灵活性：通过合理规划，确保在每个生活阶段都能享受生活，而不是将财富单纯地留给下一代。
打破传统观念：鼓励人们重新思考传统理财和消费观念，更加注重个人的幸福感和满足感。
争议点：
尽管这本书的观点具有启发性，但也引发了一些争议。例如：
财务安全的担忧：一些人认为，过度消费可能会导致财务不安全，尤其是在面临突发情况时。
社会和文化差异：在一些文化中，为子女提供经济支持被视为重要的家庭责任，这与书中提倡的“零遗产”理念相冲突。
经济现实的限制：对于低收入或财务不稳定的人群来说，这种理念可能并不适用。
作者: 委座 时间: 昨天 12:41
对有钱人，物质消费只占很少比例。
image.jpg (160.8 KB, 下载次数: 0)下载附件前天 13:59 上传
作者: 602032119 时间: 前天 14:05
房子卖了租房住我做不到，房东万一不租了还要搬家，心里总是不踏实。
作者: 八个鸭卤 时间: 前天 14:17
我推荐一本哈耶克的书！！通往奴隶之路
作者: teleyoung 时间: 前天 14:32
资产布局，有钱人国内外，关键是钱要能出去
作者: 泡泡虾 时间: 前天 14:55
别人没死钱没了
作者: 莱斯 时间: 前天 14:58
泡泡虾 发表于 2025-2-25 14:55
别人没死钱没了
及时行乐！别什么都想着留到最后用。
举个例子，你到了七八十岁，想起来年轻时一直想买没舍得买的摩托车，想体验下，你看买了还能不能骑得起来。。。
作者: 胡优 时间: 前天 15:03
消费是对的，只有消费了，才是自己的。
人生短短几十年，生不带来，死不带去。
作者: dadaie100 时间: 前天 15:06
卖房子没问题 你至少留点啊。。。。。。不能说要赚钱赔钱的 就拿自己舒适度去赌 不太合适
作者: double90 时间: 前天 15:27
602032119 发表于 2025-2-25 14:05
房子卖了租房住我做不到，房东万一不租了还要搬家，心里总是不踏实。
长住酒店，其实也不贵
作者: 伍佰 时间: 前天 15:28
我现在就是房子卖了租房住，卖房子亏了50w
作者: 330216851 时间: 前天 15:55
伍佰 发表于 2025-2-25 15:28
我现在就是房子卖了租房住，卖房子亏了50w
是先租房子，把东西搬到租的房子里面，然后再卖吗？
作者: 活取熊胆 时间: 前天 15:59
这书是给身家超过1000w美金的人看的。。。。普通人瞎凑什么热闹
作者: 活取熊胆 时间: 前天 16:05
Certainly! While *Die with Zero* offers a compelling philosophy for living a life rich in experiences, it has sparked debates and critiques, particularly around its feasibility, assumptions, and potential blind spots. Below is a deeper exploration of **criticisms and counterarguments** to Perkins’ ideas:
---
### **1. Underestimates the Importance of Financial Security**
- **Critique**: Critics argue that the "die with zero" approach risks leaving individuals financially vulnerable. Unforeseen events like medical emergencies, job loss, or long-term care needs could derail even the best-laid plans. Without a robust safety net, adherents might face significant stress or hardship later in life.
- **Counterargument**: Perkins does acknowledge the need for *some* savings and insurance, but critics say his emphasis on spending for experiences could lead people to under-prioritize emergency funds or retirement accounts, especially in economies with weak social safety nets.
---
### **2. Privilege and Accessibility**
- **Critique**: The philosophy is often seen as tailored to high-income individuals. Those with lower or unstable incomes may not have the luxury of "investing in experiences" when they’re struggling to cover basic needs. For many, traditional saving is a necessity, not a choice.
- **Example**: A single parent working multiple jobs may lack the time or resources to travel or pursue hobbies, making Perkins’ advice feel out of touch with socioeconomic realities.
---
### **3. Overemphasis on Youth for Peak Experiences**
- **Critique**: Perkins suggests that certain experiences (e.g., adventure sports, rigorous travel) are best pursued in youth. Critics argue this dismisses the value of later-life experiences, such as mentorship, creative projects, or slower-paced travel, which can be equally meaningful.
- **Counterpoint**: Some people thrive in their later years, with more wisdom, financial stability, and free time to explore passions. Prioritizing youth could lead to ageist assumptions about capability and fulfillment.
---
### **4. Neglects Systemic Inequities**
- **Critique**: The book’s focus on individual choice ignores systemic barriers (e.g., healthcare costs, student debt, wage gaps) that limit people’s ability to "live fully" in the present. For marginalized groups, prioritizing experiences over savings may be riskier due to societal inequities.
- **Example**: A person burdened by student loans or systemic underpayment may need to prioritize debt repayment over experiential spending, even if it delays personal fulfillment.
---
### **5. Risk of Over-Consumption**
- **Critique**: Encouraging people to spend more on experiences could inadvertently promote over-consumption or debt-driven lifestyles. Critics worry this might exacerbate financial instability, especially if individuals misjudge their ability to earn or save later.
- **Counterargument**: Perkins emphasizes *intentional* spending, but critics argue that without strict discipline, the philosophy could be misapplied.
---
### **6. Legacy and Family Obligations**
- **Critique**: The idea of minimizing inheritance clashes with cultural or familial expectations. Many people derive purpose from providing for their children’s education, weddings, or future security. Critics argue that Perkins’ dismissal of financial legacies ignores the emotional and practical value of intergenerational support.
- **Counterpoint**: Perkins suggests "experiential legacies" (e.g., shared memories) are more meaningful, but this may not resonate with families who prioritize financial stability for future generations.
---
### **7. Psychological Comfort of Savings**
- **Critique**: For some, having savings provides psychological security, even if they never spend it. The act of saving can reduce anxiety about the future, and critics argue that "dying with zero" could heighten stress for risk-averse individuals.
- **Example**: A person who lived through economic hardship (e.g., the Great Depression) might find the idea of depleting savings emotionally unsettling.
---
### **8. Overlooks Passive Income and Wealth-Building**
- **Critique**: Critics note that wealth accumulation can create passive income streams (e.g., investments, rental properties), which enable *both* financial security *and* the freedom to pursue experiences. Perkins’ focus on spending down assets might discourage strategies that allow for sustainable, long-term wealth.
- **Counterargument**: Perkins addresses this by advocating for balance, but critics say his messaging risks oversimplifying the benefits of compound growth.
---
### **9. Cultural and Generational Differences**
- **Critique**: The philosophy reflects a Western, individualistic worldview. In collectivist cultures, where family and community obligations take precedence, prioritizing personal experiences over communal financial support may be viewed as selfish or irresponsible.
- **Example**: In many Asian or African cultures, providing for aging parents or funding siblings’ education is a moral duty that might conflict with "die with zero" principles.
---
### **10. The "Zero" Paradox**
- **Critique**: The literal interpretation of "dying with zero" is impractical. Even with careful planning, timing death to align with zero net worth is impossible. Critics argue this framing is hyperbolic and distracts from the real goal: mindful resource allocation.
- **Counterargument**: Perkins clarifies that "zero" is a metaphor, but the catchy title risks misleading readers into overly rigid interpretations.
---
### **Perkins’ Defense and Rebuttals**
Perkins anticipates many of these critiques in his book and argues:
- **Balance is key**: He advocates for *strategic* spending, not reckless abandon. Savings and insurance still have a role.
- **Flexibility**: Time-bucketing allows for adjustments as life circumstances change.
- **Intentionality**: The goal is to avoid *mindless* saving, not to reject financial planning entirely.
---
### **Conclusion**
While *Die with Zero* challenges stale financial norms and inspires readers to prioritize fulfillment, its critics highlight valid concerns about accessibility, security, and cultural context. The philosophy works best for those with stable incomes, a high risk tolerance, and flexibility in their life goals. For others, a hybrid approach—blending Perkins’ experiential focus with traditional financial safeguards—may offer a more balanced path.
作者: 伍佰 时间: 前天 19:35
330216851 发表于 2025-2-25 15:55
是先租房子，把东西搬到租的房子里面，然后再卖吗？
去年10月份卖了，刚租的房子，家具家电全搬到租的房子那边。租的离学校近，没家具家电的
作者: 开市客代购跑腿 时间: 前天 21:18
这是推进内循环的中文版鸡汤
作者: licq_gm 时间: 前天 21:20
人的存续的指标不一定就是钱，我思故我在，人的存在是需要思考各种问题的，如果有钱但是不不需要动脑，那有多空虚无助？
作者: 老船长 时间: 前天 21:39
double90 发表于 2025-2-25 15:27
长住酒店，其实也不贵
大家都把房子卖了，都去租房了。你看酒长住贵不贵。
作者: ttttt1 时间: 昨天 00:50
我倒是觉得应该看看霍弗的《狂热分子》
作者: zhutian 时间: 昨天 09:15
其实许多中国家庭的做法与书中某条不谋而合，比如，书中说父母应该在子女30岁的时候把钱给子女。中国家庭子女结婚基本上都是花父母的钱
作者: cisco 时间: 昨天 09:32
伍佰 发表于 2025-2-25 19:35
去年10月份卖了，刚租的房子，家具家电全搬到租的房子那边。租的离学校近，没家具家电的 ...
你这样能长租也是好的。
就看房东了吧，人工他赶你走，也头疼的。
作者: 大海 时间: 昨天 09:33
早上刷到一条新闻上海一个老人死后财产无子女继承，法院判给他堂弟继承老人130万存款，堂弟后来发现老人还有另外300万存款想继承法院没批准。老人名下一套几百万的房子已经判给了国家，这300万存款估计也要给国家了。。。
作者: flyinne66 时间: 昨天 09:44
八个鸭卤 发表于 2025-2-25 14:17
我推荐一本哈耶克的书！！通往奴隶之路
中国社会科学出版社出的版本翻译据说是一塌糊涂，台湾殷海光翻译的好，不过好像买不到。
作者: 八个鸭卤 时间: 昨天 10:09
flyinne66 发表于 2025-2-26 09:44
中国社会科学出版社出的版本翻译据说是一塌糊涂，台湾殷海光翻译的好，不过好像买不到。 ...
多多有卖的
作者: cisco 时间: 昨天 10:58
flyinne66 发表于 2025-2-26 09:44
中国社会科学出版社出的版本翻译据说是一塌糊涂，台湾殷海光翻译的好，不过好像买不到。 ...
刚刚我找了一版，你私信我给你。
image.png (58.5 KB, 下载次数: 0)下载附件昨天 10:58 上传
作者: archer49 时间: 昨天 12:19
作者的主要观点：
人生的意义在于体验
Perkins主张人们应该将财富用于丰富人生体验，如旅行、学习新技能、参与冒险活动等，而不是单纯地积累财富。他认为，人生短暂，应该追求有意义的经历，而不是在死后留下大量未使用的财富。
“零遗产”理念
作者提倡“零遗产”的概念，即人们应该在去世时尽量不留或少留遗产。他认为，财富应该在生前被充分利用，而不是作为遗产留给下一代，因为这可能会阻碍子女的独立成长。
时间规划与财务策略
书中提到“时间分桶”（time-bucketing）的概念，即通过合理规划财务，将一生的财富分配到不同的生活阶段，确保在每个阶段都能享受生活，同时避免过度储蓄或过度消费。
消费的意义
Perkins强调消费的意义在于满足个人的幸福感和成就感，而不仅仅是物质积累。他认为，通过消费来实现人生价值是一种积极的生活方式。
对传统理财观念的挑战
作者对传统的理财观念（如过度储蓄、为子女储备财富等）提出了挑战，认为这些观念可能会让人们错过人生中许多重要的体验。
书中的核心思想：
追求体验而非积累：人生的意义在于丰富的生活体验，而不是财富的积累。
财务规划的灵活性：通过合理规划，确保在每个生活阶段都能享受生活，而不是将财富单纯地留给下一代。
打破传统观念：鼓励人们重新思考传统理财和消费观念，更加注重个人的幸福感和满足感。
争议点：
尽管这本书的观点具有启发性，但也引发了一些争议。例如：
财务安全的担忧：一些人认为，过度消费可能会导致财务不安全，尤其是在面临突发情况时。
社会和文化差异：在一些文化中，为子女提供经济支持被视为重要的家庭责任，这与书中提倡的“零遗产”理念相冲突。
经济现实的限制：对于低收入或财务不稳定的人群来说，这种理念可能并不适用。
作者: 委座 时间: 昨天 12:41
对有钱人，物质消费只占很少比例。
本文转载于9090社区，帖子链接：https://www.kk9090.top/thread-566049-1-1.html