Quote Originally Posted by Aussie2B View Post
I would if I was in the situation I outlined above. I and my loved ones only need so money to get through life and I only need so much stuff (I already have practically all the material possessions I could want, besides the big stuff like a house and car). If I still had a huge excess of money beyond that, I'd be happy to give the rest away. And if someone isn't in that situation and is still spending massive amounts of money on frivolous things, then it is of my opinion that they're being foolish because money like that early in life would go so far in creating security for your family. The way I'm looking at it, what would Suze Orman tell this guy?

I don't think there's anything hypocritical going on here. It's about wanton excess, not about spending any amount of money on unnecessary things. You can even have a large collection of games. I have 1200, but they've been acquired over the course of around 20 years (12 for the serious collecting), I always make sure I'm paying a fair price as to not waste money, and I play and appreciate everything (even if many haven't been played at great length just yet). I've also hit the point that I've slowed down my rate of game purchases because I know I have enough to entertain me for a long time and I value the space in my home too.

Also, by the way, I think you're coming up with scenarios for this guy that aren't really plausible. Even if he completed the PS2 collection right when the interview was done, that means he started his four year PS2 shopping spree at 19. But considering he started an English AES collection which is two games from complete after the PS2 collection was done, I doubt he started as late as 19-years-old, unless you think he pieced together the AES collection in a matter of months. That means he probably started the PS2 collection before he even finished high school. Basically the only plausible scenarios is that he has a very rich family, most likely, or he won the lotto, less likely. Or for a big stretch, you could theorize that he married very young and his wife's family is rolling in it. Not that any of this matters, but it is a little intriguing.
Completely ridiculous and the very definition of hypocracy. Who cares what Suze Orman would say? Does Suze Orman live in poverty? No, she has a net worth of $10 million, a beautiful home and gave almost $30K to the DNC two years ago. She knows nothing about this guy's situation just like you don't.

You are applying a narrow minded moral judgement to this guy when you know nothing about his situation and have what some would describe as an excess of material items with 1200 games yourself. Nobody needs 1200 games just like nobody needs even a single game. Games are luxury items just like anything beyond food, water, shelter and love are. Even if you only spent $5 each on those games (and let's be honest, you probably spent much more on many of them), that's $6,000 that could be feeding the poor, clothing the naked, ending disease, etc...

You also don't need to be rich to give lots of money away or donate lots of your time. In fact, poorer people are typically more generous than the rich as a percentage of income that they give to charities.

Who cares if he came from a wealthy family? Maybe his father or his father's father worked from poverty to become wealthy. Isn't that what many people claim to be the American dream? Are all rich people automatically evil in your book? Should rich parents not share any of that wealth with their kids? Should poor parents present their children with a bill at age 18 for anything beyond the bare basics that they have bought them over the years?

There are a lot bigger problems and examples of waste in the world than this one guy who has only about a third more games than you own and the fact that none of us know his story makes it really disturbing that some people are judging him and assuming facts about him for which there is no basis.