Most of the reason to have back up funds (emergency fund, reserve funds and float) is to have back ups in the event that cashflow gets cut off for some reason or another.  Having a cashflow (even a strong cashflow) does not necessarily get a person out of the need to keep back up funds.  Some folks are surely sloppy with their cashflow management and do not keep back up funds (or emergency funds) based on their having decently strong cashflows - yet such people might still end up getting themselves into a bad situation based on their lack of preparedness for a loss of their cashflow.


With your bringing up of the arguments about wealth transfers, I am not sure if you are debunking shitcoin arguments or trying to refer to other kinds of wealth transfers. 

It probably remains confusing to use the term "wealth transfer" in the context of shitcoins, since who gives any fucks about shitcoins.   ... especially since we should be keeping our eyes on the prize, which is bitcoin, and largely in the past 10 years, wealth transfer has been ongoingly taking place in regards to bitcoin versus various fiat systems, and sure some of the wealth transfer may have had been slow and difficult to notice along the way, yet at the same time, those guys ongoingly putting value into bitcoin have been becoming more and more rich, as compared with if they would have had been putting such value into various fiat systems...  .. so our ongoing wealth transfer into bitcoin has not really slowed down if we are able to zoom out in regards to our perspective, which truly I consider the 200-WMA to be a better way of attempting to monitor the ongoing wealth transfer from fiat systems into bitcoin.


If a person becomes accustomed to a certain standard of living, his views on mandatory versus discretionary will likely be based around the standard of living that he is accustomed to living.  He might objectively have flexibility and ways to cut down on his expenses, yet he might choose not to and still label some of his discretionary expenses as mandatory.  I have no problem with guys figuring out their own definitions, even though there may be some changes that a guy could make to his life that allows him to buy more bitcoin, but he chooses not to make such changes.

Let's say that a guy has a budget of $100 every week for "entertainment," such as going to bars and various kinds of night life expenses.  This might not be unreasonable for one guy, even though it may well seem to be total luxury for another guy... another guy might have a budget of $100 per month or even $50 per month for all of his entertainment, even though the guy who has $100 per week for "night life entertainment." He might have another extra budget for other kinds of entertainment beyond just the nightlife, and surely some guys might consider such a high budget on "entertainment" to be discretionary, the guy might consider that he has to maintain a certain level of social activity, and he has come to conclude that his various kinds of entertainment are basic requirements that he needs to maintain (perhaps until he finds a spouse, and maybe he will even choose to continue with the same level of "entertainment" budget after obtaining a spouse?).   

Guys have rights to make their own determinations about what they consider to be mandatory versus discretionary, and sure it is possible that upon further contemplation of the situation, some guys might reconsider their ways of categorizing mandatory versus discretionary, yet guys don't necessarily need to do anything that they don't want to do, even though some guys might consider the framework of other guys to be unrealistic and perhaps even keeping the other guys in a life of ongoing excessive consumption and keeping them out of a life of being able to invest in bitcoin or anything else.

There are some guys that no matter how much they make, they will come up with excuses to find ways of spending (and consuming) with any extra money that they make rather than investing into anything like bitcoin.


I never said anything about the guy being confused, even though I mentioned that a guy may well have several options for achieving the same objective, and he has to choose which option fits his purpose in light of how much it will cost and how much utility he will get  out of it.  Surely guys will sometimes choose more luxurious (and costly) options out of their discretion, even though part of the base expense may well have had been mandatory, they may choose to upgrade to a version of the expense that has discretionary components that were not needed in order to achieve the more base objective (whether it was to deliver flowers or some other objective(s) might have had been the reason for the need to choose between transportation options).  Some objects or the purchasing of goods and/or services may well have both mandatory and discretionary components.


You do seem to be getting matters mixed up, as Marvelockg pointed out.

Your budget surely might determine how much you can spend, but your expenses regarding what you need versus what you want may well come prior to you having a budget... so you likely need to figure out what you need and what are your expenses, and once you figure that out, if you have any money left in your budget, then maybe you can choose what you want after paying for what you need. 

Sure, you are not differentiating between what you want and what you need because you are first looking at how much money you have and then you are determining what you want to buy with that money, and surely hopefully you are making sure that you have what you need covered prior to spending on the things that you want.


We might have different definitions of what is mandatory and what is discretionary, yet I still would think that each one of us should be able to differentiate between what we have decided that we need from what we have decided that we want (according to you, how much money is left after spending on what we need first..and if we don't have any money left we cannot buy those additional items that we want to buy)..


I think that I was also distinguishing between kinds of motorcycles, too... since depending on the purpose it may be more economical to buy one model versus another, and it may be more economical to buy a van rather than a motorcycle, especially if there is a need to carry BIGGER kinds of items, the van might end up paying for itself, and including bringing in extra money (contributing to extra income). I would not proclaim to know the answer in regards to choosing which goods/services are mandatory versus discretionary, especially if there might be a certain context in which they are justifiable... yet a person might have a really dumb idea in regards to various aspects of his flower shop, so he might not even justify his decision properly, so he might even erroneously conclude one purchase of a good/service is superior to another in regards to serving his needs, but he miscalculates the value of the whole project.


I think that markets are expecting to be down tomorrow, but it can be difficult to know.

At this point, I am thinking down is more likely than up, but it is not like I trade any of these kinds of matters, since I buy if it goes down.. at least bitcoin.  For me, the rest of it is "whatever" even though many of us know that various markets relate to one another in the short term, even though they don't necessarily move in the same direction at the same exact time.  Bitcoin's currently going down seems to be anticipating general markets continuing to go down, at least tomorrow, on Monday, absent some kind of reason for possible reversal or slowing the current DOWNity pressures.

Most of the reason to have back up funds (emergency fund, reserve funds and float) is to have back ups in the event that cashflow gets cut off for some reason or another.  Having a cashflow (even a strong cashflow) does not necessarily get a person out of the need to keep back up funds.  Some folks are surely sloppy with their cashflow management and do not keep back up funds (or emergency funds) based on their having decently strong cashflows - yet such people might still end up getting themselves into a bad situation based on their lack of preparedness for a loss of their cashflow.


With your bringing up of the arguments about wealth transfers, I am not sure if you are debunking shitcoin arguments or trying to refer to other kinds of wealth transfers. 

It probably remains confusing to use the term "wealth transfer" in the context of shitcoins, since who gives any fucks about shitcoins.   ... especially since we should be keeping our eyes on the prize, which is bitcoin, and largely in the past 10 years, wealth transfer has been ongoingly taking place in regards to bitcoin versus various fiat systems, and sure some of the wealth transfer may have had been slow and difficult to notice along the way, yet at the same time, those guys ongoingly putting value into bitcoin have been becoming more and more rich, as compared with if they would have had been putting such value into various fiat systems...  .. so our ongoing wealth transfer into bitcoin has not really slowed down if we are able to zoom out in regards to our perspective, which truly I consider the 200-WMA to be a better way of attempting to monitor the ongoing wealth transfer from fiat systems into bitcoin.


If a person becomes accustomed to a certain standard of living, his views on mandatory versus discretionary will likely be based around the standard of living that he is accustomed to living.  He might objectively have flexibility and ways to cut down on his expenses, yet he might choose not to and still label some of his discretionary expenses as mandatory.  I have no problem with guys figuring out their own definitions, even though there may be some changes that a guy could make to his life that allows him to buy more bitcoin, but he chooses not to make such changes.

Let's say that a guy has a budget of $100 every week for "entertainment," such as going to bars and various kinds of night life expenses.  This might not be unreasonable for one guy, even though it may well seem to be total luxury for another guy... another guy might have a budget of $100 per month or even $50 per month for all of his entertainment, even though the guy who has $100 per week for "night life entertainment." He might have another extra budget for other kinds of entertainment beyond just the nightlife, and surely some guys might consider such a high budget on "entertainment" to be discretionary, the guy might consider that he has to maintain a certain level of social activity, and he has come to conclude that his various kinds of entertainment are basic requirements that he needs to maintain (perhaps until he finds a spouse, and maybe he will even choose to continue with the same level of "entertainment" budget after obtaining a spouse?).   

Guys have rights to make their own determinations about what they consider to be mandatory versus discretionary, and sure it is possible that upon further contemplation of the situation, some guys might reconsider their ways of categorizing mandatory versus discretionary, yet guys don't necessarily need to do anything that they don't want to do, even though some guys might consider the framework of other guys to be unrealistic and perhaps even keeping the other guys in a life of ongoing excessive consumption and keeping them out of a life of being able to invest in bitcoin or anything else.

There are some guys that no matter how much they make, they will come up with excuses to find ways of spending (and consuming) with any extra money that they make rather than investing into anything like bitcoin.


I never said anything about the guy being confused, even though I mentioned that a guy may well have several options for achieving the same objective, and he has to choose which option fits his purpose in light of how much it will cost and how much utility he will get  out of it.  Surely guys will sometimes choose more luxurious (and costly) options out of their discretion, even though part of the base expense may well have had been mandatory, they may choose to upgrade to a version of the expense that has discretionary components that were not needed in order to achieve the more base objective (whether it was to deliver flowers or some other objective(s) might have had been the reason for the need to choose between transportation options).  Some objects or the purchasing of goods and/or services may well have both mandatory and discretionary components.


You do seem to be getting matters mixed up, as Marvelockg pointed out.

Your budget surely might determine how much you can spend, but your expenses regarding what you need versus what you want may well come prior to you having a budget... so you likely need to figure out what you need and what are your expenses, and once you figure that out, if you have any money left in your budget, then maybe you can choose what you want after paying for what you need. 

Sure, you are not differentiating between what you want and what you need because you are first looking at how much money you have and then you are determining what you want to buy with that money, and surely hopefully you are making sure that you have what you need covered prior to spending on the things that you want.


We might have different definitions of what is mandatory and what is discretionary, yet I still would think that each one of us should be able to differentiate between what we have decided that we need from what we have decided that we want (according to you, how much money is left after spending on what we need first..and if we don't have any money left we cannot buy those additional items that we want to buy)..


I think that I was also distinguishing between kinds of motorcycles, too... since depending on the purpose it may be more economical to buy one model versus another, and it may be more economical to buy a van rather than a motorcycle, especially if there is a need to carry BIGGER kinds of items, the van might end up paying for itself, and including bringing in extra money (contributing to extra income). I would not proclaim to know the answer in regards to choosing which goods/services are mandatory versus discretionary, especially if there might be a certain context in which they are justifiable... yet a person might have a really dumb idea in regards to various aspects of his flower shop, so he might not even justify his decision properly, so he might even erroneously conclude one purchase of a good/service is superior to another in regards to serving his needs, but he miscalculates the value of the whole project.


I think that markets are expecting to be down tomorrow, but it can be difficult to know.

At this point, I am thinking down is more likely than up, but it is not like I trade any of these kinds of matters, since I buy if it goes down.. at least bitcoin.  For me, the rest of it is "whatever" even though many of us know that various markets relate to one another in the short term, even though they don't necessarily move in the same direction at the same exact time.  Bitcoin's currently going down seems to be anticipating general markets continuing to go down, at least tomorrow, on Monday, absent some kind of reason for possible reversal or slowing the current DOWNity pressures.