I'm not moralizing. Godin was talking specifically of getting further ahead financially, rather than falling further behind. There are many things that people want to spend money on that actually put them further behind.
To get further ahead financially, you either need to save your money now, or spend it on something that will pay off +ve, later (while not experiencing bad enough cash flow that you die before the expected benefit). This is simple arithmetic.
Many, many projects or expenditures fail to live up to their initially expected benefit. Beyond that, at any moment, we're not aware of all the investments we could make, nor are we certain of their outcomes. So, it's foolish to write, as Godin does:
"When someone in poverty buys a device that improves productivity, the device pays for itself (if it didn’t, they wouldn’t buy it.)"
I like the rest of the piece, I was just pointing out the obvious flaw in his uncritical, simplistic, free-market claims.
EDIT> You seem to be reacting emotionally to the smoking issue. What about this example instead?
Suppose someone offers to sell some poor sod a supposedly productivity-enhancing perpetual motion machine, and the potential buyer believes it will work.
Is it incorrect for me, as a third party, to say that this would be a foolish investment (from the perspective of increased finances/productivity)? After all, it's not my life to live. Who am I to interfere?
