ForumGarden

It is sometimes said that the biggest problem people have with money is their understanding of it. Money is just a means of exchange.

I think the most clever invention ever made is money. They made a fortune.

This topic has been brewing since I had the thought "If money was food there would be no billionaires". (the food would all rot)

What is your perspective on money?

For me, money is a tool with which I exchange to satisfy safety, hunger, health, passion, excitement, entertainment, curiosity, travel and charity.

Lon wrote: For me, money is a tool with which I exchange to satisfy safety, hunger, health, passion, excitement, entertainment, curiosity, travel and charity.


Pretty much as above, it fuels some of the same for me. Mostly with being a SM it puts a roof over our heads, feeds us, allows us to get from point a to point b quicker than walking, and allows my daughter to be educated.

Lon wrote: For me, money is a tool with which I exchange to satisfy safety, hunger, health, passion, excitement, entertainment, curiosity, travel and charity.


Beautifully put Lon...

Can you imagine a world without money?

Money is nothing more than a popular peoples deceit over the inferior, to remain popular and to hold its power it Solly needs to survive.

K.Snyder wrote: Money is nothing more than a popular peoples deceit over the inferior, to remain popular and to hold its power it Solly needs to survive.


How so?

minks wrote: How so?


Without money there would be no certain "class" of people, giving everyone the same opportunities as the next, and would certainly not establish a well organized government - or "Kingship" over its people. Without money there would be more open markets(trade) and more variety, which would eliminate monopolies.

All my opinion.

K.Snyder wrote: Without money there would be no certain "class" of people, giving everyone the same opportunities as the next, and would certainly not establish a well organized government - or "Kingship" over its people. Without money there would be more open markets(trade) and more variety, which would eliminate monopolies.

All my opinion.


Very true, but folks would still "outdo" others by say... having more cows, or land or rivers. There would still be a "class" system.

From the man who signed the Federal Reserve Act

“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by

its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”

- President Woodrow Wilson

If it wasn't possessory objects, it would be something else unique that would form a class system.

I am like Lon, money is the ends to a mean-how to live and get items for survival, and extra spent on worthy causes, and a little frivolity once in awhile.

*give me some frivolity for summer vacation!*:)

K.Snyder wrote: Without money there would be no certain "class" of people, giving everyone the same opportunities as the next, and would certainly not establish a well organized government - or "Kingship" over its people. Without money there would be more open markets(trade) and more variety, which would eliminate monopolies.

All my opinion.


There would still be people with greater intellect, skills & strength, thus creating a class.

For open markets to survive and reward the marketers, there would have to be some kind of bartering for goods. Any kind of bartering is nothing more than a replacement ot $$$$

minks wrote: Very true, but folks would still "outdo" others by say... having more cows, or land or rivers. There would still be a "class" system.


Shall we agree, maybe so....yet have to admit not nearly as much, and on the same note not nearly as profitable.

You have to take in the fact that without money as being nothing more than an illusionary feeling of self sufficiency, there would be no interest, no loans, no equity, and not nearly as much investments as today.

My point is, is that money was created to portray a false since of superiority over people in an attempt to influence their own ideals over the majority of those people.

My opinion

One of the problems with the printed money system is that the printers are charging for their service, but the money to pay for the service is never printed, therefore impossible to repay. This creates debt that is then funneled into the lower classes increasing poverty.

Lon wrote: There would still be people with greater intellect, skills & strength, thus creating a class.




While I agree with you on this, I would like to add.....

It doesnt take a rocket scientist to build their home, hunt and to raise their children with morale values, and to have the right to be free and left alone.

K.Snyder wrote: Shall we agree, maybe so....yet have to admit not nearly as much, and on the same note not nearly as profitable.

You have to take in the fact that without money as being nothing more than an illusionary feeling of self sufficiency, there would be no interest, no loans, no equity, and not nearly as much investments as today.

My point is, is that money was created to portray a false since of superiority over people in an attempt to influence their own ideals over the majority of those people.

My opinion


good point indeed. I can't argue it. I can only say now that we have it we are forced to use it, and some abuse it indeed. Some of us merely get by with it.

minks wrote: good point indeed. I can't argue it. I can only say now that we have it we are forced to use it, and some abuse it indeed. Some of us merely get by with it.


Have you read Atlas Shrugged? If not, I hear the movie is coming out in the near future. (Rand presents a situation where the corrupt society is abandoned)

koan wrote: Have you read Atlas Shrugged? If not, I hear the movie is coming out in the near future. (Rand presents a situation where the corrupt society is abandoned)


No not read it, maybe I should.

K.Snyder wrote: While I agree with you on this, I would like to add.....

It doesnt take a rocket scientist to build their home, hunt and to raise their children with morale values, and to have the right to be free and left alone.


There would still be those capable of building a bigger and better home, hunting & killing two deer insead of one and raising children with superior skills as well, thereby creating envy in others, just like those that envy people with more money. The problem is not money, it's envy and greed.

Lon wrote: There would still be those capable of building a bigger and better home, hunting & killing two deer insead of one and raising children with superior skills as well, thereby creating envy in others, just like those that envy people with more money. The problem is not money, it's envy and greed.


A bigger house doesnt effect other people, like taxes and votes for instance and alot of other things involved in the simple stat of money.

You have the greed and envy part right, but I think that dives into morale values as opposed to why money has evolved. Money creates envy and greed, not visa versa.

There is a bit of a catch to the envy/greed thing. A capitalist society relies on envy and greed to promote consumerism. By buying the products that create the appearance of success we line the pockets of the manufacturers who will continue to have more than the consumer.

Trends are a blatant way of using consumerism to pad the rich.

One of the problems with money is that it can be hoarded. That's why I thought "If money was food there would be no billionaires." Prophets since the beginning of time have warned against taking more than one needs. Their warnings continue to go unheeded.

People continue to invent ways to get people to buy things that are unneeded, thus consuming the money that is intended for the poor. Which I think adds to my opinion that without money, there would not be a difference in class....If so, it would be minimal to say the least...not enough to create envy.

K.Snyder wrote: A bigger house doesnt effect other people, like taxes and votes for instance and alot of other things involved in the simple stat of money.

You have the greed and envy part right, but I think that dives into morale values as opposed to why money has evolved. Money creates envy and greed, not visa versa.


C'mon now---think----you can have envy and greed without money.

K.Snyder wrote: People continue to invent ways to get people to buy things that are unneeded, thus consuming the money that is intended for the poor. Which I think adds to my opinion that without money, there would not be a difference in class....If so, it would be minimal to say the least...not enough to create envy.


Who is to say what is needed or unneeded, the state? Isn't it really a matter of opinion?

K.Snyder wrote: People continue to invent ways to get people to buy things that are unneeded, thus consuming the money that is intended for the poor. Which I think adds to my opinion that without money, there would not be a difference in class....If so, it would be minimal to say the least...not enough to create envy.


Even within the Neanderthals there was no doubt class and along with it, envy and greed, but no monetary system that we know of.

koan wrote: Have you read Atlas Shrugged? If not, I hear the movie is coming out in the near future. (Rand presents a situation where the corrupt society is abandoned)
A great read. "Who's John Galt?"

"MONEY" is not all that important!

The people who have it are!!!:)

cars wrote: "MONEY" is not all that important!

The people who have it are!!!:)


mkay the government has all my money I dont' think they are so important so do you think the could give it back to me?? ahahahahaha

Minks!

If you don't want to wait for the movie, here are the Cliff's Notes: Atlas Shrugged

koan wrote: Minks!

If you don't want to wait for the movie, here are the Cliff's Notes: Atlas Shrugged


cool cool Am going there now

minks wrote: mkay the government has all my money I dont' think they are so important so do you think the could give it back to me?? ahahahahaha


They would most likely tell you that all "your" money is in "their banks", and any time "you wanted some" all you have to do is "take out a LOAN"!:D :rolleyes: :p

koan wrote: Can you imagine a world without money?


As a massive expansion of the Lets system - organized barter.

Trouble is, if you take that to its logical conclusion the barter records become a new form of money.

Lon wrote: C'mon now---think----you can have envy and greed without money.


What would one envy another for without money, or moneys direct effect on why anyone should be envied?(Spelling?) Keeping in mind envy being a good thing, which has good results to ones ambition.

Same as for greed.

Lon wrote: Who is to say what is needed or unneeded, the state? Isn't it really a matter of opinion?


An opinion that is the ideals of the majority of human kind who judge them to be so.

You cant say that there is nothing unneeded in the world, that isnt being consumed, at the same time markets trying to sell them.

Lon wrote: Even within the Neanderthals there was no doubt class and along with it, envy and greed, but no monetary system that we know of.


I cant buy this...



No money = a society who works together to maintain health and prosperity among all it associates with. All having the same place in society, which is to survive. (from my opinion of course)

K.Snyder wrote: An opinion that is the ideals of the majority of human kind who judge them to be so.

Y.


You think you speak for the majority then?

K.Snyder wrote: I cant buy this...



No money = a society who works together to maintain health and prosperity among all it associates with. All having the same place in society, which is to survive. (from my opinion of course)


So you have a better hunting spear than I have / a more comfortable corner of the cave / your mate has a more attractively flattened nose / you can track dear better than I can

Of course there will be envy and greed independently of money whether or not members of the tribe work together to survive.

K.Snyder wrote: What would one envy another for without money, or moneys direct effect on why anyone should be envied?(Spelling?) Keeping in mind envy being a good thing, which has good results to ones ambition.

Same as for greed.


The weak will seek the protection of the strong and sometimes envy their strength. The ugly person might envy those that are not ugly. There would be haves in a Moneyless society and they would be envied by the havenots.

Greed can exist without money. The aquisition and accumulation of anything beyond one's needs might be considered greed.

Diuretic wrote: Money is better than barter because if you have something I don't want but I have something you want then we're going to be in conflict with one another. You might attack me to get what you want. I also don't have to wander around asking people if they have what I want so I can offer them something they may want and be disappointed if they don't want what I have. Money means we don't have to go through that rigmarole.


That's where the Lets scheme fits in - you barter your skills or produce for notional points within the local community. Thus, I fix your computer for free but then your neighbour gives me the side of lamb I wanted because you laid her a patio.

Lon wrote: You think you speak for the majority then?


More of an educated guess.

When skill doesnt equal money, then you have a true differential in class, and its really sad.

Its sad when someone is born into a class of poverty, and is fully capable of the job of their upperclassmen, yet still cannot exercise that skill because of the segregation of classes.

Diuretic wrote: Sounds like a great idea - governments would hate it though, takes away control from them


and tax revenue

Although I here that the IR are trying to tax people on the assumed value of the work done / produce exchanged

K.Snyder wrote:

Its sad when someone is born into a class of poverty, and is fully capable of the job of their upperclassmen, yet still cannot exercise that skill because of the segregation of classes.


What country are you talking about? Care to give an example?

Lon wrote: What country are you talking about? Care to give an example?


From what I see the USA is a prime example.

Not everyone can afford a college education, yet not everyone who cannot afford a college education can be more than capable of the jobs that do so require a degree of some sort. Unless you think this is false.

K.Snyder wrote: From what I see the USA is a prime example.

Not everyone can afford a college education, yet not everyone who cannot afford a college education can be more than capable of the jobs that do so require a degree of some sort. Unless you think this is false.


Motivation alone determines if one will pursue and complete a college education not whether they can afford it. The examples of this are many.

Are you saying that those without a college education are just as able to practice medicine, engineering, teach, etc. as those with a degree?

It is hard to get a degree, but not impossible if ones pursues it and works alot towards this goal. I got my degrees later in life, when I finally made enough income to pay for the fees. Many of my fellow teachers took out student loans to cover the costs, and work hard to pay them back. It is worth the extra effort, you appreciate the good education system we have here.