It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is money the curse of mankind?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   
I look around and I see homeless people, people hungry as well as other things and I think "Isnt every estate agent in England full of adverts for empty houses? And arnt supermarkets & people throwing tonnes of food away each day" If our society wasnt built on money maybe those empty homes could be filled with the homeless & the food distributed equally.

Every person has a quality they could give to the community no matter who they are.

If people had not invented money, and we worked for the satisfaction of working and helping our fellow person wouldn't a lot of the problems we have today be non existant?

I also think if every person worked an equal amount of time and got 'an equal share of the pie' that they would benefit from a greater share of a community togetherness.

I would like to hear what people have to say about this.




posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Damien_uk
 


"" Is money the curse of mankind? "


Nope!


The love of money and the manipulation of the dollar and the healthcare system is at THE ROOT of the ills of the planet.


Please don't fall for the comments by the silver tongued wordsmiths

who know how to manipulate people and con them into joining causes

that will only line the pockets of those in charge and get folks to change

their loyalty to something that is other than what is advertised.


This stuff is the rhetoric of the collectivists, and marxists and progressives

who are doing their part to screw up the world even more than it is already,

but pretending to be part of the solution.




The solution is to re-gain the REAL FREE PRESS,

and also throw out the VERMIN in the gov't.


A pretty tall order....



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   
The only curse of mankind is agreements.

Agreements cant be broken.

^^Think of all the ppl in one that want out of it... They are cursed, are they not?

You cant just enter into a country with your agreement that says you are of another country. Certian ppl cant settle where they'd like to because of what? Agreements.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 02:11 PM
link   
I definately see your point, but agree w/ the above poster when they say it's the LOVE of money that has gotten us into this mess.

Sad that money (which is nothing in and of itself, but rather the means by which we gain "things" that are generally nothing in and of themselves) has become more important than our fellow humans.

side note: although some ppl who have nothing are in that position bc they choose to be. not all, but some.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Toasted,
Surely without money we would not be as advanced as we are because our lives would be slower paced and less competitive.

You say manipulation of the dollar is one of the causes. If there was no dollar to manipulate that would be that problem solved. Same goes for the love of the dollar & the healthcare system would truly be free!

I believe that we had sown the seeds of our own downfall through greed. The problem is everything now has a for sale tag on it. You can not live your life without being involved with money. But money will only really benefit a small percentage of people.


[edit on 3-6-2008 by Damien_uk]



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   
I don't think it's the actual monetary system that is the problem. Unfortunatley, humanity will take advantage of any situation. Individuals will look out for themselves and those that are closest to them. Regardless of the exchange system (barter, monetary, etc.) there have always been the haves and the have nots. There will always be stratification, because the communist like idea of working hard and sharing equally is against what we are socialized for (I am still debating if we are born with this survival need to focus on self-preservation and those with the high personal association) and is irrealistic.

No matter what system we try to enact, there will always be this dispersion of those with more and those with less. The problem is finding a solution. Then, of course there is the problem mentioned by justamomma.


Originally posted by justamomma
side note: although some ppl who have nothing are in that position bc they choose to be. not all, but some.


Just because working hard and sharing resources sounds like a good idea, doesn't mean everyone will jump on the bandwagon. There are lazy people out there who just don't care, and there are greedy people out there who will suppress the less fortunate to hold onto their wealth, whether that wealth is money, land, housing, guns, food, etc.

Just my personal opinion, but i have found that the efforts of the lazy and greedy tend to outweigh those who try to be fair. I'm not saying that it's completely impossible to create a world that cares more about community cohesiveness and aiding the needy. I just think it will be the single greatest challenge that mankind has ever faced.

edit: spelling

[edit on 3-6-2008 by dragonfire2159]



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Problem with your theory is that the human race has moved away from survival as their primary concern to possesions and power. Would you give up all your luxuries to provide the balance to the rest of the world? Most people won't, and the few that do only make a minor difference in the world. Greed is the source to the worlds problems, not money. You want the money to have all the luxuries that we are now used to, and it has turned into a standard of living that is beyond where it should have ever gone. I don't think there is one person who can honestly state that their life isn't partially controlled by greed. To have a world at peace we would have to have everyone give just as much as they take, incuding with the planet.
Banks own third world countries through debt and keep them in this state so they can have cheap labour and force them to manufacture/grow products that make them the most profit. This means the countries staple food is switched out for a cosumable like coffe that they can export to first world nations. World food shortage? No.... Greed.
I am just as guilty falling into this greed agenda of the world corporations and banks. It's an easy path to follow when you don't see the damage you are doing to the rest of the world without even knowing it, and your attention is glued to your big screen as you play guitar hero.
Then there is hate. The alternative when greed is not available in ubundance. These societies raise there children with a religious or racial bias that will never make them equals. Civil wars and unrest throughout the world are seen on a daily basis; just look at the middle east for example.
Then there are those that just try to survive and are happy with this feat alone. These are the people that truly have the potential to make the world peaceful. That is if they can resist hate and greed when it is available to them.
Sorry about the pessimistic view on the world, but that's the way I observe it.
I'd love to hear possible solutions to create a peaceful world...... I'm just not to sure on it's possibility based on the human race track record.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   
IMHO, no.

Greed is.

As is the quest for material wealth.

We have to realise that the knowledge, experiences and love make us wealthy, not notes, coins and material goods.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   
No, sound money is good. By sound money I mean fair money. The system we have today is corrupted. It has been taken over and been used against us. Greed is not a bad thing either in my book. As long as the money you make has been made fairly. Those that crave knowledge can pursue that. Those that crave love can pursue that. Those that want material wealth should be able to pursue that without being vilified.

Jealousy, however, should be scorned. Jealousy is what the collectivists feed off of. Damn I sound like Ayn Rand...



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Money is not the curse of mankind; more like a blessing. Money has allowed our society and our technology to evolve to the levels it is at today. If not for money, you would be hunting elk and bartering for corn to survive.



However, the private corporations and government(s) exploiting the people and devaluing our money ARE the "curse of mankind".



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Greed is the curse of mankind. Gold, money, silver, jewels.. anything that is worth something sparks greed.

Personally, I would love to see the world put into a state where we were back to barter and trade system.

Want one of my lambs for dinner? Great.. I will give you a lamb for your table if you will give me the hides of those deer you killed so I can make some clothes for myself.

Much better system in my opinion and forced people of a community to work together to survive.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Money is not the problem, the love of money is. How does the old saying go?

"The love of money is the root of all evil."

I still say we should place a cap on profits. It's OK to make a profit, just not an obscene one.

If a company makes 100 million dollars a year and the next year makes 200 million dollars. Limit the profit to 25%. They still get 25 million to divvy up.

Use the other 75 million to make the world a better place.

I know, I know, that sounds so Un-American.

I'm just tired of feeling American. Where those who just happen to fall into the right place at the right time screw the hell out of everyone that missed the boat.

We've become a nation where those who have the money take pleasure in screwing those that don't.

It will not stop until someone steps up and makes it stop.

Or as a nation we implode.

I'm betting the implosion will happen before the greed is stopped.

It will be stopped though. One way or the other.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Damien_uk
 




We are not in control.




there is no you or I in WE.!

do you understand that?

THEY use the excuse that man is this and man is that....what a crock of horse hockey.

Not one one of us has had any effect on the way the world is run.

It is all done at a level they don't even show on the teevee.

[edit on 3-6-2008 by toasted]



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by toasted

there is no you or I in WE.!



There is an EWE.....if you toss up the letters a bit.

Like in EWE...this sucks!

Unless your one of the folks with allot of money



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 10:00 PM
link   
How America created its own money in 1750
Benjamin Franklin tells what made New England prosperous


In 1750, the American colonies were more prosperous than the home country of England. How did this happen?

Before the Declaration of Independence and the war that followed, the colonized part of what is today the United States of America was a Crown possession of England. It was called New England, and was made up of 13 colonies, which became the original states of the great Republic.

In 1750, the prosperity of the colonies prompted Benjamin Franklin to write:

"There was abundance in the Colonies, and peace reigned on every border. It was difficult, even impossible, to find a happier and more prosperous nation on all the surface of the globe. Comfort prevailed in every home. The people, in general, kept the highest moral standards, and education was widely spread."

When Franklin went over to England to represent the interests of the Colonies, he saw a completely different situation; the working population of the home country was gnawed by hunger and plagued by inescapable poverty. "The streets are covered with beggars and tramps," he wrote. He asked his English friends how England, with all its wealth, could have so much poverty among its working classes. His friends replied that England was prey to a terrible condition: it had too many workers! The rich said they were already overburdened paying wages and taxes, and could not pay more to relieve the needs and poverty of this great mass of workers. Several rich Englishmen of that time actually believed what economist Thomas Malthus later wrote, claiming that wars and epidemic disease were necessary to rid the country from "a surplus of manpower."

People in London asked Franklin how the American Colonies managed to collect enough money to support their poorhouses, and how they could overcome this plague of unemployment and pauperism.

Franklin replied; "We have no poorhouses in the Colonies, and if we had some, there would be no one to put in them, since in the Colonies there is not a single unemployed person, not a single beggar in the streets nor a single tramp."

His cohorts could not believe their ears, or understand how this situation could be anything but exaggeration. They knew when the English poorhouses and jails became too cluttered, England shipped the wretched inmates like cattle to be dumped on the colonies overseas, such as New England or Australia, assuming they survived the hardships of the journey. (In those days English debtors went to jail if they could not pay their debts, and few escaped, since in jail they could not earn money.)
Franklin's acquaintances, in view of all this, asked him how he could explain the remarkable prosperity of the New England Colonies.

Franklin told them:

"Why, that is simple! In the Colonies, we issue our own paper money. It's called 'Colonial Scrip.' We issue it to pay the government's approved expenses and charities. We make sure it's issued in proper proportion to make the goods pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In other words, we make sure there is always adequate money in circulation for the needs of the economy.

In this manner, by creating ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay, to anyone. You see, a legitimate government spends money into circulation, while banks can only lend money, and they can never lend but a tiny fraction of the money the people need. Thus, when your bankers here in England place money in circulation, there is always a debt to be returned and interest to be paid. The result is that you have always too little credit in circulation to give the workers full employment. You do not have too many workers, you have too little money in circulation, and that which circulates, all bears the endless burden of unpayable debt and usury."



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 10:00 PM
link   
This advice soon came to the attention of the powerful English Bankers. They quickly decided that issuing money directly from the government must be outlawed, for if the bankers were to hold their positions of authority in society, they must make scarce a resource that everyone needs but only the bankers can supply. They used their influence to have the British Parliament pass a law that prohibited the Colonies from creating or using their Colonial Scrip money. The new law ordered them to use only credit redeemable in gold and silver coins that were provided in insufficient quantity by the banks of England. And so began in America the plague of debt-based money, which has ever since brought as many hardships to the American people, as it has to the Europeans before them.

The first law regulating Colonial money was passed by the British Parliament 1751, then expanded by a more restrictive law in 1763.

Franklin reported that only one year after implementation of the prohibition on Colonial Scrip, the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed and beggars, just like those he had seen in England. The common sight of prosperity and happiness vanished, the majority of production had shut down, businesses closed their doors, public services ceased, desperation turned people out of work to theft, homeless were on the streets, and debts went to default... all because there was not enough money to pay the wages for the people willing to work, and to spend for those wanting to buy. This was done by the English Bankers reducing the circulation of money to half of what it was before the laws were enacted.

Franklin added "The Colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been for the poverty created by the bad influence of the English Bankers on the Parliament, which has caused in the Colonies hatred of England and the Revolutionary War."

Other great statesmen of that era, including Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and George Jackson confirmed this point of view held by Franklin. Andrew Jackson revoked the charter for a central bank of America, and later there was an assassination attempt on him. Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, and John Kennedy all issued money by the authority of government without the use of borrowing it from banks, and all three suffered assassination while in office.

A remarkably honest English historian, John Twells, when speaking of the money of the Colonies, wrote: "It was the monetary system under which America's Colonies flourished to such an extent that Edmund Burke was able to write about them: 'Nothing in the history of the world resembles their progress. It was a sound and beneficial system, and its effects led to the happiness of the people.'"

He added: "In a bad hour, the British Parliament took away from America its own scrip money, forbade any further issue of such bills of credit, these bills ceasing to be legal tender, and ordered that all taxes should be paid in British coins. Consider now the consequences: this restriction of the medium of exchange paralyzed all the industrial energies of the people. Ruin took place in these once flourishing Colonies; most rigorous distress visited every family and every business, discontent became desperation, and reached a point, to use the words of Dr. Johnson, when human nature rises up and asserts its rights."

Another historical writer, Peter Cooper, expressed himself along the same lines. After saying how Franklin had explained to members of Parliament the reason for the prosperity of the Colonies, Cooper wrote:

"After Franklin gave explanations on the true cause of the prosperity of the Colonies, the Parliament enacted laws forbidding the use of this money in the payment of taxes. This decree, clearly in the interest of the British bankers who stood behind the Crown, brought so many drawbacks and so much poverty to the people that it was the main cause sparking the Revolution. The suppression of the Colonial money was a much more important reason for the general uprising than the Tea and Stamp Acts."

Today, in America as well as in Europe, governments have ceased to create money interest-free by their own authority, and have relinquished this privilege to privately-owned banking corporations, which charge an interest fee on the money that they "loan" out. Will we soon face an economic crisis similar to what America and England endured in the 18th century?



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Always be wary of leaders that emerge from popular socialist revolutions. They never really have the people's interests in mind...


What we need is a very minor change, really. We need our government to follow the just laws of the land. That's all. No revolution, no overthrowing. Just make them obey the law like everybody else has to.


And executives cannot legislate. Duh.



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 12:41 AM
link   
Interesting to hear peoples replies.

I dont think that in our lifetimes there will be a shift away from the monetary system. Although the idea of everyone working together sounds appealling. With our societyy it is 'every man for themselves'. If we could just work together it would be a more civilised place.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join