The real cause behind the crisis... like it or not.

Interesting OP!

Do I agree with it? Somewhat!

I noticed something, and it is this. You understand what money represents, but you do not truly understand what money is. The system you speak of is perfect to you...because it works. But, it works for you

Your premise that everything is how it should be, is well and true, granted that everything else surrounding it was good and fair. This is not the case.

You have a car, you need that car to get to work. Your car needs fuel, the gas station pumps this fuel, which they acquire from oil reserves in the Earth. People drill for these fuels, with expensive equipment and risk and require substantial payment for this. The people who build the machinery need to be paid to continue building this machinery and to be given something in return for building this machinery.

You can look at this on a very grand scale my friend. What if, just what if, their return for this is not in the form of money, but in knowing that they can grant the world and themselves fuel to go to their jobs, or rather, to their families? Of course, by your definition, this specific return IS the money! Interesting, huh? Yeah, I know! Build, construct and uplift for the sake of doing it, that is the reward, or as you say...the money.

The system does not work, because the system is corrupt. You have employees and employers, but it goes deeper than what you say. Employers employ people do what purpose? To provide a service? Yes, but mostly, to reap a profit. Most people hate their jobs, for many reasons. They are mistreated, used and most of all, overworked and underpaid. The fact is, most employers don't give a damn about their employees OR their customers. Because, the fact is, if they can acquire that money without either of them, customers and employees would not be needed.

How can this system be right, if certain things do not add up. Why must one have to miss their schooling because they do not have the money, or starve because of a lack of money? Something is wrong there. Money IS not the real reward. It is a device used to acquire what is really wanted and hardly ever needed. One does not stock money simply to say that he has it. We do not work for money. We work for what money can buy! In fact, it is a circular problem, as I said. I buy a TV, and pay you the money for your service of selling TVs, you pay the supplier, the supplier pays the manufacturer, the manufacturer pays the...you get the idea. But, wait...at the end of it all...it's not money that's even the true return, it's what it gets you. So, why can't the person at the assembly line make the TV, simply because it's...well...helping out someone who may need, or want a TV. because, at the end of the day, he(The man at the assembly line) has to go to a store...and purchase a...TV. Surprise, surprise!

Now, they have machines at assembly lines that do the job for the man...
What are we paying those machines? We're not. We're paying for the wear and tear and maintenance of such machinery. The person who repairs these machines simply cannot do this because, the world needs TVs, or let's use another example, because the world needs milk? Because, at the end of the day, the person repairing the milking machines don't work for money...they really work for what money can buy them. Money can buy milk...the very same thing they work directly with.

Many businessmen have millions, in some cases, billions of dollars and still, there are people who need that money for food, but cannot get it. But, must work day in and day out, for ridiculously small portions of money to purchase some food, that is still not enough. But wait, they must also purchase food that is over-priced and their cousin in China works on that very same farm that supplies this food, but is paid 10x less than what the food and his labour is worth?!?!?! Yes, the system does work.

Money is and NEVER was a means of return for a service or product. Money is a way for the people with the most of it, to ensure that certain things remain the way they are. If, money is not the final result(because, really, we do not work for money, but for what it can buy us), money is only used as means of controlling supply and managing resources(unfairly so). That is, who gets what! It also measures when they get it and how they get it...and ironically, how much they have to pay back after they've acquired it.

Edit to add:
I can think of many systems that can do this rationing without any sort of money! In fact, the more I think about it, the more I realize that money isn't needed for a damn thing. Neither is gold, diamond or any of that, not as a means of wealth, material distribution or...rationing. The world has enough resources to supply the basic necessities to everyone that dwells within it. The problem is...right now, with this system, you need money to attain certain basic things that one can, and should be able to attain without any form of device used to measure wealth. So, again...the issue is money, and, going deeper...it is man!

[edit on 19-2-2010 by sdrawkcabII]

I agree that it does go deeper, because what we have had is a whole class of people who do not work for a living to provide real products or services, but merely make money OFF money. Usury.

Greed is a problem, usury is a problem. Together the two of them are quiet combustible. I can't think of a religion that doesn't teach this. That's probably because as far as age old wisdom goes, this is a lesson that's been learned the hard way repeatedly, and the religions are recording the memory of how it always goes down.

reply to post by Blaine91555

Pre-Paid
Pre-paid is very simple. The entire economy is pre-paid. Look at it this way: We have a car sitting on a dealer’s lot. You walk up to buy the car. Does the dealer ever tell you "I am glad you are going to buy this car because we have to find out how we are going to pay for this car to be built." No is the answer you would get, but that is exactly what they are doing when you go to the bank to get a loan. When do they ever build something and then talk about how they are going to finance it to be built. The product was paid for when the contract was put in place to collect the industrial recourses through the Army Corp of Engineers, EPA, DOT, and OSHA in Flint, Michigan to build it. Even more precisely, the item was paid for when the census did a per-capita poll to identify how much money those agencies should put into the economy based on our productivity, (unfortunately take a quick look at Marxism and Keynesian Economics to make a connection with your worth and your previous status). Now everybody with a head (per capita) raise your hand. Good they loaned against you to finance the operation, that is the "Principal Account." Making the item pre-paid for the acceptor. This is another reason why you are the principal. The principal reason you are Pre-Paid is because Christ's acceptance of the sins in the Garden of Gethsemane and His death on the cross, created the Pre-Payment of all your liabilities both temporal and spiritual because they are inseparable because I wasn't here two thousand years ago but My sins were pre-paid on the condition that I accept the Redeemer. You are the source of economic production being the principal and your interest accruing from you i.e. a per-capita census statistics was pledged as the collateral to be the sponsor of the monetary systems' credit. That is why when interest that accrues from the principal gets returned (tax returned) to the principal, there is a decrease in tax liability (a deduction). The vendor is paying his taxes to you. That is why it is a tax matter. Tax is just a return of the interest to the principal.

When we change the way we look at things, the things we look at change. Dresden

loveforlife.com.au...

There are approximately 25-35 million people who have filed and reclaimed their strawman and live freely. I have done it. What most people don't understand is their own existence. Money is not needed. You can do so much with very little if you break the habit of believing what you learned. Schools are run by the U.N. and have been dumbing us down since 1900, THAT is the problem. We would all get along great if it weren't for those families, Elite Families, that have so destroyed the history and compassion of the world.

Want to stop all the shenanigens? File the paperwork and reclaim your alter ego, your strawman, and stop the "corporate government" from FEEDING off of you.

spiritualeconomicsnow.net...

Read all her writings at the above link, she also has done this years ago. I learned from her and others. Forget what you think you know and open your mind and eyes to what is really going on.

[edit on 20-2-2010 by daddio]

reply to post by psychederic

If we cannot do anything without "money" , how have we done a thing before "money" ?

We didn't.

Burdman just lately pointed out this very well, that anything of value which is traded is a form of money. Green paper is simply one type that we use today. In every society since the beginning of civilization, there has existed some form of trade for valuable goods, ergo, some form of money.

But can you understand : that the only works existing in our countries is "work for other human" , social, sellers, traders etc ... NOTHING RELATED TO THE PRODUCTION OF STUFF, or stupid capital in its own upper economy.

You are right: we (the USA) have become a nation of serice rather than of production.

The next question is why that is. And again, to understand this, one must realize how others see things. The man with the $500,000 a year salary is not worried about how he is going to pay for groceries tomorrow, but he is concerned about other things. He has a fine home that he probably still is making payments on, and that he wishes to keep. He likes to drive nice cars. He perhaps has children who need money for college.

The easiest thing in the world is to just shrug these desires off. After all, he has more than I do, so why should I be concerned about him? The reason I should be concerned about his needs is that it would be much better for me if he is concerned about my needs. And that reciprocity cannot happen unless I am a part of it. The person in question may be someone who gives a huge portion of his income to charities, possibly anonymously. Those charities may then be the ones who help me when I am in need. Does it matter if his name is on the check? No. It matters that he gave.

Even if he does not give to charities, the simple fact that he is another human being should be enough for me to try to understand that he has needs and wants just like I do, and to respect those. It should be enough to make me give him the benefit of the doubt and admit that he probably worked hard and long to make the money he has.

Every time someone looks at a wealthy man and says they are somehow bad because they have more, it divides us as a society. It makes it easier for us to be controlled. And it exacerbates the very problem you just mentioned. If the people of the USA enact enough hard laws to make the life of the wealthy difficult, in some poor attempt to legislate equality of outcome, then the wealthy will simply go to where they can have an easier life. When they go, they take with them the jobs and the investment capital that would help lift us out of our relative poverty. Who do you go to when you need a job? The drunken, penniless bum lying in the gutter, ot the fellow sitting in an office in a suit and tie? If you need money to buy a car, do you go to people who can barely afford food, or to someone who has more than they need? If you are truthful, your answer is the latter in both cases. So why would anyone persecute those who have the means to help them?

Of course, we do persecute them. Despite an already progressive tax system, we clamor for higher taxes on the wealthy, just so we can save a few bucks ourselves. We demand that companies provide for us those things we should be handling by ourselves, simply because they pay us for out time already. At some point, people simply take their money and move off to where they are treated better, and the areas where they move off to are the ones who get all the benefits of their wealth.

This is what we have done, and what we are doing, in the USA. We have finally reached the tipping point where more and more wealthy people are saying "Enough!" and leaving. And we suffer because of it. We lose the chance to work in production, because we ran the producers away.

Continuing this stupidity : we "accept" unemployment : "because we must work to get a salary".

People believe they must work to get a salary, but that is not the case. I have personally started businesses in the past, when there were no jobs to be found. Some have been successful, and some have not, but all have shown me one thing: no one, and I mean no one, works longer or harder hours than a business owner. I have worked as a mason's helper and as a roofer: two of the hardest jobs most people will ever do. They were a piece of cake compared to running a small business. And yet, we honor those who do the easy jobs just for themselves and decry those who work tirelessly and provide jobs for others?

But have we changed the system ? YES : with robots. Since the industrial revolution : the relationnship between "human work" / salary should have CHANGED !

Robotics has not made the complete transition yet. There are still many places that cannot afford to completely automate themselves. But, due to the reasons I mentioned above, most of them have moved away.

Also, robotics is not a utopian concept for the average person. The average person must start out in life with the single most abundant product there is to sell, the one everybody has: unskilled labor. Robotics makes that product worthless, and destroys the vast majority of entry-level positions. Sure, it opens doors in manufacturing and maintenance, but much smaller doors than it closes. A robotic factory can use robots to do the work of 1000 men, and do it with 10 maintenance workers. That one example is a loss of 990 jobs.

TheRedneck

reply to post by pai mei

"All my money has been invested into experiments with which I have made new discoveries enabling mankind to have a little easier life"

Nikola Tesla

Do you think you could stop Tesla or Einstein from their work ? Money or no money, that was their passion. All great inventors are like that.

Someone did, and with Tesla himself.

In 1886, Tesla formed his own company, Tesla Electric Light & Manufacturing. The initial financial investors disagreed with Tesla on his plan for an alternating current motor and eventually relieved him of his duties at the company. Tesla worked in New York as a common laborer from 1886 to 1887 to feed himself and raise capital for his next project.

A part of Tesla's time was spent feeding himself, not working on inventions. Perhaps if he had been a better negotiator, his disagreement with investors could have been resolved better.

Tesla, a local contractor, and several assistants commenced the construction of the laboratory shortly after arriving in Colorado Springs. The lab was established on Knob Hill, east of the Colorado School for the Deaf and Blind and one mile (1.6 km) east of downtown. Its primary purposes were experiments with high frequency electricity and other phenomena, and secondary--research into wireless transmission of electrical power.

And what did he use to finance this construction? Money.

Tesla left Colorado Springs on January 7, 1900. The lab was torn down, broken up, and its contents sold to pay debts. The Colorado experiments prepared Tesla for his next project, the establishment of a wireless power transmission facility that would be known as Wardenclyffe.

Source for all excerpts above: www.crystalinks.com...

Sold to pay off debt... that sounds like his work was interrupted by a lack of money.

And Wardenclyff itself is a sad tale of someone who refused to understand money and subsequently lost everything. I have several books on Tesla's life here that all state that Tesla became very withdrawn and morose after Wardenclyff was stopped due to the pullout of his backers. They pulled out because they saw no profit in continuing to finance Tesla's experiments.

There is no greater example of someone who failed to achieve his true potential because of a misunderstanding of money then Nikola Tesla himself, one of the greatest minds and one of the most tragic tales of the 20th century. Thank you so much for bringing this up.

TheRedneck

reply to post by Xtraeme

As a member of the open-source community I can say unequivocally both me and a number of friends write software not for money, but because we simply enjoy programming and solving problems.

Do you work at the coding full-time? Or is it rather done in spare time because you must also work to make enough money to live?

Which is more efficient? To work on and off as time allows, or to work full-time on a project with proper equipment and materials? Which requires money and which doesn't?

Linux (the open-source operating system that works so well) has never been able to keep up with Microsoft in usage, primarily because Microsoft makes money through sales and spends money to advertise and promote their product. The poorer of the two wins the battle, because of money.

And please don't take this statement as a promotion of Microsoft. I despise the company's policies. I vastly prefer Linux personally, and would not operate nor write code for a web server with anything else running on it. I simply point out where Microsoft has succeeded and where Linux has not.

Also, if you read the history of a number of famous inventors you'll find more often than not it was the intellectual-challenge that motivated the person not the material rewards that came out of it.

Absolutely every great inventor had passion! But they also needed tools, equipment, materials, etc. Those things do not pop out of thin air. It takes money to get them.

This is why we as humans accept money because we assume it provides quid pro quo. The problem is this: why would a business-owner hire an employee if not to make money off of him? The entire design here is to allow the employer to use his greater liquidity to get more out of the worker than what's put-in.

This is inherently unfair.

Is it?

Without the employer, one would not even have a job to get the salary. I know from experience that there is no harder job than running a company. Your response assumes that there is no value in someone offering to pay another for their time. It assumes that there is no value in providing the workspace, the equipment to perform the job, or the benefits that an employer must provide.

And from an employer's perspective, that means that you value yourself greatly and them none at all. Is it any wonder that they, in return, value their contribution more than yours?

The fact is in many fields the employee puts-in significantly more than the employer. This is especially true in the gaming industry. I regularly work 80-100 hour weeks and I don't get paid overtime for any of it. I do this because I care about the quality of the end-product.

The fact is, this is a myth. An employer is on call 24/7. The employee can call in sick, and they are then free to spend the rest of the day recuperating. The employer now has to cover the work that employee was scheduled to perform, either with another employee called in, or overtime to others (increasing the employer's cost). Or perhaps they will get to spend a few hours on the phone explaining to their customers why the product will be delayed. Any way it comes down, the employer now has a ton of work to do.

Even if no one calls in sick today, he still has to keep a close eye on schedules to make sure he can meet his deadlines and make adjustments as needed. Anything that breaks down is his to see that it is fixed as inexpensively and quickly as possible. Any disgruntled employee with a gripe is his responsibility. He has to deal with special orders, tight schedules, employee problems, equipment, purchasing, payroll, taxes, benefits, short- and long-term projections, cash flow, investors, profit/loss statements, late and loads upon loads of paperwork.

You put in overtime you do not get paid for. That's fine. Is it required of you, or is it your decision to do it? It sounds like it is your decision, and it is admirable. but your employer now has a worry: what if you put in overtime of your own choosing for no pay, then suddenly decide to file a lawsuit claiming you should be paid? A lot of people will do just that, and even if they don't win, he still has to pay for attorneys. Also, remember that the long hours he puts in are never overtime, since a salary position does not pay overtime nor limit the workweek to 40 hours.

Your position is one I hear a lot, and one of the reasons I started this thread. It is a perfect example of how ignoring realities just because they do not directly affect you does affect you. After all, if your employer walked up to you every day and said "What you do is worthless. You don't deserve to get paid.", you wouldn't like it very much. But that is exactly what you do every day to him.

The employer is not the hero here.

There is no hero here!

The employer and employee have a contractual relationship. The employer provides workspace and equipment as well as pay at a predetermined rate to the employee. the employee provides labor, skilled or unskilled, in return for pay. It is that simple. If you are not satisfied with what you are being paid, then start your own company and go it without an employer. No one is stopping you.

There does not have to be a hero and a villain in every scenario. The best business decisions are the ones that profit everyone involved.

TheRedneck


[edit on 2/20/2010 by TheRedneck]

reply to post by Bicent76

As a matter a fact i saw the op say how corrupt our government has gotten. Well Mr. OP you can credit that to the very title of your topic. MONEY.

Is it money, or is it greed? The two are not exactly the same, you know.

If I agree to sell you a bushel of beans for $10 (sake of argument price), that is a fair exchange of one item for its equivalent value. Let us assume that the price is indicative of a "fair market value". Now if I agree to sell you a bushel of beans for $100, ten times what it 'should' be sold for, and you agree, who is in the wrong here? Who is responsible?

I say both, with the primary responsibility being dependent on how I sold the beans. If I went to great lengths to convince you they were selling everywhere for $100, then that is fraud. I would be primarily responsible for taking advantage of you, while you bore some responsibility for not already knowing what the reasonable exchange rate is. if I did nothing to trick you into spending more than the going rate, then you bear the primary responsibility.

That is the problem today. Too many people have shirked this responsibility for knowing what they are buying and what it should cost. the value of the dollar is an unknown where they are concerned. People will gladly pay out almost any price, regardless of whether or not it is a reasonable deal, just because they want a thing. Then, when their money runs out before next payday, they cry about not making enough money.

Sorry. That is not the fault of their employer. It is their responsibility to budget themselves so they can live without want.

Now I full well know that there are those who simply do not have enough to stretch, no matter what they do. I am right now one of those, severely underemployed. Yet I do not blame my employer; instead I blame the 'system', which by definition includes the consumer.

That is, IMHO anyway, where the blame lies. No one can take advantage of you without your implied consent.

TheRedneck

before i wade through this predictably anti-capitalist ranting thread, i'll simply risk posting in redundance:

the general concept of using money is a cool thing, the creation of it opens a can of worms, though, and the current way of ignoring the detail altogether will lead to desaster.

it's the nature of the best that the most useful things are abused to destructive ends, isn't it?

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Now I full well know that there are those who simply do not have enough to stretch, no matter what they do. I am right now one of those, severely underemployed. Yet I do not blame my employer; instead I blame the 'system', which by definition includes the consumer.

so, the consumer is an idiot for not valuing what you have to offer... i'm inclined to concur (considering my own experience of paying 15 bucks for two weird lamps that should have cost only a tenth of that needless to say, the guy won't see me again in his shop) but who i guess you're sol, because there is no-one else who could make that decision, right?

[edit on 2010.2.20 by Long Lance]

reply to post by unityemissions

Money seems to make the world run, if we do without, the world stops spinning! The world spun before money was ever invented, and will continue to do so long after it's abolished.

You can abolish dollars, and another item will take its place. You can abolish gold and silver; another item will take its place. Money is not just something that governments came up with; it is a social structure of trading and ownership that has existed since civilization began. The medium has changed, but not the concept.

If we can create a system which provides the essentials for each individual, the need/desire for money will vanish overnight.

Really? I would disagree. How many people would not be satisfied with the 'essentials' of life? How would we even define essentials?

For example, we all need food, but we all have different tastes. I consider meat as essential, but a vegetarian would see it as less than a luxury... more like a waste. I love sardines, but most people despise them. My family typically serves turkey on Thanksgiving and a ham at Christmas; some people do not even recognize those holidays.

I like to build and test my ideas. For that, I need test equipment, tools, materials. Someone who loves to paint would instead need an easel, brushes, paints. One who loves to cook would need spices and various cooking utensils. Someone who likes to build houses would need saws and measuring tools and nail guns. These are not all the same in value. I know contractors who have over $50,000 in tools that they use regularly! I myself have over $20,000 in tools and equipment. I would hazard to guess that an artist would be just fine with $1000 worth of paints and brushes.

Inherently, we are not the same in our desires and needs. Money allows us to compensate for these differences. If one can make use of the tools they need, they can make enough to afford to have those tools. For example, the contractor should be able to make enough with his tools to pay for those tools and still make a good living.

No one-size-fits-all system will ever work for mankind, because no two people are striving for exactly the same thing.

TheRedneck


[edit on 2/20/2010 by TheRedneck]

reply to post by mumbo jumbo

The point I am trying to make is that the system we live in is very unfair, these people are all workers who all help making the united states a wealthy country, but they aren’t wealthy themselves, the only reason the united states is considered a wealthy nation is because of its average income, which is about $ 42,000 annually, how come its 42,000? Because 9 people make 20,000 and 1 makes 220,000 therefore the average is 40,000.

I would respond by saying no system is perfect. I definitely agree that people should be able to make a wage in line with their value to their employer. Of course, this goes back to societal responsibility as well.

For example, let us assume that by my work I am making my employer $100,000 a year. Now, he has expenses out of that, so let us say that his expenses (including workspace, equipment, taxes, and a reasonable portion of his own salary) are $30,000. That means that I am worth $70,000 to him.

Now he will want and expect to make some profit over and above his salary, to go for possible future expansion, maintenance of the company, and maybe a little bonus now and then. I consider that reasonable. But would I consider it reasonable to make only $20,000, leaving him a profit of $50,000? No! Perhaps if those numbers were reversed, I could justify it. So what are my choices under capitalism and the free market?

I could quit and find a better job that paid me more, assuming that was possible.

I could try showing my employer how much I was really worth to him by my job performance, assuming he cared to look.

I could demand a higher salary under threat of quitting.

The first would work in a vibrant, growing economy. It would be financial suicide under the present economic situation. The second would be the best option IMHO if it worked, but oftentimes it simply doesn't work. Typically there is someone in the chain of command who is greedy enough to make sure workers work for as little as possible.

The last option is the only sure one left then. And it will work, as long as there is not someone else ready to take over my job at the low salary. If there is, then all I have done is cost my employer a little inconvenience in hiring someone else, and cost myself an income, albeit a low one.

But if there is not anyone to take my place at my salary, then I have something realistic to threaten my employer with. He is then faced with either coughing up more of his profit margin for me, or losing the whole thing. That is a bargaining chip that will win out.

The problem comes into play when people are willing to sell their time and expertise (which is what one does when they take a job) for less than it is worth. It devalues the same time and expertise of everyone else. Just as one could quickly drive the local farmers market out of business by selling food for pennies on the dollar next door to them, anyone who underprices themselves drives the pay of those with similar abilities down.

In the end, it is ourselves who are to blame by not realizing this.

Sorry for the long story and apologies for any grammar or spelling mistakes English is not my primary language.

I think you did an excellent job posting in a second language then! I would never have guessed from your post that English was not your native tongue.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck

The problem comes into play when people are willing to sell their time and expertise (which is what one does when they take a job) for less than it is worth. It devalues the same time and expertise of everyone else.

yes very true, but now you'll be considered something between picky and lazy if you actually use that argument to avoid a job, right? then again, only the market determines the value of goods and services, so i'm worth what i get, or not? then you'll have to undercut chinese workers who just happen to be locked up most of the time and are prohibited from going to the toilet outside scheduled breaks, who on top of it all are producing their goods under an artificially devalued currency and a central bank that won't impound debt.

free market?? how can anyone miss that the gang profiting most under the actual version of that system benefits most the tyrants of resource based dictatorships and the central planners of the chicoms?! what's that thread about again?

Utopia....?

[edit on 2010.2.20 by Long Lance]

reply to post by Long Lance

I hear you on that one, Lance. I have worked my whole life in one fashion or another, and yet have been called "lazy" many times by people who didn't see what all I had done the previous 24 hours to make me finally say "I'm tired." Now, I consider such words to be fighting words. So yeah, you could say I have a pet peeve about the word "lazy".

As far as China goes. they do not operate on the same principles the USA (and most of the Western world) does. China operates somewhere between capitalism and feudalism, which means there is no such thing as a 'free market' where they are concerned. And that is indeed one of the largest causes of our present economic woes. Chinese goods should be heavily tariffed to compensate for the lack of equitable practices in their society; to do otherwise is to skew everything in their favor. After all, that is what a tariff is for: to maintain equality between imported and domestic goods production.

Believe me, I know the system as we have it now is flawed, and flawed terribly. But in order to ever restore an equitable system of trade domestically, the consumers must not forget their place in the grand scheme... and I see it being forgotten.

TheRedneck