Money is the real cause of poverty

Why does it seem as I survey the responses to this thread, that no one read the extract or even watched the video. People have just posted their opinion of the title of the thread, rather than the extracts. Nevermind, I'm guilty of doing the same on many threads

Originally posted by CosmicEgg
There is no reason for money to exist. We will never evolve into loving beings while it is still in use on any level, either money or the concept of valuation. All things are equally necessary or frivolous, depending on the situation at that time and place. That being said, all things should be equally available to all, as needed, freely, with love and generosity. We keep ourselves from better simply from this one thing in our human culture.

Would the world be in crisis were it not for money? Look at the state of things out there. Imagine it with money taken out of the equation. Does it look different at all? Perhaps entirely?

Who would have power over us without money? Who would make our decisions? Who could influence us? Only we ourselves, finally and forever.

Umm money is really really useful as a way of eliminating the barter system... And no the world probably would not look anything like it does now, considering that without money we would be in a barter system economy, making it extremely difficult to have any sort of economic development.

There are some really good posts here. For now I'd like to address two specific points:

Originally posted by SassyCat
Even feudalism can work if people are not corrupt from inside. If they are, no system will ever help them. People make mistake when they think that such broad thing as poverty can be pin pointed to one single ideology....

I basically agree with the thrust of this, but I will add one caviat: I think people are always going to be in some form of competition, and simply are not all equally skilled. In different systems, different skills will be valued, so there will always be inequality of some sort.

I believe the instinct for status/pecking order/hierarchy is deeply hardwired into our species. You can see it in monkies, dogs, wolfs, hens, even insects. Heck, even at the bacteriological level. This is pretty ancient, primordial stuff we are talking about here, so no system is going to remove it completely.

In our current system, status is associated very closely with money, but it was not always so. In feudal times, wealthy mearchants were considered of much lower status than relatively poor knights, for example, and few nobles would have chosen to swap positions with a rich merchant. So even if money were to be eliminated, some other "status marker" would take its place as a little nugget for human competition to crystalize around.

Originally posted by CosmicEgg
Makes you wonder why the rich hold onto all that material wealth if it makes them so bleeding unhappy, doesn't it?

The way the current system is construed, the very rich cannot "stand still." First of all, when you really drill down, "money" is hard to define. Is it only cash? Net worth, such as including property and investments? Do credit lines count? The "richer" you are the more complex it gets.

Take Donald Trump as an example. He swings between being utterly broke and being a billionare, because his "money" is in the form of real-estate values, investments, credit lines, etc. There are points in time when his literal net worth has been deeply negative, but because of his name, influence, connection, etc. he has been able to turn around numerous times and become a billionare on paper again. At one point in the early 90s I think he was in debt to the tune of hundreds of millions. Technically he was much "poorer" than the poorest homless man under a bridge, yet his lifestyle wasn't much impacted and a decade later he was a billionare again. The homeless man, meanwhile, is still homeless (if he is still alive that is).

When you have that much wealth, you cannot "stand still." You have to constantly be protecting it, poking at it, prodding it, coddling it, wheeling, dealing, etc...or you will become broke or deeply in debt. To be rich is never, ever a stable condition. You cannot stand still -- you either advance or decline, and the more money you have in play, the more drastic the stakes and swings can be. This is one of several inner, deeper meanings behind the saying "money can't buy you happiness."

reply to post by silent thunder


And again, it leads back to the very same question I asked initially: Why hold onto the stuff for dear life, but particularly when it's ethereal in any case? Is it purely for the "chasing around" after it to get more of what isn't really even there? Imagine how the minds of these people work. Holy mackerel. LMAO!!!

Well, all I can say is they can have it. Best if it's someone else's headache from here on out. They can have the spiritual and physical disease associated with the stuff.

reply to post by CosmicEgg


People chase money first for survival, then security, and finally status. (And of course often all at the same time.) If they feel secure enough in their status then they may actually give it away to charity, as with people like Andrew Carnege, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett. It's a bit like Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

By the way, if anyone wants to "opt out" and give up their own money at any time please don't hesitate to U2U me.

reply to post by woodwardjnr


Great thread S+F

There have always been those that exploit others. There have always been those that are greedy and want more than their share... Money has made it far easier for these people to operate!!

The problem these days is that the system has people brainwashed into thinking that it is the only way that works... People staunchly defend that which enslaves and traps them!!

Great video... may even use the bread and money example on some of my family members who normal just give me blank looks when i try to explain how they are exploited!

woodwardjnr you may enjoy one of my old threads on The illusion that is the free market...

Peace






[edit on 25-7-2010 by Muckster]