Money & Education MONEY AND EDUCATION By Louis F. DeBoer Education is an expensive function, and therefore the connection between money and education is a frequent issue. Local governments struggle with school budgets, homeowners struggle to pay their property taxes, and Christian schools and parents struggle with tuition costs. Just how does money relate to education? First of all, what is the connection between money and the quality of education? Apologists for the public school system make frequent claims about the connection between funding levels and the quality of education. When attempting to explain the perennial failures of the system, the standard response has almost uniformly been to claim that funding levels were inadequate to achieve quality results. However, statistics going back well over a century do not support such claims. Both Zach Montgomery, Assistant Attorney General of the United States in the 1870’s, and William Bennett, Secretary of Education in the 1980’s, presented statistics that belied the claim that the quality of education corresponds to the level at which it is funded. While this may be the subject for a future article, our purpose here is to examine the true connection between money and education. Let’s start with the factors that support good education. 1. Private or Parental Control: Not to repeat myself, but again statistics going back well over a century demonstrate that in every comparison of a private or parentally controlled school system with a governmentally controlled system of public schools, the former radically outperform the latter. When one adds to that the fact that these systems generally operate at significantly lower levels of funding, the argument that money is a determining factor begins to lose a lot of its punch. It is also significant that this effect is proportional to the degree of statist control. A century ago when local government schools were actually under local control, and parents wielded real influence on their schools, the consequences were not nearly as severe as they are today when educational bureaucrats at state and federal levels control education while local communities are left with the bills. However, my main issue is that it does not cost anything to have this type of control. There is no expense involved in selecting this kind of system. A major factor impacting the quality of education is completely isolated from monetary concerns. That is the point. 2. A Sound Philosophy of Education: Would a steel company survive if it was ignorant or totally misinformed about the basics of metallurgy? For a school to prosper it needs to understand both the goals and techniques of education, and particularly it needs to understand its students. In other words, it needs a sound philosophy of education, including a Biblical anthropology. The Dr. Spock anthropology of the public schools, inimical to sound discipline, oriented to issues of self esteem, and driven by politically correct concepts of man, has not only proven to be destructive of good order and discipline, but has created an environment where education cannot be expected to take place. Again, this is not the place for an extensive discussion of educational philosophy. I am simply stating the importance of this ingredient, and making the point that it is not related to issues of money. A sound educational philosophy may be critical to education, but it is free! 3. Quality Teachers: Here again we broach an issue that is frequently related to the quality of education in the public mind. Again we ask, what is the relation between money and quality education? Specifically, what is the relation between teacher pay and performance? If the teachers unions are to be believed, you get what you pay for: good pay equals good teachers, equals quality education. All are agreed that quality teachers are an essential ingredient for success. The question thus becomes whether or not good pay ensures quality teachers. The answer is "not necessarily." The public schools are themselves highly demonstrative of that fact. Almost all would acknowledge that the public schools have significantly declined over the past generation. A generation ago the public elementary schools were staffed by a lot of underpaid dedicated spinsters as opposed to the overpaid cadre of feminists that comprise much of the current staffs. Teacher pay is at an all time high while performance is mired in all time lows. States that are at the top in teacher pay are not achieving commensurate results compared to states that are much lower. The connection simply doesn’t exist. Secular corporations have long realized that money is a poor motivator. Overpaid spoiled professional athletes are a good example of that. Any teacher that is "in it" for the money has to be suspect. A teacher’s education, mastery of the subject matter, leadership skills, dedication to the students, philosophy of education, etc. all have far more impact on that teacher’s performance than what’s in their pay check. Good teachers should be paid well, but paying well does not ensure that they will be good. Teachers unions are effective at driving up teachers’ pay scales, but otherwise union policies are generally inimical to quality education. They are specifically inimical to obtaining quality teachers, while they are more effective at tenuring unqualified ones. 4. Quality Students: The old saying is "You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear," and this is certainly true to some extent. This aspect of education is a frequent complaint of public educators, who point out that public schools have to take all students while private schools can cherry pick theirs. This is of course true. It need not be that big an issue, though. It is precisely because public educators have designed educational policies that are subversive of discipline, and that have made public education a right, instead of a privilege, that they have hamstrung themselves with respect to their ability to deal with disruptive students. Not surprisingly, inner city private schools employing strict discipline and rigorous concentration on educational basics have performed wonders with the very student material that public educators complain about. But to be fair, this is where Christian schools have a great advantage. Christian homes generally produce far better student material than the population at large does. However, to stick to our point, this advantage is not something that was bought and paid for. It was acquired by the grace of God and through his covenant mercies. Again money is not a factor. 5. Quality Curriculum: Textbooks and teacher guides are basically paper and ink. It doesn’t cost any more to publish a good textbook than it does to print a bad one. Or to put it more directly, you can’t save any money by buying poor textbooks. Curriculum costs are basically neutral. They are essentially the same if you invest in a great curriculum or in a bad one. Again there is no connection here between money spent and the quality of education. It is one’s philosophy of education and the wisdom and experience applied to selecting a curriculum that determines its quality. The curriculum budget is not the arbiter of its quality. Conspicuous by their absence from this list are the two chief culprits cited by statist educators, money and class size. We have dealt with the former. Let’s take a look at the latter. The Clinton administration, to respond to a perceived public demand that the federal government do something to improve our system of education, sponsored legislation to provide subsidies for local schools to hire additional teachers with a view to reducing class size. As critics pointed out, this could actually be counter productive if improved quality of education is the goal. Staffing up generally means hiring less experienced and more marginally qualified teachers. Since teacher quality has much more impact on the quality of education than class size, this can actually lower the quality of education. In point of fact, done within reasonable limits, reducing staff size by eliminating marginally competent teachers can actually improve the quality of education. All Clinton accomplished was to achieve the enthusiastic support of the teachers’ unions, who were the chief beneficiaries of this financial windfall. Also for some subjects, such as English literature, history, etc., where discussion and interaction are essential ingredients, many private schools could enhance the quality of their education by larger class sizes. Again, within reasonable limits class size is not a significant factor in the quality of education. Quality education is Christian education. Christian education has quality built into it, that is, to the extent it is Christian it will have quality. To the extent that its philosophy and curriculum are Christian, and to the extent that its teachers are motivated by a Christian commitment to exercise their calling to the glory of God, it will be a quality education. Is this then good economic news for Christian parents? Can they assume that they can get quality education on the cheap? Not necessarily! And thinking so has been one of the factors working to the detriment of Christian education. What then is the real connection between education and money? As stated above, education is expensive. And the real issue is who should pay for it. The statist answer is that our children are really the children of the state and that the state should educate its children in public schools and finance that education through compulsory taxation. The Christian answer is radically different. We believe that children belong to the parents and that it is their responsibility to provide for the education of their children. We believe that educational responsibility rests not with the state or the church, but with the family. It may be expensive, but it is the parents who have to foot the bill for the education of their children. And parents have the duty to pay what that education really costs. They have a responsibility to pay a fair wage to the teachers and to pay the actual cost of educating their children. There are some Biblical principles involved here. As Paul states it, "For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward." (1 Timothy 5:18) and "For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope." (1 Corinthians 9:9-10) Paul says that the teachers are worthy of their just reward for their labors. And underpaid staffs have been the bane of Christian schools for decades. Frequently dedicated teachers cannot afford to stay in their chosen calling. After a few years of sacrificial service they have decapitalized and need to find an alternative way to provide the necessities of life. We are speaking here of responsibility. In actual fact of course Christians form supportive communities. Christian school staff willingly work sacrificially. Christian school administrators raise money from other sources than just tuition. As much as possible, the Christian community pulls together to support this critical function of educating their children in the fear of the Lord. But the prime responsibility for financing this function remains with the parents. That is the point. The real point is that if we are convicted that Christian education is a Biblical duty, then the parents, the teachers, and all involved should labor together and share the sacrifices required. Too often I have seen teachers laboring for one third of the market value of their services driving old clunkers to enable the education of children whose parents are driving luxury vehicles. As James says, "Brethren, these things ought not to be so." Let us labor sacrificially together, sharing the burdens to carry out our Biblical responsibilities. Only when we have behaved justly can we justly expect the Lord’s blessing on our enterprise. [indhorsa.gif] Home Accreditation Money & Education [indhorsa.gif] IFRAME: //www.googletagmanager.com/ns.html?id=GTM-W874PC About.com * Food + Southern Food + Barbecues & Grilling + Home Cooking + Cocktails + Culinary Arts + Busy Cooks + Vegetarian Food More about food » * Health + Arthritis & Joint Conditions + Cold & Flu + Type 2 Diabetes + Weight Loss + Cholesterol + Pregnancy & Childbirth + Pediatrics More about health » * Home + Interior Decorating + Home Renovations + Apartment Living/Rental + Contests & Sweepstakes + Home Repair + Freebies + Moving More about home » * Money + Inventors + Frugal Living + Human Resources + Tax Planning: U.S. + Investing for Beginners + Small Business: Canada + Banking/Loans More about money » * Style + Beauty + Women's Hairstyles + Budget Style + Celebrity Style + Jewelry + Shoes + Weddings More about style » * Tech + iPad + iPhone/iPod + PC Support + Macs + Windows + Internet Basics + Cameras More about tech » * Travel + California Travel + New York City Travel + Las Vegas Travel + Caribbean Travel + Hawaii Travel + Cruises + Theme Parks More about travel » * More + Autos + Dating & Relationships + Education + Entertainment + en Español + Careers + News & Issues + Parenting + Religion & Spirituality + Sports * Videos ____________________ (Submit) Share this * About.com * About Education * Economics * . . . * Money & Monetary Policy Resources * Money and the Money Supply What Is Money? [javascript] By Mike Moffatt Economics Expert Share this Economics Categories * Economics Basics * Supply and Demand * Measuring Economic Value * Consumer Choice and Utility Maximization * Production and Profit Maximization * Types of Markets * International Trade * The Effect of Regulation on Markets * Externalities and Public Goods * Measuring Output, Income and Prices * Income Distribution * Business Cycles and Economic Growth * Macroeconomic Stabilization Policy * Notable Economists * Fields of Eonomics and Economics Careers * Blog * Microeconomics 101 * Macroeconomics 101 * Miscellaneous Topics in Economics * Updated Articles and Resources Free Email Newsletter Let About.com send you the latest from our Economics Expert. ____________________ There was a problem registering. Try again later Did you mean ? (Submit) Sign up You can opt-out at any time. Please refer to our privacy policy for contact information. Question: What Is Money? Answer: The Economics Glossary defines money as: * Money is a good that acts as a medium of exchange in transactions. Classically it is said that money acts as a unit of account, a store of value, and a medium of exchange. Most authors find that the first two are nonessential properties that follow from the third. In fact, other goods are often better than money at being intertemporal stores of value, since most monies degrade in value over time through inflation or the overthrow of governments. What Is Money? It Is More Than Pieces of Paper. So money isn't just pieces of paper. It's a medium of exchange that facilitates trade. Suppose I have a Wayne Gretzky hockey card that I'd like to exchange for a new pair of shoes. Without the use of money, I have to find a person, or combination of people who have an extra pair of shoes to give up, and just happen to be looking for a Wayne Gretzky hockey card. Quite obviously, this would be quite difficult. This is known as the double coincidence of wants problem: * [T]he double coincidence is the situation where the supplier of good A wants good B and the supplier of good B wants good A. The point is that the institution of money gives us a more flexible approach to trade than barter, which has the double coincidence of wants problem. Also known as dual coincidence of wants. Since money is a recognized medium of exchange, I do not have to find someone who has a pair of new shoes and is looking for a Wayne Gretzky hockey card. I just need to find someone who is looking for a Gretzky card who is willing to pay enough money so I can get a new pair at Footlocker. This is a far easier problem, and thus our lives are a lot easier, and our economy more efficient, with the existance of money. What Is Money And How Is It Measured? As for what constitutes money and what does not, the article How much is the per capita money supply in the U.S.? gives the following definition, provided by The Federal Reserve Bank of New York: * "The Federal Reserve publishes weekly and monthly data on three money supply measures -- M1, M2, and M3 -- as well as data on the total amount of debt of the nonfinancial sectors of the U.S. economy... The money supply measures reflect the different degrees of liquidity -- or spendability - that different types of money have. The narrowest measure, M1, is restricted to the most liquid forms of money; it consists of currency in the hands of the public; travelers checks; demand deposits, and other deposits against which checks can be written. M2 includes M1, plus savings accounts, time deposits of under $100,000, and balances in retail money market mutual funds. M3 includes M2 plus large-denomination ($100,000 or more) time deposits, balances in institutional money funds, repurchase liabilities issued by depository institutions, and Eurodollars held by U.S. residents at foreign branches of U.S. banks and at all banks in the United Kingdom and Canada." So there are several different classifications of money. Note that credit cards are not a form of money . Note that money is not the same thing as wealth. We cannot make ourselves richer by simply printing more money, as shown in the article Why Not Just Print More Money?. Here are a few more articles that will aid in your understanding of money: * What is Deflation and How Can it Be Prevented? * Why Does Money Have Value? * How Much is the Per Capita Money Supply in the U.S.? * What is the Demand For Money? * Are Credit Cards A Form Of Money? * Expansionary Monetary Policy vs Contractionary Monetary Policy * Why Not Just Print More Money? * What Was The Gold Standard? * When Stock Prices Go Down, Where Does the Money Go? Related Articles * How Much Is the Per Capita Money Supply in the U.S.? * Are Credit Cards A Form Of Money? * What's actually in the money supply, and why an expansion won't create inflation. * Money Resource Center * Why We Aren't Seeing Inflation Yet * What is a Nation's Money Supply? Our Expert Recommends * Money Defined - A Dictionary Definition of Money * Money Supply - Dictionary Definition of Money Supply * Macroeconomics Help for Students * Microeconomics Help for Students * Econometrics Help for Students * Economics Term Paper Help * Win Money! - Moffatt Prize in Economics Writing * How to do a Painless Econometrics Project Economics Essentials * Klaus Vedfelt/Taxi/Getty Images Using Economics at About.com Effectively * Hispanic family smiling outside house - Ariel Skelley/ Blend Images/ Getty Images What Is Economics? Economics Basics * 92601377.jpg - carlp778/Moment/Getty Images Microeconomics vs. Macroeconomics: What's the Difference? Economics Basics * Hero Images/Getty Images Why Is Economics Called the Dismal Science? Economics Basics * - The Circular-Flow Model Economics Basics Education Slideshows * Theodora in a mosaic - Ken Welsh / Getty Images 12 Powerful Women Rulers Everyone Should Know * Cornell University Sage Hall - Photo Credit: Allen Grove Explore Cornell University in This Photo Tour College Admissions * The periodic table is one way to organize the elements. - Lawrence Lawry, Getty Images How To Memorize the Periodic Table Chemistry * Channel Tunnel - Scott Barbour/Getty Images News/Getty Images Can You Name All 7 Wonders of the Modern World? Geography * Whale Shark / Tom Meyer/Getty Images - Tom Meyer/Getty Images 10 Largest Sea Creatures Marine Life Readers Recommend * The Definitive Guide to Understanding Price Elasticity * The Circular-Flow Model * In Economics, What's the Difference Between Nominal and Real? * Explaining 5 Types of Unemployment * Why Not Just Print More Money? * About.com * About Education * Economics * Money & Monetary Policy Resources * Money and the Money Supply * What Is Money? About Education Follow us: We deliver. Get the best of About Education in your inbox. ____________________ (Submit) Sign up Please enter a valid email address. Did you mean ? You can opt-out at any time. Please refer to our privacy policy for contact information. * Our Story * News * Site Map * All Topics * Reprints * Help * Write for About * Careers at About * User Agreement * Ethics Policy * Patent Info * Privacy Policy * Your Ad Choices & Cookie Policy © 2015 About.com — All rights reserved. #How Stuff Works Feature Articles HowStuffWorks ICRA labels ____________________ [transparent.png]-Submit [facebook-20x20.png] IFRAME: //www.facebook.com/plugins/likebox.php?href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.c om%2FHowStuffWorks&width&height=62&colorscheme=light&show_faces=false&b order_color=%23ffffff&stream=false&header=false [utube-20x20.png] [twitter-20x20_1.png] IFRAME: http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/follow_button.html?screen_name=HowS tuffWorks&lang=en&show_count=true [subscribe-20x20_1.png] ____________________ (Submit) SUBSCRIBE * Adventure * Animals * Auto * Culture * Entertainment * Health * Home & Garden * Lifestyle * Money * Science * Tech * Video * Shows * Quizzes * Business * * Economics * * Jobs * * Personal Finance * Home / * Money / * Economics / * Economic Concepts How Capitalism Works by Julia Layton [hsw-share-fb.png] Page 1 Introduction to How Capitalism Works 2 Real Capitalism: The Idea 3 Real Capitalism: The Practice 4 The Rise of Capitalism [hsw-article-keep-reading-short-button.png] Investing Image Gallery Investing Image Gallery Investing Image Gallery Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. Even the United States doesn't have a true capitalist economy. See more investing pictures. Stephen Chernin/Getty Images Up Next * How Communism Works * How Socialism Works * How Stocks and the Stock Market Work For a lot of us, the real thrust of economics is our checking account balance. But recent events like the Enron debacle, the proposed privatization of Social Security and the subprime mortgage disaster have turned popular interest to economic principles in a way we usually see only in the wake of a stock market crash. Economics -- and more specifically, capitalism -- is hitting close to home. The essence of capitalism is economic freedom. Practices like ill-conceived subprime lending and crippling corporate fraud are side effects of a system that revolves around the individual's right to pursue his or her financial goals without the government getting involved. Capitalism's key early thinker, Scottish political economist Adam Smith, may have wanted economics separated from politics for its own good, but economics is nonetheless entwined with ideas about the individual's place in society. This connection has politics written all over it (witness the shouts of "Die capitalist pigs" heard around the world). There are really only two basic approaches to a modern (non-barter-based) economic system, although you'll find endless variations on these two approaches throughout the world. One type of economy is the free market economy. That's capitalism. The other is the planned economy, which some people call a command economy or a Marxist economy. In this article, we'll explore capitalism: its roots, principles and effects, benefits and shortcomings. We'll find out how capitalism compares to the alternative method of doing business. Incidentally, the United States doesn't actually practice capitalism. No one does these days. Print Cite This! Close [icon_close.gif] Please copy/paste the following text to properly cite this HowStuffWorks article: Layton, Julia. "How Capitalism Works" 11 March 2008. HowStuffWorks.com. 25 January 2015. Citation & Date Feedback Page 1 Introduction to How Capitalism Works 2 Real Capitalism: The Idea 3 Real Capitalism: The Practice 4 The Rise of Capitalism 5 Evolving Economics 6 Lots More Information [hsw-article-keep-reading-long-button.png] [hsw-share-fb.png] [hsw-share-su.png] More To Explore Getting Ready for Tax Season How to File Taxes for the First Time How to File Taxes for the First Time Understanding the Health Care Exemption Form Understanding the Health Care Exemption Form How Hardship Exemption Works How Hardship Exemption Works Tax Exemptions and the Affordable Care Act Tax Exemptions and the Affordable Care Act What are the tax subsidies from the Affordable Care Act? What are the tax subsidies from the Affordable Care Act? You Might Also Like [spacer.gif] Why does the Fed change the interest rate? Imagine a tightrope walker with ESP and a degree in economics -- that's essentially the Federal Reserve Chairman. By changing the interest rate, the Fed can offset inflation and unemployment. But how? [spacer.gif] How to Volunteer at a Hospital You don't need a medical degree to volunteer at a hospital. Sometimes all you need to offer is a smile and some conversation. You'll be brightening someone's day -- and yours in turn. Popular Articles * Money Matters: Collective Bargaining Quiz * The Red Cross at a Glance * 10 Outrageous Lawsuits * Most Popular * Most Watched * + [rightrail-numeral-1-36x36.png] 10 Common Tax Mistakes [10-common-tax-mistake-ch150.jpg] + [rightrail-numeral-2-36x36.png] 10 Tips for Getting the Biggest Tax Refund [10-biggest-refund-ch150.jpg] + [rightrail-numeral-3-36x36.png] How to File Taxes for the First Time [first-tax-ch150.jpg] + [rightrail-numeral-4-36x36.png] Understanding the Health Care Exemption Form [health-care-form-ch150.jpg] + [rightrail-numeral-5-36x36.png] What are the advantages of e-filing tax returns? [benefit-efile-ch150.jpg] * + [rightrail-numeral-1-36x36.png] Stocks and the Stock Market [nasdaq-market-maker-micro.jpg] + [rightrail-numeral-2-36x36.png] Credit Card Videos [identity-theft.jpg] + [rightrail-numeral-3-36x36.png] How to Make Millions [14344.jpg] + [rightrail-numeral-4-36x36.png] Frugal Living [51368.jpg] + [rightrail-numeral-5-36x36.png] Saving Money [42426.jpg] Don't Miss Stuff You Should Know: Demystifying Your World [video-icon-blue-16x16.png] Stuff You Should Know: Demystifying Your World Stuff Mom Never Told You: All Things Women and Gender [video-icon-blue-16x16.png] Stuff Mom Never Told You: All Things Women and Gender Stuff You Missed in History Class: Fact or Fiction? [video-icon-blue-16x16.png] Stuff You Missed in History Class: Fact or Fiction? CHECK OUT OUR PODCASTS [sysk_148o.png] [symhc_148o.jpg] [carstuff_148o.jpg] [stdwytk_148o.jpg] [brainstuff148o.jpg] [smnty_148o.jpg] [genius_148o.jpg] [stbym_148o.jpg] [fwthinking_148o.jpg] [techstuff_148o.jpg] HOWSTUFFWORKS NEWSLETTER THE LATEST AND GREATEST ____________________ (Submit) SUBSCRIBE HOWSTUFFWORKS * Adventure * Animals * Auto * Culture * Entertainment * Health * Home & Garden * Lifestyle * Money * Science * Tech MORE STUFF * Store * Blogs * RSS * Maps * Podcasts * Quizzes * Newsletters * Video * Site Map * HSW China HowStuffWorks China STUFF WEBSITES * BrainStuff * CarStuff * Fw:Thinking * Stuff Mom Never Told You * Stuff of Genius * Stuff They Don't Want You to Know * Stuff to Blow Your Mind * Stuff You Missed in History Class * Stuff You Should Know CUSTOMER SERVICE * Advertising * Contact Us * Help CORPORATE * About Us * Careers @ HSW * Privacy Policy * Visitor Agreement TAKE US WITH YOU FOLLOW US Copyright © 1998-2015 HowStuffWorks, a division of InfoSpace LLC IFRAME: //www.googletagmanager.com/ns.html?id=GTM-NXHP8V skip to main navigation skip to secondary navigation skip to content What's New · What's Next · Site Map · A-Z Index · Careers · RSS · All Videos · Current FAQs · Contact Us Search ____________ Search Advanced Search Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System About the Fed News & Events Monetary Policy Banking Information & Regulation Payment Systems Economic Research & Data Consumer Information Community Development Reporting Forms Publications skip to content Menu Home > Current FAQs > Currency and Coin RSS Feed Print Print Current FAQs Informing the public about the Federal Reserve How long is the life span of U.S. paper money? When currency is deposited with a Federal Reserve Bank, the quality of each note is evaluated by sophisticated processing equipment. Notes that meet our strict quality criteria--that is, they are still in good condition--continue to circulate, while those that do not are taken out of circulation and destroyed. This process determines the life span of a Federal Reserve note. Life span varies by denomination. One factor that influences the life span of each denomination is how the denomination is used by the public. For example, $100 notes are often used as a store of value. This means that they pass between users less frequently than lower denominations that are more often used for transactions, such as $5 notes. Thus, $100 notes typically last longer than $5 notes. Denomination Estimated Life Span* $1 5.9 years $5 4.9 years $10 4.2 years $20 7.7 years $50 3.7 years $100 15.0 years * Estimated life spans as of December 2012. Because the $2 note does not widely circulate, we do not publish its estimated life span. Related Questions * How much U.S. currency is in circulation? * How much does it cost to produce currency and coin? View by Category * About the Fed * Banking and the Financial System * Credit, Loans, and Mortgages * Currency and Coin * Economy, Jobs, and Prices * Money, Interest Rates, and Monetary Policy * All Questions > Have a Question? [BUTTON Input] (not implemented)______ Stay Connected * Twitter * YouTube * Flickr * RSS Feeds * Subscribe Last update: January 16, 2015 Home | Current FAQs Accessibility Contact Us Disclaimer Website Policies FOIA PDF Reader Leaving the Board #publisher The Nation * HOME * NATIONAL * POLITICS * BUSINESS * MY MONEY * OPINION * LIFE * TECHNOLOGY * TRAVEL * SPORTS * SUNDAY * AEC * Amnesty Watch ____________________ go IFRAME: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/new/apps/truehitsiframe.php?pagenam e=Politics January 25, 2015, 6:42 pm * CAREER * | * PRINT SUBSCRIPTION * | * Hotel Directory * | * Log In * | politics Smaller Larger Home » politics » 'Money plays a far too dominant role in society' 'Money plays a far too dominant role in society' PRAVIT ROJANAPHRUK THE NATION October 11, 2013 1:00 am Arrow Prev Arrow Next Harvard professor celebrates level of debate, but urges people to make compromises MICHAEL SANDEL, a well-known political philosopher and professor from Harvard University, believes the world today is facing two questions - how to deal with the growing gap between the rich and poor, and what role should money and market play in society? But the good news is that people across the world are hungry to debate about ethical issues. Sandel was speaking to Nation Multimedia Group chairman Suthichai Yoon in a television interview. However, he explained, this deliberation required more than just putting one's point of view forward - people should also try to listen to and understand counter-arguments as well as be willing to make compromises. Sandel was in Bangkok for the two-day Bangkok Conference on Global Dialogue on Sustainable Development organised by the Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI) and flew out last night. The professor also lamented the far too dominant a role that money played in American politics nowadays. "Money can buy elections - not through actual bribery but through influence," he said, adding that there was a dire need for debate on the corrupting effect of money on politics. Sandel, who also authored the 2012 book "What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets", added that some countries in Europe and Asia had been successful at curbing the influence of money on politics. "We've allowed money to play far too big a role. At the moment, there's very little limit," he said. Some countries have put restrictions on how much can be spent on electoral campaigns, including television ads, but not in the United States, he said, adding that this will only change if civic groups apply pressure from bottom up. He also cited the big problem of politicians on both sides of the divide failing to break the current financial deadlock in the US through deliberation and compromise. He said this deadlock represented a failure of democratic politics, adding that both sides appeared to only be shouting at one another and not listening - particularly the Tea Party, a Republican splinter group. "I don't think this is how democracy ought to work." Other than his high-profile work at Harvard University, Sandel's lectures on justice and ethics have won millions of viewers on YouTube. However, he said, though online education would likely change the format of university education in the future, he does not believe it can ever replace face-to-face classroom interaction and debate. When asked what made a good student, Sandel said it wasn't the ability to memorise but the ability to explain how philosophical questions can be applied to daily life. According to him, an ideal student would be able to show that they have thought long and hard about the subject, have considered counter-arguments and are able to listen to an opponent. Latest stories in this category NCPO gets thumbs up for performance: poll * NCPO gets thumbs up for performance: poll * Most people have been satisfied with the.. * Fugitive academic taunts Panthongtae * Members in the dark on future of Pheu Thai We Recommend Double blow for Yingluck * Double blow for Yingluck * Becomes first politician to be impeached after.. * Strong reaction to impeachment * NLA makes history by impeaching Yingluck Comments conditions Users are solely responsible for their comments.We reserve the right to remove any comment and revoke posting rights for any reason withou prior notice. [double-click-dictionary.gif] TOP STORIES * Ex-ministers defend rice scheme via.. * Double blow for Yingluck * Nails in Yingluck's coffin? * Digital economy bills 'need to be.. * Wissanu says politicians may try to test.. * Strong reaction to impeachment * NLA makes history by impeaching Yingluck * Yingluck to make closing statement to.. * No order to impeach Yingluck, Prayut.. * Judgement day [read2.jpg] VIDEO NEWS Our home, our heritage Our home, our heritage A new smartphone application explores the rich history of Thailand-European.. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2015 Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2015 May the Joy and Peace of Christmas be with you now and throughout the coming.. The making of Corruption Perceptions Index 2014 The making of Corruption Perceptions Index 2014 The making of Corruption Perceptions Index 2014 Video Diary of Day 4 at Lima COP20 Video Diary of Day 4 at Lima COP20 Scenes from COP20/CMP10 in Lima, Peru, on 4 December 2014. Listen to the.. Orion Soars on First Flight Test Orion Soars on First Flight Test Orion Soars on First Flight Test [read2.jpg] IFRAME: https://www.facebook.com/plugins/likebox.php?href=https://www.facebook. com/NationNews?ref=mf&height=200&colorscheme=light&show_faces=true&head er=false&stream=false&show_border=true [INS: :INS] * HOME * | * NATIONAL * | * POLITICS * | * BUSINESS * | * MY MONEY * | * OPINION * | * LIFE * | * TRAVEL * | * TECHNOLOGY * | * SPORTS * | * CLASSIFIEDS * | * ANN * | * AEC * Amnesty Watch January 25, 2015, 6:42 pm Back to Top [bt-top.jpg] ____________________ go * [s1.jpg] Horoscope * [s2.jpg] E-Card * [s3.jpg] Newsletter * [s4.jpg] SMS * [s5.jpg] Digital Service * [s6.jpg] Facebook * [s7.jpg] Twitter * [s9.jpg] Youtube * [s10.jpg] RSS * Krungthep turakij * | * Kom Chad Luek * | * Nation Weekend * | * 247 Friend * | * Nation Book * | * Nation Channel * | * Nation Radio * | * NStore * Jobs * | * Phuket Gazette * | * OK Nation * | * E-newspaper * | * E-commerce * | * Contact us * | * Print Advertisement * | * Online Advertisement * | * Terms & Conditions * Privacy Policy (c) 2007 www.nationmultimedia.com Thailand * 1858/129 Floor 32 Bangna-Trat Road, Bangna, Bangkok 10260 Thailand. * Tel 66-2-338-3000(Call Center), 66-2-338-3333, Fax 66-2-338-3334 ,E-mail: customer@nationgroup.com * Operation Hours : Monday to Saturday at 8.00 am. to 5.00 pm and Sunday at 8.00 am. to 12.00 am. [p?c1=2&c2=14991510&cv=2.0&cj=1] [vc?z=admaxasia2&dim=815247&pid=3c841608-70fd-4bad-9258-702da196107e&as id=7fdcd06e-affc-47eb-bb06-e57965ad5be9&abr=$imginiframe] ´ [ad_tower_image.jpg] [ad_tower_image.jpg] TED * Harald Sandø * Oslo * Norway This conversation is closed. Do we need money at all...? Can a moneyless society work? We are not that motivated by money and reward as one used to think... When the 'workers' in the businesses are not motivated by money, why should the businesses be? The owners of these are people too. Yes, they 'need' money to continue to exist. But, could we think totally out of the box for once? Could we simply abandon money all together? And start creating a truly sustainable world where all people all over the world are motivated by this common task? I know I would be highly motivated by this. What about you? We all know the damage money and the 'money mindset' has done to this planet and humanity. Imagine if we took money out of the equation and really started to share the resources and build a world that works for everyone. There would be no more bills, banks, loans, financial crisises, corruption, unemployment, crime, war, passports, terrorists, pollution, prostitution, hunger, poor, homeless....and the list goes on. Money and the 'logic of money' major force behind all of this. Up to now, money as a motivator has worked well to perform the 'mechanic' jobs that needed to be done. Now, however, most of those jobs can be automated. And with the profit motive out of the way, we can truly develop all good inventions to their fullest potential, and develop technology to the betterment of humanity, rather than to maximize profits. When people in general are not motivated by money and profits. Why, then is our world still running on it? The answer is that we have been doing this for so long, so people have gotten so used to thinking that money, profit, margins, loans, banks and credit is a 'natural' part of our lives. But, it is not. All of this is artificial. The natural is our true motivations, like Dan Pink shows in his talk. I know there are several millionaires that would also like to see a different world. Maybe we can make it work? http://www.theresourcebasedeconomy.com/ http://www.thevenusproject.com/ http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com Related Talks: * Dan Pink: The puzzle of motivation * Marc Legere + +4 Apr 13 2011: I'm going to ask whomever reads this to drop the fascination of your own environment and experiences. Free yourself from being so driven by today's ideas, and free yourself from trying to understand a linear change. Just simply describe this scenario in your head. Put yourself in our world: with all existing damage that we've done. You are alone on the planet after the downfall of man (putting people aside temporarily for technicality, and I'll be putting them back in..after my point, for functionality..) How would you go about repairing, or rebuilding the world if you were able to then witness all of the proof of the wreckage that we've left with your own eyes? The question posed in a serious person's head.. hopefully, would be: How could I redesign a world that would not end like this. A sarcastic, less-focused individual on the subject would simply say: humanity had it coming to them, it was well deserved. Let's try it all over again, and see if it doesn't end like this again. "How could we create a world, that is dynamic in change.?" For example: A book is static information, while a wiki or a blog is dynamic information. It can be edited and changed. Our government was built with much dynamic, but the money system secured the boundaries by creating an almost complete 50/50 divided opinion in politics. US: Democratic or Republican (or independent, green rainbow) - Equivalent to Pepsi or Coke (RC or Tab). Vote for me. The resource based economy is the attempt to then rebuild this empty world you stand in.. and place structures and people where necessary. Computing can solve necessity bits based on real-time feedback from the physical world. Functionality of people's lives then becomes the main goal. After functionality, and the base of a new value system, human behavior.. emerges a completely NEW culture, lifestyle, mindset, and the old monetary environment and experiences are erased. It's a great attempt, if not a necessary one. + Comment deleted o Marc Legere # +2 Apr 13 2011: Conditioning such a thought to someone like you is impossible; I now realize. The motives that the money system create are there in full - (all of them). This relates to you how? The following: Your property is one, your self-interest in success/reputation is another, and your interest in old-world methods like the need to protect and secure your belongings from criminal intent. None of these motives or lifestyles however, exist in resource based... There is no ownership. I'm assuming it's cause you grew up in "the good ol' days.. i.e. 60's/70s" and seen the thrive of technology in a free market sense.. and this radical change is too much to admit. The money system creates competition and motives that deter the advancement of very useful and practical technology. For example: We don't need oil or other fossil fueled forms of energy anymore.. yet we still use it because we are squeezing the market value out of the oil well until we can build something else that sells to EVERYONE to maximize profits. Never in history has a civilization torn down its own infrastructure to re-build - only waging war to destroy it, thus declaring that whomever wins in our competition game is superior. But that's not the case.. fore there will always be superior men in the coming generations, therefore there is no need to compete. Btw, I'm 20. # o Marc Legere # +1 Apr 14 2011: I want to help you believe that this is not impossible. Just for laughs, pretend you're back in 1960s era. A 20 year-old person walks up to you and shows you the top-of-the-line iPad 2. It includes all the features, a 4G network, millions of accessible apps, and the ability to use software for monitoring or accessing almost anything that is available in the media today, at no cost. He then says: "throw away all your records and projector films - cause its all here in this device" In 1960, this device would appear to be science fiction or as you put it: impossible. But wait! This person then tells you that they will give one iPad away to everyone. For free. I think your response would be similar to above.. (maybe with a bit more sarcasm) 50 years later, in our world 2010 - we release the iPad to the public, thanks to the science advancements between 60's and 00's. Science funding compared to everything else is very insignificant.. yet with what scientists were given, the advancement in 50 years has been quite dramatic. My point is this:I AGREE WITH YOU: The monetary system is an idealistic design, just as the resource based economy is. In fact why wouldn't any economy on paper be idealistic in design? Its supposed to accommodate hundreds of years of civilization. The reason it has failed in recent years, is because it was designed for a critical point in population growth. Money can not support the worlds current inhabitants: Fact. The pyramid of wealth is only expanding at the base, and narrowing at the crown. Thus the wealth (1% in number is depleting, consuming 40% the government monetary loans) while the rest of the 99% are paralyzed and forced to work for pure survival. There are no laws preventing money flow, wasting it on pointless corporate meetings.. first-class flights of 20+ men discussing how the color of paint is good for marketing, and makes people want to eat. Cause you're uneducated on the design (iPad in the 60s)- you think it's impossible # # thumb Krisztián Pintér @ +1 TED Translator Apr 15 2011: i would like to add something to revett's point. centrally planned societies not only fail ultimately. they fail from the very beginning. so far, any such societies showed indescribable suffering, famines, massive violations of all kinds of liberties and human rights, genocide, destruction of accumulated capital, destruction of culture, knowledge and civilization. * thumb B. Reynolds + +4 Apr 8 2011: Imagine I give you a dollar and tell you that if I flip a coin and get heads I'll give you a second dollar. Separately imagine that I give you two dollars and tell you that if I flip a coin and get heads you have to give me back one. This experiment and many like it have been done countless times and do a great job of proving a basic fact of the human mind: given the same outcome people feel better about it when they got more than they were expecting and worse when they got less that they hoped. Stated another way, the pain of loss is greater than the perception of gain for the same values. This is why conflict resolution and border disputes are so difficult. One party feels that what they are loosing has more value than the second party feels they are gaining. For that reason currency serves a function in that allows for a third medium that all parties can assign a value to. * Marc Legere + +3 Apr 19 2011: I know this about human nature and economy: I've done my research on the resource based economy; My research has also exposed me to a historical approach of gathered information. Our trade system has changed with technology, and our culture values have always changed with time based on cultural "beliefs". There has been a proceeding culture for every culture that failed, and proved its predecessor wrong or indifferent, thus making beliefs outdated, not extinct for this reason: those culture's that remain uneducated about the beliefs' exposure, they are unable to change the belief on their own. Our law systems, government, and entertainment have changed in form with time. However, our needs for survival, and to maintain a healthy status have not changed to a great degree when in our natural state. Despite dependence on drugs, metabolism changes, or any dysfunctional body organ(s) that need treatment, disease or injury, our basic means of survival haven't changed. Before agriculture, and before any large amounts of resources could be claimed by hunter's and gatherer's.. we used to live in a culture that fostered the earth, and that allowed for no one to claim possession over anything. People would prevent a person trying claim leadership whatsoever. It was simply a different way of looking at the earth and objects around you. It was only until people could create a surplus of food through agriculture, and mine valuable metals, that there was then: a need to claim possessions. Many people, even the person posing this exact question, also see that this trend of change throughout history can be applied to today's world. The technological mask of computers can certainly hide the presents of outdated city infrastructures, and the fact that our government is operating under the founding fathers, when just 10 years ago we barely has laws regulating internet use/abuse. It's time for change, and people globally will SOON realize our current methods are outdated. * mike Anderson + +3 Apr 8 2011: The Venus project is most definitely NOT communism. Communism still relies on a monetary system and that is why it is not a good solution. Money in itself is obsolete, and in my opinion pretty ridiculous if looked at objectively. Think about it this way: It is a scientific fact that we have (under current technology) the resources to feed, clothe, provide shelter and all of the things necessary for everyone on the planet. Even better the quality of life for everyone would very quickly be much higher than anyone has today. Then if the resources are available, and we have the technology to do this what holds us back? In essence we decided to place value on "special rocks", discover, protect and store them, then print "special" pieces of paper based on how many rocks we have saved up. We then spend our time trying to come up with tasks to complete where our time is traded for this "paper" so that we can then trade this paper for the things we actually need for survival. there was a time when money, just as religion and politics were useful in our survival as a species - but I believe that they are all outdated. The venus project does not require perfect people nor is it a Utopian society, but it is by far the most responsible and intelligent idea that we have. I just hope that I am still here to see it one day! + thumb Sargis B. o 0 Apr 8 2011: The documentary Zeitgeist Addendum proves just how ridiculously inane the monetary system is, along with our so-called economy and free market. The sooner people understand what money does to us all, the sooner things get better. Money is not the answer to problems, it's the creator of problems... o Revett Eldred # 0 Apr 8 2011: Sargis: It doesn't "prove" anything. It takes and presents a particular, socialistic view of money and our system. It is interesting watching, but it is very one-sided. One thing the movie does do well is show the incestuous relationship between Treasury and the Fed. Money itself isn't the problem; the way money is artificially created to satisfy political expediency is. If you want to see money issues you haven't even dreamed about, wait until Obama's financial rescue, TARP, and stimulus programs work their way through the economy. The hockey stick graph of the increase in money creation in the last couple of years should frighten anybody whether they understand the system or not. You think you know inflation? Not yet you don't. # thumb Sargis B. @ 0 Apr 9 2011: Oh believe me, I know. Which is precisely my point. Look back throughout all these years and check over how high our debt is today as it stands. The only way to get out of it is to pay it back but you CAN'T. That's the whole point Revett. What's the solution? Your message doesn't prove me wrong, on the contrary, it shows just how bigger the trap is going to get! If you think money isn't the problem, then what is? And what's the solution to fix the monetary system because right now, it is broken to the point of no return. # thumb Harald Jezek @ 0 Apr 9 2011: Sargis, no, money is not the problem. The problem is people's (including the govt.) spending behavior. If you are up to your ears in debt, then you hardly can blame the money, but only yourself for it. So what we need is not to get rid of our monetary system, but to teach people how to use money properly. # thumb Sargis B. @ 0 Apr 10 2011: Feel free to show me how to do that when we already have over a century of debt that even all of us together couldn't pay off. Interest increases the debt mate. That's the problem. Doesn't matter how you use it, your debt is still alway greater then you can pay off! Change this system? That's when money won't be the problem anymore. Let's stop blaming the people for everything. # thumb Krisztián Pintér @ 0 TED Translator Apr 10 2011: so the current monetary system gives us problems, and it is enough to throw the concept of money out of the window? is this what they call "jumping to conclusions"? commodity monies were used for thousands of years, and there was no increasing debt. # thumb Sargis B. @ 0 Apr 11 2011: You make an interesting point Krisztian. Yes, commodity monies were used...the thing is, before, when you took an orange, you didn't owe back 5 oranges (interest = debt, vice versa). And the monetary system doesn't "give us problems", it is screwing our entire world over to the point that even the biggest countries in the world will soon be bankrupt at this rate. Don't under-appreciate what money has done. Doing so is the equivalent of saying "Hey, so some people die and gigantic wars of mass destruction are started over it and our planet is being brutally raped to the point of losing most of its resources and countless species, but is that enough to throw the concept of money out of the window?" You seem to be utterly in love with this concept, no offense, and I find that to be the biggest problem of all. If you appreciate it so much, do us a favor and find a solution for this system to go from global rapist to global helper and balance keeper because right now, the latter terminology is putting it very softly... # thumb Krisztián Pintér @ 0 TED Translator Apr 11 2011: okay, i'll try to explain a little differently. the problems you bring up here are complex problems. money is certainly involved in the ongoing shenanigans. because politicians chose inflation as their primary means to lay a hand of a larger portion of the people's wealth. they use money, more precisely monetary policies, for a bad goal. it is not different than using steel to make weapons. nobody would recommend abolishing steel to prevent weapon manufacturing. # thumb Sargis B. @ 0 Apr 11 2011: Agreed. But steel itself isn't inherently corrupted Krisztian while the monetary system is, along with its interest policy, the only purpose of which is to keep increasing the debt so much that you will NEVER be able to pay it back. You talk as if there is another monetary system or there are different policies and our leaders have simply chosen a bad one, when there is only ONE system and ONE policy. If you have a new, better policy in mind that doesn't keep mankind enslaved and completely unbalanced, I'm all ears. But until then, let's not under-appreciate what money is and has done to our world. I'd also like to point out that the only way to my knowledge for money to uphold its value is to have interest rates otherwise where does the money come from? It loses all its value. Hence my point that there is only one system. # thumb Krisztián Pintér @ 0 TED Translator Apr 11 2011: neither money is inherently corrupted. i'm trying to tell you that for a long time. maybe it is the time to give up? # thumb Harald Jezek @ 0 Apr 12 2011: Sargis, just because people and govts. use money in an inappropriate way, doesn't mean money is bad. Do you call a hammer bad if you hit your finger instead of the nail ? I hope not ! I asked you, how you would see a society w/o money. I didn't get an answer so far. Think it over, but don't tell me to replace money with coffee beans or tequila bottles.....that would only be changing the currency, but not the concept. # thumb Sargis B. @ +1 Apr 12 2011: Replacing currencies is another subject. Put it to a side. You tell me why you keep separating money from the system? Without the system, the money won't exist and vice versa. The hammer analogy would work if money itself was a commodity that could be attached efficiently to a different type of system. But the truth is that it is simply PAPER and cannot. The value it has comes from this system and from what I've understood, if a monetary system does not revolve around interest, how is MORE money going to be created? Better yet, how does the value of money stay in tact? The whole value of this paper currency comes from that system. Destroy the system, money becomes paper. Nothing more. But if you take only hammer or steel and put it to a side, it doesn't stop working. It is a material item. Money isn't. It's a complete illusion. There is no value behind it when the monetary system allows banks to create it out of THIN AIR. Back in the gold currency days, it still made more sense because you got money based on how much gold you had, which was a real commodity. But today, read what replaced the gold currency on the dollar bill. Regardless, we can't go back to the gold currency and I don't see what type of currency could replace this one when the need for it is decreasing each year. This is why money is inherently corrupted because the only system it can survive on is corrupted, not to mention fake. Banks have the power to do whatever the hell they like and these interest rates are simply destructive when you think about it because no matter how you live your life, you always have to pay back WAY more then you took and can EVER pay back (which is how money survives). Perfect example of modern 21st century slavery. And if there is nothing wrong with this system, why was it revived SECRETLY in the early 1900s and not openly. Because it's wrong. No one would agree with it. And here I see people defending it. I have nothing more to add. # thumb Sargis B. @ +1 Apr 12 2011: Harold, there is no good or right way of using money. What you are discussing is the leaves and branches, not the corrupted roots. In the same way, ethics and discipline mean nothing when the system itself is corrupt. It makes you use it the wrong way no matter how you use it. # thumb Harald Jezek @ 0 Apr 12 2011: Sargis, the problem is that you see money as something evil, while we try to explain you that money is simply a tool to facilitate transfers of goods and services. You are defending a moneyless society, but have no suggestion of how this society should look like. You are also wrong when you assume that money is just produced at will by governments. This is obviously not the case. In those cases where governments drastically increased money production it always led to hyper inflation. Let's continue the conversation, once you got a proposal that replaces our money based society......cheers ! # thumb Sargis B. @ +1 Apr 13 2011: My friend, whether I say money is evil or the system is evil doesn't change the fact that these two things are completely interrelated and are screwing our world over in ways that are beyond words. If it makes everyone feel better, I'll stop pointing my finger at money but that doesn't solve the problem or really change anything. I am not defending a money-less society. I'm saying that if you can change this system and make it more efficient, fair and less destructive, I'm all for it. But that is highly improbable owing to the way this system works. Richard's suggestions above were rather interesting, for example. They remind me of a resource based economy which I personally agree with and believe that we are heading towards for many good reasons. So I actually do have suggestions. And when I say that money is produced by governments at will, it naturally isn't that clean cut. But my point is that a lot of money is created out of thin air and we can't do anything about it. Most don't even understand how this bloody system works, let alone fix it or realize where this is all going wrong. * Vincine Fallica + +3 Apr 8 2011: ‘From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.’ Communism is the perfect system. You will find it works wherever you have perfect people; monasteries, kibbutzim, (functioning) communes, etc. You are asking if we have enough perfect people yet. I don’t think so. But it is heartening that there are more and more examples like: Mick Ebeling: The invention that unlocked a locked-in artist. http://www.ted.com/talks/mick_ebeling_the_invention_that_unlocked_a _locked_in_artist.html Keep in mind the hackers had all their needs for food, clothing, shelter, etc. met, and so they were free to work on this device. When my basic needs are met without money, I'll be able to do my work (RN) for 'free' too. (Actually Karl said ‘his’ not ‘their’, the sexist pig. ;) ) * thumb pranoy sundar + +2 Apr 30 2011: without money its not possible. There are some jobs that ppl does ONLY becos of money. How would we share the works? No one would come forward to do the toughest job. Also, r u sure abt sharing anything equaly between 7 billion people? + thumb Nicholas Lukowiak o +7 Apr 30 2011: Watch "Zeitgeist: Moving Forward" Then get back to me and we'll discuss it. * Marc Legere + +2 Apr 19 2011: The proof that our economy and thus entire lifestyle is outdated, can simply be seen in the fact that we now recognize the insanity and the effects it has had on the world itself, and can create a means for alternative lifestyle that is completely separate from our current ways of living. There is physical evidence as well that we are depleting the earth's resources at such an alarming rate, that we are not able to keep the standard for much longer.. let alone the coming generations of humanity... Statistics, and raw data are enough for proof: http://vimeo.com/10707453 - Titled: Social Pathology, By: Peter Joseph The earth is past its max capacity for the demand that people are asking. The numbers in both distribution, pollution, production, and waste are staggering and cannot be sustain simply for survival reasons. A new economy can fully be designed by a person living in today's economy. Is that not proof that we need an alternative? A resource based economy (THE VENUS PROJECT) is derived from many idealistic proposals, taking out the unrealistic, and approaching the problems in a scientific method. The resource based economy is a strategic plan, that has taken the unrealistic attributes from previous societal propositions, and designed a completely advanced and globally integrated plan. It has grown incredibly in popularity as you will notice here in this discussion and if you type any tags or related topics on Google or anywhere on the web. Here's a sort of science fiction representation of the world that we could construct. With the current population and available work that we have access to (without money) we could complete resurface the earth in 10 years. http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/A-DesigningtheFutureE-BOOK-smal l.pdf + thumb Krisztián Pintér o 0 TED Translator Apr 19 2011: wait a second. i'm having hard time to follow your reasoning. let me summarize: "The proof ... can be ... seen in the fact that we now recognize the insanity ..." the proof is that we recognize? i thought that recognition follows proof, not the other way around. first you present a proof, and then we recognize the truth. just because some people feel like recognizing something does not prove anything. it is the way of religion. religions are proven through revelation. science is proven by facts and logical reasoning. btw the v.p. truly seems to be a religion. it is more like a community, a flock rather than an actual movement. o thumb Nicholas Lukowiak # +5 Apr 19 2011: You're ignorance is staggering for someone who is so well educated, did you even watch the movie? It isn't a likely turn of events at all. The movement is to think more humanitarian-ly at the world, our home planet, and not just territories. Of course to ask the entire world to come to a consensus is unrealistic it makes too much sense. Stop putting something down that actually has genuine value no matter how crazy, "left-winged". liberal, communistic, or socialistic it may appear. That is how wars are justified. You don't have to buy it, but you do not have to put it down because you cannot see past the main page of an ideology. When involving economics in any historic governments/systems relying on the ideals of transhumanism and humanitarian ideals are rare. It is rare today in the present. "But that is not the point of economics" Well, that is the point of V.P. Humanitarian and transhumanism are the ideas V.P relies on before ANYTHING else is taken into consideration. WARNING PERSONAL BELIEF - F*** unless you are evil and/or like the rewards that money brings to you, you cannot say V.P is anyway a bad, negative, stupid, ignorant, or a poor project. Because these IDEAS are based on positive notions with the entire human race into consideration. The reason ideas like these are so hard to defend with logic is because they involve strong beliefs. What is reality, is that man wants to cut and cheat to get ahead if given the education for it and opportunity to do so, Strong beliefs are inedible, they in themselves are a movement. Do not knock the good ones trying to only be good. Knock the bad ones for trying to be good and being either good or bad. The progression of today in technology, life, and oneness is where it is today because of the damage humans have done to the world, our home. Now we need to use those 3 concepts/terms/phrases to start thinking in the direction of fixing that damage. For American Youth: www.powershift2011.org # thumb Krisztián Pintér @ 0 TED Translator Apr 19 2011: i'm having hard time understanding all this. what is your actual point? few notes: no, i didn't follow the link, because i'm fed up with people who drop in links instead of arguments. this is not polite. the v.p. is certainly not liberal. central planning is the least liberal system we can have. is there anyone who does not like the "reward that money brings"? maybe monks. the v.p. involves strong belief, exactly my point. the v.p. is a religion. too bad, we don't need another one. we have sound theories about technology and economics. we refine them on logical and experimental basis. # o thumb Nicholas Lukowiak # +3 Apr 19 2011: @Krisztián Stop putting down a system or "religion" in which involve strong ideas of only positive values behind it. The link wasn't for you, you are not from America. For you to assume maybe monks shows little creativity on your part of thinking. Also "V.P is not liberal" really shows you do not get it. @Revett You are the one usually pointing out logical fallacies of argument, see if you can find yours. Now I am not angry at people for not liking V.P I am angry when people say it isn't of value to be considered into the debate of how to manage a world full of people. You may be an example of those who use economics in a charitable way but do not assume that is everyone in this nation, especially those with more wealth. In fact the top 1 percent of America make over a quarter percent of the wealth that this country takes in annually. Now if our nation (Yours and Inot Krisztián) is among the wealthiest nations in the world, how rich is that top percent really? Why aren't they making American jobs? Greed. (Also you are trying to generalize a whole nation that one of the most diverse nations in the world, that is really dangerous). I don't look down on anyone who disagrees with an idea, I look down on anyone who doesn't agree in the right perspectives. To compare V.P to anything that exist today or has existed is non-sensible. I admitted three times now V.P is unlikely, which is true, but the IDEAS behind this ideology are all positive and beautiful and to put them down is to put down the very same great ideas that will ultimately better the world for all humans. "What happened in your life to give you such a low opinion of people?" Ha, good question. Mostly because it is entirely opinionated and disturbingly short sighted. Side-note: watch the movie if you are going to talk about V.P and not just a "non-money based system". Want to talk about intellectual sloth, talk about reading a few paragraphs and making a conclusion about an ideology. # thumb Krisztián Pintér @ 0 TED Translator Apr 20 2011: sorry, not possible. i don't care what "values" are behind a movement or religion. i only care about what they say. it is either wrong or right. it is either beneficial or harmful. it is either rational or irrational. i don't doubt that people in the v.p. religion are nice guys. what they do and say is wrong, and possibly harmful. o thumb Nicholas Lukowiak # +2 Apr 20 2011: Did you even watch the movie? Most likely no, because you are being ignorant on this topic. If the proposal was everyone to become Buddhist-like and come together in harmony, that ideal would be wrong to you too. The more you claim V.P is what you think it is just shows how much you did not actually care to look into it. I'll help. People (everyone)/World > Economics (There now you can save your hour and half) For you to continue to put down this "religion", as you so carelessly put it, that holds only pure intentions and values is remarkably stupid, especially when it holds technology and science above all other consideration after people. You don't care? Good, stop downing something you don't care about and clearly know nothing about. # thumb Krisztián Pintér @ 0 TED Translator Apr 20 2011: the road to hell is paved with good intentions - that much about being a nice guy. o thumb Nicholas Lukowiak # +1 Apr 20 2011: To me hell is where a few own much and many own some to nothing. So, because the good intentions came from economic based systems through out history you may just have a point. Hell and good are opinionated concepts, your claim is invalid here as are much of your claims. I never denied your intellectualism Krisztián but even you said it on "What is evil" thread. "Ignorance roots in refusing information", as does it come from not seeking it. # thumb Krisztián Pintér @ 0 TED Translator Apr 20 2011: pretty well said. what is good and what is not is partly debated, partly personal. so stop seeking ways to control. don't control people, don't control the economy. it does not matter if you want to do good. all those people who joined the socialist movement, they just wanted good. they wanted equality, fairness, better life. and then socialism burned down half of the world. a lesson to learn. # Marc Legere @ +3 Apr 22 2011: I personally believe in the Design that's been researched, and initiated through the Zeitgeist Movement. Once educated on the grounds for the Venus project, and even after watching Jacque Fresco speak several times, I start to really have an open mind on the possibilities for design, if money were not an object for obtaining resources. We could resurface most cities within 10 years based on some of the Venus project statistics. The basic theme is to eliminate human labor by designing cities to be easily installed, last a long time, be replaced (if necessary), repaired, and even fully maintained by computers, and robotics. Our lives would be greatly improved and convenient if we could build some of Jacques prototype systems. I think it is certainly a design that people need to be fully aware and properly educated about because if installed, it could prove to catch like wildfire, and dominate popularity in its lifestyle capabilities. It is foreign to us today, since we know no other way of life but the monetary system, but I believe that the money system will cause an environmental stir in the near future that will naturally shift the trend of living to an earth-preserving theme. Perhaps Jacques vision is just because he has self taught himself many fields of mechanics, architecture, and engineering, but Einstein was just as enlightened. The fact is that with education they both realized the result of competitive based systems, and the effect it has on a global scale as society grows. As functional as it may be, there is a limit to the earths resources (however there is not a known limit for the population growth and the needs met by energy consumption with the same trend) There will always be a better way to design the future, and adapt to provide for all. I know that to be true. + thumb Nicholas Lukowiak o +2 Apr 20 2011: @ Krisztián What seems to not be passing your senses of logic is V.P ignores economics all together and even frowns upon it, which is where the radical thought comes into play. What you feel is a controlling ideology I feel is an ideology where only a true and open-ended education could allow such to be possible or even taken into consideration. Like I said the values of V.P surpass the reality of it happening. And like I already stated the values in which V.P are based on will eventually better the world. Humanitarian efforts the planet and people. Socialism was where everyone would have equal everything including money, that is non-sense because when involving money who wants to stop at just having enough to survive? o thumb Krisztián Pintér # 0 TED Translator Apr 20 2011: relax, i noticed that many people, including v.p. believers, ignore economics altogether. it is their most profound mistake. and they are not at a loss understanding the world. they also lose a great perspective, a vision of the world that reinforces the soul, gives faith in humanity, deepens understanding. just like understanding evolution, a wonderful bottom-up concept that creates complexity without supervision, economics is a similar bottom-up concept of society. you need to study the *right* economics though. choose wisely. btw i lived under socialism. it did not even resemble what you are describing here. # thumb Nicholas Lukowiak @ 0 Apr 20 2011: I wouldn't imagine socialism in terms of economy and society would be. Sorry was thinking of communism. Economics are great I didn't deny it, the results however are more questionable today than ever before due to the power corporations now seem to have by manipulation of such systems. When the ideals of humanitarian needs escape someone thinking about profit there is no goodness. Economics is not the enemy the human condition of greed is, and greed becomes reinforced by educations that promote competitive notions on a business level even pairing it with an personal level. A true open-ended education would prove economics to be a value to the world, but with no good education for all and with few a great education of economics comes control. The reason I defend V.P is because it promotes everything that all societies can be doing better. Education, health, and moral teachings of community. * * * thumb Bill Harrison + 0 Apr 13 2011: The last part of that idea is the hardest - destroying money is much harder and much more controversial than making it for people, apparently. There are due process concerns, obviously. But the present system 1.) does not account for externalities in people's actions 2.) does not remedy easily remediable market failures 3.) inefficiently allocates the factors leading to social wellbeing. At the very least, the creation of money starting at the bottom of the pyramid gives those people some economic power to lift themselves out of extreme poverty. I believe most people would find that preferable to having money created for banks and have it "trickle down" to the masses. And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 25 claims that people have a right to food, medical care, a minimal level of wellbeing, etc. But it's literally meaningless, because there's no enforcement mechanism. Millions of tons of food go to waste every year, while millions of people go hungry. It's ridiculous. I call decentralized money creation/destruction "libertarian socialism," because the masses all have "claim checks" upon capital AKA the means of production, and as society accumulates capital, the level of wellbeing a society can provide for the worst off people increases. It makes sense to me that "rights"/"claim checks" should vest in poor people at a particular rate. Plants need water every day in order to be healthy, and poor kids' brains need consistent nourishment in order to be healthy/productive: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081203092429.htm I like Dan Pink's idea that we pay people enough so that money is no longer an issue, and then let them work! The idea that people need a fear of starvation, etc. in order to work is ridiculous. * thumb Bill Harrison + 0 Apr 13 2011: Money is an exceptionally useful medium of exchange, so I don't think it's going anywhere. I doubt we'll be going back to the gold standard, given that it's 2011. At the same time, I think the power to create and destroy money is too much power for one centralized entity to handle. The Federal Reserve propped up failing banks with 9 TRillion dollars during the financial crisis, with no oversight: http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/01/news/economy/fed_reserve_data_relea se/index.htm Money can also be thought of as a vote. A person with more money has more power to allocate social resources (public or private) than a person without money. This is why we live in plutarchies. http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent- 201105 Money is also a "claim check" upon the allocation of scarce social resources. For example, you can say, "Here, educated young person, do this for X amount of time and I will give you X claim checks." We don't want random noobs printing money on their own, but the gold standard is out of the question, partly because deflation is bad for the economy, and partly because there isn't enough gold in the world to support the gold standard anymore. My solution to this was that, in many countries, to some extent, we already give poor people some digital "claim checks" for food, clothing, etc. (EBT in the US, Bolsa Familia in Brazil). You can think of this as a decentralized power to "create claim checks," at a rate set by some centralized authority. But instead of "claim checks" being created for banks, it's created for everyone at the same rate. To counteract inflation, people should also have the ability to destroy money at a particular rate set by the Fed. In essence, I'm assuming that finite natural resources (including educated young people) are, up to a baseline level, equally owned by everyone. The right to destroy a very small amount of money is the right to say, "allocate here, not there." * thumb Renu Singh + 0 Apr 12 2011: Sargis, from all above comments and the points you and others made, I find the essence of this topic is in the following sentence:"money is inherently corrupted because the only system it can survive on is corrupted" What I understand, you are asking for justification of such a corrupt system, that is the owner of (can produce-yes, read it as PRINT) the money, hence can manipulate it. I think the focus needs to remain on this one question, the rest of the entire talk are just symptoms of the above and their justifications. About "interests" levied on borrowed money, thats the nature of the business. Its a product that is offered which has a cost. Its sold as as a need but is treated as a luxury that you need to opt for only if you can really afford it. Again, the corrupt system doesnt mandate warnings as required on such products. Hence again and again, we see the system as incapable and not the money. Money is just a tool which is used incorrectly, abused, its utility misrepresented, no trainings exist on how to use it, no warnings on the downsides of mis-usage, all in all, its intent not realized but distorted way beyond recognition, recognition being utility to a simple common man. + thumb Sargis B. o +1 Apr 12 2011: Renu, I agree with you. When I say money is the problem, my point is that it was born from the corrupt system itself. Money per se is worth nothing without that system and vice versa. That's why the monetary system and money itself is perceived by me as the same thing. If it makes everyone happy, I'll say that the system is the problem, not money itself. Does that change anything? The only thing that can fix this dilemma is a new monetary system but how can any monetary system survive without interest and debt? If you take those two factors out of the equation, money will just be paper that can be manufactured endlessly. The only reason it's value stands is because it is in constant circulation, going back and forth, and the only way it can continue doing that is for people to feel the need to return it back to the banks (debt) with a "little" extra (interest). Problem is, you can NEVER pay your debt off and these banks can create money out of thin air. o Comment deleted # thumb Krisztián Pintér @ 0 TED Translator Apr 12 2011: side note: increasing the money stock in the rate of economic growth is questionable too. first, measurement is a problem. GDP or CPI are rough figures, error prone and manipulation prone. second, any form of money devaluation hurts long term investments, the investments that are the most difficult to make. third, there is not much reason to do so. money adjusts fine on its own. why tweak it? # # thumb Krisztián Pintér @ 0 TED Translator Apr 12 2011: Richard, would you elaborate? side note: i find it not too advisable to call the majority view "monetary illiteracy". if you represent a minority view, the burden of proof is on you. # o o Comment deleted # thumb Sargis B. @ +1 Apr 13 2011: "As soon as you gain monetary literacy your trouble evaporate and you start seeing the whole picture." Amen! @Richard Your suggestions remind me of a resource based economy or some variant of it. Sounds much more logical and mature as it forces the system to revolve around the state of our world. This current monetary system and economy isn't mature or economic at all. Thanks for sharing mate. And regarding monetary illiteracy...the majority really has little idea of how money works or where it comes from. Can't say I disagree with Richard there either. o * thumb Matthieu Miossec + 0 TED Translator Apr 10 2011: I feel like if we got rid of money, we'd have to replace it with something else which in essence would be exactly the same. Any sort of society that promotes exchanges would have some sort of monetary system. + Marc Legere o 0 Apr 14 2011: A resource based economy declares all of the resources of the globe a common good for all of earth's inhabitants. All things would be available at no cost, or servitude. The distribution or "monetary" exchange you refer to would not involve money. It would require a simple request via computer network, and followed by an automated confirmation. Just as my request can be met at a local store in the monetary system: Requesting a drink requires the confirmation in dollars. However, in the resource economy, the request would be met only within the parameters of what is physically available for use. Another more important point to add is that the item or resource you request would be linked to an international data-base that tracks all materials. This is, in theory, a large centralized computer that had the ability to calculate the impact of your request. If something is not available, it would then request the item from alternate means. You see, people would not have any ownership or property. There would be no need to hoard items, or secure product, when you hold no ownership, everything is readily and efficiently available upon request. The infrastructure is designed in such a way, that after construction, only 5% of the population would need to maintain it at first. With the development of better efficiency, this number would become less and less. This is all researched, and calculated statistical data in the design: The FIVE MAIN GOALS to implement are as follows: 1. Survey the planetary resources - translate this information into what is mathematically available via real-time computer database that monitors resource management. For scarce resources:: alternatives or substitutions. 2. Decide on what needs to be produced - in a material sense 3. Optimization of methods while maximizing product lifespan 4. Distribution methods for human access 5. Optimize recycling for outdated or inoperable product http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3932487043163636261 * thumb Krisztián Pintér + 0 TED Translator Apr 9 2011: there are like 6 conversations ongoing about the venus project and its utter nonsensical teachings. + thumb Nicholas Lukowiak o +2 Apr 15 2011: I find the result of an ideology is how you should determine it to be wrong or "nonsensical", and yeah in theory/practice communism, socialism, and Marxism don't work, but capitalism MOST CERTAINLY does not work. There is no such thing as an original thought, stop assuming such, it is impossible humans have been thinking for too long for those to exist still. Creative thoughts are what should be appreciated not originality. Ideas can't be wrong because they are ideas. Ideologies can be wrong they are systems based on ideas. Now VP is an ideology, yes maybe it won't work so what? The ideas behind it are pure-hearted and positive to every human being on the planet. How can you be against equality, fairness, togetherness, and a truly connected world? that goes for anyone. o thumb Krisztián Pintér # 0 TED Translator Apr 15 2011: i have zero idea what are you talking about. classification of v.p. won't help, as the problem with it is not its classification, but that it is wrong. mostly nonsense, small part wrong. i've elaborated this many times, and i won't repeat. however, what we know about capitalism is it works. it works so well, it established the western civilization as the absolute leader of the world in just a few hundred years. it got us from earning $2000 to $20000 in two centuries. it reduced child mortality and plagues. it raised life expectancy by 100%. it eliminated famines. and it is now working on doing the same everywhere on the globe. shortsighted lunacies like the v.p. work against this progress. # thumb Nicholas Lukowiak @ 0 Apr 15 2011: That was more of a comment you never responded to, now. http://video.godlikeproductions.com/video/Economic_H itmen?id=6dd26c4f7d621adec1d (John Perkins, author of 'HoodWinked' and 'Confessions Of An Economic Hitman' ) This is capitalism, while it did do many great things it has done ten times more damage. You are wrong, this isn't progress it profit. V.P wants to correct that. Capitalism only works for some, not all, nor can it work for all nor does it want to work for all. V.P does want to do that which is why it sensible but incomplete as any ideology is in the world because everyone doesn't cooperate enough to want to make the best system. # thumb Harald Jezek @ 0 Apr 16 2011: Nicholas, while capitalism is far from being perfect, it's the best system we currently have on this planet. If somebody comes and shows me a new concept that will work better, then I'll be happy to consider it. However changes require actions and not just philosophical contemplations and good ideas (which are worthless if not implemented). The V.P. talks about ideas which obviously sound good, but they have no concrete ideas as how to ever get there. Yes, there is a plan to build a model community based on the V.P. ideology, and even if they manage to build it and if it actually works, it still cannot be more transferred to the global community than the Amish lifestyle can be implemented on a global level. # thumb Nicholas Lukowiak @ 0 Apr 16 2011: V.P was never meant to replace just capitalism , socialism, communism, or any other political ideology in the first place V.P is a concept to replace the entire system, pretty much everything, in which the whole world has now found comfortable being in because there has never been an idea that would allow such a thing. It isn't very plausible because it requires to much, It would take everyone to drop everything and come to a global agreement. You are right it is unlikely. Now let's consider the monster capitalism has allowed in the world. There is now profit in war and cleaning up the war. That one sentence isn't long enough to express how f***ing evil that it, capitalism is based on profit margin. Profit margins, money, and greed. Yeah I said it I am a rationalist. What is rational is to work together and not work against one another. Capitalism has now effected how the masses live their life, Aristotle would turn over in his grave to be so right that the government is a reflection of it's people. Greedy, except it's backwards the ideology made the people greedy. Even to the point where people have begin to idolize people for having wealth and/or having an athletic talent (Not knocking sports, but these guys make more than doctors, lawyers, and architects). Now, back to agreeing with you, yes V.P is unlikely. But the ideas in V.P are what our capitalism needs right now. Gain profit, but benefit humanity at the same time, sound good? However the problem with money is, someone always wants more than everyone else and is going to probably keep it ,few exceptions of course, but more popular to keep money than using it on strangers, those are the values in which capitalism has created, because the biggest idea in capitalism is money gain, and enough money means power when enough people believe money is power. i don't defend the ideology, concept or theory of V.P I defend the humanitarian and transhumanism morals and ethics that are involved in V.P. # thumb Harald Jezek @ +1 Apr 16 2011: Exactly Nicholas, V.P. is proposing to totally remake our society, that's what makes it so unrealistic. Capitalism: capitalism isn't the problem. The problem is people doing the wrong things. For example, greedy people exist regardless of the system. It's like with technology. Technology is neither good nor bad, but people might use it in one or the other way. The same is the case for capitalism (or any other system). The definition of capitalism is pretty simple: "An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit". Is that bad ? I don't think so. Making profit stimulates and motivates. Why did the communist regimes fail ? Because there was no ownership. Nobody felt responsible for anything. People just left everything in the hands of the state. Making profit and benefit humanity is practiced by many wealthy people. Bill Gates for example, just to name one. Also many artists and sport celebrities are actively involved in humanitarian programs. Back to V.P.; as you say and I admit, there are good ideas in thei program, however, they are of so general nature and not supported by any concrete plan of action, that they are rather useless. If you look at their philosophy, you'll see that it revolves around a "resource based economy", meaning that all resources (goods and services) are equally available to everybody. Sounds great ! I like this idea of unlimited abundance and equal availability to everybody. However, the devil is in the detail, which in this particular case is a lack of action plans how to get there. It's like saying "nobody should starve", "everybody should get a good education", "no pollution of our environment", etc. Those are all great suggestions, but HOW do we get there ? That's the big question. o thumb Krisztián Pintér # 0 TED Translator Apr 15 2011: linking videos *instead* of making arguments is intellectual sloth. you lack economic understanding, and you refuse to learn new information because it would be "limiting" or what. so i think your position is rather hopeless. but maybe i can draw other readers' attention to the difference between capitalism, and all forms of statism: corporatism, mercantilism and interventionism that indeed cripple the world for a long time. they play in the same league with the v.p. they seek to control and rule. + thumb Nicholas Lukowiak o +1 Apr 15 2011: lol, so why would I want to take information from someone who cannot see past his own ignorance? Lol, to claim V.P is seeking control shows far more ignorance than I have by neglecting your suggested readings. The video was so you can understand easily and with entertainment something you are fortunate enough to not experience. Oh and I just didn't post just a video, I also posted an author's name and two books by him. You tried pawning off a conversation (about economics) with literature, I can do the same sir except about the results of an economic based ideology, which again I find the results should be where the value of an ideology is weighed. These results of an ideology happen to be pretty awful to a lot of strangers you most likely never met or talked to. Name a few "centrally planned societies" that failed; would be good for this thread and to prove your point about VP being 'wrong'. Capitalism is strengthened by statism: corporatism, mercantilism and interventionism. Edited: lines 3, 4 and 5 o thumb Krisztián Pintér # 0 TED Translator Apr 16 2011: "You tried pawning off a conversation (about economics) with literature" o_O you seem to be completely confused. i recommended you a history and philosophy work, not literature. it is your area. you should not get a diploma without reading then anyway. and i visually emphasized the word "instead", but you can't take a hint, apparently. to back up your point with some background material is OK. dropping a link instead of presenting a point is lame. # thumb Nicholas Lukowiak @ 0 Apr 16 2011: History and philosophy through a spoken language is literature. You neglected 4 of my other points. Also if you were a civil human being instead of an educated one you would have asked questions besides just sticking to your own claims. You constantly compared V.P to existing ideologies and it is none like any other. Everyone who would want to participate in V.P would have to be a humanitarian and care about the people around them genuinely and without profit. That is why it is unlikely, not because its a form of communism. "Name a few "centrally planned societies" that failed; would be good for this thread and to prove your point about VP being 'wrong'." You are indeed an intellectual, but even one of the worlds best intellectual was used for a world of destruction, because science wasn't primary but secondary. (I would hope you know now what I mean by science in the post-modern sense) Get a clue, go outside with normal people and see how damaged the world is because we like to defend an ideology that does NOT want to change because there is no profit margin in change but in control, war, entertainment, and materialism. (Yes, another strong belief) o thumb Krisztián Pintér # 0 TED Translator Apr 16 2011: i often neglect points that a, does not make sense b, is stupid on a level i'm not going to descend to c, was discussed already many times d, i'm not interested in # thumb Nicholas Lukowiak @ 0 Apr 16 2011: Well then prepare to be an individual in a class of elitist. Have a nice day. * thumb Harald Jezek + 0 Apr 8 2011: Harald, most people don't care about money, but the stuff money can buy them. Got a million US$ sitting on a rock in the middle of the pacific without any means to spend them ? Not very useful, isn't it ? Money is a tool, nothing else. It helps us to easier exchange goods and services. Even for companies, it's not about the money per se, but about what they are doing with the money (buy new equipment, make acquisitions, buy raw materials,....). Money is also important to put a value on goods and services. Otherwise, how would you be able to define what a certain product/service is worth ? Let's say you are a car producer. Explain me how you would sell your cars to the market in a money less society. + Comment deleted o thumb Krisztián Pintér # 0 TED Translator Apr 9 2011: i doubt you can answer the second question. the first is a question that is not true. money does deprecate in value continually over time. o thumb Harald Jezek # 0 Apr 9 2011: Richard, yes, money does depreciate over time. Just look what 1 US$ bought you 100 years ago and what does it buy you today. As to your 2. question, as I pointed out in my other post, it's not about money. but about what you get for your money. If we would use sea shells instead of money and let's say, you have 100 of them which barely is enough to buy you a Fiat, but you actually want a Mercedes, which costs you 1000 shells. What you want to earn "interests" on your shells, meaning, wouldn't you want to find a way to increase your stock of shells, so you can buy your Mercedes ? TED Conversations Archives We’ve spent three years sharing Ideas, Debates and Questions — and learned a lot. Now we’re going on hiatus to retool and rebuild from the inside out for a better conversation experience. * TED Talks Usage Policy * Privacy Policy * TED.com Terms of Use * Contact * Help © TED Conferences, LLC * Skip to navigation * Skip to content [shmoop-logo-watermark.jpg] © 2015 Shmoop University, Inc. All rights reserved. [skin-flashcards-header-3a.jpg] Shmoop - We Speak Student We Speak Student Register Login Cart: 0 ($0.00) (BUTTON) Toggle navigation * Test Prep * Learning Guides * College * Careers * Video * Study Tools * Teachers * Courses * All of Shmoop Literature Poetry Shakespeare Bible Mythology Bestsellers Music Pre-Algebra Algebra Algebra II Geometry Pre-Calculus Calculus Biology Chemistry US History Civics Economics Biography Dr. Seuss Driver's Ed Financial Literacy Literary Criticism Shakespeare Quotes Money & Banking Money & Banking (BUTTON) Cite This Page (BUTTON) Cite This Source (BUTTON) × Close Cite This Source (BUTTON) Close * Home / * Economics / * Money & Banking / * Analysis / * Money: The Economic Definition group rates for schools and districts ____________________ (Submit) (BUTTON) TABLE OF CONTENTS * Intro * Overview * Analysis * Money: The Economic Definition * Types of Money * American Money * US Money Supply * The Federal Reserve System * Monetary Policy * Just the Facts * Game * Best of the Web * Teaching Money: The Economic Definition * BACK * NEXT We all know what money is. We may have different terms for it—smackers, c-notes, dead presidents, Benjamins, bucks, bones, clams, dough, moolah—but money usually finds a way to overcome these barriers of dialect and speak to us all. Economists, however, have a language all their own when it comes to money. They define it as something that serves as a medium of exchange, a unit of accounting, and a store of value. Money is a medium of exchange in the sense that we all agree to accept it in making transactions. Merchants agree to accept money in exchange for their goods; employees agree to accept money in exchange for their labor. As a unit of accounting, money provides a simple device for identifying and communicating value. How much is that bicycle? It’s $200. Without this convenient, readily understood unit of accounting, setting and communicating value would be difficult. How much is that bicycle? Well, less than a piano but more than wheelbarrow—I’d say that bicycle is worth about one third of a piano plus two backpacks and a small pizza. Two hundred bucks is a little easier, right? Money serves as a store of value in that it allows us to store the rewards of our labor or business in a convenient tool. In other words, money lets us store the value of a long, hard week of work in a tidy little stack of cash. Without money, how would we set aside the compensation we receive for later use? We could be paid in cows, but that would not be a very convenient way to set aside our unspent compensation. We could be paid in pizzas, but the value of our labor would not be stored in the rotting little pies for very long. In other words, economists largely define money by the functions that it serves. It need not be green and made of paper, and it need not be little metallic discs—money is anything that fills those three essential functions. Now, the best money is also highly convenient—it is light, easy to carry, and can be broken into smaller units for easy exchange. (If we used cows for money, how would we give change?) But most important, it must serve as a medium of exchange, a unit of accounting, and a store of value. Why It Matters Today "Money, money, money/ Must be funny/ In a rich man's world" That little ditty from ABBA (John McCain's favorite band! For real! Look it up...) is about money. It's about choice and risk and reward, and what you're willing to sacrifices to have choices. That's the way money works. The Gospel of Shmoop does not suggest that we all try to fit through the eye of the needle that money on its own really is the answer to any kind of wishes for happiness. (As the Beatles sang, money can't buy me love.) (Or if you prefer the way Biggie Smalls put it: mo' money, mo' problems.) But whether you think money is the solution or money is the problem, it will help you to understand what money is, how it works, where it comes from and where it goes. Sometimes, a Song Says it Better: Money Money Money, by Abba Abba talks of a rich man’s world with “money, money, money.” [EMBED] * BACK * NEXT People who Shmooped this also Shmooped... [economic-policy-50.jpg] Economic Policy (Macroeconomics) - Learning Guide [labor-wages-unions-50.jpg] Labor, Wages & Unions - Learning Guide [money-banking-50.jpg] Money & Banking - Learning Guide [careers-ro.png] SHMOOP ON CAREERS We tell it to you straight. [college_101-ro.png] SHMOOP ON COLLEGE It’s not all togas and Solo cups. Advertisement Noodle's College Search Advertisement [math_shack_promo.gif] group rates for schools and districts Advertisement Advertisement * © 2015 Shmoop University. All rights reserved. * Site Map * Help * About Us * Advertisers * Jobs * Partners * Terms of Use * Privacy Site Map Help Advertisers Jobs Partners Terms of Use Privacy © 2015 Shmoop University. All rights reserved. Logging out… [p?c1=2&c2=6034644&cv=2.0&cj=1] Quantcast TED * Mats K * Oslo * Norway This conversation is closed. Is There a Future for Money? In our digital age, where banks and even nations fail through reckless monetary spending and policies, it seems that our monetary system is becoming the big elephant in the room, yes even obsolete. Automation replacing humans seems to be one of the fundamental contradiction of capitalism and may be the demise of the system itself leaving the looming possibility of fascism or military dictatorship to arise and flourish if we fail to arrive at any alternatives. While some believe taking us back to the gold standard will fix things, and others believe that debt forgiveness is the solution, we hear talks about access/resource based economies, where we simply declare all of Earth's resources as the common heritage of mankind and make goods and services available to all without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude, through technological abundance. In fact, let's rephrase the question. At what point in the future do you think that our technology will make automated systems possible and allow us to move out of a monetary system? * gerard3161 jones + +3 Sep 9 2012: IThink what the world needs at this moment is spiritual cash, that we make efforts that benefit whole society. I mean that we care about eachother, sometimes words have more value then money. Think this is possible with little effort to help eachother in life. People have to share what they feel,working together,concern about our environment,community etc. We only need the money for basic needs to live a normal life like food, a house,healthcare etc. At this time the world needs only love and this we cant buy,we just have to make a little effort to start with and will cost nothing. * thumb Gail . + +3 Aug 19 2012: Bitcoin is just a less expensive way of printing money. It does nothing to end the destructive economic model that now enslaves the world. I'm a supporter of and believer in the moneyless society. But until more people become self-aware, and through that, begin educating themselves PROPERLY, we might well die out as a species first. Mathematicians and economists are saying that our economy cannot be sustained any longer than 2030 at the outside. (less than 20 years from now) but MANY are very worried that collapse is just around the corner. But for as long as people are ignorant about what's going on, it can be sustained until there are not enough consumers. Faith is holding it up now - faith brought about by ignorance. Now add bad farming practices to the mix - resulting in polluted & unsafe aquifers along with the loss of topsoil - all encouraged by our current economic policy. Now add global warming into the mix. Now add spiraling over-population into the mix. We're headed for a perfect storm, and again experts are saying that all will come to a head no later than 2030, when at least 28% of the earth's population will be starving/thirsting to death, and the good ol' USA will not be immune, nor will Europe. People should be learning about economics today, because it might well be fundamental to our survival as a species. The current paradigm was created with the need for poverty built in. The poor are the worker class. Adam Smith proposed that for his model to work, that the greater number of the children of the "race of workers" would have to die (of poverty related issues). People who are not awakened (self-aware) cannot see that we are committing suicide. No wonder the conspiracy theorists are saying that the illuminati will give us a great war or a plague to thin our numbers. Too many poor people will collapse the economy, and automation is giving us too many poor people. $$$ is an unsustainable idea. + Mats K o 0 Aug 19 2012: Thanks for your interesting insights! I couldn't agree more. Education is key to move our civilization ahead and evolve from this seemingly stagnating economy thus environment. By the way, do you have any sources on the mathematicians and economists saying that our economy cannot be sustained any longer than 2030? I would love to read about it. Cheers. * thumb AbdelRahman Siddig + +2 Aug 23 2012: Money is a system to exchange human efforts * Suketu Shah + +1 Sep 12 2012: hi Mats, This is an excellent thought and i am for it and in complete line with your thoughts and i also believe that this is the only way to create awareness in all country. now the next step would be how to set up these awareness through internet media and be a part of that movement... all over the world... + Mats K o 0 Sep 13 2012: Absolutely. This is the challenge. How to spread awareness. It's starts with us though, and what we want to do in order to change things. * David Felcan + +1 Sep 11 2012: Thank you for starting this conversation. Its interesting. I think we need to have some agreement about the purpose of money. To my mind, the purpose of money is that it allocates the products of human and machine labor to various peoples. Whether you like money or hate it, or think its fair or unfair, I think that we can generally agree that it currently does this. You are positing that essentially technology will eventually become so productive that there will be no limits, and therefore no need to decide who gets what because everyone will be able to have everything that they want. But there isn't a limit on human need (and there are still many fixed resources - land, water, air, energy, etc.), so I don't see money becoming obsolete in the sense of it providing a way to distribute goods and services. What an entirely automated society does obsolete is the fact that money can be earned through some sort of labor. We are positing now a future where there are thinking machines that can do creative/informational/research labor as well as producing all physical goods. In such a society, no one can make any claims to more resources than anyone else, because everyone is equally (non) productive. At least that the reasoning for inequality in a capitalist system. One fair system is for everyone to receive the same stipend - a completely egalitarian society. Another idea is to distribute money based on some other system, like moral worth (niceness = cash?) or some amorphous concept of "need". But this really begs the question of who or what decides these other criterion. Anyway, I feel to advance the conversation, its not so much about the death of money as it is about the death of work and the death of money from work. * thumb Craig Patterson + +1 Sep 10 2012: Indeed, Mats; the most intelligent sometimes destroy their forests, pollute their waters, foul their air and poison their food with pesticides and herbicides.... Certainly no one would be that stupid in the 21 century.... would they? + Mats K o 0 Sep 11 2012: "the most intelligent sometimes destroy their forests, pollute their waters, foul their air and poison their food with pesticides and herbicides" That's because the "most intelligent" people in the current socioeconomic system are the economists and they see natural resources and what naturally keeps us alive as an externality. If you cannot profit on it, it's basically an externality. The fact is that the monetary system is totally disconnected with the real world and the preservation of resources. It simply doesn't give a damn. And it's the system that perpetuate this kinda behavior. It's not people that are unsane, it's the system. It has always been. o thumb pat gilbert # 0 Sep 11 2012: That statement could not be any more inaccurate. # Mats K @ 0 Sep 11 2012: How so? o thumb pat gilbert # +1 Sep 11 2012: The definition of economics: The study of scarce resources that have alternative uses. All resources become scarce. # thumb Truong Thanh Chung @ 0 TED Translator Sep 12 2012: That's indeed a smart definition. * thumb Craig Patterson + +1 Sep 9 2012: Exactly Mats. And there is very little evidence of any..... Collapse is imminent and the closer you live to the ground, the less you will fall. + Mats K o 0 Sep 10 2012: Very true, Craig. "It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change." - Darwin * Comment deleted + Mats K o +1 Sep 11 2012: I am glad. Critical thinking is a vital tool to evolve our society to a better one. If you are interested in how a moneyless society today could work, I highly recommend the book "The Best That Money Can't Buy" by Jacque Fresco. o * thumb Justin Elkin + +1 Aug 31 2012: There is a future for money. Though in today's world it seems with the more value incentive placed in money the more value incentive is lost in future utility. Logic is key to where value is placed. In my ponderings I have come to believe in a deductive logic/argument systems value incentive is placed in a past notion of value while an abstract logic/argument system value incentive may be placed in a future/intangible notion of value. A system to utilize an equitable account of value incentive, I feel, a merging of the two, a deductive abstraction if you will, of value is in order whether there should be a voucher to display it or not. * Comment deleted + Mats K o 0 Aug 31 2012: Well, education and sharing of ideas is key to overcome these "disabilities" of looking forward. Implying that our "disability" to look forward is simply human nature is like saying that having any conversations about anything is completely useless because of our fixed set of values and behaviors dictated by human nature. If that was true, we would all still live in caves. By sharing ideas and trying things out we learn what works and what doesn't. How does this logic not apply to our way of economics? Why does finding solutions to our current socioeconomic problems seem pointless? Why is this not the time for sharing ideas and testing them out? o o Bob Stiglitz # 0 Sep 2 2012: The human mind is not free. Learn what science has discovered. http://bit.ly/dYaWUc * Matthew Logie + +1 Aug 28 2012: One of the fundamental reasons for money is to have a means of distributing finite amounts of necessary resources. If we start thinking about what is required for modern living the first step would be to get to a situation where electricity can be free. Some ideas on the not so distant horizon that have potential include fusion energy, the process that can power stars for billions of years. I also like the idea of vibration scavenging, it could be placed anywhere and everywhere humans are. Where the simple act of moving could provide the power to run common devices. If electricity can become free the next step would be to be able to automate a process of creating food such as the replicator that has been mention. From there you then need free housing. Some of these are borderline science-ficton ideas such as star trek or matrix-esque(without the machine overlords) However science fiction has a history of becoming science fact where people realise the potential of an idea and then make it reality. If basic human needs can become free then there is scientific endeavour, luxury items and entertainment, with the actual materials required to create them being free all that is left are ideas. The established rich and powerful are likely to try and resist such changes, however if we continue to progress and manage to avoid destroying ourselves or decending into endless conflict or war, I think that it is ultimately inevitable. * thumb Maxwell Horne + +1 Aug 28 2012: This is an excellent question. While I don't condone forcing a de facto socialist agenda onto a people, I'd love to see a city set up in the United States (my country of origin), where people could voluntarily live. You should check out video on YouTube of a very old man/inventor/futurist named Jacque Fresco. While some believe he has a cult following, he's simply an intellectual guy, who explains how we require switching from a monetary system to a resource-based economy as technology relieves more and more of their jobs. Personally, I love the idea. Technology, as we've seen, increases exponentially with time. To answer your second question would be to imply that I see the best situation as the inevitable one; which isn't the case. People are, by nature, greedy. They hoard what they don't need, that could be given to others. Through a system of giving to others, contributing voluntarily (with no monetary incentive), helping others and being a good neighbor, we can all shift the equilibrium of the planet to a more hospitable and pleasant environment. Just as most kids would never start smoking if they never saw anyone smoke, more and more, people would begin doing good around them without selfish intentions if they saw more people doing so. I know this, because I'm a product of said phenomenon. + thumb Justin Elkin o 0 Aug 31 2012: Jaques Fresco and the Venus Project are an inspiration to me as well. I don't agree with people being, by nature, greedy. I think of people possessing a nature of any propensity the environment demands. Shifting incentive is the key to money's future. Value derived with incentive from a source in the past to value derived with incentive from a source in the future. * stuart hoffman + +1 Aug 27 2012: Isn't money just numbers that represent the relative value of all things? You can't get rid of the idea of relative value. I suppose you could try to use words instead of numbers to represent the relative value of things but even an idiot would soon discover how cumbersome and inaccurate that would be. No, I think you asked you question wrong. What you really wanted to ask is; "when can people like me dictate the relative value of things for everyone else?" * thumb Imad Atwi + +1 Aug 24 2012: Simple: E-commerce, M-Commerce, Near Field Communications (NFCs), and M2M services. * * thumb Luke Hobbs + +1 Aug 22 2012: I'm hoping we keep money, but lose the hypnotic power it has over us, in making us believe it has a sacred power - one which is really just implied. No man has power over another except that which we choose to give. + thumb Krisztián Pintér o 0 TED Translator Aug 22 2012: money does not have hypnotic power over me. it does over you? + Mats K o 0 Aug 22 2012: Would it, however, be necessary to keep money if we could create an abundance of materials/resources with technology, providing the necessities of life and a high standard of living to everybody? o thumb James Zhang # 0 Aug 22 2012: If everyone's happy with what they got, then there's no need for money. But there's no such thing as a free lunch. How would we achieve that state, at what cost? And everyone will always want something more/new, or else we would be incredibly bored and have no reason to live. So if there is a way to make everyone happy, of course people would vouch for this solution, but as of right now, it's impossible. Until we figure out how to get to that Utopian state, money is the best solution we got so far, despite the greedy influences it has. # thumb Kirill Rebrov @ +1 Aug 22 2012: >or else we would be incredibly bored and have no reason to live. Look at Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. What are at the bottom? Physiological and safety needs. My money satisfy these needs. While they satisfied I don’t need money. Do you think I have no reason to live? I can create, develop(self-actualisation by Maslow), love and being loved(love, belonging by Maslow). Scarcity only creates these basic needs(physiological and safety). The real life begins when human satisfies his higher needs. So the really happy people today are those whose job satisfies both their higher and basic needs. And there are always bored people. In scarcity and post-scarcity. Who have only their basic needs. >Until we figure out how to get to that Utopian state, money is the best solution we got so far I agree. Post-scarcity has very high technological requirements. Firstly we must reach this technological level. I love money. In this society they help me satisfy my higher needs. # Mats K @ 0 Aug 22 2012: James, I invite you to read about a resource based economy at http://www.thevenusproject.com/en/the-venus-project/ resource-based-economy. Let's have this discussion after that if you still feel this way. o thumb James Zhang # +1 Aug 22 2012: @Mats, ok, lemme check it out first then get back to you on that o thumb Luke Hobbs # +1 Aug 23 2012: Why was money invented in the first place? Wasn't it meant to be a way of circumventing the complexity of multi-trading? Like if I had ten sheep and you had two cows, but you didn't want my sheep but chickens, I then needed to find someone who would trade my sheep for chickens so I could get your cows... # Mats K @ 0 Aug 23 2012: Yes, but this is no longer necessary. We have reached a point in our civilization where technology can provide all of us with food, clothes, shelter, clean water and a high standard of living. In other words, we have the possibility to create an abundance of resource if we intelligently manage them through technology and the scientific method. + thumb Colleen Steen o 0 Aug 23 2012: Hi Luke, This is a response to your comment: "I'm hoping we keep money, but lose the hypnotic power it has over us, in making us believe it has a sacred power - one which is really just implied. No man has power over another except that which we choose to give". I wholeheartedly agree...nothing has power over us unless we give it/them power, and that is our choice in each and every moment. BTW, I apparently misunderstood/misinterpreted your comment in that other discussion, and now it is closed. I was going to send you an e-mail, and you do not have that feature in your profile. So, I'll tell you here....I got it with your explanation.....thanks:>) o henrik larson # +1 Aug 23 2012: An easy way to lose the hypnotic power is to separate money from survival instincts. Like universal health care has done in many societies. If we as a society provide for all primary needs, like food, shelter, security, then we loose the hypnotic power that money has, and it becomes what it was always meant to be, a tool for rational trade. Expand the welfare-system to include basic needs as the security of food, shelter and healthcare. It´s so obvious when money becomes hypnotic, it´s when you really need it... We need to elevate people above the risk of being hypnotized. Make them more "upper class" in their confidence in their economic security. # thumb Colleen Steen @ +1 Aug 23 2012: I agree Johan, and that seems difficult for some people. When people are vulnerable and frightened in survival mode, they tend to cling to something that is known. Even when they don't have money sometimes, the hypnotic power is still there with the "wanting" of it. I agree that elevating people above the risks would support them/us in being less hypnotized by money. Where do we begin???? I would say empowering and building confidence in people is good, and that of course supports a lot of other good things in one's life as well. What do you think? # thumb Luke Hobbs @ +1 Aug 24 2012: Did you know that here in Australia they sued to have underground tanks at each home to collect rain water. However, the GOVERNMENT of all people abolished this because they didn't think people had the right to free water! Seems to me the agenda is to make us very dependent on money for basic survival needs to perpetuate the hypnosis. But are these people doing so out of "evil" or it is that it's all the know how to be? In fact, should we even judge on intent, if the action is still appalling? # thumb Colleen Steen @ +1 Aug 29 2012: Luke, That is very unfortunate, and I guess I'm not surprised. I believe governments often try to make people more dependant....easier to control....right? I believe the welfare/public assistance system here in the US keeps people poor and dependant, and that is not what it was designed to do. I generally do not believe that people are intentionally "evil". I just don't think they are thinking about the long term ramifications to the people they are disempowering or to the whole. We cannot "judge on intent", because we don't actually know what the intent is....do we? o henrik larson # +3 Aug 23 2012: I can´t reply to your post so I´ll reply to the one above :) In our world of accelerating change, I think it´s increasingly important that we elevate people above survival mode. The job-market will probably continue to be disrupted at exponential rates, and we need to be very altruistic to help each other adapt to this brave new world. I believe everyone is beautiful in their own way, and don´t want to see my fellows loose the race against the machine. So I believe we should just empower people financially, with money, through citizens dividends or basic incomes or something like that, divide the wealth surplus, and make the transition to a better world a little smoother, and give each other time to adapt, and the economic resources and confidence to be altruistic and friends and work together to reinvent our identities and find new niches. I wholeheartedly believe in this :) # thumb Colleen Steen @ 0 Aug 29 2012: I agree Johan, that one underlying factor is to elevate people above survival mode. I agree with your previous comment to expand the systems..." welfare-system to include basic needs as the security of food, shelter and healthcare"...etc. I do not agree with empowering people with too much money in the beginning of this process, for the simple reason that many people do not have money because they are poor managers of money. I think empowerment is better first....as you insightfully say..."give each other time to adapt". I wholeheartedly believe it could happen too, and I am realistic enough to know that it will not happen over night. It's good to ponder and plan however! o thumb Luke Hobbs # +1 Aug 24 2012: No problem at all. The good thing about TED is that everyone here is open and honest, with the goal of finding a solution to a better society. Peace :) # henrik larson @ 0 Sep 4 2012: @Collen >I do not agree with empowering people with too much money in the beginning of this >process, for the simple reason that many people do not have money because they are >poor managers of money. I think economic anxiety is a root to "their" poor management "skills", lack of "economic" freedom has forced them/us to become less then our "full potential". Future generations will be better managers :) * thumb Wade Crum + +1 Aug 22 2012: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKWPht3fU-o&feature=related Money (Power) Trumps Technological Abundance. We must first unlearn our concepts of "Free". Absolute freedom can not exist. It can only be exchanged. http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/biobookener1.html . Will we ever be able to define a fair exchange? If I'm a corn farmer and I want exchange a certain amount of my corn to get my roof fixed, How much corn would it take to pay the roofers. The future of money could be based on the answer to corn for roofers. So we could base it on thermodynamics. What was the energy expenditure and time required to produce the corn VS the energy expenditure to produce the materials to fix the roof including the act of fixing the roof. Therfore, I conclude: Energy is the next currency. + thumb Krisztián Pintér o +1 TED Translator Aug 22 2012: money(power) is similar to apple(elephant). they are not in any respect similar. you can be relaxed though, because governments all over the world are working hard to eliminate freedom. so this unlearning is on the way. + Mats K o 0 Aug 22 2012: Interesting concept. It kinda sounds like a fusion of time banking and barter. However, I see a near future where automation of all labor is a reality. There is almost nothing today that can't be replaced by machines and especially agriculture and farming in general. If we did this, we, the humans, would be in a position to focus on the important stuff like curing cancer, eradicating illness and whatever the heck we would want to do that better our lives and humanity in general. This is what we should aspire towards. o thumb Wade Crum # +2 Aug 22 2012: Thanks Mats. I share your aspirations towards quality of humanity. The trick is getting the technology to market before big oil and big energy buy up the raw materials. o Scott Koenraadt # 0 Aug 22 2012: I hope your future never happens then. Because if that occured people couldn't do what they truly wanted with their lives # Mats K @ +2 Aug 23 2012: How so? Freeing people from meaningless and painful jobs, that machines can do better and more efficient to make our life better, has always been the goal of technology in the first place. o Scott Koenraadt # 0 Aug 23 2012: I know many people who want to do things like machining, welding, farming, ranching, etc. Whom if your future came to would be unable to do what they enjoy # Mats K @ 0 Aug 23 2012: Here's the thing. They could do exactly that if they wanted to. Nobody has the right to stop anybody from doing what their passionate about. That's limiting humans and counterproductive to our well being. Organizations and people that proposes a moneyless society where automated labor is intact, are very well aware that people are passionate about many things and therefore during a transition phase or more specifically a re-educational phase, people would do whatever they want to do without the burden of selling or trading their product, but because they enjoy to do so. I hope this helps. # thumb Wade Crum @ +1 Aug 24 2012: Wants and dreams would evolve right along with technology some are great some are a disaster like texting while driving, yet still ideas, wants, needs, will evolve just as our environment evolves. I also know many people who want to farm, weld, machine, ranch. I don't see those trades / hobbies disappearing anytime soon. Nor should they. * thumb Valentina Biagini + +1 TEDx Organizer Aug 21 2012: I also think money is NOT necessary 'at all costs'. Although it appears to still HAVE some value (even though almost only virtual), it IS NOT a Value. (as far as mushrooms and so forth, I think this is NOT the place for insults...) + Jon Ho o 0 Aug 22 2012: Indeed, money is sometimes not necessary when doing transactions that requires set value. Barter system for example, is still alive and kicking! I'm extremely curious about the Schrodinger Cat techniques of observing value of money, perhaps you can elaborate more on that? Regarding the musroom thingy, sarcasm and insults are two faces of the same coin. One is used to convey a feeling of contempt for the incredulous ideas or situation one is subjected to, while the other is used to dehumanized and degrade the recipient. Sarcasm may be appropriate or inappropriate, though this is generally a function of one's point of view. Yes, I was being sarcastic, in case you can't tell from my dry sense of dark humor and puns and fancy wordplay and whatnots. Far be it for me to insult him, oh no! For I DO agree he has some points in there, but the way he presented it in the jumbled up snippets of idea and phrases that rivals, nay, exceed the most extreme of schizophrenic rantings warrants a mechanism to defuse it; the mechanism I chose in this instance was sarcasm. Which leads me to believe that English is probably not your native language, am I correct? Perhaps that is why you have misunderstood and misconstrued the fine subtleties in my sarcastic remarks. ;P + thumb Krisztián Pintér o 0 TED Translator Aug 22 2012: money is not necessary at all. just like factories are not. or agriculture. our great ancestors lived without all of these. we don't need them. but we want them. we choose to have agriculture, factories and money. because they make our life much better. o Mats K # 0 Aug 22 2012: Money is, however, not necessary to make a good life. And looking at the how much poverty there is around the world I would argue that it doesn't even make a manageable life. The only reason we want/keep it, is because of our unawareness of technological possibilities that can easily create an abundance of materials/resources that can provide everybody with food, shelter, clothing, clean water and a high standard of living. If you will, I can gladly elaborate on our technological possibilities to prove my argument, but if you're here to win the argument or have already made up your mind, I would rather not have to waste my time on it. # thumb Krisztián Pintér @ 0 TED Translator Aug 22 2012: without money, we can have medieval level economy. go for it, i choose money. o Scott Koenraadt # 0 Aug 23 2012: money is not necessary, it is just an extension of the bartering system (where they would negotiate between a certain amount of X and a certain amount of Y). agriculture is an absolute necessity, in fact it is the foundation for civilization # thumb Krisztián Pintér @ 0 TED Translator Aug 23 2012: in fact, exchange and division of labor is the foundation of civilization. and these are impossible without the concept of money. * thumb Mitch SMith + +1 Aug 20 2012: I've said it a few times in TED posts - do the exercise of designing a new currency and it will all become clear. Let's say that you live in Greece or Spain, and that you perceive that the currency of the Euro contains a dynamic that syphons the value from your country. So you need to disconnect from the flaw in the Euro - to do this, you abandon the Euro for a currency that does not recognise value balances external to your country. Let's assume that the national government is incapable of doing this because of commitments it has made. So a return to the pre-Euro currency is not an option - it would violate governmental treaties. So instead of top-down from government, you implement the new currency bottum up from local communities with a new label that divorces it from treaties. So, you get a vew local producers to agree to participate. For this you would need some food producers, some buyilding supply producers, some energy producers and a team of utility procurers. The best place to implement this is in teh local distribution providers - the retailers. The initial community of the new currency need not be large, but the first rule would be that they do value exchange between each other exclusively in the new currency. This has the affect of divorcing the community from external inflationary/deflationary affects. Then you promote the stability of the new currency to invite others to join. You set up a discriminatory exchange rule that discourages echange with other economies - such that the only way to participate is to adopt the currency exclusively. This new currency would have hard rules to prevent value syphoning via usury, so there would be strict laws about borowing/lending and speculation. The net result is that the agregate value generated by the community remains within the community. The attendent increase in life-quality would quickly promote inclusion and eventually subsume all other currencies. But the currency regulator becomes the absolute power. + Mats K o 0 Aug 22 2012: Great thought exercise! o thumb Mitch SMith # 0 Aug 23 2012: Mats, What we as humans have to realise (and pretty soon) is that money is an expression of farming. What is farming? The root principle of farming is the creation of the closed system. The farmer defines an area in which the flow of energy is prevented from interacting with flows outside the defined area. A currency is one such closed system - all who participate in teh currency are farmed by the currency issuer/regulator. So you can see that both currency and property arise from farming. We have been doing this as a species for 10,000 years or more, but at this point we have run out of "property" - we need to examine the dynamic and start looking at re-opening some of our systems. This is the root cause of the challenges facing humanity right now. If we don't open our eyes and admit that the closed model has crashed, we will fail to see the opportunity to adjust the model. So let's begin by getting eyes opened. # Mats K @ 0 Aug 23 2012: I completely agree, Mitch. However, in order to change things we must also propose a plan for a better future. It isn't enough to merely point out the shortcomings of our current system, we must provide an alternative. Your thought exercise is important and is an excellent way of making people think critically and start realizing that we must change the system if we want to survive, but we must also emphasize on solutions. # o thumb Mitch SMith # 0 Aug 24 2012: Not so much a plan as a system. De Bono would say that critical thinking only takes you part of the way becasue it is retrospective in nature. In that vein he observes that sequential ordering of components as they present results in a structure that cannot be sustained - a component will arrive that violates the plan. In the ideal circumstance, a new plan is made and the whole structure is dismantled and re-built according to the new plan. Of course, the resources required to do that are prohibitive, so it continues to build in an unballanced way till the entire structure collapses. This would suggest an endless cycle of build and collapse. But there's another way. Think of it as a computational challenge. http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/stephen_wolfram_computin g_a_theory_of_everything.html Rather than man-handle each new circumstance into a structure according to a plan, put together a dynamic system that can adapt itself to unexpected components as they arise. A thing that determines its own plan as it evolves. With the paradigm of farming, we had just such an adaptive system, however, it was insufficient when presented with the expiry of available "property" in which to expand - thus we now see the internet being twisted to create some desparate new "property" to expand into. It can't work of course, because you can't eat binary data. The flaw is growth. So we need a computational paradigm that is not dependent on growth. We should begin by dismantiling the farming paradigm to determine its functional parts then re-assemble them to remove the growth requirement. Unlike the "critical thinking " method, we are not dismantling the entire existing structure, we are simply re-configuring a system - small functional tweaks that do not require a massive amount of resources. Once the new dynamic structure is assembled - you just let it loose and if it works it will consume the old model. OK - let's get started. What are the functional parts of the farming paradigm? * thumb Krisztián Pintér + +1 TED Translator Aug 19 2012: "Automation replacing humans, which creates the ultimate paradox in terms of purchasing power, seems to be one of the fundamental contradiction of capitalism and may be the demise of the monetary based economy itself." what the heck this sentence means? in what sense automation creates paradox? how would that a contradiction and between what? and how would that affect the monetary system? how would the monetary system's collapse or reform alleviate a problem that is fundamental to capitalism or automation? what does that mean for an economy to be "monetary based"? "alternative economies such as Bitcoin, a decentralized digital currency where goods and services are purchased without the exchange of any physical currency" how would bitcoin be an alternative economy? how bitcoin changes available resources, production, capital stock, transportation methods, consumer habits or any other aspect of the economy? why do we need bitcoin to get rid of physical currency? isn't a bank account or credit card just as information technology as bitcoin is? + Mats K o 0 Aug 19 2012: Paradox in the sense that while automation frees us from monotonous, repetitive and even dangerous jobs (making our lives better) it also decrease the purchasing power of the working class (jobs being replaced by machines). You see, not everybody can instantly do the jump or the transition from industry work to more creative fields when automation takes over their previous job. It takes time and education. And this would deeply affect the monetary system by that reason alone - that there is no purchasing power left within the working class during that transition. Because the money system or what I like to call the monetary based economy has to constantly circulate in order to sustain itself. There will come a time called the Gaussian curve where employment is stagnating, production is peaking and purchasing power is rock bottom. The system stops. On a side note - capitalism was created under the assumption of scarce resources and didn't take into account the possibility of automation of labor and technological abundance which is why we are in the mess we are in right now. It is an inherent flaw in the monetary based economy. Sure, it worked fine a hundred years ago, but not today. I agree that Bitcoin isn't any valid replacement for the money system, in fact it's the same thing only digital. I am aware of this, but I kept it in there since there seems to be a consensus that a "new" way of distributing currencies is what is needed to fix the economy and a degree of attention has been given to namely Bitcoin and other digital currencies. This is the only reason I kept it in there. o thumb Krisztián Pintér # +1 TED Translator Aug 19 2012: how on earth would automation decrease the purchasing power of the working class? ever heard of the industrial revolution? you know, the thing that made available for the masses to have lighting, medicine, clothing, heating and all that stuff. later cars, cellphones, flat tvs. i don't about this part, it is to be taken literally, or it is some metaphoric imagery? "money system has to constantly circulate in order to sustain itself." does it have a meaning? how could a system circulate? what would the implications of that be? money circulates, so? of course it does, it is the medium of exchange. its essence that it is just goes around. so what? "There will come a time called the Gaussian curve where employment is stagnating" curves are not times. what gaussian? do you actually know what a gaussian curve is? why would employment stagnate because of a curve? why would employment ever increase? why would it be lower than we want? unless of course some external force prevents people from finding a job. but in a free market, what would prevent people from working? "capitalism ... didn't take into account the possibility of automation" wow. capitalism is the result of automation. that might cause someone to question the validity of your claims. and the final question: what money has got to do with all this? without money, there would be no automation? there would be no problem of distributing resources and goods? you are fighting with demons that don't exist. i strongly recommend you to follow up on how money works and how capitalism works. because your knowledge is lacking. badly. and i would not recommend 99% or venus project or any other such crap. i mean real knowledge and real science. you can start with murray rothbard's the mystery of banking. also matt ridley's TED talk here: http://www.ted.com/talks/matt_ridley_when_ideas_have_sex. html # thumb Kirill Rebrov @ +1 Aug 20 2012: I think he means radically new level of automation. The industrial revolution didn’t cause the high unemployment because old professions were replaced by new one. It created new professions: scientists, engineers, mechanics, electricians and so on. And even reduced the unemployment. But the world has changed greatly since that times and there is a possibility of the total automation in the future. When the machines will produce, maintain, evolve and repair themselves. As well as produce products and services. I’ve talked too about such level of technologies. So conceptually there is no need in almost all current human professions in this model. And maybe such times will not come suddenly so there will be some transition period which will cause unemployment. When traditional economy is not gone completely and post-scarcity is not came yet. # thumb pat gilbert @ 0 Aug 21 2012: Damn Krisztián you are going to wear out that Ridley video. Kirill How many jobs were there at the industrial revolution? How many are there now? Nope the job demand increases because of technology and off-shoring. The problem is that us mericans is too stupid and lazy to get the jobs. * thumb Kirill Rebrov + +1 Aug 19 2012: I think there is no monetary system at all in the future. Probably our next economical model is post-scarcity. I have wrote some thoughts on it in my idea http://www.ted.com/conversations/13343/designing_the_model_of_futur e.html More can be found in my blog post http://techains.blogspot.com/2012/08/manufacturing-paradigm-shifts. html I tried to argue post-scarcity by the example of manufacture technological evolution and how it will affect the economy. But I am going to write more thoughts about post-scarcity because the subject is both interesting and complicated. + thumb Krisztián Pintér o +2 TED Translator Aug 19 2012: post scarcity would mean we are out of ideas how to cooperate. i don't think that human beings will ever run out of new ideas how to make their lives even better, more interesting, fun or meaningful. and we will always seek ways to help out each other through the division of labor. post scarcity would mean the lack of such effort, and a perfect satisfaction with the world as is. i don't want to live in that world, even if it is possible. o thumb Kirill Rebrov # 0 Aug 19 2012: To be clear I meant post-scarcity in this sense: “Post-scarcity (also styled postscarcity) is a hypothetical form of economy or society in which goods, services and information are free, or practically free. This would require an abundance of fundamental resources (matter, energy and intelligence), in conjunction with sophisticated automated systems capable of converting raw materials into finished goods.” I’ve described how I see the concept of such society due to technological progress from 3D printing to more sophisticated manufacturing industry with renewable materials, recycling manufacturing and zero designing costs(open source phenomenon). It is of course roughly estimation in my blog post, but if we talk about this as concept so hypothetically such level of progress is possible and doesn’t conflict with what you’ve described. Or you talk about some social side effect e.g. lack of motivation for people to evolve personally and to evolve as the whole society? # thumb Krisztián Pintér @ 0 TED Translator Aug 19 2012: and i was exactly reacting to this. you are thinking of today's goods. if today's goods are produced by machines, humans will produce other goods. like entertainment in the broad sense. # thumb James Zhang @ 0 Aug 20 2012: There's no such thing as a free lunch. There will always be a cost to go with the benefit. If we don't use some monetary system and everything is "free", it still isn't really free. There's still some amount of work/service to society that you need to perform in order to gain the benefits and basic necessities to live. In other words I think that post-scarcity can only work if EVERYONE is responsible for their role in society and contribute equally in quantity but unequal in quality. o thumb Kirill Rebrov # 0 Aug 19 2012: >if today's goods are produced by machines, humans will produce other goods. in the model I described people will continue to produce whatever they want including today’s goods. But it will be only design part(like digital model or schematics for 3D printer) of manufacturing process. No heavy work. So the cost of individual’s labor will be the cost of his or her creativity and intelligence. The labor will become only creative. People will be free of the need to satisfy their basic needs like food and water and will be free in their labor to satisfy their higher needs like creativity and self-affirmation. How will they use their free time and ability to be more creative? I suppose it depends on particular individual and our future lifestyle. People will just have more options for the way they live. # thumb Krisztián Pintér @ 0 TED Translator Aug 19 2012: and why would that be post-scarce? it just means that basic goods are non-scarce (more precisely almost non-scarce to a degree that they can be considered non-scarce). but all the other goods are still scarce, and it will always be the case if people can find themselves new activities to offer to each other. o thumb Kirill Rebrov # 0 Aug 19 2012: > and why would that be post-scarce? what do you mean by “basic goods”? I didn’t divide goods into non-scarce and scarce(basic and “others”). I did divide only the technology of manufacturing. It is hypothetical view with many “but” so let’s assume some constants. 1. The materials will be free(unlimited) 2. The raw and heavy manufacturing will be free(machines) So people will be involved only in designing creative part of manufacturing of any goods which requires only their will to be involved in. They always can use products and services completely provided by machines(or other people who has chosen to create) and they have a choice to provide products and services by themselves for their personal needs or for other people and for free. For free because there is no scarce products and their basic needs are satisfied. Sure someone can ask 50 bucks for a jewelry he made(designed) but why if he can get everything w/o 50 bucks? If it’s possible technologically I see no purpose in money as a motivation factor to create activities for each other. I agree, perhaps today people need money as a some sort of “rating” factor and some objective estimation of their creativity and labor. But I think it’s just a stereotype since we live with money for almost whole our history. # thumb Krisztián Pintér @ 0 TED Translator Aug 19 2012: what do *i* mean by basic goods? it is your term, not mine. why would i define a term that you brought into the discussion? i think everything can be said is said already. i could only repeat myself. o thumb Kirill Rebrov # 0 Aug 19 2012: English is not my native language but I've used the term "basic NEEDS". I have negligently used only "food and water" as examples meaning the basic needs of every human according to the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. I haven’t meant goods in manufacture. To be more specific I’ve meant that basic needs like physiological and safety needs would be satisfied w/o need to earn money for food. So people can focus on their higher needs such as self-actualisation, esteem and love/belonging. o thumb John Moonstroller # 0 Sep 1 2012: WWI and II was the result of people running out of ideas as are all wars which cause a redistribution of the wealth. * thumb edward long + +1 Aug 19 2012: Isn't the difference between Bitcoin and Currency the same as the difference between email and postge? They differ only in ease of use. The result of their use is the same. Money and Power will always be the dynamic duo in the exchange of goods and services. The future of money is secured by greed, materialism, and convenience. + thumb Krisztián Pintér o +1 TED Translator Aug 19 2012: not even that. most dollar transfers already happen in computers. o thumb James Zhang # 0 Aug 20 2012: Indeed, I've been using PayPal and Amazon for quite a few things. + thumb John Moonstroller o +1 Sep 1 2012: When I helped with the Katrina refugees, one of the real problems most people faced was that their accounts no longer existed because the data associated with them was destroyed or displaced. I saw many a family in a 150,000.00 Bounder RV, stopped alongt the roadside because they couln't buy gas. There were begging for a handout from local communities. Panama City, Florida was hit by a couple of tornadoes and the power went down. Food in grocery stores rotted because the stores only accepted cash. Convenience stores shut down but stayed open because the registrars couldn't accept a transaction because it was electrically powered. This condition lasted for a few days, longer in some areas. Cash was king, data was unaccepted without proof it existed and there was no way to process a data type of transaction. Coin(hard currency) will always exist for this very reason. * thumb Gail . + +1 Aug 19 2012: a 4:41 video about the origins of our global economic model: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4JsCEYpIUA&list=FL23ULzV7ik5lQQo51y OnJ0g&index=3&feature=plpp_video + thumb Mitch SMith o 0 Aug 20 2012: Thanks for this link Gail - McMurtry is very perceptive - and articulate. + thumb David Hamilton o 0 Aug 31 2012: Sorry ted lover, this video is simply inaccurate. "The Invisible Hand" Smith described, is often used this way, falsely. The Invisible Hand, is a very specific entity, human desire, it had nothing to do with god. When someone makes a better mousetrap, it is not god that makes you buy it, but your own interest in killing mice... poor mice, they always get beat up in economics. o thumb Gail . # 0 Aug 31 2012: I don't think Smith was talking about God "per se", but about money becoming god-like. You can call your passions your god. (Where your love is, there is your god.) But the economic model he proposes calls for the existence of poverty, and the measure of a man's wealth is the amount of labor that he can purchase. And when you have men competing for jobs, profits will be highest. Smith said that the economic model is bad for child mortality rates. Child mortality "will every where be found chiefly among the children of the common people, who cannot afford to tend them with the same care as those of better station." If the common people of 1776 had been literate and educated, would they have passed this off so easily as a necessity? Smith did predict the dangers of the tradesmen (middle class) who could form a strong political block that could interfere with the government that was supposed to be an exclusive domain of the wealthy. He couldn't think of a way to prevent them from meeting to do this, because even if government made such meetings illegal, they would still meet in private, so such meetings needed to be discouraged. Though many tradesmen could afford to hold local office, and some state office, after the articles of confederation were ratified, they could not afford to hold federal office. And the common man - the poor - could not vote at all. Where the need for crippling poverty is built into the global economic model, and where disparity of wealth is known to be the cause of our social/political ills, isn't it time to consider alternatives? o thumb Krisztián Pintér # 0 TED Translator Aug 31 2012: not everyone understands metaphors. even among professors. * thumb James Zhang + +1 Aug 19 2012: Technologically, we may see something like Bitcoin and Google Wallet. Transactions with a swipe of a phone and digital transactions can be made online. Internet Shopping and Social Media Shopping, like www.shop.com. Macroeconomically, I think we'll see something like a Eurozone on a global scale. + Mats K o 0 Aug 19 2012: Thanks for your insight! It very much seems so, that we are moving towards a digital currency. Banks and Wall Street are already using it and we hear countries like Sweden and Norway to be one of the first countries without physical money in circulation. Where every transaction will be done through credit cards. o thumb James Zhang # 0 Aug 19 2012: Indeed! But the only huge issue is security. I mean how easy is it for someone to create their own digital currency in a system (similar to people trying to print their own money)? Or how easy is it for someone to steal identities or hack into someone's bank accounts? With great convenience comes greater risks and consequences and this seems to be the case for just about any new revolutionary technology. # Mats K @ 0 Aug 19 2012: You make valid points and the things you address is exactly why I am so interested in having a conversation and sharing ideas of alternative economies that have built in security in them, so that we don't need to patch it up all the time. * Pie Nkvien + 0 Sep 17 2012: I think we humans need to get smarter :) We must understand that there's enough technology to make heaven on earth, but that there's not enough earth for everyone to waste gigantic energy on useless things. So we must become aware and enjoy life with respect to the limits of nature. Once at that level, we'll kick Hummer-drivers in re-education programmes (jails won't exist anymore) (I know Hummers went the way of the dino's, but I'm sure you get the idea) and honor those who do most good for society (helping old people to cross the street). This honoring can be with some form of cash. Maybe people giving something to those do-gooders. Like gifts or donations to smart ideas on Kickstarter or Indiegogo as very first seeds of this new way. This makes me wonder how Ghandi made his living. Donations I guess. So there's always a need for money. We don't really need to value things (at a certain common awareness) but do need to value actions somehow. But money doesn't need to be specifically in cows or coins or paper or 'likes'. And it also doesn't need to be a representation of products created/sold. It can be based on what people feel someone is deserving or even needing. So those out of luck don't have to worry about food or shelter. * thumb Christopher Melvin + 0 Sep 17 2012: Money should be like electricity. It should flow to where it is needed. + Pie Nkvien o 0 Sep 17 2012: Right, if all people are smart enough to take only their share... * thumb chen xin + 0 Sep 17 2012: maybe in the future we all use credit cards instead of the real money + thumb James Zhang o 0 Sep 17 2012: don't we already do that now? lol o thumb chen xin # 0 Sep 18 2012: apart.you know .not everything is paid by credit card at this moment.what i mean is we all use credit cards in all aspects.if so i think money will live out ..lol # thumb James Zhang @ 0 Sep 18 2012: Using credit cards or the Google Wallet cards would be ideal, it would save a ton of time in transactions and whatnot, but it's also less secure. * John Smith + 0 Sep 14 2012: "Is There a Future for Money?" No, at least not any future I would want to live in, so not money as we know it at least, but some kind of accounting currency may prove necessary (even in Star Trek some things are rationed because there just isn't enough energy around for everyone to indulge in everything). + thumb Krisztián Pintér o 0 TED Translator Sep 14 2012: "but some kind of accounting currency may prove necessary" and how is that not money? what is money in your book? o John Smith # 0 Sep 14 2012: Money is transferable: when I buy a plate of food in a restaurant the restaurant owner gets my money and can choose to invest it or gamble it away on the stock market, etc... Another form of currency would see a deduction of the figure from my "account" when I order a plate of food at the restaurant, the restaurant owner doesn't get anything from me (the figure on his account may be increased by some authority periodically for example) and the only purpose of the deduction from my account was to let some authority know that a certain amount of resources has been used and to limit the amount of resources I can use in a year. @Jon Ho Non-transferable money allows for private property and different levels of compensation, so it doesn't imply communism. # Jon Ho @ 0 Sep 17 2012: Hmmm, it sounds a lot like communism.... # Danylo Vashchilenko @ 0 Sep 17 2012: @Jon, Communism is "no private property", not "no private money as a legal tender". * thumb Jaime Lubin + 0 Sep 13 2012: Yes...my wallet. * dennie allen + 0 Sep 13 2012: an economy not based on $$$, ala Star Trek, is the 'End Game' of capitalism. when we all have, more or less, the same standard of living, we can focus on pursuit of knowledge, pursuit of our passions, and service to others. Produce to Consume, Consume to Produce can still survive - they're powerful motivators, just not ends unto themselves. In other words, we'll approach this 'State' in the limit... + Mats K o 0 Sep 13 2012: "In other words, we'll approach this 'State' in the limit..." What do you mean? o dennie allen # 0 Sep 14 2012: the non monetary state. we may all never get there, but we can all get closer... * thumb Truong Thanh Chung + 0 TED Translator Sep 12 2012: (wired.com) The future of money is Flexible, Frictionless and (Almost) Free. + Mats K o 0 Sep 13 2012: What do you mean by (almost) free? + thumb Krisztián Pintér o 0 TED Translator Sep 13 2012: free money? what does that mean? * thumb Ken brown + 0 Sep 11 2012: As strange as this may seem,get someone use to a system in increments then they will eventually accept it as normal and evolutionary while automating a process eliminating an entire human industry also you can then demand conditions to use such a system,where is,hard currency is in the individuals control if he has it in his possession.Which is better? * thumb Hidayet Heydarov + 0 TED Translator Sep 11 2012: For my mind, money is just a leaflet for attributing exchange. As everybody knows, before many centuries people used their goods to exchange. For instance, one person gives fish to another, instead of it he takes rice. Then after strong developments this type of exchange substituted with money. This is value of leaflet called 'MONEY'. Till nowadays Money had really the most important function in our life. But in last years, money is losing it's value because of computer generation. Online payment systems, Plastic card using, Bank projects made money useless. That's why I see money's future as a useless leaflet. I wanna say moreover that it's not the last one. After some centuries new generation will come to human life... * David Felcan + 0 Sep 11 2012: BTW, there is some interesting science fiction about "post-scarcity" worlds. I recommend the following two: Midas World by Fredrick Pohl http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midas_World and Singularity Sky by Charles Stross http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity_Sky - this one talks about what happens when a rigid, controlling society is exposed to an "invasion" of a society with nearly infinite productive capability called "The Festival" * Suketu Shah + 0 Sep 11 2012: yes i agree with you...A new market for socially conscious media. if this becomes priority of media than the chances of change becomes easy and possibilities increases on creating awareness.....how this could be done??? + Mats K o 0 Sep 11 2012: "how this could be done???" Three ways. Regulate the current mass media. Get the government and corporations to sign a new Broadcasting Act in your country or on an international level that says that socially conscious media, that depict the shortcomings of society and the solutions for it, has to be a part of the channels program. This is not easy and requires an extraordinary amount of signatures or a political party that advocates this act to be implemented. Another way is to actively boycott certain types of channels and programs in favors of others, which would directly influence the market to get corporations to invest in the programs that you want to watch. This is not easy either, cause this requires a critical mass of people being aware of the possibility of a future without money (in this case) and wanting the channels to change. I would say this is the hardest way to influence the market, since most people don't know what they really want and therefore settle with what the media companies give them. And to be frank, there aren't many channels or programs out there that are socially conscious. The third way, that I've already touched upon, are individuals and companies, such as you and me, creating new content of socially conscious media to the market, hopefully creating a new market for businesses and corporations to come in and say this is something we want to invest in thus ushering forward the socially conscious media on a global scale. I would argue that this is the best method we have at the moment given the current state of mass media. To expand on this a little further, I would argue that internet is the greatest liberator of our time thus a potential market for mass awareness since it's basically free and has little to no regulation from governments or corporations. A YouTube video can be watched over and over again by hundreds of millions all over the world at the same time and be translated to all languages. Hope this helps. * thumb Stefan H. Farr + 0 Sep 11 2012: Let me start with your rephrase. Technology already makes automated systems possible. In fact we have such an advanced technology that we could eliminate or reduce to minimum many systems that are obviously obsolete or show signs of it: the bureaucratic system, political systems, economic systems, etc... In fact none of the systems that govern human existence take full advantage of the technology that we have, but only in isolated sections. It is not the lack of technology that keeps the status quo, it is our inability to embrace it. We cannot let go of legacy concepts, ideologies, cultural preconceptions or the self centred image of the world our not so late ancestors so carefully built. Technology wise, we could end poverty tomorrow, eliminate diseases like HIV, malaria, and we could rebuild the world in a highly sustainable manner. It is not the lack of technology that stops us from doing that, it is our culture. In this culture, the monetary system is an absolute necessity: we do not measure our value based on "who we are", or "what we do", but by "what we have". And "what we have" is a tangible physical thing that needs a measurement unit to weigh against, be that gold, assets or local monetary currencies. The instability of these measurement units are only evidence to the transiency of that what they measure (possessions and the need for them), and cannot be assimilated with signs for the "demise of the monetary system". People loose faith in a currency, because of its instability, and that currency might disappear altogether, but the monetary system is here to stay as long as we need to measure "what we have". + Mats K o 0 Sep 11 2012: "It is not the lack of technology that keeps the status quo, it is our inability to embrace it. We cannot let go of legacy concepts, ideologies, cultural preconceptions or the self centred image of the world our not so late ancestors so carefully built. Technology wise, we could end poverty tomorrow, eliminate diseases like HIV, malaria, and we could rebuild the world in a highly sustainable manner. It is not the lack of technology that stops us from doing that, it is our culture." I couldn't agree more. It's an educational issue and until people see the benefit of a society that embraces science and technology, we are still stuck in this mess. * thumb Arthanari Chandrasekaran + 0 Sep 11 2012: Money for sure has its future, but where is what everyone is breaking their heads to find out. + Mats K o 0 Sep 11 2012: Please feel free to elaborate. * Suketu Shah + 0 Sep 11 2012: who controls media...in the world + Mats K o 0 Sep 11 2012: Sure. The corporations own the media, but who really has the power? The corporations or the consumers? I would argue the latter. The corporations needs a market, right? Therefore, we have the possibility to influence and change it. And on top of that we have the possibility to create a new market for socially conscious media that points out shortcomings of society and provides the solutions to a better one. "Be the change you wish to see in the world." Gandhi * jesus nieblas + 0 Sep 11 2012: I do not see a future with money .. I see a future .. where the invention of money is the result of collapse.. and when I am talking about collapse . I am talking about the entire establishment.. money is a creation that we have let to believe we need .. it is a great creation.. you could say .. but the creation of it has fallen in the hands of a few .. those few owning everything will use the creation of money for the wrong reasons.. and we all know what is going on.. we have seen what they do. what they are capable of doing... the government is no longer for our protection .. the government has become a creation that its solely purpose is so that the few.. have control, .. and control is how you mantain order .. but as I said .. they are not using it for the right reasons... money has become, sadly , in what it took the best feelings a human being can have.. and has replaced it instead with things like greed, envy.. and the sickness of power .. if power was used for good reasons .. money would be a nice invention .. and looking at how are things nowadays.. from any particular perspective... things are wrong .. therefore .. money is no longer good.. but sadly we all want it . I would be a total hypocrite if I did not put myself as example.. money is no good because it brings the worst in us. there will always be exemptions .. but I have seen how its all increasing .. and in a bad way.. so .. using the little knowledge I have about. economic. finances. society. religions. education. science. medicine, industry, and so on ... it is contaminated by the politics of money.. and that is getting us nowhere.. we are slowly going backwards .. and I am daring to say .. that eventually money will scease to exist because we will experience some kind of global impact that will have make us realize that some things are more neccesary than money... and we are going trough a phase ...and eventually we will be better .. money has a future.. but we can improve it. * Suketu Shah + 0 Sep 10 2012: hi , i agree that capitalism has put an end but not everywhere in the world...if you look at the world population verses number of people still leave below poverty line, i am sure it would come more than 60%.....but in any case i didn't meant hunger issue as important than other issues....i tried to make more emphasis on - each human on this plant should get basic necessity to live and thereby whatever resources on our plant would be utilised in a manner which balances every aspect of human life as well as animal & other life. food is just one part but more than food and hunger, it is something else which i feel is important & thats the point which could change the pattern of thinking of all decision makers in all nation unanimously. + thumb Krisztián Pintér o 0 TED Translator Sep 10 2012: which poverty line, one could ask. the US poverty line is a bad joke. 21600 USD per year is a freaking luxury! the real poverty, the bottom billion, or two billion, not living in capitalism, or for not long enough. more in this TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_at_state.html o Mats K # +1 Sep 11 2012: " the real poverty, the bottom billion, or two billion, not living in capitalism" Get your facts straight. Before industrial complexes, and the monetary system with it, infiltrated the larger part of Africa, the inhabitants had an abundance of natural resources that feed, sheltered and provided the Africans with everything they needed. Now, that the monetary system is fully installed, people have to pay for their own natural abundant resources they had available for free before. And with little or no education, Africans only get slavery wages that is a result of being exploited by big business in the West. On top of that, the previous clean water systems that the Africans had is and has been for a long time being contaminated by the same industrial complexes that settled their industries there for profit reason. Go globalization! To prove my point, a World Hunger Education Service report (http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger %20facts%202002.htm) "revealed" that "the world produces enough food to feed everyone. World agriculture produces 17 percent more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase. This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,720 kilocalories (kcal) per person per day according to the most recent estimate that we could find. The principal problem is that many people in the world do not have sufficient land to grow, or income to purchase, enough food." The root problem to all human suffering is our current socioeconomic system. It's the way we allocate our resources, through the money/price/profit system, which causes all the poverty. If you fail to see that, I highly recommend you reading up on how automation and technology can provide the necessities of life and a high standard of living to all by reading the book "The Best That Money Can't Buy". # John Smith @ 0 Sep 14 2012: India has mostly free markets, a price system, public enterprises, etc... it is capitalistic, same for Africa. "usd 11k is still luxury. ppp is there to adjust for local price levels. but we don't have to worry about that too much, just look around. poor people in the US has air conditioning, car, 1000 sq ft house/flat, flat TV, microwave, smartphone and such things." When you make $11k in the US you sure as hell don't have 1000sq ft house (unlike many rural families in India living off $2 per day), a flat tv is cheaper than a non-flat one these days (and again, many people in the third world have a tv), people making 11k rarely have a smartphone, they can afford less education and health care than a Brazilian making 6k and they are often in debt. o John Smith # 0 Sep 14 2012: " the real poverty, the bottom billion, or two billion, not living in capitalism" I wasn't aware North Korea and Cuba housed two billion people... Africa and India are capitalistic. "the US poverty line is a bad joke. 21600 USD per year is a freaking luxury! " The official US poverty line is $11k for a single person and you can't just compare that to other countries because in some countries the real estate bubble is more inflated than in others, among other things. # thumb Krisztián Pintér @ 0 TED Translator Sep 14 2012: africa is capitalistic ... jeez. some of it, on paper. india has rampant statism, but even with this, can boast a 10% growth. usd 11k is still luxury. ppp is there to adjust for local price levels. but we don't have to worry about that too much, just look around. poor people in the US has air conditioning, car, 1000 sq ft house/flat, flat TV, microwave, smartphone and such things. * Kevin Stephens + 0 Sep 10 2012: For what it's worth.... A world without money means that the resources the world has must be managed and delegated by a governing body who will do this fairly.. but you skirt dangerously close to Communism when you discuss a governing body for delegation of resources. It's especially touchy when you're talking about who gets what lifestyle, how people are provided for, what is fair? A new governing system would have to be created, and treat the world fairly, and as one people. I think the positive effects of a society with no money would be unfathomable - imagine the effects on modern day slavery, homelessness, unemployment, possession/money related criminal acts, etc. The negative effects are unimaginable too. It would not eliminate greed, just change its face. Whatever becomes a valuable skill or resource would entice the greedy to use whatever they can to get it. The new resource wouldn't be as easy to handle as money but that is only a hindrance.Think of prisons with cigarettes for bartering. People with more carpentry skills would be given gifts to do some work for others - multiply that by 10, 50, 100 years and you'll see people becoming wealthy in a different way. Suketu Shah mentioned getting a natural born good leader with followers to start the ball rolling. I think that's necessary because people feel empowered as a group. Suketu, even great leaders started out with 1 person who believed in them - anyone can be that leader. Furthermore, those leaders do exist today.. Imagine if Oprah Winfrey had one press release saying 'lets talk about how to distribute the world's resources fairly.' Millions would participate, and she's not the only one with that influence. Simon Sinek's talk (link below) skirts around the idea of making change. People will come because they feel the idea is their idea too, not because they were convinced they should do it by a smooth talker. http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_insp ire_action.htm + Mats K o 0 Sep 10 2012: "A world without money means that the resources the world has must be managed and delegated by a governing body" This 'government' of allocating resources doesn't need to be managed by humans. We could easily automate this process with a cybernetic government that merely serves the needs of people and DOES NOT control the actions of the people, what they need and when they need it. Let me repeat that, a cybernetic government that SERVES the peoples needs and DOES NOT control the actions of the people. A cybernetic government would, in fact trillion times faster than humans, keep track of available resources and show us (humans) continuously how to live sustainable within the boundaries of natural resources available on Earth. Keep in mind, a machine doesn't have feelings, ambition or any creative thought that hasn't been programmed by humans in the first place. Therefore, humans would always be in control. Every human would be a government body in their own. Where they choose what they want to do and when and how to pursue it. But... In order to live sustainable with this kinda of access to materials and resources, we (humans) need a drastic value change that perpetuate sharing of resources, collaboration and how to get along with each other instead of narrow self-interest, competition and isolating yourself with the world. This train of thought in symbiosis with an access based economy, where every need is met, would naturally change the way we think and therefore phase out destructive human behaviors such as greed, hunger for power and every other non-nonsensical behaviors perpetuated by the current socioeconomic system. o Kevin Stephens # 0 Sep 10 2012: Thanks for replying Mats, Personally, I am pro-computer and your recommendation makes sense. Recommending a cybernetic 'government' sounds insane but... Envision your idyllic Democracy ... ooo nice. Now envision what it really is. Oh. :(. Imagine your idyllic cybernetic government. ooo nice. Could the real one be worse than Democracy turned out to be? I personally think a cybernetic government freeing people from working for the necessities of life is awesome. I want that so bad. People not working to survive could work in their own best interest to keep the system as fair as possible. People could chase their own desires, ultimately be happier. Or on the flip side.. 'Wealth' would take a new form, causing some to want to corrupt the governmental system undetectably, result in 'bullies' who go after your allocation of daily resources, who knows. The imagination of need and greed knows no boundaries. My only other thought is 'What would happen if it became ultimately evident that humanity needed population control.' I think we do now, but everyone wants proof. This kind of system would provide incontrovertible proof. So what if it's a FACT that there isn't enough for everyone. We invent a new grain? Some reports say the last grain wasn't such a wonderful solution. Would society change its reproductive habits if a computer told them we don't have enough resources to feed more? We SHOULD curb our population down to a reasonable level now, but will we? I've though at times that we have a bill of human rights, shouldn't we have bills of rights for other species too? Access to necessities of life, etc. It would be possible, if humanity depopulated by a fair percentage. First thing first. Employ the cybernetic government, having created a plan for the foreseeable issues and hurdle the rest of the problems when they rear their ugly heads. Viva computers and our faith in them! # Mats K @ 0 Sep 11 2012: "'Wealth' would take a new form, causing some to want to corrupt the governmental system undetectably, result in 'bullies' who go after your allocation of daily resources, who knows." This is why relevant education is so important and emphasized. I feel that we can educate people out of certain types of negative behaviors if the environment meets their needs. If we teach people about dynamic equilibrium, how to live sustainable within the boarders of natural resources and how to relate to one another, we would not see any type of aberrant behavior such as somebody trying to corrupt the system. In fact, if people got everything they needed, there would be no incentive to take control on that which provides them with the necessities of life. "'What would happen if it became ultimately evident that humanity needed population control.'" This is also an educational issue. If people are educated or given a system to provide them with that statistics (cybernetic system) on how much the Earth can produce, in terms of natural resources, to meet the needs of the population and to make a high standard of living for all (if that is desired), I feel that people would refrain to have children, because it would ultimately decrease their standard of living. Population control is not needed to an education population. # Mats K @ 0 Sep 11 2012: "So what if it's a FACT that there isn't enough for everyone. We invent a new grain?" A World Hunger Education Service report (http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20h unger%20facts%202002.htm) "revealed" that "the world produces enough food to feed everyone. World agriculture produces 17 percent more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase. This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,720 kilocalories (kcal) per person per day according to the most recent estimate that we could find. The principal problem is that many people in the world do not have sufficient land to grow, or income to purchase, enough food." If there, however, was a natural catastrophe that damaged the larger part of our agriculture/food supply, we would obviously grow food in labs as an temporary solution, till we would get our natural resources up and running again. In fact, we already have the technology to do this. We would combine nanotechnology and biotechnology to take known particles and rearrange them to whatever shape or form we would like and create healthy and nutritious food in a clinical lab with no distortion whatsoever. Think of the endless possibilities we would have food wise in regards to flavors and tastes. * Suketu Shah + 0 Sep 10 2012: Hi, But, who controls them?? again we fall back in the same circle... who gives sponsorship to this media...they will not promote anything if people like you and me goes the media & asked them to promote sustainability programme, education etc in their main channel .......the reality is that we all are attracted to this glamorous world so much that media makes sure to change mindsets of people and every individual person...we need person like Gandhi, martin luthor king, nelson mandela, and such other personalities again in this world who carries masses with them for the right causes and in fact such personalities would appear back as soon as nature wants them to be back to move masses towards the right cause...but i am not sure of a person who whould appear and moves whole world as one nation to make sure basic necessities would be available to all humans in this world..and than comes money, profits, etc etc + Mats K o 0 Sep 10 2012: "But, who controls them??" Who controls what? * Marshall Thomas + 0 Sep 10 2012: Is there a future for money? Money was created when they discovered that there was an abundance of salt, and that this "rare" commidity was not as rare as they thought. Money is the inbodiment of human labor, for money, paper, has no value till it is transformed through human labor. As gold, ore, has not value till it is, also, transformed through human labor through the smelting process creating gold bars; its value is determined by the necessary labor time it takes to produce. The price of gold, like that of human labor, can rise above or below it absolute value. So, the only thing that can replace money as a means of excange is labor. Will robotic labor make human lalor obsolete. The very fact that capitalism is based on the explotation of human labor, would by itself make capitalism, money, obsolete. Robotic labor would make the valie of money worthless, although it would creat a super abundance, it would create poverty and make the working class destitutes in the land of pleanty. Adam Smith claimed that the wealth of nations is created by human labor (wage and slave labor), so what would an a world emancipated human labor create? Can free and equal human labor replace money? For the only things that we truely own is our ability to labor. * thumb John Moonstroller + 0 Sep 9 2012: True human replacing automation will become a reality when a machine can think and properly position a socket on a nut in any location without having to program the steps. It could come earlier if we invent a device that can create products all in one piece that are cheap to manufacture and completely recyclable. When a machine has hand and eye coordination and recognition like a human, Automation will take over, assuming we have the energy to power the machines. Money will always be useful unless automaton coupled with unlimited resources will allow anyone to have anything they want anytime they want it. Money allows people to have things they cannot build themselves. People will always need money because it is an easy commodity of trade. It really doesn't matter if it is made of gold or paper as long as it is the agreeable unit of trade. Gold, being a useful commodity vs paper which can be created from plants sources a renewable source, which makes paper the reasonable choice for the unit of trade. A unit of trade is simply an agreement between all parties that this unit will buy so much of a certain commodity. If paper can buy gold, why carry around something that weighs so much more than paper? Technology will make automated systems possible and allow us to move out of a monetary system when it can make anything we want with no assistance from humans. But, Technology is not the only factor needed to move away from the monetary system. We also need unlimited resources. * Jay Milton + 0 Sep 9 2012: But most currency has nice pictures of a country's leaders and important government buildings which tie it to a place and time. It isn't strictly necessary these days, but citizens seem to make a great deal out of it when it is threatened with extinction. Consider the US penny or nickel, for instance. They apparently cost more to produce than their face values, but there is great hue and cry when their elimination is proposed. * * hcdoitsu gotweed + 0 Sep 8 2012: We can put a human electronic outpost on a moon of Saturn, manipulate the structure of DNA and construct a communication system that spans nearly the entire globe. Given the experiential proof of a creative intelligence on this planet, why have we been unable to construct a system whereby the basic needs of all are met? The answer - rational self interest. We all have a Charlie Sheen attitude:: "screw you, I've got your money". We have all put our ultimate value on something that has no intrinsic value. How dumb is that? If making weapons was not profitable then there would be no arms industry, hence, fewer arms. Sit down and write a list of all the problems we would not have if profit were not an issue. A money based economy is a necessary stage in the development of human society; when that stage is ending it is folly to try to maintain the status quo. Sounds a little bit like a mad old Jew I admired once upon a time. Imagine an economist trying to explain to a feudal lord that the money economy was coming and he was going.. Okay, I've stated the problem now let's see if one ignorant old man can come up with a solution. Establish the GNP of the nation for the past year and dole out the money to people based on their relative contributions to the whole. Here's the hard part: every person that lives in and on america is an employee of America. If you consume, you contribute and you are entitled to a living wage. Think what could happen if you could make as much "money" building things as we now make destroying things and people. Lots of problems in the above, but it''s an option. And here's the rub, we don't have anyone who will even consider it as something to investigate. Essentially what we have are two political parties that are offering us two different ways to maintain the status quo. * bart hsi + 0 Sep 8 2012: If you are inquiring about the automation and robotics I mentioned in my post, then the answer is that I referred to the movement and distribution of consumer goods/services. The movement of money/credits does indeed speed up substantially, but I don't think that have increased the fraud or scam by the money managers (banks, financial companies, etc.) that much; at least not proportionately. Anyway, this is just the "wave of the future" like everything else, we simply can't stop the grinding of the wheels going forward. Anyway, I believe that the speed of money movement is not the problem. Rather how can we handle the movement of the goods and services in this increasing mutual dependence on international trade among many countries of the world. So I personally believe that we probably wouldn't be able to walk away from some kind of monetary system for the trading purposes, * thumb Genevieve Tran + 0 Sep 8 2012: What an important question to raise! Do you mean automation for consumer society or for banks / hedge funds? Automation, at least in the developed world, is already at the point where vast, vast amounts of money are being moved by hedge funds or financial institutions with assets greater than combined GDPs of numerous countries put together every day, and nobody thinks about it. These industries are so hard to monitor and regulate, yet their impact is so great, the humans at the lever-controls are unable to tame it, should an infinitesimally small butterfly gets in the mechanism and flaps its unpredictable wing. In consumer society, people (and children) are less and less able to recognize what they are spending when they just swipe a card and it leads to over spending and debt, through an inflated sense of real income. I think we have to realize that the automation of money is a vastly complicated machine, way bigger than any Terminator, that will come back from the future and have the potential to vapourize all that we've built up in the past. In addition, without Financial Literacy even being taught in schools ANYwhere, having humans at the lever-controls of this machine is laughable. + Mats K o 0 Sep 10 2012: "Do you mean automation for consumer society or for banks / hedge funds?" Automation of production and distribution of goods and services that would phase out the need for money, banks, financial institutions, industry and any other forms of labor and jobs that is given a certain group of concentrated wealth and "power", so that everybody has equal right to the resources provided for them by Earth. * bart hsi + 0 Sep 8 2012: Let's return to the original question concerning "money". First of all, paper or coin money are becoming less useful in this century than few more centuries ago. In this global trading boom, we use probably more with Credits for international or domestic trades. As to the role of either money or credits for the sharing of world's resources, I don't believe that we are any nearer than anytime before. Even the system of common currency is not as good as we imagined, just look at the Euros in crisis. Obviously, as long as we have different political systems among the countries in the group, we would never have a "all-for-one and one-for-all" common currency system. A deeper thought would be how can we catch some individuals' belief that all of us should work for the entire humanity without a selfish thinking of " why should I work my tail off just to benefit someone else who just enjoyed the fruits of my labor without even saying thanks?" Of course, the advances in automation and robotics in industrial production could reduce the manual labor to produce large quantity of consumers goods, but we still need INVESTMENT of capitals and enterprenuership spirit to get the process going. Throughout the human history. I haven't seen any POLITICAL SYSTEM that would have a leader or a ruler who could deliver a Utopian system in which the leader does not have any additional privilege than all other citizens. Even there was one such leader, there usually were many contradictions in the successors after he passed away. In the current world commerce, the US dollar seems to be the de facto world currency. But the situation will change quickly if the U. S. government couldn't put its financial house in order. , * Miguel PEZ + 0 Sep 8 2012: In my opinion money is at the base of all "evils". If we are to survive as a specie we must move on and away from this concept. Here again, the culture of fear and scarcity are drivers that steer us away from more important and "real" things in life while promoting the focus on capital, investments, shares, money and more money. Living like this is like believing in father christmas. Too many are living 'only' in the pursue of money as if there is nothing else in life. Money and mankind will not be able to survive together in the long run. So, no, money have no future. Either we move on or it will be our downfall. * * * Jay Milton + 0 Sep 7 2012: Doesn't money tie one to one's own culture? It seems to me to be more than just purchasing. + Mats K o 0 Sep 8 2012: Do you mean historically? That we've always had it and always will? If so, that is very far from the truth. In fact, we've lived more, in the history of human species, without money than with money. And now it seems that we are approaching the end of money as we know it. [I am of course talking about money as the medium of exchange and not economics.] Natural progression perhaps? Money was good hundred years ago, but science and technology has proven it irrelevant. * Suketu Shah + 0 Sep 7 2012: Hi Mats, you know what i agree with you but i also i think it is more because of politics and power game which all politicians across the world are playing. These bunch of people across the world takes a call on how and which way our world should move and which technology should evolve and run in this world. + Mats K o +1 Sep 8 2012: Hi Suketu, I feel its merely an educational and design issue. People are born in to this seemingly "scarce" society and it is the price/profit system that perpetuate the kinda behaviors we see daily. If you change the environment, however, and teach people about whats sustainable, I believe their values and behavior change with it. In this society that is perpetuating competition it is hard to get people to think about collaboration and sharing the goods. However, if we show people the benefits, in "their" language, of a system/society that perpetuate collaboration, sharing of resources and providing the necessities of life to all, I think we can approach such a society much quicker. o Suketu Shah # 0 Sep 8 2012: Yes , your are right on but there has to be different force that should emerge and reach out to people of every nation showing benefits in their language of sharing of resources and providing the necessities in life.....now which force???? That's the big question......religion,politician,corporates ..... My take on this is they have exploited every human of this planet .....now who else can take this forward and how.....? Education through computer media....? # Mats K @ 0 Sep 8 2012: Somebody said to me, if you change the media you change the world. I find very much truth in that. Global awareness and education can be achieved through films, national television programs, video games, apps and other visual and interactive mass mediums where the narrative is about how we can achieve a sustainable world. Think about film for a second. How it has impacted your life and how powerful the medium really is. The emotions, the esthetics and the exhilarating plot that drives and moves you on a profound level. This medium alone can be watched all over the world by several hundred millions at once and played back again and again til you get it. It's probably the most genius and important medium of mass communication than anything else. * thumb Craig Patterson + 0 Sep 7 2012: As long as society rewards greed, corporation and power for short term profits while leaving legacies of unintended consequences environmentally, economically and socially without accountability, responsibility or liability; the parasites are killing the host, worldwide. Privatized profits and socialized liabilities without accountability is a receipt for disaster. The power brokers will stumble about coming up with the next tweak while pretending it will accomplish something while they all privately know, the titanic (world wide economic metaphor) has struck the ice berg without thoughts of life boats. What do you think Mats? + Mats K o 0 Sep 7 2012: I absolutely agree, Craig. Unless we change our society, to one that rewards collaboration, sharing of resources and meeting the needs of the people, the chances for our own destruction, both economically and literally is, the way I see it, imminent. * thumb Peter Law + 0 Sep 7 2012: Bible buffs are waiting for the day when folks are marked (or chipped) on their right hand or forehead to facilitate buying & selling. The technology is in place; it's just a matter of persuading the punters. Presently our financial systems are building up to a cataclysmic monetary crash, which may do the job for many. Isn't it strange that politicians & bankers cannot achieve what the average housewife manages every week ? We're being set up folks ! Revelation 13:16-17 (NIV) It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, [17] so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name. :-) + Mats K o 0 Sep 8 2012: I would argue that this is the natural progression of the current socioeconomic system or monetary system. It's not people that are setting us up, it's our own system. It's the system that creates and perpetuate the kinda behavior that is seemingly destroying us. The monetary system is now obsolete and we have the technology to create abundance and sustainability and literally feed, clothe, shelter and make a high standard of living to everyone IF we choose to share all of Earths resources as the common heritage of mankind and do so intelligently. Only then, we can have sustainability. o thumb Peter Law # 0 Sep 8 2012: A laudable objective. The fly in the ointment is man's greed & selfishness. The bible has that nailed also; there will come a time when your vision will be fulfilled. Revelation 21:3-4 (NIV) And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. [4] ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” :-) * Suketu Shah + 0 Sep 7 2012: can someone come out with idea of how to live life without money........ can basic necessity in this world could be made available without money? can multibillion or trillion companies across the world come together and make plan with help of brilliant ceo to help this world with basic necessity?? if answer is yes, why they dont do it? This will allow them to rationalise use of natural resources of our planet and this world could be saved from global warming......... + Mats K o 0 Sep 7 2012: We could do all this today through science and technology, but our current socioeconomic doesn't allow global sustainability and abundance of natural resources thus the needs of the people. The monetary system requires economic growth which deems the necessities of life secondary. If you are not familiar with technologies that can make us sustainable and abundant, I invite you to take a look at this interview from a former Space Shuttle Systems Engineer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YF3v0n8zlEk + + + thumb Genevieve Tran o 0 Sep 8 2012: Since Adam Smith's Invisible Hand idea, there is a narrative in free-markets that Social Welfare will just naturally be taken care of i.e. maximized if self-interested people just do their thing--the market will necessarily weed out the bad guys and consumers will buy up only things they deem beneficial to society. The truth is that there is no math, empirical evidence or logic to prove that this is true. The intersection of the demand and supply curve where such balance exists is actually based on unrealistic, obtuse, simplistic assumptions. Economists just suppose it to be so, without any scientific evidence--Economics is NOT a science. Self-interested, profit-maximizing individuals just seek to, well, profit maximize for their own self-interest! Social, ecological, moral sustainability takes a WHOLE 'nuther set of work and thinking, NOT conveniently included as a by-product of profit seeking. The reason why companies and inventors don't get together more often to produce master products, instead of Chinese Torturing us with $600 iPhones 1,2,3,etc. and their obsolescence is because they have not been raised in a society that educates around life networks and longevity of community. o thumb Krisztián Pintér # 0 TED Translator Sep 8 2012: "The intersection of the demand and supply curve where such balance exists is actually based on unrealistic, obtuse, simplistic assumptions." can you name some of those assumptions? # # thumb Genevieve Tran @ 0 Sep 8 2012: the demand curve false assumptions: that the behaviour of an individual consumer can be extraploated to represent a whole market; that consumers view all products as being neutral in terms of preference; that people will necessarily buy more of something if its price is lowered (that marketing and branding of things to persuade people to buy things regardless of use or price doesn't exist); that different levels of income doesn't cause people to change their purchasing habits; that the income disparity in a market has no effect on the scarcity of products and therefore their prices supply curve false assumptions: that individual firms have no affect on their industries or that they don't react to each others' strategies; that factors of production like labour and machines are all the same; **most importantly that an individual firm's actions on a market has no affect on the price of goods (=that the supply curve is independent of the demand curve; that only society/consumers determine the price of goods--just by rationally "knowing"); that firms look to this mythical price as a benchmark for their marginal costs (no empirical evidence shows that this is what firms actually do--they use trial and error and produce as cheaply as possible and sell for as high as possible) each set of assumptions cause the "shape" of the demand curve and the supply curve (if it even exists, seeing that it is not really independent of the concept of price--which economists say is related only to consumer market demand) to be the neat lines intersecting at a convenient, "x", but reality says that they are rather a much more complicated relationship of squiggly lines. o thumb Krisztián Pintér # 0 TED Translator Sep 8 2012: here is the list of things you got wrong: "that people will necessarily buy more of something if its price is lowered" - there is no such claim. the claim is that they won't buy less. "that different levels of income doesn't cause people to change their purchasing habits" - no such claim " that the income disparity in a market has no effect on the scarcity of products" - no such claim, and it does not even make sense to me but this is not my real with your argument. the real problem is the following. the other claims you listed are claims of modern mainstream economics. but mainstream economics does not endorse free market. followers of these theories never stop calling for more and more government interventions to fix market failures. the free market guys, including me, never say things like you cited. and of course none of those are needed to justify free market capitalism. # thumb Genevieve Tran @ 0 Sep 8 2012: Well, I won't bother getting into a war of links. It would also be more edifying if you can show what IS a "correct" claim of the free-market, then. For now, I'll address this thing you claimed to be incorrect: You wrote: ""that different levels of income doesn't cause people to change their purchasing habits" - no such claim" Yes, there is. In fact, that is the MAIN claim in order for the demand-supply equilibrium to even get further discussion. William Gorman, the first economist to find the ONLY mathematical condition where assumptions of the demand curve wrote could possibly be true-ish IF AND ONLY IF: "the Engels curves for different individuals at the same prices are parallel lines" this means that "an extra unit of purchasing power should be spent in the same way no matter to whom it is given" (1953, pg 63). So, economists have had to assume: if you gave $100 to a rich dude and if you gave $100 to a poor dude, they would spend it exactly the same way--that the idea of income disparity and distribution is so fair, people all react the same way to every product in a market, and it is not an issue. And that's the biggest thing that needs to be held constant for the math to prove that an individual can represent a market; that income distribution is fair and equal. That, in fact, is the main fundamental false assumption that is held by economists who have tried to model the economy based on the actions of one rational, self-interested individual. o thumb Krisztián Pintér # 0 TED Translator Sep 8 2012: engel curves work in a household only. there is no such thing as rich and poor within one household, that's the point. but anyway, i'm not happy that you reacted to the less important part of my criticism. i regret putting it in. the important thing is that these are keynesian and neoclassical arguments, and those guys are not pro free market. if you want genuine free market economics, study the austrian theory. they don't have such silly claims. and no surprise, if you takes these claims, you end up not supporting free markets, but if you take a good theory, you will. smith himself adventured into silliness from time to time. a genius nevertheless. # thumb Genevieve Tran @ 0 Sep 9 2012: Mr. Pinter, you're being misleading on 2 things. First, Gorman was NOT just talking about just within a household, he meant society-wide. And even if it were only one household, the theory would have then been applied to ALL households in a market spending their money all the same way--which has the SAME problem that rich and poor households would not do so, in reality. Also, Neo-classicists TOTALLY support the free-market, what are you talking about? Austrians just have added more realistic assumptions to the base model. And Keynesians actually oppose neo-classicists, but in their own twisted way, having assumed the neo-classical models are true, in the first place. The point is, a free-market does not inherently beget social welfare, any more than seeking social welfare would necessarily beget profit. They are two separate things, that require separate attention to develop. And each are things required in society. However, one can eat up the other if left to balloon out of control. Free-marketers are always complaining that Keynesian government intervention infringes on economic growth; and oppositely, bloated government proponents demonize capitalists. Both are wrong. The idea at all that social welfare or happiness is rooted in economic prosperity / activity is a narrative developed since the invention of an economy with money. They are separate concepts. We've all been so focused on the economy and think that there's an answer in that. But really, we need critical thinking in civics, ecology, philosophy and life systems. I think you think I'm anti-free-market. I'm not. I just think that it cannot claim to necessarily be tied to social welfare, or happiness. It is a profit machine, for profit's sake, which has economic value, not moral etc. Period. To have added value, it would require the humane conscious effort of people to assert that. And without education on how to do that, the economy is void of human values as it is. o thumb Krisztián Pintér # 0 TED Translator Sep 9 2012: would not go into that any more, wikipedia is there for everyone. the claim you are citing is nonexistent even in classical economics. not important point though. there is no mainstream economist today, let him be keynesian or neoclassical or whatever that would not admit the role of market failures and the necessity for government intervention. they come to that conclusion using the crazy model you described. drop the crazy model, and you lose all the reasonable arguments against the free market. "a free-market does not inherently beget social welfare" depends on what welfare means. if you define it as "equal healthcare to everyone", than surely, free markets don't provide that. nor "uniform school system". on the other hand, it offers economic progress. it offers rapidly increasing life standards for the masses. it offers schools and hospitals and consumer goods getting better and getting cheaper, more affordable for everyone. "It is a profit machine, for profit's sake" profit comes from serving people's wants. a want can be just a piece of meat, but also can be a piece of art, or healing a sick child. you mistake the tool for the actor. profit seeking entrepreneurs do not have to care about morals and values. their task is to deliver what the people value according to their desires and morals. entrepreneurs allocate resources to fulfill the most wants. this has nothing to do with morals, it is just an optimization task. if they do evil things, it is because people want them to. # thumb Genevieve Tran @ 0 Sep 9 2012: well, then we basically agree! i don't "mistake the tool for the actor"--i asserted the same idea as you that: "this has nothing to do with morals, it is just an optimization task. if they do evil things, it is because people want them to." I wrote: "the economy is void of human values as it is". and why, if we could have a more conscious and humane system, would we want to continue doing evil thoughtlessly, when as thinkers and feelers, we are capable of SO much more? Why don't we examine if humanity really needs more nail salons and Chinese souvenirs if the caustic fumes assoc. with them are neurotoxins? Why not think whether tasty pork rinds are really something we need to buy if they make us fat and end our lives sooner, when there are easily laterally, better substitutable things? People who stick to the inhumane void of the free-market dogmatically, are the Dead Weight that would still have kids working in factories instead of going to school; have 18 hour work days with as few breaks as possible; would raze the Amazon down to every last stump to appease hamburger lovers, if there were no busy-body activists. There is no profit in things like public education, employee downtime or preserving aboriginal rights or clean air etc. There is no profit in so many things that make life bearable, and even lovely--often BECAUSE they have stayed out of mad machine of profit. As a self-preserving race, we need to hurry up and identify what those things are. I agree that many thoughtful people in the producer class have brought about higher standards of living through the free-est market the world has ever known; but I don't believe a free-market can enjoy an upward sloping trajectory (i.e. be free). Especially on a finite planet, on limited education, limited time, limited cooperation between people--and even the high-standards of living eventually cause a complacency to think and act rationally as before. So a linear dogmatic approach is not realistic. o thumb Krisztián Pintér # 0 TED Translator Sep 9 2012: we do not agree on one important thing. and it is that i don't even want business to be moral. not more than a knife. a knife just cuts whatever it is pushed into. let it be ham or a human. but we don't want to reform the knife, for its lack of care. i don't want to make business ethical. i want people to be ethical, demanding ethical things. so i don't want a system that does not give people poisonous or unhealthy stuff. i want people to care. or not, it is not my business after all. i'm just saying how it is. pork rinds give some people satisfaction. who am i to weight it against the risk of health problems? it is their life, they have to make it right. i can only suggest or inform. pork rind production will drop to zero as soon as people understand that they don't want that. # thumb Genevieve Tran @ 0 Sep 10 2012: Ok, well then why not relegate all decision making to machines? That must be the goal of the free-market then. Why, as a person, get involved at all? As a human, you'll just make stupid non-optimizing errors. The free-market will pinch you out too. o thumb Krisztián Pintér # 0 TED Translator Sep 10 2012: freedom to do something includes freedom to delegate that something to someone else. someone or even a machine or organization. delegation is just another way of getting the job done. # thumb Andres Aullet @ +1 Sep 10 2012: Hi Krisztian, I see that you are still arguing tirelessly in defense of laissez faire capitalism. Certainly one must admire the passion that you put into it, and why not say it, the brilliance of some of your arguments. But just a couple comments here (since i cannot reply to your level 3 reply below). You say that famine is as old as mankind, as if that was a justification to accept famine as "this is the way it is". head lice are also as old as mankind and i don't think people accept them just as "this is the way it is", but rather battle them fiercely. Hunger is not what it used to be a few hundred years ago and life expectancy has doubled, i agree with you completely. But I would not be so quick to attribute it to capitalism. Technological advances I would say. And I would not be so quick to attribute technological advances to capitalism, since the science behind most of these technological advances came from all kinds of countries: Mainly Italy, France, England, the USA, Germany, the USSR, although there have been contributions from all over the world. So I doubt that technological advances are a monopoly of capitalism. Now, as the example of China and Latin America can show us, capitalism does not cause poverty, just makes it bigger and moves it from one place to another. cheers # thumb Genevieve Tran @ 0 Sep 10 2012: Ironically, I'm sure the free-market doesn't "care" about values like freedom either. Its existence runs roughshod over anything non-optimal. o Suketu Shah # 0 Sep 10 2012: hi, yeap but it looks like that all agrees that few people in this world uses most of the resources to maximise profits which people like us including banks/stock exchange etc) happy & all over the world everyone appreciates without realising that one day all this profits will not have any value...... if some one cant eat food , how he or she can survives?? thats what is happening in this free economy world...i am not against it and i am for it but at what cost?.... if these balance sheet of companies shows profits to make every investor happy and at the same time they make millions of people unhappy (of-course they don't realise it) because what they consume to generate profit has no value in terms of money...why cant balance sheet of a company values the usage of these natural resources and their shall be one institute which validate that based on how many people really gets basic necessity.......we have beed living in glamorous world and most of us value science and technology based on what tracts us as individual nation and not as one human of this planet. # thumb Krisztián Pintér @ 0 TED Translator Sep 10 2012: famine is as old as mankind. capitalism has put an end to it a few hundred years ago. today, hunger is virtually nonexistent in the western world. it seems that capitalism does not cause poverty, but instead, solves it. o thumb Krisztián Pintér # 0 TED Translator Sep 10 2012: "Ironically, I'm sure the free-market doesn't "care" about values like freedom either. Its existence runs roughshod over anything non-optimal." exactly! only people have values and moral. the free market can support anything people support. btw this is not even theoretical. we observe that the strongest states emerge in countries where at one point the market was the free-est. like in the US. that is because the free market brings huge economic growth, and this economic advantage and strength can be the basis of an oppressive, power hungry, expansionist superstate. but the same thing happened in the colonialist nations. britain was a forerunner of limited "government" (aka king at that time), then it became the main culprit all around the globe as a result of it. that is why i don't want free market first. i want people to want free market. i want them to understand why it is good. only then it can serve the people. * Miguel PEZ + 0 Sep 7 2012: NO. + Mats K o 0 Sep 7 2012: Please feel free to elaborate. o thumb Krisztián Pintér # 0 TED Translator Sep 7 2012: noooooooooooooo # Yevgeniy Craighead @ 0 Sep 7 2012: so wait, so you think there is or isn't a future for money? o thumb Krisztián Pintér # +1 TED Translator Sep 7 2012: not my opinion, just elaborated for him * thumb Michelle Drake + 0 Sep 7 2012: It really scares me to think that one day an automated system will control what I pay and when. I feel money gives me more control. I fear it will happen soon and hope it never happens. + Mats K o 0 Sep 7 2012: Define an automated system. Do you mean automation replacing people in the current monetary system that decrease the purchasing power of the general population? * kiran ks + 0 Sep 7 2012: Lets begin with the term "Money". Money is an abstract concept created by us humans. "Currency" on the other hand is one of the manifestations of money. If we understand it right, the currency is already being replaced by numerals. A bunch of numbers decide if one has access to a commodity or service. Manifestations of money will continue to exist one way or the other. So, the future for money does not seem bleak at all. * thumb Robert Winner + 0 Sep 7 2012: You bet. We have developed the habit of eating, sleeping, and indoor loos. These cost moola ... also if you are single .. no money no honey. A rose by any other name is still money or he equavlent. + Mats K o 0 Sep 11 2012: I would argue that technology has provided us with the tools of making our lives better. Money and capitalism has nothing to do with technological innovation. It's human ingenuity and curiosity that has brought life to all our innovation, not money. o thumb Robert Winner # 0 Sep 11 2012: Okay Mats lets play what if. What if you have the best product idea of the century that is the human igenuity and curosity you speak of so how do you get it from your head to the consumer. 1. Hire a lawyer to patent the idea ... oops money 2. Need an engineer to design the product ... he wants paid. 3. Need to manufacture the product ... darn that cost also 4. Who is going to finance this adventure a bank / capitalist investor .. rats 5. Advertisements 6. distribution 7. personnel 8. payrolls 9. insurance 10. and all sorts of other expenses and daily operating costs. Mats ... there is no free lunch. Without money or backers there would not be any technology. # Billy-joe Remarkable @ 0 Sep 11 2012: I think Mats is referring to innovation not production. Obviously the current system relies on money for the production and implementation of technology but imagine if we could get past this. Imagine if we could reach a point where technology is able to meet all the demands of the human population, food, water, services, products etc, a state where people no longer needed money to obtain things. There would still be lawyers, and engineers but maybe they would be happy to do their jobs for the satisfaction of the contribution they are making to society, or because they enjoyed the work, or for the respect the work gave them from other people in the community. It's hard to imagine I know....particularly with the Lawyers but it's not impossible. There are already plenty of examples of people who work and produce when they have no need to financially. # Mats K @ 0 Sep 11 2012: Sure, in the current economic model you have to do just that in order to get your product on the market. But, that isn't what DRIVES innovation. Money alone doesn't create an incentive to innovate. o thumb Robert Winner # 0 Sep 11 2012: OK Billy lets go with innovation not production. INNOVATION: Innovation is the development of new customer value through solutions that meet new needs, unarticulated needs, or old customer and market needs in new ways. This is accomplished through different or more effective products, processes, services, technologies, or ideas that are readily available to markets, governments, and society. That ugly ole money just keeps coming up doesn't it. Bob. # Mats K @ 0 Sep 11 2012: "Innovation is the development of new customer value through solutions that meet new needs, unarticulated needs, or old customer and market needs in new ways. This is accomplished through different or more effective products, processes, services, technologies, or ideas that are readily available to markets, governments, and society." This is what economists wants you to believe. If one was to critically examine history and peer into the documented biographies/mentalities of the greatest scientists and inventors of our time, such a N. Tesla, A. Einstein, A. Bell, the Wright Brothers, and many others - it is found that they did not find their motivation in the prospect of monetary gain. The interest to make money must not be confused with the interest to create socially beneficial products and very often they are even at odds. * thumb Truong Thanh Chung + 0 TED Translator Sep 7 2012: The idea of get rid of money is utopia. We are talking about limited resource on a limited planet. Therefore dreaming about a future of abundance has its bad effect. + Mats K o +1 Sep 7 2012: We could easily create an abundance of natural resources if we choose to share all of Earths resources and allocate them intelligently based on the needs of the people. There is more than enough resources to feed, clothe, shelter and provide everybody with a high standard of living. A World Hunger Education Service report (http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20fa cts%202002.htm) "revealed" that "the world produces enough food to feed everyone. World agriculture produces 17 percent more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase. This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,720 kilocalories (kcal) per person per day according to the most recent estimate that we could find. The principal problem is that many people in the world do not have sufficient land to grow, or income to purchase, enough food." o thumb Truong Thanh Chung # 0 TED Translator Sep 12 2012: You are in nowhere of convincing it's not utopia. What I get from your saying is: share them all, free for all. There's no free lunch, remember that. Besides, "free for all" is bad since an effortless human is a dead human in spirit. The right idea should be to reduce the cost of transaction, to perfect the market... The future of money is Flexible, Frictionless and (Almost) Free. * Yevgeniy Craighead + 0 Sep 6 2012: If i knew how to live without money, i would do so immediately without a second thought. I believe that speaks for everyone. Money has turned the world into a game of who can get the most, a game in which every soul's chunk of the world is taken into a postage stamp collection of the top players. Life shouldn't be about money, but while money exists it always will be. + thumb Krisztián Pintér o 0 TED Translator Sep 7 2012: " I believe that speaks for everyone." no o Yevgeniy Craighead # 0 Sep 7 2012: that's true, i don't even think "i'm human" speaks for everyone. There are people who love money, so i guess "large percentage" would be more accurate then "everyone" . + Mats K o 0 Sep 11 2012: If you want to learn about how we can achieve a moneyless society, I highly recommend the book "The Best That Money Can't Buy" by Jacque Fresco. * Comment deleted + Mats K o 0 Sep 7 2012: Please feel free to elaborate. o Comment deleted # Mats K @ 0 Sep 8 2012: Well, our history shows that we managed quite well without money for the larger part of human history. Just a thought. o Comment deleted # Mats K @ 0 Sep 8 2012: Working for whom, exactly? * Sebastian Comsa + 0 Sep 6 2012: Not really, unless we will quit having a monetary system based - where search for power and controlling others is the main focus - we will not be able to pass to an other system. And it's also true what Barry says - we live in world where best of best in a field commands top dollar! * hcdoitsu gotweed + 0 Sep 6 2012: no + Mats K o 0 Sep 7 2012: Please feel free to elaborate. * Barry Palmer + 0 Sep 5 2012: Top talent will always command top dollars. There will always be a market for hearing the best human voice, in person. When automation makes every manufactured thing virtually free, the top singer in the world will be paid millions for a single performance. Then that singer will pay top dollar to see the best play. And the best actor will pay top dollar to see the best football team. The best football player will pay top dollar to see the best baseball team. Etc. And that is just the entertainment sector. The best physicist will pay top dollar for the best assistant. Etc. * thumb Gail . + 0 Sep 4 2012: We can move out of a monetary system today, but too many laugh at those who know how. automated systems, made possible through the use of money BECAUSE we live in a money-based (scarcity based / fear based) culture, are not dependent on money. They are dependent upon willingness and intent. + Mats K o 0 Sep 8 2012: ...and available resources, obviously. * thumb Craig Patterson + 0 Sep 3 2012: Not as we know it today. Absolutely not. + Mats K o 0 Sep 7 2012: Please feel free to elaborate. * * Kirk Gee + 0 Sep 3 2012: I was actually making the point that the paradigm of life that we are living is like a game. Anytime we choose to play a new game where the goal is to have a great life experience instead of making money then, we have a chance at World Peace. Have a look at my book, I think you will agree with my ideas: http://thenewgame.org Cheers! + Mats K o 0 Sep 8 2012: This looks really interesting, Kirk! I will definitely have a look at it. o Kirk Gee # 0 Sep 8 2012: Thanks Mats, I think that we have a great deal in common philosophically on this subject. The more that humanity sees life from the perspective of what it can be, the more that humanity will realize that how we are living now is truly insane! * shawn disney + 0 Sep 3 2012: Kevin: you are right; there is a long history. And I'm not against any amount of revivals, but to be honest about it, most people seem to prefer a more modern level of consumption, and general effficiency, that global currencies provide. Just like any other concentrated power , it is quite a trick to keep it from being corrupted, as our present arrangements have been. But regulations can be humane , and useful. Aren't we glad of the protections, (limited as they may be) againstt poisonous food that the FDA provides?. I wouldn't mind at all to see stifling regulations against Wall St. firms marketing fraudulent and defective "Derivatives" for example. Let those guys earn their bonuses the old fashioned wy * shawn disney + 0 Sep 3 2012: I was not suggesting that money is not essential, merely that the present setup of our financial system is unsustainable, in great part just because of all this vast amount of data, economic knowledge about "markets", etc. which seems to have had the effect of clouding the judgment of these captains of finance to the point where they just can't be trusted with much that's important, like people's pensions, etc. Even when they are honest, which is certainly in question. It has been many years since I took a course in Economics, but I distinctly remember that it was supposed to be serious, and not about gambling. * shawn disney + 0 Sep 3 2012: TT: Good question. What I was suggesting was that our present system is unsustainable, because those who purport to "lead" it, don't seem to be able to understand it, partly just because of their vast, unprecedented amount of data, along with extensive knowledge of "markets", and "economics". It seems to cloud their judgement. I am giving them credit for being honest, here ;(though there is perrshaps a good case to be made that they aren't.),,,As an example: the whole field of "Derivatives" (what W. Buffet called "toxic time bombs") These ingenious , creative inventions were surely based on what all the experts in economics and markets thought was the most up-to-date "data". Yet it was a disaster. Or perhaps you agree with Wall St. that it is really OK?! * shawn disney + 0 Sep 3 2012: Mark:Oh, you're rightabout the difficutly. Recorded history, right up to the present moment, can be seen a one long effort of societies to eliminate , or at least make invisible, their "minorities", i.e. people of a significantly differing culture, such as the Amish.. I venture to say it predates recorded history. This campaign does not seem to have had any great successes, unless you include total annihilations. I guess you could count as successes those cases where the "integration" actually benefitted the former minority, like say the Irish Catholic immigrants to American, and where on closer examination, the supposed differences were actually minor. But most fester for centuries. As to why, it seems to be mainly about political "power" , and the concomitant manipulations of it , such as the British "Divide and Conquer " Strategy, which is so responsible for such a lot of present day conflicts. My own thought is that people are not smart enough just to stop, but that there may be "Safety Valves" , such as the US used to be for Europe, and which terraformed planets might be for future generations. It would be a vast venture, but a lot more civilised than what we have been doing. + * thumb John Moonstroller + 0 Sep 2 2012: So you read the memos Mats? I would be very interested in your interpretation. You could email me. * bo xu + 0 Sep 2 2012: we develop ourselves by possessing the resources that useful to human beings,and later becoming the society and country.money becomes to be the monetary system ,just because psychologically we need something to confirm our value.base on this,i believe what we can do is just make a better use of the money and resource of the earth.but no way to leave it. * * shawn disney + 0 Sep 2 2012: Mark: It is true as you say, that many social reforms have failed, along with their societies. But that doesn't exactly mean that it is "inevitable", but perhaps rather that monolithic societies are not the way to go. Observe that all the time, there were societies existings alongside, but not connected, such as the Amish have been for many generations, and others throughout the world. If our paradigm were to change, so as to promote that kind of "Separate but Equal" societiy, not only would we be conducting interesting experiments, but might develop some more humane lifestyles, with a more sustainable lfespan. Not everyone has equal tolerance for excitement and "change". Le's remember that it has been established that even "Changes for the Better" are stessful. + * shawn disney + 0 Sep 2 2012: Money is really a handy, efficient form of bookkeeping. I had the experience years ago of spending a few years in a money-free economy , namely iin the old US Army. There is nothing imossible about it, but (even without the damage) it is clearly not for everyone being rather monastic. It has proven to be creative, at first sight, "capitalism" has certainly led to a much higher form of civilization, in terms of production, but the essentially fascist organization, together with a groups cyclic forms of fashions as to morality, seems to lead inevitably to lethal abuses. In short, it is probably unsustainable. It leads to "out-of-the-box creativity", but in many cases, that means cheatiing and fraud, the creativity of the Stupid. It is probably an inevitable cycle. The Wealthy, in any empire, don't seem ever to have had the insight and will to self limit their aggressive pursuit of more pwer, to the ultimate detriment of everyone, including themselves. With unlimited power sources (such as Thorium LFTR power plants could provide), it might be possible to get beyond a debt-money-servitude economy, but there would still be the problem of assigning "credits" or whatevver for new , untried projects, whose ramiifications might not be immediately obvious. In the Army, everyone got the same clothes, but what if you want to explore another planet? * Kirk Gee + 0 Sep 2 2012: Please read my new book "The New Game (World Peace)" I believe that world peace cannot be achieved unless we shift the paradigm from "Monetary Consumerism" to "Great Life Experience" Please check out my book and pass it along! http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbook s&field-keywords=the+new+game+world+peace + shawn disney o 0 Sep 2 2012: I submit that Pope Paul was right, and pithy, when he said "If you want Peace, work for Justice". It would not take a Paradigm shift to have World Peace, but merely educate people to the fact that there are countless cities which have populations larger than a great many of the hundred some "Nations", but yet in the cities , there is " Peace", in the Nations, Not so. For the simple reason, basically, that people have accepted that murder should be illegal in cities, but have not accepted that in the case of" Nations": they can kill whoever they like; there is no Law against it., as there is in cities. That, plus the fact that there is no mechanism in place to carry out any International Laws, even if there were any, is why there is still War. As the participants so pathetically claim: "We had no alternative but to go to War". Yes indeed , they had no alternative. And furthermore, by common consent, they are not guilty of Murder, even though an Alien visitor might assume that they ought to be. o Kirk Gee # 0 Sep 2 2012: I agree with some of what your are saying. However, if you look at life as if it were a game that we are playing... all things are skewed to that end. If the game that we were playing for all of humanity was to ensure that our fellow human beings have a great life experience, life would look entirely differently. Of course there would still be disagreements, people who simply want to dominate others etc. but that would be the exception not the rule. Changing any protocol within the game of Monopoly does not change the fact that the endgame is to acquire as much as you can to win. If you really want World Peace, then you have to play a different game. # shawn disney @ 0 Sep 3 2012: Kirk: Yes, I do look at life as a "game we are playing". I don't quite understand your objection to that idea. Our lives seem to me to have a great deal in common with "games". How do you look at it, and what would the objection be to the game idea?! Are you a Presbyterian? * Thang Tran + 0 Sep 2 2012: This should be an economics questions. Can a viable economy exist without currency? (It may not necessarily be paper money but still a currency acting as money.) I found this paragraph very politically charged and biased with very little evidence to back iup the claims within it. Was this question submitted just to attached these statements for viewing? "In our digital age, where banks and even nations fail through reckless monetary spending and policies, it seems that our money system is becoming the big elephant in the room, yes even obsolete. Automation replacing humans seems to be one of the fundamental contradiction of capitalism and may be the demise of the system itself leaving the possibility of fascism to flourish if we fail to arrive at any alternatives." How does a political ideology get promoted through technological advancement? Are you implying that the internet and computation has lead to the promotion of fascism? This question should be asked to economists and behavioral scientists. + shawn disney o 0 Sep 2 2012: About 30 years ago there was a book titled the "Death of Money", the main point of which was that thanks to computerization, it was no longer possible for any human being to ascertain the total amount of money in circulation, it had become unstable and unmeasureable . Logically, it would seem to follow that money managers, banks, etc. would not be able to function reliably, even if they were honest. So : it is more than just an "Economics" question; it affects everyone. o Thang Tran # 0 Sep 2 2012: You seem to misunderstand something here. An economic question does affect everyone. It's just a discussion without data or extensive knowledge in markets and economics will just boil down to everyone trying to yell louder then everyone else. I never said it doesn't affect everyone just that the question isn't something you can answer here by people with no to little expertise in economics. "Logically, it would seem to follow that money managers, banks, etc. would not be able to function reliably, even if they were honest" How would this lead to money not being used at all though? * Kevin McCallum + 0 Sep 2 2012: I hope the future of money is in local currencies. + shawn disney o 0 Sep 2 2012: Kevin : that idea has been thoroughly tried . It didn't work out that well. o Kevin McCallum # 0 Sep 2 2012: Hi Shawn Local currencies are gaining some momentum as communities attempt to take back some control over their destinies in the midst of the globalization tsunami. Admittedly, it takes a lot of civic effort to establish and maintain such initiatives but it is encouraging to witness small groups of individuals committed to local-living economies. * thumb John Moonstroller + 0 Sep 1 2012: Have any of you read the Citigroup memo's? You're falling behind if you haven't. I say for the record, I do not have any copies of the Gitigroup memos on my computer or anywhere in my possession. You have to hunt around the internet to find them. They are on the move and Citigroup is actively chasing them down and squashing anyone with them on their site. + Mats K o 0 Sep 1 2012: I haven't. How exactly are the memo's relevant for the future of money? o thumb John Moonstroller # 0 Sep 1 2012: You should read them. Citigroup has a small army of lawyers trying to remove them from the Internet. If a small group of humans could consolidate all the wealth, and the power to protect that wealth, into their hands, they could make slaves of the rest of us. Or/and, keep our numbers small and manageable. Is such a thing possible? Citigroup thinks so. # Mats K @ +1 Sep 1 2012: Without knowing the details of the memo's and reading into your undertones, I would actually go so far to say that this move from Citigroup, if true, would be a natural one, in the current socioeconomic system. Forget about ethics, greed, evil and power hungry bankers, because this is in fact the intended condition of capitalism and the money system in general. Infinite economic growth on a planet of finite resources is bound to fail. What these banks are showing us is the true nature of profit, how destructive it is and nothing more. It's a system disorder. And a big one. And what the people within these banks and the rest of the world fails to realize is that once this "enslavement" is implemented to the equation, the system collapse. It stops. With an increase concentration of wealth and automation of labor, people being replaced by machines, to meet profit demands, who then are gonna buy the products when the middle class has no purchasing power and the working class has no jobs? What we are seeing taking place all over the world today is the end game of capitalism and the money system itself. It is coming to an end. It will most likely turn out ugly and painful when it crashes and that reason alone is why we should begin to seek alternatives to our current socioeconomic system and provide viable solutions and stop this verbal masturbation of who's right or not. # # Thang Tran @ 0 Sep 2 2012: What are the memos about? You have yet to tell us what the memos explain, the most important detail to any revealing document. # thumb Gail . @ 0 Sep 4 2012: Such a thing is already here and you are a slave. It's just that those who own you have convinced you to call your slavery - "FREEDOM!!!". Think about it. Are you willing to give up all money and posessions? if not, you are owned by them and those who convince you that your life will be better being owned by your possessions. The Plutocrats appreciate your willingness. o thumb John Moonstroller # 0 Sep 1 2012: How can you be so full of words yet entirely empty headed? 1. READ the MEMOS. 2. Respond in an informed manner. # o thumb John Moonstroller # 0 Sep 2 2012: Mats, you have to find them and read them yourself. It has to do with a plan to manipulate the markets and consolidate the wealth of the "World" into the hands of the 1% wealthiest people on the planet for reasons unknown to me at this time. You have to hunt them down yourself. google "Citigroup memos". They are being moved around by people who are trying to make them public. As I said: I say for the record, I do not have any copies of the Gitigroup memos on my computer or anywhere in my possession. # Mats K @ 0 Sep 2 2012: This sounds exactly what happened right before the stock market crash and this kinda behavior shouldn't surprise anybody in the current socioeconomic system. * Ravi Chandan + 0 Aug 31 2012: in future ....only plastic money and mobile money have future...cause they have easy and safe to carry.... load money in mobile and pay when needed... i hope that function comes in fashion soon,,,,,,we are doing mobile banking on shops in india . and transfer money in state bank of india's customers accounts. http://youtu.be/E7HQjFsrh-I * hcdoitsu gotweed + 0 Aug 30 2012: I remember sputnik. Today I can call up images on my computer of humanity's farthest outpost in the solar system - a moon of Saturn. When I was born there was no atomic bomb, no civil rights movement, no ACLU, no internet. I believe that if we were to put our talents to work we could do it in less than twenty years. But the problem is not the lack of technological expertise, the problem is the lack of the political will to do the thing. And the ultimate question for me is can we do the thing without destroying our entire civilization first. * thumb Robert Winner + 0 Aug 28 2012: A rose by any other name ..... The problem for all other systems is to find and set a value on what ever the instrument is. How many apples buys a watermellon. How much wheat for a pig. With the monitary system we have a set standard of measurement. That standard is adjustable from one country to another. Two truck loads of pigs from France to Italy for a painting would be cumbersome and difficult at the least. If all resources were available through technical resources (?) why would I want to work. That is the problem we have today. Free medical, free citizenship, free education, free housing, free food, free, free, free ... why would I want to work? The putitans saw this upon arrival in America and devised the Puritan Ethic Law. If you are capable of working and do not ... You will not share in the food, housing, and the labors of others. No I think that there has to be a reward for services and labors. Without those efforts we would deplete the resources and be in real danger for our existance. Bob. * henrik larson + 0 Aug 28 2012: Viral petition in favor of a Global Basic Income Guarantee :) http://tinyurl.com/8lm2wkw * David Maisel + 0 Aug 28 2012: Money is a commodity and the most convenient quanitative representation of value. You could have something worth say, "5 apples" or any item, but the singular value of this item is not as consistent as money. So the question then becomes, is it ever possible to see an economic system that utilizes something more efficient than money? In general no, I think money could be digitized and the efficiency of an economic system would be relative to the speed at which this information is exchanged. I forsee that processing power would become a new form of wealth on top of this exchange. It already is, its just not widely recognized. * thumb scott lee + 0 Aug 28 2012: I agree that we are reaching a serious problem in our economic system. However I don't think that money is the elephant in the room. Currencies occur in many cultures because they are so useful. Whether its gold coins, bit coins, dollars, cell phone minutes or cocaine, people will find things that are univerally valued in their culture and use them as currency. Its too difficult to trade without it. The elephant in the room is not the obsolescence of money. It is the obsolescence of labour. Automation and robotics are slowly but surely making human labour worthless. Its a long process that has been going on since the invention of the loom, and we have only scratched the surface. Eventually AI and robots will be able to do anything humans can do and more. We live in a society that depends on the exchange of labour for food and shelter, and we have no way of providing these in a situation where they are no longer necessary. This will challenge the viability of capitalism, though it may not bring it to an end. Only time will tell. However, even in a world run by robots where everybody is out of work, people will still trade using currency. Its just too darn convenient. + thumb Krisztián Pintér o 0 TED Translator Aug 28 2012: finally i got it. i'm in the groundhog day movie. you people keep repeating the same thing unchanged, until i can find an answer that is 100% convincing? it is like a never ending loop. conversation opens about some v.p. crap, you come in and tell that machines will do all the work. and then i come in and tell: machines have replaced all the work we did 5000 years ago. today, in the western world, nobody is sewing clothes with a needle, nobody weaves by hand, nobody uses hand mills, nobody picks fruit or harvest grains. machines do all this. yet, we don't have 100% unemployment. it is because as old jobs are taken over by machines, we pick the next task that nobody did before, because we didn't have enough time and resources. we heal each other. we cut each other's hair. we decorate each other's houses. we commentate sport events. we make movies. as the economy develops, work hours are shifting from agriculture to industry, then to services. what is the next stage? it might be entertainment or the "experience industry". we might have personal coaches how to enjoy a light+sound+drugs concert. we might have designers who individually design tools or furniture for us. what seems to be wicked twisted luxury today can be routine tomorrow. o Jon Ho # 0 Sep 2 2012: Hahaha groundhog day movie! Brilliant! ;) o thumb scott lee # +1 Sep 2 2012: lol, That's how I feel when I go to the "science is a religion" conversations. I just had to quit going to them. I admit that the effects of continuing automation are speculative. However, the current developments in robotics are very much unprecedented. Turning to history may not be as informative as you say. For instance, you say work is being moved from industry to services, and I agree. However, those service jobs pay less, have fewer benefits and generally do not allow for as much opportunity and upward mobility as the industry jobs that existed before. Will there be enough of a market for people to make a decent living in entertainment and services? Can the whole economy be transferred to to that? One of the consequences of automation in the past has been a sharp concentration of wealth. Will that restrict the market for services? Or perhaps it will limit the market for robots since human labour will be cheaper. No one really knows. However, the time will come when there is no task that truly requires a human. It will be unprecedented, and not directly comparable to the industrial revolution. o l aresu # 0 Sep 9 2012: :"machines have replaced all the work we did 5000 years ago. today, in the western world, nobody is sewing clothes with a needle, ............. yet, we don't have 100% unemployment". definitely true, but in 1860 in italy (but it's easily extendable to other parts of the world) unemployment was a meaningless word (in agricolture there was a work place for everyone, with the exception of very little children and very old/ill people,), today only c.a 22 mln people work on a population of 60 mln => c.a. 38 mln people don't work even if many are in their age for a job. i do agree with you that there will always be the possibility for new jobs, but not for the mass. i'm pretty sure you'll consider jeremy rifkin's ideas rubbish for the opinions you share here, but i don't (though i never take ideas of anyone as if they were dogma, let's say i agree on the general sense of what he has written and that he usually gives good arguments for his theses) and in "the end of work" i do agree on the point that without a radical transformation of our idea of work, there will be more and more "useless" human beings: there ain't any big shift from services to employ millions of people who're loosing their jobs. in western countries we're assisting to a dangerous wealth concentration tendency which doesn't allow to predict anything good as the work of millions os individuals simply is no longer needed, and the tendency surely is not compensated by a few new jobs like those you were talking about. control of resources implies power and unfortunately the most of those who hold them just want more resources and more power. can't really see how free market can get rid of selfishness and avarice of an incredibly little number of excessively wealthy people, but i'm open to change my mind if some evidence some day should ever arise. we're both young enough to see who all this will evolve in the next decades. * Mats K + 0 Aug 26 2012: Here's a thought. If we can move from non-consumption to consumption, we can also move from consumption back to non-consumption, right? Unlimited economic progress in a world of finite natural resources is bound to collapse, unless we evolve the economic concept into something sustainable. + henrik larson o 0 Aug 27 2012: Mats! Consumption is not the problem. Sustainable consumption is beautiful, like plants consuming light. Sharing resources and ideas increases the wealth in our lives, and liberates us to move up the trophic chain. Our evolutionary clade has perhaps never been primary producers, instead "we" have always relied on others for sustained metabolism, pleasure and life. Technically speaking, the only way to go back to non-consumption if to augment us with photosynthesis. (I´ve been dreaming of that since I was 12 years old :) As long as the producer is not to parasitic on Gaia, consumption is "sustainable". About unlimited economic progress... "Economic progress" has been calculated using inaccurate metrics. Pavan Sukhdev did a talk on trying to refine the metrics... http://www.ted.com/talks/pavan_sukhdev_what_s_the_price_of_nat ure.html If we redesign the metrics, our "economic growth" system can keep progressing basically until we go extinct, the "growth" will reflect our idea of wealth, and our idea of sustainable, and these conceptions of wealth, what we consider relevant to our wellbeing, our economy, will soon approach steady states on earth that could last a loooong time before disrupted, but as long as there´s some continued social evolution of ideas and technology, that will count as wealth "growth", and then there´s always space... But I think, like I think you think, that we will separate our resource economy metrics from our social idea economy metrics. A resource based economic system (on earth) does not grow or shrink much, since the biomass and earth-mass is quite constant, but matter can always increase in levels of order, we can organize it into technology or biological life, so even there will "economic progress" be able to progress. And the social idea economy should be able to progress until we are socially, culturally, fully evolved. When that happens, we should go have a beer :) Cheers! * Thang Tran + 0 Aug 25 2012: The better question is can you come up with a better economic system and prove that it is more efficient then currency? When technology outstrips demand so much that goods and services are nearly worthless. That may never happen though, but this is speculation from someone who doesn't study economics. * thumb AbdelRahman Siddig + 0 Aug 24 2012: If we could devople a system to exchange our efforts without central control we say bye bye governments * Ryu Kin + 0 Aug 24 2012: Buy Gold before money goes all digital. * * * Comment deleted + Comment deleted o * Thomas Lowth + 0 Aug 23 2012: The origin of money might as well be the origin of air. You say that the concept of money will always be relevant and that the physical representation of that power will shift with emerging technologies. I have a question to ask about the dynamics of how and why you think that a shift in technology will change the way we operate in social means? I'm not asking you to predict the future but I would just like to have a valid reason from you to justify why you think human behaviour will adapt in a positive way to the increase of technology? Understanding that the idea of 'trade' and 'purchase' and 'debt' are the implications stopping the progression into a healthy society should be known as the 21st century oblivious, next to nothing us 1% ... What 'Krisztián Pintér' the somewhat capitalist 'splinter' may believe works perfectly ok monetary system = an exploitation of the social structure as a means that the system runs on the survival of the fittest rather than a survival in unity thus the competitive nature which you find implicates your life now, as you mentioned 'you can't take it seriously' ... Why so serious? * Gord G + 0 Aug 23 2012: Is there a future for any intellectual construct? Money is a tool that was created centuries ago as a conduit of power. It is clearly a product of the available technologies and processes of the time it was conceived. The concept of money will always be relevant but the physical representation of that power will shift with emerging technologies. + thumb Krisztián Pintér o 0 TED Translator Aug 23 2012: can you tell us more about the origin of money? o Mats K # 0 Aug 23 2012: Here's a great article on the history of money. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/history-money.html # thumb Krisztián Pintér @ 0 TED Translator Aug 23 2012: wasn't a real question. but if you decided to help us out, we need a little more help. where in your article can we find the part about "created centuries ago as a conduit of power" o Gord G # 0 Aug 25 2012: @Krisztian - The origin of money is a matter of record. My comment was addressing the question of the relevance of money in future economies. The "conduit of power" is obviously not a direct quote from the preamble, but rather a personal perspective. I'm certain the comment section of TED was created to allow different points of view. To clarify the statement in question... indirect exchange, directly created wealth based on indirect means. Which is the source of wealth for every fortune 500 company on the planet. And of course, no one questions the power these companies wield in the free market. # thumb Krisztián Pintér @ +1 TED Translator Aug 25 2012: you still fail to make sense, but now you fail to even be consistent with yourself. we can agree that money is many thousands of years old, and was not created a few centuries ago. also we can agree that every community over some complexity develops some form of money on their own. yes, money is very much responsible for the success of big companies. and small companies. and every company. and the people. you can not condemn the air just because bank robbers can do their stuff only due to the oxygen rich atmosphere. it does not tell much about anything. for money allows the scale of division of labor we have today. the division of labor is the central element in human civilization. let me guess, you are also a subscriber of the venus project / zeitgest crap, or "learned" from the money masters "documentary". o Gord G # +1 Aug 25 2012: @Krisztian - You still fail to understand, and you insist on restating my comments in an inaccurate, inflammatory manner. I did not write "a few centuries". I wrote "centuries ago". If you do the math, centuries add up to thousands of years. I didn't condemn money in my comment, I stated "money will always be relevant ". You appear to be letting your contempt for the venus project / zietgest colour your perceptions. I didn't mention them, and my comments don't align with their doctrine. Perhaps it's the language barrier, but your incensed response is misplaced. Have a nice day. * john cupcake + 0 Aug 23 2012: No. + Mats K o 0 Aug 23 2012: Would you care to elaborate? Every opinion is valued. * thumb Nicole Small + 0 Aug 22 2012: What we need is a molecular assembler. If we could create machines using nanotechnology, which pull particles that already exist from the environment (air) and reassemble them into items, we wouldn't need money on the same scale that we do now. The more we learn from CERN and advancements in nanotechnology, the closer we'll get to creating this. Once it's possible, though, it could have the ability to recreate gold and silver. Most likely, we'll end up with "virtual" money and cash registers will be outmoded. This would likely cut down on robberies, but there are plenty of possible complications. When we eventually do convert, there will have to be an agreed-upon world measurement of the value of a credit, unit, dollar, or whatever the term might be. This would demand an almost incomprehensible level of cooperation between and within every government in the world. It's my belief that attempts are already being made secretively. It's possible that all of the rumors about changing to Euros and the price of gold going up so high that it lowers the value of a dollar indicates that those might just be the "steps" the world leaders are taking in order to accomplish a virtual monetary system. + Mats K o +1 Aug 22 2012: Interesting! Just like a Star Trek replicator, right? If we had such machines and everybody got access to them, we wouldn't need money at all. There would be such an abundance of resources and material that money would render itself obsolete. Stealing and robberies would no longer exist and national boarder would no longer make any sense. In actuality, many of these technologies are not that far away. Are you familiar with 3D-printing? Fuse this technology with nanotech and we got a zapper! Use the same technologies on a large scale with fully deliberate automation systems producing and distributing goods and services and we can feed, clothe, shelter and make a quality of life never imagined before to the entire planet! o Jon Ho # +1 Aug 23 2012: I can assure you sir, unless if you are a Full-Metal Alchemist, or if you have the Philosopher Stone, no amount of nanotechnology can convert 3D Printing base materials of nothing to output something. That very concept breaks the extremely fundamental law of conservation of mass/energy. I'm quite familiar with 3D printing (hoping to buy my own ZPrinter 650 someday ;P) and let me tell you sir, the base materials runs from extremely cheap (polyamide, ceramics) to normal (resin) to extremely expensive (titanium, silver, steel). You know, in the future, what I think will happen is that although the Star Trek replicator will cost money to buy, and repairing it when it breaks down will cost money. The energy source to power it will cost money. The base materials for the Replicator to use will cost money. The interesting thing is, what form will this money come in? o thumb Nicole Small # 0 Aug 24 2012: I have been aware of 3-D printing for a few years, now and think it would be wise to invest in those businesses at this time-whenever they go public. If you're interested in the replicator idea, check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_assembler It's still a theory, of course, but I believe that with the recent discovery of the Higgs Boson, we could possibly crack the puzzle of how to assemble atoms into a molecule without it losing form from lack of attraction to one another. The Higgs boson gives it's mass to hadrons, which acts as a gravitational field. This field could be what attracts hadrons to one another to form atoms. When all of the components have come together to create an atom, the atom now possesses the combined field strength of it's components. This gives the atom enough attractive force to start attracting other mass-compatible atoms to form molecules. By measuring this interaction with the Large Hadron Collider, it appears as though the hadrons are pretty much "flying" by, pulling mass from Higgs bosons (and possibly other properties from hypothesized bosons and elementary particles) and attracting one another, becoming atoms. The atoms "clump" together, forming molecules, and so-on, as though something is "speeding into existence." I've interpreted the discovery through a long series of Wikipedia definitions. If you have the patience and diligence, you could try to piece the available information together yourself and form your own understanding. # Jon Ho @ 0 Aug 24 2012: I don't know about you Nicole, but molecular assembler is the LEAST of the technology that I would be working on if the recently discovered “Higgslike” particle is actually Higg's boson. IF what they at CERN found really was the "God Particle", heck, we now hold the power of matter, space and time; the universe itself! Why 3D print food, clothes, houses, when you can print a brand new, whole universe itself? Molecular Assembler? Pah! With the Genesis Assembler (TM), you can now play Sim God, in real life! Are we having fun yet? ;) ""I've interpreted the discovery through a long series of Wikipedia definitions. If you have the patience and diligence, you could try to piece the available information together yourself and form your own understanding"" - Or you can buy the book called 'God Particle' written by Leon Lederman, former director of Fermilab, available from Amazon. ;) * thumb Krisztián Pintér + 0 TED Translator Aug 22 2012: "James, I invite you to read about a resource based economy" i hate that i'm always right. i have successfully guessed that your "knowledge" comes from the v.p. crap. + Mats K o 0 Aug 22 2012: I am sorry you feel this way. I invite you to read and learn more about it and contribute to a healthy discussion on it afterwards. o thumb Krisztián Pintér # +1 TED Translator Aug 23 2012: i don't need to read more about it, i have read enough already. it is nothing else but idealist communism with magic (supercomputers). i can't wrap my head around the fact that so many people take it seriously. # Mats K @ +1 Aug 23 2012: "i can't wrap my head around the fact that so many people take it seriously." Fair enough. But that doesn't mean that you have the right to undermine the opinions of others. That doesn't contribute to the conversation. It's just useless space frankly. I'm sorry to be blunt about this, but I was really hoping for a healthy discussion on this topic as I am very interested in it and at the same time learning a great deal about it. So, I would be more than gladly to hear your proposals or your predictions on the future of economics or money or whatever you want to call it. # o thumb Krisztián Pintér # 0 TED Translator Aug 23 2012: this conversation is not about the v.p. crap i hope. but about money. and i contributed a lot to that conversation, i'm sorry if you can't find. there is already a lot of conversations about the v.p. crap, no need for one more. # Mats K @ +3 Aug 23 2012: The conversation is about the future of money and if there is one, yes. A resource based economy is just one of many conversations that is equally important as the other ones as it offers a solution to our current problems. o thumb Krisztián Pintér # 0 TED Translator Aug 23 2012: "resource based economy" lacks meaning, thus can not be important. # Mats K @ 0 Aug 23 2012: How so? It is thoroughly explained here: http://www.thevenusproject.com/en/the-venus-project/ resource-based-economy o thumb Krisztián Pintér # 0 TED Translator Aug 23 2012: probably we have different idea about what is "through". # Mats K @ 0 Aug 23 2012: Well, please elaborate then on what is lacking in its meaning. Critical thinking is important and if there is anything that I am for, it is just that. o thumb Krisztián Pintér # 0 TED Translator Aug 23 2012: critical thinking starts with asking "what is our current economy is based on"? turns out that resources. the economy itself is nothing but a giant system to distribute resource to maximize the output. because resources can be put together in virtually infinite different ways. which arrangement maximizes the amount of demands served? that is all that the economy does. nothing can be more "resource based" than that. but in fact every economy has this goal, so all other economic models are just as "resource based". it is just a meaningless term. buzz word. # Joe Fletcher @ 0 Aug 25 2012: Hey I know because I have seen you around on TED and don't relay care about ideas or conversation just proving yourself right even when your blatently wrong but if the " buzz word" of resource based or access based economy scares your world view look up participatory economic system Wikipedia has a good overview. Could with relatively little difficulty could be implemented today. # Jan Seidler @ 0 Sep 3 2012: Krisztián, one cannot know the sea if too afraid to swim beyond the pond. I have certainly watched some of your arguments defending the 'Free Market' (another buzz word for capitalism), and found that you provided some valid arguments to your point of view, but money by no means stays at managing resources. I think you know better than this. First came barter, then money, now it is time to free ourselves from this enslavement and social stratification. You see, money of course means power (in the current system), and you have no problem stating that nothing more resource based than that? Not even when institutions exist such as The Federal Reserve, The European Central Bank (institutions that of course are private, not public). No problem at all with fractional reserve banking? With lobby for vested interests? Not even for the invasion of other countries by means of economical warfare? What about the bank bailouts from the crash of 2008? Now, perhaps one might say, the politics of one were at fault, or there wasn't enough transparency, but that is only swimming in the pond. Money is the corrupting hand of nations, and even culture. No problem at all with advertisement? With all its artificiality? Perhaps the one standing in the loop might be yourself. Ever asked that question? Regardless of the nature of the debate, I appreciate your comments and responses, for they illustrate you having a great deal of knowledge pertaining the 'Free Market' (there goes that buzzword again), and I learn much about the present state of affairs. Needless to say, the money system will collapse on its own accord, unless we finally get an understanding of what it takes to be truly free of modern servitude. Human Resources we are even considered by this corporate mentality. I can only imagine how the top individuals of this money pyramid see the general population... sheeple perhaps? What a detrimental factor this consumption loophole generates. Dare to swim beyond the pond into the sea. * thumb Kirill Rebrov + 0 Aug 22 2012: +James Zhang I know what money is. >Or you can have a factory/assembly line make the same car in a few minutes It is a discussion of hypothetical technology capabilities. There is a theory that we are getting closer to technological singularity. Will “these” powerful machines have a singularity-like chart of their manufacturing time costs? Becoming faster and faster from year to year to the level of “almost” instantaneous manufacturing(like computer boot time). If we talk about scarcity of fast machines so yes, it’s not post-scarcity :) Anyway we cannot definitely state that time will be always a sensible cost for manufacturing. And also we cannot definitely state the opposite. * thumb Adelo Vant + 0 Aug 21 2012: Money is want, not need. In the future addressing the need will eliminate money as a socioeconomic factor. Money is not value, money is a pseudo-value for a plutocracy of faux-aristocracy. Progress, production, performance has value, but is not money. I would not want to live like a king with gold/gelt/money and have no value to humanity, I would seek a job cleaning public bathrooms, sweeping streets, flipping burgers, teaching ... heck, why not fair and reasonable wealth distribution to create value. Amassing wealth is for fools and tools, there is so much that can be done by US and EU with a new and stable economic model that eliminates money (or any other token) as a socioeconomic factor. + thumb Krisztián Pintér o +1 TED Translator Aug 22 2012: want and need are the same things. the distinction is purely arbitrary. a need today was a want 50 years ago, a dream 100 years ago, and nonexistent before that. money is not "a value" nor a "pseudo value", because money is commodity, and value is a concept. they are not even in the same league. however, money *has* value. the value of money lies in the fact that you can exchange it for goods. it is not that difficult. o Mats K # 0 Aug 22 2012: Want and need are absolutely not the same thing. Needs are based on the necessities of life. Like food, shelter, clean water, and clothing. Wants are based on artificial needs that stem from the environment you grow up in and the values you get from that same environment. This is why certain people want different things than other people. Because they come from other backgrounds and have different values. Wow. Money is a commodity? You can't eat money, you can't build a house with money. If you were stranded on an island with one million dollars, you couldn't survive on that alone. You need resources in order to survive. Natural resources. Like food, shelter and clean water. Therefore, money, is basically useless. You should not be the one to question the validity of other people's claims, when you seemingly can't grasp basic concepts like wants, needs and what money is made of. # thumb Krisztián Pintér @ 0 TED Translator Aug 22 2012: if clothing is necessary, how our ancestors 100000 years ago survived with no clothing? wow, there are commodities we can't eat. also an iphone would not help me on an island. you have much to learn. won't happen, as you think you don't. # Scott Koenraadt @ +1 Aug 23 2012: as far back as recordable humans have used clothing, even if it was animal pelts. it is a necessity because you will die from exposure with no clothes on for a certain length of time * Jon Ho + 0 Aug 21 2012: I'm not sure if I understand your question; are you talking about money specifically, foreign exchange, or economics? Because the very basis of money, ie. a medium of exchange whose value is agreed upon by both parties, will never go away. Although it's form may different from time to time, but the precepts stays the same. Now from your questions, it seems that you jumbled up three totally different ideas, related only by a thin strand of imposing value on things. In the future, money will still exist, if not electronically, then telepathically! Although some form of physical currency, backed by an institution may still exist, whose value may not be agreed upon by the users of said currencies, but nonetheless are coerced into using it, due to the fact that there is no better solution at the current time. + Mats K o +1 Aug 21 2012: Imagine if somehow there was no system, and you were asked to choose between one that was free, equitable and sustainable, or one that promoted greed, inequality and pollution, which one would you choose? There's no comparison. The fact is, our monetary system is mathematically unworkable with its ever-increasing debt, it creates and promotes inequality, and is detrimental to life itself through its prioritization of profit over people and planet. The only reason we are still using this system is because we haven't adapted to our new capabilities, and it's simply easier to maintain what we know rather than start a new. Therefore, I believe, money is not essential to life. Resources are what we need to live, not money. Money is just a tool, invented to help organize the distribution of scarce resources. Modern technology now offers us a potential abundance of these resources such as food, water, shelter, and a high standard of living. We can procure, produce and manufacture all of life's necessities more easily now than ever before. The only thing scarce nowadays is money itself! o thumb Krisztián Pintér # +1 TED Translator Aug 21 2012: "The fact is, our monetary system is mathematically unworkable with its ever-increasing debt" and you know that from where? let me guess. either zeitgeist / venus project, or the money masters movie. o Jon Ho # 0 Aug 21 2012: Oooookaaaayyyy, Mats.... you do realize surfing while under influence is bad? Lay off the bong pipe and start getting some exercise or something. Remember, not all mushrooms can make you fly to the moon. * thumb Kirill Rebrov + 0 Aug 21 2012: +James Zhang I neglected the question of time and space finitness in such large scale since nor scarcity model neither post-scarcity model affects it. So I use only labor(the machine labor is industrial, the human labor is like a hobby) and resource to argue optionality of money. With deeper look on post-scarcity and technology development at all there are questions of course. E.g. what could be after Kurzweil’s “The Universe Wakes Up” if it will be. Or what will be if machines evolves to the level of intelligent life form? + Jon Ho o 0 Aug 21 2012: The machines will learn the concept of money, understand it, and apply it in their own cybernetic society. o Mats K # 0 Aug 22 2012: How could machines learn a concept unless we programmed them to? Machines doesn't have ambition or feelings. If you smashed a laptop in front of fifty other laptops, they wouldn't care. # Jon Ho @ 0 Aug 22 2012: Read this story about machine learning the concept of cat http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57460267-76/google -scientists-find-evidence-of-machine-learning/ Now if a machine can learn the concept of cat, one can infer that machine can also learn the concept of money. o thumb James Zhang # 0 Aug 22 2012: Machines are not "self-aware" or "curious". How would they be able to "understand" the concept of money or cat? Also, it took a machine millions of pictures of a cat to recognize and remember a cat. A human could recognize a picture of a cat instantly. # Jon Ho @ 0 Aug 22 2012: You equate the ego or id and the need to know things as prerequisites to understanding abstract concepts. I beg to differ on that point. Psychological state of mind should not be used as a tool when measuring intelligence, artificial or otherwise. It seems that somehow you are contradicting yourself. If a machine does not understand the concept of a cat, how would it then be able to recognize and remember a cat when it sees one? Sure, currently it took a machine millions of pictures to learn to recognize cat, while it only takes a human child only a picture or two to achieve the same. Don't forget though, humans had what, 1 to 2 million years head start? While AI and machine learning ala Minsky & Papert is, what, less than a century old? o thumb James Zhang # 0 Aug 22 2012: If we did not want to know more, how could have advanced into this high level of intelligence? If I program a machine to simple add 1 to a number recursively, it will do that forever until it physically can't anymore. It seems there's a fundamental definition miscommunication here. What's your definition of intelligence? A machine can only execute code from the 0's and 1's, the binary language. However, I don't think us humans read things in binary language, the fundamental structure of the languages are just simply different. There have been theories saying that there are trinary languages and even maybe quadrary (I think that's what it's called). In quantum computing, there are things called quantum bits, or q-bits. A q-bit can be a 0 or 1 or both at the same time. A bit, the language that machines today use, can only be one or the other. # Jon Ho @ +1 Aug 22 2012: I repeat, You equate the ego or id and the need to know things as prerequisites to understanding abstract concepts. Psychological state of mind should not be used as a tool when measuring intelligence, artificial or otherwise. No, there is no definition miscommunication here my friend. Only different approach. You adopted the psychometric approach which included self awareness and emotional knowledge as part of the measuring tools. I on the other hand, went with 'Mainstream Science on Intelligence', an editorial statement by fifty-two researchers who stated that intelligence is : 'A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.' In this situation, after seeing millions of pictures of cats, a machine finally figured out the concept of cats and what a cat should look like. Give or take a few centuries, and I'll bet my left kidney on this, machines will eventually figure out the concept of money. The rest of the stuff you wrote is.... irrelevant. What the heck does binary language has to do with intelligence and machine learning? If you're trying to equate machine 0's and 1's with the human neuron On and Off, I'm afraid you're shooting way off the mark. Quantum computing will accelerate algorithm computation, sure, but speed of calculation does not equate machine learning! It's totally irrelevant and extremely distracting to tell the truth. o thumb James Zhang # 0 Aug 22 2012: What do you mean by "psychological state of mind?" Which part of what I'm saying refers to psychological state of mind? If curiosity is part of this psychological state of mind that you're referring to, then I disagree with you and I think curiosity is what is needed for higher level of intelligence. Unless perhaps curiosity is the effect and not the cause for intelligence or perhaps it is both the cause and the effect? "A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience" Hmm, a machine could reason, plan, solve problems if the AI is good enough to. It can even think abstractly, though this is very difficult to program. It can comprehend complex ideas because if it can think abstractly but it can also compute massive amounts of data, and we can make the machine adaptable through learning from experience eventually too. I can see that. But can a machine wonder about things or express interest/fascination or find "human" ways to express emotion through body, art, etc. despite the practicality of such actions? Unless you categorize that feeling of wonder and curiosity as some emotion, and there is a huge separation between emotion and intelligence, which is what you've been saying this entire time. # Jon Ho @ 0 Aug 23 2012: Ahaha, you actually answered your own question! ;) This phrase "that feeling of wonder and curiosity as some emotion". What is feeling? Is it not emotion? Intelligence CAN understand emotion, but it's not really part of it. By the way, I think we have hijacked poor Mats Kaarbo thread long enough. If you would like further discuss about artificial intelligence 'feel' free to open up a new conversation regarding this. I will be 'happy' to join you in discussing all about AI, Neural Network, Fuzzy Logics, Marvin Minsky, Alan Turing and his AI test, et cetera, since I deduced you seem to have a background in Computer Science and this area is something of your interest. Do you know LISP? I was introduced to Clojure and Common LISP by Ed, a genius friend of mine. If you really are into AI and such, you most definitely need to learn LISP. o thumb James Zhang # 0 Aug 23 2012: "Ahaha, you actually answered your own question! ;)" Yeah about that... lol " If you would like further discuss about artificial intelligence 'feel' free to open up a new conversation regarding this." Sure, but I think I'm gonna take a break from this discussion for a bit. Will most likely post something about AI in the near future... + thumb James Zhang o 0 Aug 22 2012: @Kirill I still think that time/space applies to everything that we do. I'm not fully understanding what you're trying to say, and maybe this contributes to that language barrier, which is pretty unfortunate. * thumb Kirill Rebrov + 0 Aug 21 2012: >wow, time is unlimited? that's certainly new to me let me know when the time in Universe will stop, I have many things to be finished. About "individual's time" I wrote in the same message. + thumb Krisztián Pintér o +1 TED Translator Aug 21 2012: i don't know about you, but for me, time is always a factor but you are welcome to think in time of the universe if you so desire. you can tell someone: do not mind that the production will end one million years in the future. it is nothing compared to the age of the universe. see how far that gets you. o thumb Kirill Rebrov # 0 Aug 21 2012: I think I’ve explained enough what I think about individual’s labor, time and hierarchy of needs in context of discussion. # thumb Krisztián Pintér @ +1 TED Translator Aug 21 2012: so you just dropped in that 'time is infinite' observation is some sort of colorful story? we are talking about our time at hand. time is a factor that always will be scarce. o thumb Kirill Rebrov # 0 Aug 21 2012: I already understood that you see no difference between hobby and industrial labor in context of time spending. You spend your time always and everywhere and for no money. For example here and now. You need money not for your spent time, you need money to spend your next time the way you want. And the way you want requires products and services that are scarce today. # thumb Krisztián Pintér @ +1 TED Translator Aug 21 2012: i see a lot of difference, just like i see difference between a good job and a bad job. but this is not a fundamental difference. we do things in order to improve our wellbeing. leisure or hobby is directly enjoyable. work enables us to enjoy ourselves better in the future. in addition, work can also be enjoyable in itself, but does not have to be. this has nothing to do with scarcity though. time is scarce because i want more of it than i have. i need to economize time, i need to decide what to do in the next minute or hour. i can not do two things at a time. if i try to teach you economics, i can not read an interesting article. that is why time is scarce. econ 101. o thumb Kirill Rebrov # 0 Aug 21 2012: >time is scarce It is pretty obvious statement in this context and I’d definitely use it in a discussion if it makes any sense. So what is the fundamental relation between time and money? Not in our current economy. The conceptual relation. Relation for all parallel universes. As I pointed you need money not for your time. Directly you need money for resources since they are scarce. If they are non-scarce you don’t need money for them and spend your time the best you can. And I mentioned post-scarcity in the sense of resource scarcity, not time. If you mean some particular cases when time is an attribute of service or product. E.g. not all resources are scarce and only 100 people per year can become immortal. So yes money will be needed since it is not completely post-scarce society. # thumb James Zhang @ 0 Aug 22 2012: You can have one mechanic make a car from scratch and it'll take him, say a month to do. Or you can have a factory/assembly line make the same car in a few minutes. One is clearly better than the other. Would it make sense to pay for the service of the mechanic equally to paying for the service of the assembly line? Money is just some representational way of measuring how much time/effort/work it took you to do your job. It is completely relational to our current economy. Before we had money, we had simple trading, from specialized professions. But it got really hard to measure trading when you have conversions like 5 chickens for 1 wagon, so there needed to be an easier measurement tool. * thumb Feyisayo Anjorin + 0 Aug 21 2012: Money comes and money goes as long as the system of the world remains as it is. It may change in form or appearance; but Gold will remain valuable and value will always be given to needs, so that only those who can pay will have access to such. * thumb Lejan . + 0 TED Translator Aug 21 2012: ... mostly shady. + Mats K o 0 Aug 23 2012: Would you care to elaborate? Every opinion is valued. o thumb Lejan . # 0 TED Translator Aug 23 2012: I will, so here are the details: As you stated yourself, the monetary system failed to serve the majority of the people, due to its immanent flaws and corrupt usage, yet instead of question it openly, a tremendous effort is taken to keep things as they are. As money is the backbone of our economy, the system is based on scarcity and debt, and empoweres only those who are in control of the money, which, in return, act as a survival instinct for the system itself. By this, and regardless the degenerative effect this has on society, it takes a complete system failure before there is a chance to learn for a better. A resource based economy, which you mentioned as well, is the only way for mankind to evolve not just technological but also of civilization. Unfortunately the already well established concept of 'property' and 'nations' will not allow such a concept to become true one day, as no one who had to share would do this freely and would do all in its power to prevent things to change. Automisation has never been used to 'free' the people and its contradictive realtion and effect on capitalism has just been postponed in the opening of the global market. The technology for automisation is already there and applicable in many fields. Yet as long there is a country where people have to work on ridiculous wages and as long national policies allow their companies to flee their own job-markets for profit reasons, there will be no installation of automated production for the common good. Our societies wouldn't even know how to deal with it but to take it as 'unemployment' and this because this new form of 'freedom' only works on global scale and on open accessable resources only. Because of this need of fundamental change in habit, mind set and the true interest in the common good for all the people, this change is most likely not to happen. Therefore the monetary system will continue and its future will be as it was ... mostly shady. # henrik larson @ 0 Aug 23 2012: This is why we need to elevate people to middle class, the middle class won´t do shitty jobs, I wont :) I´d rather automate it, even if it means working really hard to create the technology. So until holistically rational economic thinking is part of our social norm and we adapt to the new status quo of a global community, and until technology becomes so sophisticated that even low-wage workers aren´t worth it, we need to come up with ways to de-incentivize people to work on ridiculous wages that allows companies to flee their own job-markets for profit reasons. We could do this by just giving people money, basic incomes, until better social norms replace money. Elevate people enough to avoid the psychological biases that shifts attention to short-term gratification and makes people do shitty jobs with shady, shitty long-term profit yeild. This is definitely achievable, change is in the air, let´s make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. * thumb Obey No1kinobe + 0 Aug 21 2012: The future of my money is it gets spent. We are temporary friends and all too rapidly say goodbye until the next paycheck or dividend. * thumb Kirill Rebrov + 0 Aug 20 2012: >There's no such thing as a free lunch. You talk in context of traditional economy model when resources are scarce and people need money >in order to gain the benefits and basic necessities to live The described _hypothetical_ model is post-scarcity. So: 1. Resources are unlimited 2. Manufacturing and service providing are completely performed by machines including repair, producing and evolving of these machines themselves. So no human is forcedly involved in the process and no machine asks money for its work. Also no resources are scarce and they don’t have their value since they are renewable. People involved only in creative labor and have no need in money. They can only satisfy their higher needs such as self-actualisation, esteem and love/belonging w/o necessity to satisfy basic needs like physiological and safety needs. Where is the need of money in such model? >There's still some amount of work/service to society that you need to perform what exactly? Why people need to perform some amount of work? because they have to use some amount of resources and work of other people. This is the only objective reason of _necessity_ to perform some work. But these work and resources are not scarce now. So in post-scarcity it is not required. But people will still perform some work for society and w/o money. Why? Higher needs. Self-actualisation, esteem and love/belonging. Why an artist with money paints what he wants and not what his customer wants? Because he needs to satisfy his creativity and he doesn’t need to draw ads banners for food to satisfy it. In post-scarcity this artist will continue to paint works of art and when he became hungry he’d just switch on the magic box which would made a burger for him. The only scenario when it’s not possible in post-scarcity is preventing people from using non-scarce resources and services _forcing_ them to work for it. But what is the reason of forcing inefficient people to work while the machines do it much better? + thumb James Zhang o 0 Aug 20 2012: Money is simply just a tool, an incredibly flexible representation of material needs. It's just a universal measurement that people can use to do whatever they want, only after they've done their share of work and contributions. "So no human is forcedly involved in the process and no machine asks money for its work. Also no resources are scarce and they don’t have their value since they are renewable." The machine still requires maintenance, it still needs raw materials to work with, it still takes a fixed amount of time to perform its services, and it still needs to be repaired when broken. The machine does"ask" money. It demanded effort, time, and possibly money to be able to be created, which without time and effort, it could not be made. Everything is scarce and everything has a cost. For example, time is a cost to everything we do. So even when something is seemingly "free" it still costs some time to do it. If it does not cost any time and effort to do something, then we pretty much become Gods and break laws of physics lol. "But what is the reason of forcing inefficient people to work while the machines do it much better?" Exactly. This is when the inefficient people getting replaced needs to find new worth in society. Some may die out fast because they couldn't, while others may find new skillsets, a new market of demand, and niche off of that instead to adapt to the new playing field. This is natural selection. o thumb Kirill Rebrov # 0 Aug 20 2012: >The machine still requires maintenance Maybe I wasn’t very clear describing the _hypothetical_ model in my start comment and in several other comments. The machines will maintain, evolve(develop), produce new ones and repair themselves. This is so called superintelligence in conjunction with renewable and unlimited resources and energy. So no scarcity. Yes, it is hypothetical model as I mentioned since we are discussing future and we are free of current technology level in discussion. So we can discuss the concept, but not its implementation. >For example, time is a cost to everything we do What do you want for your 10 mins of labor of love if you have 100 billion dollars? For example I don’t want anything for my labor of love since I don’t _need_ anything. It’s a conceptual discussion. I just suggested my model with its constants and it’s more interesting to discuss it as concept because discussing the possible future implementation is like proving god’s existence(or the main question of Universe and everything) since we can’t verify yet. So if you disagree that such concept can exists even hypothetically we just have different views on the subject of this debate, not on the subject of this concept. # thumb James Zhang @ 0 Aug 20 2012: "The machines will maintain, evolve(develop), produce new ones and repair themselves." Sure they'll be perfect laborers/soldiers, but things change in the future and they would need to be able to adjust to the change too. I think we can reach this state you're describing, but it would have costed many many years of effort for us to reach that point. Also, they would still take up space, because as of right now, I don't know if it's possible to accomplish that state of utopia without 0 space. "What do you want for your 10 mins of labor of love if you have 100 billion dollars?" If I can improve education instantly within that 10 minutes, and be able to reach out to everyone my ideas, I would do it. o thumb Kirill Rebrov # 0 Aug 20 2012: >Also, they would still take up space yes. Even w/o post-scarcity we’ll need much more space and resources than our planet can offer. And at this point I think about Space. # thumb James Zhang @ 0 Aug 20 2012: Hmm... I'm not sure if we can achieve something that takes 0 time or 0 space to accomplish, unless we somehow harness the power of wormholes or something. If we do that though, wouldn't we pretty much become Gods? We create something without literally losing a thing. o thumb Kirill Rebrov # 0 Aug 20 2012: >I'm not sure if we can achieve something that takes 0 time or 0 space hmm it seems I’ve misunderstood you. Could you explain why we need 0 time or 0 space to accomplish it even hypothetically? >We create something without literally losing a thing. e.g. I have 1 kg of material. I create a thing of it. I want another thing to replace this one. I recycle this thing back into material and create the new one w/o wastes(e.g. material is made of nanobots). This is recycling. There are plans to mine asteroids. It is a great source of resources. This is _conditionally_ unlimited resources(the way to asteroid is made by machines and they have enough mining to fulfill their needs). There is also a concept of inorganic life. Forcing inorganic matter to divide. Everyone knows what would have happened with planet if the bacteria began to divide indefinitely. It’s just a couple of concepts not more. # thumb James Zhang @ 0 Aug 21 2012: Well I was under the impression that these things would have 0 cost, which to me, also meant that it would have 0 cost in time/space as well. o thumb Kirill Rebrov # +1 Aug 21 2012: >Well I was under the impression that these things would have 0 cost, which to me, also meant that it would have 0 cost in time/space as well. I see. Well: 1. Universe/Space is unlimited. Besides recycling I think it is also possible to go beyond the limits of the Earth with such ultimately high technology level 2. Time. Time is unlimited too. Time of the individual w/o the needs is his will to spend it or not(may be such ultimately high technologies will also offer us the immortality?) Time of the machine is energy which is consumed. And which is theoretically renewable. # thumb Krisztián Pintér @ 0 TED Translator Aug 21 2012: wow, time is unlimited? that's certainly new to me # thumb James Zhang @ 0 Aug 21 2012: There's quite a few theories that say that time and even space is finite. Light can only travel as fast as the space, the medium, which allows it to. But we don't know for sure whether time/space is finite/infinite, they're all just theories. # thumb John Moonstroller @ 0 Sep 1 2012: Unlimited Universe and space. You know, if I think about it, if in the beginning there was nothing, wouldn't there be nothing still, having nothing to alter that situation with? Does that imply that something has always existed? Could we call that eternity? Wouldn't it be great if there was a thumbs down button? o thumb John Moonstroller # +1 Sep 1 2012: In the very near future, machines will repair themselves and each other. It's being done now. Machines will replace "ALL" labor in time. This was understood at the turn of the 20th century and this path will forever be pursued. The intellectual elite coupled with the wealthy have always understood that the world they wanted to live in could not exist unless the worker could be replaced by machines or turned into a retarded slave that would never complain. Algorithms will replace most white collar workers. The big dream of most old people today is a radio controlled Lawn mower, so they have already been developed and are being sold. There goes the lawn maintenance service along with the majority of immigrants jobs. The list goes on. Excessiveness on an individual scale has never really been a problem because an individual can only eat so many fish at a setting. On a larger scale, excursiveness becomes an issue. Nature abhors excessivness and constantly creates remedies. Nature wants balance. The world you guys are talking about existed for a short time after the plague. The wealthy had to grow their own corn and the peasants were rich with food and comfort. It didn't last long. Study how that short age of comfort was transformed back into chaos and you will have a good understanding why most of you suggestions and ideas won't work until mankind has evolved in some way, which may (more than likely) never happen. Technology will continue to grow until someone creates a suitcase sized fusion bomb or some home-hobby-genetic-lab creates a virus that wipes us all out. Then it's game over. * thumb James Zhang + 0 Aug 20 2012: Mats, I get what you're saying about automation replacing humans. New technology will do things so efficiently that you no longer would need blue-collar workers and those other automated tasks that humans have done. Ideally in a sort of super-advanced society where machines do all the labor for us, the only thing left for all humans to do pretty much is then to become more creative as a whole. However, currently, a lot of people aren't prepared for the new technology assembly lines replacing them. We're caught in that transition phase right now. When they're fully replaced, what are they supposed to do? If they don't find a way to survive the changes, they pretty much get naturally select'd out of society eventually. But if they do survive, it would be because they found something that can help them survive, such as creativity or finding new skillsets to niche off of, etc. So that's why I would like there to be re-education institutions out there to help people survive society and become of use. Maximize our efficiency of amount of work everyone can do, not let people go to waste, they're all valuable. TED Conversations Archives We’ve spent three years sharing Ideas, Debates and Questions — and learned a lot. Now we’re going on hiatus to retool and rebuild from the inside out for a better conversation experience. * TED Talks Usage Policy * Privacy Policy * TED.com Terms of Use * Contact * Help © TED Conferences, LLC #Magic, maths and money - Atom Magic, maths and money - RSS Magic, maths and money - Atom Magic, maths and money Monday, 9 June 2014 Dogmatic Indifference Email This BlogThis! Share to Twitter Share to Facebook Last week Roger Pielke Jr had a letter to the FT published where he questioned the effectiveness of a carbon cap in China. Paul Krugman responded to Pielke's letter with a post where he claims that the letter offers a teachable moment, a chance to explain why claims that we can’t limit emissions without destroying economic growth are nonsense I am neither a climate scientist not an economist, but none the less I will offer my opinion on the debate because I think it offers a "teachable moment" of the perils of dogmatism in policy formulation by relating this discussion to my reflections on a meeting I had attended, hosted by the University of Edinburgh's Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities, as the debate was going on. Pielke based his argument on the "Kaya identity". What is interesting as a mathematician is Pielke is talking about an "identity" not a "model". For example E=mc^2 is a model (or definition), and identity is a stronger statement, basically what is on the left hand side of the equation is identical to what is on the rhs. The Kaya Identity is a straightforward tautology, the lhs is "CO2" (carbon dioxide emissions) the rhs is P * GDP/P * E/GDP * CO2/E Noting that "P" (population) "GDP" and "E" (energy consumption) are all in the numerator and denominator the rhs can be re-written 1*1*1*CO2. The analytic value of the Kaya Identity is that it decomposes the human impact on the environment into three factors: population, affluence (GDP/P) and technology (CO2/GDP) which is divided into "Energy Intensity" (E/GDP) and "Carbon Intensity" (CO2/E). Pielke's argument is that by fixing "CO2" (the rhs) implies that for GDP/P (affluence) to go up there needs to be reductions caused by technological changes (Carbon and/or Energy Intensity go down). This seems like a sound argument to me, but I am no expert. Krugman's response to Pielke's letter is This is actually kind of wonderful, in a bang-your-head-on-the-table sort of way. Pielke isn’t claiming that it’s hard in practice to limit emissions without halting economic growth, he’s arguing that it’s logically impossible. So let’s talk about why this is stupid. The point to note here is that Pielke is not arguing that it is "logically impossible to limit emissions without halting economic growth" he is arguing that it is "logically impossible to limit without halting economic growth or creating new technologies". Perhaps because Krugman is an economist he is overlooks the need to create technology here, physical things that have tangible effects. Krugman goes on to say Yes, emissions reflect the size of the economy and the available technologies. But they also reflect choices – choices about what to consume and how to produce it, choices about which of a number of energy technologies to use. These choices are, in turn, strongly affected by incentives: change the incentives and you can greatly change the quantity of emissions associated with a given amount of real GDP. and at the end of the piece Let me add, by the way, that Pielke’s fallacy here – the notion that there’s a rigid link between growth and pollution – is shared by some people on the left, who believe that saving the planet means that economic growth must end. What we actually need is a change in the form of growth – and that’s exactly the kind of thing markets are good at, if you get the prices right. What strikes me is that Krugman seems to believe that by sprinkling the fairy dust of incentives over society the emission busting new technologies will emerge. This is a bit too deterministic for me. Furthermore there is a blind faith in the power of markets. This is problematic for a number of reasons, firstly European Cap and Trade policies are widely regarded as a failure, though market advocates would point to a problem of design (Fac me bonum, deus meus, sed noli modo-Give me chastity and self-control, but not just yet). There is a more problematic criticisms of market mechanisms; their morality. Cap and trade enables a polluter to pollute by paying a penalty - they are in effect the indulgences that the Medieval church was criticised for. The problem is that CO2 emissions in Europe, China or America have the potential to impact on the well being of future generations in Africa or Indian or Pacific Islands. It is not clear how the payment of the penalty by the polluter will mitigate the suffering of the people affected by the pollution. The operators of Heathrow airport benefit from the operation of the airport, the people living around the airport do not benefit from it. The question is: are we entitled to buy and sell permits to pollute? in the same sense as are we entitled to buy and sell humans? Krugman might baulk at the comparison, but Michael Northcott, the Professor of Ethics at Edinburgh, might not. Northcott gave a presentation at the IASH meeting where he made a case against capitalism because capitalism insisted on GDP growth at the lowest cost, which resulted in pollution. Northcott builds his argument, in part at least, on Political Theology. Since I base my arguments for seeing markets as centre of communicative action on rejections on two key components of Political Theory, Schmitt's views on sovereignty and Adorno's criticism of modernity, it is unlikely that Northcott and I will agree. It is not peculiar for Northcott, as a minister of the church, to be attracted to Schmitt's neo-Hobbesian attitudes that the sovereign's authority has precedence over the (liberal) law, since he will believe in the sovereignty of a god. My work on the nature of the markets rests heavily on Cheryl Misak's Truth, Politics and Morality, which is an explicit rejection of Schmitt in favour of liberal pluralism. Another basis of my work is Habermas' rejection of the negativity towards modernity in the Dialetic of the Enligthenment. Krugman and Northcott agree on the policy: that carbon emissions should be capped, but they do so from very different ideological positions. Northcott from the theological dogma of "thou shalt not because I speak with the authority of a transcendental god", Krugman from the economic dogma "thou shalt not because the market will deliver us from evil", but both dogmas are in opposition to each other. This dissonance, I believe, enables those who oppose climate change mitigation policies to focus on the ideology underpinning the justification for carbon caps rather than the factuality of the dangers of carbon emissions. Another speaker at the IASH conference, and the person who invited me to attend, was Paolo Quattrone. Paolo shares, from the perspective of accounting, my view (ideology, if you like) that financial markets are, and should be treated as, centres of communicative action with the purpose of achieving a consensus on the ‘just’ price of assets in an uncertain world. In this framework, markets should operate on the basis of norms of discourse, such as reciprocity, sincerity and charity. My argument focuses on a discussion of how the norm of reciprocity is deeply embedded in the Fundamental Theorem of Asset Pricing, the foundational theory of mathematicians working in finance. A key conclusion is that, in this framework, mathematics provides the discursive language, rather than being a truth-bearer. Paolo has researched Jesuit accounting practices where the financial accounts were a tool for reflection, rather than a statement of fact. This approach was a feature of Italian accounting practices (GAAP) until there was global standardisation of GAAP and meant that in the 1960s Italian accounts involved facts, based on market prices, and less certain valuations based on judgement. The emphasis of the accountant was to reflect on the less certain aspects of the accounts. Today there is an emphasis on "objective" market prices, and where these are unavailable "model" prices. Paolo also highlighted a feature of Jesuitical practice; that the Jesuit must be "indifferent". The immediate interpretation of this is that the Jesuit does not care, but Paolo explained it meant that the Jesuit had to be "rational" "in difference". That is, the Jesuit had to be concious of the different ideologies around them and come to a judgement on the basis of this conciousness. I think this "in-difference" concept is important for scientists in the climate debate. It is not the same as "apolitical", since arguing for climate change mitigation actions is arguing for policy, which is political. The role of the scientist should be that of the "indifferent" questioner who challenges the claim, irrespective of its ideological basis. In this respect Pielke, in challenging the assumption that a carbon cap would work, is playing the correct role of a scientist. This is important because in a liberal democracy policy decisions need to be justified. This is not the same as a majority needs to accept a policy, my understanding is that around 60% of the population of western democracies accept the need for climate mitigation policies, but a small minority challenge them. For the policies to be "democratically valid" they need to be justified to the minority not accepted by the majority. The opening quote to Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies is from Pericles Although only a few may originate a policy, we are all able to judge it. It is against the Open Society to condemn challenges to policy. Cheryl Misak's justification for liberal democracy is because it is through deliberation that the best decisions are arrived at. Pielke is challenging the claim that carbon caps will lead to a better society because it demands the policy is justified (deliberatively). In challenging it, those who advocate the cap must respond to the criticism, not reject the criticism on the basis of divine or economic authority. If they do not respond the public cannot be sure that the policy is the "best" policy and doubt will prevail. I note that Krugman appears to have stepped back from his position last week. Interestingly, he, like me, identifies the issue as being "ideological", but I suspect he sees himself as being a "scientist" and above ideology. What makes rational action on climate so hard is something else – a toxic mix of ideology and anti-intellectualism. and then at the end of the piece The fact that climate concerns rest on scientific consensus makes things even worse, because it plays into the anti-intellectualism that has always been a powerful force in American life, mainly on the right. It’s not really surprising that so many right-wing politicians and pundits quickly turned to conspiracy theories, to accusations that thousands of researchers around the world were colluding in a gigantic hoax whose real purpose was to justify a big-government power grab. After all, right-wingers never liked or trusted scientists in the first place. So the real obstacle, as we try to confront global warming, is economic ideology [I take this to be market libertarianism] reinforced by hostility to science. In some ways this makes the task easier: we do not, in fact, have to force people to accept large monetary losses. But we do have to overcome pride and willful ignorance, which is hard indeed. On the one hand Krugman be-moans the anti-intellectualism of America, but I see America's scepticism towards academic (and theocratic, plutocratic, aristocratic) authority as part of the bed-rock upon which its democracy is built. The vast majority of the public respect and admire science and scientists, but there is also a legitimate concern that cloistered and wealthy academics are imposing un-justified policies on the public. The evangelical right might ask "What would Jesus do?", maybe the academic left could similarly ask "What would Pierce/James/Dewey do?" when faced with a doubtful public minority. Posted by Tim Johnson 30 comments: 1. [David_Avatar.jpg] David Eisner10 June 2014 at 10:00 Krugman responds: "There has been a lot of theorizing about induced innovation, but it’s not solidly grounded in empirical evidence and was not at all what I was talking about. I was talking about the fact that at any given time we have a choice of already existing technologies. You can drive a conventional SUV, but you could also drive a hybrid, or for that matter a smaller vehicle that, say, emits half as much carbon as the SUV while providing services that are a lot more than half of what the SUV would provide. You can generate electricity using a coal-fired plant, but you can also use a gas-fired plant, a wind turbine, or solar panels. None of these are technologies that need developing; they’re already here and in fairly widespread use. And do you really want to deny that which technology people choose is affected by incentives?" http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/10/incentives-and-technolo gy ReplyDelete 2. [Leo.jpg] JamTheCat10 June 2014 at 10:24 Krugman's point was that using EXISTING technologies can make a difference in the lowering of emissions. We already have solar and wind technology available for creating electricity, and Hybrid and electric vehicles for transport, which emit fewer carbons, to name a couple aspects. Shifting to greater reliance on them would incur minimal costs that would be nowhere near a one-to-one basis. That was his point. It was obvious that's what he meant, to me, and I'm neither an economist nor scientist. Which makes one wonder -- why do you think he means new technology needs to be brought forth, or that Pielke is being anything but disingenuous...at best? ReplyDelete 3. [b36-rounded.png] jefscott10 June 2014 at 11:03 "The vast majority of the public respect and admire science and scientists" Do you have any data on this? When it comes to climate change, for instance, you very often hear refutation of the science based on denigration of the scientist, or a questioning of the scientists' motives. It seems like the right's respect" for science is present only when the conclusions don't contradict some other ideology. So science is "respected" outside areas like age of the earth, evolution, climate change, etc. We see this on the left too - like with their refutation of GMOs - though generally less extreme. We know from quite a few polls that huge portions of the US believe in patently anti-scientific ideas. 40-45% don't believe in evolution, for instance. Or look at numbers on what people believe the age of the earth is. So again, there's a lot of good reasons to think statements like "the vast majority of the public respect and admire science and scientists" should be supported with evidence because we see so much disrespect for basic science from the right these days. ReplyDelete 4. [3.jpg] Jim Harrison10 June 2014 at 11:46 I think you're looking at technological innovation in the wrong way. Many steps lie between somebody having a bright idea and a technology becoming a standard feature of the economy. To improve the bang for the buck we get from energy doesn't require absolute innovation. Mostly it requires the adequate implementation of existing technologies. The largest barrier is often not ignorance but sheer inertia, and overcoming that is very hard work. As Heraclitus said long ago, "Every cow is driven to pasture by a blow," a rule which is all the more relevant when you recall that industry is largely run by business majors. Enormously important example: traditional electric motors waste a huge amount of power because they operate at a single, fixed speed. Replacing the old equipment with variable speed motors (VARs) saves very significant amounts of energy with no loss of function, but it has been a terrific struggle to get industry to adopt 'em even though improved efficiency shows up in a bigger bottom line. It isn't a matter of being a good corporate citizen. It's about not being an idiot. Unfortunately, we're a long way from the general adoption of VARs even though the utilities (among others) have been trying to spread the message for decades now. ReplyDelete 5. [openid36-rounded.png] bseconomist10 June 2014 at 13:34 You are not an economist and it shows. Krugman's point did not in the least depend on the magic of the market, but only on the fact that you can't possibly make such strong claims reasoning from an identity. The precise problem here is dealt with by some other commenters, but the basic issue of confusion here is that "technology" in economics doesn't mean precisely what it means in common usage. A "technology" is anything that transforms one set of resources into another. That means that the "technology" that produces CO2, for example, is one of a menu of possible choices. For example you can use coal plant to produce electricity or you can use natural gas. The latter would reduce emisions without any loss of output. In fact, that very thing just happened in the US. It happened because natural gas was cheaper than coal in the US. There was no other "magic of the market" involved and I assure you that the US grew at a healthy clip while that was going on. One more thing, because it's something that everyone who dips a toe into economic issues should remember: Never reason from an identity! ReplyDelete 6. [b36-rounded.png] tetchmagikos10 June 2014 at 13:56 I think there may be a semantic confusion in assigning special significance to the term "identity" in this context. From the IPCC: "While the Kaya identity above can be used to organize discussion of the primary driving forces of CO2 emissions and, by extension, emissions of other GHGs, there are important caveats. Most important, the four terms on the right-hand side of equation (3.2) should be considered neither as fundamental driving forces in themselves, nor as generally independent from each other." http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/index.php?idp=50 So I think (since this is also not my field) that Pielke may be pushing the "identity" past its' intended use; it's a convenient data analyzer, not a mathematical certainty. Indeed this layman is led to believe the Kaya identity is as close to a mathematical certainty as Moore's law is to a law of physics. ReplyDelete 7. [b36-rounded.png] bibletoenail10 June 2014 at 14:09 Here is another climate change identity, the Berry Identity: CO2 = P * (C/P) * (E/C) * (CO2/E), where: P is population C is Cake (slices) E is energy CO2 is CO2 As you can see from this identity, in order to reduce CO2 emissions, obviously we cannot change the amount of cake that we eat each year (C/P), and we cannot change the recipe for cake to bake them at a lower temperature (E/C). Since technology cannot be improved by fiat (see Pielke), I have proven that reduction in CO2 emissions is impossible. This identity is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT TRUE! It is therefore IMPOSSIBLE TO LOWER CO2 EMISSIONS. THIS IS MATHEMATICALLY UNDENIABLE. ReplyDelete Replies 1. [b36-rounded.png] Armo and Pika11 June 2014 at 04:37 Wrong interpretation of your own equations. If CO2 is all atmosphere CO2 generated in a unit of time, P total population, E total energy consumption in the unit of time and C all cakes consumed in the unit of time, then the identity holds, but tells nothing as (E/C) means nothing really. Baking thermic energy here is not total energy. Or if you want it to be, then (CO2/E) means nothing, as total CO2 upon energy consumed only for baking is irrelevant. On data, you'll just have 2 of your ratios being almost inverse to each others, canceling in the product. The meaning of the identity, to be above the simple tautology, remains in the meaningful ratios obtained. These ratios follow trends (or better, are constant) which have clear interpretation: - P is the demographic dimension - GDP/P is GDP per capita, meaning the comfort of life for each and everyone. - E/GDP is energy needed for output, which is fundamental (see the works for example of R.U. Ayres, R. Kümmel and D. Lindenberger in the economic litterature). - CO2/E is basically smoke out of a gallon, something that almost never changed.. Delete 2. [b36-rounded.png] Jeff Young11 June 2014 at 04:47 The fallacy is in your last line. "Gallon" presumes fossil fuel. Presuming a total "oil" economy is fallacious in an argument about the economics of alternative existing energy sources. (Hydroelectric and photoelectric come to mind immediately. Also geothermal and nuclear.) Delete 3. [b36-rounded.png] Armo and Pika11 June 2014 at 05:59 I agree with you that oil does not represent all economic production. But it represents a main factor, and if we add coal as GHG emiting energy source, then fossil energy sources are even more the great component. 40% of all World electricity production is from coal. And coming to the source of the debate, it is the main source for China's electricity (75% #Posts on 'No Impact Man' (Atom) Posts on 'No Impact Man' (RSS 1.0) Posts on 'No Impact Man' (RSS 2.0) Home "The biggest enemy is tap water" Antarctic Wilkins ice shelf breaks away No Impact Man * Home * Background * Book * Film * Colin Beavan * Contact * Subscribe * Appearances * Get a happier life!!! Receive posts by email: * ____________________ Subscribe * [feed-icon32x32.png] Subscribe to this blog’s feed No Impact Man: The Book * [EMBED] No Impact Man: The Movie * [Colin_Banner%5B1%5D.jpg] Upcoming Appearances * IFRAME: http://www.google.com/calendar/embed?showTitle=0&showDate=0&showPri nt=0&showTabs=0&showCalendars=0&showTz=0&mode=AGENDA&height=400&wks t=1&bgcolor=%23ffffff&src=noimpactman%40gmail.com&color=%232952A3&c tz=America%2FNew_York Click here for a full page view of the calendar. Blogroll * My Plastic-Free Life * Crazy Sexy Life * Mother Earth News * My Zero Waste * Lawns To Gardens * Green News on Huffington * Coal is Dirty * La Marguerite * The Good Human * Climate Progress * Dot Earth * Breakthrough Institute Blog * Wearable Collections * Solar One * Best Green Blogs * The Wild Green Yonder * Wasted Food * Streets Blog * Switchboard from NRDC * MetaEfficient: Green Products * The Worsted Witch * Green Options | GO Means Green * Eco Geek * One Good Turn * Casaubon's Book * sustainable systems * Lighter Footstep - Sustainable Living * Visualize Whirled Peas * Do You Realize? * Simple Living: Simplify and Reduce Links * Change Congress * global oneness project * Redefining Progress * Red Worm Composting * New American Dream Home * Earth 911: Environmental Recycling, Reuse & Renewal * Plug It Out! * NYC Kick Scooter Group * Adventures in Domestic Sustainability & Building * Ben Jervey's green guide to NYC Organizations I love * Climate Ride 2009 * NYC's SWIM Coalition * Rainforest Action Network: Freedom from Oil * Sustainable South Bronx * New American Dream Home * Just Food * Transportation Alternatives, NYC Thoughts that inspire me * Michael Pollan on eating * Peter Singer on tithing * Curtis White on spiritual environmentalism Site Credits * Design by Mary K. Elkins * Copyright © 2007, 2008, 2009 Colin Beavan. All Rights Reserved. « "The biggest enemy is tap water" | Main | Antarctic Wilkins ice shelf breaks away » April 14, 2009 Thirty-one tips for reducing your impact while saving money I was reading through comments here on the blog last night and I found this great list of tips by reader Millie Barnes, who writes a blog about health and gardening called Optimum Nutrition. Her tips were just too comprehensive to let them languish in the comments. So here they are (I don't even mind including the plug for her products). Thanks Millie! My Level of Living Green by Millie Barnies 1) Air dry all laundry--had to put a lock on the dryer cord to convince my daughters I was serious--they have learned to plan ahead! I wash all laundry in cold water, always wash full loads, and use a drying rack inside if it is raining. It’s good for the earth and great for your skin, a free humidifier in the house. Which also makes it feel a few degrees warmer in winter, and cooler in summer. I use soapnuts for laundry. http://www.zamuta.com/ 2) Buy all organic. 3) Buy all organic non-toxic beauty care products and make-up. I make my own skin care cleanser and moisturizers. I make my own soap. My beauty products can be purchased at http://ezchef.net/spacuisine/ 4) Use baking soda and vinegar for cleaning the bathroom. I use Ms. Meyer Clean Day for dishes, Citri-Clean for counters and general purpose cleaning. I use a loofah for scrubbing dishes (I am growing my own right now so I won’t have to buy them anymore!) My sister is making scrubbies by crocheting them, we will offer these for sale soon! 5) Take cloth bags to store for groceries and all other purchases. Take muslin bags I made to grocery store for produce. 6) Recycle, re-use, make my own and have stopped buying anything I don’t really need. 7) Don’t use paper towels, never have. Used cloth diapers for all 5 kids. 8) Don’t buy stuff in plastic, I try to buy all glass. Store all food in glass. Re-use glass jars. I mostly buy real food (meat, produce) try to not buy anything that needs a label, so no packaging. 9) Have been using recycled toilet paper for years but am considering switching to cloth at home. (don’t freak, we all used that same choice when we used cloth diapers and wash clothes on our baby’s tushes!) 10) Make my own gluten free granola, make my own mayonnaise, salad dressings, spice blends. 11) I use a compost toilet, no toilet paper (think cloth baby wash clothes). 13) Bokashi (a way to deal with indoor kitchen scraps with NO odor and yields compost WAY faster). I have been using the Bokashi method of dealing with kitchen waste for about 3 weeks now…I love it! 14) Use very low flow shower heads. Ace Hardware has a 1.5 GPM with a shut-off valve. 15) Use all CF light bulbs…and use them as little as possible. I have one evening a week that I use no lights..on Shabbat! Dinner by candlelight! 16) Use grey water from shower (I keep a 3 gallon bucket in shower and use it throughout the day to flush the toilet, take what’s left to the flower beds. 17) Use water from rinsing dishes to water flower beds. 18) Use a broom on all my wooden floors instead of using vacuum cleaner. 19) Run as few errands as possible, car pool and combine trips. 20) Use micro-cloths to clean with, even on glass you do not need cleaning products! 21) NEVER buy bottled water. I bought a Kleen Kanteen for each person in the family, we refill and take with us. I’ve had mine over a year. 22) Go paperless or CD-less as much as possible. I provide my clients with emails of my book, but still put cookbook software on CD. 23) Unplug all appliances not being used. Yes, that cell phone charger and TV are using power when you aren’t using them! I use power strips to keep them plugged in, turn them off at night, or when I’m gone all day. 24) Use only a hurricane lamp when we sit outside at night. It gives enough light to read by…but is perfect turned low …for just hanging out. Very romantic, too! 25) Use candlelight at dinner, not just on Shabbat! 26) I have an outdoor solar heated shower that I built. 27) I put in a raised bed garden, square foot garden I have green leaf lettuce in a grow box, cherry and big sweet tomatoes, basil, thyme. I have sweet potatoes growing, beets (mmmm, beet greens), onions, Swiss chard, purple flowering kale, nastutiums, broccoli, cucumbers, peppers, red potatoes, a banana tree. Inside I am growing cucumbers and strawberries hydroponically. 28) I use a non-disposable razor, an old-fashioned stainless steel, very high quality razor that uses double edged blades. It was 24.00 from ClassicShaving.com. The blades are 10 for 5.99, and they are double edged! They give the closest, smoothest shave you can imagine! No disposable blade can compare. 29) Wash dishes with 2 dish pans in the sink, one for hot soapy water, one with warm rinse water. Do glasses first, pause a moment to let the soapy water drip off, then move to rinse water. Stop when rinse water is almost full and rinse quickly. Repeat with silver, plates, then pots and utensils. All with 2 dishpans full of water. Then I pour the soapy water, with all that organic matter, onto my plants in the garden. It helps repel pests and loosens the soil. And good for the biceps when you carry it outdoors. 30) I water my garden with buckets from the rain barrels that are under the eaves of my garage. 10 feet from my garden. The front flower garden gets watered entirely from the dish water. 30) I work out at home, no expensive gym memberships that I never used anyway. I save all the expense of membership, and gas and time driving. I have a set of weights, two exercise balls, a yoga mat and a chin-up bar. Posted by Colin Beavan aka No Impact Man at 03:00 AM in Green living | Permalink Technorati Tags: green living, saving money TrackBack TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c613853ef01157019686 2970b Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Thirty-one tips for reducing your impact while saving money: Comments Thirty-one tips for reducing your impact while saving money I was reading through comments here on the blog last night and I found this great list of tips by reader Millie Barnes, who writes a blog about health and gardening called Optimum Nutrition. Her tips were just too comprehensive to let them languish in the comments. So here they are (I don't even mind including the plug for her products). Thanks Millie! My Level of Living Green by Millie Barnies 1) Air dry all laundry--had to put a lock on the dryer cord to convince my daughters I was serious--they have learned to plan ahead! I wash all laundry in cold water, always wash full loads, and use a drying rack inside if it is raining. It’s good for the earth and great for your skin, a free humidifier in the house. Which also makes it feel a few degrees warmer in winter, and cooler in summer. I use soapnuts for laundry. http://www.zamuta.com/ 2) Buy all organic. 3) Buy all organic non-toxic beauty care products and make-up. I make my own skin care cleanser and moisturizers. I make my own soap. My beauty products can be purchased at http://ezchef.net/spacuisine/ 4) Use baking soda and vinegar for cleaning the bathroom. I use Ms. Meyer Clean Day for dishes, Citri-Clean for counters and general purpose cleaning. I use a loofah for scrubbing dishes (I am growing my own right now so I won’t have to buy them anymore!) My sister is making scrubbies by crocheting them, we will offer these for sale soon! 5) Take cloth bags to store for groceries and all other purchases. Take muslin bags I made to grocery store for produce. 6) Recycle, re-use, make my own and have stopped buying anything I don’t really need. 7) Don’t use paper towels, never have. Used cloth diapers for all 5 kids. 8) Don’t buy stuff in plastic, I try to buy all glass. Store all food in glass. Re-use glass jars. I mostly buy real food (meat, produce) try to not buy anything that needs a label, so no packaging. 9) Have been using recycled toilet paper for years but am considering switching to cloth at home. (don’t freak, we all used that same choice when we used cloth diapers and wash clothes on our baby’s tushes!) 10) Make my own gluten free granola, make my own mayonnaise, salad dressings, spice blends. 11) I use a compost toilet, no toilet paper (think cloth baby wash clothes). 13) Bokashi (a way to deal with indoor kitchen scraps with NO odor and yields compost WAY faster). I have been using the Bokashi method of dealing with kitchen waste for about 3 weeks now…I love it! 14) Use very low flow shower heads. Ace Hardware has a 1.5 GPM with a shut-off valve. 15) Use all CF light bulbs…and use them as little as possible. I have one evening a week that I use no lights..on Shabbat! Dinner by candlelight! 16) Use grey water from shower (I keep a 3 gallon bucket in shower and use it throughout the day to flush the toilet, take what’s left to the flower beds. 17) Use water from rinsing dishes to water flower beds. 18) Use a broom on all my wooden floors instead of using vacuum cleaner. 19) Run as few errands as possible, car pool and combine trips. 20) Use micro-cloths to clean with, even on glass you do not need cleaning products! 21) NEVER buy bottled water. I bought a Kleen Kanteen for each person in the family, we refill and take with us. I’ve had mine over a year. 22) Go paperless or CD-less as much as possible. I provide my clients with emails of my book, but still put cookbook software on CD. 23) Unplug all appliances not being used. Yes, that cell phone charger and TV are using power when you aren’t using them! I use power strips to keep them plugged in, turn them off at night, or when I’m gone all day. 24) Use only a hurricane lamp when we sit outside at night. It gives enough light to read by…but is perfect turned low …for just hanging out. Very romantic, too! 25) Use candlelight at dinner, not just on Shabbat! 26) I have an outdoor solar heated shower that I built. 27) I put in a raised bed garden, square foot garden I have green leaf lettuce in a grow box, cherry and big sweet tomatoes, basil, thyme. I have sweet potatoes growing, beets (mmmm, beet greens), onions, Swiss chard, purple flowering kale, nastutiums, broccoli, cucumbers, peppers, red potatoes, a banana tree. Inside I am growing cucumbers and strawberries hydroponically. 28) I use a non-disposable razor, an old-fashioned stainless steel, very high quality razor that uses double edged blades. It was 24.00 from ClassicShaving.com. The blades are 10 for 5.99, and they are double edged! They give the closest, smoothest shave you can imagine! No disposable blade can compare. 29) Wash dishes with 2 dish pans in the sink, one for hot soapy water, one with warm rinse water. Do glasses first, pause a moment to let the soapy water drip off, then move to rinse water. Stop when rinse water is almost full and rinse quickly. Repeat with silver, plates, then pots and utensils. All with 2 dishpans full of water. Then I pour the soapy water, with all that organic matter, onto my plants in the garden. It helps repel pests and loosens the soil. And good for the biceps when you carry it outdoors. 30) I water my garden with buckets from the rain barrels that are under the eaves of my garage. 10 feet from my garden. The front flower garden gets watered entirely from the dish water. 30) I work out at home, no expensive gym memberships that I never used anyway. I save all the expense of membership, and gas and time driving. I have a set of weights, two exercise balls, a yoga mat and a chin-up bar. View the entire comment thread. Please enable JavaScript if you would like to comment on this blog. Donate to No Impact Project * Click here Two years ago we launched the No Impact Project, a charitable effort to get new citizens engaged in the quest for a way of life that is both good for our habitat and for people. As a result, people around the world are getting involved and making an effort. Please click on the link to find out more and to financially support our efforts. Get No Impact news * Join in Colin's conversation on finding the Good Life Email Address:* ____________________ Optional Member Code ____________________ Zipcode: ____________________ [button.gif]-Submit Colin Beavan [123637691007740.1882.1813567976.png] Promote Your Page Too No Impact Man elsewhere * On Twitter * On Facebook * LifeRemix Recent Comments * David F on No Impact Man Runs For Office * Man Ino on No Impact Man Runs For Office * Jaremi on No Impact Man Runs For Office * Kelly on No Impact Man Runs For Office * PBS To The Contrary on Forget outer heroes; bring out your innner ones * bernie.paquette@yahoo.com on Forget outer heroes; bring out your innner ones * bernie.paquette@yahoo.com on Forget outer heroes; bring out your innner ones * Squshie on What to do if Hurrican Sandy scared you * julie on What to do if Hurrican Sandy scared you * Martin Lack on What to do if Hurrican Sandy scared you Categories * Activism * Biodiversity * Clean air * Enviro business * Food and Drink * Getting around * Green living * Guest author posts * Living Green * Local food only * No impact activism * No Impact news * Off the grid * Real thoughts * Sparkling clean water * Sustainable economics * The philosophical side * Waste not, want not * What it's all about Archives * November 2012 * July 2012 * May 2012 * February 2012 * January 2012 * December 2011 * November 2011 * September 2011 * July 2011 * June 2011 More... Search this Blog * _____ » * Site Meter NIM Twitter Updates follow me on Twitter * Quantcast Make your own free website on Tripod.com Make your own free website on Tripod.com IFRAME: http://ad.yieldmanager.com/st?ad_type=iframe&ad_size=728x90§ion=209 094 [pixel?id=1901600&t=2] The role of money in the society A first definition of money is to define money as the mean of exchange between individuals. In a capitalist economy, this is a too simple definition. The fundamental purpose of money is a way to distribute the ownership in the society. And, by a consequence, money is also used as a mean of exchange. But, if you analyze the way that money works you will understand that as a tool to help exchange that money is a very imperfect tool. Furthermore, it should be analyzed that money is also a social instrument which help to coordinate social relation between individuals. A world without money France is a country where money has a monopoly in term of exchange so people can' t imagine what would happen in a world without money. It is interesting to have a look in society where money exists but exchange are just partly base of money. Other system are the solidarity system. People give with the expectation that the receiver will give them something back. This system has the advantage to be simple and so no accounting is needed. It is working with a society of people of common value and understanding. You should note that this system is based on trust and does not work in place where the population is moving (big city). The solidarity relation is also disappearing when money (called prosperity) is commonly used by the middle class as when people are capable to sell their service against money they prefer the guarantee of money than the guarantee of trust. Money: greediness or generosity ? In the current culture of media in France, it is current thinking that people who are money mind are greedy. This fact is the heritage of our long history about money as Money is considered to be the tool of greedy people. Good people are supposed to work (or sell) freely. If follow, this contest should lead to the suppression of money. So, the question is "Why money has been created ?" If you consider the money in the antic world, money was a way to take in account action of individual in order to guarantee an equivalent action. It is then more generosity to give out of money than against money. The attraction for giving All psychologist will agree that people are bound to give to other people. So, why not simply give. Why money should be used to take account giving ? The reason is that people wants to choose what they are giving to others. And, others people wants to choose what they are receiving from you. And in most case, they are a strong discordance between what the receiver wants to receive and what you want to give. If you try to live in society where the practice of solidarity is the main way of exchange. You will notice that giver are very happy but receiver are not so happy. In most case, receiver has to pretend to be happy by the generosity of the giver . But, in his inner being, he is thinking "I don' t need this". In a money leaded society, receiver (called "consumer") are very happy while getting (called "buying"). But, the giver (called "worker" ) is very often thinking that he is forced by money to do think that he doesn't want to do. So, he will complain about money as money is the institution which create the gap between what he is giving (called "selling") and what he wants to give. They will be happy if they are chosen what they are giving to others. If it is the receiver who choice what the person gives In summary, money is a regulator between what people want to do and what other people want to receive. Interest rate In Europe at the end of the XIXth century, a practice in the past forbidden by the religious instance has been institutionalized "interest rate". Interest rate has completely revolutionized the institution of money. Before money if based on gold was in an insufficient quantity or lead to inflation. Interest rate has bring price stability as money got value on itself. Before money has no value in itself so it was preferable to keep goods than money. But with interest rate, money creates money. So, it start to be interesting to keep it. The fact that people are ready to keep money a long time as make possibly long time perspective investment and industrialization. Interest rate has made industrialization possible. And, the main reason of not success in industrialization itself is due to the absence of practice of interest rate. An industrialization should be planned on a term of more than 5 or 10 years. If you can' t wait so long to receive to receive back your "right to buy", you are not going to accept that you can not use your money for you. The difference between investing and buying is in investing that bullet with buying you are choosing what you are spending for, bullet with investing another person is choosing for you what he is spending for. Before, interest rate, investing was not possible so as industrialization. With interest rate, the person who is spending promise you to give it back your "right to buy" (and to buy in a bigger amount). If the person only give you back the same right of buying back while giving up the right of buying back. So, interest rate appears with interest rate you can' t buy now but you will buy more in the future. So, you can accept the another person is taking your right to buy because he will give you back this right with increase. Industrialization means making machine to do thing instead of directly doing thing. If you are directly making a shoes by hand, you will get your shoe fast. If you are making a machine to speed up the process of making shoes, it will take the time to make the machine and the time to make the shoe with the machine. So, it will take more time. If you are making shoes with machine, you will make much more shoes per hour of work. You are giving more to the society so you can receive more from it (called " making more profit" ). The person who had given to the investor the right to buy (called " lending money") has created the possibility for you to make the machine as however it might not have been possible for the investor to live or buy what is needing to create the machine. So, the person receives a part of this more profit made possible on the form of " interest rate" . It is while the society does not succeed to be industrialize before interest rate has been institutionalized. The freedom of not receiving In a market economy, every body is free of not buying what he doesn't want. This freedom has created unemployment and social misery. A question commonly asks in France: Is it " the choice of buying" socially acceptable ? Suppose that you live in a society where half of the population are professional actors. There will have drama, movie and no public to look at them. But, in society where the freedom of not buying is guarantee, professional are working for money so no public means no money and a great number of actor will have to look for another job. Money is the basis of a social organization in the capitalist society as there is a strong discordance between what individual wants to do to the society and what society needs from individual. For example, most people wants to be artist, politician, business men and these people want to eat, buy houses, car, dress. People are trying to spend their time in what is the most interesting for them. And, unfortunately, goods that people want to buy don't lead to the job that people wants to do. Money: A tool to select decision maker ? A common tendency in an organize society is to select a single or a small number of individuals in order to decide for many others. As in a professional environment, a professional individual has a very high probability to decide the same way than any other professionals. The hierarchisation of the social organization appears to have one individual deciding with eventuality a veto of others individuals appear to be more functional than many individuals with an equal status in a perpetual negotiation to find a compromise. A negotiation generally consists to put everybody at a equal status in term of understanding of the situation and information and in a complex environment could be a very time consuming operation. Furthermore, when people are talking, they are not producing so reducing the talking time increase the productivity. The industrial phases has increased this tendency as the environment became so complex than it necessitates years of experience before becoming enough competent in taking a decision. So, instead of putting everybody to an equal understanding, selecting a person (or a small group) with the best understanding and knowledge appear to be the most practical. (The ultra democrat could pretend the opposite). Money is the tool who define the position of the individual in the society. Money has been the tool which create the social disparity between individuals. So, many people consider that the use of money creates inequality between the distribution of wealth between individuals. In fact, it is the industrialization which necessitate the inequity between the distribution of wealth between individuals. In an industrialized society, all worker fell inequity face to manager whatever money is used or not (see collectivism model). How does money create a hierarchical society ? People who have no money, should work for other people. And between people who has no money some will have money to create small business as restaurant as other people will be in position to create a big factory. In society socially regulated by money, it is socially needed that some people have an huge amount of money otherwise there will never have industrial investment. The role of money in the communism system The Marxism is based on the refusal to use money as an instrument to socially organize the society. In the communist USSR, money was as reduce a way to take in account what individual are doing for the society. So, as communism society has to be industrialized, a system of individual hierarchization has to be created. In the communist, social position has to be fixed according to exam success or the promotion through the party. Ambitious people was then involve in a political game which is opaque and more base on appearance than capability. Then, market economy has the advantage to be more pragmatic and more based on individual capability than individual appearance. In the market economy, a business manager acquiring power is acquiring money. A business manager who is acquiring money is selling with profit. Succeeding a sell is like a grant of satisfaction from the customer to the business manager. So, power concentrates to the business manager who creates the highest satisfaction to other individuals (called customer). Then, capitalist could be considered as a meritocratic system based on the capacity to satisfy the material claim of others. Another advantage of a hierarchisation based on money ( capitalist system) to a hierarchisation based on relation (communism system). A business manager who analyzes a market and looks how to satisfy customer is involved in a more rational activity than a politician who will to have the power from others (his superior in totalitarism system or the majority in democracy). The bank account makes an history about how successful business people handles their business to succeed. If money movement were on Internet so as every body in the world can understand how rich people succeed to get rich. The problem about how, why, who get rich could be analyzed and help individual to get the capability of succeeding with money simply in understanding how rich people manage to be rich. But, that is something which is today technically possible but whom the obstacle are used. The Institute of Research about Entreprenorship is strongly interested about the possible change and the transparency of world exchange. Money: Is it the best social measurement system ? Money is the most sophisticated social measurement system uses in our days. It has played a major role in the industrialization of our society and in the development of our economy. Its major success is that undeveloped countries which adopts a western style banking system has managed a strong development while others stay underdeveloped. However, despite this success, money is still strongly contest everywhere in the world. Many of this contest came to see mainly money as a tool of exchange which is a half false view, money is before all tool of social development and hierarchisation which has made industrialization possible. Another view is to consider that at the age of computerization. Money is may be too simple system to be optimum ? And, the best way to develop this analysis to model another system much more optimize which can be called a collaborative system. Another alternative less innovative is to analyze the advantages and inconvenient of a multi-monetary economical system with money of various hardness (see rarity concept). Quality of money in term of social measurement system The current hard-currency monetary system offers to the society the following advantages: Right of buying everything on sell: Money offers the possibility to acquire everything that people are ready to abandon there ownership right. This is the best quality of money and the counterpart is that there is no guarantee that everything on sell can be sold (unemployment !). Right of saving: Selling with profit increases the personal freedom toward the society. This is the consequence of the interest rate system. Each profit can be put on saving with interest rate. From saving, the individual has the guarantee of a regular revenue and escapes from the constraint of work. The reality between this is that most of the work is made by the working equipment (probably more than 90 % if you compare the productivity between an artisanal tribal society to a modern industrialized society ). Saving means buying "work equipment". So, the interest rate is in reality the revenue of the "work equipment". The current monetary system guarantees that the person which makes the investment and so is the cause the production of the "work equipment" receives the revenue of this work equipment. Pragmatic hierarchisation of the society: This last point is the less considered but it is one of the major role of money as it permits the person to acquire a position in the society according to their realization and not the talk. One the biggest cause of failure in social system is the concentration of responsibility and talent to the political world instead of entrepreneurs world. This last point should be kept in consideration as it is easy to conceive better social measurement system than money. Weakness of money in term of social measurement system The analyze of the weakness in term of social measurement system should be made on the concept of lost of information (in the sense of the physician concept of entropy). So, money is a good system in the sense of keeping the debt between individuals. But, many information concerning the society are not kept and could be kept in the present capability of the computerized society. This lost of information could create the feeling of unfairness with individual who expect something they have never received. horizontal rule Copyright 2001 Author: Hector Archytas #Money Crashers » Feed Money Crashers » Comments Feed About · Press · Contact · Write For Us · Top Personal Finance Blogs Money Crashers Personal Finance Blog, Your Guide to Financial Fitness Get the FREE Money Crashers email newsletter for exclusive personal finance content & updates. ____________________ ____________________ GO Join 78,191 Subscribers [rss-button.png] [facebook-button.png] [twitter-button.png] [googleplus-button.png] * Money Management + Banking + Budgeting + Insurance + Spending and Saving + Taxes * Credit and Debt + Credit Cards * Investing + Retirement * Family & Home + Home Improvement + Kids + Relationships * Careers + College & Education * Real Estate * Small Business * Lifestyle + Cars & Transportation + Go Green + Health and Fitness + Shopping + Travel * Economy & Policy Featured In: 9 Tips for Lending Money to Family & Friends By Jacqueline Curtis IFRAME: http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?href=http://www.moneycrashers. com/lending-money-family-friends/&layout=button_count&show_faces=false& width=80&action=like&font=arial&colorscheme=light&height=20 [icon_comments.gif] 11 Comments * money changing hands Lending money to loved ones is often a bad idea because it puts your relationship in jeopardy. But when someone you love is in a serious bind and you have the means to help, it can be impossible to say no. So what do you do? What you don’t do is lend money on good faith and expect to be paid back. Just as if you were loaning to a complete stranger, you need to be smart about setting up the terms and a schedule for repayment with your friends and family. But as long as you and your money stay protected, lending to someone you love is doable – even if it isn’t necessarily advisable. How to Lend Money to Loved Ones When someone you love asks you to hand over your hard-earned cash, give yourself time to consider your answer. Ask what other avenues he or she has sought to procure money. Chances are your loved one is deep in debt and won’t qualify for a traditional bank loan or peer-to-peer lending. But still, it pays to ask – and make it clear that if you’re to consider lending money, you require full financial disclosure. Consider these additional tips to lessen the stress of lending to friends or family: 1. Deal With Cash Only If a sibling asks you to open a credit card in your name for his or her use, or requests that you co-sign for a loan, shut down the scheme as soon as possible. Never put yourself in a position where someone else’s actions could affect your ability to borrow or secure credit in the future. You can control cash, and lending it won’t directly affect your credit score. If a loved one asks for help, only deal with cash or politely decline. 2. Only Lend What You Can Afford There’s an old gambling saying that you should never bet more than you can afford to lose. The same can be said for lending to a friend or family member. Since the money might never be paid back, you need to decide if you’re willing to forgive the debt in order to save the relationship – so if $5,000 could break you financially, don’t lend it. Even the most well-meaning loved one might fall on hard times and default. Ask yourself whether you are okay with that. If not, don’t dole out the loan. 3. Consider the Impact When you lend money to a family member, you impact just about everyone else you’re related to. Allowing one family member to borrow and not another could drive a wedge into your relationships. Other family members might see favoritism or enabling, so seriously think about how going through with the loan will make others feel. If you’re a parent considering loaning money to a child, it might even be a good idea to call a family meeting to discuss the terms openly. That way, none of your other children will be confused or hurt by the decision. 4. Get Full Details While you might be anxious about hurting a loved one’s feelings, you need to know where your cash is going to decide if it’s worthy of a loan. A bank would never blindly hand over funds without knowing what it’s being spent on, and neither should you. If a family member becomes offended, take it as a red flag that it’s not a deal you should make. And if you are provided details, follow up on them. For example, if a friend asks for a couple thousand dollars for a down payment on a home, check out the house, its cost, neighborhood comparisons, and how a down payment will affect the mortgage. Investigate all of these variables prior to making your decision. don't be careless when you lend money 5. Charge Interest Charging interest to a family member or friend might seem unnecessary, but it’s the fairest way to protect yourself. Not only will a fair interest rate inspire your family member to pay you back in a timely manner, but it can also protect you from being charged gift taxes on the money you lend. As of 2012, if you lend more than $13,000, you’re liable to pay a gift tax on that amount if you don’t set a loan with reasonable terms and get it in writing. For larger loans, confirm with an accountant what you need to do to protect yourself. 6. Discuss Terms Talking about money with family members can be awkward, especially if you’re in a position to lend. But glossing over the details can possibly hurt you both. Make sure that you clarify the amount being loaned, the interest rate, the repayment schedule, and late fees well in advance of any money changing hands. Immediately getting the terms out in the open reduces the possibility of any future miscommunication or confusion. 7. Get It in Writing While a verbal agreement is considered legally binding, it still comes down to your word against someone else’s – and even if you trust your loved one to abide by the parameters you set, you could land in hot water without a written agreement. Having written details that both parties agree to by signature is also a great tool to prevent misunderstandings. Should legal action ever become necessary, a written contract is nearly ironclad in court, which protects you far more than a mere handshake. 8. Practice Worst-Case Scenarios While discussing the loan terms might seem awkward enough, you still must consider worst-case scenarios. Sit down and talk about what would happen if your loved one makes late payments or doesn’t pay you back at all. You need to talk about a plan of action, be it late charges, a collection process, or legal action. This sets the standard for the business relationship, so you both know what will happen if the deal goes sour. While it might not stop hurt feelings, it should eliminate any surprises if your borrower eventually defaults. 9. Distance Yourself One of the biggest mistakes you can make when lending to friends and family is to micromanage that person’s spending after you’ve made the loan. Once you’ve agreed and inked the deal, the money that you lend is no longer in your control – obsessing over how it’s spent will only foster problems. Separate yourself from the money and focus on repayment, not on how it’s spent. When to Say No If you aren’t comfortable with the lender-borrower relationship, it may be in both your best interests to decline your loved one’s loan request. Money can be a serious force in driving apart friendships and family relationships, so trust your instincts and simply decline if you feel uneasy about the deal. Perhaps you can help in other ways: offer a small cash gift, buy groceries, or find other service-based ways to lend assistance. Final Word Is lending to family members or friends the best financial decision you could ever make? Probably not. But all financial advice aside, sometimes your relationships trump traditional money sense. If you absolutely must lend to someone you love, just make sure you do it with your head, and not your heart. Being too forgiving or trusting might be admirable, but it can also lead to you being taken advantage of, even by someone who has the best intentions. Do the work, prepare for the worst, and work to keep your relationship as stable as possible to make lending money a positive experience for both parties involved. Have you ever loaned money to a family member or friend? If so, did the experience put any strain on your relationship? (photo credit: Bigstock) IFRAME: //www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?href=http://www.moneycrashers.com/l ending-money-family-friends/&send=false&layout=standard&width=630&show_ faces=false&action=like&colorscheme=light&font=arial&height=27 Categories: Credit and Debt, Family & Home, Relationships Jacqueline Curtis Jacqueline Curtis is an experienced style expert, and she focuses on getting high fashion on a tight budget. She writes for several online publications, including her own fashion blog, How Not to Dress Like a Mom, and specializes in fashion, finance, health and fitness, and parenting. Jae grew up in Toronto, Canada, but now resides in Utah with her husband, two kids, and prized shoe collection. Related Articles * How to Refuse Lending Money to Family & Friends * 10 Reasons Why You Should NOT Lend Money to Friends & Family * Friends and Family Moving In Together To Save Money * Penny For Your Thoughts: Tips for Friends with Bad Money Management Skills? * What to Do When a Family Member or Friend Won’t Pay Back a Loan * http://www.mypersonalfinancejourney.com/ Cherleen I will not say I have loaned money to a family or a friend but I did extended financial help, such as hospitalization of my siblings, nieces, and nephews, and death of a friend’s family member. But I did not expected anymore that they would return the amount to avoid straining my relationship with them. After all, they did not ask for it. I did it voluntarily. And I believe that God will return the help you extended in a different way. * http://www.debt-tips.com/ Kris Tip #10 – Be prepared to not get it back. And live with your decision. Without making a big stink about it. That’s just part of lending money to friends & family. * http://www.freezerobasedbudgeting.com/blog/ Kevin Jones Personally I don’t believe in lending money to family, friends or acquaintances. I always only consider it as a gift. The only things I consider are can I afford it and will it really help the person. I never expect to get it back and I leave it at that. * http://www.facebook.com/people/Robert-Bain/1357862205 Robert Bain #1 Don’t do it. * Kenshawwjeanne If u need an urgent less than 24 hours legitimate processed loan at just 5% interest,email me back ” [email protected] “This is a testimony on how,I was ripped off by some idiot that calls themselves lenders,and how I finally got my financial freedom through a God sent helper that finally gave my life a meaning * Katy My husband received an email from a brother who had already drained the family funds from starting a vineyard. Was not able to pay the taxes at the end of the year and asked for what he called a bridge loan. Had asked us to take out a quick $100,000. when my husband as a professor makes $70,000. a year. We as a family on Christmas Day had a discussion and pleaded not to do this. The brother had built up a businesss on much of everyone elses money. We had just sold a house we built equity in for 15 years and had that morgage in the house we presently have. and the husband was told the brother would lose the winery. So he gave out all of the preceeds of the sale of the house anyways in spite of everyone’s protest. It has been the most distructive thing a brother could do. The family that was once in union and got along very well is divided. And now after the huge check was sent out, not even a formal letter of recognition of this check has come. I say –don’t do it. Find another way to help. We were not in any way financially set to do this. I continue to ride my bike as my children use the other 12 year old cars and the brother continues to live very very well. * fred Problem: You don’t know if family members would do the same for you. You won’t find out till AFTER. My experience: Family members who ask to borrow money are FAR more aware of it’s value than those people who have it to lend. YOU will discover that difference when you try to get it back or need to borrow money from them. *WARNING* Money has far MORE value than it’s face value. Different people have different “relationships” with money, different attitudes toward it. Make sure, if family member you’re loaning money to shares the same view .. if not, expect problems for sure. BOTTOM LINE: All you absolutely need is money enough for basic survival. If someone wants more than that .. then they have to go get it. * been there NEVER loan money to ANYONE for ANY reason, no matter who they are or what they say! What these people are doing is this: THEY HAVE SORT SORT OF FINANCIAL PROBLEM THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO PASS TO YOU!!! You are not a bank. They want to borrow money from you because this puts THEM in control. The moment you hand over the money you have LOST control and most likely, your money. They will tell you whatever YOU want to hear in order to part you from your money. Then, once they have your money tell THEMSELVES whatever they want to hear in order not to pay it back — “After all, he doesn’t need it!” It only takes 5 seconds to say, “I would loan it to you, but things are tight and I just don’t have it.” That simple sentence ends the conversation and avoids whatever fiscal disaster your dear relative is trying to push from his house into yours! These articles about “How To Loan Relatives Money” are the biggest bunch of bull ever written. LISTEN CAREFULLY: YOU MOST LIKELY WILL **NEVER** SEE YOUR MONEY AGAIN. ALL SUCH LOANS ARE A GIFT! !!!! JUST SAY NO !!!! * R.P. If you decide to do it because they leave you no choice and you kind of feel obligated, consider it a gift, or else, if you don’t get the money back, not only will the relationship be destroyed, but you’ll just be so bitter about it. Who needs that ugh.. Not to mention, since they’re family, you’ll probably have to run into them from time to time and remember how terrible they are while they driving around in their bmw giving expensive gifts to people. So annoyed. * http://www.loansolutions.ph/ Marie Torres This is always been a tricky situation and my best rule of thumb is “Don’t to it”. * TBrwngrl I’m done loaning (gifting) money to family. They never give it back no matter the amount. And they keep coming back like you’re a bank. I’ve been too nice for so long because I thought it was the right thing to do. I also noticed when I’m short I have no one to turn to. ____________________ Search Advertiser Disclosure IFRAME: //www.facebook.com/plugins/likebox.php?href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.c om%2FMoneyCrashers&width=300&height=168&show_faces=true&colorscheme=lig ht&stream=false&border_color=%23ffffff&header=false Recommended Banking * Best New Bank Account Promotions This Month Credit Cards * 10 Best Cash Back Credit Cards * 10 Best Hotel Rewards Credit Cards Popular This Week 1. 10 Best Ways to Make Money from Home (Legitimate) 2. 15 Best Part-Time Jobs for High School Students 3. What's the Best Online Tax Preparation Software? TaxACT vs TurboTax vs H&R Block 4. Top 15 Jobs That Require Little or No Experience 5. 23 Cheap Wedding Reception Food & Drink Menu Ideas on a Budget 6. 10 Healthy Homemade Dog Food Recipes and Organic Treats 7. 10 Romantic & Inexpensive Gift Ideas for Your Girlfriend or Wife 8. Best New Bank Account Promotions, Offers & Free Money 9. 16 Ways to Find Cheap Budget Wedding Venue Ideas for the Ceremony & Reception 10. 11 High Paying Six Figure Jobs without a College Degree Return to top of page Copyright © 2015 SparkCharge Media, LLC · All Rights Reserved. · About · Press · Contact · Archive · Privacy Policy · Terms & Conditions The content on MoneyCrashers.com is for informational and educational purposes only and should not be construed as professional financial advice. Should you need such advice, consult a licensed financial or tax advisor. References to products, offers, and rates from third party sites often change. While we do our best to keep these updated, numbers stated on this site may differ from actual numbers. We may have financial relationships with some of the companies mentioned on this website. Among other things, we may receive free products, services, and/or monetary compensation in exchange for featured placement of sponsored products or services. We strive to write accurate and genuine reviews and articles, and all views and opinions expressed are solely those of the authors. Advertiser Disclosure: The credit card offers that appear on this site are from credit card companies from which MoneyCrashers.com receives compensation. This compensation may impact how and where products appear on this site, including, for example, the order in which they appear on category pages. MoneyCrashers.com does not include all credit card companies or all available credit card offers, although best efforts are made to include a comprehensive list of offers regardless of compensation. Advertiser partners include American Express, U.S. Bank, and Barclaycard, among others. Clicky Recommended: How to Refuse Lending Money to Family & Friends Close #RSS 2.0 RSS .92 Atom 0.3 Get Rich Slowly - Personal Finance That Makes Sense. » Money, Stress, and Your Health Comments Feed Get Rich Slowly – Personal Finance That Makes Sense. Teens and Money dcsimg Get Rich Slowly Follow Getrichslowly.org on Google Plus __________________ Submit Advertiser Disclosure * Home * * * Savings Accounts * * CD Rates * * Mortgage * * Credit Cards Balance Transfer Special Promotions Cash Back Rewards Air Miles & Points Student Gas Rewards Small Business Low Interest 0% APR Offers Bad Credit OK Featured Credit Cards Featured Banks [11387808.gif] Discover View All * * Insurance * * Career & Education * * Forums Click here Popular * Bank Reviews * The Basics * Money Hacks * Investing * Being Frugal * Enterpreneurship * Savings * Budgeting * Cars * Retirement * Debt * See More > IFRAME: http://e1.cdn.qnsr.com/jsc/e1/ff2.html?WT.qs_dlk=VMTkpwrIZ3UAAF8VuMIAAA Aa;;n=203;c=1452248/508143/16;s=7875;d=9;w=300;h=250 Click here IFRAME: http://e1.cdn.qnsr.com/jsc/e1/ff2.html?WT.qs_dlk=VMTkpwrIZ3UAAF8VuMIAAA Aa;;n=203;c=1450518/462244/457721/16;s=6649;d=9;w=300;h=250 Click here IFRAME: http://e1.cdn.qnsr.com/jsc/e1/ff2.html?WT.qs_dlk=VMTkpwrIZ3UAAF8VuMIAAA Aa;;n=203;c=1462774/457721/16;s=6649;d=9;w=300;h=250 Click here Click here IFRAME: http://e1.cdn.qnsr.com/jsc/e1/ff2.html?WT.qs_dlk=VMTkpwrIZ3UAAF8VuMIAAA Aa;;n=203;c=1450454/508143/16;s=7875;d=9;w=300;h=250 Click here ______________________________________ Submit Disclaimer: All information provided at Get Rich Slowly is for informational purposes only. Rates & offers from advertisers shown on this website change frequently, sometimes without notice. Visit referenced sites for current information. Per FTC guidelines, this website may be compensated by companies mentioned through advertising, affiliate programs or otherwise. Add Your Voice Ask the readers Share a personal story Write a guest post We want to talk to you if: You saved $1 million or more for retirement You bought a home without a mortgage You paid for college for three or more children Click here Personal Finance Tip: Base your long-term plan on your current career prospects. A common financial planning mistake people make is to expect the future to do all the heavy lifting in their savings plans--the future when they are suddenly making far more money, etc. Instead, base your plan on modest increases from where your income is now, and if you make it big, there's always room to upgrade your plan. [Guide-to-money-button.png] Click here Book Badge Manage Your Finances * What are the best credit card offers available right now? * Earn more on your savings * Mortgage rates are at an all time low * Choose the right credit card for you * Reduce your insurance costs by comparing providers [myf-txt.png] Money, Stress, and Your Health by April Dykman Published on April 29th, 2010 46 Comments This post is from GRS staff writer April Dykman. A 2009 AP/AOL survey, Debt Stress in the United States, found that American adults are experiencing significantly more debt-related stress than reported four years ago when a similar survey was conducted. The survey also found that those with high stress levels were likely to experience health problems, including headaches, back pain, muscle tension, depression, anxiety, ulcers, and heart problems. It seems that a high level of debt-related stress can damage more than your credit score; it also poses serious threats to your health. The health costs of debt stress According to the survey findings, one in five respondents with moderately high or high levels of debt stress experienced incidents of mental and physical health deterioration. The survey also found that highly debt-stressed people were: * More than 13 times as likely than low- to no-stress people to lose sleep at night * More than seven times as likely to have severe anxiety * Almost seven times as likely to take stress out on others * Nearly six times as likely to experience severe depression * Four times as likely to have ulcers or other digestive problems * Twice as likely to have heart problems and migraines Money doesn’t necessarily lead to happiness, but managing it poorly can certainly lead to unhappiness. Although this study focused on debt stress, a 2009 poll found that money in general is the world’s greatest source of stress. Respondents cited the state of the world as their second biggest cause of stress. Health was last on the list of concerns in almost every country. Reducing financial stress So money-related stress can cause physical and mental health problems, and health is the least of our worries, according to the 2009 poll. Sounds like a recipe for disaster, but it’s understandably difficult to see the big picture when there are schedules to keep and bills to pay. What can we do? 1. Get a plan. If your money stress is related to debt, the first step is to get a plan for debt repayment. Simply getting started will help ease the stress of a chaotic financial life. If you are worried about an unexpected car repair or emergency room trip, figure out ways to increase your emergency fund. When you start to worry, reassure yourself that you’ve got a plan in place. 2. Identify the negative ways you cope with financial stress. Often these are the same ways you cope with any other kind of stress, and many times the ways we deal are damaging to our health and well-being: alcohol, smoking, a bag of potato chips and a date with the remote control, gambling, becoming aggressive, avoiding social interaction, compulsive spending, chewing your fingernails, criticizing yourself for being such a hopeless idiot, etc. 3. Look for alternative, healthy ways to decompress. If there’s a specific bad habit you turn to when stressed, identify it and encourage the opposite. You also can check out J.D.’s 13 steps to a better life for ways to encourage happiness and reduce stress. I can identify with debt and money stress. I used to ignore my overall amount of debt, afraid to even add it up. Once I paid it off, I would stress out about spending money. Eventually I found a balance, but even today — debt-free and emergency fund in place — money can still cause me anxiety, like when I found out the warranty on my laptop didn’t cover everything I thought it did. A few deep breaths later, I reminded myself that it was only Stuff, and I save money every month for occasions such as these. It’s a vicious cycle, as financial stress turns into health issues, possibly costly health issues, that in turn increase our money stress. Relationships and job performance also can suffer, creating a bigger pit of despair. It seems that no matter what stage we reach, we have to be careful to not let money stress take over our lives. What are your biggest sources of stress? How do you deal with them? J.D.’s note: Debt used to be my biggest source of money stress. Then it became an obsession with frugality, which led me to cross the line to cheap bastard. Now my biggest problem seems to be an obsession with income: I want more money all the time. I’m beginning to see, however, that if I relax on my drive for a higher income, I can have more of other stuff, like time with friends — and travel. GRS is committed to helping our readers save and achieve their financial goals. Savings interest rates may be low, but that is all the more reason to shop for the best rate. Find the highest savings interest rates and CD rates from Synchrony Bank, Ally Bank, GE Capital Bank, and more. 46 Comments This article is about Health & Fitness, Debt, Health & Fitness, Psychology 46 Responses to “Money, Stress, and Your Health” 1. 1 basicmoneytips says: 29 April 2010 at 4:17 am Stress over money can be hard on anyone. Plus money issues can cause other problems that also lead to more stress. The number 2 cause of divorce in the US is money issues. It is easy to see that problems surrounding money can easily snowball into bigger things. loading.... Reply 2. 2 E West @GuidetoGrowingUp says: 29 April 2010 at 4:49 am My future and figuring out what I want to do in life. As soon as anything is accomplished I feel like, “what’s next?” I worry I will never truly be satisfied. I stress myself about planning for the future (career, home, family…). I get very excited about one thing, jump into it, and then it either fizzles out or I find a roadblock. Then I stress myself out again about the fact I don’t finish what I start…. My husband used to get stressed over my stress about ridiculous things. Now (bless him) he just laughs it off. I also echo the JD and April’s concerns about the struggle to find a balance between debt stress and letting the pendulum swing the other way. loading.... Reply 3. 3 Mike says: 29 April 2010 at 5:08 am JD, I appreciate the honesty of your notes. I bet that spousal/marital issues is up there at the top of people’s list for stress inducers. Money issues are probably more pervasive but only because not everyone has a spouse. Haha. loading.... Reply 4. 4 Kris says: 29 April 2010 at 5:23 am The most stressful thing for me is the busy schedule of our family. I have 3 kids, all very involved with school and sports. Figuring out how to get everyone where they need to be can drive me insane. I have found though if I just sit down and make a plan, I can handle it much easier. (As opposed to just worrying about it.) That is true for everything in my life. If I just find a solution to the problem, I can handle the steps it takes to get to the solution. loading.... Reply 5. 5 Chett says: 29 April 2010 at 5:50 am It seems in most cases stress is self-created. The messes we put ourselves in, desires to be more self-important then working longer hours, the insatiable for stuff, or as J.D. wrote on a personal note, the aimless desire to have more simply to have more. It seems like every time I reach some type of homeostasis, I create some other desire. I think studies of the “happiest” countries have proven. If you’re willing to settle and be content, you’ll be more satisfied with life and potentially have less stress. I doubt anybody is marketing that idea. loading.... Reply 6. 6 Jessica Bosari says: 29 April 2010 at 5:58 am This article is very well timed. Any kind of change is stressful, but when it comes to worrying about how you’ll feed your kids or if you’ll have a home next month, it’s even worse. It’s especially important to manage stress to help your kids. They respond to how you react and if you are miserable and anxious all the time, your kids will blame themselves, feeling like just another burden. Take things lightly and remember that as long as you have your family, where you live is not such a big deal. Make the kids feel safe by focusing on their needs instead of your own anxieties. You’ll all be better off! loading.... Reply 7. 7 DreamChaser57 says: 29 April 2010 at 6:38 am For me, arming myself with the critical details of my debt instead of mindlessly servicing it has made me more comfortable and aware. With me graduating from graduate school next month, as a household, we literally have a mountain of debt to assail in student loans. My husband and I have discussed incentive rewards at each stage of debt repayment. I made saving a priority, I automated it, with a weekly withdrawal from my checking to savings account. I added up the amount of money it takes to run my household and one of my first goals is to save up a 3 month emergency fund. I read GRS, other well-regarded PF books, and listen to the Consumerism Commentary and Ramsey podcasts – I am re-shaping how I feel about money. I added up all of car note payments and figured out how much is going to principal and how much is going to interest, it’s about 50/50 – that inspired me to pay it off. I am aware that households sometimes suffer financial ruin by compounding debt, I know by student loan payment will be a horror movie scary at the end of this year, so we are going to start aggressively paying down our car note in June. That way it will be an easier transition when we have to paying the student loans. Information and awareness has led to a lot less stress, figure out how much money I’ve made over my lifetime and since I’ve got married I’ve figured out how much we have made as a couple, a lack of income is NOT the issue, being a good steward is definitely the problem. I think if someone is stressed out about money, the very first step is to cut off the television, stop taking advice from broke people as Dave Ramsey would say, people who are mindless consumers, people who try to bolster their self-worth by the consumption of Stuff (thanks JD) and read -there is another way to live, a more fulfilling way to live – read quality PF blogs like GRS, read well regarded books (Millionaire Next Door, Wealth Barber, Richest Man in Babylon) – start to wrap your brain around your God-given ability to solve your own problems. Good luck to us all! loading.... Reply 8. 8 JKC says: 29 April 2010 at 6:50 am “I grew up on the upper east side, and when I was ten years old I was rich! I was an aristocrat, riding around in taxis, surrounded by comfort, and all I thought about was art and music. Now I’m thirty-six, and all I think about is money!” - Opening Lines of “My Dinner With Andre” loading.... Reply 9. 9 ChefAMW says: 29 April 2010 at 7:18 am My biggest stress would seem to be money but when you look deeper is the inability to control outside forces that made money a stressor. My husband and I did all the right things and were prosperous. Then when the perfect storm hit- we lost 60% of our income, wiped out our saving, and put us in a position where money is now a stressor and we could not control it- we did not choose it, we did not set it up to happen. And I do believe that money doesn’t buy happiness but it does buy peace of mind! loading.... Reply 10. 10 Joe D. says: 29 April 2010 at 7:21 am I spent last night with my family in a bad mood, wasting a perfectly good evening in my life, and for what? Over job stress, which leads eventually to financial stress. Although I find myself more and more being able to live without the thought of additional accumulation of material things, I still have some anxieties about supporting my family “properly”. Thanks for the post, April. It is a timely reminder that my job, and therefore my finances, is not my identity. I will eventually learn to not waste time being moody over the “small stuff”. loading.... Reply 11. 11 ebyt says: 29 April 2010 at 7:24 am Of course debt is a huge stressor. Without money you’re completely screwed and won’t have a roof over your head. I know through stupidity in my younger years (yeah I’m almost 25 so not old yet… but I was STUPID with money when I was younger) that it caused me years of worry. Ah debt. Glad I’ll soon be completely out of it! My ex boyfriend and I would constantly fight about money. His finances were even worse than mine. We couldn’t do anything because we were in debt. Anything we would buy would increase the debt. For the longest time he wouldn’t even admit he had a problem, let alone start doing something about it. Finances were probably the biggest factor in the demise of our relationship. And those unlucky souls who get into debt through no real fault of their own… like get injured and can’t work… or can’t afford insurance… that’s just awful. I think people get used to living in debt, and society is much more consumerist these days and encourages it, but I don’t think most people actually like it. I had my head in the sand for a while, but when the credit card bill came and my balance creeped up, I was stressed. Debt is evil… loading.... Reply 12. 12 Nicole says: 29 April 2010 at 7:43 am I love not being stressed about money anymore. I love having a nice cushion in the bank so that money problems are an annoyance, not a source of stress. Another interesting link between money and health is that money inequality (having less than the Joneses) leads to worse health (according to a series of influential studies called the Whitehall studies). Maybe that can be moderated by stopping trying to keep up with the Joneses, but we really don’t know. JD– Maybe time to reread Your Money or Your Life for a refresher? loading.... Reply 13. 13 Tyler Karaszewski says: 29 April 2010 at 7:58 am My biggest source of stress over the past six months has been my wife’s health and uncertainty over whether or not we’ll be able to have children. Financial reasons don’t even register. Of course, I no longer have debts to worry about, but even if I did they’d come second. loading.... Reply 14. 14 Christine (The Raw Project) says: 29 April 2010 at 8:20 am Debt is a huge stress factor for me, I don’t even like having >$1,000 sitting on a card. Having a healthy emergency fund in the back definitely helps. Great post, thanks. loading.... Reply 15. 15 partgypsy says: 29 April 2010 at 8:20 am Ignorance is bliss sometimes. When in graduate school I had no money, yet didn’t worry about money at all. I could and did live happily on 12K a year. Ironically now that I am middleaged and make more money (5x how much I made in grad school, 2.5x as much as a postdoc), I worry much more about money. In part it’s because I have dependents and am the primary breadwinner, but I know part of it is psychological as well. Once you have something you can be afraid of losing it, but if you don’t have anything at all, there is no fear of losing it. loading.... Reply 16. 16 DreamChaser57 says: 29 April 2010 at 8:22 am Tyler – I hope everything works out for you and your wife. Your brief but profound response puts everything in perspective – there are so many more things more precious and valuable than money. loading.... Reply 17. 17 kaitlyn says: 29 April 2010 at 8:23 am In about a month, I’m moving from my beloved Los Angeles to just outside of NYC. I realized yesterday that I only have three steady paychecks left. No job in NY yet. I have two months of expenses in savings, but still… Oh yeah, you better believe I’m stressed. loading.... Reply 18. 18 Mich @ BTI says: 29 April 2010 at 8:25 am Taking control of your investments can also become a source of stress, if you’re not cut to handle the ups and downs, consider passive investing! loading.... Reply 19. 19 KarenJ says: 29 April 2010 at 8:34 am I work in sales, and so does my husband, so our biggest source of stress is whether we will bring in enough this month to cover our expenses. Although we were lucky enough to have some savings to cover the transition while we “ramp up,” the fear that we might run through our savings like a hot knife through butter, sometimes causes a feeling in the pit of my stomach. Not a lot of time to work out, unfortunately, but long walks on the weekend, talking and other weekend activities give us time to unwind and get ready for another weekly battle. Two more days until the end of the month, and yes, I’m stressed! loading.... Reply 20. 20 Nick says: 29 April 2010 at 8:53 am I recently read (and blogged about) a recent interview with Dave Ramsey in Success magazine regarding debt and a simple method to climb out of it. People are already stressed about enough as it is, money should not be another thing to worry about. loading.... Reply 21. 21 Tammy says: 29 April 2010 at 9:52 am Debts to pay and a new baby in the house pressured my husband to take a corporate job he didn’t want, resulting in more money but horrible stress. The stress led to anxiety, the anxiety led to depression, and the depression led to complete mental fallout, culminating in eight weeks of disability and severe panic attacks if he tried to go back to work. Now self-employed, we are earning less, chipping away at our debt, and are much happier with the state of things. We’re reaching our goals a little more slowly, but our priorities are a lot different now. loading.... Reply 22. 22 Adam says: 29 April 2010 at 9:55 am Wow…I’m way more stressed about work deadlines and presentations at work and getting a promotion or a raise and in general, work, than anything else. Money I don’t stress about because like many here I’ve no debt and a healthy emergency fund and am actually investing on top of that along with a good retirement savings. Money is fine as long as I have a job (job stress). Health at the moment knock on wood is fine but if I did have a health scare this would take over my stress. I think the only reason health is so low on the list is that generally people are healthy. If you asked everyone in a hospital what is stressing them out their health might be higher on the list. Other than work, relationships with friends and boyfriends/girlfriends/spouses/partners/whatever must be the next cause of stress, followed by family fighting? Relationships in general. loading.... Reply 23. 23 Jessica says: 29 April 2010 at 10:06 am But wouldn’t high debt correlate with lower incomes/poverty, which already correlates with poor health? Or did this study control for income? loading.... Reply 24. 24 chacha1 says: 29 April 2010 at 10:17 am I’ve overcome much of my own stress, now I’m trying to extract some from DH! My goal is to get him to stop working 6 days a week! Tyler K., best wishes to you and your wife. Hope everything works out. loading.... Reply 25. 25 R.D.L. says: 29 April 2010 at 10:49 am Having expensive things go wrong with the house and worrying about what will break next has been my greatest source of stress for most of the past three years since I bought the house. Now that has settled down and relationships are causing me the most stress. Before I got on a budget and repaid debt repayment and saved an emergency fund I was terribly stressed about money. I think some of us just feel stressed more than others due to our physiology and ways of thinking. loading.... Reply 26. 26 Paul says: 29 April 2010 at 11:04 am I appreciate articles like these. I have been under some stress lately and i realize that i can regain financial control with better planning. loading.... Reply 27. 27 Budgeting in the Fun Stuff says: 29 April 2010 at 11:05 am Unplanned costs tick me off and stress me out, but like April, I try to remind myself that’s what we save for and move on. loading.... Reply 28. 28 Ryan Martin says: 29 April 2010 at 11:33 am I don’t get too stressed at all. I believe this is because: a) I don’t watch television (no watching stressful news or ads telling me to buy stuff) b) I’m very conscious of my health (I admit often when I need to go for a walk or watch my diet) c) I realize, at least in North America, that “making a living” is a lot easier than we’re let on d) I know I still have much to learn Of course I can still get stressed, but when I do, I try to stop. And get perspective. This helps a lot. loading.... Reply 29. 29 Sarah says: 29 April 2010 at 11:54 am Money stress sucks. The study you mentioned only showed correlation, not causation. I really think money problems are more intertwined with depression, anxiety, and health problems than a simple cause/effect relationship can show. A person who is depressed is likely to develop money problems because when you’re depressed it all seems pointless. And if you’re having a lot of physical health problems, that can lead to money problems too because health care is so expensive. And another option is that instead of one causing the other (money problems cause stress OR stress/health problems causes money problems) it could be that they’re both cause by another underlying issue. A person who doesn’t know how to cope with their feelings may become anxious or depressed AND may spend impulsively. My point? It’s all really complicated. Be aware of your thoughts, your feelings, your actions, identify which are problematic and get help with them from someone who knows how. loading.... Reply 30. 30 D says: 29 April 2010 at 12:22 pm Boy can I relate! My husband and I are 40K+ in CC debt, and I am the only one working full time…he has done a few things to put us in a precarious position in the last few years, but last year he only earned 7K, whereas I earned just over 6 figures…this has been going on for years. So frustrated, depressed and feel hopeless, tired of fighting about money. Finally facing the fact that I will have to move out…no kids. Any advice? loading.... Reply 31. 31 DreamChaser57 says: 29 April 2010 at 12:40 pm @Poster 21 (Tammy) – your post reminds me that not everything should have a price tag, and peace of mind is certainly one of those things. some jobs actually have a hostile work environment and can drain you of your sense of well-being. I will never forget when this one woman plumped down next to me at the train station and let out a sigh – I asked her, “stressful day?!” and she said her boss called her a piece of crap (insert cuss word here) no one deserves that no should take that – not to oversimplify the situation but one of the reasons why people take such things because they are not secure in the marketability of their skill set, they have overleveraged their income, have no savings. being responsible with money can empower you in ways that on the surface one cannot even imagine. loading.... Reply 32. 32 Project Management Tools That Work says: 29 April 2010 at 12:45 pm I took a sabbatical and during that time the economy tanked and I was told no need to come back to my job. Since then, my health has improved immensely. I no longer have back problems of any significance. I can now run 3-5 miles daily again, something I had not been able to do regularly in over 10 years due to my back. My wrists and forearms no longer ache all day long (that carpal stuff). A family inheritance (genetic in this case) no longer causes me pain in my upper shoulders and back (my siblings still have issues). I can play enthusiastically with my kids without having to warn them away so they don’t destroy Daddy’s back. (Though I remain cautious, as do they.) Job stress was my biggest problem (my fault, I cared too much). I have very little financial stress, though I am without regular work, because we are debt free and we’ve always lived frugally. Bruce (Managing projects, teams or organizations? Visit my website for unconventional ideas, tools, techniques and insights that work.) loading.... Reply 33. 33 Stephan says: 29 April 2010 at 1:34 pm I think its natural to worry about worry, but its important that it doesnt impact the rest of your life. Take time each week to review, update, and work on your finances, but besides that, try not to think about it. Exercise every day and stay busy. The less time you have free, the less time you have to freak out. Also, the simplest way to reduce financial stress is a budget! It takes like 30 minutes, and if done on a PC can easily be updated and tweaked. You can track your expenses, see where your messing up, and stay ahead of the problem. Preferred Financial Services loading.... Reply 34. 34 Kat Eden says: 29 April 2010 at 3:56 pm I deviate back and forth between being really stressed about my $15G credit card debt, and thinking ‘stuff it, loads of people just don’t worry about it and it’s only money so maybe I should just take that approach!’ Only catch is, I’m not one of those people. And even though my card actually has so much go through it each month that I never pay interest, it’s still always maxed out. Leaving me in a situation like just now where I increased the limit b/c I’ve just committed to 6-month coaching with the Robbins institute. In part to help me learn to stay accountable with money! Sigh. I know what my problem is – I’m too good at justifying expenses on anything remotely development-related! And part of me thinks I should get a financial adviser to help me with this, but then that would be another expense that maybe I shouldn’t be making?! loading.... Reply 35. 35 Sheila says: 29 April 2010 at 4:56 pm We have no debt (except mortgage, which I’m paying down quickly), my husband has a good job, we have money in the bank, contribute the max to two IRAs and a 401(k), contribute regularly to other investments and still I worry about having enough for retirement. I think it’s the uncertainty of the whole thing–not knowing how much we’ll really need, what healthcare costs will be, what the inflation rate will be, etc., etc. I always wonder if there’s something else we should be doing, but I haven’t been able to figure out what that would be. loading.... Reply 36. 36 WheelDancer says: 29 April 2010 at 6:22 pm I have dealt with debt stress in a big way in the last bunch of years after divorcing and ending up with a mortgage sized debt without the house to go along with it. I too have become quite a cheap bastard and can finally see the light at the end of the tunnel. The good thing is that I have become accustomed to the frugal life style and enjoy it more than I did racking up the debt in the first place. I still have considerable debt I am pounding down but have a positive net worth for the first time in (nearly) living memory. Even with the progress I have made, the stress has been the hardest thing to deal with. loading.... Reply 37. 37 david/yourfinances101 says: 29 April 2010 at 8:00 pm That was one of the biggest reasons I got out of debt. Being sick and tired of all the stress and worry. Those of you still in debt have no idea the burden lifted off your shoulders when this day comes… loading.... Reply 38. 38 Casey says: 29 April 2010 at 8:24 pm I wanted to make a comment about J.D.’s note about a drive for higher income. J.D. – I have followed your site for almost 3 years now. I have to admit that I wondered if you were starting to focus more on the money. I could sense your passion in many of the articles you wrote in the past – but to be frank, the site has changed. It seems that the site has turned more into a business versus J.D.’s journey that I’ve enjoyed being a part of. You wrote a wonderful piece the other day – probably one of your best pieces in a long time. I still enjoy your site, but it seems like it has gotten a bit away from the original foundation. loading.... Reply 39. 39 Hotrao says: 30 April 2010 at 5:05 am I think it’s no simple rule in dealing with debt. Because many are the factors influence the debt and the stress related. My parents generation used debt, at least in my home country, as one big leap for owning an house. This was, in my opinion, one good use for debt. More recent generations used debt to carry on day by day living and we can now see the results. What I mean is: debt is a bad beast in any case. So, being stressed for debt, is natural if you are using it for living beyond your means. And if you have debt, first thing to do is put a plan in place and try to reduce it as fast as you can. loading.... Reply 40. 40 Hazel_nut says: 30 April 2010 at 8:19 am In my mind I know I don’t need to stress, but my body begs to differ. Lack of sleep, heartburn, etc. I’m reading “Linchpin” and it talks about our “Lizard Brain.” I guess I just need to learn how to tame it and not stress so much about little things such as money. loading.... Reply 41. 41 Erin says: 30 April 2010 at 8:21 am I am so thankful to be out of debt!!! (Except my mortgage.) And this is why! When I was in debt I was always worried, sometimes sick to my stomach, with headaches, panic attacks, about an emergency I wouldn’t be able to pay for or just how I was going to pay them off in general. Then I would worry about how I couldn’t save properly because I was paying the debt. It was a never ending cycle. And don’t even get me started on if you’ve ever been in the posisiton to have bill collectors calling!! Or even worse…sued by a collector!! I can remember after my divorce when I got sued over a bad debt and was trying to figure out how I would keep the roof over my daughters head if they won the garnishment they were going for! It wasn’t that I didn’t want to pay the debt or even that I was ignorning it, I had always planned to pay off my debt as soon as I could, as was always crunching numbers and mocking up budgets to figure out how to do it, but had no extra money at that time to do it. (I could write a whole article on how I ended up there.) And then feeling like my only option was to file bankruptcy so we didn’t end up homeless (there was no way I’d be able to afford rent and food…and I was already living in the cheapest place I could find that I would at least feel somewhat safe)…that was it’s own special financial hell. The guilt of feeling like I abandoned my responsibilities, like I let everyone, even my family down, feeling like a failure, not sure what the future held, assuming I had just put myself into financial death forever…a hopeless like you’ve never know takes over. So, yes, I’m well aware of the kind of stress and declining health that money can cause! There were many days I wished I wouldn’t wake up. loading.... Reply 42. 42 Dr. Frank Bonkowski says: 30 April 2010 at 2:27 pm Conversely, people can be stressed about having money. A 2009 Princeton University study of women points to a strong connection between attitudes towards financial security and one’s satisfaction with life. The study shows that well being is not necessarily related to the amount of money or assets you have; if you worry all the time about losing them you will be unhappy. Rather a strong sense of satisfaction comes from believing that financial stability is possible in the future. For Third Agers concerned about financial security, I recommend the “Best Possible Selves” exercise described by Sonja Lyubomirsky in “The How of Happiness,” a good source of midlife crisis coping strategies. It is a writing exercise in which you visualize the best possible future for yourself in different areas of live, such as finances. You write daily about what’s important in your life, what are your goals, and how you will achieve them. It may not lift everyone’s mood, but it may work for you. For more on money and happiness from a midlife perspective, see http://www.happiness-after-midlife.com/midlife-challenges.html. loading.... Reply 43. 43 Brad says: 01 May 2010 at 3:56 am I wish I could write that my life is low in stress and I live a very balanced life. Alas, that is not the case. I spend too much time at work. This is one reason I started blogging: I can control what I write. I can write the truth and write through my emotions. Writing does help calm my nerves and remind me of what is important in my life. I just also need to continue to spend time with my family and my God, exercise, eat nutritionally, read, and be nice to people…. loading.... Reply 44. 44 CJ says: 02 May 2010 at 5:42 am If you want help dealing with the stress that comes with debt Debtors Anonymous is a 12 Step program for people with problems with money and debt. Together we help each other get out of debt and find serenity and peace. All are welcome. It is free. http://bit.ly/aahHcA loading.... Reply 45. 45 Ralph says: 04 May 2010 at 12:20 am Distress is a very damaging thing. Its not surprising to me that there is a correlation between money problems and health related problems. Usually there are several things in a person’s life that can cause them to become depressed and that tends to make them care less about their physical well-being. loading.... Reply 46. 46 Sandra says: 03 February 2014 at 11:42 am Glad for my income tax check to come soon as possible,will set up emergency fund,catch up on bills help out my kids much as possible for they have school loans loading.... Reply Leave a Reply Click here to cancel reply. ______________________ Name (required) ______________________ Mail (will not be published) (required) ______________________ Website _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ Submit Comment [_] Notify me of followup comments via e-mail SUBSCRIBE WITHOUT COMMENTING _________________________ Subscribe Subscribe to comments on this post via RSS feed. Advertiser Disclosure: Many of the savings offers appearing on this site are from advertisers from which this website receives compensation for being listed here. This compensation may impact how and where products appear on this site (including, for example, the order in which they appear). These offers do not represent all deposit accounts available. Copyright © 1999-2015 by GetRichSlowly.org All Rights Reserved Sitemap About Contact Press Privacy Policy Terms of Service Disclaimer:All information provided on this site is for informational purposes only. GetRichSlowly.org makes no representations as to the accuracy, completeness, suitability or validity of any information on this site and will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information or any damages arising from its display or use. You need to enable Javascript. * Twitter * Facebook * LinkedIn * YouTube * Email Alerts * RSS /Joseph Rowntree Foundation Search this site: _______________ Search * Home * Blog * Publications + Browse publications * Media centre * Our work * JRF Data * Events * Funding * About us You are here: Home / Publications / How does money influence health? Cover image How does money influence health? Michaela Benzeval et al. 10 March 2014 Summary PDF 4 pages 0.1 MB Full report PDF 70 pages 0.4 MB Why do people in poverty tend to have poorer health? This study looks at hundreds of theories to consider how income influences health. There is a graded association between money and health – increased income equates to better health. But the reasons are debated. Researchers have reviewed theories from 272 wide-ranging papers, most of which examined the complex interactions between people’s income and their health throughout their lives. Key points This research identifies four main ways money affects people’s wellbeing: * Material: Money buys goods and services that improve health. The more money families have, the better the goods they can buy. * Psychosocial: Managing on a low income is stressful. Comparing oneself to others and feeling at the bottom of the social ladder can be distressing, which can lead to biochemical changes in the body, eventually causing ill health. * Behavioural: For various reasons, people on low incomes are more likely to adopt unhealthy behaviours – smoking and drinking, for example – while those on higher incomes are more able to afford healthier lifestyles. * Reverse causation (poor health leads to low income): Health may affect income by preventing people from taking paid employment. Childhood health may also affect educational outcomes, limiting job opportunities and potential earnings. The research is part of our programme of work on poverty in the UK. Summary Download as PDF 0.1 MB View the discussion thread. Share this page Email a friend Back to top * * * Tweet * * Sign up to email alerts Direct link to this page: ____________________________________________________________ Submit Recommend to a friend via email: Your message will be: ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Your email: ____________________________________________________________ Their email: ____________________________________________________________ Send Related content How much does money matter: programme summary Chris Goulden 14 October 2012 Publication Does money affect children’s outcomes? Kerris Cooper and Kitty Stewart 22 October 2013 Publication Allowing children to grow up in poverty remains a false economy Donald Hirsch 5 June 2013 Blog A minimum income standard for the UK in 2013 Donald Hirsch 28 June 2013 Publication JRF logo Sign up to receive email alerts A weekly round-up of new research and blogs. Choose your alerts Please choose the alerts you want to receive: * [_] JRF newsletter: a monthly overview of all JRF publications, blogs and events. [_] Publications: a weekly round-up of new research and blogs. [_] Calls for proposals: sent when a new call for proposals is published. [_] Jobs: sent when a new job is advertised. Your contact details Your email address: * ____________________________________________________________ Subscribe We will never give your email address to anyone. Please refer to our privacy statement. Featured topics * JRF data visualisations * Monitoring poverty and social exclusion * Minimum Income Standards Contact details T: +44 (0)1904 629241 F: +44 (0)1904 620072 Email us... info@jrf.org.uk * Also founded by Joseph Rowntree: * Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust * Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust * Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust * Site map * A to Z * Contact us * Jobs * Feedback * Accessibility * Privacy * Terms & Conditions * Site by Torchbox * Budget Issues * Resources * The Williams Report * Commentary * Press Room * Headlines * About * Search _____________________ [icon_rss.png] [icon_fb.png] [icon_twitter.png] [icon_youtube.png] [donate_button.png] [contact_button.png] State Budget Solutions: Real Solutions for Real Budget Problems MENU * BUDGET ISSUES * STATE RESOURCES * SBS IN THE NEWS * COMMENTARY * THE WILLIAMS REPORT * ABOUT SBS * DONATE * Pensions * Healthcare * Education * Spending * Budget Gimmicks * Unions * Federal Impact HEADLINES Home > Publications > Throwing Money At Education Isn't Working Home > Publications > Throwing Money At Education Isn't Working Tweet Bookmark and Share HEADLINES Tweet Throwing Money At Education Isn't Working State Budget Solutions | by Kristen De Pena | September 12, 2012 Download the full report here: Throwing Money at Education Isn't Working EXECUTIVE SUMMARY of THROWING MONEY AT EDUCATION ISN'T WORKING Education funding remains a major issue in the United States. One controversial aspect is whether increasing funding for education guarantees better student performance. State Budget Solutions examined national trends in education from 2009-2011, including state-by-state analysis of education spending as a percentage of total state spending, and a comparison of average graduation rates and average ACT scores per state. The study shows that states that spend the most do not have the highest average ACT test scores, nor do they have the highest average graduation rates. The State of State Education: National Trends Each year, the United State spends billions of dollars on education. In 2010, total annual spending on education exceeded $809 billion dollars. Although it is unclear whether that figure is adjusted for inflation, that amount is higher than any other industrialized nation, and more than the spending of France, Germany, Japan, Brazil, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia combined. From 1970 to 2012, total average per pupil expenditures in the U.S. has more than doubled. Despite higher levels of funding, student test scores are substantially lower in the United States than in many other nations. American students scored an average of 474 on a 600-point scale, performing only slightly better in science, with an average score of 489. By comparison, Canadian students scored an average of 527 and 534 on the same tests, and Finnish students scored 548 and 563, respectively. The problem of generally low performance on standardized tests in the U.S. is in addition to the problem of budget shortfalls that both states and the federal government continue to face. The federal deficit for the first ten months of the 2012 fiscal year (ending Sept. 1, 2012) totaled $974 billion. The federal budget deficit increased $70 billion in July 2012 alone, and is on track to top $1 trillion for the fourth straight year. Likewise, a State Budget Solutions report revealed that aggregate state debt exceeded $4 trillion in 2012. Hundreds of thousands of students rely on education funded by states with the largest deficits, including California, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois. IFRAME: http://infogr.am/1346790934-572959 High Spending, Below Average Performance in Texas, New York, & California Texas, New York, and California consistently spend the most on education, well beyond the amount of any other state. This year (2012), California is spending $108.3 billion, Texas is spending $76.6 billion, and New York is spending $72.8 billion. The national average is $17.7 billion. Between 2009 and 2011, all three states fell below the national graduation rate averages every single year. Although California and New York consistently scored above the national ACT average score, Texas fell behind again, scoring below the national average for three consecutive years. Low Spending, Split Performance in Alaska In 2006, the Alaska legislature approved the Alaska School Performance Incentive Program (AKSPIP) to combat consistently low student performance in education. The program served as an incentive for school employees to create a learning environment where student achievement substantially increased. In the 2008-09 school year, the state paid $305,875 in bonuses to principals, teachers, and support staff for students' success in eleven different schools. During the 2006-07 school year, the program paid $1,850,493 in bonuses, followed by $1,061,944 in 2007-08. According to the state, the program failed to win significant support because the targets were too challenging and teachers believed that bonuses should not be based exclusively on student performance. Despite the initiative, Alaska consistently spent the least amount in the nation on education as a percentage of the state's total spending over the three years studied. The state's graduation rates were consistently below the national average. In 2009, the graduation rate was just 66.5 percent, followed by 69.1 percent in 2010, and 69.1 percent in 2011. Analysis & Solutions To successfully educate students, sustainable, reliable, and adequate educational funding is necessary. Less clear are the particulars of the spending, especially with regard to other factors that influence student performance. "Throwing money at the problem" is a commonly suggested solution to improving education; in fact, 60 percent of Google results for the search "throwing money" refer to education. But despite vastly increasing levels of funding, money alone does not change education or help to achieve our national education goals. Better Allocation of Funds Allocation of funds most certainly plays a role in student success. According to the results of this study, however, the amount of government spending alone does not dictate student performance outcomes. One reason for this inconsistency is that federal funding is tied to federally developed performance standards, which results in two major problems. First, as a result of centralization, states have less authority to develop state-specific metrics to accurately measure education initiatives. Localized control results in more narrowly tailored metrics and a better understanding of failure and success based on those metrics. Oversight at a local level is more practical and more effective than federal oversight. Second, tying federal funding to "performance-based" standards rarely results in the allocation of funds to the students and schools with the highest needs. Instead, schools that perform well get additional funding and schools that do not perform well are financially punished, making it more difficult for underperforming schools to improve their status. Furthermore, states, school districts, and school boards all allocate funding in different ways, making it difficult to know where the money is going and what it is funding. For example, in March 2012, the Arizona Department of Education mistakenly allocated funds to schools across Arizona after the Department interpreted a state law incorrectly. The DOE did not make the districts return the money that they incorrectly received, even though it deprived other districts from adequate funding. Increasing state and school district transparency will increase accountability and encourage responsible spending. Avoiding Waste & Fraud Increasing educational spending transparency helps ensure that funding is reaching the right hands. In 2009, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report concluding that the Department of Education lacks a common system to track and manage potential misuse of funds. According to the Congressional Education and Workforce Committee, the GAO report comes on the heels of documented failures by the White House to properly account for how the DOE spent ARRA funds, particularly regarding oversight of $100 billion administered by the DOE. These shortcomings ultimately result in the failure to effectively serve students. States prioritizing transparency and oversight initiatives often do better than states that fail to do so. In 2009, 2010, and 2011, Minnesota ranked in the top five states with the highest graduation rates. An evaluation of the ten largest school districts in Minnesota by Sunshine Review resulted in an overall "B" grade in transparency. Every single district published an annual budget and an annual audit, giving students, parents, teachers, and policymakers a clear idea about where and how education dollars are spent. In comparison, Nevada had the worst average graduation rate in the nation from 2009 to 2011. Sunshine Review's evaluation of the seventeen largest school districts in Nevada resulted in an overall "D" grade in transparency. Just nine of the seventeen school districts posted an annual budget, and only ten school districts posted an audit. More importantly, only two school districts published information informing the public about how to request public records unavailable on the schools websites. The lack of transparency and internal and external oversight at the state and federal levels directly contributes to wasteful and fraudulent spending, and ultimately deprives students of an adequate education. Scratch Performance-Based Rewards In the ten years since No Child Left Behind became federal law, it is clear that one-size-fits-all testing, sanctioning under-performing schools and rewarding high-performing schools, undermines actual education efforts. Critics of the policy, and of other performance-based policies such as the ASKPIP program (see Alaska), persuasively argue that these standards damage true education (a result of "teaching to the test"), narrowing the effects most severely on poor children in failing schools. Because so much emphasis is placed on student performance on standardized tests, teachers are forced to narrow the curriculum to focus primarily on the limited skills that these tests measure. Test-based incentives also do not increase the average academic performance of students. Conclusion Based on the findings in the full study, higher levels of funding do not ensure higher graduation rates, nor does it directly correlate to higher test scores on the ACT. Improving education requires multifaceted efforts, not solely increasing funding. IFRAME: http://infogr.am/1346866037-277768 Download the full report here: Throwing Money at Education Isn't Working State Budget Solutions [icon-print.gif] PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION [icon-email.gif] E-MAIL THIS PAGE Bookmark and Share CONNECT WITH US Twitter Facebook RSS Icon Stay Informed Receive updates, analysis and breaking news. ________________________________________ ________________________________________ Subscribe State Budget Snapshots [Select your state...] SEARCH ________________________________________ GO Browse by: Topic | Author | Date * Pensions * Healthcare * Education * Spending * Budget Gimmicks * Federal Impact * State Budget Issues * State Resources * Commentary * In the News * About SBS * Search STATE BUDGET SOLUTIONS PARTNERS SPN Logo Federalism In Action logo eResources Web Platform. Copyright 2013 © State Budget Solutions [icon_rss.png] [icon_fb.png] [icon_twitter.png] [icon_youtube.png] * State Resources * SBS In the News * Commentary * Headlines * The Williams Report * About SBS * Donate Copyright 2011 © State Budget Solutions. eResources Web Platform. More in PUBLICATIONS ( 33 OF 46 ARTICLES ) A Blueprint for Budget Reform Read More >> (BUTTON) Close #The Memory Bank RSS Feed The Memory Bank » 1. Money in the Making of Humanity Comments Feed The Memory Bank A New Commonwealth — Ver 5.0 ____________________ * Home * About * Keith Hart + Curriculum vitae + List of Publications * The Book + Prologue — Alvin + 1. Money in the Making of Humanity + 2. The Machine Revolution Today + 3. Capitalism: Making Money with Money + 4. Capitalism: The Political Economy of Development + 5. The Market from a Humanist Point of View + 6. The Changing Character of Money + 7. The Future of Money and the Market + Acknowledgements + Reviews of the Book * Papers + Anthropologists and Development + Notes Towards an Anthropology of the Internet + Manchester on my Mind + The Euro: Old Wine in a New Jar + Indian Business in South Africa After Apartheid + The Political Economy of Food + Money: One Anthropologist’s View + World Society as an Old Regime + Bureaucratic Form and the Informal Economy + The Place of the 1898 CAETS + Money in an Unequal World + Agrarian Civilisation and Modern World Society + Kinship, Contract and Trust + What Anthropologists Really Do + Informal Economy + Cultural Critique in Anthropology + Organic Trade: Global Food Politics and Local Economic Democracy + From Bell-Curve to Power-Law + Notes on the Counter-Revolution + Some Reflections on Anthropology and Political Economy + Intangible Money Matters + Studying World Society as a Vocation + Clarkson, Cambridge and the International Movement for Human Rights + Formal Bureaucracy and the Emergent Forms of the Informal Economy + The Euro: A Challenge for Anthropological Method + Building Economic Democracy with Community Currencies + Waiting for Emancipation + The Hit Man’s Dilemma (Abridged) + The Globalization of Apartheid + African Enterprise and the Informal Economy + Intellectual Property * Miscellany + Money in an Unequal World; LETS and Me + Miscellaneous Poems + Stories for Louise + Letter to Hadrien + Futures Prologue * Contact 1. Money in the Making of Humanity Ours is an age of money. Half the world worships money and the other half thinks of it as the root of all evil. In either case, money makes the world go round. If human society has any unity at this time it is as a world “market”. There is nothing wrong with people exchanging goods and services as equals. The problem is that markets use money: some people have lots of it and most people have much less than enough. The unequal face of the age of money is “capitalism”; and the principal source of that inequality has been a machine revolution whose uneven development is only two centuries old. The combination of money and machines is the engine pushing humanity from the village to the city as our normal habitat. But, although we generally think of ourselves as a modern people, our institutions still look backwards to the previous phase of agrarian civilisation. The economic forms we live by are themselves archaic. Indeed capitalism could be said to be a sort of feudal economy matched to a machine revolution whose potential we barely understand. The lethal result is a polarised world society which resembles nothing so much as the old regime of 18th century France, with an isolated elite controlling the destiny of powerless human masses to whose fate they are largely indifferent. Something must be done or life on this planet will soon be ruined. This book’s main premise is that the latest stage of the machine revolution could support a more democratic economic agenda. The convergence of telephones, television and computers in a global communications network which we know as “the internet” is very much a phenomenon of the 1990s. As yet, a minute proportion of humanity participates fully in it, although half the world occasionally watches major sporting events on television. This communications revolution is both the means of improved social connection on a planetary scale and the main source of escalating economic inequality at all levels of world society. The dominant institutions of the 20th century, that alliance of government bureaucracy and big business which I call “state capitalism”, also dominate the internet. Those who are “wired” are still a western, largely American minority. Yet, just as Marx and Engels found in a few Manchester factories in the 1840s both the seeds of a new world economy and its revolutionary antithesis, this book explores how the potential of the internet might serve the interests of economic democracy. Money is the problem, but it is also the solution. We have to find ways of organising markets as equal exchange and that means detaching the forms of money from the capitalist institutions which currently define them. I believe that, instead of taking money to be something scarce beyond our control, we could begin to make it ourselves as a means of accounting for those exchanges whose outcomes we wish to calculate. Money would then become multiple sources of personal credit, building on the technology which has already given us plastic cards. The key to repersonalisation of the economy is cheap information. Money was previously impersonal because objects exchanged at distance needed to be detached from the parties involved. Now growing amounts of information can be attached to transactions involving people anywhere in the world. This provides the opportunity for us to make circuits of exchange employing money forms which reflect our individuality, so that money may be more meaningful to each of us as a means of participating in the multiple associations we choose to enter. All of this stands in stark contrast to state-made money in the 20th century, where citizens belonged to one national economy whose currency was monopolised by a political class claiming the authority of representation to manage its volume, price and allocation. This is the context for the book’s title, The Memory Bank. Memory banks are, of course, found in computers; but banks are, for most people, places to store money. Money today takes the principal form of electronic digits travelling at the speed of light over telephone wires. Capitalism itself has gone virtual, being concerned with exchanging money for money in forms increasingly separated from the concerns of real production and trade. The line between the exchange of objects by means of money (markets) and the exchange of meanings through words and signs (language) is becoming blurred. Money is becoming information and information money. This provides us with an opportunity to reassess the positive relationship of money to culture and civilisation. For the memory bank of this title is money itself. I argue that the origins of the institution in Europe drew a firm association between money and collective memory. The formation of a global communications network in our time leads us to recall this semantic connection, just as the developments I envisage would emphasise money’s function as a means of remembering. My aim throughout this book is to present the case for thinking of the present age of money as a possible prelude to the formation of a world society fit for humanity as a whole, one in which the administration of justice for all could be a realistic goal and money and markets would become the instruments of economic democracy that they are falsely represented to be today. We need to face the machine revolution and harness its potential to the purposes of our common wellbeing, instead of leaving its benefits to be monopolised, as hitherto, by businessmen, bureaucrats and politicians. If we are to take steps in this direction, we must begin to see how the institutions we live by are made by us, the people in general, and can be remade by us. This is my true objective. I wish to articulate a vision of human agency in history which enables my readers rather than disabling them, as much of modern education and culture does. The formation of world society as a single interactive network is a means towards this end; for only when each of us can make a meaningful connection between our individual purposes and the collective predicament of humanity will we have any hope of addressing the problems with which the age of money confronts us. On money, machines and the market We experience society these days in two principal forms: states and markets. The former are clearly less inclusive than the latter. The world market expresses our new sense of constituting a single social network and its principles of organisation (or disorganisation) are those of networks. [i] As such, markets subvert the pretension of territorial states to be the exclusive, centralised referent of their citizens’ idea of society. In any case that claim once depended on the dominance of national markets in economic life, a condition which is being rapidly eroded. It follows that our civilisation conceives of itself as an economy rather than as a means of political association. The step I want to take here is to conceive of social order as an economy serving the interests of all humanity, as the human economy. And that economy will operate with money at its heart, since buying and selling are indispensable to complex social life. The word “economy”, as used by Greek writers such as Xenophon and Aristotle, originally meant household management, budgeting for domestic self-sufficiency. [1] As late as the early 19th century, Jane Austen could use the word “economist” for a woman who knew how to handle the servants. [ii] In the course of the previous century, however, a new science, “political economy”, arose to address the organising principles of a public sphere dominated by markets of infinite scope. [2] Largely through the synthesising efforts of Adam Smith, the new idea took hold that markets were a vehicle for the expression of rational order; and modern economics was born. Later still, in our century, it was recognised that states had the power to organise their national economies (Keynes’s “macro-economics”). And now we face the necessity of constructing economic order at the global level. The force bringing us to this point has been state capitalism, the system of money-making in which nation-states preside over the social hierarchy; but I will argue that its grip is weakening, not least as a consequence of the communications revolution. [3] The original condition of life on this planet was to produce and reproduce alone. The discovery of sex and society vastly increased the scale and complexity of both operations, making interdependence a necessity, especially for ours, the most social of species. The development of humanity thus consists significantly in devising ways of working for and with others. When production and consumption are separated, mechanisms must be found to restore the linkage between them. Exchange in its various forms is the most prominent of these, but it is by no means the only one. Money and markets allow for a widening of the social range of exchange relations, so that people can produce for ultimate consumers with whom they have no personal ties. The world market of our day is just the latest stage of a process which is pulling the whole of humanity into an increasingly integrated economy. This world market is young. Leaving aside the small quantities of booty plundered by Europeans in the centuries after they first discovered the rest of humanity, it began in earnest under a century and a half ago, when a transport revolution (railways, steamships and the telegraph) gave a decisive boost to the integration of global trade. [iii] Since then we have ventured into space to see the earth from the outside. And lately the communications revolution of the 1990s is bringing us even closer together in practical terms. The means of engaging in complex, long-distance transactions, however, has been impersonal coins and latterly banknotes –detachable means of payment carrying no information about the persons involved — so that the price of economic integration has seemed to be the alienation and objectification of human work. And this has been confirmed by our experience of state capitalism in this century, an alliance of centralised bureaucracy, financial interests and scientific experts, all of them dedicated to the hegemony of impersonal processes in social life. Seen in this light, the communications revolution looks like yet another stage in the progressive abstraction of labour through commodity exchange, with goods and services now being registered as nothing more than numbers on a computer screen. The modern world economy is thus to a growing extent virtual. It would not be surprising if most of us concluded that these developments are more about removing people from the economic picture than about restoring them to an active place in it. Yet the latter is precisely the claim I am making. It is true that impersonal abstraction is indispensable to economic integration and that our world is becoming more abstract, not less. We depend on the use of quantification to make social calculations of money, time and energy, for example; and few of us would rather be ruled by powerful personalities than by impersonal law justly administered. The idea that the communications revolution contains some potentially redeeming features rests on one overwhelming fact: that large amounts of information concerning the persons involved in economic transactions at any distance can now be processed cheaply, thereby making possible the repersonalisation of complex economic life. I cannot imagine a future civilisation in which calculation of the value of many transactions would not be a central part of everyday life. Rather than be overwhelmed by money as an external object of unknown provenance, however, people may come to express themselves subjectively through it. Money would then be seen as the preserve of neither states nor anonymous markets, but rather as the ongoing invention of people seeking to measure the consequences of some of their interactions. A secondary, but in some ways more immediately strategic point, is that electronic commerce undermines territorial monopoly — the land — as a basis for coercive economic extraction (tax and rent). This means that the internet may be finally what the democratic revolution of the 17th and 18th centuries was waiting for before it was diverted into the reactionary project of nation-building. The internet offers for the first time a technical means of expressing the possibilities for communication, democracy and humanity which have always been present in markets and money. After a century and a half when machine production favoured centralisation, the trend may now be in the opposite direction, with the widespread diffusion of miniaturised technologies such as mobile phones, digital TV and personal computers. The transfer of cheap information concerning particular individuals is becoming a routine feature of exchange. If overcoming distance was the chief function of impersonal money, people can now participate in markets of infinite complexity and size as carriers of digitalised personal identities. This has already begun with the development of plastic money, electronic payment systems and customised markets. Virtual shopping is in its infancy; but the profiles of individual consumers can be accommodated, even at this early stage, in more sophisticated ways than was ever envisaged in the days when we picked uniform products off a shelf. If one general aim of humanity is to make society, rather than just having to take it as it comes, part of the failure of 20th century experiments in democracy is that they have often concentrated on political rights while leaving the economic system as unfair as ever. Democratising access to money is indispensable to progress. Although developments involving the internet are as yet in their infancy, some promising tendencies are discernible. I have already mentioned the rapid rise of digitalised personal credit since the introduction of plastic cards a few decades ago. The emergence of new forms of electronic money, interest-free savings and loan schemes, closed circuits of labour exchange and the like point in the same direction. The communications revolution makes customised marketing, personal banking and other manifestations of individual consumer power more feasible. Active participation in capital markets by individuals and groups seeking to protect their own pensions and life insurance is facilitated by the new system. [iv] It seems likely that, before long, we will look on money as one of many instruments invented by people to record some features of their interactions and associations. “Economy” has as its twin term “ecology”, the science of living at home, the systematic study of habitats. The evolution described briefly above, in bringing humanity to confront the problem of order at its most inclusive level, requires us to take life as a whole on this planet as the ultimate frame of reference for human civilisation. My aim here, however, is to consider the leap involved when the idea of economy, having moved via markets from being at home in the house to being at home in the state, might now move via markets to being at home in the world. There are those, of course, who would consider money and markets themselves to be inimical to human survival. I do not. But I recognise that, in order to be persuasive, I must begin to separate the two faces of money, capitalism and markets, the institutions which express the unequal reality and the potential equality of money. In this way perhaps we will discover some of the principles of social order and disorder underlying human attempts to make money more amenable to their will. Not long ago I attended a meeting of old Trotskyites. It was principally a celebration of an author who was in his nineties. The atmosphere was warm and mutually supportive. At the end, a man stood up and said “Comrades, tea is now available. Unfortunately, because we live in a capitalist society, we will have to charge you 30 pence a cup.” I almost wept, for the confusion between markets and capitalism is as deeply rooted on the left as it is in right-wing ideology. Markets require money and people with lots of money exercise disproportionate power in them. Capitalism may be said to be that variant of market economy in which the owners of big money control, for example, the right of most people to work for a living. But when a few friends make a service available to those who choose it and seek to recover their costs by charging a price below the public norm, that is not capitalism. The rejection of market civilisation which led to some fairly disastrous experiments in state socialism was based on this confusion. Accordingly, I have built the argument around a fundamental distinction between “making money with money”, the sparsest definition of capitalism, and “buying and selling with money”, the timeless formula for the market. The first half of the book (chapters 2-4) examines that conjuncture of money and machines which makes our phase of economic history capitalist. The second half (chapters 5-7) is devoted to an exploration of money and markets from a humanist point of view. The sequence of chapters is as follows: the machine revolution; money in the institutional form first of capitalism (two chapters) and then of the market; the history of money considered as itself; and finally the relationship between all of these in our common future. Although I have emphasised common human interests at the expense of the usual social divisions, one thread of the book’s argument concerns the political economy of the internet. The increased mobility of people, goods, money and information is having a cumulative impact on landed systems of association, states in other words. The “wired” (or, as the French prefer, the “internauts”) are in the vanguard of a broad movement to escape state control. This movement, which amounts to a tax revolt, already includes the extremely wealthy, criminal mafias and nomads of all kinds. There is, of course, no guarantee that the weakening of state structures will do anything to promote greater economic democracy; indeed evidence to date points at least as strongly in the other direction. Even so, fractions of the middle class have been a powerful force for general social reform in the past; and the new experience of global community afforded by the internet might just be the stimulus needed to launch a campaign in the honourable tradition of international struggles against slavery, colonialism and other institutions of entrenched inequality. But this book is only indirectly a call to use the resources of the internet for collective mobilisation; it is mainly an exploration of the potential for more of us to feel at home in the world economy. At home in the world The method of this book [4] is anthropology, but of a rather different kind from what is vaguely known by the term these days. Immanuel Kant coined the expression in its modern sense when he published a set of lectures he had given regularly on anthropology for thirty years. [v] Kant lived in the Baltic port of Koenigsburg (now Kaliningrad) over two centuries ago. At a time when large states were becoming dominant, he speculated on the possibility of a world society whose principle he called “cosmopolitan”. The Portuguese sailors he met in the docks made society in the open seas, on the edges of states and between the laws of states. He wondered what might be the basis for people all over the world to live peacefully together without coercion; and he found the answers in human nature, perhaps in universal practices of early education. But he also drew on the best comparative evidence of his day, accounts of the indigenous social arrangements found in North America and the South Pacific. Kant believed that human co-operation required us to rely on personal judgement moderated by common sense, the latter coming from shared social experience and taste (good food and good talk, good company). Towards the end of his life, he wrote an essay, “Idea for a universal history with a cosmopolitan purpose” (1784) [vi] , which included the following propositions: 1. In man (as the only rational creature on earth) those natural faculties which aim at the use of reason shall be fully developed in the species, not in the individual. 2. The means that nature employs to accomplish the development of all faculties is the antagonism of men in society, since this antagonism becomes, in the end, the cause of a lawful order of this society. 3. The latest problem for mankind, the solution of which nature forces us to seek, is the achievement of a civil society which is capable of administering law universally. 4. This problem is both the most difficult and the last to be solved by mankind. 5. A philosophical attempt to write a universal world history according to a plan of nature which aims at perfect civic association of mankind must be considered to be possible and even as capable of furthering nature’s purpose. The world is much more socially integrated today than two centuries ago and its economy is palpably unjust. We have barely survived three world wars and brutality provokes fear everywhere. Moreover, the natural (we would say “ecological”) consequences of human actions are likely to be severely disruptive, if left unchecked. Histories of the universe we inhabit do seem to be indispensable to the construction of institutions capable of administering justice worldwide. When Roy Rappaport wrote recently that “Humanity…is that part of the world through which the world as a whole can think about itself”, [vii] he was repeating the central idea of Kant’s prescient essay. The task of building a global civil society for the 21st century is an urgent one and anthropological visions must play their part in that. The last 200 years of mechanisation have brought about a deterioration in the global vision of the western middle-class’s intellectual representatives. The 19th century put the spirit of democratic revolution firmly behind and addressed a world brought into being by imperialism, an imperialism powered by machines. The question Victorians asked was how they were able to conquer the planet with so little resistance. They concluded that their culture was superior, being based on reason rather than superstition, and that this superiority was owed to nature, to the biology of racial difference. The object of Victorian anthropology was thus to explain the origin of the racial hierarchy they found in the world; and its method was evolutionary history. [viii] The assumption of human psychic unity supported the notion that “they” could eventually become like “us”, once they submitted to an appropriate form of government and education by us. The prevailing ideology of anthropologists since the first world war has been one of cultural relativism, the notion that every place has a right to its own customs, however barbaric. This reflects a dominant worldview which has the whole of humanity pigeonholed as separate tribes, each the owner (or would-be owner) of a hybrid entity, the nation-state. Nationalism was an escape from modern history, from the realities of urban commercial life, into the timeless rural past of the Volk, the people conceived of as a homogeneous peasantry, living in villages near to nature, unspoiled by social division, the very archetype of a community bound together by kinship. Before we began to think of ourselves as nations, western intellectuals compared their societies with the city-states of the ancient world. Now they fabricated myths of their own illiterate ethnic origins in primeval forests. [ix] The Polish adventurer, Malinowski, [5] [x] reinvented romantic nationalism in the form of vivid narratives about the everyday life of South Sea islanders whose autonomous, “primitive” culture mirrored the self-image of contemporary nationalities. If the nation-state is a living contradiction, the anthropology of our century has done its best to convince western readers that society everywhere, even the most “primitive” and microscopic, is constructed along similar lines. Of course, the peoples who were forcefully incorporated into world society by western imperialism in the previous century have not been outside modern history during this one. They have been making it. If we are looking for continuing evidence of the cosmopolitan tradition in anthropology, we would be better off with the intellectuals of the anti-colonial movement; and none of these was greater than Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi’s critique of the modern state was devastating. [xi] He believed that it disabled its citizens, subjecting mind and body to the control of professional experts when the purpose of a civilisation should be to enhance its members’ sense of their own self-reliance. He proposed instead an anthropology based on two universal postulates: that every human being is a unique personality and as such participates with the rest of humanity in an encompassing whole (the individual and the species of Kant’s essay). Between these extremes lie proliferating associations of great variety. As an Indian who had absorbed much that the West has to teach, Gandhi settled on the village and therefore on agricultural society as the most appropriate social vehicle for human development. This backward-looking solution to the problem of the modern world makes Gandhi a typical 20th century figure. But the problem he confronted has been largely ignored by social theorists. It is this. If the world of society and nature is devoid of meaning, being governed by remote impersonal forces known only to specially trained experts, that leaves each of us feeling small, isolated and vulnerable. Yet modern cultures tell us that we are personalities with significance. How do we bridge the gap between a vast, unknowable world, which we experience as an external object, and a puny self endowed with the subjective capacity to act alone or with others? The answer is to scale down the world, to scale up the self or a combination of both, so that a meaningful relationship might be established between the two. Gandhi chose the village as the site of India’s renaissance because it was where most Indians lived, but more importantly because it had a social scale appropriate to self-respecting members of an agrarian civilisation. Moreover, he devoted a large part of his philosophy to building up the personal resources of individuals. Our task is to bring this project up to date. We now have virtual means of constructing subject-object relations on more favourable terms. The popularity of novels and movies is based on this relationship between actual and possible worlds: they bring history down in scale to a familiar frame and they allow their audiences to enter into that history subjectively on any inflated terms that their imagination permits. Once men and women prayed to God with a similar effect. What human beings need is to feel at home in the world. The sources of our alienation are too commonplace to be repeated here, even if they will have to come under closer scrutiny later. What interests me is resistance to alienation, whether this takes the form of religion, spectator sports, outdoor recreation, craft production or domesticity. Home has been described as “haven in a heartless world”, [xii] where the self is stabilised by an environment we have chosen and reshaped. But what does it take for us to feel at home out there, in the restless turbulence of the modern world? The communications revolution may be understood in part as a response to this universal human problem. We feel at home in intimate, face-to-face relations; but we must engage in remote, often impersonal exchanges at distance. Improvements in telecommunications have this evolutionary imperative, that they cannot stop until we replicate at distance the experience of face-to-face interaction. For the drive to overcome alienation is even more powerful than alienation itself. We will not settle for being objects manipulated by remote control. Humanity is a quality, a collective noun and a historical project. We have just reached the point when we have established universal communications; now we must make world society in our own best self-image, the image of our humanity. It is hard to grasp how far we have come and how quickly. [6] Anthropology, Kant’s brainchild, represents the aspiration to place knowledge of humanity as a whole on a rigorous footing. As such it is part of the effort to co-ordinate human intelligence at a species level for common ends. It occupies the space vacated by religion after the latter was driven from the governance of society by science. [xiii] Perhaps it prepares the ground for another religion; but it is not itself religion. This book is a contribution to anthropology. In it I seek to make a bridge between a realistic awareness of the world we live in and our hope for a better future. That is why I have entitled this chapter “Money in the making of humanity”. Reading The Memory Bank A “bank” is a place where things of value, usually money, are stored for safekeeping, to be withdrawn for use when needed. [7] [xiv] A memory bank is a store from which past experiences may be recalled. In computing this refers to files containing stored information such as operational software and more transient data. For present purposes, “the memory bank” is money, but it is also this book itself, which was written from memory and is intended to function as a memory bank for readers. Money provides a useful starting point and central focus for gaining some perspective on our moment in history. C.L.R. James once wrote “Time would pass, old empires would fall and new ones take their place…before I discovered that it is not the quality of goods and utility that matter, but movement; not where you are or what you have, but where you have come from, where you are going and the rate at which you are getting there.” [xv] This idea of life as a trajectory, at once individual and collective, would be impossible without memory; and its sources lie equally in shared traditions and our own unique experiences. Even as we swim in the river of life, we need to draw on the more stable sources of memory accumulating slowly at its edges. There are good reasons for approaching money as a memory bank in this sense. To begin with, the word “money” itself comes from the Roman mint at the temple of Juno Moneta. Moneta is the Latin equivalent of Mnemosyne, the Greek goddess of memory and mother of the Muses, custodians of the principal arts and sciences. The verb moneo means to remind and, like Muse (as in museum, music etc.), is derived from the root men-, mind. [xvi] Thus, for the Romans and implicitly for all those European cultures which take their word for coinage from them, money was at first a store of collective memory linked to the reproduction of the arts as living tradition. The religious origin of banking is attested by the fact that people once put their wealth in temples for safekeeping. The idea of money as a source of social memory was also crucial for John Locke who figures prominently in our story as the philosopher who inaugurated the modern age of democratic revolutions. Locke was obsessed with money’s role both in establishing a progressive social order and in subverting it as its criminal antithesis. Indeed he believed that money launched humanity from the state of nature onto the road to civil government. As long as men’s possessions were limited to perishable products, the scope for property was restricted. Money, by offering a durable store of value convertible against all useful things, unleashed the potential for property accumulation and for the intergenerational transmission of inequality. For Locke then, money was indispensable to that development of cultural memory on which civilisation depends. In our own day, we have seen money transformed from metallic objects to paper notes and now to electronic digits. These “bits” travel at the speed of light via satellite and cable, to be captured in the memory banks of computers whose operations know no territorial frontiers. In the recent movie Entrapment, Sean Connery plays an ageing master burglar who claims not to enjoy robbing banks any more. The money “stuff” has all gone, he says: there used to be gold and deposit boxes full of jewellery to steal, now there are only computers and digitalised information. [8] [xvii] Money in this form is little more than traces of memory and the banks which keep it are mechanised minds. If, for some centuries now, society has been dominated by the owners of money, “capitalists”, today the form of that domination has moved on to what I call virtual capitalism. This is a phase of “making money with money” in which the money circuit is increasingly detached from real production and even from trade in anything but itself. The principal markets are for information services rather than objects; and long-distance exchange is mainly of money for money in a bewildering variety of derivative forms. Although this phase of capitalism has been building for over twenty years, the emergence of the internet as a vehicle for commerce makes it very much a phenomenon of the 1990s. The rapid convergence of financial markets and the communications revolution provides the most compelling reason for locating money in the memory banks of computers at this time. In the later chapters of this book, I suggest that money will eventually take as many forms as the plurality of associations we enter. I take this to be a likely consequence of the reduced power of states to control the economic activities of their citizens (not least as a result of internet commerce). To an increasing degree we will be able to make money for our personal and shared purposes. In the context of more democratic access to money, it will become clearer that its main function is to help us keep track of those exchanges with others that we choose to calculate. We will make money in many different ways as a means of remembering. Seen in this light, money and language are the chief cultural infrastructures which allow us to communicate. And rediscovery of this ancient truth comes precisely when humanity has formed world society as a single interactive network for the first time. The memory bank to whose formation this book points, through its discourse on money, machines and the market, is thus the human conversation which might inform the construction of a better global society. This conversation is already many millennia old and has sources everywhere that people have been. Each of us lives off that accumulation and contributes to it in our own way. I have written the book self-consciously with that relationship in mind; and I end this introductory chapter with some reflections on how I imagine readers might enter into the spirit as well as the content of my arguments. For The Memory Bank of the title refers also to the exchange of meanings (communication) made possible by writing and reading the book. The first version of this book was a textbook, Anthropology and the Modern Economy. [9] Its scope was limited to what student readers could follow up in readily accessible publications. Many of these texts were classic and would have appeared in any similar book; but others were more idiosyncratic. Their selection was based on their place in my memory. Every chapter was written initially from memory, as if it were an improvised lecture (my preferred style of teaching). Only later did I return to the texts to check whether I had got them right. In the process of checking, I added new items which seemed apt even though they were not initially part of my stock repertoire. This too is how memory works, a continuous process of loss and addition built around the elements that last. [xviii] I decided not to publish the textbook, mainly because I felt myself to be excluded by its impersonality. It failed to express those parts of my knowledge which are not to be found in books, since I could hardly represent my own informal experience as the common tradition. Yet I relied on personal anecdotes to enliven my lectures and make them accessible to audiences at various levels. In these, by improvising a line of general argument mixed with stories taken from life, I hoped to bring together analytical reason and narrative through the continuous rhythms of oral performance. Apart from demonstrating to audiences that ideas and life need not be opposed, I discovered that improvisation gave me access to previously unconscious patterns of memory. I often learned something new from spontaneous connections made while telling a story already familiar to me in outline. The textbook form blocked off most of that possibility; and I turned to other ways of bringing my experience as a teacher to the task of writing a book. For a time I worked on a fictional dialogue with an African woman student; but then I found this form too contrived, as well as being limited to an academic setting. About two years ago I hit upon the idea of writing a general book about money, drawing on all my experience, both professional and otherwise. There were numerous precedents for choosing such a theme. When I was offered the chance to give a public lecture to my peers in British social anthropology, I had chosen the topic of money. [10] [xix] My own life-long interest in money had taken many forms inside and outside the academy, such as gambling, business enterprise, ethnographic research and a general obsession with prices and quantification. Money provided a common thread linking me to the Manchester of my roots, to its history as the first industrial economy and beyond. This time the book took shape from my memory as a whole. I was anxious to show the intellectual sources of my thinking, since they occupy so much of my adult life; but I devised a method of writing which crossed the boundaries of scholarship into the personal experiences which have shaped my own responses to that tradition. The result documents an unfinished journey which I hope my readers will be able to share in their own way. As modern people, we tend to live from day to day in a world of private busy-ness, preoccupied with our own immediate concerns: getting out of bed, having a cup of coffee, cleaning our teeth, catching a bus to work, making some phone calls, meeting a friend for lunch, getting in a report to deadline, withdrawing cash from the bank, shopping at the supermarket, trying to relax with a drink, watching the TV news, going to bed again. We rarely take time to ask what makes this daily routine possible. If we do, the images we sustain of society are usually quite restricted, formed by ideas about what we are not, as much as by what we share with others. In this century, we have taken refuge in the myopic notion that the world is divided into tribes each owning or aspiring to own a nation-state, a source of security to its inmates and a means of excluding all the rest. Within these states, society is often conceived of in terms of class divisions based on wealth, occupation, race or gender. The intellectuals have tended to mirror such a worldview, offering visions of society which are themselves stuck in the rut of what is familiar. For all the above reasons, the style of what follows will probably seem odd or even presumptuous to many readers. I believe that humanity stands on the threshold of a new era in which there will be a pressing need to develop, conceptually and in practice, an awareness of the common problems facing world society as a whole. In a sense, to be explored below, such a society already exists; but we have scarcely begun to contemplate how to establish and maintain the social, technological and cultural infrastructures we will need to survive the 21st century. Obviously, the divisions of kind and interest which now constitute our world present many obstacles to such a project. No one book could claim to overcome them. But it is still possible to make a start. I have, therefore, chosen to write as if the world were already one and humanity an inclusive “we”. I offer a vision of world history, an anthropology, in which readers may or may not be able to place their own personal trajectories. Above all, I have put myself inside the processes of which I write, not outside them; and I offer readers anecdotal evidence of the person who chooses to write in this way, rather than hide behind a mask of objectivity. This strategy inevitably may seem to cloak my particular experience with the pretension of universality. The habit of doing this is more common than we may think, but not usually in a book written by a modern intellectual. I have been reinforced in my ambition from two sources. One is the philosophers of the democratic revolution (especially Locke, Rousseau, Kant, Marx and Gandhi) who sought to express themselves in language addressing humanity as a whole and largely succeeded. The other is my mentor, C.L.R. James, a West Indian revolutionary and writer, who managed to make his audiences feel that they lived inside the movement of history he described in his speeches and who had the courage to write about “the world we live in”. [11] [xx] There is something magical about the way human beings reach agreement, especially since, in my view, we all carry around in our heads a private language based on experiences which are unique to us as individuals. [12] Communication depends on our suspending incomprehension and disbelief long enough to sustain the illusion that we know what someone else means when they say something. But, of course, we can never know the full context of historical associations (i.e. memory) which lie behind each person’s use of specific words. The 20th century’s greatest economist, Maynard Keynes, was unusually open to the artistic and subjective dimensions of economics (he married a Russian ballerina). He said, more than once, that a writer depends heavily on the sympathy of his readers, on their willingness to collaborate in the act of communication involved. Reading (or listening) is as creative a process as writing (or speaking). All communication is two-sided, an exchange of meanings in which the “we” formed by the interaction is constructed out of the irreducible separateness of “you” and “me”. If I seem to presume too much, it is because my rhetoric is designed to overcome a very pessimistic view of what human beings can actually share at this time. We really are primitives, locked in our private worlds, dipping our toes gingerly in the ocean of human possibility. The most we can hope for is to co-operate as equals in this limited context. Given that I have written the book with this in mind, I do not expect readers to follow my line of thought slavishly (the textbook model). For reading is also a spontaneous outcome of the interplay between the objective contents of the text and the subjective interests and experience of the reader. My aim is to stimulate further enquiry and I expect readers to react differently and selectively both to my text and to those I have referred to. Do not be surprised if my interpretations are not yours; and cherish the moments when we appear to agree. Marcel Mauss is acknowledged to be the most brilliant writer in the field of economic anthropology (almost entirely for his celebrated essay on The Gift). [xxi] He used to lecture in Paris’s Institute of Ethnology during the 1930s to audiences drawn from that city’s intellectuals in general. The lectures were well-received, but people could not agree on what they were about. Three members of the surrealist movement, among them Georges Bataille, decided to conduct an experiment by separately writing down their versions of his lectures. Sure enough, they turned out to be entirely different. When consulted on the matter, the great man said that it was no part of his intention to impose his own thoughts on the audience, but rather to allow each listener to discover their own. Abstract ideas must be made personally relevant in order to live. Our education system discourages awareness of this fact, with its hose-and-bucket approach to the acquisition of knowledge. Any single act of reading or listening takes its meaning from the accumulated memory of the recipient. The experience of revelation, whenever it occurs, is invariably a process of self-discovery, when a passage of a book or lecture triggers off conscious recognition of something we half-understood already. We are conditioned to attribute this process to the author or lecturer; but the relationship of this sense of enlightenment to the immediate experience is often at best contingent. The intellectuals, of course, would like us to believe that ideas govern life and that the rest of humanity consequently should take our lead from them; but it is the other way round, on both counts. Like any other book, this one has a linear organisation. There is a definite logic to the order in which I have chosen to place each section and chapter. This sense of forward movement is intrinsic to the writing of each chapter and it favours a conventional reading style (from the beginning to the end). I do not recommend, however, that the book be approached initially in this way. Have a look at the table of contents, the index, the concluding paragraphs of a section. Dip into the argument at random, allowing your eye to rest where it finds fertile ground (and to move on if it does not). Later you will return to particular bits of the argument for more prolonged reflection. If you find yourself sticking on a specific page, pass on and return to it later or give it a miss altogether. This too is how the mind works when you are sitting through a lecture or watching television, fastening on items here and there, trying to keep up with the thread or not, as the mood takes you. And the great advantage of a book it that you don’t have to sit through a unique performance while it happens. Being in control yourself was not invented with the VCR. Books got there first. Finally, we come to the really difficult bit. Who are you, my readers? I have assumed that the frame of reference here is universal, taking in a global comparative perspective. Yet both my biography and my subject have their roots in the history of the English-speaking peoples; and my profession, anthropology, has been dominated in the 20th century by the three major western imperial powers — America, Britain and France. While I have tried to reflect the diversity of my own global experience in what I have written, there is no denying where I have come from nor that most of humanity will be excluded from reading the book, for reasons of education, class, language or whatever. This tension between universal generalisation and particular cultural background is intrinsic to the anthropological project. It is self-evident to me that the western capitalism of our day is not the endpoint of human evolution that its apologists sometimes claim; [13] [xxii] and that the voices of the non-western masses must still be heard on their own terms. But equally, the most general processes always start out somewhere in particular and the leaders in the machine age which is transforming humanity’s relationship to the planet have been Britain, America and a few other western societies. This is something of a minefield and I urge readers to defer judgement concerning my own relationship to the contradictions involved until they have read more of the book. I hope to diffuse the charge of ethnocentric bias, first by admitting it and second by asking readers to approach the text as individuals before leaping to grand classifications as an explanation for our personal differences. This too is a reason for including myself in this story: we can reach out for the universal together, but each of us comes from somewhere in particular and we must never lose sight of that. My hope for human society is that this principle will come to be more widely accepted than at present. Finally, I do not claim that this book is a work of scholarship. Its scope is too broad for that. But I have tried to enable readers to trace my most specific citations and, where relevant, the direct sources for some of my more general remarks. These references to published texts are contained in numbered notes at the end of each chapter. I have added in the same place a short guide to further reading in essay form. The Authors’ Index at the end of the text may also be used to follow up literary sources. A few footnotes offer points of interest which I felt would clutter up the flow of the main text. In general, however, I have tried to capture the style of my lectures, improvisations which draw on my working memory. Many of the statements I make can no longer be traced to an objective source. They are just stuck in my memory and I can only hope that they are not wrong. I could have spent an extra year or so establishing the veracity of my account in minute detail and leaving behind a compendious system of notes. But that would be to make the book more like a late 20th century academic text than I would like. I have relied, more than anything, on the classical canon of modern social thought and it occurred to me that most authors whose books have lasting value were not so concerned with extensive annotation of their arguments. That may not be an adequate defence, but it calms my anxieties a little. Guide to further reading I am a classicist. I like to read the writers whose books made a big difference. I have picked up a personal intellectual genealogy over the years, but not in the order of their historical occurrence nor with any fixed ranking of their importance to me. When I started out as an anthropologist, I was attracted to the French founders of the modern discipline, Emile Durkheim (note 13) and Marcel Mauss (21). Then, as a research student, I leaned heavily on Max Weber, whose General Economic History is the single most accessible text. [xxiii] Soon afterwards, I underwent a Marxist conversion and for many years I depended most on Karl Marx (17) and his followers; but it took me many years to get a handle on Capital. [xxiv] Then I discovered how much Marx, Weber and Durkheim all owed to Hegel and particularly to his The Philosophy of Right (1821). [xxv] With the help of C.L.R. James’s Notes on Dialectics (1948) and Shlomo Avineri’s Hegel’s Theory of the Modern State, [xxvi] I began to see how dialectic might be applied to an understanding of modern history and Hegel’s central place in that history better recognised. My next revelation was the cosmopolitan political philosophy of the late Kant and especially his anthropology (5,6). I also began to grasp his way of knowing. At the same time, I drew inspiration from Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s amazing output in the mid-18th century, especially his Discourse on the Origins and Foundations of Inequality among Men (1754), which I take to be, with Kant’s lectures, the source of modern anthropology, and Emile: or on education (1762) which is simply the most subversive book ever written. [14] [xxvii] By now it became clear that I was heading for Locke and, true enough, I found him in the course of writing this book, particularly the Two Treatises of Government; but with the immense assistance of George Caffentzis’s Clipped Coins, Abused Words and Civil Government: John Locke’s Philosophy of Money. [xxviii] Apart from Locke and Marx, who between them set the intellectual agenda for a constructive debate on the principles of modern economy, I have drawn extensively on the example of two more recent writers on money, Georg Simmel and Maynard Keynes. [xxix] The latter, in particular, has been a constant source of inspiration. Otherwise, I get my economics mainly from the 18th Scottish political economists, with a slight preference for the Jacobite, Sir James Steuart, over the better-known Adam Smith. [xxx] Roy Rappaport’s great Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity, published posthumously in 1999 (7), showed me that anthropologists can transcend our 20th century limitations. If all of this is taken exclusively from the western tradition, I have been much influenced also by several writers from the 20th century colonial world, notably Mohandas K. Gandhi [xxxi] and C.L.R. James. [xxxii] This then is my all-time greats batting line-up. There is no telling which of these might be a trigger to your own greater self-knowledge, as they all have been to mine. The book shows its origins in academic life. Readers would not guess from the references that I do actually read and learn from works of literature. To some extent, this is because I have written the text from memory and my functioning memory has been formed by thirty years in the classroom. I never learned to quote poetry or literary aphorisms. Which is a pity. But if The Memory Bank persuades a few people that the classical heritage of social theory may be accessible to them, I will be content with that. [1] Oikos meant “house” and the root nem- referred to imposing order. [2] The term “political economy” was introduced from the French by the Jacobite exile, Sir James Steuart. His mercantilist Principles of Political Oeconomy (1767) was soon superceded by Adam Smith’s work, The Wealth of Nations being published in 1776; but it is in many ways more relevant for us today. [3] This has two sides: the technology of information-processing and transfer and the social relations people enter by this means. It is because I wish to address both sides that I prefer the term “communications revolution” to “information revolution”. [4] The word method comes from the Greek meta-hodos meaning before or after the road; preparation for a journey, the end of a journey. [5] Bronislaw Malinowski, founder of the modern school of British social anthropology and author of prototypical ethnographies, especially Argonauts of the Western Pacific (1922). [6] In 1998 getting on for half of the world’s population watched a football match on television, the same number of people as existed on earth in 1960 (three billions). Think about it. I could say more about the potential of games to overcome the contradiction between self and society; but the point has been made sufficiently at this stage. [7] The American Heritage Dictionary lists three separate words under “bank”: 1. A piled up mass, as of snow or clouds, a collection of things lying one on top of the other; also the slope of land at the edge of water 2. A business establishment in which money is kept 3. A set of similar things arranged in a row, such as keys on a keyboard and oarsmen in a galley. It lists the first as Middle English of Scandinavian origin, the second as coming from Late Latin banca, a bench, in particular a moneychanger’s table, the third from a Germanic variant of the same. Between them these meanings suggest a slow natural accumulation and an imposed cultural order, both sources of security like a memory bank, a place to stand on the edge of the river of time. But the place we stand on is itself moving. [8] As Marx once put it, in order to demonstrate the priority of production over distribution, “A stock-jobbing nation cannot be pillaged in the same manner as a nation of cow-herds.” [9] Commissioned by Polity Press, for whose confidence in the project I am grateful. Unfortunately I lost confidence in the project. [10] My 1986 Malinowski lecture at the London School of Economics was “Heads or tails? Two sides of the coin”. [11] The phrase is taken from C.L.R. James Mariners, Renegades and Castaways: Herman Melville and the World We Live In (1953). I was fortunate to work with James for a couple of years before he died in 1989. See C.L.R. James American Civilization, edited by A. Grimshaw and K. Hart (1993). [12] I share this opinion with John Locke who, along with Jean-Jacques Rousseau, held that language developed in human evolution before society proper. Almost all subsequent modern thinkers have held the opposite view, namely that language is inseparable from our experience of society. It is as a necessary corrective to this that I entertain the notion of each of us as the bearer of a unique set of meanings in our heads (our personal memory) drawn from a bewildering variety of sources which can never be assumed to be shared with others. Communication under these circumstances is an act of faith which we should cherish precisely for its fragility. [13] Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History and the Last Man is the most notorious example of this. [14] No wonder that the Archbishop of Paris issued a fatwah against its author which unleashed the hit squads all over Europe nor that Rousseau was burnt in effigy in Amsterdam, Geneva and Paris for writing Emile (note, not The Social Contract, but a work on education which attacked the very premises of the Church’s ascendancy). Receipt of Emile in the mail made Kant miss his famous midday walk – people set their clocks by him. He later wrote what may qualify as the most extravagant blurb ever (I paraphrase): “Two events stand out in the history of the struggle for human freedom: the French revolution and the publication of J.-J. Rousseau’s Emile.” [i] M. Castells The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture (three volumes), especially Volume 1 The Rise of the Network Society, Blackwell, Oxford 1996 [ii] J. Austen Mansfield Park, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1975 (1819) [iii] W. A. Lewis The Evolution of the International Economic Order, Princeton U.P., Princeton, 1978 [iv] R. Blackburn “Grey capitalism”, New Left Review (forthcoming) [v] I. Kant Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View. Southern Illinois Press, Carbondale, 1978 [vi] I. Kant “Idea for a universal history with cosmopolitan intent” in Carl Friedrich ed The Philosophy of Kant, The Modern Library, New York, 1993 (1784) [vii] R. Rappaport Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999, p.461 [viii] G. Stocking Victorian Anthropology, Free Press, New York, 1987 [ix] M. Thom Republics, Nations and Tribes, Verso, London, 1995 [x] B. Malinowski Argonauts of the Western Pacific: an account of native enterprise and adventure in the archipelagos of Melanesian New Guinea, Dutton, New York, 1961 (1922) [xi] B. Parekh Ghandi’s Political Philosophy: a critical examination, University of Notre Dame Press, Ind., 1989 [xii] C. Lasch Haven in a Heartless World: the family besieged, Norton, New York, 1995 [xiii] E. Durkheim The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, Free Press, Glencoe, 1965 (1912); K. Hart “Foreword” to R. Rappaport Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity (see note 7) [xiv] American Heritage Dictionary (3rd edition), 1993 [xv] C.L.R.James Beyond a Boundary, Serpents Tail, London, 1994 (1963), p. [xvi] C.Lewis and C. Short A Latin Dictionary, Oxford U.P., London, 1933 [xvii] K. Marx Grundrisse, Vintage Books, New York, 1973 (1857-58), p.98 [xviii] S. Rushdie Imaginary Homelands: essays and criticism, 1981-1991, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1992 [xix] K. Hart “Heads or tails? Two sides of the coin”, Man, December 1986 [xx] C.L.R. James Mariners, Renegades and Castaways: the story of Herman Melville and the world we live in, Allison & Busby, London, 1984 (1953); American Civilisation, A. Grimshaw & K. Hart eds, Blackwell, Oxford, 1993 [xxi] M. Mauss The Gift: the form and reason for exchange in archaic societies, Routledge, London, 1990 (Essai sur le Don, 1925) [xxii] F. Fukuyama The End of History and the Last Man, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1992 [xxiii] M. Weber General Economic History, Transaction Books, New Brunswick, NJ, 1981 (1922) [xxiv] K.Marx Capital: a critique of political economy, 3 vols, Lawrence and Wishart, London, 1970 (1867) [xxv] G.W.F. Hegel The Philosophy of Right, Oxford University Press, 1967 (1821) [xxvi] C.L.R. James Notes on Dialectics: Hegel, Marx, Lenin, Allison & Busby, London, 1980, (1948); S. Avineri Hegel’s Theory of the Modern State, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1972 [xxvii] J.J. Rousseau A Discourse on Inequality (Discourse on the Origins and Foundations of Inequality among Men), Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1984 (1754); Emile: or on education, Basic Books, New York, 1979 (1762) [xxviii] John Locke Two Treatises of Government, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1960 (1690); G. Caffentzis Clipped Coins, Abused Words and Civil Government: John Locke’s philosophy of money, Autonomedia, New York, 1989 [xxix] Georg Simmel The Philosophy of Money, Routledge, London,1978 (1900); J.M. Keynes A Treatise on Money (2 vols), Macmillan, London, 1930 [xxx] Sir James Steuart Principles of Political Oeconomy, 2 vols, Miller and Cadell, London, 1767; Adam Smith An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Methuen, London, 1961 (1776) [xxxi] See note 11; M.K. Gandhi An Autobiography: or my experiments with truth, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1982 (1927) [xxxii] A. Grimshaw ed The C.L.R. James Reader, Blackwell, Oxford, 1992; C.L.R. James The Black Jacobins: Toussaint L’Ouverture and the San Domingo Revolution, Secker & Warburg, London, 1938; see also notes 20, 26 Post to Twitter Tweet This Post Comment (RSS) | Trackback Leave a Reply Click here to cancel reply. You must be logged in to post a comment. * Welcome! cover The two great memory banks are language and money. Exchange of meanings through language and of objects through money are now converging in a single network of communication, the internet. We must learn how to use this digital revolution to advance the human conversation about a better world. Our political task is to make a world society fit for all humanity. * Prickly Pear Pamphlets prickly_logo * Open Anthropology Cooperative [EMBED] Visit Open Anthropology Cooperative * RSS keith@oac + The uniqueness of humanity: a philosophical discussion (video) December 1, 2013 + The anthropology of money and finance: from ethnography to world history September 4, 2013 + The human economy: a strategy in the struggle for happiness July 14, 2013 + An African liberal revolution in the 21st century? July 4, 2013 + The case for an African customs union June 6, 2013 + After the disaster (but before Krugman endorsed Klein's shock doctrine) May 19, 2013 + The Human Economy approach endorsed by Nobel laureate economist aged 102 January 18, 2013 + The limits of Karl Polanyi's anti-market approach in the struggle for economic democracy January 16, 2013 + How the informal economy took over the world October 17, 2012 + Germaine Tillion (1907-2008) on the method of the human sciences August 26, 2012 * OAC Logo [green250x108.png] * Twitter * Categories + Abdul Aziz + America + Anthropology + APE + Audio-visual + Economy + Europe + Guest author + Human economy + Money + Reviews + Teaching + The African Revolution + Uncategorized + World * Meta + Log in + Entries RSS + Comments RSS + WordPress.org Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS). Valid XHTML and CSS. Powered by WordPress and Fluid Blue theme. Amazon.com Widgets DEBATES OPINIONS FORUMS POLLS Google Search My Debates Start a New Debate Challenge Period Debating Period Voting Period Post Voting Period Recently Updated Debate Leaderboard Voting Leaderboard Judges Leaderboard Post Your Opinion Arts Cars Economics Education Entertainment Fashion Funny Games Health Miscellaneous Movies Music News People Philosophy Places-Travel Politics Religion Science Society Sports Technology TV Opinions Leaderboard Debate.org Arts Economics Education Entertainment Funny Games Health History Miscellaneous News Personal Philosophy Politics Religion Science Society Sports Technology Forums Leaderboard Create New Poll Arts Cars Economics Education Entertainment Fashion Funny Games Health Miscellaneous Movies Music News People Philosophy Places-Travel Politics Religion Science Society Sports Technology TV Polls Leaderboard ____________________ Submit Sign In __________________________________________________________________ Sign Up Home > Opinions > Society > Is money enough to make you happy? Add a New Topic [6cf13460a79a31835b8837356b60-is-money-enough-to-make-you-happy.jpg] Is money enough to make you happy? * Add a New Topic * Add to My Favorites * Debate This Topic * Report This Topic Is money enough to make you happy? * Created: New to Old * Created: Old to New * Likes: Most to Least * Likes: Least to Most * Replies: Most to Least * Replies: Least to Most 47% Say Yes 53% Say No * Created: New to Old * Created: Old to New * Likes: Most to Least * Likes: Least to Most * Replies: Most to Least * Replies: Least to Most * Money is important. Money is important. Without money you can't buy your favorite things or live in a normal life. True love? Friendship? It will only lead to sad endings and you can't bring that to the bank and make you happy. Money makes me happy because of these things and nothing more. Report Post Like Reply leeanandh02 N711 2 2 ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ (Maximum 900 words) (Submit) Submit * Money money money Without money you always worried about paying bills, keeping a roof over your head and living a comftable life, and with money you can have complete peice of mind knowing you have it all and never have to worry about anything, with money you can own a home, you don't have to rent, drive a good car, travel, and never worry about not being able to afford things and live a comftable carefree life. Money is KING. Report Post Like Reply leeanandh02 1 1 ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ (Maximum 900 words) (Submit) Submit * Money brings peace Money can make one go on holiday enjoy life, able to help those who r in the need of it and it will reduce comparison of other people's pockets. Money brings peace and prosperity and makes one feel totally independent. It makes one feel that u cant lack anything and u can live ur life freely without any1s criticisms, and orders from all kinds of weirdos :P Report Post Like Reply N711 1 0 ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ (Maximum 900 words) (Submit) Submit * More money, more happiness. Money is the basic need in our lives. Without money life is impossible on Earth. Money should only be earned through hard work. It makes everyone happy including you. The people around will appreciate your work, which makes you feel proud. You could even give gifts to others to make them happy. When they feel happy, you feel more happy. More money gives us joy and happiness but lack of money gives us pain and problems. That is why the more money you have the better life you can lead and you will also be happy. Report Post Like Reply leeanandh02 1 0 ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ (Maximum 900 words) (Submit) Submit * Everything but money I should be happy. I have a great husband and a beautiful daughter. But I'm not, I'm depressed because we don't have enough money to meet our basic needs (a place to live/rent, transportation). Nor do we have any money to go out with each other or friends. This has caused many fights in our marriage (stress) and I have lost many friends. (and don't tell me I need better friends. When everyone goes out for drinks should I just sit there and not order anything, and can't afford a babysitter)Plus Its affecting my daughter because I can't afford to bring her to classes or anywhere to socialize. You don't need to be rich to be happy but you do need enough for the necessities. Report Post Like Reply 0 0 ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ (Maximum 900 words) (Submit) Submit * Money can buy you happiness Where is the happiness in having a loved one but you don't have money to fulfill her dreams or even make her happy. The truth is money can buy anything even happiness. If you have money, you can enjoy your life, you can do whatever you want, you might even find new friends by visiting places. Money is ultimatum!.. Even if you have no love in your life but have unlimited money you can atleast be happy by satisfying your needs!... Love and affection will hurt in the future, it ends but if you have money till your death you will atleast live your life! Posted by: Red_Devil Report Post Like Reply Challenge 0 0 ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ (Maximum 900 words) (Submit) Submit * The more money we have the happier we are Its totally true. Having more money is not just a good luck, but it is the thing which makes our life enjoyable, happy. In today's world without money we are not able to do anything. In fact money is the only thing which can make us popular in the society and the world. If we have money we can do anything- for our happiness, for our loved ones. More money may give power but lack of money cannot give anything except tensions and problems. Report Post Like Reply 0 0 ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ (Maximum 900 words) (Submit) Submit * For those who think money cannot bring true happiness Think? Can you pay your bills with a hug? In today's world money can buy everything even happiness. You may be very friendly and lovable but people will not at all care to be with you unless you have money. The importance of money can only be known to a mother whose child is dying out of hunger or to a wife who doesn't have enough money to cure her sick and dying husband. Report Post Like Reply 0 0 ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ (Maximum 900 words) (Submit) Submit * Money is not neccecary but it is enough Money may not be necessary to achieve happiness but it is enough while happiness can be achieved without money it can be used as a tool to achieve happiness for example lets say you like to see new places or meet new people, if you are a wealthy person you can go anywhere you want at any time you want allowing you to be happy. The problem for many people is relationships or true love but if you are wealthy it does not take that away it just widens the field allowing you to meet more women/men because of your freedom and travelling. Report Post Like Reply leeanandh02 dina-roma 2 0 ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ (Maximum 900 words) (Submit) Submit * I think those who don't want more money are either ignorant, or even selfish. It is simple, without money we simply could not live to the standard in which we choose to live our lives on a daily basis. I know if I (and the 99% of the worlds population) had more money life would be less stressful to varying degrees. From not having to worry about where the next meal is coming from or where to sleep that night, to being able to afford luxuries like travel, or be in a position to help others financially. I personally think very few people would turn down the chance of having a bit more money, if not, they may be ignorant to the fact it puts them in a position to help others who are not in their position. Report Post Like Reply 0 0 ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ (Maximum 900 words) (Submit) Submit * * Money is not every thing It can buy a house not home it can buy bed not sleep it can buy clock not time it can buy book not knowledge it can buy position not respect it can buy medicine not health it can buy blood not life it cant buy manners, morals or character it cant even buy patience , trust integrity or common sense Report Post Like Reply 0 0 ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ (Maximum 900 words) (Submit) Submit * Money is just a means! Although I don't have much money, I am already happy. In my opinion, money is an important means of getting what u want; what makes you happy; but still, it is not the only means. There are a lot of ways to be happy that do not require money, and on the other hand, money can not satisfy all the needs of man. Posted by: Riemo Report Post Like Reply Challenge 0 0 ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ (Maximum 900 words) (Submit) Submit * Money isn't happiness If money is all one need to be happy, why are so many rich Singaporeans not happy? The pursuit for money is perpetual, any amount of money is unable to feed the insatiable human beings. Money has turned us into it's slave, we burnt our youth trying to earn as much as we could. No doubt, money brings about comfortable living and the so-called upper class status. But, can money buy intangible things like family or true friends? With money, it's always easy to make friends, just that how genuine is the friendship? Will these friends stay with you when you're broke? Time to re-evaluate the meaning and functions of money Report Post Like Reply 0 0 ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ (Maximum 900 words) (Submit) Submit * Money may be important and give pleasure but the greed for money can sink you Money may give pleasures but many job-holders are living in stress because even though they have money they don't have happiness, relief.They may be highly paid but we need money for our family and us then what's the use of money due to which we don't have time for our family;friends and themselves and the greed for money will never let us live in peace. We should always remember that we should control money but money should not control us Report Post Like Reply 0 0 ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ (Maximum 900 words) (Submit) Submit * Money may be important and give pleasure but the greed for money can sink you Money may give pleasures but many job-holders are living in stress because even though they have money they don't have happiness, relief.They may be highly paid but we need money for our family and us then what's the use of money due to which we don't have time for our family;friends and themselves and the greed for money will never let us live in peace. We should always remember that we should control money but money should not control us Report Post Like Reply 0 0 ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ (Maximum 900 words) (Submit) Submit * Money isn't everything People work hard to earn money to spend on their health but they are forgetting their health to earn money.We should be happy first then we should think of money,we should be satisfied.We should not run after money because money can even destroy us,our family and our relationships.Money is not everything. Report Post Like Reply 0 0 ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ (Maximum 900 words) (Submit) Submit * I don`t like to speak critically, but no No doubt the money now - is the most important thing on earth. With the money you are respected, confident, you can afford a lot. But, all the same happiness is not money, because we have a saying: the poor wants to be - a rich, rich god. Leaning on saying I can say that human needs are endless, but happiness is a relative thing and fleeting that it can be contained in a hard-things such as love and family Report Post Like Reply 0 0 ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ (Maximum 900 words) (Submit) Submit * Money helps everything but the beset things in life our free Whilst of course it is true that poverty is a nightmare it is possible to live on basic necessities (food, clothing, shelter) and still be happy as I have done in the past. Its a positive attitude and friends and family that see you through these times. You can be rich but lonely after all. Plus for instance a father who only ever gives money but not time to his children is not really investing in their emotional happiness. Many beautiful things are free like love, sunsets, dancing, playing a sport etc. Too much money can lead to apathy, greed, snobbishness and massive egos. Report Post Like Reply 0 0 ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ (Maximum 900 words) (Submit) Submit * Money is the most wicked thing YES money gives us a house but greed of money will lead us to like being blind and hitting a car. Yes I do apperiacite the worth of money but when you will be rich you wouldnt enjoy your families love. If we cant feel the support of family will cant live life Report Post Like Reply 0 0 ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ (Maximum 900 words) (Submit) Submit * Money is the most wicked thing YES money gives us a house but greed of money will lead us to like being blind and hitting a car. Yes I do apperiacite the worth of money but when you will be rich you wouldnt enjoy your families love. If we cant feel the support of family will cant live life Report Post Like Reply 0 0 ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ (Maximum 900 words) (Submit) Submit * Load More Arguments __________________________________________________________________ Related Opinions * Does viewing pornography lead to sexual aggression? * Should the age of sexual consent be 16? * Should boys learn to cook? * Should more (yes) or less (no) be done to protect people from anti-Muslim violence? * Is there a correlation between unemployment rates and the high rate of incarceration in the United States? * Did Probihition help create a more powerful federal government in the United States? * Is there any truth to conspiracy theories * Should tourism be banned in national parks? * Is sending hardcore criminals to prison a waste of taxpayers' money? * Charges dropped against Paul Simon: Is domestic violence a big problem in the United States? * Comments (3) Leave a comment... ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ (Maximum 900 words) Quan says2013-08-22T19:31:58.227 Report Post It's enough to prevent financial problems from making me unhappy. Anonymous says2013-08-28T15:58:58.113 Report Post If you read the comment and take it as 100% literally, then no money alone is not enough to make you happy. If you have a million dollars but got that from car accident that has left you with very limited quality of life, chances are you aren't going to be happier than a person who can have their basic needs met. And huge amounts of money that enable you to experience everything from traveling to exotic locations, having servants, gorgeous cars and homes, etc. Creates discontentment because it is harder and harder to find something that you haven't experienced. So you are just on a search all the time for a "new experience". If money was enough to make someone happy then wealthy people (celebrities) wouldn't be dying of drug overdoses. hyipego says2014-02-18T09:20:54.883 Report Post Do you need money to be happy 3000% of your Investment Deposit Withdraw Term $100-$1999 120% of your Investment 2 Hours $2000-$4999 150% of your Investment 2 Hours $200000-$500000 3000% of your Investment 2 Hours Get the money you need! Http://www.Investinglibertyreserve.Com Investment Insurance http://www.Payinghyiponline.Com/InvestingLibertyReservecom.Html * Debates * Opinions * Forums * Polls * Blog * People * ABOUT * Company * Demographics * Elected Officials * HELP * FAQs * Articles * Contact Us Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Sitemap ©2013 Debate.org. All rights reserved. IFRAME: __bkframe Amazon.com Widgets DEBATES OPINIONS FORUMS POLLS Google Search My Debates Start a New Debate Challenge Period Debating Period Voting Period Post Voting Period Recently Updated Debate Leaderboard Voting Leaderboard Judges Leaderboard Post Your Opinion Arts Cars Economics Education Entertainment Fashion Funny Games Health Miscellaneous Movies Music News People Philosophy Places-Travel Politics Religion Science Society Sports Technology TV Opinions Leaderboard Debate.org Arts Economics Education Entertainment Funny Games Health History Miscellaneous News Personal Philosophy Politics Religion Science Society Sports Technology Forums Leaderboard Create New Poll Arts Cars Economics Education Entertainment Fashion Funny Games Health Miscellaneous Movies Music News People Philosophy Places-Travel Politics Religion Science Society Sports Technology TV Polls Leaderboard ____________________ Submit Sign In __________________________________________________________________ Sign Up Home > Opinions > Society > In today's society, what's the median of success: money (yes) or moral values (no)? Add a New Topic [9a63f45c4dd49d54727e1badee56-in-todays-society-whats-the-median-of-suc cess-moral-values-no-or-money-yes.jpg] In today's society, what's the median of success: money (yes) or moral values (no)? Asked by: HikmatJ * Add a New Topic * Add to My Favorites * Debate This Topic * Report This Topic In today's society, what's the median of success: money (yes) or moral values (no)? * Created: New to Old * Created: Old to New * Likes: Most to Least * Likes: Least to Most * Replies: Most to Least * Replies: Least to Most 80% Say Yes 20% Say No * Created: New to Old * Created: Old to New * Likes: Most to Least * Likes: Least to Most * Replies: Most to Least * Replies: Least to Most * Money helps us to live We need money to buy things, food with money, house with money and clothes with money. Company needs money to create new projects and farmer need money to buy crops , water and ground. Even international schools and academies needs money. Play with friends need money too. Like to eat snacks, or going to amuseument park Report Post Like Reply 0 0 ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ (Maximum 900 words) (Submit) Submit * Yes money is important Everything in modern society is based on money. As the saying goes, money makes the world go around. Parents object to their daughters' marriages unless their future sons-in-laws have jobs with good prospects. Many young people marry for money rather than love. Security is more important than happiness. Some people in Shanghai would even trade their self-esteem for money. Materialism influences education, too. Students acquire knowledge not for its own sake, but for a bigger wage. Students choose business courses rather than liberal arts for the sake of earning big money in the future. Very few people want to be teachers because teaching is not a lucrative profession. More emphasis is put on material life than on spiritual life in modern society. People do anything in their power to earn money to buy their houses, furniture, cars, etc. People are trained to be acquisitive from an early age and are not considered successful unless they make good money. People spend most of their lives struggling frantically to keep up with their neighbors. Wealthy nations can succeed by offering their poorer talented neighbors bigger salaries. Financial rewards for pop stars make many people envy them. A desire to earn more money is nothing to be ashamed of. Deng Xiao-ping said, "To get rich is glorious." Being poor is not very much fun. Being rich allows you to do what you want. If you are rich, many people want you for a friend. It is easier to marry well if you are wealthy. Being wealthy allows you to enjoy life to the fullest. The man who has the money makes the rules. Report Post Like Reply 0 0 ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ (Maximum 900 words) (Submit) Submit * Success is valued in terms of money In our society today, mainstream media have successfully convinced many of us into accepting a false and morally meaningless definition of success. People want us to believe that receiving an enormous paycheck, living in a luxurious house, and owning all of the latest equipment is the key to happiness and success. In real life, we all know there comes a lot more to being a truly successful individual. True success necessitates esteem, gratitude, honesty, patience, and persistence. All of these necessities to become successful are not traits we are born with, but things we strive to attain while becoming the best that we can be. Marketers want us to believe that living a pricey, well-appointed life, involving nothing but the quest for money will bring us success, fame and happiness.Today having huge amount of assets make people believe that a person is very successful.But my friends if a person has huge amount of assets inherited from their ancestors,then also people will think that he/she is successful but, it's not true.This false interception has grew to an extent now-a-days. Report Post Like Reply 0 0 ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ (Maximum 900 words) (Submit) Submit * Money is all Morals is for the people with enough money to pay for the simple necessities in life. A person suffering from poverty does not have the time to think whether something is right or wrong, they just want to be able to pay for the bare minimum they need to survive. On the contrary rich people have all the time in the world to think about morals and simple ethics. In the Picture of Dorian Gray, Lord Henry seemed a strange character because he was so immoral in every way unlike every other rich man/woman. Lord Henry's whole life ,however, is run by morals. Morals are anything you make it. If you believe getting high and sleeping with the guy you met last night in the bar is moral, it is. Morality is a lesson, one concerning what is right or prudent and can be derived from a story, a piece of info, or an experience. Morals vary between people. Therefore, the value of morals decreases against the value of money. And i conclude, based on inductive reasoning, that money is truly more important than morals. Report Post Like Reply 0 0 ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ (Maximum 900 words) (Submit) Submit * Yes, money means power. Yes, in today's society, the median of success is money, because a person who has money can buy success. A person with money can send their child to the best schools. They can use their money to influence politicians. They can buy social standing. A moral person, on their own, will not be popular. Report Post Like Reply 0 0 ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ (Maximum 900 words) (Submit) Submit * Money explains values Today having success is having money because our success depends on the ways we choose to achieve having values may be necessary but having money provides you the opportunity to be ahead of others today the world is selfish, person with values may survive but cant lead a successful life. Posted by: stillthinking Report Post Like Reply Challenge 0 0 ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ (Maximum 900 words) (Submit) Submit * Success goes hand in hand with wealth Let me just make one thing perfectly clear - If I make absolutely no conscious effort to acquire money in today's society, I will most likely become homeless and starve to death due to the fact that my basic human needs - shelter and food - are withheld from me due to my lack of financial status. That being said, in the eyes of most people, becoming homeless is probably the least successful thing that can happen to you. Why? Because you don't have any money, you don't have high social status, and people tend to ignore you on the street. People don't equate being unsuccessful to being morally wrong. If a "successful" person sees an "unsuccessful" homeless man on the street, the successful person might feel bad for the homeless man. The reason why is because sometimes people become homeless through no fault of their own. If people equate being homeless with being unsuccessful - which most do - then if morals are the means of success, all homeless people, in the mindset of today's society, must be immoral or harbor immoral thoughts. This just isn't true. The amount of money and the more connections you have to make more money is the lone characteristic that decides success. I wish this wasn't the case but in today's day and age it is. Posted by: tGiff Report Post Like Reply Challenge 0 0 ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ (Maximum 900 words) (Submit) Submit * Money In Today's World In today’s world, success is seen as having a house, family, job, and a car. That all comes from money. In the modern world success is measured by money, and one simply can’t deny that. Moral values doesn’t mean anything if you want to be seen as successful. You could be the biggest jerk on the face of the earth, but also a CEO of a big company, and people overlook the first one, and those people are often seen as successful. Moral values like respect, honesty, humbleness; they have been wiped from the face of the earth when it comes to success. The modern society nowadays sees success as one thing; the amount of money you have. Look at this way. A really good person, who is homeless, compared to a person who lies and cheats, but has a job, house, and car. Ask anyone, who is more successful? There is your answer. Posted by: HikmatJ Report Post Like Reply Challenge 0 0 ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ (Maximum 900 words) (Submit) Submit * * I dont think so Because money is nothing for me, yeah we need it and now i need it more than other man, but i am will think its not important. Money like a hand dirty, when you wash your hands. Its gone. The seciety no need money but moral. Moral valume is what i accepted. Posted by: ortegin Report Post Like Reply Challenge 0 2 ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ (Maximum 900 words) (Submit) Submit * Still money is important I strongly disagree with your stand. You mentioned that money are equal to dirts on hand. You should consider something, that you wash your hand each time after you finish eating. Therefore, it doesn't mean that you don't need food after that. Don't you think so? So, money is something that has no substitute.! Report Post Like Reply 0 0 ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ (Maximum 900 words) (Submit) Submit * __________________________________________________________________ Related Opinions * Frozen Overload: Are you sick of being told to "Let it Go?" * Should we stop restricting movies and video games? * Is being sick and refusing treatment considered suicide? * Was Chuckie ("Fresh") obnoxious? * Bernie Madoff's son dead of cancer: Should children of convicted embezzlers have to repay the victims, since they got to live large on their parent's crimes? * Is the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) biased against men? * Do you believe the strike actions by the staff of the London Underground are justifiable? * Legalization of drugs: Could/should the state make drug-consumption safer? * How to avoid student debt * Are the claims of authorities that approximately 80% of crime in the USA is gang-related accurate? * Comments (0) Leave a comment... ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ (Maximum 900 words) No comments yet. * Debates * Opinions * Forums * Polls * Blog * People * ABOUT * Company * Demographics * Elected Officials * HELP * FAQs * Articles * Contact Us Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Sitemap ©2013 Debate.org. All rights reserved. IFRAME: __bkframe #Mark America » Feed Mark America » Comments Feed Mark America » Morality of Money Comments Feed About Mark Members Only Page Mark America Rebuilding America With Actual Conservatism * About Mark + Mark America * Members Only Page * Morality of Money * Theme Switcher ____________________ Search __________________________________________________________________ Morality of Money In all of literature, there is no greater passage to describe the root of all good in the world, and I think most will be somewhat surprised. In my estimation, there has never been a better description of the moral root of capitalism, and indeed, of money. The author chose to use the character Francisco d’Anconia to deliver this enduring statement on the moral good that is money. For once, in a quiet moment of contemplation, you should consider the piercing logic of this statement – this little speech of a character in a book – and consider how it applies to your life and to the world around you, and when you’ve considered it, you should evaluate what you’ve been taught before and wonder at how you may have been misled: “So you think money is the root of all evil?” said Francisco d’Anconia. “Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil? “When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of your honor–your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on the moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you consider evil? “Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at the electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions–and you’ll learn that man’s mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth. “But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man’s capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made–before it can be looted or mooched–made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can’t consume more than he has produced. “To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not their own injury, for their gain, not their loss–the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery–that you must offer them values, not wounds–that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of goods. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men’s stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best your money can find. And when men live by trade–with reason, not force, as their final arbiter–it is the best product that wins, the best performance, the man of best judgment and highest ability–and the degree of a man’s productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil? “But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality–the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind. “Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants; money will not give him a code of values, if he’s evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he’s evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up becoming a victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered; that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil? “Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth–the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve the mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason you call it evil? “Money is your means of survival. The verdict you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men’s vices or men’s stupidity? By catering to fools in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment’s or a penny’s worth of joy. Then all things you buy will become , not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you’ll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is this the root of your hatred of money? “Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause. Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the un-earned, neither in matter nor in spirit. Is this the root of your hatred of money? “Or did you say it’s the love of money that’s the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It’s the person who could sell his soul for a nickel, who is loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money–and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it. “Let me give you a tip on a clue to men’s characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it. “Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is a leper’s bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another–their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun. “But money demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or keep it. Men who have no courage, pride or self-esteem, men who have no moral sense of their right to keep their money and are not willing to defend it as they defend their life, men who apologize for being rich–will not remain rich for long. They are natural bait for the swarms of looters that stay under rocks for centuries, but come crawling out at the first smell of a man who begs to be forgiven for the guilt of owning wealth. They will hasten to relieve him of the guilt–and of his life, as he deserves. “Then you will see the rise of the men of the double standard–the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money–the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law–men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims–then money becomes its creators’ avenger. Such looters believe it is safe to rob defenseless men, once they’ve passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter. “Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion–when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing–when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors–when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you–when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice–you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that it does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot. “Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men’s protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards, and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked: ‘Account overdrawn.’ “When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purposes of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, ‘Who is destroying the world?’ You are. “You stand in the midst of the greatest achievements of the greatest productive civilization and you wonder why it’s crumbling around you, while you’re damning its life-blood–money. You look upon money as the savages did before you, and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edges of your cities. Throughout men’s history, money was always seized by looters of one brand or another, whose names changed, but whose method remained the same: to seize wealth by force and to keep the producers bound, demeaned, defamed, deprived of honor. That phrase about the evil of money, which you mouth with such righteous recklessness, comes from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of slaves–slaves who repeated the motions once discovered by somebody’s mind and left unimproved for centuries. So long as production was ruled by force, and wealth was obtained by conquest, there was little to conquer. Yet through all the centuries of stagnation and starvation, men exalted the looters, as aristocrats of the sword, as aristocrats of birth, as aristocrats of the bureau, and despised the producers, as slaves, as traders, as shopkeepers–as industrialists. “To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of money– and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man’s mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being–the self-made man–the American industrialist. “If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose–because it contains all the others–the fact that they were the people who created the phrase ‘to make money.’ No other language or nation has used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity–to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted, or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth was to be created. The words ‘to make money’ hold the essence of human morality. “Yet these were the words for which the Americans were denounced by the rotted cultures of the looters’ continents. Now the looters’ credo has brought you to regard your proudest achievement as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards, and your magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt. The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide–as, I think, he will. “Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you will ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns–or dollars. Take your choice–there is no other–and your time is running out.” From Ayn Rand’s magnificent novel Atlas Shrugged * blogger Blog this! * delicious Bookmark on Delicious * digg Digg this post * facebook Recommend on Facebook * gplus Share on google plus * linkedin Share on Linkedin * reddit share via Reddit * stumble Share with Stumblers * twitter Tweet about it * email Tell a friend * http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1649923542 Thomas Dixon Thank you for reintroducing a description of one core tenet to the reasons for uniqueness of our Republic. Though published in 1957 and first read by this contributor in 1965, the book's philosophy is bed rock to human experience that MUST be internalized to avoid the historically repeating cycle of mans' inhumanity to man. As I in that Senior year so long ago, today's youth (certainly the OWS fodder) will not recognize the reality of some individuals' devious contempt for values that are basis for a free society. Instead, they will conceptualize a view of what COULD be and fail to conclude what WILL be until after each experiences castigation or witnesses annihilation. Instead, my prayer is that those of wisdom and strength will prevail by following leaders with vision protected by the shield of our God. Surely, some of the Millenial generation will transcend for they are America's future hope as we were and are. Thanks again for publishing your relevant and insightful thoughts, reminding each of us that we are not standing alone as the shroud engulfs. As publicly shouted, we are the 53%. * http://www.ptsdsoa.org Chris Seitler Thank you for posting this. I am one of those Millennials that you, Mr. Dixon, speak of. I hope that I can help bring illumination to the minds of those around me, but it is truly an up hill battle every day. Most people of my generation are too arrogant to understand that we need to have different classes of people. I am not the smartest person I know, so I know I will not be the wealthiest; however, I am also not the dumbest,, so I know I will not be the poorest. If everyone were equally smart, we would all be sad with society. Everyone would want to do "important" work, but no one would want to drive the garbage down to the dump, no one would want to work in a factory processing different plants into edible foods. The world collapse into chaos, all because no one wants to do the dirty work required to carry on as a society. On day my generation may wake up, but until that time comes I will keep trying to make things better from my own personal end. * http://www.Collapsenet.com Eric Copenhaver I agree, but the failure of the vision above, is a failure of physics: "to make money", one must have materials to make it from- be they sweat, rocks, ideas… Our money, US Dollars, are made of oil. When it goes, so too will the Dollar. It didn't have to be this way, but it is this way now. Dollars are better than guns, for negotiations. When absurdity fails to make a change, all that's left is love, or a gun. America has been absurd for nearly five decades, and willingly crushed the messengers of change (of mind), many decades ago. Money is a tool. We, The People, have failed to use it well. Don't look for a solution to our problems. Einstein told us what you get for that… (same mind for the problem as the solution? no, it won't work like that…) Look instead at the natural progression of systems. Our winter, as a culture, is here. I wish this were not so… but I am only wishing. It's ironic, to me, that you stand in front of Ceasar's Palace, dressed as a Mafia Don. You probably meant it to show solidarity. Remember too, that Rome failed, soon after the Empire was forged. Crossing the Rubicon– heard of it? * http://www.markamerica.com MarkAmerica Eric, No, no mafia types here. I happen to like the style of the 20s, and it had naught to do with mafia types, although I'm certain that's what the pop culture would suggest. It was my first vacation with my wife in over two decades, just less than a year ago. You'll forgive me if I permitted myself a few indulgences. I knew even then that there would not be another such opportunity for a long long time, if ever. We had a great time, thanks. I'm well acquainted with the Rubicon, and the meaning of its crossing. What you seem to suggest is that it can be no other way. I disagree, but more importantly, I think you've missed something fundamental: Oil is not all there has been of our economy, although inexpensive energy has certainly been a driver in our prosperity. I wrote an article some time ago on the linkage between our economy's performance and the price of energy. The correlation is pretty distinct, if not proving direct causation. On the other hand, there may yet be developments in energy that will revolutionize the world. There are great works under way in the realm of fusion that offer us some hope. Such an advancement would yield another period of rapid growth, had we the right mindset to exploit it. Our winter is here because we've forgotten what made our spring, and in fact, none left alive were here to see it, and thus none who remember it. What Rand points out in the passage above is that money is itself an idea, an idea of moral men, and as she explains, it will not serve the immoral in the long run. What we need is what another of her characters in the same book later offered: Not a return to morality, for those who had never known it, but to discover it in the first place. My offering of this passage was merely one small and insignificant step in that direction. Thanks. * http://www.Collapsenet.com Eric Copenhaver Mark, Thank you for the gracious reply. I'm ashamed by it, because I was none too gracious to you in my post. I assumed much, and I was wrong. I apologize… Of the matter at hand- I do not believe in Destiny, for human actions. The "crossing of the Rubicon" is a milestone, watershed, what have you… but we still make choices after the crossing. I am familiar with the complexities of the US economy, and its roots in craftsmanship, entrepenuership, and industry (and agriculture, trade, etc…). The ascendence of oil to primacy can hardly be argued with, however. Nine out of 10 calories we Americans eat are fossil fuel calories (6 out of 10 are oil calories…). Although there are advances that can soften the blow of fossil fuels' diminishing supplies, our particular economy is still heaviliy dependent on liquid fuels for transportation, and for petroleum and natural gas for critical links in modern agriculture, which gave us the 7-billionth living human today, yes? No comparable substitute of any comparable scale, has been proposed to replace petroluem in that application. Fusion can help with many parts of transport and power systems, but it can not create raw materials for feedstocks. and truly, fusion is not here, now. I believe many sober experts agree that the decline of oil and natural gas is here, now. I do not agree that we have forgotten the "why" of our Spring. I believe instead that the natural order of systems applies to our cultures and societies: Winter follows Autum. Spring must wait for Winter to run its course. And that is where my hope lies (lays? :)… appropriately, in the future. I know humanity will persevere through whatever Winter we are facing. If morality survives at all, then my hopes will be realized… one day. * http://gravatar.com/renrah renrah Mark – while many would call me a conspiracy nut, I am one of those that believe Nikola Tesla had the genius to "discover" FREE Energy. The powers that be had stolen and or burned his research as soon as he died. When my children were young and asked all those "Why" questions, I told them the answer to 99% of them was "because of money". Ask why we don't have things like free energy and what other answer does one come up with ? * http://www.markamerica.com MarkAmerica The reason we don't have free energy is because it doesn't exist in a form we can easily harness. If solar panels were more efficient, and less expensive, they would be closer to "free energy" but the problem is that nothing is ever really "free" if it's a material thing. dnr Perhaps this has been addressed above and I missed it. But I believe the false statement "money is the root of all evil" comes from a twisting of Scripture. It is the LOVE of money that is the root of all evil (I Tim. 6:10). Yet another Bible passage perverted by socialists. * http://www.markamerica.com MarkAmerica It's been addressed, but Rand's character addresses that too. I don't find "the love of money" evil either, at least in the context she presents it. dnr That's what I get for skimming the passage – she does mention it. Haven't been able to finish Atlas Shrugged – but know I need to. Agree that money is to be appreciated and respected. I'd starve if I had to barter for a living. I see that as different from a love of money, where the individual is consumed with a craving for it, to the exclusion of all else. That is not a root of good, but of evil. dnr PS – just discovered your site a few days ago. Thanks for your efforts to proclaim truth, common sense, and clear thinking. Have already recommended it to others. Pingback: Does Money Corrupt Politics? « Mark America Max I believe that money as the representation of human work has power, but it is the power of people. Money that is loved, evilly and therefore sought after by the evil, leads to the money that is created without work. When this is traded for real work, it is the greatest evil of all. We now have a situation where more and more imaginary money is created, on the basis that "it doesn't seem to hurt, and we can get rich from it". But all over the world, real workers are tightening their belts. The other sources of incoming value, oil, the environment, sacrificing our investment in our children; these are drying up. To hide this, the money hungry want markets joined, so they can squeeze out every last drop before the crash. Money, if we love it, we should guard it better. http://twitter.com/Jeri2 Jeri2 It is not the money…it is the “love” of money or greed that is the root of all evil http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1315946631 David S Brandt Money is one thing, and the love of it is only the “root of all evil”. If the love of money is the root, what is the tree? Materialism perhaps, but materialism doesn’t adequately describe what “all evil” really is. How about “Idolatry”, substituting something or someone as the object of worship; that is, devotion, allegiance, obedience. “Have no other gods…” we are admonished and even warned. Even so, and in spite of the clear commandment, we easily pay lip service to God, while we attend to our creature comforts and personal peace with certain consistency. JohnInFlorida It’s too bad that there is so much human baggage attached to Ayn Rand. Even though that is true of us all, it would have been helpful if she had been a bit more “super-human” and risen above our human frailties. The pearls of wisdom like as the one quoted above that are contained in her writings are too easily buried by the enemies of freedom through misdirection and psycho-babble. Every time I am re-exposed to her truth I am renewed. * http://www.markamerica.com/ Mark America John, the beauty of Rand is that though there is some baggage attached, her thinking was concise and sound with respect to the world around her. The problem is that we don’t hold the enemies of freedom to the sort of exacting standard of argumentation her reasoning demanded. As you, I often reach for Rand when I wish to be reminded of clarity in thought. Whatever the frailties of her personal existence, they were vastly outweighed by the mass of her intellectual virtues. Pingback: The End of the United States of America « Mark America * Recent + Obamacare Profiteer Seeks Republican Nomination – And You May Give It to Him + 2016: What’s the Point? + President Ebola: The Pandemic Administration? + Governor Palin: “Stop Electing Republicans who Act Like Democrats” + GOP Mafia Produces Cochran Win in Mississippi * Categories[Select Category.....................] * Archives [Select Month........] * Blogroll + Conservatives4Palin + Gary P. Jackson + Mark Levin + Mark on Facebook + Mr. L's Tavern + Palin Defender + Politijim + Tammy Bruce + Texans4SarahPalin! + The National Patriot * Recent + Obamacare Profiteer Seeks Republican Nomination – And You May Give It to Him + 2016: What’s the Point? + President Ebola: The Pandemic Administration? + Governor Palin: “Stop Electing Republicans who Act Like Democrats” + GOP Mafia Produces Cochran Win in Mississippi * Meta + Log in + Entries RSS + Comments RSS + WordPress.org __________________________________________________________________ © Copyright 2015 | Mark America. All rights reserved. Mark America is proudly powered by WordPress Webdesign by MarkAmerica * * Facebook friend Facebook friend * RSS RSS * Follow on Twitter Follow on Twitter * Register: Register: ____________________ ____________________ Login [_] Remember me Lost your password? * + WordPress.org + Documentation + Support Forums + Feedback * ____________________ Search * Advertisement * Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or My Tools. * sign in icon Sign In * | * My Tools * | * Contact Us * | * HELP SJO banner Search all journals ____________________ GO * Advanced Search Go * Search History Go * Browse Journals Go Skip to main page content * Home * OnlineFirst * All Issues * Subscribe * RSS rss * Email Alerts * Advertisement Search this journal ____________________ GO Advanced Journal Search » A more recent version of this article was published on [12-16-2013] The Corruption of Value Negative Moral Associations Diminish the Value of Money 1. Jennifer E. Stellar1⇑ 2. Robb Willer2 1. ^1University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA 2. ^2Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA 1. Jennifer E. Stellar, University of California, 4137 Tolman Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA. Email: jstellar{at}berkeley.edu Abstract We investigate the possibility that negative moral associations can reduce the desirability and perceived value of money, and that they do so by threatening to contaminate individuals’ perceptions of their morality. In Study 1, participants filled out fewer raffle tickets to obtain a money prize with immoral associations and perceived it to have less purchasing power than a morally neutral prize. In Study 2, we experimentally manipulated participants’ moral self-image, reasoning that ameliorating moral self-image concerns would make participants less averse to accepting morally tainted money. Consistent with this, participants who recounted a past virtuous act completed more tasks to receive monetary payment with immoral associations than participants who recounted a neutral act. These findings provide experimental evidence that immoral associations reduce the desirability of morally tainted money by threatening to contaminate the recipient’s moral self-image. * money * morality * contagion Article Notes * Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. * Funding The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Committee on Research of the University of California, Berkeley. * © The Author(s) 2013 * Add to CiteULike CiteULike * Add to Connotea Connotea * Add to Delicious Delicious * Add to Digg Digg * Add to Facebook Facebook * Add to Google+ Google+ * Add to LinkedIn LinkedIn * Add to Mendeley Mendeley * Add to Reddit Reddit * Add to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon * Add to Twitter Twitter What's this? This Article 1. Published online before print April 22, 2013, doi: 10.1177/1948550613484770 Social Psychological and Personality Science April 22, 2013 1948550613484770 1. » AbstractFree 2. Full Text 3. Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 1. Version of Record - Dec 16, 2013 2. current version image indicator OnlineFirst Version of Record - Apr 22, 2013 What's this? Services 1. Email this article to a colleague 2. Alert me when this article is cited 3. Alert me if a correction is posted 4. Similar articles in this journal 5. Download to citation manager 6. Request Permissions 7. Request Reprints 8. Load patientINFORMation Citing Articles 1. Load citing article information 2. Citing articles via Scopus 3. Citing articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar 1. Articles by Stellar, J. E. 2. Articles by Willer, R. 3. Search for related content Related Content 1. Load related web page information Share 1. + Add to CiteULike CiteULike + Add to Connotea Connotea + Add to Delicious Delicious + Add to Digg Digg + Add to Facebook Facebook + Add to Google+ Google+ + Add to LinkedIn LinkedIn + Add to Mendeley Mendeley + Add to Reddit Reddit + Add to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon + Add to Twitter Twitter What's this? 1. Submit a Manuscript Submit a Manuscript 2. Free Sample Copy Free Sample Copy 3. Email Alerts Email Alerts 4. Rss Feeds RSS feed More about this journal * About the Journal * Editorial Board * Manuscript Submission * Abstracting/Indexing * Subscribe * Account Manager * Recommend to Library * Advertising * Reprints * Permissions 1. society image 2. Association for Research in Personality 3. society image 4. European Association of Social Psychology, Society for Personality and Socialy Psychology 5. society image 6. Society of Experimental and Social Psychology 7. * Advertisement * Advertisement * Advertisement * Advertisement Most * Most Read 1. Dead and Alive: Beliefs in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories 2. Retraction 3. Paperless and Soulless: E-signatures Diminish the Signer's Presence and Decrease Acceptance 4. Get Up, Stand Up: The Effects of a Non-Sedentary Workspace on Information Elaboration and Group Performance 5. Mindfulness Meditation Reduces Implicit Age and Race Bias: The Role of Reduced Automaticity of Responding » View all Most Read articles * Most Cited 1. Birth Cohort Increases in Narcissistic Personality Traits Among American College Students, 1982-2009 2. Tactical Self-Enhancement in China: Is Modesty at the Service of Self-Enhancement in East Asian Culture? 3. A Little Acceptance Goes a Long Way: Applying Social Impact Theory to the Rejection-Aggression Link 4. Recovering From Strain and Enduring Pain: Multiple Group Memberships Promote Resilience in the Face of Physical Challenges 5. Political Ideology at Face Value » View all Most Cited articles * HOME * ALL ISSUES * FEEDBACK * SUBSCRIBE * RSS rss * EMAIL ALERTS * HELP Copyright © 2015 by Social and Personality Psychology Consortium * Print ISSN: 1948-5506 * Online ISSN: 1948-5514 #alternate alternate Bitcoin and commodity money dogmatism conza: ““A most important truth about money now emerges from our discussion: money is a commodity. Learning this simple lesson is one of the world’s most important tasks. So often have people talked about money... George Ought to Help George Ought to Help http://www.georgeoughttohelp.com Donate Bitcoins Ask me anything * Archive * RSS 28 notes February 28, 2013 Bitcoin and commodity money dogmatism conza: “A most important truth about money now emerges from our discussion: money is a commodity. Learning this simple lesson is one of the world’s most important tasks. So often have people talked about money as something much more or less than this. Money is not an abstract unit of account, divorceable from a concrete good; it is not a useless token only good for exchanging; it is not a “claim on society”; it is not a guarantee of a fixed price level. It is simply a commodity [emphasis added]. It differs from other commodities in being demanded mainly as a medium of exchange. But aside from this, it is a commodity—and, like all commodities, it has an existing stock, it faces demands by people to buy and hold it, etc. Like all commodities, its “price”—in terms of other goods—is determined by the interaction of its total supply, or stock, and the total demand by people to buy and hold it.” — Murray Rothbard Since this was tagged Bitcoin it seems fair to assume that the quote is presented with that digital currency in mind. Bitcoin has already gotten started as a medium of exchange, that bridge has already been crossed. We need not worry about how people will transition from holding it for ‘direct use’ to holding it for trade because we’re already at a stage where a large, and growing, minority of people are already trading it. It’s not yet widely accepted, but gaining ground quickly and there’s no obvious barrier that rules out the possibility that it eventually will be. People seek to hold it, among other reasons, because of properties that they find very desirable in a good used for exchange, and because they anticipate that in the future, increasing numbers of people will come to feel the same way. So in a possible future in which most people buy groceries with Bitcoin, what use is Rothbard’s earnest proclamation that Bitcoin cannot be money? Or if Rothbard’s prescriptive version of the regression theorum somehow precludes Bitcoin from ever being widely accepted, how exactly does that mechanism work? Filed under bitcoin rothbard gold money currency dogma 1. metatag likes this 2. makeitlemonade likes this 3. twoplustwoequalsfour likes this 4. thewaterwillcome likes this 5. georgeoughttohelp reblogged this from conza and added: Since this was tagged Bitcoin it seems fair to assume that the quote is presented with that digital currency in mind.... 6. thelanguorofyouth reblogged this from conza 7. trentbrgs likes this 8. amagi-nation likes this 9. allmarketsbecomeblack reblogged this from anarchei 10. basedheisenberg reblogged this from thegatsandpartyhats 11. thegatsandpartyhats likes this 12. thegatsandpartyhats reblogged this from anarchei 13. jenlog reblogged this from anarchei 14. anarcho-alowisney likes this 15. anarchei reblogged this from iambinarymind 16. anarchei likes this 17. climatechangebunch likes this 18. iambinarymind reblogged this from conza 19. iambinarymind likes this 20. nelgster reblogged this from conza 21. nelgster likes this 22. blistexfan likes this 23. theclassicliberal reblogged this from conza 24. decrepittwat likes this 25. loyalist-libertarian likes this 26. dorianchocolate reblogged this from conza 27. happyacres likes this 28. conza posted this We love Tumblr & Stationery by Thijs [impixu?T=1422189766&J=eyJ0eXBlIjoidXJsIiwidXJsIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvZ2Vvcmdl b3VnaHR0b2hlbHAudHVtYmxyLmNvbVwvcG9zdFwvNDQxNzI2MzU5ODFcL2JpdGNvaW4tYW5 kLWNvbW1vZGl0eS1tb25leS1kb2dtYXRpc20iLCJyZXF0eXBlIjowLCJyb3V0ZSI6IlwvcG 9zdFwvOmlkXC86c3VtbWFyeSIsIm5vc2NyaXB0IjoxfQ==&U=LBGLFCNHIG&K=962db0415 bb02902e66620c180926592e0bb97ccd316333a0be24a07dcbb72ac&R=] [impixu?T=1422189766&J=eyJ0eXBlIjoicG9zdCIsInVybCI6Imh0dHA6XC9cL2dlb3Jn ZW91Z2h0dG9oZWxwLnR1bWJsci5jb21cL3Bvc3RcLzQ0MTcyNjM1OTgxXC9iaXRjb2luLWF uZC1jb21tb2RpdHktbW9uZXktZG9nbWF0aXNtIiwicmVxdHlwZSI6MCwicm91dGUiOiJcL3 Bvc3RcLzppZFwvOnN1bW1hcnkiLCJwb3N0cyI6W3sicm9vdF9ibG9naWQiOiIxNzIzMTY0O CIsInJvb3RfcG9zdGlkIjoiNDM4ODg3NjQyNDciLCJwb3N0aWQiOiI0NDE3MjYzNTk4MSIs ImJsb2dpZCI6IjE0NDIwNDAyIiwic291cmNlIjozM31dLCJub3NjcmlwdCI6MX0=&U=AHLB CIOIJB&K=53b5f6002a6da97ba5cd95388f8b3317ba1c4f8323b03f3fda2ff0cb2aa23c 41&R=] IFRAME: https://secure.assets.tumblr.com/assets/html/iframe/o.html?_v=ad343fe7e 1392d0c10bbe574b3e9c250#src=http%3A%2F%2Fgeorgeoughttohelp.tumblr.com%2 Fpost%2F44172635981%2Fbitcoin-and-commodity-money-dogmatism&pid=4417263 5981&rk=C2uVIqx7&lang=en_US&name=georgeoughttohelp&avatar=http%3A%2F%2F 38.media.tumblr.com%2Favatar_b07979dbce84_64.png&title=George+Ought+to+ Help&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgeorgeoughttohelp.tumblr.com%2F&page_slide=slide IFRAME: http://assets.tumblr.com/assets/html/iframe/teaser.html?_v=83a4f6cb1e21 27ab75af2fcaa1e57ee1#src=http%3A%2F%2Fgeorgeoughttohelp.tumblr.com%2Fpo st%2F44172635981%2Fbitcoin-and-commodity-money-dogmatism&pid=4417263598 1&rk=C2uVIqx7&lang=en_US&name=georgeoughttohelp&avatar=http%3A%2F%2F38. media.tumblr.com%2Favatar_b07979dbce84_64.png&title=George+Ought+to+Hel p&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgeorgeoughttohelp.tumblr.com%2F&page_slide=slide #Cultural Maturity RSS Feed Cultural Maturity » Money as Ideology Comments Feed Cultural Maturity The Evolution of God — Robert Wright Partisan Pettiness—An Abject Failure of Leadership David Brooks .. stretches and takes us with him * About Charles Johnston M.D. * Cultural Maturity * Creative Systems Theory * Institute for Creative Development * ICD Press * Participate * Contact Cultural Maturity * Home * Front Page News * The Big Picture * Reviews * Cultural Immaturity * General Questions & Comments * Educational Videos * Guest Contributions * Library + FAQ + Overview + Cultural Maturity’s Defining Themes + Compare & Contrast + Spheres + Conceptual Topics [Charles-Johnston-sm-thumb.jpg] From the Editor Welcome to the Cultural Maturity Blog. I am just now celebrating finishing up the final book in my new three book series and will be able to devote more regular attention to this blog. (See the "Looking Ahead" post below.) I will try to add a new post every couple of weeks that apply the concept of Cultural Maturity to important emerging issues. (Simply subscribe to the blog if you would like new posts sent to you once a month.) ICD Press has decided to make complementary e-book copies of Hope and the Future: An Introduction to the Concept of Cultural Maturity (see www.HopeandtheFuture.com), the introductory book in the new series, available to support the broader Cultural Maturity conversation. Instructions for getting a free copy can be found in the "Looking Ahead" post. All the best -- Charles Johnston ____________________ Go Follow Us! Follow Us RSS About the Blog Cultural Maturity—A Blog for the Future is designed to support a mature understanding of the times in which we live and the sophistication of decision-making needed for a vital and creative human future. It is a contribution of the Institute for Creative Development, a Seattle-based, non-partisan, think tank and center for advanced leadership training. Read More Subscribe Join our mailing list to receive news and posts from Cultural Maturity - A Blog for the Future. Email Address __________________ Subscribe Featured Book Titles from ICD Press I am just now finishing up work on a new three book series. Each book has similar intent—to help us make sense of the times in which we live and make sense of what the future will require of us—but is written for a different audience. Hope and the Future: An Introduction to the Concept of Cultural Maturity is a short book intended for a general audience wanting to better understand the tasks humanity now faces. [cultural-maturity-book-cover-e1305303107144.jpg] Cultural Maturity—A Guidebook for the Future is a lengthier effort intended for those interested in developing the new capacities that leadership in times ahead will require in all parts of our lives. It describes how the future will require not just fresh ideas, but an essential ‘growing up’ as a species. It closely examines what this needed next step in our collective development asks of us and what it makes possible. It also looks how these changes are already beginning to happen, in subtle ways altering our human landscape Quick and Dirty Answers to the Biggest of Questions describes how the new kinds of understanding we need today not only helps us address modern day challenges, they also bring a new maturity and creativity to the more ultimate sorts of questions. It is intended for people who find particular fascination in overarching theory. (See the ICD Press page for detials.) Charles Johnston. Top Links You are here: Home » Cultural Immaturity » Money as Ideology August 9, 2011 8:25 am 0 comments Author: Charles Johnston MD Charles Johnston MD Share this Article * Twitter Twitter * Facebook Facebook * Delicious Delicious * Digg Digg * Stumbleupon Stumble * Reddit Reddit What caused the 2008-2009 financial collapse? Simple greed and incompetence? The unfortunate “perfect storm” confluence of economic cycles, globalization, and other hard-to-predict factors? Yes, yes, and yes. But something deeper was also at work. Understanding this more fundamental ingredient in what we saw will be key to a healthy and sustainable economic future. I suspect the more basic contributor was ideological. Ideology as I use the word here refers not to liberal or conservation economic theories, but rather to commonly held but ultimately limited and limiting beliefs. We appropriately ask how the best of economic and political minds—and all of us—could have been blind to what was in hindsight a situation that was as unstable as a house-of-cards. Neither self-interest nor simple ignorance ultimately explains why events unfolded as they did. Just what did the experts miss? Certainly they missed how deregulation had created perverse incentives that changed how bankers behaved. Had experts viewed the industry even with the most rudimentary of systemic thinking, they would have been alerted to the potential for destabilization and crisis. Back when banks were self-contained entities, bankers were conservative folk. But when regulations changed so that mortgage banks could sell loans to investors, the incentive situation changed too. The financial meltdown was commonly attributed to bankers taking unwise risks. But in most cases, the loans really weren’t risks—for the bankers. Because bankers resold the loans relatively quickly, they would profit whether the loan ultimately failed or not. With the financial collapse, individual mortgage holders and investors suffered miserably. Bankers, for the most part, escaped unscathed. Some profited enormously. But the blindness ultimately reached further. Economists—and most everyone else—were in denial about the fact that housing prices could go down as well as up (an occurrence that any look at history suggests not only happens, but is inevitable given enough time). All it would have taken to produce the cascade of events that we observed was for housing prices to do down 10 percent. Prices eventually went down nationally an average over 30 percent. How could people be so blind—and I include very smart people? In 2004, then chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan proclaimed “Not only have individuals become less vulnerable to shocks from underlying risk factors, but also the financial system as a whole has become more resilient”—this specifically in reference to highly interlinked financial instruments such as derivatives that played a central role in the eventual meltdown. (Some people did anticipate the problem. Warren Buffet warned that derivatives were “financial weapons of mass destruction carrying dangers, that while latent, are potentially lethal.”) It is forgivable that economic experts did not accurately forecast just when an economic downturn might occur. But that the greater portion of economic minds did not recognize fundamental instabilities—in hindsight glaring—suggests a more deeply rooted kind of blindness than just selfishness or stupidity. That deeper blindness is a product of our time. Today we mythologize money, make it our “bottom line,” and in the end, our god. Culturally mature perspective does not condemn this. Rather it sees our worship of money as a predicted culminating expression of our most recent stage in culture’s story. We may criticize as naive the “masters of the universe” belief that unfettered free markets can be self-regulating. But this kind of thinking is what we get it if we extend to its logical extreme the materialist/individualist worldview that has produced much that today we most prize in our modern lives. At the same time, culturally mature perspective also makes clear that such belief cannot continue to serve us. At the very least, the belief that such a worldview is sufficient makes us vulnerable to dismissing—or not even seeing—potential risks. But in fact it does even more. It leaves us short of the maturity of perspective we need not just for stable economies, but for a future that can work at all. I quote Thomas Friedman from an article of his in the New York Times: “Let’s step out of the usual boundaries of analysis of our current economic crisis and ask a radical question—What if the crisis of 2008 represents something much more fundamental than a deep recession? What if it is telling us that the whole growth model created over the last 50 years is simply unsustainable economically and ecologically and that 2008 was when we hit the wall—when Mother Nature and the market both said no more.” Today we confront limits not just to the effectiveness of past economic policies, but to how we have until now thought about wealth and advancement more generally. This more encompassing factor may or may not have been a major ingredient in this particular downturn. But if the concept of Cultural Maturity is correct, it will be a factor eventually. We’ve come in our time to measure social and individual well-being almost wholly in economic terms—such as individual “net worth” and rising GDP (a wholly monetary measure). But today we find a new willingness to question this limits-denying picture on both fronts. We are recognizing how a solely material yardstick is inadequate for measuring the health of societies or even the stability of economies. More personally, empty materialism is a major contributor to the loss of hope and purpose so common in our time. For a healthy and vital future, we will need more encompassing and complete ways to think about and measure what matters. It is important to appreciate that this is not the first time our relationship to money has changed. If we lived in the Middle Ages or a tribal culture, we would likely find modern material values unacceptable. While material wealth had significant influence in the Middle Ages, simple greed was considered one of the seven deadly sins. And in tribal societies, the difference is even more pronounced—there is not room for individual advantage that threatens the well-being of the group. These differences are of more than casual consequence and not just because they helps us appreciate that rethinking what matters is nothing new. Much of the antipathy non-Western peoples can have for Western values lies in these differences that can be perceived as deeply moral distinctions. The advances of the Modern Age have been wondrous. And modern age advances would not have been possible without today’s more individualist and materialist view of the world and the values that accompanied it. But for the future we can’t stop there. This is not to call for some opposite “small is beautiful” advocacy. It is to call loudly for rethinking collective and personal wealth in ways that more fully take into account all that creates human meaning, and, more specifically, all that human meaning asks of us in our particular time. [Creative Systems Theory describes how individualist/materialist values come part and parcel with our most recent stage in the evolution of culture, and take a particularly extreme form with our current “Transitional” time in cultural development. Our blindness to obvious house-of-cards economic policies provides an example of what CST calls Transitional Absurdity.] Related Posts, Essays, and Snippets: Tags: 2008 financial Collapse Alan Greenspan Developmental/Evolutionary Perspective Economics limits Money Recession Redefining Wealth and Progress Thomas Friedman Transition Transitional Absurdity. Warren Buffet Leave a Reply Click here to cancel reply. ________________________________Name (required) ________________________________E-Mail (will not be published) (required) ________________________________Website ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Submit Comment Cultural Maturity * About Charles Johnston M.D. * Cultural Maturity * Creative Systems Theory * Institute for Creative Development * ICD Press * Participate * Contact * Home * Front Page News * The Big Picture * Reviews * Cultural Immaturity * General Questions & Comments * Educational Videos * Guest Contributions * Library search: ____________________ Go © Copyright 2015 — Cultural Maturity. All Rights Reserved #Everyday Life Lessons RSS Feed english spanish Life Lessons Everyday Life Lessons What has life taught you? Advanced search ____________________ Search Home - About - Top Lessons - Random Lessons - Submit - Our Blog - Makes Me Think - Thought Questions - Simple Pleasures Submit your life lesson: * - Concept : Share an important lesson life has taught you. Please use the form below and submit each life lesson individually. * - If your entry isn't published on our homepage, please don't feel offended. We love reading all of your entries, but we can't possibly publish them all. Note: If your entry is original, sincere and makes us think, it will be published. Your nickname : ____________________ Categories : [Choose.......] Gender? : [Choose] ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ [loader.gif] Email notification ? [captcha.php] ____________________ Submit ! Category: money The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least. Wealth is a mindset. Want less and appreciate more today. #9963 Comments (0) - Mar 5, 2014 by Angel - Money - Yes, I agree. (40) - No, I disagree. (8) [sharethis_icon.jpg] The real currency is not cash but respect. Arrogant money is not worth having, but poverty by choice is revered as a higher appreciation of life. #9685 Comments (1) - Jan 9, 2014 by Alex - Money - Yes, I agree. (12) - No, I disagree. (2) [sharethis_icon.jpg] To give is better than to own. #4248 Comments (0) - Mar 15, 2013 by Dextra - Money - Yes, I agree. (26) - No, I disagree. (7) [sharethis_icon.jpg] Better to create than consume. #1902 Comments (0) - Feb 8, 2012 by Ann - Money - Yes, I agree. (22) - No, I disagree. (5) [sharethis_icon.jpg] Intelligent people are not impressed by money, because they know that what they have to offer is PRICELESS. Plus they usually have their own. #1430 Comments (0) - Dec 8, 2011 by mhorn - Money - Yes, I agree. (34) - No, I disagree. (5) [sharethis_icon.jpg] Many people are so poor that the only thing they have is money. Cultivate your spiritual growth. #1049 Comments (0) - Oct 9, 2011 by Admypagame - Money - Yes, I agree. (57) - No, I disagree. (2) [sharethis_icon.jpg] Don’t think of cost. Think of value. #975 Comments (0) - Sep 13, 2011 by poww - Money - Yes, I agree. (73) - No, I disagree. (3) [sharethis_icon.jpg] Keep money on your mind but out of your heart. #908 Comments (0) - Sep 13, 2011 by upandcoming - Money - Yes, I agree. (35) - No, I disagree. (9) [sharethis_icon.jpg] Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work and driving through traffic in a car that you financed – in order to get to the job you need to pay for the clothes and the car, and the house you leave vacant all day so you can afford to live in it. #883 Comments (2) - Sep 9, 2011 by bobby - Money - Yes, I agree. (43) - No, I disagree. (8) [sharethis_icon.jpg] It’s easier to find wealth by needing less, instead of making more. #882 Comments (0) - Sep 9, 2011 by bobby - Money - Yes, I agree. (39) - No, I disagree. (7) [sharethis_icon.jpg] Too many people buy things they don’t need with money they don’t have to impress people they don’t know. #238 Comments (1) - May 26, 2011 by moneyman - Money - Yes, I agree. (479) - No, I disagree. (44) [sharethis_icon.jpg] Money makes life easier only when the money is yours free and clear. #157 Comments (0) - May 17, 2011 by GeeBee - Money - Yes, I agree. (37) - No, I disagree. (7) [sharethis_icon.jpg] Keep six months of your salary in an emergency savings account just in case you lose your job or have an emergency that prevents you from working for a prolonged period of time. And keep a few extra hundred dollars on hand for unexpected expenses, such as car and home repair. #106 Comments (0) - May 12, 2011 by Mike2U - Money - Yes, I agree. (35) - No, I disagree. (4) [sharethis_icon.jpg] Spend less than you earn, go without until you have the money in hand. #97 Comments (0) - May 10, 2011 by gavin - Money - Yes, I agree. (30) - No, I disagree. (1) [sharethis_icon.jpg] If you want to feel rich, just count all the great things you have that money can't buy. #68 Comments (0) - May 5, 2011 by ayesha - Money - Yes, I agree. (40) - No, I disagree. (2) [sharethis_icon.jpg] Truly ‘rich’ people need ‘less’ to be happy. #65 Comments (0) - May 4, 2011 by Kirbie - Money - Yes, I agree. (24) - No, I disagree. (5) [sharethis_icon.jpg] Money and stuff are not all that important. Yes, you want enough to be comfortable and do the things you want to do. But accumulating for the sake of accumulating is boring and empty. Trust me, it gets old fast. So feed your soul, not your ego. #38 Comments (0) - Apr 30, 2011 by dad - Money - Yes, I agree. (37) - No, I disagree. (3) [sharethis_icon.jpg] [ Page : 1 2 Next » ... Last ] « Previous Page | Next Page » Categories * See all * Goals * Happiness * Health * Knowledge * Life * Love * Miscellaneous * Money * Productivity * Relationships * Work Your account Username ____________________ Password ____________________ Login Sign up - Forgot? Follow Us * Everyday Life Lessons RSS Feed * Subscribe via RSS. * Subscribe via email. * Twitter * Facebook * IFRAME: http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.face book.com%2Fpages%2FEveryday-Life-Lessons%2F209286149105868&send=fal se&layout=button_count&width=100&show_faces=false&action=like&color scheme=light&font&height=21 * Read our blog. * Thought Questions * Makes Me Think * Simple Pleasures  IFRAME: http://www.facebook.com/plugins/likebox.php?href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.faceb ook.com%2Fpages%2FEveryday-Life-Lessons%2F209286149105868&width=600&con nections=1&stream=false&header=true&height=115 Members | Terms of use | Privacy Policy | About Us | Advertising | Contact Us | Rss Feed Copyright © 2011 Everyday Life Lessons. Powered by Marc and Angel Hack Life #PsyBlog RSS Feed PsyBlog * Home * Start Here * Habit Book * Explore PsyBlog * Archives * About * Contact * Advertise Why Money is Part of Human Nature: Money as Both Tool and Drug Human behaviour towards money can’t solely be explained by its utility, it has a more addictive quality – like a drug. [INS: :INS] It’s no surprise that people want money – we’ve all got bills to pay. It’s also no surprise that money is useful – it would be irritating to pay the electricity bill in corn, goats or some other non-monetary quid pro quo. Originally economists argued that the fact that money is so useful explains why we’re interested in it. But when you think about it, the fact that money is so useful doesn’t fully explain people’s behaviour. Why does a person who is already rolling in money want more?Think about how obsessed people can become with money, beyond its instrumental use, beyond rationality, beyond any easy explanation. Why does a person who is already rolling in money want more? Indeed, why do people whose lives are already comfortable make sacrifices in other areas of their lives – family, friendships and their own sanity – just to get more cash? Especially when, objectively, they appear to be dollars that they don’t need. Professors Stephen Lea and Paul Webley from the University of Exeter argue that people’s actual behaviour towards money can’t be explained solely by the fact that it is useful – what they refer to as ‘tool theory’ (Lea & Webley, 2006). There seems to be something more going on. Money provokes people into all sorts of bizarre behaviour that can’t easily be explained in terms of its function purely as a tool. Here are five examples Lea and Webley provide: 1. Big money Money literally looms large in our minds – we seem to imbue it with a special status. Bruner and Goodman (1947) found that children actually perceive money to be physically larger than other objects that are actually the same size. Furnham (1983) found that at a time of high inflation, people consistently thought that old pound notes were physically bigger than the new ones. They were, of course, exactly the same size but people’s knowledge that the currency used to be worth more had become physical in their minds. 2. Phased by face value The real, useful value of money changes all the time, e.g. one hundred years ago one pound or one dollar bought a lot more than it does now. Despite this people respond to the face value of money irrespective of its real worth. The introduction in recent years of the Euro across Europe has shown the power of this illusion. Many Europeans have suddenly been faced with a new currency whose face-value is quite different to their old currency. Studies have shown that people are likely to overestimate the real value of money that has a higher face value, and underestimate the real value of money that has a lower face value (e.g. Gamble et al., 2002). 3. People like money’s form People are attached to the actual form that money takes and will often resist when innovations are introduced. British people have strongly resisted the introduction of the Euro and Americans continue to reject the introduction of a dollar coin to replace the dollar bill. 4. Being emotional about cash Not only are we particular about money’s form, we also have an emotional relationship with it. Psychologists have measured our attitudes towards cash in many different ways, but most find there is a considerable emotional component. When people describe their attitudes to money, it’s more than just its utility that’s important – people actually either love it or hate it. 5. When cash is not acceptable The special kind of relationship people have with money is underlined by the times when it can’t be used. Money is often not acceptable as a gift and almost never in sexual relationships; talk of money is also frowned on in high art, religion and education. Similarly there is a taboo about money buying political office (although it clearly does buy political office indirectly). Money as tool and drug What all these examples show is that people’s behaviour with and attitudes towards money reach, in many circumstances, beyond its actual utility. People’s thoughts and behaviour towards money can’t easily be explained by it being simply an instrument, so how can we understand it? Part of the attraction of money, like drugs, is that it changes how we feel, but this change has no biological or evolutionary significance.Professors Lea and Webley argue that money is not just a tool for us, it also acts like a drug on the mind. Drugs act on the central nervous system to create mental states that do not meet some kind of function in the world in the same way that sex or food does. For example, the feeling of hunger drives us to find food, and we need food to survive, so hunger has an evolutionary function. Part of the attraction of money, however, like drugs, is that it changes how we feel, but this change has no biological or evolutionary significance. Part of the benefit people derive from acquiring money – e.g. making us feel good – does not lead to some actual benefit in the world, it is just chasing money for the sake of having money. But if money is like an addictive drug, then where did we acquire this addiction, when did we pick up the taste for money? Lea and Webley suggest two evolutionary roots: [INS: :INS] 1. Trading thrills: As a social species helping each other out has a long evolutionary history. Humans have learnt to exchange items or services for the benefit of both parties. It’s plausible that those who traded more successfully were more likely to survive while those who stuck with what they had tended to die out. Trade gives us a buzz, and money, as the most potent catalyst for exchange, gives us vicarious pleasure. 2. Money as a way of keeping score: Humans love to play. Compared to other animals, humans take a long time to grow up, and while growing up, and still afterwards, we have a strong instinct for play. Perhaps our propensity for play naturally provides part of the scaffolding on which we have built our addiction to money. Money turns out to be one of the most addictive games we ever invented. Can’t get enough of that money Money is more than just a useful tool, as some economists have argued; while money is certainly useful, human behaviour towards it can’t be explained just by its utility. The drug metaphor helps demonstrate how the motivation for money often extends past its actual utility. This ties in with many sociological analyses that emphasise money’s social meaning and symbolic nature over and above its simple utilitarian applications. Culture on its own is not powerful enough to explain the human motivation for money.Thinking of money as a drug highlights the biological basis of money. An evolutionary account underlines this biological perspective by suggesting that money addiction might be built on our drive to trade and play. What Lea and Webley are implicitly arguing against is a purely cultural understanding of humans’ relationship with money. Their view is that culture on its own is not powerful enough to explain the human motivation for money. Money, they argue, whether for good or evil, is part of human nature. [Image credit: bryan chan & -sel] References Bruner, J. S. & Goodman, C. C. (1947) Value and need as organising factors in perception. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 42, 33-44. Furnham, A. (1983) Inflation and the estimated sizes of notes. Journal of Economic Psychology, 4, 349-52. Gamble, A., Garling, T., Charlton, J. & Ranyard, R. (2002). Euro-illusion: Psychological insights into price evaluations with a unitary currency. European Psychologist, 7, 302-311. Lea, S. E. G., & Webley, P. (2006). Money as tool, money as drug: The biological psychology of a strong incentive. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29(02), 161-209. [INS: :INS] The Psychology of Money → This post is part of a series on the the psychology of money: * Avoid The Relativity Trap – How Thinking Globally Can Save You Money * Social Versus Financial Thinking – When Money Makes People Lazy and Selfish * FREE! But at What Price? * 6 Quirks of Ownership: How Possessions Bend Our Perceptions * The 3 Reasons Money Brings Satisfaction But Not Happiness * Do Big Money Bonuses Really Increase Job Performance? * Money and Self-Control: The Battle Between Thoughts and Emotions * Why Money is Part of Human Nature: Money as Both Tool and Drug * Why We Buy: How to Avoid 10 Costly Cognitive Biases * 8 Psychological Keys to Spending Wisely * How Does The Cleanliness of Money Affect Our Spending? Related articles: 1. Teen Myth: Marijuana is a ‘Safe Drug’ 2. Drug Reverses Schizophrenia in Mice by Curbing Synaptic Pruning 3. Psychedelic Drug Use Not Associated With Mental Health Problems 4. This is How Much Happier Therapy Makes You Than More Money 5. How Does The Cleanliness of Money Affect Our Spending? About the author Dr Jeremy Dean is a psychologist and the author of PsyBlog. His latest book is "Making Habits, Breaking Habits: How to Make Changes That Stick". You can follow PsyBlog by email, by RSS feed, on Twitter and Google+. Published: 22 May 2008 Want to understand your mind? Get FREE email updates from PsyBlog. ____________________ Join Psyblog! ____________________ ____________________ Dr Becky Fitness * Follow PsyBlog RSS Twitter googleplus * Popular Articles + Study Finds Memory Has a Fascinating Effect On Sleep Study Finds Memory Has a Fascinating Effect On Sleep + A Handful of This Everyday Food Improves Memory, Concentration And Processing Speed A Handful of This Everyday Food Improves Memory, Concentration And Processing Speed + What The Eyes Reveal: 10 Messages My Pupils are Sending You What The Eyes Reveal: 10 Messages My Pupils are Sending You + Men and Women Process Emotions in Different Ways: This Affects What They Remember Men and Women Process Emotions in Different Ways: This Affects What They Remember + Why We Do Dumb or Irrational Things: 10 Brilliant Social Psychology Experiments Why We Do Dumb or Irrational Things: 10 Brilliant Social Psychology Experiments + 8 Ways to Get Rid of Unwanted Negative Thoughts 8 Ways to Get Rid of Unwanted Negative Thoughts + How Eye Contact Works How Eye Contact Works + 10 Psychology Studies Every Lover Should Know 10 Psychology Studies Every Lover Should Know + You Can Learn a New Language While You Sleep, Study Finds You Can Learn a New Language While You Sleep, Study Finds + 6 Intriguing Types of Synesthesia: Tasting Words, Seeing Sounds, Hearing Colours And More 6 Intriguing Types of Synesthesia: Tasting Words, Seeing Sounds, Hearing Colours And More + A Well-Known Trick To Jog Your Memory DOES Actually Work, Study Finds A Well-Known Trick To Jog Your Memory DOES Actually Work, Study Finds + You Might Be Surprised How Much a Hug Helps Fight Illness, Stress and Depression You Might Be Surprised How Much a Hug Helps Fight Illness, Stress and Depression * Search * Featured * + 8mm film film transfer + dish network souris north dakota * Advertise here » * × Want to understand your mind? Enter your email address below to get FREE email updates from PsyBlog... ____________________ Join PsyBlog! ____________________ ____________________ Do you want to understand your mind? Enter your email address here to get regular updates from PsyBlog. Arrow ____________________ Join PsyBlog! ____________________ ____________________ Text: © All rights reserved. Images: Creative Commons License * Contact Us Search this site: _______________ Search Amnesty International Canada * News * Events * Blog * Research * Store * StopTorture * Our Work + Issues o Torture o Business and Human Rights # Campaign on mining in Guatemala @ AI Canada feature films on Guatemala and Mining @ Background @ Corporate accountability civil lawsuit filed in Vancouver @ Slideshow # Canadian book launch and Op Ed # Justice for the People of Bhopal # Open for Justice o International Justice # Enforced Disappearances # The International Criminal Court o Indigenous Peoples # Indigenous Peoples in Canada # - No More Stolen Sisters # - Discrimination Against First Nations Children # - Resource Development in Canada @ The Lubicon Cree: Ongoing human rights violations # - Northern Gateway Pipeline debate # - Grassy Narrows # - Protests and Policing: the legacy of Ipperwash # - The Right to Water # The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples # Campaign for Colombia Indigenous Peoples o Human Rights for Refugees and Migrants # Refugee Protection in Canada # The Rights of Migrants o Women's Human Rights # Violence Against Women # Sexual and Reproductive Rights @ Communities in Sierra Leone turn their backs on female genital mutilation o LGBTI Rights # Pride and Amnesty # LGBTI rights are human rights o Human Rights and the Arms Trade # An Effective Arms Trade Treaty: 6 key points # USA # United Kingdom # Russia # Germany # France o Security and Human Rights # Canadians Detained Abroad # Guantanamo Bay # Omar Khadr # A false choice between Security and Human Rights o Economic and Social Rights # Maternal and Child Health # Making Rights Law # Housing is a Human Right # The Millennium Development Goals and Human Rights o Death Penalty: Support Abolition # Death Penalty in 2013 # Death Penalty in Canada o Health and Human Rights o International Human Rights Principles + Campaigns o Stop Torture o Colombia Indigenous Survival # Watch Slideshow # Take Action # Advocate with Art # Background # Resources # Donate # Contact o Open for Justice + Priority Countries o Canada # Human Rights Agenda for Canada 2015 @ Canada Votes 2015: What you can do # No Giving Up: A year of challenges and determination o China o Colombia o Mexico o Zimbabwe o Russia o Central African Republic o The Rebellion in the Middle East and North Africa # Libya # Bahrain # Yemen # Egypt # Tunisia o Syria o Iran o Iraq o Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories o Nigeria o Ukraine + Individuals at Risk o Case Updates o Raif Badawi + Good News o 2014 in Pictures + Projects o Syrian refugees o Global Campaign to Stop Torture - Focus on priority countries o China: Illegal Detention and Torture o Europe: Human Rights & Migration Control o Bringing the Arms Trade Treaty into Force o Strategic Arms Controls o Working Against the Death Penalty o Treatment of Prisoners: Setting and Upholding Standards o Freedom of Expression and Assembly in Vietnam and Cambodia o Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict: Focus on Democratic Republic of Congo o Individuals at Risk: Focus on Asia Pacific o Annual Report * Get Involved + Take Action Now o Online Actions o Petition Library + Urgent Action Network o Latest Urgent Actions + Donate o Come and join us! + Sign Up + Be a Youth Activist o Dance for Rights o Human Rights College 2015 Planning Committee Member Application o Lifesaver Actions for Young Activists o Student Group Registration Form + Join a group: Community Activism o Find a group near you + Volunteer Leadership o Fieldworkers o Join our Membership Consultation Committee (MCC) o Volunteers Wanted! Nova Scotia University Orientation Week o Country and Theme Coordinators in Canada o The Board of Directors + Resources for Activists o Activism Fund o Seasonal Activism Guide + Member News and Publications + Meet our Team + Work / Volunteer Opportunities * Donate + Become a Monthly Donor o Sign Up Online o Your Donations at Work o Amnesty Street Canvassers o Telephone Canvassing + Make a One-time Donation o Donate Online + Send a Holiday eCard + Give a Gift in Memoriam + Raise Money for Human Rights o Join one of our Fundraising Events o Tips for Raising Money o Fundraising Q&As o Proposal Form + Leave a gift in your will o Why we are remembering Amnesty in our wills o Bequests o RRIFs and RRSPs o Life Insurance o Contact our Planned Giving Associate o Disclaimer + Gifts of Stocks and Securities + Donate-a-car + Update your monthly donor information + Join Us! * About Us + What we do o Key Facts about Amnesty International + How We Make A Difference + Our Impact + Governance + Our Leaders + Financial Information + Getting Involved + Work With Us + FAQ + Members + Contact Us Donate Home › Donate AddThis |||| * Become a Monthly Donor * Make a One-time Donation * Send a Holiday eCard * Give a Gift in Memoriam * Raise Money for Human Rights + Join one of our Fundraising Events + Tips for Raising Money + Fundraising Q&As + Proposal Form * Leave a gift in your will * Gifts of Stocks and Securities * Donate-a-car * Update your monthly donor information * Join Us! Raise Money for Human Rights 50 ways you can raise money for human rights Sometimes you just need a little inspiration. We’ve put together a fun booklet of 50 ways to raise money for human rights. > download pdf (2mb) Raise money for human rights —using your time and talents to fundraise and increase awareness Whether it's knitting teddy bears, playing music, running, or baking cupcakes, you have it in you to support change in the world through your passions! Raising money for human rights doesn’t have to mean organising a big event. It could be as simple as selling ice cream cones, or as ambitious as cycling across Canada. It all depends on what you love to do. You can join one of our national fundraising events, or raise money on your own - you'll find everything you need to get started right here * Questions about raising money for Amnesty? * Tips for raising money How are just a few of the ways you can started raising money for human rights Join Yoga Day Spring Join a yoga marathon in your city, or invite a local yoga studio to host a yogathon in support of human rights. Read more AmnesTEA Get your friends, workmates and community together to drink tea and raise money for human rights. Read more Join Amnesty Athletes Summer Turn your athletic challenge into a chance to collect donations for Amnesty International's human rights work, or join Team Amnesty at a charity marathon in your city. Visit our easy to use fundraising tool to set up your own profile by clicking on ‘Fundraise for us’. Create your own profile Trek to Machu Picchu for human rights Protect and promote human rights one step at a time. Read more Recycle your old cell phone Anytime Done with your old cell phone, iPhone, Black-berry smartphone, tablet device or netbook? Then recycle your phone and support Amnesty International’s human rights work! Read more Hold your own fundraising event Anytime Be an Amnesty Fundraising Champion! There are all kinds of ways you can raise money for human rights - from birthday parties to bake sales, cycling tours, auctions and more. Read more How we can help you to raise money for human rights. Send us your fundriaisng idea and we'll review your proposal and give you suggestions or ideas, provide you with available publicity materials and answer your questions on tax receipting, sponsorship, or any other issues that relate to your event. Contact us. Set up your own online fundraising page We can also help you make your fundraising easier and more enjoyable by helping you create your own online fundraising page where you can upload photos and send email invitations to sponsors, and raise money securely online. Start here or contact us to get started. Why Amnesty * Amnesty is the human rights movement – we are 3 million supporters, activists and volunteers strong…and growing * We have a commanding global influence, with a grassroots presence in over 150 countries and territories in every region of the world * We are completely independent from government or corporate interests WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW Amnesty’s legal name: AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL-CANADIAN SECTION (ENGLISH SPEAKING) Charitable registration number: 11878 5914 RR0001 Address: 312 Laurier Ave E Ottawa Ontario K1N 1H9 Donations at Work Amnesty depends on the generosity of individuals like you to fund our life-saving work. To maintain our impartiality, we do not accept money from governments for our research and advocacy work. Connect With Us WE MUST ACT Leaving a gift in my will is about making sure the things that matter to me the most, continue to matter to others. It`s not about the size of the gift, but more about doing what I can, within my means, to nourish the causes closest to my heart. (Lee Seymour, with Amnesty since 2005) Explore Our Work * Today in the News Read Amnesty International's daily press releases and tweets Today's top stories * Activists worldwide take to the streets for Raif Badawi Amnesty supporters from Montreal to Oslo call for FREEDOM NOT FLOGGING See images and action opportunities * Over 2.5 million actions for Write for Rights! Our worldwide event is already seeing results with Liu Ping being granted a prison visit in China. See results from the write-a-thon * Isn't it time you joined Amnesty? We're on street corners and knocking on doors, inviting you to support human rights. Sign-up online or call 1-800-AMNESTY. Learn more Amnesty International. Action for Human Rights. Hope for Humanity. * Contact Us * Work With Us * RSS * Facebook * Twitter * Home * Site Map * Help * Privacy Policy * Copyright * Accessibility: Our policy for providing services to people with disabilities * FAQ * Français * © 2014 Amnesty International Canada * 312 Laurier Ave E. Ottawa, ON. Canada K1N 1H9 * 1-800-AMNESTY (1-800-266-3789) rights #Ed Merritt is a web designer. Society of Esteem RSS Feed Society of Esteem » Money’s impact on our social life Comments Feed Money and value judgements Alternative money system: universal basic income UBI ____________________ Search Innovative News Esteem News Special News Building the Hogan Society of Esteem * Home * About * Books * Contact * Deutsch * Espanol * History * Sikantis * Sponsors Money’s impact on our social life Posted by Cecilia under: Attitude; Economy . Esteem is one of our most vital motivations for happiness and fulfillment in our life. That’s why we’re capable of doing almost anything to get esteem. The most obvious way to get esteem in western society is to accumulate a lot of money. Having more money means having more prestige and therefore more attention and esteem. But wealthy people often experience that this kind of esteem isn’t long lasting. It has to be earned each day anew – a never-ending fight for esteem. Chasing money for chasing esteem can make people forget that there are other important things in life such as taking care of the people around us. Taking care of relationships requires self-consciousness and a healthy self-esteem. Putting our whole energy into making money and advancing a career while neglecting the social relationships may cause an unfillable hole when we lose money and/or a career. We hear stories frequently of people who don’t have a social network of caring people around them when they encounter a life crisis. Often these people don’t see a reason to continue to live. The results are tragic. Money can have a negative impact on our social life when it’s the only means to getting esteem. In a society of esteem people get esteem for their talents and just for being here. When all people get the same esteem there’s no reason to put energy into making money just to receive virtual esteem. People are already acknowledged and therefore happy and balanced. These are the people who have the time and interest to take care of their fellow men. About This Site Esteeming greetings! I write about esteem and expressing the ideals of Sikantis. I am looking forward to your contributions. Top Posts Top 10 list of food for health with full menu recipe Top 10 Ways for Living a Green Life Top 5 Most Unusual Ways to Generate Power Top 5 tips for a green garden Top 5 key-thoughts about self-esteem Categories * Art * Attitude * Economy * Education * Philosophy * Science * Society * Uncategorized Links * Recommended + Ebook about Sikantis + Esteem News + Innovative News + Sikantis Wordpress Site + Special News Popular Tags achievement acknowledgment alternative money system attention career comparison competition culture Education esteem Etruscans fulfilled life happiness health hierarchy of values job knowledge life experience money occupation personality prestige profession recognition school self-esteem Sikantis social life Society student successful talent vocation wealth work Subscribe * Blog Entries (RSS) Society of Esteem is powered by WordPress Copyright 2008 Sikantis Photography by Peter Hellebrand Theme by Ed Merritt. #prev next Science/AAAS * AAAS.ORG * Feedback * Help * Librarians [All Science Journals..........] ____________________ submitAdvanced * Guest * Alerts * Access Rights * My Account * Sign In * News * Science Journals * Careers * Multimedia * Topics Subscribe * Science Home * Current Issue * Previous Issues * Science Express * Science Products * My Science * About the Journal * Home * > Science Magazine * > 17 November 2006 * > Vohs et al., 314 (5802): 1154-1156 Prev | Table of Contents | Next Science 17 November 2006: Vol. 314 no. 5802 pp. 1154-1156 DOI: 10.1126/science.1132491 * Report The Psychological Consequences of Money 1. Kathleen D. Vohs1,*, 2. Nicole L. Mead2, 3. Miranda R. Goode3 1. ^1 Department of Marketing, Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, 3-150 321 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. 2. ^2 Department of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahasse, FL 32306–4301, USA. 3. ^3 Marketing Division, Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2, Canada. 1. ↵* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: kvohs{at}csom.umn.edu Abstract Money has been said to change people's motivation (mainly for the better) and their behavior toward others (mainly for the worse). The results of nine experiments suggest that money brings about a self-sufficient orientation in which people prefer to be free of dependency and dependents. Reminders of money, relative to nonmoney reminders, led to reduced requests for help and reduced helpfulness toward others. Relative to participants primed with neutral concepts, participants primed with money preferred to play alone, work alone, and put more physical distance between themselves and a new acquaintance. * Received for publication 14 July 2006. * Accepted for publication 18 September 2006. Read the Full Text The editors suggest the following Related Resources on Science sites In Science Magazine * Perspective PSYCHOLOGY Money Is Material + Carole B. Burgoyne and + Stephen E. G. Lea Science 17 November 2006: 1091-1092. + Summary + Full Text + Full Text (PDF) Article Views 1. Abstract 2. Full Text 3. Full Text (PDF) 4. Figures Only 5. Supporting Online Material Article Tools 1. Save to My Folders 2. Download Citation 3. Alert Me When Article is Cited 4. + Add to Post to CiteULike Post to CiteULike What's this? 5. Article Usage Statistics 6. E-mail This Page 7. Rights & Permissions 8. Commercial Reprints and E-Prints 9. View PubMed Citation Related Content 1. In Science Magazine o Science Perspective by Burgoyne and Lea 2. o More Information on Related Content 3. Load related web site information Similar Articles In: 1. Science Magazine 2. Web of Science 3. PubMed Search Google Scholar for: 1. Articles by Vohs, K. D. 2. Articles by Goode, M. R. Search PubMed for: 1. Articles by Vohs, K. D. 2. Articles by Goode, M. R. Find Citing Articles in: 1. Web of Science 2. Load citing article information 3. CrossRef 4. Google Scholar 5. Citing articles via Scopus My Science 1. My Folders 2. My Alerts 3. My Saved Searches 4. Sign In More Information More in Collections * Psychology Related Jobs from ScienceCareers * Psychology To Advertise | Find Products Science. ISSN 0036-8075 (print), 1095-9203 (online) AAAS Logo HWP Logo News | Science Journals | Careers | Multimedia | Collections | Help | Site Map | RSS Subscribe | Feedback | Privacy / Legal | About Us | Advertise With Us | Contact Us © 2015 American Association for the Advancement of Science. All Rights Reserved. AAAS is a partner of HINARI, AGORA, OARE, PatientInform, CrossRef, and COUNTER. Go to the U of M home page * One Stop * myU Search this site: _______________ Search Created by the Center for Spirituality & Healing and Charlson Meadows. Skip to Content Home Taking Charge of Your Health & Wellbeing * Enhance your Wellbeing * Navigate the Healthcare System * Explore Healing Practices * Tips for change * Health conditions * Glossary * Our experts * About us * Facebook * Twitter * Pinterest * Forward * Print HTML How Does Money Impact Wellbeing? Senior man paying bills at kitchen counter Related Pages Anxiety & Depression Become Aware of Your Stressors and Reactions What Is Life Purpose? Money allows us to meet our basic needs—to buy food and shelter and pay for healthcare. Meeting these needs is essential, and if we don’t have enough money to do so, our wellbeing suffers. Beyond that, as Tom Rath suggests in his book, Wellbeing, “money can increase our short-term happiness by giving us more control over how we spend our time.” For example, it can give us the option to live closer to work, work fewer hours, and spend more time on leisure activities with friends. Money can be used to make our lives easier. But the fact is that most of us don’t use money to buy more free time. Instead, we spend it on more expensive possessions. Sally's story Sally’s story is somewhat typical. She worked downtown as a buyer for a major retailer, and when she got a promotion and a large raise, she and her husband Drew bought a large home in an outer suburb. Sally soon found that the additional commuting time, on top of the increased demands of her new position, left her little time to fit in exercise or see friends, so she cut back on those activities. When Drew also got a good promotion, they thought about moving closer into the city to reduce their stressful commutes, but decided instead to remodel their kitchen like the beautiful one they had seen elsewhere in the neighborhood. The mortgage they took to do the remodeling added $300 to their monthly expenses, taking up all of Drew’s raise, which also meant that they couldn’t afford to hire someone to come and clean their home twice a month. Like Sally, many of us may not be using money in a way that maximizes our wellbeing. More money doesn’t necessarily buy happiness Contrary to what most of us believe, once we have enough to meet our basic needs, a higher income may not significantly increase our wellbeing and may even have a negative effect in some cases! The data to support this is interesting. For example, * Per capita income in the U.S. rose 150% from 1946 to 1990 (which is a huge difference in purchasing power), but the percent of people considering themselves very happy fell. * In addition, depression rates in the U.S. rose 10 times in that 50-year period. * In Japan between 1958 and 1991, the per capita income rose six-fold, but subjective wellbeing stayed the same. * People who won large amounts of money in lotteries in the U.S. or football pools in England were not significantly happier a year later and were more dissatisfied with daily events. * Welfare recipients who were given more money in a controlled study experienced more stress than those who received the regular amount. Other studies have associated higher incomes with higher levels of stress, increased likelihood of divorce, and less enjoyment of small activities. Ed Diener, a researcher who has spent over 30 years studying wellbeing, postulates that a higher income may mean more work, less leisure time, and fewer strong social connections. In other words, the benefits of having more money might be offset by the sacrifices people are making in other aspects of wellbeing—Sally is one example of this. Furthermore, we are forever comparing ourselves to others who are doing better. If our income goes up but everyone else’s does too, we are not happier. A person who earns $30,000 a year will be dissatisfied if his friend makes $50,000 a year. You would think a raise to $50,000 would make him happy, right? Not if his friend gets a raise too—he will be equally unhappy making $50,000 if his friend is now earning $70,000! Many times our dissatisfaction with our financial situation comes from the perception that we’re not stacking up to the people around us. Materialism makes people unhappy We humans don’t always know what makes us happy! Because our society values it so, we believe that money will bring us happiness and so we don’t pay attention to what is actually going on. Consider these facts: * The happiness of acquiring goods is always transitory—it wears off. For example, we might be really excited to buy a bigger car, but over time, we take the car for granted. Moreover, we are still committed to monthly car payments, which can restrict our options for fun activities--vacations and dinners out, for example. * We adjust our expectations upward. As our income goes up, we feel we need more expensive things, and those higher aspirations use up almost all of our gained income. In other words, we use almost all of our raises to buy a more expensive version of things we already have. * Our wants can be insatiable—the more we get, the more we want. This can lead to large debt and all the stress it brings. * Greater materialism is associated with a host of negative effects: lower self-esteem, greater narcissism, less empathy, and more conflicted relationships. The title of the 1976 book, The Joyless Economy, captures this perfectly. In reality, most of the important pleasures in life cannot be bought. What really bring us satisfaction in life are relationships, purpose, meaning, and connection to nature. We seek personal fulfillment and are disappointed when material things don’t provide it. Moreover, money can actually detract from our ability to connect to others. University of Minnesota researcher Kathleen Vohs conducted a series of studies showing that when money was on people’s minds, they became less helpful, wanted to work on their own, and didn’t mind being socially excluded. References Deaton, A. (2008). Income, health, and well-being around the world: Evidence from the Gallup world poll. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22(2), 53. Diener, E., & Seligman, M. (2004). Beyond money: Toward an economy of well-being. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(1), 2. Diener, E., Diener, R. (2002). Will money increase subjective well-being? Social Indicators Research, 57/2. Esterlin, R. (1995). Will raising the incomes of all increase the happiness of all? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 27, 35. Frey, B., Stutzer, A. (2002). Happiness & economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Howell, R., & Howell, C. (2008). The relation of economic status to subjective well-being in developing countries: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 536. Kasser , T. et al (2004). Materialistic values: Their causes and consequences. In T. Kasser and A. Kanner (eds). Psychology and consumer culture: the struggle for a good life in a materialistic world. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Rath, T., Harter, J. (2010). Wellbeing: The five essential elements. New York: Gallup Press. Stevenson, B., Wolfers, J. (2013). Subjective well-being and income: Is there any evidence of satiation? American Economic Review, 103(3): 598-604. Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2011). Needs and subjective well-being around the world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 354. Vanderkam, L. (2013). Why money isn't buying you happiness. Moneywatch. May 28, 2013. Accessed July 11, 2013 at http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500395_162-57586398/why-money-isnt-buying-y o... Vohs, K., Mead, N., & Goode, M. (2006). The psychological consequences of money. Science, 314(5802), 1154 * Facebook * Twitter * Pinterest * Forward * Print HTML Security * Facing Fear and Anxiety + Impact of Fear and Anxiety + How to Work with Threats + How to Deal with Chronic Fear and Anxiety + Find Out More about Facing Fear and Anxiety * Rethinking Money + How Does Money Impact Wellbeing? + How Can You Improve Your Relationship with Money? + Find Out More about Money * Safety and Prevention + What Is Safety and Prevention? + Why Are Safety and Prevention Important? + Be Active in Your Self-Care and Healthcare + Practice Safety + Make Wise Choices + Find Out More About Safety and Prevention Take the Assessment Create a Goal Learn to Manage Debt Pencil erasing the word "debt" Struggling with debt? Here are some tips to help you manage your finances and recognize how they impact your wellbeing. * Read more Money's Isolating Effects When people are thinking about money, they isolate themselves from others. A researcher at the University of Minnesota did a series of nine experiments that demonstrated that that money makes people want to be free of dependents and dependency. Reminded of money, participants preferred to play alone, work alone, and put more physical distance between themselves and a new acquaintance—and they were in general less helpful to others! Healing Practices a-z about healing practices + Choosing Integrative Healthcare Acupuncture Aromatherapy Ayurvedic Medicine Biofeedback Botanical Medicine Breathwork Chinese Herbs Chiropractic Clinical Hypnosis Craniosacral Therapy Creative Therapies Cupping Dermal Friction Dietary Therapies Food As Medicine Healing Environment Healing Touch Holistic Pregnancy & Childbirth Homeopathy Imagery Intuition in Healthcare Massage Therapy Meditation Mind-Body Therapies Mindful Movement Moxibustion Naturopathy Osteopathy Prayer Qigong Reflexology Reiki Shamanism Shiatsu Social Support Therapeutic Touch Tibetan Medicine Traditional Chinese Medicine Tui na Yoga Conditions a-z choosing integrative healthcare + Anxiety Arthritis Autism Spectrum Disorders Back Pain Cancer Childbirth Depression Diabetes End of Life and Hospice Care Headaches Heart Disease Irritable Bowel Syndrome Menopause Migraines Pregnancy connect with us * Twitter * Facebook * Pinterest * Blog * Contact Us * Disclaimer a collaboration between Center for Spirituality & Healing Carlson Meadows Twin Cities Campus: * Maps & Directions * Parking & Transportation * Contact U of M * Privacy * Directories * © 2015 Regents of the University of Minnesota and Charlson Meadows. All rights reserved. * The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer. * Last modified on September 30, 2013 This website is certified by Health On the Net Foundation. Click to verify. This site complies with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information: verify here. #RSS Feed for StudentPulse.com Student Pulse - The International Student Journal Blog About SP Submissions Login Literature Opinion History Philosophy Law and Justice All Topics - Submit to Student Pulse - Social Sciences Political Science International Affairs Communication Studies Psychology Education Sociology Anthropology Economics African-American Studies Criminal Justice Women's Studies Linguistics Humanities Literature History Opinion Philosophy Law and Justice Religious Studies Book Reviews Arts Film and Cinema Visual Art Music Architecture Theatre Sciences Environmental Studies Health Science Biology Computer Science Neuroscience Engineering Money Meaning Of Money Money As Religion Capitalism New Religion Universal Religion ____________________ SEARCH Opinion: The Universal Prayer: How Money Became the World's First Shared Religion By Maria T. Otero 2010, Vol. 2 No. 05 | pg. 1/2 | » Cite References Print KEYWORDS: Keywords:Money Meaning Of Money Money As Religion Capitalism New Religion Universal Religion Money is a term difficult to define. It is a concept subject to deep individual interpretation. For some, money means power, to others, a way of living; some say it begets stability, and there are those who believe it is at the center of everything. In fact, I am one of those last people. From my perspective, I see money as something than can become anything due to its existence as a medium of exchange. It is something universal, in the sense that the entire world accepts its existence and value, and it represents a common want, and to a degree, a common need among all people. This universal importance makes it in some ways similar to religion. Related to this theme, Aristotle had a particular way of explaining how the world works that divided society into good and bad citizens, based on whether they pursued what satisfied men’s limited needs—the natural goods—or if they were in search of the unnatural, which he regarded as all that served to fulfill their unlimited wants. For Aristotle, the unlimited wants of humans represented a problem in the world. Money as an end represented something unnatural, so he suggested it only was to be used as a means to an end. However, we now live in different times, and if Aristotle were alive today, he would likely have had a completely different set of beliefs. The world has evolved into a place where people are driven to consume and spend, and money has become as natural to all of us as it possibly could. As something so natural to us, money is part of our lives from the moment we are born. Our interpretation of it continues to evolve until the day we die. In our childhoods, we encounter our first economic decisions, like what to spend our allowances on. We also start to understand that things have certain value, and since we do not have the means to attain them, we behave properly in order to be rewarded by our parents with what we want. Then, when we grow a little more, we may get a job and start becoming more independent, even though our parents are still accountable for us. The more independent we become, the more we discover the value of money. Once we become completely autonomous, we work harder to get the highest income possible because that is what we are supposed to do. Finally, we then have the responsibility to provide for our kids, and so it is not only our life that is affected by how much money we have, but also someone else’s. Even though this is not the case for everybody, it is an example of how the concept of money has not only changed through history, but it also changes in our own minds. Along the same lines, money can also have many different interpretations depending on different factors that define people. For example, the level of wealth is something that can affect how someone would perceive certain amount of money. A hundred dollar bill can have a completely different meaning for a rich middle-age man living in Beverly Hills than for a poor kid living in Somalia. If money is scarce in our lives, we then tend to value certain amount of it more than someone who has plenty, and therefore behave differently towards it. Also, its origin can affect our behavior. For instance, if someone won the lottery, that person would probably spend it on things he would not otherwise have. Therefore, the way we value money is also affected by how much we have worked to attain it. There are people who see money as an absolute priority in their lives, and there are examples everywhere that can prove that. In the movie “Wall Street”, a man goes against his values in order to get ahead in his career in the financial world, with the risk of ruining everything in his life. Similarly, in the TV show “How I Met Your Mother”, one of the characters chooses not to pursue his dream job, and instead he settles for one he does not like but gives him a higher income. We see everyday people like these two men who are willing to give up important things in their life for money. The striking part is not the fact that they do it, but that the rest of the world sees it as something normal. I could refer to thousands of examples without ever stopping, but that is not the idea. All these different interpretations and ways in which people value money all have something in common: it is something inherent in all our lives. This is very similar to the way Medieval Europe saw Catholicism. During the Middle Ages, religion was very predominant in the way the Catholic Church controlled almost every part of society: the economy, politics, and so forth. In Western Europe, Catholicism was something everyone took for granted because that is what people were taught since the beginning of their lives. Money plays a similar role in today’s society. Like medieval Catholicism, the value of money is something no one questions, and everyone believes in it, or is forced to believe, we can say. Our actual economic system is similar to the medieval religious system in many ways. First, it had a hierarchy headed by the Pope, the highest power, who supervises the different churches headed by their priests and archbishops, and they in turn are higher ranked than regular people since they are the messengers between them and God. On the other hand, our economic structure today in the United States consists of the Federal Reserve as a regulator or a “Holy See” of the financial sector, with Ben Bernanke as our own economic “Pope.” Then, we have banks, which play the same role as churches in terms of money. There are many rituals in both cases. We go there and make deposits, the same way people in the Middle Ages went to Church to make their confessions in order to prove their devotion or faith, which was valued in a similar way to how we value our money. Also, when we open a bank account it is like a baptism in economics, or maybe a first communion. Furthermore, if we see capitalism as the most important determinant of our economy, we could see Adam Smith as our economic Jesus Christ. If we look at religions in general, our belief in money is very similar. In a religion, its followers share a belief that no one is supposed to question. We all believe in money as a medium of exchange. Therefore, it has similar purposes as religion: uniting people towards having faith in something. This, in turn, provides stability. Money was created to give value to things and define them in those terms. Religion defines the world in a broader manner, but still manages to create an order by giving people the answers to how the world works and what are the set of norms that will define our standing in it, the same way our wealth can determine our social standing. The validity of both is only determined by our set of beliefs, and our cultural environment is what defines them. A lot of different religions exist today and have existed throughout history. Since the beginning of civilizations, people have had the need to explain the meaning of their existence, and thus they have developed different kinds of religious beliefs. Along the same lines, people have had the need to create a system that allows them not to explain their existence but simply to exist as a society. In other words, a scheme that allows us to exchange goods and resources for us to survive in a world filled with scarcity. Both systems have had the common purpose of stabilizing people’s lives, and they have always been successful at that, even if these have evolved and new ones have developed.Continued on Next Page » 1 2 Next » Cite References Print Save Citation » (Works with EndNote, ProCite, & Reference Manager) APA 6th Otero, M. T. (2010). "The Universal Prayer: How Money Became the World's First Shared Religion." Student Pulse, 2(05). Retrieved from http://www.studentpulse.com/a?id=241 MLA Otero, Maria T. "The Universal Prayer: How Money Became the World's First Shared Religion." Student Pulse 2.05 (2010). Chicago 16th Otero, Maria T. 2010. The Universal Prayer: How Money Became the World's First Shared Religion. Student Pulse 2 (05), http://www.studentpulse.com/a?id=241 Harvard OTERO, M. T. 2010. The Universal Prayer: How Money Became the World's First Shared Religion. Student Pulse [Online], 2. Available: http://www.studentpulse.com/a?id=241 [INS: :INS] Maria T. Otero graduated in 2010 with a concentration in International Affairs from Northeastern University in Boston, MA. More By This Author: The Dalai Lama, Buddhism, and Tibet: Reflecting on a Half-Century of Change Submit to Student Pulse, Get a Decision in 10-Days From the StudentPulse Blog 5 Tips for Publishing Your First Academic Article 7 Big Differences Between College and Graduate School "Should I Go to Graduate School?" Related Reading Literature » Ayn Rand Contrasting Views of Money in Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" Religious Studies » Neuroscience Toward a Neurobiological Understanding of Religion: Examining Ritual and the Body... [62a0a0.png] Health Science » Religion Solving Health Issues in Ethiopia with Religion [e859a9.png] Psychology » Religion The Influence of Religion on Health [INS: :INS] [INS: :INS] IFRAME: 42be4ae187 Monthly Newsletter Signup The newsletter highlights recent selections from the journal and useful tips from our blog. ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ - Subscribe - Follow us via RSS or Twitter and get updates from Student Pulse. Subscribe to RSS Follow @studentpulse Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Subscribe via RSS IFRAME: e0e493b3ec Suggested Reading from StudentPulse Literature » Ayn Rand Contrasting Views of Money in Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" Atlas Shrugged’s presentation of money departs from the traditional dichotomy of the “haves and have-nots.” In fact such a characterization of money succinctly captures the ultimate evil, in conflict with the ultimate good. The separation it insists on instead may be called “the makers and the maker-nots.” The latter comprises both the haves and the have-nots, while the makers are the golden examples of... MORE» Ayn Rand Atlas Shrugged Money Capitalism Religious Studies » Neuroscience Toward a Neurobiological Understanding of Religion: Examining Ritual and the Body One of the numerous working definitions of religion includes "a belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be worshipped," and "an expression of such a belief in conduct and ritual" (Johnson, 2012 p. 1). Rituals are generally a religion’s defining characteristic. Further, religion seems to be a uniquely human phenomenon that can foster anything from hope to hate. Why do we have religion, and further, why has the phenomenon of religion... MORE» Neuroscience Religion Ritual Psychology Of Religion Health Science » Religion [62a0a0.png] Solving Health Issues in Ethiopia with Religion Dealing with the issue of healthcare is no small challenge for any country, either rich or poor. For Ethipoia, health issues represent a major challenge. Tuberculosis, malaria, mental illnesses, and especially HIV/AIDS are health issues with which Ethiopia continues to grapple. In the battle to prevent and eradicate such maladies... MORE» Psychology » Religion [e859a9.png] The Influence of Religion on Health Religion is a subject that we encounter daily, either because we follow a specific faith and the rules established by it, or because we meet people who proclaim their faith unabashed, or because we know it is a taboo subject in social conversations. It is probably better to ask someone how much they earn, or about their health history... MORE» Literature » Caribbean Literature Religion in Caribbean Literature The language of religion plays an important part in the novels Brown Girl, Brownstones; The Farming of Bones; and In the Time of the Butterflies. In Brown Girl, Brownstones, the author presents the intricate Silla as a woman who is weary of her work and calls on the “Lord” for “power” (Marshall 224). In The Farming of Bones, poignant symbols of hardships... MORE» Brown Girl Brownstones The Farming Of Bones Religion Religion in Literature Submit to Student Pulse, Get a Decision in 10-Days Student Pulse provides undergraduate and graduate students around the world a platform for the wide dissemination of academic work over a range of core disciplines. Representing the work of students from hundreds of institutions around the globe, Student Pulse's large database of academic articles is completely free. Learn more | Blog | Submit Follow SP Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Subscribe via RSS FROM OUR BLOG 5 Tips for Publishing Your First Academic Article 7 Big Differences Between College and Graduate School "Should I Go to Graduate School?" Tweets by @StudentPulse Further Reading in Opinion The Gender Binary: Working Towards Uniqueness in American Education The Consequences of Food Waste Debating the Existence of God: God Exists Asceticism in the Modern World: The Religion of Self-Deprivation Net Neutrality: A Human Right for the Digital Age? From Physician to Patient: the Effects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) Not Just a Game: Sport and Society in the United States You Owe Me: Examining a Generation of Entitlement © 2015 Student Pulse, LLC. All rights reserved. ISSN: 2153-5760. Disclaimer: content on this website is for informational purposes only. It is not intended to provide medical or other professional advice. Moreover, the views expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of Student Pulse, its owners, staff, contributors, or affiliates. Copyright Protected by DMCA Home | Blog | Topics | Featured Articles | About Student Pulse | Submissions Terms of Use :: Privacy Policy :: Contact ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ - Login - Need an Account? Before you can login, you need to create an account. It takes just a minute! Forgot password? Reset your password » #MONEY: The 12th and Final Religion - Atom MONEY: The 12th and Final Religion - RSS MONEY: The 12th and Final Religion Sunday, December 14, 2014 CULTURE STRUCTRE OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER The idea of a New World Order is a conspiracy, some say. They see a hidden message in the widespread struggle called equal rights. Civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, right to limit role of religion are seen as part of the change into the new world order. Market science, largely still secret, conceals the driving forces of modern markets which is code for the new world order. The study of marketing at high corporate office speaks to the ambition of the great merchants, first recognized in the Bible. These continue in the creation of the new culture they call the new world order. The desire of great merchants of the new world order is to create and inspire purchasing of products as called for in advertising. Advertising is greatly assisted by the modulation of electronic signals that surround a person such as cell towers, TV signals and the electronic waves of the electric wiring in any building or house. The predictable response to advertising is facilitated by understanding of the entire emotional structure of the brain. The entire emotional structure of the brain has ben decoded and it is now possible to electronically install any desired emotion to stimulate purchasing. The scientifically patented Lilly wave can control the brain by remote electronic signal. The Lilly wave can disarm any natural resistance to suggestions made by advertising. The secret of the Lilly wave is to open the brain circuits to the advertising signal. The profit of great merchants comes from the sale of inventory. Marketing science has discovered the population segments that are most responsive to being first time tryers and early adapters of new products advertised. The ranking of purchasers most responsive to new products and advertisements came as surprise in the 1960s and early 70s. It was called life style marketing. The rank of life styles most desired by the great merchants are first homosexuals, followed by negros and mixed race persons and couples. Then comes Asians and Mexicans followed by white women. This is the sequential order of shoppers most responsive to mind control designed advertising. The least responsive, therefore the least desirable customer in the new world order is the straight white male. The objective of the New world order is to give control of world governments to hidden powers. These powers will be some kind of amalgam of capitalism and dreaded other forms of government most often described as socialist. Carefully through subterfuge and deception, capitalism will morph into what is feared as socialism, they say. This progress was first identified as a cult entity called the Illuminati. This notion expanded to include others such s masons, Jesuits and dissident religious groups such as Jews, spiritualists and protestant non-conformists. Current discussion finds additional groups such as the Bilderburghers, Council on foreign relations, and trilateral commission or perhaps even the G-7 or G20 can also be considered Illuminati. The primary tool for managing the markets of the mind controlled customer is thought to be the central banking system. The conspiracy cohort finds the description of the central bank as benevolent help mate to society as cruel deception. They say the central banks like the federal reserve system actually facilitates the manipulation of the economy to advance the agenda of the new world order. posted by R Duane Willing @ 10:57 AM 0 comments links to this post Tuesday, November 04, 2014 WILLARD PLANS WWII STUDY Willard in Holocaust study. We are alarmed at the change in Willard's attitude in these recent days. It seems the man we know as thousands of Masses and Rosaries beyond count with a lifetime vigil for nazi war criminals is in change of life. He now wants to be a WWII scholar, especially in regards to the Holocaust saga. He seems convinced that the Concentration camp labor was the primary economic asset of the Waffen SS. Without the labor resource and production output the SS would have been destroyed in the first year of combat in Russia. He says proof is in the camp records thus far not studied. For example, he disputes the death camp saga with personnel records kept for each inmate. The induction process involved first a shower of some kind of acidic solution . Then there was 12 days of quarantine followed by mass inoculation. Each inmate was interviewed as to their skill and a record was made of next of kin to be notified in case of hospitalization or death. After this the camp assignments were made according to skill and labor needs in the work force. Camp population was first made of work shy social democrats and communist Germans. This was followed by French, Polish and finally Russian prisoners of war. The record seems to show a minimum number of Jews as prisoners. It seems Jews and Poles were most effective as "Kapo" to enforces rules in the camps for the SS. Willard is fresh with excitement about what he calls his factual discovery. Some of us think Willard has discovered some quaint German law about financial reward for discovering fraud. Perhaps a percentage is paid to the person who discovers and reports a financial fraud against the state such as would be case of the Holocaust payments for 6,000,000, if Willard is right. Emma says he has left for Germany with his German language book to begin study of camp intake and work assignment records. Tension Rising Lee-Jon Billy Bob Boot premier US civil servant with maximum pension credits and long time secret agent with multiple PhDs seems unhappy to be visiting our office. We are too, because this means that Mogen Dildo, senior MOSSAD agent in North America will be close soon. Mogen as founder and CEO of the Atlanta Center for Poverty to White People keeps informed on the whereabouts of secret agent Boot, who likes to be called Jack. Sure enough both Jack Boot and Mogen Dildo have arrived and taken the premium chairs in the office. I worry and remain quiet. Jack wants to see Willard. Mogen agrees. They both want to see Willard. I confess ignorance. They know I am lying because of wire taping of all conversations in the office. They pretend indifference to my ignorance. Mogen exudes charisma and is my friend almost convincing. He isn't CEO at of the Atlanta Center for Poverty to White People by accident. The MOSSAD knows all the personal relation skills. I pretend to succumb to flattery about my office and skills. Jack Boot, personally responsible for burning alive 99 people to include children at Waco and claims author of the head shot murder of a nursing mother at Ruby Ridge is attentive as would be expected from a perfected secret agent on government service. It seems that both of these acclaimed secret agents have an offer for Willard. Mogen has a paid internship for someone with a life time vigil for Nazi war criminals. Jack Boot says his office has a mega dollar contract for someone with skills exhibited by Willard. I promise to pass on the message. They both need someone right away. The timing will no doubt put an end to Willard's research on Nazi labor camps. posted by R Duane Willing @ 7:52 AM 0 comments links to this post Friday, October 03, 2014 CORPORATISM (Hitler myth) EXPLAINED MOLOCH, God of Capitalism It is sometimes difficult to get your mind around the obvious. But it is obvious that the creation of money by corporate entities known as banks is unnatural. Money is reported as growing without air, earth, water or sunlight. My advisor and deep channel remote viewing medium says " Belief in growth of money is spiritual, a form of worship of high god Moloch." Read book MONEY; !2th and FINAL RELIGION, she commands. Moloch is god of perpetual debt, money at interest and stock exchange (mortgage swindle) finance, she says on the authority of her past life as the first woman Jesuit at the 1555 Vatican. We can see without effort that the creation of money does defy nature. Corporations as well as consenting Anglo-Hebraic religions would have us believe that money unlike anything else on planet earth can grow without air, earth, water or sunlight. They say plan your life around this belief that money can grow. Growth is called interest. The ancients called it usury. It is a tithe to God Moloch, she whispers. The Anglo-Hebraic infection of the white mans mind by the Semite mental infarction often called the King James Bible has made it possible for the Moloch to advance in secret for centuries. Already recognized in You Tube videos as the Egregore of Cult 273, this Moloch Apostolate is the cult that has made modern central banking possible. Bursting into human learning by virtue of printing, many considered unworthy were found writing and reading books about banking and money and interest. The Church recoiled in shock as the readers called themselves illuminated. Then came combat as there was discovery that Jews were thought to be in control of the theories about money and banking. A long period called the inquisition conceals how the Illuminati in alliance with the Church plundered Jews in search of those Talmud taught money theories in the books of Jews. Expulsion of Jews made money markets open to newly inspired Illuminati. Eventually uniting in London the Illuminati and the expelled Jews made a pact for world conquest called central banking. The British empire was born. Loco Lola says read book; THE AMERICAN CALIPHATE of BIZWOG: The Final World Order. BIZWOG is for the BRITISH-ISRAEL ZIONIST WORLD OCCUPATION GOVERNMENT. Now in its nascent form as the United Nations and NATO. Our revery of historical inquiry is shattered by shrieks and calls of recognition and joy. The Tuktoyaktuk duo of Wilma and Emmett have come without notice. If horses they would make an elegant team. Emmett as world premier interceptor and decoder of all known signals and Wilma as world leading psychic and mind reader come to us for our annual update on ETs and BIZWOG psy ops. We conference quickly because it is already late in the season and they have to get back in time for "freeze up." Persons in the North without respect for the seasons travel at their peril. Emmett is taciturn. Still under contract by some or many secret agencies. They rely on his web monitoring expertise. He tells them how many minutes it takes for him to intercept and break their most secret codes. Wilma is ebullient. Her deep channel contact in spirit world and ET contact have the same message. They repeat the first rule for the human condition. "Do not foul the water." Each recent contact has included this message, she says quite cheerfully considering the gravity of the warning in the face of fracking and the water polluting catastrophe of the oil sands. Emmet's body language forecast spoken thought. Wilma holds her hand for silence. She says that ETs are anticipating a change in human consciousness on the order of some 2000 years ago when the idea of the guy in the diaper, nailed on two sticks with thorns on his head was introduced into human thought. There is possibility that an equivalent consciousness is underway on earth plane now. Emmett speaks. He says there are two options. One is the capitalist option where in the capitalist democratic world of international stock exchange finance, the people exist for trade and commerce. This was the war cry of Roosevelt, Churchill and Morgenthau when they planned the extermination of 6,000,000 German civilians in WWII. The other option is to reject the idea of stock exchange supremacy and make capital exist for trade and commerce and industry for the people. It is a political choice expressed in German national Socialism where people comes first over capital. Our visitor Willard, a man of thousands of masses and Rosaries beyond count has leap to his feet. A lifetime vigil for Nazi war criminal has biased his thought. He refuses to accept any idea that would support the myth of Adolph Hitler as a Messiah figure. posted by R Duane Willing @ 10:35 AM 0 comments links to this post Thursday, September 04, 2014 CANADA vs USofA in MAJOR NATO DISPUTE It is unkind for neighbours to dispute over trivial matters. BUT the correct identification of NATO is not trivial. For example the great PM of Canada, PM Hooker, family name Harper has been feeling mighty and world wise lately, says my advisor and deep channel medium Loco Lola, first woman Jesuit during her past life at the 1555 Vatican. PM Hooker sees his property, Canada as the new muscle for NATO and the correct understanding of NATO should be NORTH AMERICAN TERROR ORGANIZATION, after all CANADA is big in North America. This definition is quite different than the great unnatural super power US of A ideal of NATO as NEW AMERICAN TERROR ORGANIZATION. After all as world super power shouldn't the US have the right to name the the world terror organization after itself. Certainly any country that can repudiate centuries of moral understanding by fostering a culture based on lies, state murder by drones and deviant sexual promotion be able to think of itself as supreme, says Loco Lola. We are spared further discussion by the approaching infernal sound from the infernal machine of Cpl Duty First on his 1949 Harley 61. Appraised of our debate, the Cpl, all knowing on matters of military organization, takes a neutral stance. NORTH AMERICAN is probably good but NEW AMERICAN has a certain literary punch to it especially when added to TERROR ORGANIZATION. Either title should bring fibrillation to the hearts of "Fuzzie wuzzies and dark woggie people world wide," he offers. We caution the Cpl about political correctness of his speech. He said something in low voice that sounded like go and the f-word followed by yourself. He is incorrigible. The noise of doors slamming and chairs rattling in the conference room adjacent signals the return of the Montreal Market Medium seeking his office upon a return from late lunch. In a burst of success he discovers our side door and wheezes in a great alcohol assisted bellow that all is safe in the dollar economies of the world. He claims all knowing on matters of finance. It seems that lunch was a detailed discussion of world economies, especially the role of the US dollar and the rumours of dollar failing as world currency. "Not possible," he shouts. "It is all about smart bombs and scalar weapons that melted the towers of the world trade centre," he hoots. "Since DARPA invented the weapon that dissolved the towers, who ever has that weapon controls the world. No one will dare challenge the dollar economy and live to tell about it," he hoots. He grows immediately silent and refuses to comment on who has control of the weapon. Presumably it is the US in control of the weapon in addition to fleets of smart bombers on ready alert world wide. The Cpl Duty First mumbles something agreeable. Our good friend Willard has interrupted his lifetime vigil for Nazi war criminals to visit. He is near breathless with discovery. "Without the production of the Nazi concentration labor camps, the Nazi s would have had to surrender in the winter of the first year of the war. They would have perished in Russia. Camp labor supported the German war effort for 3 years," he says astonished. Could this mean that the saga ofWWII is make-believe? We comfort his worry with a small libation from private stock. It is unsettling to see Willard in such a state. His whole adult life has been on a vigil for Nazi war criminals. especially those connected to the camps. What if the camps were labor organizations for production? Why were they allowed undisturbed for most of the war? We give Willard a double portion and refuse to discuss the military industrial complex as an economic theory. Our minds are closed to the prospect that the Nazi had stumbled on the modern organization for controlled industrial production. The secret of matching labor needs with machine output. We cannot think about how a single factory of child labor can make all the shoe soles for all the hiking shoes of the world. A code word for this new order of world workers might be Globalization. We dismiss our visitors with summary dispatch. Some days they bring unconscionable questions with their collective idiocy. Thanks RDW posted by R Duane Willing @ 11:58 AM 0 comments links to this post Monday, August 04, 2014 THE PERFECTED MIND of MOGEN DILDO Lights were burning late at the Atlanta Centre for Poverty to White People. Chief executive Mogen Dildo was working on the Israel invasion of Palestine. "F-word wogs were always causing trouble," referring of course to Arabs, he mused to himself, followed shortly by his personal benediction of "Heil Israel." He agrees that the ultimate extermination of the Gaza Arab population is a logical foreign policy objective of his people and God's chosen state.. The US tacitly supports this objective by refusing to criticize Israel. Fresh and free supplies of the latest munitions are forthcoming from US arsenal. Mogen was writing before encoding this brief for transmit to some destination for eventual decoding in Tel Aviv. As if they did not know this information already. As the senior and most secret agent of Israeli MOSSAD in America, he has no direct connection to headquarters in Israel ,but is expected to report daily. When Gaza beachfront property, clear of Arabs, opens for Jew condos he wants to be "in touch" with headquarters. Might be some deals there? Mogen decided not to mention the absence of criticism of Israel by any of the Christian spokes persons, especially preachers on TV. The obvious complicity of Christian preachers in the slaughter bench of killing in Gaza by their silence was something not unexpected by Tel Aviv. Could this be Judeo-Christianities finest hour. mused Mogen. He shuddered a small tremor at the idea of Judeo-Christianity. What a grotesques description of his tradition. The idea of his chosen truth connected by hyphen to the swindle called christian was repelling, but global econo-politic dictated sufferance. One day soon Jews would take their place as superior and chosen over all other people. The Goy Christians could amuse themselves as proper servants for his people. The mind of the typical goyim, i.e. christian in the US has been a study by Mogen for years. Feeble often comes as a description of the average christian believer that supports Israel. Knee jerk fellowship with anyone claiming to be a Jew is a matter of record. Indifference to politics of Israel is evidence of anti semitism. Mogen finds this mental state amusing. Clearly evidence of feeble mindedness. The fawning deference of christians to Jews makes Mogen wary. He suspects an agenda, but by the same token it makes it easy to isolate opponents of Israel. Mogen settles in for some introspection of his own mind. The extermination campaign in Gaza may call for some sophisticated massaging of the christian Zionist support. Sometime Christians are a little weak on grasping correct meaning from blowing up schools and infants as necessary Israeli foreign policy. A special fund raising by TV preachers for Israeli victims of Arab rockets would be a good idea. Maybe some preachers could find a bible text justifying the destruction of Gaza. For money a TV preacher can find Bible story for just about anything. Sometimes Mogen really appreciates christian thought. He is pleased to find the American mind paralyzed by the needs of Israel. It is clear that the importance of Israel cannot be exaggerated. No atrocity is challenged. His cultural identity is protected by the saga of the holocaust. Any question is an affront to his personal identity and Jews in general. Free speech should be regulated to assure favour to Jews and Israel. The goy will never understand that moral distress for Jews is more bitter than physical because Jews are more sensitive as humans. Jewish sensibilities are wounded when a successful Jew meets with intolerance. Mogen can see a future of supremacy for his people as the channels of communication become more and more deferential to his people. posted by R Duane Willing @ 8:38 AM 0 comments links to this post Monday, June 09, 2014 CONFLICT AVOIDED, JACK BOOT & NATO SAD NATO RESTLESS New American Terror Organization (NATO) has been excited like never before. There were visions of decorations with medals and awards. Travel pay for visits to the front lines in Ukraine. Promotions for all. Even the most retarded of Major could look forward to Colonel. With some combat luck maybe even Brigadier General. Think of the pension possibilities. But disappointment is lowering morale. No shots have been fired by rumbling tanks thrusting out of mother Russia. The gifted civil servant Prof Lee Jon Billy Bob Boot is doubly sad because he had visions of repeating the freelance DOD and White House command power once held by predecessors such a Paul Vann in Viet Nam and Bob Steele in Iraq and El Salvador. It is not secret that the NATO of Papa Bush, father of Pres Buck Fush was a vision he called a New World Order. It is known by scholars that such a new world order cannot exist without conflict. It is the presence of conflict than conceals how central bank capitalism cannot apportion resources and incomes fairly. Capitalism when left to its energy of stock exchange globalism makes it impossible for even the least among us a to get a minimum survival portion of the economy. State administered poverty is a certainty. Conflict and war are profitable camouflage for Molochism often called capitalism. ECONOMY My spirit advisor and deep trance medium, Loco Lola, says Economy is a word coincident with the advent of the Moloch, God of perpetual debt, money at interest and stock exchange swindle finance. Thus far academia has suppressed truth. It does not recognize the presence of the Moloch as the driving force of central banking economy, she says in confidence. The Moloch is the God than can neither pardon nor forgive and plans to rule the entire earth to prevent independent thought, she whispers. I am not supposed to repeat this, she directs. Sometimes, I wonder if church mumbo jumbo uses the name Devil to conceal evidence of the Moloch. The good Prof C More Books has been listening and ventures comment. He claims all knowledge in subjects of History, Politics, Markets, Finance, Economics and ETs. The Prof says we should not speculate about NATO. It has become a supra national organization with self financing connections out side of budget control. It is mega dangerous to antagonize this group. With false flag powers in a dozen countries and treaties that ignite immediate combat action, NATO is probably out of any government control. The prof crosses his arms and looks down upon us from his desk and pages. We expected him to recommend books. THE AMERICAN CALIPHATE of BIZWOG; Final World Order and MONEY The 12th and FINAL RELIGION. A hurried entry finds a near breathless Prof Lee Jon Billy Bob Boot join us fresh from his CIA, DARPA office. Snowden was right NSA is listening to everything. How else would Lee Jon Billy Bob Boot, he likes to be called Jack, know about our discussion and rush to to join us here. Jack Boot, a person of privilege since childhood, benefits of the best private education in wealthy suburbs of Connecticut and Universities at his beck and call. Double Doctorate with sufficient post graduate credits for multiple more degrees, Jack considers himself a modest worker on government civil service. Renown for his leadership at Waco where he lead his team in "Mooning" the children as they watched the helicopters preparing to incinerate the compound. The head shot execution of a mother nursing her infant at Ruby Ridge was disappointing because the Pres and Attorney general reneged on his promised medal. He dismisses the voices in his head of Serenity Sea Jones and Startle Summers, ages five and six, both burned alive, asking why? These voices are outside of the need to know and unworthy of asking questions or getting answers according to Langley training manuals. Jack is man on government service. He goes by the book. Jack has few friends, but he kinda likes our circle for respite from his duties. That is except for Loco Lola. Whenever she gets a chance she whispers toward him a word that sounds like it begins with "A" and ends with hole. Jack pretends to pay no attention. We worry that Loco is pushing the limits. Jack Boot is direct. He says we should not occupy ourselves with NATO as a subject. It is far beyond our purview, he says in his best bureaucrat talk. We take his warning seriously, but curiosity drives us to further conversation. "What is the master plan for NATO if Russia and Ukraine settle without combat?" How will NATO continue its expansion is not asked but insinuated. Jack quickens. Jaws clench. Eyes squint. We realize error and dismiss the subject. A freshly opened pinch bottle of scotch smooths the mood. Jack calmly proceeds to blow our collective minds. He offers that he is thinking of joining the Orthodox Church as a monk in Kiev. It seems, in Jacks mind, that the KGB 5th Directorate was in charge of Orthodox Churches during the Soviet period, maybe now post Soviet times, he could make some good spook contacts in the Church. The good Prof C More Books throws his hands in the air in demonstration of hopelessness. Loco is going around the room saying word beginning with A ending with hole. We suppress thought that Jack Boot has inadvertently unveiled the roots of a new NATO strategy for possessing the vast area of Russia. posted by R Duane Willing @ 10:14 AM 0 comments links to this post Thursday, May 08, 2014 LEBENSRAUM DREAM of NATO NATO Some call it New American Terror Organization. Debate from Canada suggests it should be called North American Terror Organization. After all, Cdn. PM Hooker, family name Harper has been quickest to commit to NATO thrusts of recent weeks in the Ukraine. "Beat Americans to the draw," he could say. LEBENSRAUM The term Lebensraum comes from the vision of Adolph Hitler and his ideal of a base for food production for his German People. Population could easily be sustained by the agricultural out put of a Ukraine liberated from Communism and protected by the German Reich. One can speculate that a diligent staff officer at NATO HQ archives has discovered this nearly century old idea. DREAM It is important to keep in mind that the purpose of any military organization especially NATO is as a structure to facilitate officer promotions, pay and pension eligibility. An invasion of Ukraine under NATO pretext can accomplish these. Pulse at NATO headquarters has quickened in anticipation, reports my advisor and deep trance medium and remote viewer, Loco Lola. The occupation of Ukraine by NATO under cover of protecting it from Russia would justify a virtually permanent military force on the ground with full complement of supporting High Command back at head office in Brussels. Promotions beyond belief. Medals for risky travel back and forth to the front. Loco says she sees flashbacks from previous times with special mention of Stalingrad. An army of 250,000 slowly starved and froze to a captured contingent of 95,000 Germans, Hungarians and Italians, of which some 5000 survived to return to their countries in the 1950s. Upshot of vision is that Ukraine has been a death march for armies for centuries. Even the Mongols left rather than stay. Loco is amazed at her remote viewing. While she is on the subject of war, we ask her to remote view for any special weapons that might surprise the NATO commanders, such a directed energy and laser devices and mind control weapons or chemicals that could disable troops. She dismisses me as unworthy of serious thought on such a level of warfare. Although there might be an unanticipated side effect of Godless communism in the field of weapons development, she says. Loco says that ET technology was known to capitalism as early as the 1950s. This made many free energy devices and weapons available to be designed and manufactured, but this would have materially changed the industrial and financial structure of the USA. Free energy weapons and motive systems would have crippled the stock market role in the economy. There fore development was restricted and delayed or even prohibited because it would have disrupted the beliefs and money system of the USA. On the other hand Godless communism without stock market control of the economy was not restricted in the development of ET provided technology. YIKES! A great noise from doors opening and closing almost interrupted Loco. It was just our Montreal Market Medium returning from lunch looking for his office. Eyes ablaze with insight and breath to clear the room he bellows. "It is fact that the 'men in black' were created to make sure that no energy system was allowed into production that would not add to national debt and stock market listings." Anybody or corp that made breakthroughs in these areas was either put out of business or acquired or even 'snuffed' is the report from our medium. He claims full knowledge of money and markets. He says that any energy system that does not contribute to national debt does not create money. Without continuous creation of money there would be no way to support interest payments on national debt. The outcome would be that a debt based, interest supported stock market capitalism would be demonstrated as impossible to support a national middle class living standard. The unveiling of national debt as the wealth of the stock exchange rulers of the economy would require a new way of thinking about personal income and wage rates and work force participation. Our medium leaves us roaring that he does his best work after lunch. Some days are more demanding than others. Thanks Loco for your remote viewing. posted by R Duane Willing @ 9:07 AM 0 comments links to this post About Me Name: R Duane Willing View my complete profile Why This Story? click here for the answer Sign up for the latest news, podcasts and discussions ____________________ Subscribe Call me on SKYPE Support future studies PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online! Subscribe to my YouTube Channel Subscribe in a reader [1_cover_2010.jpg] click here to order Links * The 12th and Final Religion * Listen to R Duane Willing * Rich Media Sound The Newest Video * Part 1 - Money, Markets and the Biosphere : Youtube * Part 2 - Money, Markets and the Biosphere : Youtube 1st Video * Part 1 - Money: The 12th and Final Religion : Youtube * Part 2 - The Psychic Fire - I=PRT - Money: The 12th and Final Religion: Youtube * Part 3 - The Great Merchants - Money: The 12th and Final Religion: Youtube * Part 4 - Money Systems - Money: The 12th and Final Religion : Youtube Political Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory Online Marketing Add blog to our blog directory. Previous Posts * CULTURE STRUCTRE OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER * WILLARD PLANS WWII STUDY * CORPORATISM (Hitler myth) EXPLAINED * CANADA vs USofA in MAJOR NATO DISPUTE * THE PERFECTED MIND of MOGEN DILDO * CONFLICT AVOIDED, JACK BOOT & NATO SAD * LEBENSRAUM DREAM of NATO * UNDERSTAND MONEY, HOW TO * UNDERSTANDING AUSCHWITZ * END TIME EXPLAINED Archives * February 2007 * March 2007 * April 2007 * May 2007 * June 2007 * July 2007 * August 2007 * September 2007 * October 2007 * November 2007 * December 2007 * February 2008 * March 2008 * April 2008 * May 2008 * June 2008 * August 2008 * September 2008 * October 2008 * November 2008 * December 2008 * January 2009 * February 2009 * March 2009 * April 2009 * May 2009 * June 2009 * July 2009 * August 2009 * September 2009 * October 2009 * November 2009 * December 2009 * January 2010 * February 2010 * March 2010 * April 2010 * May 2010 * June 2010 * August 2010 * September 2010 * October 2010 * November 2010 * December 2010 * January 2011 * February 2011 * March 2011 * May 2011 * June 2011 * July 2011 * August 2011 * September 2011 * October 2011 * November 2011 * December 2011 * January 2012 * February 2012 * March 2012 * April 2012 * May 2012 * June 2012 * July 2012 * August 2012 * September 2012 * October 2012 * November 2012 * December 2012 * January 2013 * February 2013 * March 2013 * April 2013 * May 2013 * June 2013 * July 2013 * August 2013 * September 2013 * October 2013 * November 2013 * December 2013 * February 2014 * April 2014 * May 2014 * June 2014 * August 2014 * September 2014 * October 2014 * November 2014 * December 2014 Powered by Blogger blogger hit counter #Salon.com Salon.com RSS Feed Salon * * [USEMAP:header-ie8.png] ____________________ search * Home * News + news o Education o Labor o Health Care o Reproductive Rights o [header-ie8.png] [header-ie8.png] Tea Party spawns GOP nightmare: How it's already ruining the party's '16 strategy Elias Isquith o [header-ie8.png] [header-ie8.png] When wingnut cavemen attack: The right turns on Renee Ellmers with stunning misogyny Joan Walsh o [header-ie8.png] [header-ie8.png] "SNL" brilliantly tackles gentrification: "You're acting like someone put gluten in your muffin" Jenny Kutner * Politics + politics o 2014 elections o Obamacare o The Right o 2016 Elections o [header-ie8.png] [header-ie8.png] Jon Stewart's brilliant "F**k you": Why sputtering obscenity is sometimes the best response to Fox News insanity Aaron R. Hanlon o [header-ie8.png] [header-ie8.png] Tea Party spawns GOP nightmare: How it's already ruining the party's '16 strategy Elias Isquith o [header-ie8.png] [header-ie8.png] When wingnut cavemen attack: The right turns on Renee Ellmers with stunning misogyny Joan Walsh * Entertainment + entertainment o Books o Movies o Music o TV o [header-ie8.png] [header-ie8.png] Jon Stewart's brilliant "F**k you": Why sputtering obscenity is sometimes the best response to Fox News insanity Aaron R. Hanlon o [header-ie8.png] [header-ie8.png] "SNL" brilliantly tackles gentrification: "You're acting like someone put gluten in your muffin" Jenny Kutner o [header-ie8.png] [header-ie8.png] Jon Stewart lampoons Ted Cruz, Joni Ernst for ridiculous SOTU responses Sarah Gray * Life + life o Life Stories o Love & Sex o Parenting o [header-ie8.png] [header-ie8.png] "I think every girl is a type of slut": What an attempted mass-murderer's words reveal about our sexual culture Tracy Clark-Flory o [header-ie8.png] [header-ie8.png] He never hit me, but I could no longer take his abuse Brenda Janowitz o [header-ie8.png] [header-ie8.png] Christian mom "outraged" over alleged school bus pentagram Mary Elizabeth Williams * Tech + tech o Privacy o Social Media o Gadgets o Drones o [header-ie8.png] [header-ie8.png] The Internet has destroyed human civilization! America's greatest writer finally weighs in Neal Pollack o [header-ie8.png] [header-ie8.png] Rocky Balboa just punched me: The neuroscience behind our tears, fears and flinches at the movies Jeffrey Zacks * Business + business o Wall Street o Finance o Labor o [header-ie8.png] [header-ie8.png] Why wealthy Americans' delusions about the poor are so dangerous David Sirota o [header-ie8.png] [header-ie8.png] Jon Stewart slams outrageous hypocrisy of the Davos World Economic Forum Sarah Gray o [header-ie8.png] [header-ie8.png] The end of Hathahate: How Anne Hathaway outgrew her haters Anna Silman * Sustainability + sustainability o Climate Change o Dream City o organic food o [header-ie8.png] [header-ie8.png] Anti-vaxxers ruined Disneyland: Why this public health nightmare needs to be stopped Lindsay Abrams o [header-ie8.png] [header-ie8.png] "You celebrities did not go to medical school!": Fox News medical correspondent chides anti-vaxxers Joanna Rothkopf o [header-ie8.png] [header-ie8.png] Regular marijuana use may not be so bad for your lungs Joanna Rothkopf * Innovation + innovation o Science o ideas o Silicon Valley o cool culture o [header-ie8.png] [header-ie8.png] Björk on being a woman in music: "Everything that a guy says once, you have to say five times" Sarah Gray o [header-ie8.png] [header-ie8.png] "Get used to the bear behind you": 24 pieces of advice from Werner Herzog Sarah Gray o [header-ie8.png] [header-ie8.png] Elliott Smith discusses depression, Elvis Costello in beautifully animated 1998 interview Sarah Gray * ____________________ search * + + * Log out Sign in Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 2:29 PM UTC 10 ways religious groups steal public money Holy freeloading! Religion is big business, especially with the help of your tax dollars Valerie Tarico, Alternet * Share * * * * 0 * + All Share Services ____________________ * Topics: AlterNet, Religion, Taxes, U.S. Economy, International aid, Business News, Life News, News 10 ways religious groups steal public money (Credit: Twin Design via Shutterstock) This article originally appeared on Alternet. AlterNet Have you ever thought about starting a new religion or perhaps a hometown franchise of an old one? Perhaps you’re just looking for a career ladder in a religious enterprise that already exists. No? Maybe you should. Religion is big business. There are lots of options (over 30,000 variants of Christianity alone), and if the scale is right it can pay really, really well. Creflo Dollar, founder of World Changers Church, has an estimated net worth of $27 million. Benny Hinn comes in at $42 million. Squeaky clean tent revival pioneer Billy Graham bankrolled around $25 million. Even Eddie Long who has been plagued by accusations of sex with underage male members of his congregation can count his bankbook in the millions. You say you don’t have star power? No worries. Millions of ordinary ministers, priests, missionaries, religious hospital administrators and other church employees earn solid middle- or upper-middle-class incomes in the God business. The pay is good, and for most positions it doesn’t matter what race you are or what grade you happened to get in chemistry. That said, starting or expanding a religious enterprise doesn’t come cheap, even in an established religion that transforms ordinary members into volunteer outreach staff. Christianity spends an estimated $16 billion annually on the kind of marketing-service blend traditionally called “missionary work.” __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ Missionary work may include disaster relief or education with recruiting in the mix. An earthquake survivor might receive a solar-powered Bible to go with his rice and beans and sutures. A Hindu child might get free schooling, pencils and paper included, along with the message that the gods his parents worship are actually demons. Among people who are less desperate, the offerings can be more nuanced and less expensive. For example, a lonely student might get offered kindness and dinner by someone who is paid to live near campus as a friendship missionary. Sometimes mention of heaven or hell is all the enticement needed, though even then there may be costs associated with print materials and distribution. Soldiers in Iraq gave out Jesus coins and a little cartoon bookshowing that when an IED killed a Muslim, he or she went to hell, a fate that could be averted by conversion. The cost of rice, beans, medical supplies, pencils, swag, facilities and salaries can add up. Fortunately, some of religion’s bigger players have gotten creative in recent years. They’ve figured out how to pay for at least part of their growth on the public dime. Having taxpayers cover a portion your costs, even overhead or infrastructure, drives up your margin. It may actually make the difference between a religious enterprise that is a fiscal black hole and one that is lucrative. So, whether you’re thinking about positioning within a small religion or large, one that’s new or one that’s well established, it’s worth taking a look at these ten examples to see if there’s something you can borrow. 1. Fund your religion classes with school vouchers, tuition tax credits or capital grants. If your religion has or can open accredited private schools, public funding prospects are growing rapidly. Thirteen states created or expanded voucher programs in 2013, accelerating a trend from recent years. Vouchers allow parents to divert their children and tax dollars away from public schools and into private institutions, which then have wide religious latitude. Such a school can include classes in which children memorize sacred texts, for example, but also can infuse a religious perspective into classes as diverse as literature, history, and computer science. The opportunities aren’t limited to grade schools. In New Jersey, an Orthodox Jewish yeshiva is slated for $10.6 million in higher education grants to improve its male-only training in “Talmudic scholarship.” Mind you, the ACLU is quibbling. To maximize your own public funding you may have to get creative. In Arizona any resident can divert a part of his state income tax to your school to fund a specific student. That means you need those students or their parents to get out and do the solicitation for you! 2. Get free facilities for after-school clubs in public facilities. Child Evangelism Fellowship recruits grade-school children in the U.S. and abroad to born-again Christianity. In 2001, they took a case all the way to the Supreme Court and won the right to use public school facilities for their afternoon clubs. They persuaded the justices that they were teaching moral values, rather like the Boy Scouts and other groups that have long had access to public facilities. But parents who have sat in on the clubs assure us that these “values” include very specific dogmas and doctrines—things like heaven, hell and even biblical justification of genocide. Last year CEF operated over 4,000 Good News Clubs in public school facilities. 3. Nudge your doctrines into public school textbooks and discussions. Texas sets textbook standards for the whole country, and if a tenacious group of Texans gets their way, you may be able to move your message directly into public school curriculum. Members of the state’s textbook review panel have recommended adding creationism to biology texts while reducing coverage of the dominant competing theory. You may think that their account of the creation story is mistaken; yours may be different. But in the long run, their long hard work to blur the boundary between science and myth helps the whole religious sector. To make matter better, allies in the Texas Republican party proposed a platform in 2012 that prohibited schools from teaching critical thinking skills. Others have pushed to require that each high school offer “Bible as literature” electives, confident that devout teachers will know how to use the course material. 4. Support military missionaries on government salaries. Twenty to 30 years ago, evangelical Christians identified the U.S. military as a prime mission field and soldiers as potential missionaries to the world. Hundreds of evangelical and Pentecostal “endorsing” agencies began credentialing chaplains. Today, according to investigative reporter Jeff Sharlet, more than two thirds of U.S. military chaplains come from one of these two traditions. They have successfully redirected female cadets into the more time-honored roles of wife and mother, shaped entertainment and education in military academies, and cultivated a cadre of officers who support their mission. TheMilitary Religious Freedom Foundation has resisted some of their bold attempts to build an army of Christian soldiers, but missionary chaplains continue to serve and shape America’s fighting men and women, all on the public dime. The door for more remains open. 5. Use federal disaster relief to rebuild after “acts of God.” Thanks to lobbying by religious leaders like the Catholic bishops and the Becket Fund, four U.S. senators are promoting legislation that would qualify churches, mosques, temples and synagogues for federal emergency (FEMA) funds if they get damage in natural disasters. The House of Representatives approved a similar measure early in the year. If you own or manage church property, it’s worth keeping your eye on this legislation. Your odds of having real estate damaged by a hurricane or earthquake may be low currently, but extreme weather events, like sea levels, appear to be on the rise. Should the bill pass, you might get to make a claim on a public insurance pool that lets religious entities skip out on the premiums. 6. Leverage historic preservation grants to rehab your real estate. If you’ll be making an investment in religious real estate as a base for operations or to attract members, you might want to do a little digging in the archives. Federal grants may be available for restoration and repairs if your church is deemed historically significant. Like many other aspects of public funding for religion, this boundary has shifted in recent decades. Spending tax dollars on church buildings was ruled illegal in the 1970s but acceptable by 2003. If you want to sell your historic church later for redevelopment, don’t worry, Jefferson’s wall of separation applies. In Washington State, for example, the Supreme Court ruled that a church could to sell to the highest bidder, even though their iconic building had been designated a landmark and the deal included a likely wrecking ball. Some knives don’t cut both ways. 7. The public underwrites religious infrastructure. Some religious groups may be able to build a portfolio of real estate investments without having to contribute to public amenities, utilities, transportation, or policing. Many community services and assets get paid for by real estate owners through property taxes. But for a long time, houses of worship have been exempt, making them effectively subsidized by surrounding properties. In March 2013, pro-religion Arizona lawmakers proposed to expand that exemption to all properties held by religious entities, as long as they are not producing a profit. Such a change might allow a savvy investor to sit on undeveloped or underdeveloped land without incurring the annual costs faced by other speculators. Tax exempt real estate can offer a way to invest those tithes as membership grows. 8. International aid dollars. World Vision, a multi-national with an evangelical mission and employee statement of faith has built a vast loyal following largely by appending evangelistic priorities to US aid dollars. World Vision offers desperate people the basics: food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and education—with a carefully titrated dose of Biblical Christianity. Their genius lies in the fact that most of their services are funded by Americans at large. Administrators and lawyers succeeded in persuading governmental granting agencies that World Vision is a non-proselytizing aid organization, while simultaneously persuading the courts they can’t fulfill their mission with heretics among warehouse staff. In 2007, three employees sued because they were fired over their interpretation of Christianity, which was at odds with the required employee statement of faith. World Vision fought all the way to the Supreme court and won. If Harvard Business School should need a case study on how an enterprise can solicit government contracts while circumventing the Civil Rights Act and other cumbersome employment laws, this is it. 9. Administering public health facilities. With Obamacare and technology costs driving hospital mergers, religious healthcare corporations like Catholic Health Initiatives ($15B+ in assets) are finding that they can secure monopoly positions in many communities or even entire regions. This puts them in the power position when it comes to pricing services and negotiating labor contracts, which means mergers pay dividends. The Lund Report, which monitors Oregon’s healthcare system, reports annual profits of $2 billion and counting for the Providence chain. Like other sectors such as aid and education, healthcare offers an array of opportunities for religious enterprises to expand and improve their brand appeal with little of their own money at risk. Consider this: “Religious hospitals get 36% of all their revenue from Medicare [and] 12%…from Medicaid. Of the remaining 44% of funding, 31% comes from county appropriations, 30% comes from investments, and only 5% comes from charitable contributions (not necessarily religious). The percentage of church funding for church-run hospitals comes to a grand total of 0.0015 percent. Administering health services allows a religious entity to restrict the service mix base on their beliefs about what God wants. For example, in Catholic-run facilities, directives from the bishops prohibit contraception and end-of-life options. Faith-related icons and outreach materials can be made available in waiting rooms. Depending on how your organization is structured, you may be able to preferentially hire members of your group and so keep the money in the family so to speak, all the while reaping the good will that comes with community service. 10. Provide safety net services to potential converts.Prisoners, addicts, single moms, pregnant teens, the elderly, foster kids…the possibilities are endless. President George Bush established an Office of Faith Based Initiatives, which worked to strengthen religious organizations in their ability to provide social services. In the first year, 2005, $2.2 billion in grants were awarded to religious organizations. (Barack Obama later revamped and expanded the office, appointing a cadre of religious leaders as advisors and putting his personal spiritual guide, Joshua DuBois, at the helm.) The savvy expansion-minded religious entrepreneur will notice that people who are the target of safety net services often are the very same people who make prime candidates for conversion. In both cases they fit the bill because the fabric of their lives has frayed and they are in need of help. From a business standpoint such a focus may seem less than ideal, but remember this: poor, desperate people are the ones who put those celebrity evangelists in their mansions. More Valerie Tarico. * Share * * * * 0 * + All Share Services ____________________ * Jon Stewart Jon Stewart slams outrageous hypocrisy of the Davos World Economic Forum Next Article You Might Also Like More Related Stories * Why wealthy Americans' delusions about the poor are so dangerous Why wealthy Americans' delusions about the poor are so dangerous * Jon Stewart slams outrageous hypocrisy of the Davos World Economic Forum Jon Stewart slams outrageous hypocrisy of the Davos World Economic Forum * The end of Hathahate: How Anne Hathaway outgrew her haters The end of Hathahate: How Anne Hathaway outgrew her haters * 4 ways American corporations are responsible for racial oppression 4 ways American corporations are responsible for racial oppression * Even Republican voters overwhelmingly support paid sick and family leave Even Republican voters overwhelmingly support paid sick and family leave * Robert Reich: Republicans have nothing to offer the middle class Robert Reich: Republicans have nothing to offer the middle class * “We know exactly who today’s dream killers are “We know exactly who today’s dream killers are": Why postal banking is so needed -- and on the rise * You don't like what you think you like: Bad taste, manipulated choices and the new science of decision-making You don't like what you think you like: Bad taste, manipulated choices and the new science of decision-making * Rahm Emanuel's offensive new pension-gutting scheme Rahm Emanuel's offensive new pension-gutting scheme * "I had a hatred for my cubicle": Nikil Saval on "The Office," "Office Space" and the fascinating history of where we work * Now they're sliming Elizabeth Warren: Fox News tactics and the surprising water carriers for the 1 percent Now they're sliming Elizabeth Warren: Fox News tactics and the surprising water carriers for the 1 percent * The age of Amazon is upon us: How one court battle reveals the growing threat of monopoly The age of Amazon is upon us: How one court battle reveals the growing threat of monopoly * 5 signs the U.S. economy is shakier than it looks 5 signs the U.S. economy is shakier than it looks * JPMorgan CEO whines that regulators are being too mean JPMorgan CEO whines that regulators are being too mean * The perfect financial storm: Why we're headed for future global economic crises The perfect financial storm: Why we're headed for future global economic crises * Chipotle temporarily stops serving carnitas (UPDATED) Chipotle temporarily stops serving carnitas (UPDATED) * Robert Reich: Corporate America is maiming the U.S. economy Robert Reich: Corporate America is maiming the U.S. economy * 6 astounding facts about our super-rich Congress 6 astounding facts about our super-rich Congress * Elizabeth Warren's big victory: Investment banker withdraws Treasury nomination (but there's a catch) Elizabeth Warren's big victory: Investment banker withdraws Treasury nomination (but there's a catch) * "We dare you to stop us": Inside big oil's sinister plan to derail the anti-carbon movement * Republicans are the real wealth redistributors Republicans are the real wealth redistributors Featured Slide Shows * Share on Twitter * Share on Facebook * 1 of 11 * Close * Fullscreen * Thumbnails * + + + Previous + Next Burger King Japan 2014's fast food atrocities Burger King's black cheeseburger: Made with squid ink and bamboo charcoal, arguably a symbol of meat's destructive effect on the planet. Only available in Japan. * + + + Previous + Next Elite Daily/Twitter 2014's fast food atrocities McDonald's Black Burger: Because the laws of competition say that once Burger King introduces a black cheeseburger, it's only a matter of time before McDonald's follows suit. You still don't have to eat it. * + + + Previous + Next Domino's 2014's fast food atrocities Domino's Specialty Chicken: It's like regular pizza, except instead of a crust, there's fried chicken. The company's marketing officer calls it "one of the most creative, innovative menu items we have ever had” -- brain power put to good use. * + + + Previous + Next Arby's/Facebook 2014's fast food atrocities Arby's Meat Mountain: The viral off-menu product containing eight different types of meat that, on second read, was probably engineered by Arby's all along. Horrific, regardless. * + + + Previous + Next KFC 2014's fast food atrocities KFC'S ZINGER DOUBLE DOWN KING: A sandwich made by adding a burger patty to the infamous chicken-instead-of-buns creation can only be described using all caps. NO BUN ALL MEAT. Only available in South Korea. * + + + Previous + Next Taco Bell 2014's fast food atrocities Taco Bell's Waffle Taco: It took two years for Taco Bell to develop this waffle folded in the shape of a taco, the stand-out star of its new breakfast menu. * + + + Previous + Next Michele Parente/Twitter 2014's fast food atrocities Krispy Kreme Triple Cheeseburger: Only attendees at the San Diego County Fair were given the opportunity to taste the official version of this donut-hamburger-heart attack combo. The rest of America has reasonable odds of not dropping dead tomorrow. * + + + Previous + Next Taco Bell 2014's fast food atrocities Taco Bell's Quesarito: A burrito wrapped in a quesadilla inside an enigma. Quarantined to one store in Oklahoma City. * + + + Previous + Next Pizzagamechangers.com 2014's fast food atrocities Boston Pizza's Pizza Cake: The people's choice winner of a Canadian pizza chain's contest whose real aim, we'd imagine, is to prove that there's no such thing as "too far." Currently in development. * + + + Previous + Next 7-Eleven 2014's fast food atrocities 7-Eleven's Doritos Loaded: "For something decadent and artificial by design," wrote one impassioned reviewer, "it only tasted of the latter." * Recent Slide Shows + [BN-EM419_bkingj_G_20140911022003-1-150x150.jpg] 2014's fast food atrocities + [beautiful_darkness-150x150.jpg] Ten spectacular graphic novels from 2014 + [picks1-7G5A7893-S1-150x150.jpg] Photos from the Happy Ending Salon + [talking_heads_slide-150x150.jpg] Once upon a time on the Bowery + Previous * [talking_heads_slide-150x150.jpg] * [talking_heads_slide-150x150.jpg] * [talking_heads_slide-150x150.jpg] * [talking_heads_slide-150x150.jpg] * [talking_heads_slide-150x150.jpg] * [talking_heads_slide-150x150.jpg] * [talking_heads_slide-150x150.jpg] * [talking_heads_slide-150x150.jpg] * [talking_heads_slide-150x150.jpg] * [talking_heads_slide-150x150.jpg] * Photos from the Happy Ending Salon Photos from the Happy Ending Salon * Make Summer More Poetic with These 10 International Works Make Summer More Poetic with These 10 International Works * 8 Illustrated Books for Every Age and Every Summer Reading List 8 Illustrated Books for Every Age and Every Summer Reading List * 10 Great Science Reads That You Can Take to the Beach 10 Great Science Reads That You Can Take to the Beach * Turn Summer into a Literary Field Day with these 9 Collections of Non-Fiction Sports Writing Turn Summer into a Literary Field Day with these 9 Collections of Non-Fiction Sports Writing * Travel to Foreign Lands in 10 Newly Translated Novels Travel to Foreign Lands in 10 Newly Translated Novels * Get Lost in 8 Great Biographies – from Lawrence of Arabia to Margaret Fuller Get Lost in 8 Great Biographies – from Lawrence of Arabia to Margaret Fuller * Explore Diverse Cultures Through Varied Genres with These 8 New Works Explore Diverse Cultures Through Varied Genres with These 8 New Works * 8 Great Essay Collections for Your Reading Pleasure 8 Great Essay Collections for Your Reading Pleasure * Looking for Fresh Fiction for your Summer Reading? Looking for Fresh Fiction for your Summer Reading? * Tough love: An intimate look at Mexico City's retired (and semi-retired) sex workers Tough love: An intimate look at Mexico City's retired (and semi-retired) sex workers * Famous literary meals Famous literary meals * The best and worst series finale music of all time The best and worst series finale music of all time * Stories from a Warming Planet: Wildfires Stories from a Warming Planet: Wildfires * Seven celebrity Seven celebrity "authors" who didn't do it alone * They're no They're no "Divergent": Eight young-adult movie franchises that died untimely deaths * Space porn: These images are (quite literally) out of this world Space porn: These images are (quite literally) out of this world Related Videos Comments Loading Comments... Powered by Livefyre Salon is proud to feature content from AlterNet, an award-winning news magazine and online community that creates original journalism and amplifies the best of hundreds of other independent media sources. follow salon * * * * * * * * ____________________ Subscribe brought to you by Most Read * [config] [config] Jon Stewart's brilliant "F**k you": Why sputtering obscenity is sometimes the best response to Fox News insanity Aaron R. Hanlon * [config] [config] Tea Party spawns GOP nightmare: How it's already ruining the party's '16 strategy Elias Isquith * [config] [config] When wingnut cavemen attack: The right turns on Renee Ellmers with stunning misogyny Joan Walsh * [config] [config] Why wealthy Americans' delusions about the poor are so dangerous David Sirota * [config] [config] "SNL" brilliantly tackles gentrification: "You're acting like someone put gluten in your muffin" Jenny Kutner * [config] [config] Joni Ernst's family received nearly half a million dollars in federal farm subsidies Luke Brinker * [config] [config] Maureen Dowd's clueless white gaze: What's really behind the "Selma" backlash Brittney Cooper * [config] [config] "I think every girl is a type of slut": What an attempted mass-murderer's words reveal about our sexual culture Tracy Clark-Flory * [config] [config] He never hit me, but I could no longer take his abuse Brenda Janowitz * [config] [config] 7 heinous lies "American Sniper" is telling America Zaid Jilani, AlterNet * [config] [config] Meet the worst movie ever made Andrew O'Hehir * [config] [config] Jon Stewart lampoons Ted Cruz, Joni Ernst for ridiculous SOTU responses Sarah Gray * [config] [config] Christian mom "outraged" over alleged school bus pentagram Mary Elizabeth Williams * [config] [config] The Bible backs same-sex couples: Point by point, why conservatives are wrong Matthew Vines * [config] [config] Death of an American sniper Laura Miller From Around the Web Presented by Zergnet [RollingStone_logo.jpg] * Paul McCartney, Kanye West, Rihanna Team Up for 'FourFiveSeconds' * Run the Jewels Share 'Meow the Jewels' Preview, Add Lil Bub as Guest * Watch Korn and Slipknot Cover Beastie Boys' 'Sabotage' in London * Noel Gallagher on Oasis Reunion: 'It Would Only Be for the Money' * Tangerine Dream Founder Edgar Froese Dead at 70 [HuffPostWomen_partner.jpg] * The Heart And Soul Of Godparenting * Lena Dunham Dings Woody Allen, Discusses Campus Rape At Sundance * Rihanna Just Dropped 'FourFiveSeconds,' A New Song With Kanye & Paul McCartney * Sundance So Far: Adam Scott & Jason Schwartzman's Fake Penises, Ethan Hawke's Latest Dad & 'The Witch' * The Misery Of Facebook Stalking Distilled In Spot-On College Humor Music Video [upworthy.jpg] * Salmon, Crab, Lobster — Nothing Better Right? Well, There's A Dark Side You Should Know About. * Here Are Some Women Who Make The 'Frozen' Princesses Look Pathetic. Will They Make The Big Screen? * You've Heard This Song. Have You Ever Really Tried To Imagine It? * He Shows Side-By-Side Photos To Jon Stewart And Asks Him To Guess The Country. Mind-Blowing? Yes. * Did You Watch The Response To The State Of The Union? 'The Daily Show' Thinks You Should. About | Advertising | Contact | Corrections | Help | Investor Relations | Privacy | Terms of Service | Deals Copyright © 2015 Salon Media Group, Inc. Reproduction of material from any Salon pages without written permission is strictly prohibited. SALON ® is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as a trademark of Salon Media Group Inc. Associated Press articles: Copyright © 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. [p?c1=2&c2=6662697&c3=&c4=&c5=&c6=&c15=&cj=1] Quantcast [101_logo_banner_olive_copy.jpg] * Login * Register ____________________ Search * All Activity * Questions * Unanswered * Tags * Ask a Question * About Us Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism from other members of the community. how fundamental is money to capitalism? + – +6 votes does creating a money-less world solve many or most of the problems that anarchists have with the current situation? if so, what are the best ways to combat money as a phenomenon? asked 4 years ago by dot (47,200 points) answer comment * practice * activism * philosophy * capitalism * property this question replaces the non-question that has been deleted: Should Anarchists be publicizing the 2012 Strike for a Moneyless World? WORLD STRIKE 2012 If you agree that the abolition of money would be a fine solution to most of our problems, and that we could create a much better system where EVERYTHING - food and drink, clothing and housing, water, heating, education, health-care and entertainment - shall be FREE for EVERYONE - why not join the World-Wide Strike on the opening day of the Olympic Games in 2012? The Strike will begin the moment the symbolic Olympic flame is lit - the signal for all who support the abolition of money to stop work and demand a new fair world of true freedom and justice. WE WANT A MONEYLESS WORLD Pass it on. — 4 years ago by dot (47,200 points) – edited 4 years ago by dot reply 4 Answers + – 0 votes for me this raises the question: what is the relationship between "money" and "value (exchange)"? doing away with money per se, while i would love to see that happen regardless, doesn't inherently do away with the mindset of "value exchange", which exists independently of money (a medium of exchange). how tightly those are interwoven and interdependent is anybody's guess. we can't know without doing away with the thing (money), to see how that impacts the way of thinking. i find this both analogous and related to the similar question of "sustainability". doing away with fossil fuels and other "unsustainable" technologies doesn't necessarily change the way people consume. and it is that consumption that seems unsustainable. if there were suddenly enough sun/wind/water energy products to provide the same upteen-gazillion peta-watts that the world currently uses, humans would likely make no changes in their consumption patterns. likewise, doing away with money as a medium of exchange would not necessarily change the mindset of value exchange, hoarding, "profit", etc. i haven't had coffee yet, so forgive the rambling... answered 4 years ago by funkyanarchy (4,720 points) ask related question comment i tend to agree with this assessment (that money is more of a symptom than a cause). but i'm not sure. the question of reform comes up here again: how do we change how we think about exchange, and value, without actively changing how we approach exchange and value? isn't trying to do without money one way (certainly not the only way) to do that? the thing i don't like about the post that got deleted was not just that it wasn't a question (grrr) but that it's this activist tactic that seems very shallow. i find the alternate currency campaigns to be more interesting, even though they never seem to get very far. — 4 years ago by dot (47,200 points) reply + – 0 votes Money is absolutely fundamental to capitalism. The establishment of money is one of many roles that the state has played historically in laying the groundwork for capitalism, and one of the many continuing reasons that capitalism still could not exist without the state. All market economies that we know about so far, either historically or anthropologically, have been based on a standardized medium of exchange to facilitate commercial transactions (i.e. money). All such standardized mediums of exchange, that we know about so far, have been imposed by the state. Examples of non-monetary market economies based on barter have invariably been situations where a monetary system had once existed, but later collapsed or became inaccessible (such as the dissolution of the USSR, or much of the colonial pre-United States.) Non-monetary economies don't tend to operate according to the logic of barter or market exchange at all, but rather systems of what an anarchist might recognize as mutual aid. (Such arrangements have been described by different academics as "generalized reciprocity," "gift economy," "primitive communism," "noble savagery," "barbarity," etc.) It is of little consequence whether the currency is coinage, printed paper, or standardized measurements of barley. All have functioned as money, and all have been imposed by the state, usually as a method of standardizing tax collection to pay soldiers. The market economy did not exist before money, and money did not exist before the state. If money somehow disappeared, market exchange could not be conducted in a manner conducive to the social institutions of capitalism. The idea that wage labor or investment banking could function through the trade of eggs for pieces of fabric is absurd. This is not to say that the abolition of money = anarchy and freedom. I just don't think any system that could be described as "capitalism" could exist without that green (or measured denominations of salt, as the case may be). answered 3 years ago by hypocrite (390 points) ask related question comment To a free market, what was originally meant by capitalism all that is needed is capital- material goods and/or services which people can deal with one another through. For croney debt based fiat currency "capitalism" i.e. Corporatism, money is truly essential because it's a method of artificial scarcity and price and distribution control. — 3 years ago by JaysThoughts (4,890 points) – edited 3 years ago by dot reply + – +2 votes Money is not fundamental to capitalism. Capitalism could exist just fine without money. Money (according to Marx) is a commodity just like any other commodity. The only difference is that many commodities have a use-value that would still exist outside of capitalism. (food can still be eaten, shoes could still be worn etc.) Money on the other hand has as it's only use-value that it lubricates the process of exchange. Money does not have a stable exchange value because it is used as a unit to measure the exchange value of other commodities. When you go through a process of exchange to get money, money is not actually the thing that you want, but rather, you see money as it's potential to quickly and easily exchange itself for other commodities. To 'abolish money' would make capitalism slower and more cumbersome. (The minute I see "Make Capitalism Slower and more Cumbersome! (A)!" on a banner I will lower my black flag and burn my (A) card.) There are places in the world where money is not the most efficient commodity at lubricating exchange. In a sense money "losses" its use-value. In places where the exchange value of money tends to go down quickly or change rapidly people often will use a different commodity to store their wealth in. This other commodity can become a 'new money' even though it has an alternate use value and was not designed for this purpose. (Brick is a common 'new money')(I wish this were a settlers of cattan joke, but it's real shit.) As long as commodities exist, there will be a commodity that performs the task of money. A better known and more humorous story about money is when money gains additional use-values. There have been times and places where money was not properly performing its function of lubricating exchange because it's exchange value was so low. (We have all heard stories about pre-WWII Germany where it took a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread.) At these times and places people find new uses for their gigantic stacks of useless money such as, wall paper, kindiling, or even fuel for a fire for heat or cooking purposes. The main critics I can see of 'Money' are the Zeitgeist Movement wingnuts. They argue instead for a "resource based economy" which is an entirely meaningless term. To refer to the world as 'resources' already shows a degree of alienation and strongly hints towards a replication of the commodity-form. To answer your second question, no. Abolishing money does nothing to end the State, end Capitalism, end Prison, Borders, Imperialist War, Wealth/Poverty, White Supremacist Settler-Colonialism, Cis-Hetero-Patriarchy, Alienation, Work, etc., etc., or any of the constant abuses that come from these things. For more on Money and Commodities read: Capital by Karl Marx answered 2 years ago by Taigarun (3,150 points) ask related question comment .....<3..... — 2 years ago by AutumnLeavesCascade (10,390 points) reply Well put. Your understanding of money is obvious. — 1 year ago by VoluntaryThinker (570 points) reply + – –1 vote Money had an actual value at one time when precious metals were used. Everything was valued according to its weight in gold. Gold and silver were more reliable as standards than other tradeable goods. As coins they were easy to carry, had no cost to maintain, and had no risk losing their value. Paper as money had the same ability, but had obvious advantages and a bank would pay the bearer of that paper the amount of gold the paper represented. Than it magically became paper and coins became copper and zinc. Money is now just a conditioned concept of value in our minds. In other words. There is no real value. This could be seen in different ways. One is that banks and the government ripped people off. But actually the true value of gold is little more than a pretty rock. Many might see that digital money works more effectively in a digital world. But maybe the best part about the current state of money is that it offers a bubble that could easily be popped. Yet it could be popped in such a way that does not cause a panic but the realization that money or trade for goods is both no longer possible, no longer needed and no longer desirable. The world because of complex systems of human cooperation that up to this point was motivated by profit. Profit Is what defines capitalism and defines many distorted concepts and values that create instability, uncontrollable waste, and the non-respondsible approach to the profitable resources of this planet. If people were able to see the adsurdity of money and the a different nature of the cooperation based on higher values and visions, it would awaken humanity to a whole new world and future. A world where fixing things and being responsible is not about the cost of money but the cost of the real consequences and loss. That to improve the standards of life and ensure the care of this planet is not stopped and prohibitted by the control of profit. answered 2 years ago by afunctionalworld (3,130 points) ask related question comment Money is not a phenomenon. It is a technology that is used primarily to avoid the problem known as the "double coincidence of wants". Basically, to provide for indirect exchange using a medium. It is useful, and in a free society it serves the needs of individuals. A money-less world would be tragic for human beings. It will never happen because it is such an eloquent solution to ffacilitate exchange, cooperation and positive sum interactions. edited to make comment. — 1 year ago by VoluntaryThinker (570 points) – edited 1 year ago by dot reply Troll, flamer, provocateur, what's the difference? So many Eurocentric, authoritarian, and flim-flam assumptions are wrapped up in everything you post here. You need to recognize that the frequenters of this site are overwhelmingly anti-capitalist. Some may have patience for your idiocies, but I don't. — 1 year ago by lawrence (19,140 points) – edited 1 year ago by anonymous reply Money is primarily a means of facilitating an arbitrary trust between strangers who otherwise have no reason to trust one another. Why a "free society" would have a need or desire for this, I have no idea. — 1 year ago by Rice Boy (11,250 points) – edited 1 year ago by anonymous reply Not a rebuttal. — 1 year ago by VoluntaryThinker (570 points) – edited 1 year ago by anonymous reply I don't see why different opinions about anarchy shouldn't be presented side by side. Do we not want to weed out the inconsistent dribble that some try to pass off as anarchist philosophy? If the admin wants to to stifle dissent from the status quo on this site, he has the right and ability to do so. — 1 year ago by VoluntaryThinker (570 points) – edited 1 year ago by anonymous reply "Do we not want to weed out the inconsistent dribble that some try to pass off as anarchist philosophy?" This is kind of a self-defeating statement. — 1 year ago by Rice Boy (11,250 points) – edited 1 year ago by anonymous reply As a sidenote, there is no "opinion" about anarchy that allows for the existence of capitalism. And pointing out that an anarchist practice shouldn't require the use of money seems like a fine rebuttal to me. — 1 year ago by Rice Boy (11,250 points) – edited 1 year ago by anonymous reply I am not inconsistent. Money is simply an item valued for its use in exchange. In a stateless society there would be many different, competing currencies. When you exchange food for money ( which could be tea, tobacco, gold, silver, etc. ) it is just as valid as barter. I could have alot of almonds and need firewood. If you have firewood and need tobacco but not almonds I could trade my almonds for a neighbor's tobacco to trade for the firewood. You get your tobacco and I get my firewood; even though I started with nothing of value to you. This is the essence of money and is consistent with a free society. It improves the well being of humans guiding us to fulfill needs in ourselves and others. — 1 year ago by VoluntaryThinker (570 points) – edited 1 year ago by VoluntaryThinker reply Lawrence, I have to ask, do you intend to call me a homosexual or is there another use of the word flamer? Your comment about me being "Eurocentric, authoritarian" is non-sense. I am not ethnocentric in any way and the opposite of authoritarian. I am a Libertarian Anarchist; which is a form of Individualist Anarchism. I reject authoritarianism. Your lack of patience and the burden of your anger is your own problem. — 1 year ago by VoluntaryThinker (570 points) – edited 1 year ago by VoluntaryThinker reply http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/flame lawrence did not call you authoritarian, or eurocentric, he said there were assumptions in your posts that were those things. i tend to agree. but walking you through why is hard to justify, since i don't know you or have much faith that you will care. there is plenty on here already that discusses why capitalism is not anarchist, which you didn't explore before posting, and your quick rename from rothbardancap doesn't instill me with confidence that you won't just take up different words while maintaining your same ideas. this is the nature of the internet, for better or worse. — 1 year ago by dot (47,200 points) reply Right, he just called me a flamer and a troll. Ad Homs arent arguments. They are just rude. Im not upset by him. His anger is his burden. The claim that anarchism is inconsistent with markets is nonsense. The earliest recognition of market anarchy as a subset was in 1959. It is nothing new and the term anarchy cannot be monopolized and carved into your preferred philosophy. That is why we hyphenate; so we can distinguish between our differences. The state needs to be eliminated for both of our visions. We agree that coercion and violence against peaceful people is wrong. We have a different opinion about the justifiability of money and markets. — 1 year ago by VoluntaryThinker (570 points) reply Capitalism is violence, by its very nature (by restriction). The issue of "money" however is far less black and white than many make out. — 1 year ago by Anonymous32 (200 points) reply * The state needs to be eliminated for both of our visions. * this is where we disagree. anarchists believe that your vision not only doesn't negate the state, but in fact requires the state (hence posts like "why does capitalism require the state"). and yes, lawrence's comments are rude. i believe that is their point, sometimes. as for your question, "flamer" refers to online behavior ( http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=flamer&defid=1011924 ) — 5 months ago by dot (47,200 points) reply All this talk about money with no mention of interest (and only one of debt) surprises me. These are the two primary characteristics of money that put it completely at odds with the natural world, and have nothing to do with storing of value or facilitating exchange. I have so many thoughts on money that it's hard to know where to start, but I see the concept of money as it stands today as the most important representation of our disconnection with ourselves, in our relationships, and to the rest of the natural world. To live as an anarchist, I see transforming the conception of money in my own life as among the most vital things I can do. I'll probably post an answer later on about the ways I've combatted the phenomenon of money and what the effects have been, but I at least wanted to add that the characteristics of debt and interest need to be taken into account, because tea leaves don't double in ten years by just letting them sit there. — 4 months ago by bornagainanarchist (2,050 points) reply Related questions + – +6 votes 1 answer What is Capitalism ? asked 5 months ago by Artificiality (10,270 points) * capitalism * property * class * marxism * corporations + – –6 votes 1 answer A man gathers wild mushrooms and exchanges them for stuff he needs, is he a capitalist? asked 1 year ago by VoluntaryThinker (570 points) * capitalism * anti-capitalism * property * socialism * libertarian-socialism + – –1 vote 4 answers "Property is theft" -Taken too literally? asked 2 years ago by AnarchicSaint (270 points) * property * possession * capitalism + – –4 votes 1 answer Could proving money distorts reality and twists the value of human cooperation and natural resources end capitalism? asked 2 years ago by afunctionalworld (3,130 points) * capitalism * reality * misinformation * logic + – –4 votes 1 answer When there is a dispute over who should be able to control a physical resource, how should it be resolved? asked 1 year ago by VoluntaryThinker (570 points) * property * Send feedback Powered by Question2Answer #The Memory Bank RSS Feed The Memory Bank » 3. Capitalism: Making Money with Money Comments Feed The Memory Bank A New Commonwealth — Ver 5.0 ____________________ * Home * About * Keith Hart + Curriculum vitae + List of Publications * The Book + Prologue — Alvin + 1. Money in the Making of Humanity + 2. The Machine Revolution Today + 3. Capitalism: Making Money with Money + 4. Capitalism: The Political Economy of Development + 5. The Market from a Humanist Point of View + 6. The Changing Character of Money + 7. The Future of Money and the Market + Acknowledgements + Reviews of the Book * Papers + Anthropologists and Development + Notes Towards an Anthropology of the Internet + Manchester on my Mind + The Euro: Old Wine in a New Jar + Indian Business in South Africa After Apartheid + The Political Economy of Food + Money: One Anthropologist’s View + World Society as an Old Regime + Bureaucratic Form and the Informal Economy + The Place of the 1898 CAETS + Money in an Unequal World + Agrarian Civilisation and Modern World Society + Kinship, Contract and Trust + What Anthropologists Really Do + Informal Economy + Cultural Critique in Anthropology + Organic Trade: Global Food Politics and Local Economic Democracy + From Bell-Curve to Power-Law + Notes on the Counter-Revolution + Some Reflections on Anthropology and Political Economy + Intangible Money Matters + Studying World Society as a Vocation + Clarkson, Cambridge and the International Movement for Human Rights + Formal Bureaucracy and the Emergent Forms of the Informal Economy + The Euro: A Challenge for Anthropological Method + Building Economic Democracy with Community Currencies + Waiting for Emancipation + The Hit Man’s Dilemma (Abridged) + The Globalization of Apartheid + African Enterprise and the Informal Economy + Intellectual Property * Miscellany + Money in an Unequal World; LETS and Me + Miscellaneous Poems + Stories for Louise + Letter to Hadrien + Futures Prologue * Contact 3. Capitalism: Making Money with Money Markets are networks of buyers and sellers using money to exchange goods and services. They are intrinsically democratic: all you need to participate is something to sell or the money to buy. Moreover, the market is based on movement: its proliferating connections cannot easily be contained by political organisation tied to a particular place. The extension of trade beyond the limits of locality has been a relatively benign means for the human economy to take on a global character in recent centuries (the less benign method being war and conquest, often in tandem with trade). It is not surprising then that the drive to form more democratic and inclusive societies has been linked with the expansion of markets. But there has always been a strong resistance to markets in ideology and practice. This has its roots in the interests which dominated agrarian civilisation; but it also arose from what markets became in reality. In the first place, an institution which depends on the freedom to spend money can hardly be said to be democratic, when some people have so much more of it than others. Owners of lots of money, capitalists who now take the form of public corporations rather than private individuals, have come to dominate the market economy, making it an experience of profound inequality and unfreedom for most participants. The second point is that markets have been closely associated in the modern period with the development of nation-states which, in the 20th century, have concentrated impersonal power held against the people. To these social forces we should add the machine revolution which initially favoured the centralisation of economic and political power, leading to that alliance between money and bureaucracy which I call state capitalism. It is not surprising that, faced with the alienating forces of a capitalist world, many people took refuge in an anti-market ideology promising a society which would get rid of money altogether from the core of economic life, substituting for purchase and sale the administration of resources by public officials. But in practice this collectivist alternative converged on the model it rejected, relying on political and economic bureaucracies, as well as on machines and money, in ways that were often more unequal and oppressive than the original. [i] The failure of communism, coming after four decades of the Cold War for global supremacy, coincided with a shift in the ideology of western capitalism. This was based on a recognition of the limits of welfare state bureaucracy and a revival of enthusiasm for the interplay of private interests in the market. The defeated peoples of Eastern Europe found themselves urged to embrace “privatisation” as an economic panacea, a policy which quickly revealed itself to be a recipe for private misery, public decay and criminal enterprise. Nor is the initial euphoria over the West’s “victory” in the Cold War much in evidence at the millennium. It is clear that markets are increasingly global, if only because of the extraordinary growth in the world market for money instruments. The communications revolution seems to have ushered in a virtual capitalism which is no longer securely grounded either in territorial states or in the exchange of real goods and services, being manifested rather as so many digits flashing between computer screens over the telephone wires. At the same time, over the last two decades, the gap between rich and poor has escalated at every level of world society, partly as a result of the decline of the state’s powers of intervention both nationally and internationally. Given the replacement of state capitalism by a commitment to the market, at least as dominant ideology, and growing confusion over the proper place of public and private interests in the organisation of economic life, it would seem to be a good time to review the relationship between money, markets and political power in the modern era. The following two chapters take off from the idea that the age of mechanisation has been dominated by money capital in several successive forms. In Chapter 3 the emphasis is on the origins of market capitalism and the early theories which have shaped our understanding of the modern economy. Both John Locke and Karl Marx conceived of their times as an age of money which left humanity suspended uneasily between a past dependency on nature and the possibility of building a just society in the future. Their contrasting views on the relationship between markets and money in such a future underpins the division which almost brought the world to catastrophe in the Cold War, even though neither envisaged the forms of capitalism and socialism that the antagonists actually took. I then draw on Marx’s work to define industrial capitalism’s principles in its first Victorian phase and on Max Weber for the most suggestive alternative approach. If Marx emphasised the exchange of labour for capital as “free” forms of property, Weber took a broader cultural line focusing on “rational enterprise”, the attempt to make the pursuit of uncertain economic futures more calculable. Both traced the origins of their idea of capitalism through the economic history of Britain; and their complementary theories are each indispensable to making sense of its continuing evolution. Before filling in intervening developments, which is the task of Chapter 4, this chapter takes the analysis in a more ethnographic direction, reflecting my own knowledge of the emergent patterns of capitalist enterprise in the non-western periphery. I argue that the evidence of Africa’s small-scale societies throws light on the original conditions of capitalism’s emergence in Europe, as living examples of processes which otherwise would be available to us only in dead theoretical texts. This in turn allows us to see the particular local variations which are always intrinsic to capitalism’s general development. The chapter concludes with a detailed exposition of my own West African research into the personal face of capitalism, entrepreneurs, in preparation for later explorations of the re-emergence of personality in economic life. In contrast to this miniaturising approach, Chapter 4 returns to the broad outlines of 20th century history, to the formation of state capitalism and its decline as a result of conditions associated with the communications revolution. A major theme is the need to explain the growing gap between rich and poor regions of our world. This is taken up in a section dealing with the development of global inequality, especially in the period after the break-up of formal colonial empire. As a bridge between the first and subsequent phases of the machine revolution, I ask whether the classes identified by the political economists in the early 19th century help us to understand the struggle for the dividends of the internet today. These classes, based on control over the yields of the land, money capital and human creativity, derive their income from economic forms (rent, tax, profit, wages, equal exchange) which are evolving as capitalism has moved from an urban to a national and finally a global level. Following the bureaucratic revolution of the late 19th century and the first world war, capitalism became, especially in the middle decades of our century, more or less synonymous with the nation-state and with Keynesian policies of demand management, “macro-economics”. Towards the end of that period, the self-organised activities of people operating beyond the reach of state regulation were identified as “the informal economy”. This was at first considered to be largely a phenomenon of Third World cities, but, in the face of waning state power, it has become a universal feature of the world economy. This dialectic of state and people is of interest as we move into the phase of virtual capitalism, a world where digitalised exchanges of money and services at distance has ushered in a growing detachment of the money circuit from the real economy of production and trade. This is the source of, and possibly the solution to, growing economic inequality. For machines now offer ordinary people the chance to be in the forefront of technological change, while remaining for the first time independent of the owners of money and landed power. In general, these chapters cast doubt on the left’s perennial belief that the demise of capitalism is imminent. But a more hopeful scenario pits the disorganised legions of “the wired” against the governments and corporations who threaten to dominate the future of the internet. The age of money “In the beginning all the world was America and more so than that is now; for no such thing as Money was any where known. Find out something that hath the use and value of money amongst his neighbours, you shall see the same man will begin presently to enlarge his possessions.” [ii] We have difficulty placing ourselves reliably in the schemes we construct to make sense of history. Most often, we conflate the pace of fundamental social change with our own biological clocks, imagining that we make the world anew in our own lifetimes, while discounting the effects of long-established traditions. Commonly, modern writers have depicted a sequence in which the past was dominated by nature or the land and the future will be a society made by ourselves fairly and reasonably in the interests of all. The present, conceived of as transitional between these two states, is simultaneously the dissolvent of the past and a bridge to a better future. Its main feature is money and the buying and selling that go with it. As I have noted, this can be called the market or capitalism, according to taste. But the idea is broadly the same in either case. What varies is whether money is taken to be indispensable to the just society or anathema to it. John Locke and Karl Marx stand as the epitome of each strand. Just as Locke has been credited with the theory underpinning the “bourgeois” revolution of property-owning or liberal democracy, Marx also has been claimed as the author of many twentieth century experiments in “socialism”. A case can be made that neither should be held responsible for the subsequent social developments they are supposed to have launched. For the philosophy and political programmes of neither thinker have yet been applied seriously in actual societies. But what concerns us here is their vision of the contradictory part played by money in human history. Certainly Marx’s idea of an economic democracy run by and for all working people is hard to deny as a long-term goal; but at one level it is a question of whether we believe that Locke’s middle-class revolution has yet run its course. In the above quote, Locke was making his case that humanity originally lived in a state of nature, of which America was the closest contemporary example, where land was abundant and no-one benefited from hoarding more goods than they needed for their own immediate use. Money changed all that by making it possible to store surpluses in a durable form and accumulation of property, especially land, became the driving force of an increasingly unequal society. He was anxious to locate the origin of property in the state of nature and that of money in society before civil government (we might say before the centralised state). Accordingly, he made personal work the rightful source of property (the labour theory of value) and found the source of money in “fancy”, an aesthetic preference for shiny metals in exchange as opposed to real use, and eventually in “mutual consent” rather than political authority. In the recoinage crisis of the 1690s following King William’s accession to the throne, a time when Europe’s religious war was at its height and England’s currency had been debased by civil war, criminality and corruption, money was the central plank of Locke’s political project. He had a vision of an expanding world economy with England as its leading power and guarantor. He wanted sterling to be based on fixed quantities of precious metals, which meant pulling in the present debased coinage [1] and reissuing a smaller number with metal content up to face value. The state was necessary to regulate the currency, but was not its source. Locke’s opponents, such as the London property speculator Nicholas Barbon, accused him of wishing to engineer a ruinous deflation of the national economy [2] for the sake of a few Portuguese wine merchants. They favoured the reissue of the same number of coins at a lower metal content, in a word, devaluation. But this meant acknowledging that money was little more than the creature of government policy, in the words of Barbon’s famous dictum, “money is a value made by law”. [iii] Locke wanted a state which guaranteed the property of the economically active and maintained a stable currency for international trade; he could not bring himself to sanction a policy which would effectively concede power to an implicit alliance of corrupt politicians and economic criminals. [3] He thus wanted government both to guarantee a standard of exchange and to separate that means of exchange from the aims and interests of government itself. In retrospect it is easy enough to say that Locke’s eyes were fixed on engineering society in the interest of a class whose detractors generally tend to call it “the bourgeoisie”. I prefer the expression, “middle-class revolution”. He fought absolutist monarchy and a capricious political system dominated by the landed aristocracy (in other words, the old regime of agrarian civilisation) in the name of everyone’s natural right to accumulate property through their own efforts. In his day, the poor or those lacking any property were a bit more than half of England’s population and their purchasing power amounted to around 20% of the market economy. [iv] They would not see much of the silver coinage Locke was worried about. Compare that situation with England in the 1930s, when Keynes emerged to define another economic and political crisis and wage employment accounted for two-thirds of national income. Even in the mid-19th century when Marx was writing, the wages of workers were so low that the price of the wheat used for their bread was commonly understood to be a reliable proxy for their purchasing power. When Locke came up with a three-stage theory of social development corresponding to the state of nature, an age of money and arbitrary political power, and constitutional government securing the property of market agents, he largely ignored the toiling masses, even though he framed his analysis and proposals as human universals. Money had to be tamed in a number of senses, but it was indispensable to the emerging 18th century world society whose contours he did more than any single person to shape. Money got humanity out of a state of nature and it had to be rescued from those whose unaccountable power allowed them to steal from productive members of society. Establishing a reliable currency was thus at once an aid to the struggle of the middle classes against landed aristocracy and part of the effort to decriminalise an informal economy running out of control. This project may be called “liberal democracy”, a label which has been tarnished for many by the equally arbitrary accumulation of economic power it has sanctioned in its turn. This is less a condemnation of Locke than recognition of the persisting inequality of a world society driven by money and lacking adequate political safeguards for the mass of humanity. Indeed, if America was the symbol of the state of nature in Locke’s day, it has become the epitome of the age of money for us. Just as Locke confronted arbitrary state power, a money system running wild and a world lacking the guarantees of a stable and just civil society, so too do we; and America is that world’s symbol. The task of constructing a society fit for human beings to live in seems as far ahead now as it did then. But for some time, those who would do something about it have turned for inspiration not to John Locke, but to Karl Marx. If the main object of accumulation in Locke’s time was still land, by the mid-19th century money itself, in the form of capital used to organise industrial production, had become the driving force of society. Marx began his reconstruction of human history in texts such as Precapitalist Economic Formations [v] with settled agriculture, dismissing the hunter-gatherer phase of Locke’s state of nature as a time when we were barely differentiated from the animals. All subsequent forms of society were in essence natural, emphasising reliance on the land, food production, biological reproduction (the family) and kinship-based communities dominated by father-figures. The unity of the original herd was stretched, but not broken by development towards greater complexity; and humanity, being passive in the face of nature, animated the world with spirits which became the object of religious devotion. Commerce, originating in cities, was the dissolvent of these primitive social forms and money succeeded God as the fetishised source of human agency. Capitalism, as The Manifesto of the Communist Party [vi] makes abundantly clear, was the ruin of traditional rural society. It achieved this result by drawing people into markets not only for goods, but also for their labour. Production was separated from the land and from social forms attached to it. Market contracts individualised property ownership and social relations. Centralisation of production through widespread use of machinery concentrated the workers in urban areas. And this was the Achilles heel of capitalism, for an antidote to private property would grow out of the increased capacity of workers to organise themselves in the towns. The industrial proletariat was thus the vanguard of a society destined to arise out of the failure of capitalism’s market anarchy to meet the needs of the majority. This society would revive the solidarity of precapitalist forms (“communism”), but this time with machine production as a means of mastering nature and self-conscious reason as a counterweight to religious alienation. Since for Marx money was more or less synonymous with the contradictory transitional phase between preindustrial and postindustrial society, how differently did he account for its origins and future, when compared with Locke? He begins Capital with a story taken from Adam Smith. [vii] The Wealth of Nations is widely taken to be the foundation of modern economics and, on this occasion, Marx saw no point in distancing himself from its origin myth. Smith considered the “propensity to truck and barter”, that is to exchange goods without money, to be part of human nature. He takes off from an example of two savages in North America exchanging beaver pelts for deerskin at a ratio of 2 to 1. [4] Money arises in stages as a way of making these exchanges more efficient. It does so by allowing the seller to buy in the future from someone other than the immediate buyer of his commodity, rather than be forced to find a buyer who is also selling what he wants. Money starts out as a commodity, such as cattle, salt or gold, which becomes specialised as a means of exchange and store of value. Marx repeats this account, even though he knew that barter in this form could not be original, since it assumes alienable private property in commodities exchanged between individuals; and that is a consequence of historical developments culminating in capitalism. Unlike Locke, who believed that the appearance of money by itself encouraged accumulation, Marx distinguished between simple commodity exchange, where people used markets to meet their needs in use, and capitalist commodity exchange, where the aim was to increase the stock of money through profit. Finance and merchant capital, money-making through usury and trade, were as old as agrarian civilisation; but industrial capital, the use of money to hire wage labour, was recent and revolutionary, since labour was the only commodity capable of producing more than the cost of its own purchase. The penetration of money and markets into the bulk of production was the distinctive feature of the capitalist age, since in earlier forms of society they had been restricted to minor enclaves which did not impinge directly on the system of landed property and power. [5] [viii] Marx did not wish to grant to the apologists for bourgeois revolution the right to claim for it the decisive breakthrough in human history, important though it was in forcing the initial rupture with old society. For this reason, he set out in Capital to link the system of wage-labour under capitalism to coercive extraction of the agricultural surplus from a servile labour force. Capitalist labour markets, including the reserve army of the unemployed that they generated, functioned as a source of economic coercion allowing the owners of money to exploit their workers in ways analogous to feudalism. The concept of surplus value carried this connotation at the same time as it drew attention to the fact that workers only received a portion of the value of their output, just like serfs. It may well be that Marx’s greatest contribution was to find a feudal metaphor for the idea of the job which has so dominated economic discourse in the last century. In any case, he seized readily on Locke’s labour theory of value to insist that a just society would grant control over the value of commodities to the workers who produced them, not to the owners of labour congealed in money. Marx’s writings on how a future communist society would work are nothing like as extensive as his critique of capitalism and of its apologists, the political economists. But it would not be excessive to say that he was as hostile to money and markets as he was to the institutions of agrarian civilisation (states, religion, peasant agriculture etc). Indeed, by accepting Smith’s origin myth of money in primitive barter, he was able to make capitalism an outgrowth of old society which loosened its bonds, but remained fatally backward-looking in its social logic. This left the creation of a free and equal society to an imminent revolutionary future led by the workers. The age of money had unleashed mechanisation and the means of social mobilisation in cities; but it was not itself capable of organising a society adequate to the democratic needs of all humanity. Even if Marx left his own thoughts on communism largely implicit, his followers in the 20th century remained hostile to money and markets, preferring to rely on the administration of economic resources by bureaucratic elites and to push commercial property to the illegal margins of society. The collapse of Stalinism a decade ago led to the triumphalist celebration of capitalism in the West. The age of money was vindicated by the defeat of its socialist antagonist. Liberal democracy, with its bulwarks of private property, the market and representative democracy, was judged to be the only player left in the game, so much so that Francis Fukuyama earned short-lived fame as the author of a book whose main thesis was roughly that Locke’s middle-class revolution had become universal and eternal. [ix] Even before the 1990s concluded, this confidence could be seen to have been severely misplaced. So where are we today and how do we place ourselves in relation to money, the key element in both Locke’s and Marx’s historical scheme? One way of approaching that question is to examine the history of capitalism, the system of making money with money, which has changed its form in the course of the last two centuries. Its left-wing detractors have anticipated its early demise throughout that period; but, with the formation of world society in our time, it may just be coming into its own. The theory of capitalism If, in the last chapter, I may have given the impression that mechanisation is the driving force of modern history, to do so would be to fetishise technology, to reproduce the notion that animated objects rule our world. Human beings make machines and they make them under specific social conditions. What then is the form of society organising our hectic march from the village to the city, towards the possibility of a global civilisation? Since the last century the answer has been contained in a name which is at once a description and an explanation, the favourite label for our economic dynamism, capitalism. [6] [x] Capitalism is above all that combination of money and machines whose special character underlies the polarising tendencies of our world. Even naming this process is controversial, since its apologists prefer to mask its contradictions in polite talk of “business” and “the market”. In this section I will first examine the meaning of the term capital, showing how it is taken by some to be an objective and benign feature of human societies in general, by others a recent historical invention of dubious social value. Then I will turn to the two greatest commentators on capitalism as a general system, Marx and Weber, each of whom paid close attention to its specific origins in Europe, especially Britain. The origin of the modern economy is not, however, just a feature of western history which passed long ago, something now preserved in the dry texts of dead writers. The conditions on which it has been built are still alive, taking root in the far corners of the world, as well as being renewed in its old heartlands. Later I offer a brief account of some African examples, before returning to the original case of modern capitalist development, Britain. The point of this comparison is that universal social processes are always modified by the concrete elements of their formation in particular places. Capital is wealth used to make more wealth. [7] [xi] Wealth is all resources having economic value. Value is worth in general, but it tends to be measured in a universal equivalent, that is, money. So the essence of capital is that it is wealth (usually money in some form) capable of increasing its value. In both popular and scientific usage, the meaning of capital shifts uneasily between a material or technical emphasis on stock (produced means of production, physical equipment, nowadays notably machines) and identification with the kind of money prevailing in modern economy. The analogy between capital increase and the natural reproduction of livestock is reinforced by the etymology of cattle which suggests an ancient link between the two terms. [8] [xii] Capitalis (of the head) means important, chief, primary and, in the neuter form (capitale), refers to significant property, such as chattels and cattle. In this broad sense then, capital, like the head, is most important to sustaining life (every body needs a head, every community a leader: hence heads and tails). [9] The modern term capital, however, derives more specifically from a medieval banking expression (similar to the notion of “principal”) implying an amount of money which grows through accumulating interest. There are thus two opposing camps, one of whom would assimilate capitalism into a wide, natural category implying its technical basis in the domestication of plants and animals, while the other sees capitalism as a more ephemeral social arrangement devoted to making money with money. As a keyword of our civilisation, capital reflects the contrasting ideologies which have arisen to represent it. As we will see below, Marx and his followers (which includes me in this context), consistently restrict the definition of capital to its form as money. Most modern economists, however, equate capital with, in one definition, “the stock of goods which are used in production and which are themselves produced”. [xiii] Marx viewed the piling up of riches by businessmen as a social relationship of exploitation which was mystified by equating capital with physical plant and profit with the reasonable income of its owners. For him, as for Locke, human labour was the source of wealth and the addition of machines to that labour only made it more productive. Economists, however, tend to stress the notion of sacrifice, the withdrawal of goods from immediate consumption, and the enhanced productivity of factors other than labour in which the capitalist has invested. So that increase constitutes the reward for making the sacrifice. This argument makes sense in an industrial economy where money wealth comes most reliably from investment in mechanising production. But there are forms of capital accumulation which do not necessarily involve physical plant (banking and trade, for example) and the broader usage tends to confuse money and machines by representing capital as a thing (that is, as real) and mystifying the social relations involved. The problem with the economists’ definition is that it cannot deal with historical change in the relationship between production and the circuit of money, as Marx’s dialectic can. Certainly it could not cope with the virtual capitalism of our day. In this book, capitalism is taken to be that form of market economy in which the owners of large amounts of money get to direct the most significant sectors of production. They do so in the interest of adding to the amounts of money they already have. Competitive markets for industrial products meant that, for a time and perhaps also now, the most reliable way of making money with money lay in raising the productivity of labour through investment in machines. This is, roughly speaking, Marx’s position. So let us see how he developed it in the context of an historical analysis of Britain, the particular point of origin for the age of capitalist accumulation. Writers from Aristotle to Polanyi have identified two distinct orientations to the market. The first is concerned with selling for money what is surplus to requirements in order to buy what one wants. Marx called this the “simple commodity circuit” (C-M-C). [10] The second, M-C-M’, where M’> M, starts with money and has the aim of realising more money through participation in the market as a “capitalist commodity circuit”. Figure 3.1 Two Circuits of Commodities and Money 1. Simple circuit Commodities ——— Money ——— Commodities 2. Capitalist Circuit Money ——— Commodities ——— More Money According to Marx, there are three main versions of this capitalist circuit. The first two are as old as markets and money: financial capital (M-M’) where profit takes the form of interest on money lent; and merchant capital (M-C-M’) where trade goods are bought cheaply to be sold dear and profit consists in the difference between buying and selling minus handling costs. In both cases the source of the money increase is mysterious, since the contribution of human work is hidden from view. The third form is distinctive to the modern age as a general economic system; and it consists in purchasing human labour for wages with the purpose of getting these workers to produce goods worth more than the cost of their hire. Marx called this industrial capital, not primarily with reference to the factories which were characteristic of the first industrial revolution; but in order to emphasise the penetration of money capital into production, whether that be agriculture, manufacturing or services. In all agrarian societies markets were peripheral to the organisation of production. Once people routinely sold their labour for a livelihood, however, it undermined the traditional arrangements binding them to the land; more important, it vastly expanded the market since they depended on buying the means of their everyday subsistence. Moreover, only human creativity can produce goods valued at more than it costs to buy. This relationship of surplus value between owners of capital and workers held the key, in Marx’s view, to the dramatic recent increases in the rate of accumulation. At the same time, unlike the case with finance and trading capital, it became clearer that workers generated the increase accruing to the capitalist. For Marx, then, modern capitalism was that form of making money with money in which free capital was exchanged with free wage labour. He sought to account, therefore, for the process whereby people’s capacity to work was freed from the legal encumbrances of feudal agriculture and for the release of funds for investment in new forms of production. He discusses this process of “primitive accumulation” in the last section of Volume I of Capital. Marx found that British capitalism had its origins in a long drawn-out struggle to displace the peasants from their traditional occupation of the land. The enclosure movement began in Tudor times and was still going strong in the Scottish Highlands during the 19th century. It meant that large sections of the rural poor were forced to seek hire for wages; while the landlords were able to make over privatised land to lucrative activities such as sheep farming. Employment in capitalist textile factories was a natural outcome of this conjuncture. Marx deploys his full range as a writer to depict the brutal criminality of this history. So where did the money come from to finance industrial capitalism? Marx’s answer is unequivocal: the expanded system of colonies, slavery and world trade which followed the explorations around 1500 and after. Here again he stresses villainy, the outrageous exploits of pirates and freebooters who stole the patrimony of people they often reduced to servitude. This is a key question of economic history. Did the industrial revolution rest on loot from the Third World or not? Max Weber thought that it did not; and neither do I. But this is only a secondary aspect of Marx’s argument. [11] [xiv] Adam Smith had related profit levels to reduced costs achieved through raising the efficiency of workers; and he identified specialisation and division of labour as the best way of doing this. Marx’s great discovery was that this logic led to the introduction of more and better machines to the production process. Capitalists could stay ahead of their competitors by paying proportionately lower wages than were justified by productivity increases. The changing ratio of wage costs to investment in machinery and plant (“the organic composition of capital”) reflected this drive to cheapen unit labour costs: and its result was that centralisation of production which Marx correctly saw as the underlying trend of 19th century capitalism. But he also noticed that there were other trends; and he highlighted the alternative paths of accumulation in a long section of Volume I of Capital on absolute and relative surplus value. It was one of Marx’s aims to demonstrate that wage slavery under capitalism was fundamentally similar to feudal serfdom. In the latter case tied agricultural workers had to hand over a proportion of their product (“surplus labour”) in some form, whether a share of their physical output, labour services or, occasionally, a money equivalent. Marx knew that feudal landlords had every interest in extracting the most they could from these workers by driving down to the limit what they retained for their own subsistence. Surplus labour becomes surplus value when workers are paid wages directly and the surplus retained by the capitalist takes the form of goods whose value is realised in the market as commodities. The most primitive type of industrial capitalism, therefore, is one in which the feudal approach is transferred to the industrial system of wage labour. In Marx’s terminology, one tendency of capital accumulation is thus concerned with extracting absolute surplus value. This means paying workers as little as possible and making them work as many hours as possible, for example by lengthening the working day without increasing wages. We call this phenomenon “sweat shop” capitalism and it can be found anywhere that unprotected workers (often women, minorities or illegal aliens) are forced to endure low pay, long hours and oppressive conditions. The other tendency is the one we have already identified, marked by what Marx called relative surplus value, the improvement of workers’ efficiency through increased scale of co-operation, division of labour and, above all, mechanisation. This path leads to a high wage, high skill economy which Marx felt sure was the progressive side of capitalism and one which would inevitably win out in competition with the other tendency. This distinction between absolute and relative surplus value contains one vital key to understanding the uneven development of the world economy. In most sectors of production, but some more than others (textiles, say, more than nuclear submarines), there is direct competition between low-cost and high-cost producers. Thus Britain under the Tories offended its partners in the European Union by pursuing a strategy of attracting international investment with low wage costs; in France the emphasis is on reduced hours of working and improved social benefits, whereas Germany especially is committed to improving the skills and equipment of a high cost labour force. Few doubt which of these countries has the more robust capitalism. The postwar rise of the Southeast Asian “tigers” (Hong Kong, Singapore, Korea, Taiwan) and of Japan before that began on the model of absolute surplus value and has subsequently switched to the relative path. In the meantime, the smokestack heartlands of the first industrial nations, which once led the way in machine production, now offer low-cost investment opportunities for Asian companies in a desperate attempt to regenerate employment. This restlessness of capitalism ensures that the original conditions of growth are always being renewed; there is nothing permanent about it. It is increasingly commonplace for the two tendencies of modern capital accumulation to exist side by side in the same country. This is where formal and informal institutions dividing the labour force into high- and low-wage sectors are especially needed. Men have traditionally excluded women from better-paid work, with the consequence that the restricted areas available to them are overcrowded and poorly paid. [12] [xv] The same applies to the contrast between citizens and illegal aliens, providing the middle classes with the cheap domestic labour they need in order to pursue an affluent lifestyle. This leads to the embarrassment that President Clinton faced when trying to appoint an Attorney General who wasn’t employing illegal aliens as servants. And, of course, racial discrimination, even after emancipation from slavery, has acted as a colour bar confining black people to menial, low-wage employment. So Marx’s economic analysis, brilliant and far-reaching as it was, would not be complete without a broader framework capable of accounting for the specific ways in which inequality is institutionalised. Max Weber did not disagree with Marx’s account, although he did think that property relations were less important than most Marxists believed; and some might count such an emphasis consistent with his decision to line up on the side of the capitalist state. He just felt that it did not go far enough. Agrarian societies and their urban enclaves had always relied on traditional certainties when organising their economies; that is, they tended to repeat what they had done in the past. Hence the relative stagnation of society and technology during the agricultural phase of human history. He surmised that a massive cultural revolution must have been necessary to persuade people to place their economic lives in the hands of capitalists whose principal orientation was to the uncertainties of future profit. It followed that capitalism should be conceived of in terms of institutions whose meaning was not just narrowly economic, but political, even religious as well. Weber’s General Economic History was written under unusual circumstances. It was just after the first world war, when a defeated Germany was in the throes of revolution and Weber went to teach for a year at Munich. He died shortly afterwards and this book was put together from students’ notes taken on his last lecture course. Weber was a notoriously obscure writer; but this book reads easily. This transparent quality and the somewhat Marxist slant of the text may owe more to the students than to Weber’s original intentions; or it could reflect a genuine change of heart, in the face of Germany’s political calamity. However that may be, this is much the fullest account left of his explanation for the rise of capitalism. For Weber, capitalism was an economic system based on rational enterprise. Both of these words were carefully chosen. Enterprise is something undertaken with a view to future profit. As such, it is intrinsically uncertain. Weber observed that in most economies known to history innovation was often explicitly discouraged and hedged around with magical deterrents. It was remarkable, therefore, that whole societies would commit their livelihood to the uncertainties of enterprise. As the American economist, Paul Samuelson, used to say in the introduction to his best-selling textbook, [xvi] 10 million New Yorkers go to sleep every night confident that the economy will still be there the next morning; but how do they know? Enterprise commonly takes two forms. The first is speculative and involves people gambling on a hunch that they will win. Keynes recognised that these “animal spirits” were central to the dynamism of capitalist markets, leading to a cycle of booms and busts as herds of investors chase the latest chance for windfall profit (from the tulip craze and the South Sea bubble of the 17th and 18th centuries onwards). Weber was interested in the second form of enterprise, a form driven by the compulsion to eliminate the risks entailed in reliance on uncertain futures. Rationality is the calculated pursuit of explicit ends by chosen means. Rational enterprise, according to Weber, rests above all on the entrepreneur’s ability to calculate outcomes. For capitalism to take root, uncertainty has to be replaced, if not with certain knowledge, then with reliable calculation of the probabilities. This explains the paradox that, while capitalists celebrate the risks of competition in their self-promoting ideologies, they will do everything in their power to avoid it in practice. Weber sets out, in the fourth and final part of the General Economic History, to show how the fledgling capitalist economy progressed by instituting the means of more reliable calculation. This meant improvements in book-keeping, working practices and technology. Above all it meant the development of a state alert to the needs of enterprises, securing their property and profits in law, stabilising the conditions of market economy, ultimately at the expense of anyone else who got in the way. Weber did not think that mercantile colonialism was a sufficient explanation for the accumulation of a European capitalist fund, since several commercial empires (such as the Phoenicians) had developed similar systems of extraction without spawning modern industry. Rather, as everyone knows, he believed that capitalist culture owed its specificity to developments in the sphere of religion. Weber explained the origins of capitalism in Western Europe by the Reformation and before it the rationalist ethos of the Judaeo-Christian tradition. He wrote his famous Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism on a visit to the St. Louis Great Exhibition in 1904. [xvii] It deals specifically with the “elective affinity” (Goethe’s phrase) of protestant religion and rational enterprise, that is with how each gets on partially with the other so as to produce a synergistic effect. But the last chapter of the General Economic History (“The evolution of the capitalist spirit”) covers more ground, reaching back into pre-Reformation Christianity and beyond to the Enlightenment and the secularism of the “Age of Iron”, the 19th century. The main source of uncertainty we face is death. Traditionally the church placed responsibility for reaching the afterlife in the hands of a specialist class of experts. Protestantism, above all else, restored to individuals the right to make their own relationship with God. Weber held that rationality involved a similar form of means-end calculation, so that protestants would be supported in their economic activities by a compatible religious outlook. Sects which stressed the election of members to the afterlife (Calvinists being the favourite example) provided a measure of certainty, but perhaps also of insecurity which were transferred into the world of enterprise. Whatever the role of this factor in the origins of capitalism, Weber was gloomy about the prospects for a disenchanted world in which exploited workers could no longer fall back on hopes for a better life after death. If Marx successfully linked capital accumulation to mechanisation and the wage-labour system, these considerations of rationality, magic and religion are indispensable to an analysis of the cultural revolution affecting money and exchange in our times, as we will see. The ongoing origins of capitalism It can be seen from the above account that both Marx and Weber explained the origins of capitalism as the emergence of the elements which each took to be central to its definition: the free exchange of capital and labour and rational enterprise, respectively. When we turn to consider more recent developments outside Europe, the inescapable conclusion is that capitalism as a general system is always modified by the specific conditions in which it grows. Thus Italian capitalism is not Japanese capitalism is not Brazilian capitalism and so on. There is a sense in which the modern economy has become in retrospect an abstract general system enshrined in texts which have become disembodied from the living history in which they were originally created. [13] [xviii] Contemporary investigations of social realities (“ethnography”) can restore that sense of living particulars to what remains a search for the universal principles of economic organisation in our world. For we need to explain not only the common form, but also its infinite differentiation. If we wish to understand and help make economic civilisation on a planetary scale, such an exercise is indispensable. Modern anthropologists have recorded a decisive moment in history, when non-western peoples began to participate in the world economy on their own terms. In the decades after the second world war, a few of them set out to investigate the experience of economic development in the predominantly rural societies of the Third World. The most distinguished of these was Polly Hill. But, before turning to consider her work, an East African case study may serve to introduce the genre. The Giriama are a people who live on the east coast of Kenya. They were studied in the 1970s by David Parkin whose subsequent book has the great merit of being both well written and only 100 pages long. [xix] The story is as general and as specific as all the others we will encounter. The Giriama once kept cattle and, during the colonial period, often worked as migrant labourers. Now an export market for copra (coconuts) had arisen which was attracting a new class of entrepreneurs. Palm trees had been used principally to make palm wine and this was drunk on many social occasions, especially marriages and funerals. People worked for each other on the basis of reciprocity and need, paying close attention to the kinship ties between them. Extraction of copra required the acquisition of property in coconut trees and control of an adequate labour supply. For the first, entrepreneurs had to win the support of elders who could act as witnesses to the land transactions involved. This ensured that traditional sources of authority had to be accommodated by this incipient capitalist process. Nor was labour unproblematic, since the expectation of handing over profits to an owner was not built into kinship-based labour relations. Moreover, the community at large had a diffuse interest in any such profits being spent on public ceremony, involving much consumption of palm wine, of course. So far the story upholds Marx’s focus on the exchange of money for land and labour. But there is a Weberian element too. For some of the entrepreneurs sought to extricate themselves from the entanglements of traditional institutions by embracing a new religion. This took the form of conversion to Islam, often after consulting a diviner about dreams which revealed a calling in that direction. The great advantage of Islam was that it prohibited joining in the drinking that was such a prominent part of marriages and funerals. This may not have the cognitive force of the protestant ethic thesis; but it is clear that emancipation from the diffuse social ties of community life is compatible with greater calculation of capitalist profit. Parkin’s narrative implies that the march of this new capitalist class is inexorable and that Giriama society is well on the way to being irreversibly transformed. But a longer-term and wider perspective might lead us to revise such a prediction. Colonial political economy was organised as a racial division of labour. The British ran the government and owned the most profitable estates; the Africans were expected to work for them and were excluded, where possible, from profitable alternatives to wage-employment. The Indians, having first been brought as indentured labour to build the ports and railways, were allowed to fill the commercial niches between the two, but were denied the right to buy land. After independence in 1962, this hierarchy of white, brown and black came under pressure, as might be expected. The Giriama ethnography belongs then to a period when Kenya sought to establish itself as one of Africa’s leading capitalist economies, allowing for some rearrangement of the racial division of labour. [xx] For a time, redistribution of wealth and power towards some Africans induced an atmosphere of commercial prosperity. The world economy in the 1960s and early 1970s was also favourable. This climate did not last, however, and for some two decades now economic conditions have deteriorated in Kenya. This is not the first time that Africans have experienced a boom only to repent at leisure during a long recession. In the Giriama case, it is by no means obvious that the forces of nascent capitalism have triumphed in the face of conditions reinforcing traditional norms of rural self-sufficiency. West Africa offers one of the most striking histories of indigenous capitalism in modern economic development, one, moreover, which had to wait a long time for its ethnographer. The period from the 1880s to the first world war saw an explosion in the mass production and consumption of commodities, much of it based on raw materials located in territories which were rapidly being acquired as colonies. In most cases, this meant European-owned mines (gold, copper, bauxite) and plantations (tea, rubber, oil palm) employing a mixture of local and indentured Asian labour. The cocoa industry was an exception. It arose during this period in the rainforests of the Gold Coast (now Ghana) without the benefit or knowledge of any European interest, beyond the Liverpool and Manchester traders who were happy to buy the raw material of chocolate from its indigenous producers. Although many other countries eventually joined in, Ghana still supplied almost half of the world market until its economic and political reverses of the mid-1960s. Despite Ghana’s standing as the world’s leading cocoa producer, little was known about the indigenous producers. They were assumed to be African “peasants” earning a little extra by adding cocoa to their subsistence farms. Polly Hill, Maynard Keynes’s niece, traced the industry to its origins at the turn of the century. [xxi] She was able to show that the cocoa farmers were an authentic modern class, migrant entrepreneurs opening up virgin forest often in companies capable of hiring Swiss construction firms to develop the infrastructure that they needed and the colonial authorities could not provide. Hill’s study, combining historical records with fieldwork, documented the complexity of the social organisation which ensued after a local man brought knowledge of cocoa from the Portuguese dependency of Sao Tome. All of the new farmers were migrants; most of them came from families which had accumulated wealth from earlier export trades, such as slavery and rubber; their level of education was often high. Some of them drew on existing matrilineal kinship to organise the collective appropriation of the rainforest; others, especially those from patrilineal areas, formed companies which allocated land rights among members. They invented a new institution, abusua, a means of recruiting migrant labourers to work on a one-third, two-thirds division of the crop. Hill is sure that Ghana’s cocoa industry was capitalist from the beginning and she is probably right. But this capitalist class did not capture the state. The first post-independence government, led by Nkrumah, was based on a coalition of interests opposed to the Ashanti region where the majority of cocoa farmers lived. Their wealth was squandered by this new ruling class, with inevitable consequences for the industry’s decline. [xxii] It would be hard to exaggerate the contrast between Hill’s discovery and the conventional thinking of development economists and administrators at the time (and since). [xxiii] Her work has barely been absorbed into the modern anthropological tradition because it contradicts deep-seated convictions about western economic leadership and African backwardness. But more is at stake than revising racist perspectives on Africa. The core history of capitalism may have to be modified in the light of such ethnographic examples. Pierre-Philippe Rey sought to bring the West African colonial experience of capitalism and the original British case within the scope of a single theory. [xxiv] He argued that, wherever capitalism developed, the new class was forced into making compromises with the old property-owning classes in ways which made the resulting hybrid something specific to that society. Thus the British industrialists had to make an alliance with the landowning aristocracy in order for the factory system to flourish at the expense of feudal agriculture. (Compare Marx’s account of the enclosure movement above.) Similarly, in West Africa the indigenous lineage elders made an alliance with the colonial authorities to supply the labour of young men to plantations and mines. This kind of class alliance is depressingly familiar in the transition to capitalism. It is an example of the institutional complexity which more abstract economic theories tend to ignore. In Britain, the industrial bourgeoisie was separated from the traditional landed aristocracy by regional location (North vs. South); but their influence on national government was always limited by its location in London, the home of the mercantile and colonial ruling class. In the late 19th century, the industrial civilisation of independent regional cities (led by Manchester’s liberalism) was undermined by a combination of nationalism and financial imperialism based in London. The industrial economy never recovered from this process of political centralisation. In this brief summary of a complex history, I have come full circle. For there is no doubt that, in a life-time of journeys to strange places, nothing compares with the shock I had at the age of eighteen, when I had to alternate living as a student in Cambridge and at home in Manchester. They did seem to me, then and now, entirely different civilisations and I was much exercised by the problem of uniting them in a viable identity. Later I transposed the problem to Africa. Again I found it difficult to understand how a displaced poor boy like me could wield so much social power there. I have spent much of the time since trying to bridge that gap in my knowledge of the world. I realised that, whereas I knew life in Accra’s slums concretely, my ideas about “the West” were very abstract, being taken largely from social theory. This was the beginning of an attempt to place myself within a unified vision of world history. The preceding paragraph and indeed the historical perspective informing this book as a whole indicates where that journey has taken me so far. In principle, it probably pays to do the same for other instances of intellectual history. Thus Weber’s sociology is inseparable from the history of the newly formed German state. Here a very different kind of story needs to be told, emphasising the alliance between Prussian junkers (a military landowning class) and the Rhineland bourgeoisie. Weber’s insistence that the institutional forms of rationality are twofold reflects the particular compromise reached in his home country, where the state bureaucracy and market-based capitalism forged an alliance which underlies the contrast between German and Anglo-Saxon models of capitalist development throughout the modern era. As pioneers of state capitalism, the Germans drew on their specific institutional history, just as the British had in inaugurating the first, market-based form of industrial capitalism. We can be sure that state capitalism’s successor is currently incubating in conditions particular to many different places. But this is to jump the gun. Before addressing the forms and consequences of global capitalist development in this century, the subject matter of Chapter 4, it is necessary to consider first its personal side, in the spirit of local differentiation emphasised here. The personal face of capitalism: entrepreneurs The system of making money with money, capitalism, also has a personal face. It is called entrepreneurship, a term which roughly stands for economic leadership. We have already seen that Weber thought the distinctive feature of the modern economy is enterprise, the ability to imagine and realise a future which does not already exist. This ability is a characteristic of certain individuals; and much attention has been paid in the literature to their qualities. For most writers, entrepreneurs are the heroes of capitalism, boldly going where no man went before. For others, however, they are the villains who cruelly sacrifice the general interest to their personal greed or megalomania. Bill Gates or Henry Ford earlier would be contested cases in point. When I first became interested in this question in the 1960s, the Cold War was at its height. Supporters of American “free enterprise” held that modernisation of the former colonial peoples would come if a cluster of institutions, what I call “the middle class package”, could be successfully transplanted from the West: cities, education, science and technology, the rule of law, democracy and, of course, capitalist enterprise personified as a type, the entrepreneur. By the 1970s, however, a climate of economic failure reinforced the opposite view, that development was the primary responsibility of the state, not least because only political power could redress the inequalities intrinsic to world capitalism. In the 1980s, an unfettered western capitalism undermined its Soviet antagonist and subjected Third World states to a regime of free markets, public retrenchment and debt repayments which made survival difficult and development impossible. Finally, in the 1990s, while most Third World countries stagnate in appalling poverty, the “enterprise culture” is once again alive and well in the western heartlands, while the former eastern bloc is rapidly being taken over by its illegal variant, criminal mafias. At the same time, the rise of Asian capitalism was until recently thought to be inexorable, led by Japan and the Southeast Asian “tigers”, with China lumbering into high gear behind. Some of these countries (Korea, Singapore) have made a virtue of strong state intervention, which may be represented as a Confucian collectivism in contrast with Western individualism. But in the West itself there has been belated recognition that relative failure may be due to a sclerosis induced by large-scale bureaucracy. And for some years now there has been a fashion for “downsizing” and “outsourcing” which at one extreme encourages small, dynamic work teams and decentralised decision-making. For a time in the 1980s, the fastest-growing region in Europe was North-Central Italy where a pattern of innovative family firms predominated. This example was used to make the claim that the big corporations were dinosaurs, too rigid to compete with enterprises organised for “flexible specialisation”, that is, able to switch production techniques at will to meet the special needs of customers. [14] [xxv] Lately this anxiety for the future of the old Fordist model of mass production has led to pundits asking whether impersonal bureaucratic capitalism is about to be overtaken by a more personal form, “familistic capitalism”. [xxvi] This last phenomenon is held to consist of strong state intervention, high levels of political corruption, criminal mafias, reliance on personal networks in business and a dominant ethos of family enterprise. Countries like Japan and even India are brought forward as exemplars; but the idea of Asian exceptionalism is usually modified to admit the European archetype, Italy. The USA and Britain are held to be ideally “bureaucratic” (and in the latter case on the way down), although the merest acquaintance with the political and business elites of those countries might lead us to suspect that the impersonal/personal contrast is overdrawn. What all this overgeneralised debate adds up to is a suspicion that personality and personal relations are indispensable to modern economic organisation and especially to building something new. The omnibus term “entrepreneur”, inserted into a shifting theoretical debate over capitalism’s historical trajectory, thus takes on many meanings, as we will see. The link of enterprise to the notion of the family may be in recognition of the actual predominance of families in business history. But I prefer to think of “family” as a metaphor for people you know very well and are stuck with, as it were. What matters from this point of view is not whether people are genetically related, but whether their mutual knowledge and trust can be the foundation of a durable partnership. Love and friendship can serve the same purpose, often more reliably. This aspect of the modern economy’s contradictions therefore hinges on something more diffuse than enterprise as such, namely, the personal basis for making durable economic relations. In what follows I draw extensively on my own ethnographic researches in Ghana. [xxvii] The idea of capitalism employed here is not located in an imaginary space known as “the West”. It is global in scope and people everywhere must respond to being drawn into its complications. My study, based on fieldwork carried out thirty years ago, concerns a translocal ethnic community (“Frafras”), especially migrants from the dry savanna who lived in a slum quarter of Accra, Ghana’s capital city. Out of this field research I developed the concept of “the informal economy”. This idea refers to the mass of economic transactions which takes place beyond effective state regulation. But my first focus was on entrepreneurs. By any standards they were small fry; but I take their enterprises nevertheless to be part of the general economic movement of our times. The value of closely observed ethnography on the margins of the world capitalist economy is that the distinction between personal and impersonal institutions is clearer there than it has become for people who have become inured to bureaucracy. The properties of relating to a person rather than to a thing or an idea have become blurred for us who barely distinguish between trusting a salesman, a dollar bill or the free market. The Frafra migrants brought a vivid appreciation of personalised social relations to their economic enterprises, just as they often missed the point of bureaucracy since the state was for them a remote, sometimes threatening presence, but not an intrinsic part of everyday life. It is now less certain than it was three decades ago that corporate investments and state guarantees offer most people a more prosperous and secure future than small-scale enterprises and intimate relationships. Thinking about this contrast in how people in different places construct the personal/impersonal pair thus has considerable salience for us today. The Frafras were fighting hill tribesmen who grew sorghum and raised livestock, an egalitarian people huddled together in densely packed settlements. [15] [xxviii] Only a small minority had converted to Islam or Christianity and even fewer adults had a modicum of education. Their traditional society was based on descent groups, earth cults, clan alliances and marriage exchange. A pervasive ideology of kinship and ancestor worship provided the social glue linking larger corporate units to the flux of domestic life. Elders controlled most collective assets, such as land and cattle, and raiding between neighbours had traditionally reinforced group solidarity; but individual accumulation and self-made men were commonplace. By the 1960s the Frafras were dispersed throughout Ghana. They worked as domestic servants, soldiers, petty traders and general labourers; they were widely considered to be thieves. They circulated between town and countryside, usually retaining an extended family network based on their home village. Out of a total of a quarter million, some 10,000 Frafras then lived in Accra, many of them in a sprawling slum called Nima. This was a shanty town, the main red light district for the city’s lower classes, and a criminal “badlands” which the police entered only sporadically. I lived with a “fence” (receiver of stolen goods) and joined in the life of the underworld to the extent of sharing in my landlord’s criminal enterprise. My research gravitated towards the self-organised economic activities which sustained the majority of Nima’s inhabitants. In the course of a stay of over two years, I became a local big man, redistributing my ill-gotten gains to an army of field assistants, throwing large parties and making handouts to the indigent. The alternative, non-participation in the criminal economy, left me vulnerable to accusations of being a police spy. [16] [xxix] I was captivated by what seemed a paradox: on the one hand the banal individualism of a Dickensian mob of water carriers, bread sellers, shit shovellers, taxi drivers, pickpockets and bartenders; on the other the communal spirit of hill tribesmen whose fathers were earth priests and who expected to end their days as custodians of ancestral shrines. I was impressed by the energy and ingenuity of their efforts to enrich themselves and by the inevitable failure of all but a few. It seemed as if the economy was being made, unmade and remade from day to day. The central task for everyone was to find a durable basis for livelihood and perhaps for accumulation. That was why even a poorly paid job was valued, as a stable core in the chaos of everyday life, an island in a sea of ephemeral opportunities. I came to think of this as the search for form, for the invariant in the variable, for regularity in a world constituted by flux, emergence, informality. Over the period of fieldwork I built up case records on 71 individuals, members of this translocal ethnic community. [17] [xxx] They lived both in the cities of the South and in their homeland. One in five had assets of more than £10,000 at a time when people working for the minimum wage earned £100 ($250) a year; half had accumulated more than £2,000 or 20 years’ unskilled work. These were substantial sums by Frafra standards, but only three were rich on a national scale. They usually maintained a diversified portfolio of investments on a part-time basis; few were committed to managing a single enterprise. In Nima a third were still employed for wages and a further half had been employed recently. The most common medium of investment was housing for rent, followed by trade, bars, construction, machinery for hire and moneylending. A third of the sample owned commercial transport, the riskiest and most lucrative form of investment. Many included an illegal element in their enterprises. There were many more Muslims and Christians than the national average for Frafras. These are some of the people I was most closely associated with in Nima. Anaba was 40 years old, the second son of a poor farmer, and now a soldier in charge of army meat supplies. He owned five houses and nine commercial vehicles which, together with numerous trading and investment activities, brought in an annual income of around £20,000. He had 11 wives and 17 children, a household of 80 people, scores of clients and dependants. In addition to these outgoings, he financed a successful bid by his brother for the chiefship of their village. Soon afterwards he left the army and went home to farm. There he suffered a catastrophic economic decline and lost most of his wives and hangers on. Atibila was a little older and also an army sergeant in Accra. His father had been a soldier. In his youth he had known great hardship; but, during the 1950s and 1960s, he had accumulated two houses, a mini-bus, a corn mill and several other income-bearing assets. A monogamous Christian, he lived with his wife, a trader, while his five children attended missionary schools. He tended to stay aloof from the migrant community. Ananga left home at the age of 12. After three decades working as a cook/steward, while plying a number of ancillary trades (most of them illegal), he now lived in his own house in Nima with two wives, four children and several younger male relatives. Although at one stage he had £2,000 in the bank and owned two commercial vehicles, in the mid-1960s Ananga’s fortunes were recovering slowly after a short gaol sentence had all but smashed his entrepreneurial career. He maintained strong links with migrants from his own village. In all relatively open economic systems it is possible for a few individuals to enrich themselves through their own efforts. The relationship between individual enrichment and community wellbeing, however, is a matter of dispute. One set of ideas is associated with the new rich themselves and those who endorse them. Success is attributed to hard work, abstinence, ambition, initiative and perseverance, perhaps to luck and a quick eye for opportunities. No-one really suffers in the process. Even if some people do get hurt, the public good is enhanced in the long run by economic growth and charitable redistribution. The opponents of the new rich tell a contrasting story: of greed, exploitation, theft, lack of scruple and numerous other anti-social vices. Wealth is seen as a transfer of value, grabbed by force or sneaked by deception. The price of such accumulation is the damage done to the community. When we turn to social theory, we find again two broad political camps corresponding roughly to the opposed ideologies set out above, often identified with Weber and Marx, respectively. Who can forget that for some forty years we were all threatened with nuclear annihilation in the name of a contest between these same ideas for global supremacy? The problem is a general one in history. “Emphasis on accumulating money as against meeting social obligations worried many people in the United States and Europe in the early years of industrialisation. John D. Rockefeller was highly unpopular most of his life. English literature is filled with hostile references to the new men, such as Dickens’ Hard Times.” [xxxi] I wondered whether some practices of accumulation lead to the disruption of the social fabric, while others are compatible with an enduring framework of co-operation. Accordingly I examined my ethnographic material to see if perceptions of individual entrepreneurs could be traced to their objective strategies of accumulation. “When they see this man is better”, Amoro said, “they want him to be worse; and they will always keep on coming, coming and you are giving, giving, giving. And then you will stand in the same shoes as them. You will have nothing to give and they cannot give you anything. So you are poor and that is the level they really want to bring you to.” The theme of a contradiction between accumulation and social obligation was a common one, highlighted by Atibila who simplified his life history along classic Weberian lines. He portrayed himself as a poor boy who, bereft of any help from kin and cast adrift by misfortune in Accra, had managed to pull himself up by his own bootstraps only through systematic self-denial, reliance on his wife and the rejection of all other social ties. A soldier and a Christian, Atibila had not been home for twenty years, wanted to have nothing to do with other Frafras and sought only to provide for his conjugal nuclear family’s security through his own endeavours. He rejected traditional religion (“You cannot vote for two parties at the same time”), co-operation with kinsmen and all the institutions, like mutual aid societies and funeral parties, which promoted ethnic solidarity in the city. Rather he was a model exponent of rational economic behaviour, monogamous seclusion and personal asceticism. Atibila had not been reading Talcott Parsons at night classes. [xxxii] There was enough observable fact to make his story credible. He was certainly perceived as being socially isolated. But I later discovered that he was heavily involved with kinsmen and other Frafras; visited home regularly; wanted his children to retain their ethnic identity; and, as a lineage elder back home, had a much more equivocal attitude towards traditional religion in practice. The point is that one-sided self-portraits, just like the ideal types of western social theory, should never be mistaken for the reality they purport to depict. Atibila identified a strong underlying tendency in his own behaviour; but he was in fact engaged in a far more complex process of seeking to reconcile a contradiction in his life without ever being able to eliminate either pole. It would be hard to overstress the importance of this theme for a humanist anthropology: people are never reducible to simple ideas, even or especially to those they hold of themselves. Rather they put together flexible combinations of opposed strategies in order to cope with the fluctuations of their lives. With this in mind, I now turn to the different strategies employed by Frafra entrepreneurs in resolving the contradiction between individual accumulation and community consumption. The term “entrepreneur” is used in social science and history to denote a bewildering variety of types. In anthropology anyone who does something novel or manipulative, seeks profit or “maximises” his own interest is likely to be called an entrepreneur. [xxxiii] Even in economics, “Some writers have identified entrepreneurship with the function of uncertainty-bearing, others with the co-ordination of productive resources, others with the introduction of innovations and still others with the provision of capital”. [xxxiv] The classical definition, however, was designed to identify that human agency which combined the factors of production (land, labour, capital, technology) in working enterprises. Later Joseph Schumpeter concentrated on entrepreneurial innovation as the main factor in economic development. [xxxv] I use the term here to denote not even a status (never mind a class), but rather an economic role which may be only an aspect an individual’s behaviour. Entrepreneurship refers in this context to accumulation of an expanding capital fund managed by the owner. It is thus virtually synonymous with personalised capitalism. If an entrepreneur is to maintain effective links with his community, he has to maintain a balance in his career between private accumulation and collective consumption. Not all forms of accumulation have the same social effects. The first requirement is an investible surplus. This can be generated in one of two ways: either by saving from domestic income and working more effectively or by securing a transfer of income from elsewhere. One involves producing a surplus without apparently making anyone worse off, while the other involves the circulation of value in what could be represented as a zero sum game. In the Frafra case, savings could be generated by abstention; working harder; increasing family labour inputs; improved efficiency; a stroke of good fortune. Transfers might take the form of inheritance; gift; credit; rent and interest payments; tribute; theft; favourable market trends. Finally, control over labour producing surplus value in Marx’s sense combines elements of both production and transfer. The transfer of income to the entrepreneur may not always be counted as a cost to the community. When surpluses are derived from outside or by internal methods considered legitimate, little opprobrium may be incurred. The perceived social benefits of accumulated surpluses thus depend heavily on their source, as well as on their destination. They may be used for further investment or consumed, directly by the entrepreneur and his family or through redistribution to the community (e.g. charitable donation). Two further considerations are crucial: the time dimension and the openness of the community. Negative transfers now may be justified in terms of jam for everyone tomorrow. The more open the community the less powerful are its sanctions on members and the more difficult is assessment of the net consequences of entrepreneurial activities. The balance between accumulation, consumption and redistribution is likely to be highly variable in an individual’s career. Moreover, not all exchanges between entrepreneurs and others are economic. A moral atmosphere of public service and political correctness may sometimes be maintained without material cost. The contradiction between public and private interests may thus be resolved in any of a number of ways: by enriching oneself at no-one else’s expense; by generating economic growth in the community and keeping up a fair level of redistribution; by adopting the symbols and conventions of community membership and service; by escaping to a more permissive or supportive social milieu; and by single-minded profit-seeking through any means, however disreputable, which is of course not a resolution of the dilemma, but rather conformity to the one-sided negative stereotype. Since people like to think of themselves as good, there are few takers for this option outside moralising fiction. The normal platform for Frafra migrant entrepreneurship was a secure job. This could be a source of extra income (through bribes and theft of supplies); but was often intrinsic to the organisation of enterprises and to their markets. They believed with some reason that the poor only get rich by means of trickery. Certainly criminal activities were commonplace and scarcely disapproved in the community. Apart from wages and illegal enterprise, self-employment offered a bewildering variety of opportunities on Nima’s streets. Larger enterprises ranged from risky investments in public transport to the relative safety of rented housing. In addition to keeping their jobs, most entrepreneurs diversified their investments. Sudden reversals of fortune were common. A corrupt bureaucracy always posed serious obstacles to migrants who were mostly illiterate, as did the existence of monopolistic trading rings dominated by other religious and ethnic minorities. Most Frafras found it extremely difficult to hire workers who would not consume whatever money they generated: so that close family members, especially wives, were indispensable as assistants or even partners. In general, surpluses were generated more often by transfer of value than by its production. Thrift, hard work, use of family labour and innovation were obvious enough in many cases; but the vast bulk of income came from the sphere of circulation. Moreover, most of it came from outside the Frafras’ community of origin: traders, transporters, moneylenders and thieves did their business with the general public, only a fraction of whom were their own people. A distinction was often drawn between “clean” and “dirty” money and this entered into moral exchanges within the community. Inheritance, gifts and loans played a negligible role in generating investible surpluses. There were a few instances of benevolent patronage. The poor do not have so much that they can afford to make large donations to each other; nor do the rich often transfer their wealth voluntarily to a young man in need of a lucky break. The only way the poor can acquire surpluses, short of working impossibly hard, is to fiddle a slice of the social cake to which they would not ordinarily be entitled. There was not much conflict over the origin of surpluses; indeed the more successful entrepreneurs were usually celebrated as heroes. What really mattered was the destination of these surpluses and how the successful managed their relations with close kin and other members of the ethnic community. The problem was particularly acute in hiring labour. Strangers would disappear with the proceeds of their work; and kinsmen often failed to observe the distinction between private and communal property. Marx was right to focus on the contradiction of trying to get a worker to hand over more value than he produces. This was a cleft stick that only a few geniuses managed to escape from. Beyond that, the demands for redistribution of surpluses to family and community consumption were insistent. The egalitarian ethos of sharing was hard to reconcile with personal accumulation; and this was the site of most social conflict, as Amoro’s complaint above testifies. The social ties of Frafra entrepreneurs to their ethnic community had varying significance at different stages of their life career. They needed lineage kin at first for the bridewealth to get married; the social security of an ethnic brotherhood and a home village to fall back on, in case the strategy of accumulation failed utterly; the co-operation of kinsmen as workers who might be more reliable than strangers. As members of a despised ethnic group, they had to look close to home for political advancement and prestige; and finally most of them were bound by the exigencies of the ancestor cult, which helps to explain why so many Frafra entrepreneurs were converts to world religions. Unable to recruit reliable employees or partners, Frafra migrants had to secure the co-operation of kinsmen and others from their community of origin whom they felt they could trust. [18] [xxxvi] But, in order to be successful, that trust must be based on recognition of an ethic of open-ended reciprocity, sharing and mutual obligation which diverts income from investment towards the maintenance of these solidary relationships. The central paradox is the struggle to reconcile the demands of personal accumulation and social equity. The entrepreneurs considered here do not constitute a stable psychological or sociological type, but should rather be seen as persons enmeshed in a variety of social exchanges throughout their lives. Their efforts to stabilise successful adaptations were often frustrated by fluctuations in their circumstances. But it is nevertheless worth asking what alternative forms of economic organisation were available to Frafra migrants who sought a durable foundation for enterprise. Let me approach this question through two case studies from Nima. Atia had been hawking a camera around with intermittent success: the problem was that his customers did not like to wait for the film to be completed and business was often slow. His breakthrough came when he persuaded the principal of a girls’ secondary school to let him take the girls’ photographs at weekends. Many others had tried without success; but his own “sweet” approach worked. He spent £10 on chickens, eggs and gifts of money before receiving permission. Trade was brisk: every weekend he got through two or three rolls of film “cutting” the girls. Whenever they saw him, they all wanted to send photos to their boyfriends and families. Some asked to be taken in the nude: “I was trusted by all of them. They knew that I was there for the money, that’s all. If one of them asked me to stay and do something with her, another would call for a photo before anything happened.” He generally asked for an advance payment of half the cost. Those who paid an advance wrote their names in a book, although he was himself illiterate. This was to stop any false claims; but he usually worked on the basis of mutual trust. If the photos he had developed were refused, he could not force them to pay. He rejected force, he said, because they might gang up on him and stop buying his pictures altogether. So he relied on good will. If he heard that a girl had paid for a picture she did not like and later tore it up, he would do her a new set free. Sometimes Atia “fell down” when he spoiled the whole negative and had to refund all the advances. He claimed that his average profit was 50 percent. Good photos fetched more or less whatever he asked for. If a customer was pleased, she might not ask for change from a large banknote. He reduced his production costs by buying from the same wholesale supplier and using one enlarger, both of whom sometimes extended credit. So the profit from two films in a single weekend, although variable, could be substantial, adding up to more than a full week’s wages as a domestic servant. Later Atia had to give up photography after joining the army. He was put on a charge for spending too many weekends outside the barracks. Despite the increases in army pay after the 1966 coup, he was chronically in debt and looked with nostalgia to those secondary school weekends, as a time when he was free. Be that as it may, Atia’s enterprise was short-lived and unstable. He depended on the patronage of a headmistress and on his ability to step through a minefield of adolescent girls. Having failed to place his enterprise on a more secure footing, he fell back on a reliable job. Even so, his willingness to invent the conditions of participation in the market economy, rather than accept passively whatever its formal institutions had to offer, was typical of Frafra migrants in Nima. At the other end of the spectrum of migrant enterprise is the transport industry. The abandoned hulks which litter Ghana’s roadsides offer silent testimony to the risks involved in running a truck, an estate wagon (“Peugeot”) or a minibus (“Benz”). But the potential rewards are high. If you buy a commercial vehicle, there are three things you can do with it: drive it yourself, hire a driver, or sell to a driver on a hire purchase basis (“work and pay”). No-one who spends his days behind a wheel is in a position to accumulate. Most naive operators would opt for hiring a driver, since the prospective profit is greater and the wage costs are fixed. This is why they often fail: a wage employee has no incentive to maintain the vehicle nor to be honest with the takings. One alternative is to make a driver pay the owner an agreed sum daily; but again he has no stake in the vehicle and there is nothing to stop him making common cause with a fitter to supply inflated repair bills or to say that the truck was off the road when it wasn’t. The most secure method is to sell the vehicle to its driver on an instalment plan and make him responsible for maintenance. This method was pioneered in Ghana by Lebanese businessmen. [xxxvii] Some owners would run the risk of paying wages to a driver while a vehicle was new and later sell it second-hand on the work-and-pay basis. Anaba, the entrepreneur whose rags-to-riches and riches-to-rags story was mentioned above, evolved his own method of running a transport business after several false starts. He would buy driving licences for young men from his home area and let them serve an apprenticeship on someone else’s taxi until he was convinced they were a good risk. When he had enough cash in hand to buy a vehicle for £2,-3,000, he would pick out one from his pool of clients, many of whom lived in his large household. He would then write up a contract, adding £1,000 to the sale price, selling it to the driver at a rate of repayment of £10 a day, with a clause giving him the right to seize the bus if the driver missed three successive days’ payments. The driver was responsible for maintenance; but, if he got into difficulties, Anaba would pay for the repairs and add the cost to the total bill. This arrangement minimised the length of time a vehicle might lie idle. Most drivers took up to one and a half years to buy their bus or taxi. Anaba was remarkable for remaining aloof from the lorry park system in Ghana which was controlled by Muslims. Kinship ties, self-reinforcing agreements and legal contracts played a more important role in his enterprise than friendship or trust. He was not a trusting man, in contrast to Atia, the unsuccessful photographer; and this was why he preferred hire purchase over wage employment. Three basic models presented themselves to Frafra entrepreneurs for how to go about establishing reliable economic relations in the slum. The most obvious and apparently profitable of these was the system of contract fostered by the civil society they may have thought they had joined, the middle-class package of city life whereby rational individuals enter market contracts freely and accept the binding obligations sanctioned by impersonal state laws. In practice, things turned out differently. The state was hardly an effective presence in Nima and illiterate Frafras were in a poor position to make the bureaucracy work for them. The conditions of rational calculation were subverted by a general shortage of money which pushed people into credit relations of a highly personal nature. In any case, they had to learn the impersonal disciplines of contractual behaviour from scratch and they were not very good at it (timekeeping, for instance). Looking for some alternative form of guarantee, Frafra migrants turned to the opposite of modern civilisation, their own customary morality based on the identities of kinship and a shared language, reinforced as they were by the certainties of birth and religious community. They were in many ways preadapted to the statelessness of the slum; but it was not easy to transfer their customary rural institutions to the city. At home lineage organisation lent the full authority of ancestors to elders, fathers and husbands. The ancestor cult was never practised away from home and genealogical differences of generation were collapsed into a single brotherhood, so that the sheer unequal power of parenthood was mainly absent in the slum. Ethnic solidarity found expression in beer talk and kinship was a domestic relationship of uncertain moral provenance. The migrant community was an egalitarian brotherhood of young men attached as clients to a few resident big men. It was not closed or powerful enough to make kinship ties reliable. In any case, kinship is a poor foundation for the reckoning of two-sided economic relations, especially hierarchical relations such as employer-employee, since it is based on an assumption of sameness, collective identity in opposition to the generalised other. The idea of shared but separate interests cannot easily be expressed in a kinship idiom. So traditional forms were ill-adapted to the needs of migrant economic life. Inevitably they fell back on free-floating association, that sphere of social relations which Mauss identified as the true locus of society, [xxxviii] where self and other meet in some reciprocal understanding and interest is negotiated within relations formed by shared experience, even friendship. Society in this sense is always personal, active and concrete, straddling as it does the poles of the primitive and the modern. The currency of this sphere is trust, a willingness to endure risk and uncertainty in human relations based on some degree of prior knowledge. Frafras were often forced to rely on an idiom of trust, although usually with the reinforcement of some other social interest. Moneylending was a case in point. Loans in Nima were never made to strangers. Landlords lent to tenants, patrons to clients. The borrower often invoked friendship as a way of soliciting a loan; the rhetoric of familiarity was commonplace there. Kinsmen make poor borrowers since they identify the lender’s interests with their own. Again, small traders sold to strangers for cash. Once their customers became more familiar, they granted them special privileges (extras and, more important, credit). In this way trust is engendered by means of the gift, making a kind of friendship between buyer and seller, even when this was not a precondition for their association. Regular clients with substantial debts were few and traders had to pick them carefully. In this respect they were as selective as most westerners in their personal friendships. The migrants usually failed to transcend their origins as fighting hill tribesmen in the social chaos of the slum. But some of them did. It helped if they could make a break with traditional religion, for positive and negative reasons. They needed some distance from customs which hedged in personal freedom with kinship obligations on all sides. The world religions conferred membership of new associations which lent organisation and sanctions to negotiated social relations. In Accra, Islamic brotherhoods controlled much of the intermediate business between state-regulated corporations and the informal economy of the slum. [19] [xxxix] Christians, at least the few Frafra Christians, did not join organisations relevant to their enterprises, such as the Freemasons, Rotary, Lions etc. But they were encouraged to elevate their wives to the position of friend, partner and equal (see Atibila’s story above), as an antidote to the macho complex of public familism and private patriarchy. The idea of two working as one, the ancient but often abused notion of wife as friend, was a recurrent theme in the life histories of several Christian entrepreneurs. Most impersonal written contracts were worthless. But personal relationships are created over time; so that exchange in Nima was largely a learning process. People found out by trial and error what worked for them; and the failure rate was extremely high. Accordingly, although the market economy was what most economists would think of as competitive, ease of entry was severely restricted by the need to develop effective social tactics and techniques of information management. The contrasting cases of Atia and Anaba make it clear that there is no straightforward relationship between successful enterprise and an ability to make friends or engender trust. Anaba, the rich transport entrepreneur, relied on a combination of kinship and contract, while Atia the hustler made trust the cornerstone of his activities. Frafras relied on trust as a last resort, for good reasons. Trust is essential to dealing, as the game theorists know, with their suckers, free-riders and lemons. But the routines of productive enterprise are not easily managed by an ethos of personal freedom. Kinship and contract each offer a durable model for hierarchy and control, parental and legal sanctions respectively. This is why traditional rural society has room only on the margins for achieved relations of friendship and why trust accumulates in the cracks of mass societies organised by states and markets. Trust is central to social life when neither traditional certainties nor modern probabilities hold: in weak states or lawless zones and in the transition to capitalism or its breakdown, especially in the mercantile sphere of circulation where credit is so important. Trust is not particularly relevant to industrial production and division of labour. In other words, trust is the negotiation of risk occasioned by the freedom of others, whom we know personally, to act against our interest in the relative absence of constraints imposed by kinship identity and legal contract. Domination and interest offer a more pervasive and durable basis for enterprise than friendship and trust. It is of some interest that, at this time when state capitalism’s certainties are on the wane, the economists have rediscovered the problem of trust. [xl] If kinship and friendship are in some senses opposed, in several parts of the world, especially the Mediterranean and its offshoots, key social relations are a fusion of the polar types, both obligatory and free, the pseudo-familism of the kinsman/friend: the godfather, the patron and in-laws in general. Something similar is at work in religious brotherhoods and in secret societies where free associates take on the attributes of shared blood and common substance in their rituals. Again, as Durkheim insisted, [xli] contracts rest on a non-contractual element which is prior and irreducible to their logic. Hence capitalist firms do not simply rely on state-made sanctions for exploitation, but often have recourse to ideologies of paternalism and trust in their labour relations. Real economic organisation depends on creative combinations of the types that I have highlighted here. Successful mixtures vary in their situational effectiveness. It is only the intellectuals who believe that the modern economy could ever be founded on rational choice alone or that the simple-minded identities of societies based on kinship have no room for the person or the individual. Ethnography forces us to confront the complexities of society as ordinary people live it. I hope to have shown that the ideas of kinship, contract and trust are powerful guides to our understanding of economic relations; but people like the Frafra migrants I studied some time ago are faced with the need to develop practical strategies which give them a tenuous foothold in the shifting terrain of a world which is always moving on. As the next chapter shows, the static abstractions which underpin most theories of capitalism fail to address the palpable movement manifested in the history of the last century. The main lesson of this section, to be revisited at length in Chapter 5 on the market, is that ideas move when we view them through the activities of living people. Guide to further reading Marx and Engels were a genuine double act. Engels deferred to his partner’s colossal ego; but he was a polymath in his own right. They wrote The Communist Manifesto (note 6) to be widely read and understood. Start there. The German Ideology, taken with Engels’ brilliant ethnography of Manchester in the 1840s, [xlii] provides the theoretical and empirical background. Marx’s Precapitalist Economic Formations (5) gives his overview of economic evolution; and the “Introduction” to Grundrisse [xliii] is perhaps the best short discussion of his method. But there is no substitute for tackling Capital Volume 1 (7). The last section, part 8, is a knockabout history of accumulation before the industrial revolution. The opening chapter is crucial, but in some important respects opaque. In my view, Parts 3-5 on absolute and relative surplus value, some 350 pages, are the most important. I would avoid commentaries which invariably have a slant particular to the author; but Anthony Giddens’s Capitalism and Modern Social Theory, on Marx, Weber and Durkheim, is reliable. [xliv] I also like Ernest Mandel’s Marxist Economic Theory, [xlv] but it is pretty idiosyncratic. At least Marx was a practising journalist. Max Weber’s prose is often impossibly dense and his commentators are, if anything, even more ideological. The General Economic History (8) is by far his most accessible work on capitalism; read Part 4 and especially the final chapter “The evolution of the capitalist spirit” which is more comprehensive than the famous Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (17). Dip into his great work, Wirtschaft und Gesellchaft, in the Roth and Wittich translation, Economy and Society, not the Parsons and Henderson version, Theory of Social and Economic Organization, which is seriously flawed. Reinhard Bendix’s Max Weber: an Intellectual Portrait is the best of the American bowdlerisers of Weber. [xlvi] For John Locke, again it is better to go to the original, Two Treatises of Government (2); but John Dunn’s Locke is a readable short introduction to the man and his philosophy. [xlvii] Macpherson’s The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism has been very influential, [xlviii] but I prefer Caffentzis’s whackier treatment of Locke’s approach to money (4). The literature of economic anthropology is very large. I suggest you start with the four texts I have cited: Gudeman and Rivera’s Conversations in Colombia (18), Parkin’s Giriama ethnography (19), Polly Hill’s masterpiece on Ghanaian cocoa farmers (21) and my own comparative treatment of the West African literature (22). The French Marxist anthropologists are accessible through David Seddon’s translation of several important articles. [xlix] Claude Meillassoux’s seminal Gouro ethnography is not translated, nor is Pierre-Philippe Rey’s magisterial Congo study; but Meillassoux’s Maidens, Meal and Money is available in English. [l] If anyone wants to know more about the Frafras (Tallensi) of Northern Ghana, I recommend the works cited in Note 28, especially Meyer Fortes’s classic The Web of Kinship. The anthropology of enterprise is on the whole not rewarding. The Barth collection (33) is dated but good, as is Clifford Geertz’s Peddlers and Princes. [li] The literature on trust is growing rapidly, as the West rediscovers the virtue of durable human relationships. I recommend the Gambetta volume of essays (36); Fukuyama’s massive tome asks the right questions and makes interesting comparisons, but his sociology is unreliable (26). [1] The silver content of English coins had been reduced by clipping, counterfeit and smuggling to the point where they were no longer a standard likely to be used by international traders. [2] Locke’s own quantity theory of money predicts that a lower supply or velocity of money would reduce market demand and prices. But his priority (as Caffentzis argues convincingly) was to stabilise the infrastructure of a national economy increasingly driven by international expansion. [3] He was instrumental in securing the appointment of Isaac Newton to be Master of the Mint, a post where, in addition to employing his scientific talents to improve the metallic standard of coins, he could pursue counterfeiters and hang them at Tyburn. It is interesting that England’s two greatest intellectuals should have been obsessed with money in this practical way. [4] Clearly America was still a powerful stimulus to the philosophical imagination almost a century after Locke. It is ironic that this example, taken as indicative of primitive exchange, was drawn from the contemporary North American fur trade, where scarcity of cash meant that barter was often an initial source for skins whose commodity value was ultimately determined by demand in a world market whose growth Locke had worked so hard to promote. [5] Hence the strategy frequently adopted by the rulers of agrarian civilisations to grant control of the money complex to pariah minorities (like the Jews in medieval Europe) who lacked political and property rights. As Weber and Polanyi insisted, the market was for a long time kept outside mainstream society. Our period is historically specific for its centrality to the internal functioning of society. [6] The term was popularised by Werner Sombart. [7] The following section is taken largely from an article written with Louise Sperling. [8] The Latin for money, pecunia, is derived from pecus, livestock. [9] A major theme of Chapter 6. Compare Chapter 2 where it was suggested that the main difference between animals and plants was the possession of a brain. [10] C = commodity: M = money; M’ = m prime (more money). [11] West Indian writers, such as C.L.R. James and, most notably, Eric Williams have argued the case for seeing the Atlantic slave trade as the source of Britain’s industrial capital fund. [12] A point made strikingly by Ester Boserup in her pioneering book on Women’s Role in Economic Development. [13] This point has been made in a vigorous and original way by Gudeman and Rivera who argue that Andean peasantries maintain as living institutions the conditions which shaped the historical context of the great texts of the modern economic tradition. [14] Curiously, this phenomenon attracted more attention outside Italy, particularly in America, than within that country. [15] The Frafras whom I studied both at home and as migrants to Southern cities included the Tallensi, subjects of a classic ethnographic study carried out by my Cambridge professor, Meyer Fortes in the 1930s. [16] I was arrested four times during the course of fieldwork in Nima, twice by the police and twice by the army. The only costs I suffered from these arrests were money for bribes and, on one occasion, considerable physical damage. I did not consider the option of staying clean to be viable, at least on the evidence of the first weeks of fieldwork. After that, there was no way back. The problem then became to avoid accumulating material wealth; hence, without really trying, my assumption of the role of the redistributive entrepreneur. [17] The next few pages are a condensation of an article I published in the 1970s entitled “Swindler or public benefactor? The entrepreneur in his community”. [18] This next section is drawn from a much later article, “Kinship, contract and trust: the economic life of migrants in an African city slum”. [19] They did so in ways which have been documented brilliantly for the Hausa trading diaspora by Abner Cohen. [i] C.L.R. James and associates State Capitalism and World Revolution, Charles Kerr, Chicago, 1986 (1950) [ii] John Locke Two Treatises of Government, Cambridge U.P., 1960, p. 301 (original emphasis) [iii] J. Schumpeter History of Economic Analysis, Oxford University Press, London, 1954, pp. 647-8 [iv] G. Caffentzis Clipped Coins, Abused Words and Civil Government: John Locke’s Philosophy of Money, Autonomedia, New York, 1989, p. 92 [v] K. Marx Pre-capitalist Economic Formations, Lawrence and Wishart, London, 1978 [vi] K. Marx and F. Engels The Manifesto of the Communist Party in Marx-Engels Selected Works, Lawrence and Wishart, London, 1968 (1848) [vii] K. Marx Capital: a critique of political economy Volume 1, Lawrence and Wishart, London, 1970 (1867); A. Smith The Wealth of Nations, Methuen, London, 1961 (1776) [viii] M. Weber General Economic History, transaction Books, New Brunswick, NJ, 1981 (1922); K. Polanyi The Great Transformation: the political and economic origins of our time, Beacon Books, Boston, 1944 [ix] F. Fukuyama The End of History and the Last Man, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1992 [x] W. Sombart Der Moderne Kapitalismus, Duncker and Humboldt, Munchen, 1928 [xi] K. Hart and L. Sperling “Cattle as capital”, Ethnos, vol. 52, 1987 [xii] C. Menger Principles of Economics, New York University Press, New York, 1976 (1871), pp. 312-314 [xiii] G. Bannock, R. Baxter and E. Davies The Penguin Dictionary of Economics, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1984 (3rd edition), p. 63 [xiv] C.L.R. James The Black Jacobins, Secker & Warburg, London, 1938; E. Williams Capitalism and Slavery, Deutsch, London, 1964 (1944) [xv] E. Boserup Women’s Role in Economic Development, Allen & Unwin, London, 1970 [xvi] P. Samuelson, Economics. (13th edition), McGraw-Hill, New York, 1989 [xvii] M. Weber The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Unwin, London, 1970 (1904) [xviii] S. Gudeman and A. Rivera Conversations in Colombia: the domestic economy in life and text, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990 [xix] D. Parkin Palms Wine and Witnesses: public spirit and private gain in an African farming community, Intertext, London, 1972 [xx] C. Leys Underdevelopment in Kenya: the political economy of neo-colonialism, Heineman, London, 1975 [xxi] P.Hill Migrant Cocoa Farmers of Southern Ghana, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1963 [xxii] K. Hart The Political Economy of West African Agriculture, Cambridge U.P., Cambridge, 1982 [xxiii] P. Hill Development Economics on Trial, Cambridge U.P., Cambridge, 1986 [xxiv] P.-P. Rey Les Alliances de Classes, Maspero, Paris, 1973 [xxv] C. Sabel and M. Piore The Second Industrial Divide: possibilities for prosperity, Basic Books, New York, 1984; R. Putnam, Making Democracy Work: civic traditions in modern Italy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1994 [xxvi] F. Fukuyama Trust: the social virtues and the creation of prosperity, Hamish Hamilton, London, 1995 [xxvii] K. Hart Migrants and Entrepreneurs: a study of modernisation among the Frafras of Ghana, University of Cambridge, PhD dissertation, 1969 [xxviii] K. Hart “The economic basis of Tallensi social history in the early twentieth century”, Research in Economic Anthropology Vol. 1, JAI Press, Greenwich CT, 1978; M. Fortes The Dynamics of Clanship among the Tallensi, Oxford U.P., London, 1945; The Web of Kinship among the Tallensi, Oxford U.P., London, 1949 [xxix] K. Hart “L’entreprise africaine et l’economie informelle: reflexions autobiographiques” in S. Ellis and Yves Faure eds Entreprises et Entrepreneurs Africains, Karthala et ORSTOM, Paris, 1995 [xxx] K. Hart “Swindler or public benefactor? The entrepreneur in his community” in J. Goody ed Changing Social Structure of Modern Ghana, International African Institute, London, 1975 [xxxi] A. Kamarck The Economics of African Development, Pall Mall, London, 1967, p. 51 [xxxii] T. Parsons The Structure of Social Action: a study in social theory with special reference to a group of recent European writers, Free Press, Glencoe, 1937 [xxxiii] F. Barth ed The Role of the Entrepreneur in Social Change in Northern Norway, Acta Universitatis Bergensis, Series Humaniorum Litterarum, No. 3, 1963 [xxxiv] B. Hoselitz The Progress of Underdeveloped Areas, Chicago U.P., Chicago, Ill., 1952, p. 98 [xxxv] J. Schumpeter The Theory of Economic Development: an inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest and the business cycle, Harvard U.P., Cambridge Mass., 1934 (1912) [xxxvi] K. Hart “Kinship, contract and trust: the economic organisation of migrants in an African city slum” in D. Gambetta ed Trust: making and breaking co-operative relations, Blackwell, Oxford, 1988 [xxxvii] K. Hancock Survey of British Commonwealth Affairs, 1919-1939, volume 2, Oxford U.P., London, 1941, Part 2 [xxxviii] M. Mauss The Gift: the form and reason for exchange in archaic societies, Routledge, London, 1990 (Essai sur le Don, 1925) [xxxix] A. Cohen Custom and Politics in Urban Africa: a study of Hausa migrants in Yoruba towns, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1969 [xl] See note 26 and DasGupta’s contribution to D. Gambetta ed Trust: making and breaking co-operative relations, Blackwell, Oxford, 1988 [xli] E. Durkheim The Division of Labour in Society, Free Press, Glencoe, Ill., 1960 (1933) [xlii] K. Marx and F. Engels The German Ideology, Lawrence and Wishart, London, 1970 (1846-47); F. Engels The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844, Lovell, New York, 1887 [xliii] K. Marx Grundrisse, Vintage Books, New York, 1973 [xliv] A. Giddens Capitalism and Modern Social Theory, Cambridge U.P., Cambridge, 1971 [xlv] E. Mandel Marxist Economic Theory, Merlin, London, 1968 [xlvi] M. Weber Economy and Society (2 vols), G. Roth and C. Wittich eds, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1978; The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, T. Parsons ed, Oxford U.P., New York, 1947; R. Bendix Max Weber: an Intellectual Portrait, Heinemann, London, 1960 [xlvii] J. Dunn Locke, Oxford U.P., London, 1984 [xlviii] C.B. Macpherson The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke, Clarendon, Oxford, 1964 [xlix] D. Seddon ed Relations of Production: Marxist approaches to economic anthropology, Frank Cass, London, 1978 [l] C. Meillassoux Anthropologie Economique des Gouro de Cote d’Ivoire, Mouton, Paris, 1964; C. Meillassoux Maidens, Meal and Money: capitalism and the domestic community, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1981 (Femmes, Greniers et Capitaux, Maspero, Paris, 1975); P.-P. Rey Colonialisme, Neo-Colonialisme et Transition au Capitalisme: exemple de la Camilog au Congo-Brazzaville, Maspero, Paris, 1971 [li] C. Geertz Peddlers and Princes: social development and economic change in two Indonesian towns, Chicago U.P., Chicago, 1963 Post to Twitter Tweet This Post Comment (RSS) | Trackback One Comment 1. free public death records says: August 29, 2009 at 2:01 am free public death records… Even the gurus will agree with what is being said here. I am glad I found it…. Log in to Reply Leave a Reply Click here to cancel reply. You must be logged in to post a comment. * Welcome! cover The two great memory banks are language and money. Exchange of meanings through language and of objects through money are now converging in a single network of communication, the internet. We must learn how to use this digital revolution to advance the human conversation about a better world. Our political task is to make a world society fit for all humanity. * Prickly Pear Pamphlets prickly_logo * Open Anthropology Cooperative [EMBED] Visit Open Anthropology Cooperative * RSS keith@oac + The uniqueness of humanity: a philosophical discussion (video) December 1, 2013 + The anthropology of money and finance: from ethnography to world history September 4, 2013 + The human economy: a strategy in the struggle for happiness July 14, 2013 + An African liberal revolution in the 21st century? July 4, 2013 + The case for an African customs union June 6, 2013 + After the disaster (but before Krugman endorsed Klein's shock doctrine) May 19, 2013 + The Human Economy approach endorsed by Nobel laureate economist aged 102 January 18, 2013 + The limits of Karl Polanyi's anti-market approach in the struggle for economic democracy January 16, 2013 + How the informal economy took over the world October 17, 2012 + Germaine Tillion (1907-2008) on the method of the human sciences August 26, 2012 * OAC Logo [green250x108.png] * Twitter * Categories + Abdul Aziz + America + Anthropology + APE + Audio-visual + Economy + Europe + Guest author + Human economy + Money + Reviews + Teaching + The African Revolution + Uncategorized + World * Meta + Log in + Entries RSS + Comments RSS + WordPress.org Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS). Valid XHTML and CSS. Powered by WordPress and Fluid Blue theme. Skip to Content Home Search this site: _______________ Search * About Us + Who We Are + Object and Principles + How We Are Different + Questions and Answers + FAQ o What is Capitalism? o What is Socialism? o Revolution or Reform? o More FAQ * Publications + Socialist Standard o 2015 o 2014 o 2013 o 2012 o 2011 o 2010 o 2009 o 2008 o 2007 o 2006 o Archive o Subscriptions + Pamphlets + Education o Introductory Articles o Articles for new members o In Depth Articles # Socialism # Economics # Global Economy # Ownership # The State # Resources # The Environment # Politics and Conflict # Religion # History # Society and Culture # Socialist Writers o Study Guides o An A to Z of Marxism + Socialism or Your Money Back + Index * Audio Visual + Capitalism And Other Kids Stuff + Other Videos + Audio * Events * Store * Forum * Members + Rulebook + Email Lists o Spintcom o Spopen o WSM Forum + Groups + Files + Log in * Contact + General enquiries + Information Request + Local Branches * Join Home » What is Capitalism? What is Capitalism? The word capitalism is now quite commonly used to describe the social system in which we now live. It is also often assumed that it has existed, if not forever, then for most of human history. In fact, capitalism is a relatively new social system. [For a brief historical account of how capitalism came into existence a couple of hundred years ago, see Marx and Engels' Communist Manifesto] But what exactly does 'capitalism' mean? Class division Capitalism is the social system which now exists in all countries of the world. Under this system, the means for producing and distributing goods (the land, factories, technology, transport system etc) are owned by a small minority of people. We refer to this group of people as the capitalist class. The majority of people must sell their ability to work in return for a wage or salary (who we refer to as the working class.) The working class are paid to produce goods and services which are then sold for a profit. The profit is gained by the capitalist class because they can make more money selling what we have produced than we cost to buy on the labour market. In this sense, the working class are exploited by the capitalist class. The capitalists live off the profits they obtain from exploiting the working class whilst reinvesting some of their profits for the further accumulation of wealth. This is what we mean when we say there are two classes in society. It is a claim based upon simple facts about the society we live in today. This class division is the essential feature of capitalism. It may be popular to talk (usually vaguely) about various other 'classes' existing such as the 'middle class', but it is the two classes defined here that are the key to understanding capitalism. It may not be exactly clear which class some relatively wealthy people are in. But there is no ambiguity about the status of the vast majority of the world's population. Members of the capitalist class certainly know who they are. And most members of the working class know that they need to work for a wage or salary in order to earn a living (or are dependent upon somebody who does, or depend on state benefits.) The profit motive In capitalism, the motive for producing goods and services is to sell them for a profit, not to satisfy people's needs. The products of capitalist production have to find a buyer, of course, but this is only incidental to the main aim of making a profit, of ending up with more money than was originally invested. This is not a theory that we have thought up but a fact you can easily confirm for yourself by reading the financial press. Production is started not by what consumers are prepared to pay for to satisfy their needs but by what the capitalists calculate can be sold at a profit. Those goods may satisfy human needs but those needs will not be met if people do not have sufficient money. The profit motive is not just the result of greed on behalf of individual capitalists. They do not have a choice about it. The need to make a profit is imposed on capitalists as a condition for not losing their investments and their position as capitalists. Competition with other capitalists forces them to reinvest as much of their profits as they can afford to keep their means and methods of production up to date. As you will see, we hold that it is the class division and profit motive of capitalism that is at the root of most of the world's problems today, from starvation to war, to alienation and crime. Every aspect of our lives is subordinated to the worst excesses of the drive to make profit. In capitalist society, our real needs will only ever come a poor second to the requirements of profit. Capitalism = free market? It is widely assumed that capitalism means a free market economy. But it is possible to have capitalism without a free market. The systems that existed in the U.S.S.R and exist in China and Cuba demonstrate this. These class-divided societies are widely called 'socialist'. A cursory glance at what in fact existed there reveals that these countries were simply 'state capitalist'. In supposedly 'socialist' Russia, for example, there still existed wage slavery, commodity production, buying, selling and exchange, with production only taking place when it was viable to do so. 'Socialist' Russia continued to trade according to the dictates of international capital and, like every other capitalist, state, was prepared to go to war to defend its economic interests. The role of the Soviet state became simply to act as the functionary of capital in the exploitation of wage labour, setting targets for production and largely controlling what could or could not be produced. We therefore feel justified in asserting that such countries had nothing to do with socialism as we define it. In fact, socialism as we define it could not exist in one country alone—like capitalism it must be a global system of society. It is also possible (at least in theory) to have a free market economy that is not capitalist. Such a 'market economy' would involve farmers, artisans and shopkeepers each producing a particular product that they would exchange via the medium of money. There would be no profit-making and no class division—just independent producers exchanging goods for their mutual benefit. But it is doubtful whether such an economy has ever existed. The nearest that may have come to it would have been in some of the early colonial settlements in North America. Some Greens wish to see a return to this kind of economy. We do not think that it is a viable alternative for modern society. Such a system would almost inevitability lead to capital accumulation and profit making—the definitive features of capitalism. [For more detailed accounts of what capitalism is, see Marx's Wage Labour and Capital, Marx's Value, Price and Profit, or Fredy Perlman's The Reproduction of Daily Life.] * ShareThis * PDF version PDF version No. 1325 January 2015 Upcoming Events * West Midlands Regional Branch (Birmingham - 3pm) Sunday, 25 January 2015 - 3:00pm * 'We Are Legion' - Film Night (Head Office - 6pm) Sunday, 25 January 2015 - 6:00pm * Lothian Discussion Group (Edinburgh - 7.30pm) Wednesday, 28 January 2015 - 7:30pm - 9:00pm * Kilmarnock Discussion Group (7pm) Thursday, 29 January 2015 - 7:00pm - 9:00pm * 'Radical Feminism and Communism' (Head Office - 3pm) Sunday, 1 February 2015 - 3:00pm * Lancaster Branch (8.30pm) Sunday, 1 February 2015 - 8:30pm * South London Branch (Clapham - 7pm) Tuesday, 3 February 2015 - 7:00pm * North East Regional Branch (Seaham - 7pm) Tuesday, 3 February 2015 - 7:00pm more Latest From 'Socialism or Your Money Back' Blog * Democracy In Name Only * Capitalism, Inane Gender Differentiation, Increased Profits * Coming In From The Cold In Toronto * Our blame but you pay * Is the grass always greener? * King Abdullah V ISIS * The Price Of A Pill: Big Pharma In India * Not The Normal Davos News - A Corporate Criminal Award * US Rent Increases Double That Of Wage Increases * Winston Churchill: Dead 50 Years - A Look At Some Truths RSS Feed Twitter Facebook Youtube Meetup Follow @officialSPGB Donate to the Socialist Party of Great Britain with PayPal The Socialist Party of Great Britain newsletter Stay informed on our latest news Email: * ____________________ (_) Subscribe (_) Unsubscribe Save Previous issues Syndicate content * About Us * Publications * Audio Visual * Events * Store * Forum * Members * Contact * Join The Socialist Party of Great Britain, 52 Clapham High Street, London, SW4 7UN, UK © 2015 Theme by Dr. Radut. [activity;xsp=197334;ord=1?] IFRAME: //www.googletagmanager.com/ns.html?id=GTM-5V3WHJ [logo_investopedia_black.png] * * Free Annual Reports * Register * Sign in ____________________ [BUTTON Input] (not implemented)_____ Enter Symbol __________ Search ____________________ [BUTTON Input] (not implemented)______ Sign in Register * Dictionary + Active Trading + Forex + Technical Analysis + Brokers + Options + Futures + Personal Finance + Retirement + Acronyms + Accounting + Banking + Bonds * Investing + Investing Basics + Bonds & Fixed Income + Fundamental Analysis + Mutual Funds & ETFs + Economics + Calculators + Tutorials * Markets + Forex + FXTrader + Analysis & Opinions + ETF Center + Sectors + Chart Advisor + Free Tools + Free Annual Reports Logo Free Annual Reports Logo Free Annual Reports * Personal Finance + Life Stages + Credit & Loans + Insurance + Retirement + Home & Auto + Savings + Budgeting + Entrepreneurship + Taxes + Net Worth * Active Trading + Fundamentals + Charts & Patterns + Technical Indicators + Trading Strategies + Brokers + Software + Options & Futures + Chart Advisor * Financial Advisors + Investing & Products + Career Education & Resources + Your Clients + Your Practice + People & Firms * Exam Prep + Continuing Education + Exam Prep Quizzer + FAQs * Tutorials + Active Trading + Forex + Personal Finance + Real Estate + Retirement + Insurance + ETFs + Options/Futures + Bonds + Economics + Markets + Taxes * Articles + Active Trading + Forex + Personal Finance + Real Estate + Retirement + Insurance + ETFs + Options/Futures + Bonds + Economics + Markets + Taxes * Frequently Asked Questions + Active Trading + Forex + Personal Finance + Real Estate + Retirement + Insurance + ETFs + Options/Futures + Bonds + Economics + Markets + Taxes * Slideshows + Investing + Personal Finance + Forex + Active Trading * Video + Definitions + Investing + Personal Finance + Active Trading + Forex + Economics * Calculators + Stock Advice + Free Annual Reports Logo Free Annual Reports Logo Free Annual Reports + Free Guides and Packages + Financial Calculators + Free Newsletters * Chart Advisor Articles * Analysis & Opinions * Simulator * Free Newsletters What Is Money? By Investopedia Staff AAA | Everyone uses money. We all want it, work for it and think about it. If you don't know what money is, you are not like most humans. However, the task of defining what money is, where it comes from and what it's worth belongs to those who dedicate themselves to the discipline of economics. While the creation and growth of money seems somewhat intangible, money is the way we get the things we need and want. Here we look at the multifaceted characteristics of money. (Get A Short-Term Advantage In The Money Market. This investment vehicle is often the perfect stop-gap measure for growing your money.) What is Money? Before the development of a medium of exchange, people would barter to obtain the goods and services they needed. This is basically how it worked: two individuals each possessing a commodity the other wanted or needed would enter into an agreement to trade their goods. This early form of barter, however, does not provide the transferability and divisibility that makes trading efficient. For instance, if you have cows but need bananas, you must find someone who not only has bananas but also the desire for meat. What if you find someone who has the need for meat but no bananas and can only offer you bunnies? To get your meat, he or she must find someone who has bananas and wants bunnies ... The lack of transferability of bartering for goods, as you can see, is tiring, confusing and inefficient. But that is not where the problems end: even if you find someone with whom to trade meat for bananas, you may not think a bunch of them is worth a whole cow. You would then have to devise a way to divide your cow (a messy business) and determine how many bananas you are willing to take for certain parts of your cow. (It can be hard to talk about money with your children, especially when times are tough. Talking About Money When Times Are Tough has some tips to make it easy.) To solve these problems came commodity money, which is a kind of currency based on the value of an underlying commodity. Colonialists, for example, used beaver pelts and dried corn as currency for transactions. These kinds of commodities were chosen for a number of reasons. They were widely desired and therefore valuable, but they were also durable, portable and easily stored. Another example of commodity money is the U.S. currency before 1971, which was backed by gold. Foreign governments were able to take their U.S. currency and exchange it for gold with the U.S. Federal Reserve. If we think about this relationship between money and gold, we can gain some insight into how money gains its value: like the beaver pelts and dried corn, gold is valuable purely because people want it. It is not necessarily useful - after all, you can't eat it, and it won't keep you warm at night, but the majority of people think it is beautiful, and they know others think it is beautiful. Gold is something you can safely believe is valuable. Before 1971, gold therefore served as a physical token of what is valuable based on people's perception. (You don't need an MBA to learn how to save money and invest in your future. Follow 8 Financial Tips For Young Adults, to find out more.) Impressions Create Everything The second type of money is fiat money, which does away with the need to represent a physical commodity and takes on its worth the same way gold did: by means of people's perception and faith. Fiat money was introduced because gold is a scarce resource and economies growing quickly couldn't always mine enough gold to back their money requirement. For a booming economy, the need for gold to give money value is extremely inefficient, especially when, as we already established, value is really created through people's perception. Fiat money, then becomes the token of people's apprehension of worth - the basis for why money is created. An economy that is growing is apparently doing a good job of producing other things that are valuable to itself and to other economies. Generally, the stronger the economy, the stronger its money will be perceived (and sought after) and vice versa. But, remember, this perception, although abstract, must somehow be backed by how well the economy can produce concrete things and services that people want. That is why simply printing new money will not create wealth for a country. Money is created by a kind of a perpetual interaction between concrete things, our intangible desire for them, and our abstract faith in what has value: money is valuable because we want it, but we want it only because it can get us a desired product or service. How is it Measured? Sure, money is the $10 bill you lent to your friend the other day and don't expect back anytime soon. But exactly how much money is out there and what forms does it take? Economists and investors ask this question everyday to see whether there is inflation or deflation. To make money more discernible for measurement purposes, they have separated it into three categories: * M1 – This category of money includes all physical denominations of coins and currency, demand deposits, which are checking accounts and NOW accounts, and travelers' checks. This category of money is the narrowest of the three and can be better visualized as the money used to make payments. * M2 – With broader criteria, this category adds all the money found in M1 to all time-related deposits, savings deposits, and non-institutional money-market funds. This category represents money that can be readily transferred into cash. * M3 – The broadest class of money, M3 combines all money found in the M2 definition and adds to it all large time deposits, institutional money-market funds, short-term repurchase agreements, along with other larger liquid assets. By adding these three categories together, we arrive at a country's money supply, or total amount of money within an economy. How Money is Created Now that we've discussed why and how money, a representation of perceived value, is created in the economy, we need to touch on how the central bank (the Federal Reserve in the U.S.) can manipulate the money supply. Among other things, a central bank has the ability to influence the level of a country's money supply. Let's look at a simplified example of how this is done. If it wants to increase the amount of money in circulation, the central bank can, of course, simply print it, but as we learned, the physical bills are only a small part of the money supply. Another way for the central bank to increase the money supply is to buy government fixed-income securities in the market. When the central bank buys these government securities, it puts money in the hands of the public. How does a central bank such as the Federal Reserve pay for this? As strange as it sounds, they simply create the money out of thin air and transfer it to those people selling the securities! To shrink the money supply, the central bank does the opposite and sells government securities. The money with which the buyer pays the central bank is essentially taken out of circulation. Keep in mind that we are generalizing in this example to keep things simple. (For more information, see the Federal (the Fed) Reserve Tutorial.) Conclusion Remember, as long as people have faith in the currency, a central bank can issue more of it. But if the Fed issues too much money, the value will go down, as with anything that has a higher supply than demand. So even though technically it can create money "out of thin air," the central bank cannot simply print money as it wants. TAGS: Federal Reserve License Content Order Reprints [icon_print.png] You May Also Like Marketplace Related Articles 1. Stock Analysis Is This The Right Way To Invest In Silver? By Dan Moskowitz 2. Economics Evaluate Your Investment Portfolio For ... By Russ Koesterich 3. Economics How Is Europe Affecting The Martkets? By Scott Minerd 4. Bonds & Fixed Income End of Fed's Bond-Buying Program: 7 ... By Mohamed Jalloh 5. Economics Understanding The Treasury Yield Curve ... By Shiv Mehta Trading Center * * * * Subscribe to our Free Newsletters! ____________________________________________________________ Sign Up Learn More » TOP ____________________ [BUTTON Input] (not implemented)_____ Enter Symbol __________ Search * Dictionary: * # * a * b * c * d * e * f * g * h * i * j * k * l * m * n * o * p * q * r * s * t * u * v * w * x * y * z * Content Library * Articles * Terms * Videos * Tutorials * Slideshows * FAQs * Calculators * Chart Advisor * Stock Analysis * Free Annual Reports * Stock Simulator * FXtrader * Exam Prep Quizzer * Net Worth Calculator * Connect With Investopedia * Work With Investopedia * License Content * Advertise With Us * Write For Us * Email Deployment * Contact Us * Careers * INV Sweden ____________________________________________________________ Subscribe © 2015, Investopedia, LLC. All Rights Reserved Terms Of Use Privacy Policy Partners: [061303.asp&cv=2.0&cj=1] Sign Up ____________________ [button_join.png]-Submit Join us on Bolder Giving on Facebook Bolder Giving on LinkedIn Bolder Giving on YouTube Bolder Giving on Twitter More Than Money [arrowspace.png] Issue #29 [arrowspace.png] Home About Us Browse by Issue Search by Topic Contact Money Changes Everything Table of Contents * Book Resources * The Conscious Use of Money * How Does Wealth Affect Children? * Gosford Park * Societal Change: The Donor's Role * Emergence * The Ethics of Wealth * Healing the Wounds of Wealth * The Power Money Always Conveys * Winning Big in the Lottery * Models of Change * Money and Happiness * Money Changes Everything-Or Does It? * Equitable Giving in the Family * Unexpected Vision Quest * Changing the Scorecard * Cashed Out: Lottery winner Curtis Sharp has seen it all and spent it all * Values-based Wealth: * What Does Money Change? * Will Money Change Your Life "Money and Happiness" Changing from the Inside Out The adage "money changes everything" calls to mind a common cultural belief: if we just change the scenery of our lives, things will be better. The grass is always greener "over there." The culture says: money will make you happy. The culture also says: if you're not happy, you need to make a change in some external aspect of your life- change your income, your job, your partner, your neighborhood. We strive to find something outside ourselves that will finally enable us to feel important, safe, wealthy, content, good enough. The truth is, of course, that the grass is rarely greener somewhere else. You might create or experience a change in your life, yet you notice that many of your problems are still there. You get a new job, start a new company, or inherit money, but you soon find the same old frustrations. You begin a new relationship, but after awhile are trapped in old patterns of conflict and resentment. You finally get that increase in income, yet you don't end up with the surplus you had anticipated. (Earn More, Spend More = Still Not Satisfied) You might find yourself saying, "if only" (If only I had never inherited, If only I had made a better career choice, If only I could take some time off) or "I'll be happy when . . . " (I get a bigger house, I lose twenty more pounds, I make the next million). When we hear ourselves using these phrases, they are clues to our own dissatisfaction. We rarely find what we are looking for when we focus solely on changing the external circumstances of our lives. To make any change that is ultimately satisfying, we need to make shifts on the inside that support desired changes on the outside. For example, after years of moving from one company to another, yet never finding one that totally suited me, I became convinced that I would only be happy when I became self-employed. While many aspects of self-employment were appealing to me, there were a number of challenges as well. Because I didn't clearly see my own ambivalence about being self-employed, I walked right into opportunities for self-sabotage. Being selfemployed turned out to be more challenging than I had expected. Although the "highs" were way up there, the lows were equally far in the other direction. It truly tested my mettle. It forced me to grow in ways I never anticipated. Some years later, I am now successfully self-employed and happy in my career. What led me to this place of resolution was resolving my own inner contradictions. The approach I have used is based on the work of Leslie Temple-Thurston, who writes in her book, The Marriage of Spirit, that we are polarized within ourselves around many issues. Our unresolved emotions (about money and other matters) keep us moving from one side of a polarity to another, e.g. happy/sad, secure/insecure, wealthy/poor, contented/restless. For example, if you haven't resolved your own contradictory emotions and beliefs about your spending choices, you might spend lots of money on a luxurious lifestyle, but you're still not happy. So you think, "If this doesn't make me happy, then I'll live simply instead." So you change your lifestyle-- you go in the opposite direction. But you may still not feel fulfilled, because you've only shifted to an opposite polarity. You still haven't resolved your inner ambivalences about your spending and lifestyle choices. No matter which polarity you're playing out in your life, unless you resolve and integrate the opposing feelings within yourself, you'll either get stuck continually re-experiencing the problems associated with that polarity or you'll go in the opposite direction, and that won't make you any happier-and you still won't be fully aligned with your life choices, so you won't be able to harness the power they hold to bring good to the world. Temple-Thurston offers an exercise to integrate these polarities. It has produced amazing results for me, as well as for my coaching clients. The idea behind it is that by making conscious the ambivalences we have inside ourselves, we can integrate them; this not only relieves our emotional tension around a given issue, but things in our "outer" life end up changing, too. We're no longer stuck in our old, unfulfilling or ineffective patterns, because we're changing our lives from the inside out, not vice versa. By Elyse Hope Killoran Elyse Hope Killoran is a professional coach who works with clients to enhance fulfillment in career, finances, and relationships. She is founder of Women's U., the first virtual university for women, and is a mentor coach for Coach University. © 1990-2005, More Than Money, All rights reserved Bolder Giving Visit www.boldergiving.org for other publications and programs that help you explore your full giving potential. Login www.boldergiving.org | 25 Broadway, 9th Fl., New York, NY 10004 Ph: 646.678.4394 #RSS alternate Skip to content WebMD: Better information. Better health. Enter Search Keywords. Use the arrow keys to navigate suggestions. ____________________ Submit Symptoms| Doctors| Health Care Reform * Health A-Z Common Conditions View All + ADD/ADHD + Allergies + Arthritis + Cancer + Cold, Flu & Cough + Depression + Diabetes + Eye Health + Heart Disease + Heartburn/GERD + Pain Management + Sexual Conditions + Skin Problems + Sleep Disorders Featured Topics + Identifying Bugs and Their Bites + Bothered by Yeast Infections? + The Worst Shoes for Your Feet WebMD Symptom Checker Health concern on your mind? See what your medical symptoms could mean, and learn about possible conditions. Get Started Resources + Second Opinion: Read expert perspectives on popular health topics. + Communities: Connect with people like you, and get expert guidance on living a healthy life. + Insurance Guide: Get ready for changes to your health care coverage. + Physician Directory: Find a doctor in your area. WebMD Pain Coach WebMD pain app Track your pain levels, triggers, and treatments. Set goals and get tips with our app for iPhone. * Drugs & Supplements Find Information About: Drugs & Supplements Get information and reviews on prescription drugs, over-the-counter medications, vitamins, and supplements. Search by name or medical condition. + Find or Review a Drug + Find or Review a Vitamin or Supplement + Check for Drug Interactions Drug Basics & Safety + Commonly Abused Drugs + What's Your Medication IQ? + Taking Medications During Pregnancy WebMD Pill Identifier Having trouble identifying your pills? Enter the shape, color, or imprint of your prescription or OTC drug. Our pill identification tool will display pictures that you can compare to your pill. Get Started WebMD My Medicine Save your medicine, check interactions, sign up for FDA alerts, create family profiles and more. Get Started Drug News + Get the Latest Drug Approvals & Alerts + Find FDA Consumer Updates + Sign up to receive WebMD's award-winning content delivered to your inbox. + FDA Approves Diet Pill Belviq + FDA Delays Decision on Blood Thinner Eliquis WebMD Mobile Drug Information App WebMD logo Drug, supplement, and vitamin information on the go. * Living Healthy Featured Content Women with hair wrapped in towel Want luxurious locks? WebMD cuts through the hype to reveal the best kept secrets for healthy hair. Living Healthy Centers View All grilled salmon and vegetables Diet, Food & Fitness + Weight Loss & Diet Plans + Food & Recipes + Fitness & Exercise man and woman smiling Beauty, Balance & Love + Healthy Beauty + Health & Balance + Sex & Relationships + Oral Care women doing yoga Living Well + Women's Health + Men's Health + Aging Well + Teens Featured Topics + BMI Calculator: Get Personalized Results + Portion Size Plate: Easy Serving Size Guide + Your Birth Control Options + 19 Secrets Men Wish Women Knew + Quiz: Weird, Crazy Dreams + Food & Fitness Planner: Personalize Your Weight Loss Plan WebMD Allergy App for iPhone WebMD Allergy App logo Fight allergies with daily forecasts, local alerts, and personalized tips. * Family & Pregnancy Featured Content Family at airport Traveling abroad? Protect yourself and your family by learning which health precautions and vaccines are advised for your destination. Family and Pregnancy Centers pregnant woman Pregnancy + Trying to Conceive + First Trimester + Second Trimester + Third Trimester mom, dad, and baby Parenting + Newborn & Baby + Children's Health + Children's Vaccines + Raising Fit Kids Cat and dog on grass Pets + Healthy Cats + Healthy Dogs Featured Topics + Know the Signs of Early Pregnancy? + Test Your Smarts: What's Safe to Eat When You're Pregnant? + Peek Inside the Womb to See How Baby Grows + Healthy School Lunches + Quiz: Know How to Avoid The Next Toddler Meltdown? + WebMD Vaccine Tracker: Manage Vaccinations for Your Entire Family WebMD Pregnancy App for iPhone WebMD Pregnancy App logo The big day is coming! Get organized and track baby's weekly development. * News & Experts News View All WebMD logo Today's Top Health Headlines WebMD logo Get the Latest Drug Approvals & Alerts + Find FDA Consumer Updates + On The Road Again: FDA Mobile Laboratories + Sign up to receive WebMD's award-winning content delivered to your inbox. WebMD Health Experts and Community Talk to health experts and other people like you in WebMD's Communities. It's a safe forum where you can create or participate in support groups and discussions about health topics that interest you. WebMD Second Opinion Read expert perspectives on popular health topics. WebMD Communities Connect with people like you, and get expert guidance on living a healthy life. WebMD Answers Got a health question? Get answers provided by leading organizations, doctors, and experts. Get Answers WebMD Newsletters closeup of newsletter Sign up to receive WebMD's award-winning content delivered to your inbox. Sign In| Sign Up | Subscribe My WebMD Show Menu * My Tools * My WebMD Pages * My Account * Sign Out FacebookTwitterPinterest WebMD Home next page Health & Balance Center next page Health & Balance Feature Stories Email a Friend Print Article Health & Balance Tools & Resources * 10 Tips to Zap Stress * Sniff, Smile to Stop Stress * 10 Health Myths Debunked * 9 Types of Yoga to Try * Bust Clutter in Your Home * Quick Tips to Reduce Stress Listen to this page using ReadSpeaker Font Size A A A Spend Your Way to Happiness? Money and happiness: 5 ways your spending style matters. By Katherine Kam WebMD Feature Reviewed by Laura J. Martin, MD WebMD Archive “Money can’t buy me love,” the Beatles once sang. But can greenbacks buy a measure of happiness? Yes, psychologists say, but many people don’t know how to spend for maximum happiness. Recommended Related to Mind, Body, Spirit The Natural Home: An Insider's Guide By Monica Michael Willis and Emily Wolahan. Photographed by William P. Steele Use these easy tips and resources to improve indoor air quality and raise the health quotient of your home. Read the The Natural Home: An Insider's Guide article > > “Money is an opportunity for happiness, but it is an opportunity that people routinely squander because the things they think will make them happy often don’t,” says Elizabeth W. Dunn, PhD, associate professor of psychology at Canada's University of British Columbia. As a young academic, Dunn had a personal stake in figuring out how to best spend one’s money. “I went from being a graduate student, making around $20,000 a year, to being a faculty member. While most people don’t think of professors as being wealthy, I suddenly found myself like ‘the nouveau riche,’ with a lot more money than I had previously,” she tells WebMD. Being a psychology researcher, she sought scientifically based advice on how to spend her money -- not in terms of making financial investments, but to boost life satisfaction. “I was surprised to find out there was actually very little research on that topic,” she says. As she delved into the subject, she discovered that people often misjudge purchases on three counts: “People mispredict what will make them happy, how happy it will make them, and how long that happiness will last.” Puddles of Pleasure, Peaks of Presumption Other experts agree with Dunn’s view. Purchases, such as a remodeled bathroom or a new couch, may bestow delight, but the pleasure often vanishes faster than people expect -- “like a springtime puddle evaporates under a stifling summer sun,” says Sonja Lyubomirsky, PhD, a psychology professor at the University of California, Riverside, and author of The How of Happiness: A Scientific Approach to Getting the Life You Want. Take that remodeled bathroom, for example. At first, it’s a joy, but those positive feelings dwindle until the bathroom becomes ordinary and “completely fades into the background of one’s conscious experience," Lyubomirsky says. Furthermore, all those sparkling, new bath fixtures may heighten expectations and desires, creating a “lofty peak of presumption” that drives people to become dissatisfied and strive for more and more, Lyubomirsky says. “After one finishes remodeling one’s bathroom, the living room and bedroom now seem drab by comparison. People’s rising aspirations render rooms eyesores that were previously normal.” 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next Page > Continue reading below... Top Picks * Take the Stress Out of Holiday Travel * Always Tired? Get Your Energy Back * How Naps Are Good for Your Health * Yoga: Health Benefits and Safety Tips * Which Massage Is Best for You? * The Healing Power of Music Further Reading: * Charitable Giving: How Is Your Money Being Spent? * WebMD the Magazine's 2006 Health Heroes * Actor Greg Grunberg Steps Up for Epilepsy * NFL Star Terrell Owens Tackles Alzheimer's Disease * Clay Walker Raises Money for Multiple Sclerosis * Scarlett Johansson Feeds Hungry Children * Actress Jean Smart Battles Brain Cancer * See All Health Philanthropy Topics IFRAME: http://as.webmd.com/html.ng/transactionID=1258362209&tile=264137843&tug =&pug=__&site=2&affiliate=20&hcent=840&scent=&pos=5001&xpg=1674&sec=295 0&au1=1&au2=8|18|17|16|15|14&uri=%2fbalance%2ffeatures%2fcan-money-buy- happiness&artid=091e9c5e80670c67&inst=0&leaf=&cc=10&tmg=&bc=_h16_&mcent =µ= * Health & Balance Home * News & Features * Quizzes * Slideshows * Videos * Reference * Find a Doctor Guide Health & Balance Guide 1 Life Out of Balance? 2 Manage Stress 3 Complementary Treatments Living Healthy Centers * Family & Pregnancy * Healthy Beauty * Living Healthy * Men’s Health * Pet Health * Raising Fit Kids * Sex & Relationships * Teen Health * Women’s Health Top 12 Trends * 1. Benefits of Yoga * 2. Colon Cleanse * 3. How to Relieve Stress * 4. Caffeine * 5. Bee Pollen * 6. Holistic Medicine * 7. Causes of Stress * 8. Cupping * 9. Stress Symptoms * 10. Stress Management * 11. Acupressure Points * 12. Transcendental Meditation Related to Balance * Anxiety & Panic Disorders * Mental Health * Smoking Cessation * Stress Management * Substance Abuse & Addiction * More Related Topics Today on WebMD woman in yoga class Strike a Pose 6 health benefits of yoga. beautiful girl lying down of grass Stressed Out? 10 relaxation techniques to try. mature woman with glass of water 10 Health Myths Debunked Do you really need to drink 8 glasses of water a day? coffee beans in shape of mug Does Caffeine Have Health Benefits? Get the facts. Take your medication Slideshow 10 Health Myths Debunked highlighted colon Article Are Natural Colon Cleanses Necessary? Hungover man Slideshow 12 Myths About Hangovers Welcome mat and wellington boots Slideshow Clean Up the Clutter in Your Home Woman worn out on couch Article 9 Ways to Stop Feeling So Tired Happy and sad faces Quiz Myths and Facts About Your Moods Fingertip with string tied in a bow Article Why Can't I Remember Anything? laughing family Quiz What Makes Us Happy? Special Sections * Slideshow: Bust Clutter Hotspots in Your Home Health Solutions From Our Sponsors * Choose the Right Rinse * Controlling Heart Disease * Lactose Intolerant? * IBS-C Symptoms? * Knee Pain Relief * Brush, Floss & Rinse * Enjoy Dairy Everyday * Managing Diabetes * 21 Days: A New Routine * OA Doctor Answers * Replacing Milk * Supplement FAQs * Frequent Constipation? * Exercise & OA Knee Pain * Managing IBS-C Symptoms More From WebMD: RA Basics|Severe Psoriasis|ED Causes|Blood Sugar Swings|Psoriatic Arthritis|Multiple Sclerosis Symptoms|ADHD in Children|Diabetes Diet Myths Find us on: * * * URAC: Accredited Health Web Site TRUSTe online privacy certification HONcode Seal AdChoices About WebMD Advertise With Us Terms of Use Privacy Policy Sponsor Policy Site Map Careers Contact Us Medscape Reference eMedicineHealth RxList Medscape MedicineNet BootsWebMD WebMD Corporate WebMD Health Services First Aid WebMD Magazine WebMD Health Record WebMD Mobile Newsletters Dictionary Physician Directory ©2005-2015 WebMD, LLC. All rights reserved. WebMD does not provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See additional information. #publisher Menu * Latest * Top 50 * How To * Lists * SUBSCRIBE $1 an issue Skip Advertisement This ad will close in 15 seconds... Finance 13 min read The Basics of Money Management Before you start making money, you've got to figure out how you're going to accept payments, establish payment and credit terms, and manage your finances. This how-to will help. FREE EVENT in Miami, Feb. 4 Money Management Tips for Entrepreneurs Get our weekly Finance newsletter designed for business owners. ____________________ Sign Up Invalid Email Comment James Stephenson How to Determine the Value of Your Pre-Revenue Startup Valuations How to Determine the Value of Your Pre-Revenue Startup Here are the formulas and turns of phrase the experts use to determine what your work is worth. Sam Hogg 5 Ways Women Entrepreneurs Can Overcome the Funding Gap Raising Capital 5 Ways Women Entrepreneurs Can Overcome the Funding Gap Taking advantage of the resources and mentors available can help you overcome the hurdles to financing your startup. Zeynep Ilgaz Mind Over Money: The Brain Chemistry Behind Investing Emotions Mind Over Money: The Brain Chemistry Behind Investing When it comes to making money with investments, it turns out emotions really do count. Elizabeth MacBride Editor's note: This article was excerpted from 202 Services You Can Sell for Big Profits . Getting paid and money management can be tricky business because, in addition to customers, cash flow and managing your accounts properly is what keeps your business humming along. Consequently, getting paid in full and on time, as well as understanding money management, has to become a priority, even if you elect to hire an accountant or bookkeeper to manage the books. You will still need to familiarize yourself with basic bookkeeping and money management principles and activities such as understanding credit, reading bank statements and tax forms, and making sense of accounts receivable and payable. You also have to give careful consideration to the purchase payment options you offer customers, including cash, checks, debit cards, credit cards and online payment options, as well as establishing payment terms and debt collection in the event of nonpayment. Opening a Bank Account Once you've chosen a name and registered your business, you will need to open a commercial bank account. Setting up a business bank account is easy. Start by selecting the bank you want to work with--think small-business-friendly--and call to arrange an appointment to open an account. There's not much more required than that. However, when you go, make sure you take personal identification as well as your business name registration papers and business license, because these are usually required to open a commercial bank account. The next step will be to deposit funds into your new account (even $100 is okay). If your credit is sound, also ask the bank to attach a line of credit to your account, which can prove very useful when making purchases for the business or during slow sales periods to cover overhead until business increases. Also be sure to ask about a credit card merchant account, debit account, and other small business services. Bookkeeping When it comes time to set up your financial books, you have two options--do it yourself or hire an accountant or bookkeeper. You might want to do both by keeping your own books and hiring an accountant to prepare year-end financial statements and tax forms. If you opt to keep your own books, make sure you invest in accounting software such as Quickbooks or Quicken because they're easy to use and makes bookkeeping almost enjoyable. Most accounting software programs allow you to create invoices, track bank account balances and merchant account information, and keep track of accounts payable and receivable. If you're unsure about your bookkeeping abilities even with the aid of accounting software, you may wish to hire a bookkeeper to do your books on a monthly basis and a chartered accountant to audit the books quarterly and prepare year-end business statements and tax returns. To find an accountant or bookkeeper in your area, you can contact the U.S. Association of Chartered Accountants or the American Institute of Professional Bookkeepers . In Canada, you can contact the Chartered Accountants of Canada or the Canadian Bookkeepers Association . If you're only washing windows on weekends to earn a few extra bucks, there's little need for accounting software or accountant services. Simply invest in a basic ledger and record all business costs and sales. Since you are doing it on your own, be sure to use a commonsense approach when calculating how much to invest in your business vs. expected revenues and profits. Also remember to keep all business and tax records in a dry and secure place for up to seven years. This is the maximum amount of time the IRS and Revenue Canada can request past business revenue and expense information. Accepting Cash, Checks and Debit Cards In today's super-competitive business environment, you must provide customers with many ways to pay, including cash, debit card, credit card and electronic cash. There is a cost to provide these payment options--account fees, transaction fees, equipment rental and merchant fees based on a percentage of the total sales value. But these expenses must be viewed as a cost of doing business in the 21st century. You can, however, reduce fees by shopping for the best service with the best prices. Not all banks, merchant accounts and payment processing services are the same, and fees vary widely. You can also check with small business associations such as the chamber of commerce to see if they offer member discounts; it's not uncommon to save as much as 2 percent on credit card merchant fees. Just remember, consumers expect choices when it comes time to pay for their purchases, and if you elect not to provide these choices, expect fewer sales. Cash is the first way to get paid, which is great because it's liquid and there's no processing time required. As fast as the cash comes in, you can use it to pay bills and invest in business-building activities to increase revenues and profits. The major downside is that cash is risky because you could get robbed or lose it. In cases like that, collecting from your insurance company could prove difficult if there's no paper transaction as proof. Even if you prefer not to receive cash, there are people who will pay in cash, so get in the habit of making daily bank deposits during daylight hours. Also invest in a good-quality safe for cash storage for times when you cannot get to the bank. If you're running a service business, one the most popular way people still pay for services is with a check. You have to take a few precautions to ensure you don't get left holding a rubber check, especially when dealing with new clients. Ask to see a photo ID and write the customer's driver's license number on the check. If the amount of the check exceeds a few hundred dollars, ask the buyer to get the check certified or pay with a bank draft instead, especially if the client is new to your business. Also get in the habit of checking dates and dollar amounts to make sure they are right. I have been caught a few times with wrong dates and dollar amounts and it can be time-consuming to have to get a new check because of a simple error. Debit cards are another option, but to accept them, you will need to buy or rent a debit card terminal. Most banks and credit unions offer business clients debit card equipment and services. The processing equipment will set you back about $40 per month for a terminal connected to a conventional telephone line and about $100 per month for a cellular terminal, plus the cost of the telephone line or cellular service. There is also a transaction fee charged by the bank and payable by you every time there is a debit card transaction, which ranges from 10 cents to 50 cents per transaction, based on variables such as dollar value and frequency of use. Opening a Credit Card Merchant Account Many consumers have replaced paper money altogether in favor of plastic for buying goods and services. In fact, giving your customers the option to pay for purchases with a credit card is often crucial to success. This is especially true if you plan to do business on the web because credit cards and electronic cash are used to complete almost all web sales and financial transactions. To offer customers credit card payment options, you will need to open a credit card merchant account. Get started by visiting your bank or credit union or by contacting a merchant account broker such as 1st American Card Service , Cardservice International or Merchant Account Express to inquire about opening an account. Providing your credit is sound, you will run into few obstacles. If your credit is poor, you may have difficulties opening a merchant account or have to provide a substantial security deposit. If you are still unsuccessful, the next best option is to open an account with an online payment service provider, which is discussed in the next section. The advantages of opening a credit card merchant account enabling you to accept credit card payments are numerous. In fact, studies have proven that merchants who accept credit cards can increase sales by up to 50 percent. Not to mention that you can accept credit card payments online, over the telephone, by mail and in person, as well as sell services on an installment basis by obtaining permission to charge your customer's credit card monthly or per agreement. Of course, all these benefits come at a cost, especially when you consider that you'll have to pay an application fee, setup fee, purchase or rent processing equipment and software, pay administration and statement fees, and pay processing and transaction fees ranging from 2 to 8 percent on total sales volume. Once again, these fees must be viewed as the cost of doing business. Online Payment Services Online payment services allow people and businesses to exchange currency electronically over the internet. These services are very popular with consumers and merchants. PayPal is one of the more popular online payment services with more than 40 million members in 45 countries, offering personal and business account services. Both types of accounts allow funds to be transferred electronically among members, but only the business account enables merchants to accept credit card payments for goods and services. The advantages of online payment services are that they're quick, easy and cheap to open, regardless of your credit rating or anticipated sales volumes, and you can receive payment from any customer with an e-mail account. You can have the funds deposited directly into your account, have a check issued and mailed, or leave funds in your account to draw on using your debit card. The only real disadvantage is that most services redirect your customers to their website to complete the transaction. This can confuse people who in some cases will abandon the purchase. Nonetheless, the advantages of online payment services far outweigh any disadvantages. Establishing Payment Terms Every small-business owner also needs to establish a payment-terms policy. Although you certainly want to standardize the way you get paid, at the same time you will also have to be flexible enough to meet clients' needs on an individual basis. Setting payment terms covers deposits, progress payments and extending credit. It's important to establish clear, written payment terms with clients prior to providing services or delivering product. Your payment terms should be printed on your estimate forms, included in formal contracts and work orders, and printed on your final invoices and monthly account statements. Securing Deposits If you're run a service business, you have to get in the habit of asking clients for a deposit prior to providing services, especially if the work also involves product sales that have to be paid for by you in advance. In this case, the deposit should be for at least the value of the materials. If you're supplying labor only, try to secure a deposit of at least one-third to one-half of the total value of the contract in advance of providing any services. Your order form or contract should have the deposit information clearly stated. Information on canceled orders or contracts and your refund policy should also be on your forms. Securing a deposit is your best way of ensuring that, at minimum, basic out-of-pocket costs are covered should the customer cancel the job or contract. Progress Payments Progress payments are also a way to ensure that you do not leave yourself open to financial risk. The key to successfully securing progress payments is to prearrange your contract and payment terms. Agree on the amount that will be due at various stages of the project. You can use percentages to calculate the progress payments, such as 25 percent deposit, 25 percent upon delivery of any materials, 25 percent upon substantial completion, and the balance at completion or within 30 days of substantial completion. Or you may arrange for more concrete progress payments based on indicators that are relevant to the specific scope of work, the job or the services provided. Regardless of the system you use, progress payments on larger jobs can dramatically lessen your exposure to financial risk. Extending Credit In most cases there's no need to extend credit to consumers unless you deliver a service such as pest control that's billed monthly or a major contract that is completed in stages. As a general rule, when a transaction is complete you should be paid in full. However, in the case of business-to-business sales, commercial clients will generally want some type of credit on a revolving-account basis, such as 30, 60, 90 or sometimes 120 days after delivery of the product or completion of the service. Ideally, you want to be paid as quickly as possible, so you might want to offer a 2-percent discount if invoices are paid within one week. And if you do extend credit, make sure to conduct a credit check first, especially when large sums of money are at stake. There are three major credit-reporting agencies serving the United States and Canada: Trans Union, Equifaxand Experian. All three credit bureaus compile and maintain credit files on just about every person, business and organization that has ever applied for credit. Debt Collection No matter how careful you are when it comes to extending credit privileges to customers, once in a while you will not be paid on time or at all. What can you do to get paid? The first rule of getting paid is to keep the lines of communication open with your delinquent client, and keep the pressure on to get paid through the use of nonthreatening telephone calls, letters and personal visits. You cannot legally intimidate clients into paying you, but you can explain why it is in their best interest to pay you--namely, to keep your business relationship intact, that nonpayment can hurt their credit rating or that you may sue them if they do not pay. Another option is to hire a collection agency to collect the outstanding debt. Collection agencies generally charge a percentage of the total amount owed as their fee, which can range up to as much as 50 percent. The Association of Credit and Collection Professionalsis a good starting point for finding a collection agency to work with. Your final option is to take the delinquent account to small-claims court, but remember that small-claims courts have limits as to how much you can sue for in your state or province, ranging from $1,500 to $25,000. Filing fees vary by state and province as well, and these must be paid upfront. But if you win, the fees are added to your award. As a rule of thumb, small-business owners that take people to court for nonpayment generally represent themselves, as the amount of the potential award is usually small and doesn't justify lawyers' fees and expenses. Even if you win, you will not necessarily be paid the amount you're awarded. You may win a judgment, but still have to chase the defendant through garnishment of income or seizure of assets to get paid. You can learn more about the small-claims court process and filing fees by contacting your local courthouse. James Stephenson invests his 15 years of small business, marketing and sales experience into his books. He has started and operated numerous successful home based businesses, and is the author of Ultimate Start-Up Directoryand Ultimate Small Business Marketing Guide, as well as the 202 Series. Powered by Livefyre View Comments (0) ____________________ How To Cash Flow Finance How to Determine the Value of Your Pre-Revenue Startup Here are the formulas and turns of phrase the experts use to determine what your work is worth. 5 Ways Women Entrepreneurs Can Overcome the Funding Gap Taking advantage of the resources and mentors available can help you overcome the hurdles to financing your startup. Mind Over Money: The Brain Chemistry Behind Investing When it comes to making money with investments, it turns out emotions really do count. Box Raises IPO Share Price, Valuation Jumps to $1.67 Billion The company's biggest shareholders include venture capital firms Draper Fisher Jurvetson, U.S. Venture Partners and Coatue Management. What You Need to Know About Credit Lines Our expert tells whether you need a line of credit and how big that line should be. You Think Your Startup Is Worth How Much? Here are five ways to defend your valuation to investors. Smart Jewelry Startup Ringly Cinches $5.1 Million in New Funding Andreessen Horowitz led the Series A round for Ringly, which makes rings that discretely flash and vibrate to signify smartphone notifications. Here's How to Grab an Investor's Attention and Land Funding In an environment where many startups are seeking funding but few get it, entrepreneurs need to know how to stand out. 5 Regulatory Issues That Could Affect Your Business in 2015 Last year was a busy one but even more changes are on the horizon this year. Is Seeking Angel Investment a Realistic Goal for Your Startup? Do an honest self-assessment and answer these four critical questions first. Why Venture Capitalists Are Turning to Crowdfunding These platforms let potential investors screen startups and do their due-diligence check in a convenient, standardized fashion. Google, Fidelity Invest $1 Billion in SpaceX to Spread Internet Access Across the Globe The deal would reportedly value SpaceX at roughly $10 billion. A Startup Founded by Former NASA Scientists Just Landed $95 Million The San Francisco-based private company's list of investors include SpaceX backer Draper Fisher Jurvetson and Russian billionaire Yuri Milner. Home Improvement Startup Porch Raises $65 Million at $500 Million Valuation The 16-month-old company plans to allocate funds towards enhancing its new mobile app. 5 Things Business Owners Should Keep in Mind With Succession Planning Being properly prepared puts the company leader in the best vantage point even if a sale is not immediately on the horizon. NextTop Loading Company Advertise Brand Licensing Contact Us Staff Entrepreneur Innovation Partner Events Growth Conference Products Business Books Reprints & Licensing eServices Classifieds International Editions China Middle East Mexico Philippines South Africa Follow Entrepreneur Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Google+ Pinterest Instagram YouTube Tumblr RSS Edition: February 2015 Subscribe Now Gift Subscriptions Subscriber Services Digital Editions iOS | Android | Kindle Copyright © 2015 Entrepreneur Media, Inc. All rights reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Site Map E Logo Home Sections * Latest * Top 50 * How To * Lists * Leadership * Growth & Strategy * Marketing * Technology * Social Media * Finance * Entrepreneurs * Starting a Business * Franchises * Magazine More * Tools & Services * Video * Entrepreneur Expo * Newsletters * Bookstore * Ask Entrepreneur About Us * Contact Us * Advertise * Reprints & Permissions * Privacy Policy * Terms of Use © 2015 Entrepreneur Media, Inc. #publisher * Subscribe Subscribe * Sign In Link your subscription * * Cover of current issue Subscribe now The New Yorker * Sign in * * Link your subscription * TNY Store * * F * T * G+ * Home * News * Culture * Books & Fiction * Science & Tech * Business * Humor * Magazine * Video * Archive * Subscribe Subscribe to The New Yorker ____________________ Submit Search * Search Close Annals of Argot August 4, 2014 Issue Money Talks Learning the language of finance. By John Lanchester * * * * Email * Print CV1_TNY_08_04_14Chast.indd Table of Contents When it comes to discussing money, incomprehension is a form of consent. When it comes to discussing money, incomprehension is a form of consent. Credit Illustration by Oliver Munday. The most important mystery of ancient Egypt concerned the annual inundation of the Nile floodplain. The calendar was divided into three seasons linked to the river and the agricultural cycle it determined: akhet, or the inundation; peret, the growing season; and shemu, the harvest. The size of the harvest depended on the size of the flood: too little water, and there would be famine; too much, and there would be catastrophe; just the right amount, and the whole country would bloom and prosper. Every detail of Egyptian life was shaped by the flood. Even the tax system was based on the level of the water, which dictated how successful farmers would be in the subsequent season. Priests performed complicated rituals to divine the nature of that year’s flood and the resulting harvest. The religious élite had at their disposal a rich, emotionally satisfying mythological system; a subtle language of symbols which drew on that mythology; and a position of unchallenged power at the center of their extraordinarily stable society, one that remained in an essentially static condition for thousands of years. But the priests were cheating, because they had something else, too: Nilometers. These were devices that consisted of large, permanent measuring stations, with lines and markers to predict the level of the annual flood, situated in temples to which only priests and rulers were granted access. Added to accurate records of flood patterns dating back for centuries, Nilometers were a necessary tool for control of Egypt. They helped give the priests and the ruling class much of their authority. The world is full of priesthoods. On the one hand, there are the calculations that the pros make in private; on the other, elaborate ritual and language, designed to bamboozle and mystify and intimidate. To the outsider, the realm of finance looks a lot like the old Nile game. In The Economist, not long ago, I read about a German bank that had some observers worried. The journalist thought that the bank would be O.K., and that “holdings of peripheral euro-zone government bonds can be gently unwound by letting them run off.” What might that mean? There’s something kooky about the way the metaphor mixes unwinding and holding and running off, like the plot of a screwball comedy. It’s the same when you hear money people talk about the effect of QE2 on M3, or the supply-side impact of some policy or other, or the effects of bond-yield retardation or of a scandal involving forward-settling E.T.F.s, or M.B.S.s, or subprime loans and REITs and C.D.O.s and C.D.S.s. You are left wondering whether somebody is trying to con you, or to obfuscate and blather so that you can’t tell what’s being talked about. During the recent credit crunch, many suspected that the terms for the products involved were deliberately obscure: it was hard to take in the fact that C.D.S.s were on the verge of bringing down the entire global financial system when you’d never even heard of them until about two minutes before. Sometimes the language of finance really is obscure, and does hide the truth. The 2008 implosion featured many such terms, epitomized by financial instruments with names like “mezzanine R.M.B.S. synthetic C.D.O.” More often, though, it’s complicated because the underlying realities are complicated. The lack of transparency isn’t necessarily sinister, and has its parallel in other fields—in the world of food and wine, for instance. The French word baveuse means, literally, “drooling,” which, in the context of food, we would all agree, is not a good look. Baveuse, though, is also used to describe the texture of a perfect omelette, where the outside is cooked and the inside is set but still faintly runny. It’s a useful term to know, because it helps you to recognize the thing more easily, but the cost is that you can talk about it only with other people who also know the term. The language of money works like that, too. It is potent and efficient, but also exclusive and excluding. Explanations are hard to hold on to, because an entire series of them may be compressed into a phrase, or even a single word. When I was growing up, my father worked for the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation. His kind of banking wasn’t at all the fancy go-go modern investment banking that wrecked the global financial system in 2008. It involved lending to small businesses to get them started. At home, my father couldn’t bear to talk about money; his own father had been the type of control freak who uses money to express that control. If I brought up the question of my allowance, it appeared to cause him actual physical pain. On the other hand, when the subject was at one remove, he was vivacious and funny at telling stories and explaining how things worked, so much so that, forty years later, some of the things he said still make me smile. When he first joined the bank, it had a telegraphic codebook for communicating with the head office, in Hong Kong. The codebook quoted a typical message: “The marketplace is dominated by small Manchurian bears.” Dad explained that the message indicated the influence of pessimistic small-scale investors who were either based in Manchuria or had made investments there. What I liked was the image of those bears, which I imagined were like the small bears in a Tintin book, causing the market stallholders to flee in terror as they rampaged among the carts and awnings, on a furious quest for nuts and honey. Even as a child, I was struck by the fact that the decoded phrase itself was in need of further decoding. But the fact that my father worked in the world of money gave me a sense that it was, and is, comprehensible. Many people don’t have that advantage. They feel put off or defeated by anything having to do with money and economics. It’s almost as if they didn’t have permission to understand it. I did have permission to understand it, if I wanted to, and ten or so years ago, while working on a novel about contemporary London, I began to teach myself how. One of the things that happens to you—or, at any rate, happened to me—as a novelist is that you become increasingly preoccupied with this question: What’s the story behind the evident story? In my case, the story behind the story turned out to concern money. I realized that you can’t really write a novel about London and ignore the City—London’s financial center—because finance is so integral to the place that London has become. I started to grow more curious about the economic forces behind the surface realities of life. I wrote articles on Microsoft, on Walmart, and on Rupert Murdoch. I came to think that there was a gap in the culture: most of the writing on these subjects was done either by business journalists who thought that everything about the world of business was great or by furious opponents from the left who thought that everything about it was so terrible that all that was needed was rageful denunciation. Both sides missed the complexities, and therefore the interest, of the story. That was how I ended up getting my education in the language of money—by following the subject in order to write about it. It wasn’t a crash course. For years, I read the financial papers and pages, and kept up with the economic news. Every time I didn’t understand a term, I’d Google it or turn to one of the books I was accumulating on the subject. Take the earlier example of the German bank and The Economist ’s analysis that “holdings of peripheral euro-zone government bonds can be gently unwound by letting them run off.” What that phrase really means is this: the bank owns too much debt from euro-zone countries like Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland, but, rather than sell it off, the bank waits for the loan period of the debt to come to an end, and then doesn’t buy any more of it. In this way, the amount of debt owned by the bank gradually decreases over time, instead of shrinking quickly after a selloff. In short, the holdings will be gently unwound by letting them run off. Money people don’t need to explain that terminology to themselves, or to anyone to whom they’re in the habit of speaking. As for everyone else—you’ve already lost them. What often vexes the language of money is something I’ve come to call “reversification”—a process by which words take on a meaning that is the opposite of, or at least very different from, their initial sense. Consider the term “hedge fund.” It baffles outsiders, because it’s very hard to understand what these Bond villains, as hedge-funders are in the public imagination, have to do with hedges. The word “hedge” began its life in economics as a term for setting limits on a bet, and showed up in that sense in the prologue to the Duke of Buckingham’s 1671 play “The Rehearsal,” a parody of the Restoration fashion for heroic moralistic drama: “Now, Critiques do your worst, that here are met; / For, like a Rook, I have hedg’d in my Bet.” The word “rook” is being used in the now obsolete sense of a cheat or sharpster. The idea is that, by putting a hedge around a bet, clever gamblers can delimit the size of their potential losses, just as a real hedge delimits the size of a field. At its simplest, a hedge is created when you make a bet and at the same time make another bet on the other side of a possible outcome. Say that at the start of the season you’ve made a bet that the Green Bay Packers will get to the Super Bowl, at odds of twenty to one. You put down ten bucks. The team advances to the conference championship, where it’s playing the San Francisco 49ers. At this point, you decide to hedge your bet by putting ten dollars on the 49ers, who are three-to-one favorites to win the game. You’re guaranteed a profit, whatever the outcome. Cartoon “No coal here, either—but you never know until you look.”Buy the print » The classic hedge-fund technique, created in 1949 by Alfred Winslow Jones, a sociologist turned investment manager, developed a more sophisticated version of the gambling strategy. Funds like his employed mathematical analyses to bet on prices going both up and down in ways that are supposedly certain to produce a positive outcome. This is “long-short,” the textbook hedge-fund method. But many hedge funds don’t follow such hedging strategies. A hedge fund, as the term is used today, refers to a lightly regulated pool of private capital, one that is almost always doing something exotic—because if it weren’t exotic the investors could benefit from the investment strategy much more cheaply somewhere else. There will be a “secret sauce” of some sort, usually a complicated set of mathematical algorithms meant to insure better returns than the market in general delivers. Hedge funds defend the fact that they’re so lightly regulated on the ground that access to them is restricted to people who know what they’re doing and can afford to lose their money. They’re expensive, too: a standard fee is “2 and 20”; that is, each year you’re charged two per cent of the money you’ve invested in the fund, and also twenty per cent of any profit above an agreed-upon benchmark. But what these funds typically aren’t is hedged. Most hedge funds fail: their average life span is about five years. Out of an estimated seventy-two hundred hedge funds in existence at the end of 2010, seven hundred and seventy-five failed or closed in 2011, as did eight hundred and seventy-three in 2012, and nine hundred and four in 2013. This implies that, within three years, around a third of all funds disappeared. The over-all number did not decrease, however, because hope springs eternal, and new funds are constantly being launched. A hedge is a physical thing. It turned into a metaphor; then into a technique; then the technique became more sophisticated and more and more complicated; then it turned into something that can’t be understood by the ordinary referents of ordinary language. And that is the story of how a hedge, setting a limit to a field, became what it is today: a largely unregulated pool of private capital, often using enormous amounts of leverage and borrowing to multiply the size of its bets. This is reversification in its full glory. So is “securitization.” A good instinctive guess would be that the word has something to do with security or reliability, with making things safer. Not so. Securitization is the process of turning something—and, in the world of finance, this could be pretty much anything—into a security, a financial instrument that can be traded as an asset. Mortgages are securitized, car loans are securitized, insurance payments are securitized, student debt is securitized. In 2010, during Greece’s economic crisis there was talk that the government might try to securitize future revenue from ticket sales at the Acropolis. Investors would hand over a lump of cash in return for an agreed-upon yield; in this case, the money to repay the loan would come from tourists forking over cash for the privilege of wandering around the ancient monument. Another example of an exotic security is the Bowie Bond. In 1997, future royalties from David Bowie’s assets were sold to raise a lump sum of fifty-five million dollars. In effect, Bowie was saying, “I have a lot of money coming in over the next ten years from my back catalogue, but I’d rather have the cash now.” If Ziggy Stardust wants to stock up on shiny jumpsuits and needs his fifty-five million now, why not? Indeed, there is nothing inherently malign about securitization, any more than there is about most of the processes invented by modern finance. But securitization, like other financial maneuvers, can be put to malign use. In the run-up to the credit crunch, certain kinds of loans began to be securitized on an industrial scale. By now, the story is familiar. An institution lends money to a range of different borrowers. Then the institution bundles the loans into securities—say, a pool of ten thousand mortgage loans, paying out an interest rate of six per cent—and sells those securities to other financial institutions. The bank that initially made the loans no longer gets the revenue from its lending. Instead, that money flows to the people who bought the mortgage-backed securities, and the institution that lent the money no longer has to care whether the borrower will be able to pay it back: the basic premise of banking—that you lend money only to people who can repay it—has been undermined. In addition, the risk of that loan, instead of being concentrated in the place that it came from, has been spread around the financial system, as people buy and trade the resulting security. In the credit crunch, securitization fuelled both “predatory lending,” in which people were loaned money they couldn’t possibly pay back, and the uncontrollable dispersal and magnification of the risks arising from those bad debts. There’s no way of knowing any of this from looking at the word “securitization.” That’s reversification at its least appealing. Reversification is just as often at work with words whose meaning seems plain. That’s the case with “austerity,” perhaps the strangest piece of political-economic vocabulary to have come along in my lifetime. In everyday life, “austere” means simple, strict, severe. But that general quality doesn’t really refer to anything tangible, which is a problem, since what we’re talking about here is spending cuts. Funds are either cut or they aren’t. The word “austerity” reflects an attempt to make something moral-sounding and value-based out of specific reductions in government spending that result in specific losses to specific people. For people who don’t use any of the affected services—for the rich, that is—these cuts may have no downside. They’re a case of you lose, we win. The images and metaphors keep doing headstands. To “bail out” is to slop water over the side of a boat. That verb has been reversified so that it means an injection of public money into a failing institution; taking something dangerous out has turned into putting something vital in. “Credit” has been reversified: it means debt. “Inflation” means money being worth less. “Synergy” means sacking people. “Risk” means precise mathematical assessment of probability. “Noncore assets” means garbage. These are all examples of how the process of innovation, experimentation, and progress in the techniques of finance has been brought to bear on language, so that words no longer mean what they once did. It is not a process intended to deceive, but, like the Nilometer, it confines knowledge to a priesthood—the priesthood of people who can speak money. Using the language of money does not imply acceptance of any particular moral or ideological framework. Money person A and money person B, talking about the effect of, for instance, quantitative easing, may have different economic philosophies. Person A might be a free-spending Keynesian who thinks that quantitative easing—the government’s buying back its own debt from banks, companies, and sometimes individuals in order to increase the money supply—is the only thing saving the economy from an apocalyptic meltdown. Person B might think that it’s a formula for ruin, is already wreaking havoc on savers, and is on course to turn the United States into a version of Weimar Germany. They completely disagree about everything they’re discussing, and yet they have a shared language that enables them to discuss it with concision and force. A shared language doesn’t necessarily imply a shared viewpoint; what it does is make a certain kind of conversation possible. This kind of conversation is worth having. The neoliberal consensus in economics presents itself as a set of self-evident laws. Low tax rates, a smaller state, a business-friendly climate, free markets in international trade, rising levels of inequality and an ever-bigger gap between the rich, especially the super-rich, and the rest—supposedly, these are just the facts of economic life if you want your economy to grow and your society to become richer. Many people are eager to tell us that there is no alternative to the existing economic order, that we have to accept things as they are. That isn’t true. Marx was right when he said that “men make their own history, but not under circumstances of their own choosing.” We didn’t create the world that we inherited, but we don’t have to leave it the way we found it. My father once told me about the first colleague he ever knew to go to jail. This was in the fifties, in Calcutta, where Dad was his bank’s accountant, a rank roughly equivalent to deputy. A junior banker was found to have been stealing. He did it not to be rich but to fund a life style that was slightly more lavish than he could afford, so that he could have parties at which he served imported spirits and cigarettes, and slapped his guests on the back, and said, “Only the best for my friends, none of that Indian rubbish.” “Every case I’ve known of people stealing from the bank has been like that,” my father said. “People wanting the thing they can’t quite have—that causes more trouble than anything else.” I think he’d have said that this phenomenon was now operating across entire societies, as people tried to cure rising income inequality by taking on debt. That life you can’t quite have? Borrow, and it shall be yours. My father, who had his generation’s horror of debt, would have shaken his head at that. He would have pointed out that when the finance industry says “credit,” what it really means is “debt.” If you don’t know that, you are likely to get into trouble. The language of money is a powerful tool, and it is also a tool of power. Incomprehension is a form of consent. If we allow ourselves not to understand this language, we are signing off on the way the world works today—in particular, we are signing off on the prospect of an ever-widening gap between the rich and everyone else, a world in which everything about your life is determined by the accident of who your parents are. Those of us who are interested in stopping that from happening need to learn how to measure the level of the Nile for ourselves. ♦ * * * * Email John Lanchester has written four novels and a memoir. His new book, “How to Speak Money,” came out earlier this month. * Bio * All work & Sign up to get the best of The New Yorker delivered to your inbox every day Sign up for newsletters E-mail address ____________________ (Submit) Sign up * [_] * [_] * [_] Related Stories A Reporter at Large Street Cop By Nicholas Lemann Babel Dept. Eurenglish 101 By Lauren Collins You Might Like Subscribe to The New Yorker * About Us * FAQ * Customer Care * Cartoon Bank * On The Town * RSS * Contact Us * The New Yorker Store * Careers * Reprints/Permissions * Press * The New Yorker Media Kit Condé Nast Digital [Subscribe to a magazine....] [Other Condé Nast sites....] Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement (effective January 1, 2014) and Privacy Policy (effective January 1, 2014). Your California Privacy Rights The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast. Ad Choices Ad Choices Subscribe to The New Yorker Link your subscription Link your subscription Have a login? Sign In Already have a login? Sign in Link Your Subscription Have a login? Sign in #alternate US News RSS Feed * Rankings & Advice + Education + Health + Money + Travel + Cars + Law Firms * News * U.S. News Home [vertical-logo.png] money Facebook Twitter Money Rankings & Advice * Home * Retirement * Personal Finance + My Money Blog + The Frugal Shopper Blog + Alpha Consumer Blog + The Smarter Investor + Reboot Your Finances * Careers * Investing * Real Estate * Powered by US News Our Financial Future: How Banking and Money Will Change No more paper money by 2043? From 3-D banking to digital currency, a look at commerce in the future. Technology in the hands of businessmen By Geoff Williams Sept. 20, 2013 | 10:25 a.m. EDT + More * * * * * * * In at least one Texas bank and one Ohio credit union, 3D video banking is currently undergoing testing, according to TheFinancialBrand.com, a website for bank and credit union marketing executives. Three-dimensional video banking is similar to a consumer video conference with a bank representative – only in this case, the executive looks like a living, breathing person sitting across from you. Thanks to theater surround sound, the representative also sounds as if they're in the same room. And since the consumer is interacting with a real person and not an automated hologram, the experience apparently isn't much different than the real thing. Banking and managing money isn't what it used to be. The 1970s and 1980s brought us the rise of the ATM. Consumers became acquainted with online banking during the 1990s and the first decade of the 2000s. The 2010s are shaping up as the era of mobile banking. That was underscored Sept. 10-11 in New York City when Mitek Systems Inc., a San Diego-based technology company, debuted its Mobile Photo Account Opening product at Finovate, a trade show where banking tech products are often unveiled. The product allows consumers to open a bank account within 60 seconds. If you have your bank's app, you can use your smartphone's camera to take a photo of the front and back of your driver's license, and presto, your new checking, savings or credit card account is open. [See: 7 Hidden Smartphone Expenses.] Here's a look at other financial products and services personal financial experts think we'll be using in the future. Within 10 years. "The economic payments system will begin to 'know us,' either through biometrics, optical sensor or facial recognition," says Joshua Siegel, managing principal of StoneCastle Partners, a New York-based asset management firm that invests in banks. That's already happening to some extent with smartphones – the new iPhone 5S, for example, uses fingerprint scanning to unlock the phone. Meanwhile, some financial services companies, such as Barclays, are testing and using voice recognition programs in customer service calls. (Why? It makes it much more difficult for a thief, who just stole your driver's license, to pose as you over the phone.) So it isn't a leap to believe that within a decade, the public will become accustomed to automated bank tellers and smartphones recognizing consumers by a touch or a glance. And for all the talk about digital currency overtaking cash, ATMs won't be going away anytime soon. Diebold, Inc., a $3 billion software and technology firm in North Canton, Ohio, unveiled an ATM at the 2013 International Consumer Electronics Show that is designed to work with smartphones. You start the transaction from your smartphone, where you're then given a one-time code that you type onto the ATM, and your cash is released. As Diebold points out, there's no more worrying about someone looking over your shoulder as you type in your PIN number – and no possibility of a criminal capturing your debit card information with a skimmer. [See: 10 Dangers of Mobile Banking.] But not all banking changes will be of the gee-whiz-isn't-that-cool variety. "The banking industry will likely undergo significant changes over the next few decades," says Jeff Varisco, vice president of insurance services at American Equity Investment Life Insurance Company, headquartered in West Des Moines, Iowa. He believes that in industrialized nations, there will be more regulation focusing on solvency and the "too big to fail" problem. Will we even notice? Varisco thinks so. "These efforts will cause the industry to move toward consolidation to a handful of large, national and international banking institutions thereby limiting the ability for banks to develop and offer products specific to regional and local needs," he says. Within 20 years. At this point, nobody will use a teller for something as simple as a deposit or withdrawal, says Maclyn Clouse, professor of finance at the University of Denver's Daniels College of Business. "There will be no teller lines at banks, but loan requests and paperwork for the loans will still exist because of all the regulation. Banks may still have some face-to-face activity for investment products," Clouse says, adding that it will probably become as commonplace to do banking through a TV as it is now through a PC, tablet or phone. __________________________________________________________________ 1 2 > TAGS: credit personal finance banking * * * * * * + More You Might Also Like __________________________________________________________________ * Taking cash out of a wallet. Video: Cut Your Spending This Week * Woman doing her taxes. 7 Tax Breaks That Will Save Taxpayers Money * Calendar with yellow push pin. Your Month-to-Month Guide to Savings [?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2F90%2Fda%2Fee9ee7af428dae91f1bbc45bc97e%2Fresizes%2F 500%2F141028-womandebt-stock.jpg] 11 Tips for Paying Off More Than $100,000 in Debt By Teresa Mears | Jan. 23, 2015 [?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2F79%2Fd6%2F6a9242664b8bbf1ac19bcf2b9db6%2Fresizes%2F 500%2F150106makinganonlinepurchase-stock.jpg] How to Never Miss a Payment Again By Geoff Williams | Jan. 23, 2015 [?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2Fa7%2Fa9%2Fdad652ce45d2911cc56655acf20c%2Fresizes%2F 500%2F140715-manpayingacheck-stock.jpg] The 10 Best Checking Accounts of 2015 By Morgan Quinn | Jan. 23, 2015 [?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2F2b%2F39%2F5ab3fbcb493f8a65f6de03ca4b5c%2Fresizes%2F 500%2F150123-budget-stock.jpg] How One Blogger Paid Off $55,000 of Debt By Kassandra Dasent | Jan. 23, 2015 [?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2F0c%2F93%2Fe962a1d6467b8873be05cb374c47%2Fresizes%2F 500%2F140411-customerbank-stock.jpg] 5 Scams That Target Your Bank Account By Theresa Kim | Jan. 23, 2015 [?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2F74%2F3e45b61b514c5aa73bece6fb66d1d7%2F40093FE_DA_En ergyMeter_040213.jpg] 10 Ways to Lower Your Heating Bill By Niccole Schreck | Jan. 22, 2015 [?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2Fd3%2F64%2Ffd2f48824acf9d814015f829b3b6%2Fresizes%2F 500%2F140819-insurancefile-stock.jpg] 7 Perks Hiding in Your Insurance Policy By Geoff Williams | Jan. 22, 2015 [?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2F0c%2F88fd22d8fed9db859791140b02f339%2F36505FE_PR_12 1228cocoa.jpg] 11 Free and Cheap Ways to Enjoy Winter By Jon Lal | Jan. 22, 2015 [?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2Fe2%2F950f32eeee90883b965ac660395b40%2F26183FE_PR_12 0213flirting.jpg] 7 Ways to Enjoy a Frugal Valentine’s Day By Lisa Koivu | Jan. 22, 2015 [?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2F32%2F57%2F8beef30044099d1f0c4ced27c152%2Fresizes%2F 500%2F141215-wintertravel-stock.jpg] 5 Affordable Alternatives for a Winter Getaway By Holly Perez | Jan. 22, 2015 [?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2F33%2F08ee73100e96985918463c4a964d8a%2F24778SS_AL_12 0711couple.jpg] A Guide to Saving Money for Empty Nesters By Niccole Schreck | Jan. 22, 2015 [?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2Fa9%2Fb7%2Fa90a57014ba39f6e07c7c556590d%2Fresizes%2F 500%2F141223-womansmartphone-stock.jpg] The Best New Savings Apps for Your Phone By Kimberly Palmer | Jan. 21, 2015 [?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2F1b%2F2a%2F0ddadf674d2dab8e32f862e31690%2Fresizes%2F 500%2F141030-creditcardteen-stock.jpg] 7 Things You Wouldn't Think to Do With Your Gift Cards By Lars Peterson | Jan. 21, 2015 [?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2Ffa%2Fa6fe2bb827f27ba43fd7c12b669bce%2F34977shopping %20strategy.jpg] How to Save Money Just by Asking By Mel Bondar | Jan. 21, 2015 [?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2F27%2Ffe48c48a37daed96b7d7de8ddf5479%2F49861Slidesho w_WomanBarbell_111315.jpg] Cheaper Alternatives to Gym Memberships By Susan Yoo-Lee | Jan. 21, 2015 [?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2F4e%2F44%2F21b082af4590896178301b3b327e%2Fresizes%2F 500%2F140916-twitterphone-stock.jpg] 10 Twitter Accounts to Follow for Great Deals By Trent Hamm | Jan. 21, 2015 [?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2Fee%2F1d%2F72cf5a1a4b0584ed44fec7688291%2Fresizes%2F 500%2F140701calculating-finances-stock.jpg] Ease Your Tax Burden With These Hidden Deductions By Molly McCluskey | Jan. 20, 2015 [?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2Ffb%2F16%2F5f621c0a4403b14b58e6b0244fc8%2Fresizes%2F 500%2F141222-taxes-stock.jpg] 6 Life Events That Change Your Taxes By Geoff Williams | Jan. 20, 2015 [?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2F32%2F8e7bdc41565bc7c15ddfd18a3bd110%2Fresizes%2F500 %2F49907WideModern_Pushup_111315.jpg] 7 Ways to Slim Your Waist, Not Your Wallet By Amber Sager | Jan. 20, 2015 [?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2F78%2Fd3%2F8045d2cd45cb92272605cf06283b%2Fresizes%2F 500%2F140930-taxes-stock.jpg] 6 Ways Filing Your Taxes Online Will Save You Time and Money By Lisa Greene-Lewis | Jan. 20, 2015 See More Connect with U.S. News Money * Facebook * Twitter * Google+ * LinkedIn * rss58x58.png Find a Fund Search ____________________ Most Popular Fund Categories Large Growth High Yield Bond Retirement Income Short-Term Bond See All Fund Rankings » 10 Ways to Lower Your Heating Bill SLIDESHOW 10 Ways to Lower Your Heating Bill The 25 Best Jobs of 2015 SLIDESHOW The 25 Best Jobs of 2015 10 Work Perks That Offer Big Financial Rewards SLIDESHOW 10 Work Perks That Offer Big Financial Rewards The Best Business Jobs of 2015 SLIDESHOW The Best Business Jobs of 2015 Your Month-to-Month Guide to Savings SLIDESHOW Your Month-to-Month Guide to Savings 15 Awesome Jobs That Pay More Than $90K SLIDESHOW 15 Awesome Jobs That Pay More Than $90K 10 Images That Will Motivate You to Save for Retirement SLIDESHOW 10 Images That Will Motivate You to Save for Retirement The 36 Top Health Care Jobs of 2015 SLIDESHOW The 36 Top Health Care Jobs of 2015 11 Fantastic Tech Jobs in 2015 SLIDESHOW 11 Fantastic Tech Jobs in 2015 10 Ways to Perfect Your Personal Brand SLIDESHOW 10 Ways to Perfect Your Personal Brand 10 Ways You Can Invest Like Warren Buffett SLIDESHOW 10 Ways You Can Invest Like Warren Buffett 10 Items to Add to Your Financial Bucket List SLIDESHOW 10 Items to Add to Your Financial Bucket List 15 Sectors to Watch in 2015 SLIDESHOW 15 Sectors to Watch in 2015 10 Ways to Save More in the New Year SLIDESHOW 10 Ways to Save More in the New Year 8 Smart Tax Moves for Investors SLIDESHOW 8 Smart Tax Moves for Investors 15 Career Mistakes to Avoid in 2015 SLIDESHOW 15 Career Mistakes to Avoid in 2015 Reboot Your Finances banner Reboot Your Finances empowers you to make your financial objectives a reality with smart and savvy money solutions at every stage. Learn how to reboot your finances » Buying or Selling a Home? Best Real Estate Agents icon The Best Real Estate Agents service can help you find a top performer. Find a Realtor » Latest Video IFRAME: http://embed.newsinc.com/Thumbnail/iframe.html?wid=9618&cid=1074 2&freewheel=90080&sitesection=usnews_biz_mon_sec&parent=ndn_slid ing_launcher_1&type=slider U.S. News Advisor Finder Looking for an advisor? Find a financial professional near you. Advisors Firms Search ____________________ Search ____________________ News * News Home * Opinion * National Issues * Cartoons * Photos * Videos * Special Reports Rankings & Consumer Advice * Education + Colleges + Graduate Schools + High Schools + Online Programs + Community Colleges + Global Universities + Arab Universities * Health + Hospitals + Doctor Finder + Diets + Nursing Homes + Health Products + Health Insurance + Medicare * Money + Jobs + Financial Advisors + ETFs + Mutual Funds + Retirement * Travel + Vacations + Cruises + Hotels + Hotel Rewards + Airline Rewards * Cars + New Cars + Used Cars Law + Law Firms [homepage-logo.png] * About U.S. News * Contact Us * Site Map * Press Room * Advertising Info * Store Connect with us: Facebook Twitter Google+ Copyright 2015 © U.S. News & World Report LP. Terms and Conditions / Privacy Policy. dcsimg * This website sets cookies on your device. To find out more about how we use cookies please refer to our Privacy and Cookie Policy. By continuing to use the site, we’ll assume that you are content for us to set these on your device. * Close Publications ____________________ Submit Advanced Search | Search Help * Contact Us * Print this page * Subscribe to alerts * Feedback * Home * About the Bank * Monetary Policy * Banknotes * Markets * Financial Stability * Prudential Regulation Authority * Publications + Calendar + News Releases + Speeches and Articles + Interviews + Monetary Policy + Markets + Financial Stability + Minutes + Parliamentary Committee Hearings * Statistics * Education and Museum * Research * Careers * Archive Home > Publications > News Releases > News Release - Quarterly Bulletin pre-release articles: ‘Money in the modern economy: an introduction’ and ‘Money creation in the modern economy’ News Release - Quarterly Bulletin pre-release articles: ‘Money in the modern economy: an introduction’ and ‘Money creation in the modern economy’ Page Content ​Where does money come from? In the modern economy, most money takes the form of bank deposits. But how those bank deposits are created is often misunderstood. The principal way in which they are created is through commercial banks making loans: whenever a bank makes a loan, it creates a deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money. As ‘Money creation in the modern economy’ explains, though, banks cannot create money in this way without limit: how much banks lend will rest on the profitable lending opportunities available to them which will, crucially, depend on the interest rate set by the Bank of England. In this way, monetary policy acts as the ultimate limit on money creation. This description of how money is created differs from the story found in some economics textbooks. For instance, in normal times, the central bank does not in practice choose the amount of money in circulation. Nor is central bank money ‘multiplied up’ into more loans and deposits. Rather, the Bank of England implements monetary policy – which is set to be consistent with low and stable inflation – by setting the interest rate on central bank reserves (‘Bank Rate’). This then influences a range of interest rates – including those on bank loans – and, in turn, the aggregate amount of spending in the economy. When interest rates were reduced to their effective lower bound, the focus of monetary policy shifted to boosting the quantity of money in the economy directly, via a series of asset purchases, or ‘quantitative easing’ (QE). The Bank of England electronically creates new money and uses it to purchase gilts from private investors such as pension funds and insurance companies. These investors typically do not want to hold on to this money, because it yields a low return. So they tend to use it to purchase other assets, such as corporate bonds and shares. That lowers longer-term borrowing costs and encourages the issuance of new equities and bonds to stimulate spending and keep inflation on track to meet the government’s target. As a by-product of the purchases of gilts from investors, new central bank reserves are created. But these are not an important part of the transmission mechanism. The article dispels a number of misconceptions about how QE works: * Just as in normal times, the reserves created by QE cannot be ‘multiplied up’ into additional loans and deposits. * Nor can reserves be directly lent out, since only commercial banks hold reserves accounts. * And while banks do earn interest on the newly created reserves, QE also creates an accompanying liability for the bank – the investors’ deposits following sales of gilts – which the bank will itself typically have to pay interest on. A more fundamental question still than “Where does money come from?” is “What is money?”. ‘Money in the modern economy: an introduction’ addresses precisely this question. While most people in the world use some form of money on a daily basis to buy or sell goods and services, to pay or get paid, or to settle contracts, there is not universal agreement on what money actually is. Assuming no prior knowledge of economics, the article explains that money today is a type of IOU, but one that is special because everyone in the economy trusts that it will be accepted by other people in exchange for goods and services. It is because money is a form of IOU that banknotes still have the ‘promise to pay’ inscription: but money today is fiat or ‘paper’ money that is not convertible to any other asset (such as gold or other commodities). In addition to currency, bank deposits and central bank reserves are the main types of money in the modern economy. Each one represents an IOU from one sector of the economy to another. Most of the money circulating in the economy is in the form of bank deposits which, as the companion article explains, are created by commercial banks themselves. A box in the article briefly outlines some recent developments in payment technologies, including e-money and digital currencies. Two short videos discussing these topics, filmed in the Bank of England’s gold vaults, will be available to view on the Bank’s website at 10:00 on 12 March. The rest of the Q1 edition of the Bulletin will be published at 00:05hrs on 14 March 2014. Note to Editors Copies of the Quarterly Bulletin are available from: Publications Group Bank of England Threadneedle Street London EC2R 8AH (Tel: 020 7601 4030; Fax 020 7601 3298) www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/pages/quarterlybulletin/default.as px Share More Key Resources Additional Page Content Related Links * Quarterly Bulletin 2014 Q1 pre-release articles * Quarterly Bulletin Quick Links * Centre for Central Banking Studies * Cymraeg * Market Infrastructure Supervision * News Releases * Resolution * Speeches and Articles * The Bank's Agencies Legal * Disclaimer * Freedom of Information * MoUs * Privacy and Cookies Policy * Procurement * Re-use of public sector information * Fraud Warning * Whistleblowing Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) * Authorisations * Financial Services Register * PRA Handbook * PRA Publications * Regulatory Reporting Information About us * Complaints * Contact Us * Diversity and Inclusion * Know your Banknotes * Museum * Site Map * The National Archives * Visitors _ _ #publisher Business RSS feed Bank of England RSS feed Banking RSS feed Global economy RSS feed Economics RSS feed Austerity RSS feed Politics RSS feed Economic policy RSS feed Comment is free RSS feed Turn autoplay off Turn autoplay on Please activate cookies in order to turn autoplay off * Jump to content [s] * Jump to comments [c] * Jump to site navigation [0] * Jump to search [4] * Terms and conditions [8] Edition: UK US AU * Your activity * Email subscriptions * Account details * Linked services * Sign out Profile Beta About us * About us, * Contact us * Press office * Guardian Print Centre * Guardian readers' editor * Observer readers' editor * Terms of service * Privacy policy * Advertising guide * Digital archive * Digital edition * Guardian Weekly * Buy Guardian and Observer photos Today's paper * Main section * Comment * Sport * New Review * Magazine * Observer Tech Monthly * Observer Food Monthly Subscribe The Guardian home ____________________ Search * News * Sport * Comment * Culture * Business * Money * Life & style * Travel * Environment * Tech * TV * Video * Dating * Offers * Jobs * Comment is free The truth is out: money is just an IOU, and the banks are rolling in it The Bank of England's dose of honesty throws the theoretical basis for austerity out the window * Share * Tweet this * * [pin_it_button.png] * * Email * David Graeber * + David Graeber + + theguardian.com, Tuesday 18 March 2014 10.47 GMT * Jump to comments (…) British banknotes – money 'The central bank can print as much money as it wishes.' Photograph: Alamy Back in the 1930s, Henry Ford is supposed to have remarked that it was a good thing that most Americans didn't know how banking really works, because if they did, "there'd be a revolution before tomorrow morning". Last week, something remarkable happened. The Bank of England let the cat out of the bag. In a paper called "Money Creation in the Modern Economy", co-authored by three economists from the Bank's Monetary Analysis Directorate, they stated outright that most common assumptions of how banking works are simply wrong, and that the kind of populist, heterodox positions more ordinarily associated with groups such as Occupy Wall Street are correct. In doing so, they have effectively thrown the entire theoretical basis for austerity out of the window. To get a sense of how radical the Bank's new position is, consider the conventional view, which continues to be the basis of all respectable debate on public policy. People put their money in banks. Banks then lend that money out at interest – either to consumers, or to entrepreneurs willing to invest it in some profitable enterprise. True, the fractional reserve system does allow banks to lend out considerably more than they hold in reserve, and true, if savings don't suffice, private banks can seek to borrow more from the central bank. The central bank can print as much money as it wishes. But it is also careful not to print too much. In fact, we are often told this is why independent central banks exist in the first place. If governments could print money themselves, they would surely put out too much of it, and the resulting inflation would throw the economy into chaos. Institutions such as the Bank of England or US Federal Reserve were created to carefully regulate the money supply to prevent inflation. This is why they are forbidden to directly fund the government, say, by buying treasury bonds, but instead fund private economic activity that the government merely taxes. It's this understanding that allows us to continue to talk about money as if it were a limited resource like bauxite or petroleum, to say "there's just not enough money" to fund social programmes, to speak of the immorality of government debt or of public spending "crowding out" the private sector. What the Bank of England admitted this week is that none of this is really true. To quote from its own initial summary: "Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits" … "In normal times, the central bank does not fix the amount of money in circulation, nor is central bank money 'multiplied up' into more loans and deposits." In other words, everything we know is not just wrong – it's backwards. When banks make loans, they create money. This is because money is really just an IOU. The role of the central bank is to preside over a legal order that effectively grants banks the exclusive right to create IOUs of a certain kind, ones that the government will recognise as legal tender by its willingness to accept them in payment of taxes. There's really no limit on how much banks could create, provided they can find someone willing to borrow it. They will never get caught short, for the simple reason that borrowers do not, generally speaking, take the cash and put it under their mattresses; ultimately, any money a bank loans out will just end up back in some bank again. So for the banking system as a whole, every loan just becomes another deposit. What's more, insofar as banks do need to acquire funds from the central bank, they can borrow as much as they like; all the latter really does is set the rate of interest, the cost of money, not its quantity. Since the beginning of the recession, the US and British central banks have reduced that cost to almost nothing. In fact, with "quantitative easing" they've been effectively pumping as much money as they can into the banks, without producing any inflationary effects. What this means is that the real limit on the amount of money in circulation is not how much the central bank is willing to lend, but how much government, firms, and ordinary citizens, are willing to borrow. Government spending is the main driver in all this (and the paper does admit, if you read it carefully, that the central bank does fund the government after all). So there's no question of public spending "crowding out" private investment. It's exactly the opposite. Why did the Bank of England suddenly admit all this? Well, one reason is because it's obviously true. The Bank's job is to actually run the system, and of late, the system has not been running especially well. It's possible that it decided that maintaining the fantasy-land version of economics that has proved so convenient to the rich is simply a luxury it can no longer afford. But politically, this is taking an enormous risk. Just consider what might happen if mortgage holders realised the money the bank lent them is not, really, the life savings of some thrifty pensioner, but something the bank just whisked into existence through its possession of a magic wand which we, the public, handed over to it. Historically, the Bank of England has tended to be a bellwether, staking out seeming radical positions that ultimately become new orthodoxies. If that's what's happening here, we might soon be in a position to learn if Henry Ford was right. Daily Email close Sign up for the Guardian Today Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. Sign up for the daily email * Print this Print this * Share * Contact us Send to a friend Close this popup Sender's name ____________________ Recipient's email address ____________________ Send Your IP address will be logged Share Close this popup Short link for this page: http://gu.com/p/3nj69 * StumbleUpon * reddit * Tumblr * Digg * LinkedIn * del.icio.us * Facebook * Twitter Contact us Close this popup * Report errors or inaccuracies: userhelp@theguardian.com * Letters for publication should be sent to: guardian.letters@theguardian.com * If you need help using the site: userhelp@theguardian.com * Call the main Guardian and Observer switchboard: +44 (0)20 3353 2000 * + Advertising guide + License/buy our content Article history About this article Close this popup The truth is out: money is just an IOU, and the banks are rolling in it | David Graeber This article was published on the Guardian website at 10.47 GMT on Tuesday 18 March 2014. It was last modified at 08.51 BST on Tuesday 3 June 2014. Business * Bank of England · * Banking · * Global economy · * Economics · * Austerity Politics * Economic policy More from Comment is free on Business * Bank of England · * Banking · * Global economy · * Economics · * Austerity Politics * Economic policy * More on this story * The logo of the Bank of England is seen in the City of London in this January 16, 2014 file photo Bank of England makes Nemak Shafik and Ben Broadbent deputy governors Shakeup at central bank means governor Mark Carney now has four deputies * Nemat Shafik: economist with stellar CV to be Bank of England deputy * Bank of England announces new deputy governors - live * Share * Tweet this * * * Email Comments Click here to join the discussion. We can't load the discussion on theguardian.com because you don't have JavaScript enabled. Today's best video * Agony Aunt ep1 orgasm illustration I'm 58 and I've never had an orgasm Psychotherapist and agony aunt Philippa Perry responds to a woman who is suffering from anorgasmia and doesn't want to resort to faking it * 140x84 trailpic for Why Bruce Cleveland 1978 album you should hear this week -video One album to hear this week Michael Hann recommends Bruce Springsteen's The Agora, Cleveland 1978, a widely bootlegged live album * 140x84 trailpic for The Guardian Film Show: Ex_Machina, The Gambler, Mortdecai and A Most Violent Year - video reviews The Guardian film show Our critics review Ex Machina, The Gambler, Mortdecai and A Most Violent Year * 140x84 trailpic for Eric Cantona's kung-fu kick Brick-by-brick - video Eric Cantona's kung-fu kick – brick-by-brick Animated reimagining of 1995 set-to with Crystal Palace fan Soulmates The Guardian's online dating site * OperaBird, 31 * TJH84, 31 Meet someone worth meeting * I am a[Man..] * Seeking[Women......] * Aged[25] to [45] * In[United Kingdom..............................] * Within[20 miles.] * Of ____________________ (Submit) Search On Comment is free * Most viewed * Latest Last 24 hours 1. [someone-holding-a-hamburg-006.jpg] 1. If you don’t understand how people fall into poverty, you’re probably a sociopath | Lucy Mangan 2. 2. Is women's visible pubic hair really so shocking that it must be censored? | Jessica Valenti 3. 3. Corporate sponsorship is everywhere so why see red over Coca-Cola? |David Mitchell 4. 4. Can the underdog beat the top dog in the tightest race for years? | Andrew Rawnsley 5. 5. Someone stole naked pictures of me. This is what I did about it – video 6. More most viewed Last 24 hours 1. [The-edition-of-the-Sun-th-006.jpg] 1. Should the campaign against Page 3 be abandoned? 2. 2. Can the underdog beat the top dog in the tightest race for years? | Andrew Rawnsley 3. 3. Rupert Murdoch and the police treat journalists like terrorists | Nick Cohen 4. 4. For both sexes, top tennis is one long marketing twirl | Barbara Ellen 5. 5. All economic activity needs a moral compass | Saker Nusseibeh 6. All today's stories Guardian Bookshop This week's bestsellers 1. Guantanamo Diary 1. Guantanamo Diary by Mohamedou Ould Slahi £15.00 2. 2. Exposures by Jane Bown £7.50 3. 3. Cameron's Coup by Polly Toynbee £7.99 4. 4. Organized Mind by Daniel Levitin £16.00 5. 5. Getting by by Lisa McKenzie £14.99 Search the Guardian bookshop ____________________ (Submit) Search comment is free… Latest posts * 3hr 39min ago Should the campaign against Page 3 be abandoned? As reports of Page 3’s death prove exaggerated, the Observer’s Barbara Ellen and Fleet Street Fox, aka blogger Susie Boniface, ask whether it’s time to stop trying to ban it * Andrew Rawnsley 6hr 44min ago Can the underdog beat the top dog in the tightest race for years? Andrew Rawnsley: There’s a campaign narrative available to Ed Miliband as the plucky challenger battling some formidable odds Comment from the paper * Hala Al-Dosari: King Abdullah’s gone, but the Saudi monarchy’s pact with the mosques remains * Martin Rowson: Martin Rowson on the death of King Abdullah – cartoon * Christie Watson: If I were queen for a day, this would be a month of real food, not detoxers’ nauseous green slime Sponsored feature guardian jobs Find the latest jobs in your sector: * Arts & heritage * Charities * Education * Environment * Government * Graduate * Health * Marketing & PR * Media * Sales * Senior executive * Social care Browse all jobs ____________________ Search Today in pictures * sports peronality 2012 BBC Sports Personality of the Year – in pictures Bradley Wiggins capped his remarkable sporting year by taking home the big prize at the ceremony in London * Martin Parr's M Video Christmas party photograph Dinner, dusk and dancing Russians: my best winter shot A glass of wine with a rough sleeper, Santa in trunks, a thousand partying Muscovites … in a My Best Shot special, top photographers pick the image that sums up winter for them * Kimon, a long-tailed monkey grooms a kitten, whom, she treats as her baby, Bintan Island, Indonesia Monkey adopts kitten – in pictures Kimon, an eight-year-old pet female long-tailed monkey, treats a kitten as her baby in Bintan Island, Indonesia * License/buy our content | * Privacy policy | * Terms & conditions | * Advertising guide | * Accessibility | * A-Z index | * Inside the Guardian blog | * About us | * Work for us | * Join our dating site today * © 2015 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. * Share * Tweet this * * [p?c1=2&c2=1000004&cv=2.0&cj=1] CNBC GO ____________________ Loading... >> View All Results for "" Enter multiple symbols separated by commas London quotes now available GO ____________________ Click Here! * HOME + EDITION * News + Economy + Finance + Health Care + Real Estate + Wealth + Autos + Consumer + Earnings + Energy + Life + Media + Politics + Retail + Commentary + Special Reports + Asia + Europe * Markets + Pre-Markets + U.S. + Asia + Europe + Stocks + Commodities + Currencies + Bonds + Funds + ETFs * Investing + Financial Advisors + Personal Finance + CNBC Explains + Portfolio + Watchlist + Stock Screener + Fund Screener * Tech + Re/code + Mobile + Social Media + Enterprise + Gaming + Cybersecurity * Small Biz + Franchising + Financing + Management * Video + Latest Video + Digital Workshop + U.S. Video + Asia Video + Europe Video + CEO Interviews + Analyst Interviews + Full Episodes * Shows + Watch Live + CNBC U.S. + CNBC Asia-Pacific + CNBC Europe + CNBC World + Full Episodes * PRIMETIME * Watch Live * PRO + News and Analysis + Squawk Box Portfolio + Halftime Portfolio * Register * | * Log In * Member Center * Profile * PRO * Sign Out X Click Here! Millionaires & Billionaires * Wealth * Millionaires & Billionaires * Luxury * Philanthropy * Millionaire Survey How the super rich spend their money Robert Frank | @robtfrank Wednesday, 1 Oct 2014 | 11:23 AM ETCNBC.com SHARES Millionaire Survey: Where the wealthy are spending CNBC's Robert Frank reveals where American millionaires are spending their money and what areas they are avoiding. Forget sports cars, diamonds and yachts. Today's rich prefer to spend their money on vacations, entertainment and collectibles. According to a new study from Spectrem Group, Americans worth more than $25 million think of themselves as frugal but actually live large. More than half agreed with the statement that "saving and investing my money gives me greater satisfaction than spending it." WIN-Initiative | Getty Images And when asked about how they became wealthy, "frugality" ranked among the top five factors, below hard work, education, smart investing and taking risk. Read MoreBillionaires are hoarding mountains of cash Yet their spending numbers show that they still enjoy the finer things in life—or at least, the finer experiences in life. Fully 60 percent spend more than $10,000 a year on vacation or leisure travel, the highest of any category. More than a quarter of spend more than $25,000 on trips, and 14 percent spend more than $50,000. Read MoreTop millionaire growth? Hint: J.R. would be proud "They work hard, so they like nice vacations," said George Walper, president of Spectrem Group. "And they take nice vacations because they can." By contrast, jewelry, cars and boats weren't as popular. More than three-quarters of the rich surveyed didn't spend any money on boats. Only 30 percent spend more than $10,000 on jewelry a year, and fewer than one in five of them spent more than $50,000 on a car. (Granted, the few rich who do like cars spend a lot: 10 percent said they spend $100,000 or more). Where to find America's new millionaires The geography of wealth in America is shifting to the oil/energy states, reports CNBC's Robert Frank, with a look at a new study that shows where the fastest growth of millionaires occurred last year. "It's not about flashy purchases anymore," Walper said. "Most folks are toning it down a little in terms of what's in style and what's ostentatious." Read MoreBeverly Hills Cannabis Club: High-net-worth pot? Perhaps the trend toward more private displays of wealth is why spending on club memberships remains high. The survey found that two-thirds of the rich spend money on clubs and nearly one in five spends more than $10,000 a year on arts and entertainment. Fully 60 percent spent money on collectibles, which many prefer to see as an investment. The rich also like to spend more on charity than on political contributions. More than half made political contributions, although most were under $10,000. Fully 58 percent, however, made donations to charity of more than $10,000 a year, while 25 percent made donations of more than $25,000. Robert Frank Robert FrankCNBC Reporter and Editor Click Here! Millionaires & Billionaires * A 1964 Ferrari 250 LM Coupe sold at auction this weekend for $9.62M. Classic cars hit highs at auction The first car auction of 2015 just wrapped up in Scottsdale, Arizona, with a record $292.8 million in sales. * The cruise liner 'Crystal Serenity' sitting berthed at Sydney's historic Rocks area in Sydney, Australia. $164K a year for luxe perma-cruise A widow estimates she will spend $164,000 this year to live aboard the Crystal Serenity, reports the Asbury Park Press. * Cartier to hike prices by 5% Richemont's flagship brand Cartier will rise prices for watches and jewellery by 5 percent in the euro zone following the surge in the Swiss franc. * 1% already bored with supercars More super rich than before are ditching those supercars you can buy off the forecourt and are customizing their rides for exclusivity. Contact Millionaires & Billionaires * CNBC NEWSLETTERS Get the best of CNBC in your inbox [_] Morning Squawk Daily before the bell news roundup › Sample ____________________ [_] Your Wealth Weekly advice on managing your money › Sample ____________________ [Please Select Job Industry ▼] ____________________ Sign Up To learn more about how we use your information, please read our Privacy Policy. › Learn More ▲ Top News & Analysis * Bankers can't improve 'behind a prison cell': CEO * Flying round-trip? You're probably paying too much * Obama flunks common sense economics: Kudlow * Japan condemns ISIS execution * Saudi exchange closed after death of King Abdullah News * Economy * Finance * Health Care * Real Estate * Wealth * Autos * Consumer * Earnings * Energy * Life * Media * Politics * Retail * Commentary * Special Reports * Asia * Europe Markets * Pre-Markets * U.S. * Asia * Europe * Stocks * Commodities * Currencies * Bonds * Funds * ETFs Investing * Financial Advisors * Personal Finance * CNBC Explains * Portfolio * Watchlist * Stock Screener * Fund Screener Tech * Re/code * Mobile * Social Media * Enterprise * Gaming * Cybersecurity Small Biz * Franchising * Financing * Management Video * Latest Video * Digital Workshop * U.S. Video * Asia Video * Europe Video * CEO Interviews * Analyst Interviews * Full Episodes * Closed Captioning Shows * Watch Live * CNBC U.S. * CNBC Asia-Pacific * CNBC Europe * CNBC World * Full Episodes CNBC * About CNBC * Site Map * Video Reprints * Advertise * Careers * Help * Contact * Corrections * Newsletters * Privacy Policy * * Terms of Service * Independent Programming Report * Latest News Releases * RSS View in Mobile Mode Certain market data provided by Thomson ReutersData also provided by Data is a real-time snapshot *Data is delayed at least 15 minutes Global Business and Financial News, Stock Quotes, and Market Data and Analysis © 2015 CNBC LLC. All Rights Reserved. A Division of NBCUniversal Click Here! #The Onion: Daily News Moistly sunny * * * + YouTube + Facebook + Twitter + IFRAME: I0_1377817344808 + + Follow @TheOnion Show/Hide Navigation * Video * Politics * Sports * Science/Tech * Local * Entertainment * Fantasy Football * More (Submit) ____________________ (Submit) Back ____________________ * Video * Politics * Sports * Business * Science/Tech * Entertainment * Breaking U.S. Economy Grinds To Halt As Nation Realizes Money Just A Symbolic, Mutually Shared Illusion News • Treasure • ISSUE 46•07 • Feb 16, 2010 * Facebook * Twitter * Google Plus * Tumblr * Pinterest WASHINGTON—The U.S. economy ceased to function this week after unexpected existential remarks by Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke shocked Americans into realizing that money is, in fact, just a meaningless and intangible social construct. Calling it "basically no more than five rectangular strips of paper," Fed chairman Ben Bernanke illustrates how much "$200" is actually worth. What began as a routine report before the Senate Finance Committee Tuesday ended with Bernanke passionately disavowing the entire concept of currency, and negating in an instant the very foundation of the world's largest economy. "Though raising interest rates is unlikely at the moment, the Fed will of course act appropriately if we…if we…" said Bernanke, who then paused for a moment, looked down at his prepared statement, and shook his head in utter disbelief. "You know what? It doesn't matter. None of this—this so-called 'money'—really matters at all." "It's just an illusion," a wide-eyed Bernanke added as he removed bills from his wallet and slowly spread them out before him. "Just look at it: Meaningless pieces of paper with numbers printed on them. Worthless." According to witnesses, Finance Committee members sat in thunderstruck silence for several moments until Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) finally shouted out, "Oh my God, he's right. It's all a mirage. All of it—the money, our whole economy—it's all a lie!" Screams then filled the Senate Chamber as lawmakers and members of the press ran for the exits, leaving in their wake aisles littered with the remains of torn currency. U.S. markets closed as traders left their jobs and resolved for once to do or make something, anything of real value. As news of the nation's collectively held delusion spread, the economy ground to a halt, with dumbfounded citizens everywhere walking out on their jobs as they contemplated the little green drawings of buildings and dead white men they once used to measure their adequacy and importance as human beings. At the New York Stock Exchange, Wednesday morning's opening bell echoed across a silent floor as the few traders who arrived for work out of habit looked up blankly at the meaningless scrolling numbers on the flashing screens above. "I've spent 25 years in this room yelling 'Buy, buy! Sell, sell!' and for what?" longtime trader Michael Palermo said. "All I've done is move arbitrary designations of wealth from one column to another, wasting my life chasing this unattainable hallucination of wealth." "What a cruel cosmic joke," he added. "I'm going home to hug my daughter." Sources at the White House said President Obama was "still trying to get his head around all this" and was in seclusion with his coin collection, muttering "it's just metal, it's just metal" over and over again. "The president will be making a statement very soon," press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters. "At the moment, though, his mind is just too blown to comment." A few U.S. banks have remained open, though most teller windows are unmanned due to a lack of interest in transactions involving mere scraps of paper or, worse, decimal points and computer data signifying mere scraps of paper. At a Bank of America branch in Spokane, WA, curious former customers wandered aimlessly through a large empty vault, while several would-be robbers of a Chase bank in Columbus, OH reportedly put their guns down and exited the building hand in hand with security guards, laughing over the inherent absurdity of the idea of $100 bills. Likewise, the real estate industry has all but vanished, with mortgage lenders seeing no reason to stop people from reclaiming their foreclosed-upon homes. "I don't even know what we were thinking in the first place," said former banker Nathan Collins of Brandon, MS, as he jimmyed open a door to allow a single mother and her five children to move back into their house. "A bunch of people sign a bunch of papers, and now this family has no place to live? That's just plain ludicrous." The realization that money is nothing more than an elaborate head game seems to have penetrated the entire country: In Wilmington, DE, for instance, a collection agent reportedly broke down in joyful sobs when he informed a woman on the other end of the phone that he had absolutely no reason to harass her anymore, as her Discover Card debt was no longer comprehensible. For some Americans, the fog of disbelief surrounding the nation's epiphany has begun to lift, with many building new lives free from the illusion of money. "It's back to basics for me," Bernard Polk of Waverly, OH said. "I'm going to till the soil for my own sustenance and get anything else I need by bartering. If I want milk, I'll pay for it in tomatoes. If need a new hoe, I'll pay for it in lettuce." When asked, hypothetically, how he would pay for complicated life-saving surgery for a loved one, Polk seemed uncertain. "That's a lot of vegetables, isn't it?" he said. * Facebook * Twitter * Google Plus * Tumblr * Pinterest PreviousRise In Teen Pregnancy Proves Teens Still Got ...NextScrappy Crew Of 'Good Morning America' Decides To ... Popular Onion Video Watch more videos Recent News Biden Co-Presents Best New Starlet Award With Shyla Stylez At 2015 AVN Adult Movie Awards ShowMedical Breakthrough Provides Elderly Woman With 2 Extra Years Of Inconveniencing FamilyChinese Officials Vow To Fix Nation’s Crumbling Reeducation SystemDiphtheria Excited About Possibility Of New OutbreakDoctor Just Uses Same Ultrasound Picture For Every Baby [565.jpg] * TV Club: Saturday Night Live: "Blake Shelton" * What's On Tonight: Galavant sings its swan song * AVQ&A: Tell us about your pop-culture weekend: January 23 - January 25 * 2015 The Onion Daily Desk Calendar * Never Camping Nalgene Bottle * Deck of Cards: Vices Print * The Onion Looks Back At 'Home Alone' * The Onion Reviews 'The Hobbit: The Battle Of The Five Armies' * Owner's Box: Bearded Robert Griffin III Spotted Living In Houseboat On Chesapeake Bay Follow The Onion * * * Receive The Newsletter ____________________ [_] Daily [_] Weekly Submit * FAQ * Contact Us * Jobs * Media Kit * Privacy Policy * RSS & Apps The Onion is not intended for readers under 18 years of age. ©Copyright 2015 Onion Inc. All rights reserved Comscore Nielsen Quantcast #alternate NYDN Rss test Life_Style Rss Health Rss * IFRAME: http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fac ebook.com%2Fthenewyorkdailynews&send=false&layout=box_count&width=4 8&show_faces=false&font&colorscheme=light&action=like&height=90 IFRAME: http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/follow_button.1409790579.html#_ =1410453636098&dnt=true&id=twitter-widget-0&lang=en&screen_name=NYD ailyNews&show_count=false&show_screen_name=true&size=m DAILY NEWS * New York * News * Politics * Sports * Entertainment * Opinion * Living * Autos ____________________ Search Search Events Health Homes Food Horoscopes Education Comics Games Living Pics Fashion Pics Blogs How money CAN buy you happiness Ways to use cash to increase your life satisfaction include giving it to charity and spending it on relaxing vacations. BY Anisha Sekar U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT Tuesday, September 17, 2013, 5:11 PM * A * A * A NR Jon Boyes/Getty Images Money can get you insurance so you worry less and “buy” time by helping you move closer to work and cut back on your commute. Money can't make you happy – or so say a handful of studies and statistics. An often-cited Princeton University study found that happiness doesn't increase once earning an annual income of at least $75,000. But that doesn't mean money can't increase your life satisfaction. You just have to be smart about spending it. Here are five ways you can use your disposable income to buy happiness. 1. Give it away. One of the most satisfying ways to spend money is, ironically enough, to spend it on others. A study by the Chicago Booth School of Business found that people who came into a windfall of money reported increased happiness the more they spent that windfall on others. However, if your goal is to maximize your own happiness, the study indicated you should spend that money on a shared experience with someone else rather than a faceless donation. Another experiment led by Lara Aknin of Simon Fraser University gave Starbucks gift cards to college students. One group had to spend the money on themselves, one group had to give the card away and one was told to treat someone else to a Starbucks coffee – with the stipulation that the student had to spend time with the person they treated. It turns out that this last group – the shared-experience group – reported the greatest happiness of the three. 2. Get peace of mind. What keeps you up at night? Are you worried about your home being burglarized or your car being stolen? The idea of insurance is that most people spend more on premiums than they receive in payouts. Even though it's a losing proposition, people still buy insurance for one of two reasons: The consequences of not having insurance could be catastrophic, or they want peace of mind. The former reason leads people to purchase property, health or car insurance; but with the latter, you have more discretion. If you're really worried about burglaries, buy property or rental insurance to assuage your concerns. If you're stressed out about potentially having to cancel a trip, you might consider traveler's insurance (even though it usually isn't a good idea). It may not make financial sense from the insuring-risk perspective, but in this case, you're buying peace of mind. 3. On vacations, spend to minimize stress. Studies have shown that experiences buy more lasting happiness than material objects, but there's more nuance to it than that. Should you spend $3,000 on an epic trip to Paris, or will you be just as happy spending $300 to go to a local bed and breakfast? Should you try to make the trip as exotic as possible, or stretch it out for as long as possible? A 2009 study of Dutch vacationers showed that the length of a trip doesn't affect happiness. Instead, the key factor in a lasting good feeling was stress. Those who had a relaxed vacation were much happier following the trip than those who reported stressful or neutral trips. Spend your money wisely to make the trip as relaxing as possible: hail a cab instead of navigating a new bus system, tip the bellhop rather than hauling your suitcase to your room and budget your trip so that you don't feel the need to pinch pennies. Keep an eye out for signs that you or your family are feeling harried, and spend smart to avoid further stress. 4. Go out for a few nice dinners, not many mediocre ones. Let's say your monthly restaurant budget is $200 a month. Should you go out for four $50 dinners or one $200 dinner? As it happens, the $200 dinner will bring you more happiness. If you do something often enough that you consider it routine, it loses its luster. Even the largest mansion becomes just a house when you've lived there long enough. Keep your outings as special events, rather than taking them for granted. Research also shows that anticipating an event often increases happiness more than the event itself. Spend the month leading up to your amazing dinner choosing the restaurant, browsing menus or otherwise preemptively savoring your delicious meal, and you'll get more bang for your buck. 5. Buy time. The best way money increases happiness is when it buys you time. This can take a number of forms: decreasing your commute by moving closer to work, hiring someone to help around the house or hiring an assistant to clear your plate of the mundane tasks that end up robbing you of precious time. If you have extra income, using it to free up more leisure time can have the most significant impact on your well-being. Related Stories People happiest in their 20s, 60s Happily married couples are healthier: study Happier, social network for positive people Comments Post A Comment [ Discussion Guidelines] To Post Comments Sign In Editor's Picks Daily Checkup: Thyroid cancer can be treated if caught early The chair of New York Eye and Ear Infirmary of Mount Sinai, Dr. Edward Shin specializes in endocrine, thyroid and parathyroid disease. An estimated 30 million Americans are living with a thyroid disorder; over 62,000 new cases of thyroid cancer are diagnosed each year. Privacy concerns over health care website prompt reversal OCT 15 2014 FILE PHOTO The Obama administration is scaling back the release of personal information from health insurance website to private companies. First U.S. case of H5N1 bird flu found in duck in Wash. NR Bird flu has made its way to the U.S. after it was found in a green-winged teal duck killed by a hunter in Washington state. Flu killed 11 more kids in U.S. this week: CDC AP PROVIDES ACCESS TO THIS PUBLICLY DISTRIBUTED HANDOUT PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, DR. MICHAEL SHAW AND DOUG JORDAN. The flu killed 11 children this week, but was widespread in two fewer states than last week, the U.S. Old family yarns help coma patients recover: study NR Hearing familiar stories from loved ones can help comatose patients regain consciousness faster, a new has study found. FROM AROUND THE WEB Editor's Picks Ebola numbers start to decline, but more help is needed The first Ebola vaccine is headed to West Africa, but more aid and funding is needed before the rainy spring months start. The number of new Ebola cases is declining week by week in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, the World Health Organization said Friday. Despite risks, prescription painkillers still popular NR Prescription painkillers are used widely by U.S. women of childbearing age, a federal report released on Thursday found. Measles outbreak casts spotlight on anti-vaccine movement Elizabeth Orsini takes pictures of her hairband with the Sleeping Beauty's Castle in the background at Disneyland, Thursday, Jan. 22, 2015, in Anaheim, Calif. Seventy people have been infected in a measles outbreak that led California public health officials to urge those who haven't been vaccinated against the disease, including children too young to be immunized, should avoid Disney parks where the spread originated. A major measles outbreak traced to Disneyland has brought criticism down on the movement among parents to opt out of vaccinations. Arkansas morturary suspended over 'stacked' rotting bodies An inspector for the Arkansas Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors found bodies at Arkansas Funeral Care stacked atop each other and left to decompose in room-temperature areas. Video taken by a former embalmer started the investigation. Arkansas suspended the license of a funeral home after an inspector found about 30 bodies in varying stages of decomposition. Change hip-tilt of women giving birth, study says MR & PR Just a 15-degree adjustment could make a big difference when it comes time for a woman to deliver a baby. Same California doctor delivered mom, dad and now baby Husband and wife Kevin and Breanna Fleischman, who were both delivered by Dr. Barrie May, had their baby boy Maverick’s delivered by the same doctor. Barrie May has delivered more than 10,000 babies during his 46 year practice, but said this was his first mother, father and baby trio. Good friends can make you healthier physically: study Good friends lead to good health, according to a recent study. Good friends can actually make you healthier in the physical sense in addition to improving your mental well-being, according to a study. Hormonal birth control increases brain tumor risk: study NR Women who use hormonal contraceptives for at least five years may have a greater chance of developing a rare brain tumor. Circumcision tied to autism risk: study NR Circumcision may be connected to a boy's chances of developing autism, according to a new study out of Denmark. Negative tweets linked to heart disease: study There may be a new trend on Twitter: heart disease. Twitter can actually predict rates of heart disease, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania found in a new study. BPA 'poses no health risk' says EU BPA has been banned for use in baby bottles by the European Union, the United States and Canada, and from all food containers in France from the beginning of this year. The EU food safety watchdog said Wednesday that bisphenol A poses no health risk to consumers. BEST CITY APP IN THE WORLD! Download Daily News Mobile. Now With Swipe! App Store Android FREE The CUNY Value CUNY is today’s best value in the higher education marketplace. Our low costs make it possible for seven in 10 full-time undergraduates to attend college tuition-free, fully covered by financial aid and the American Opportunity Tax Credit, and for eight in 10 to graduate free from federal education debt. That’s freedom. That’s CUNY Value. Find Out More IFRAME: //www.youtube.com/embed/videoseries?list=PLM0Ajq8FKzymzgdaCB8mVhWCJjVqh oeQ7 Health Video * Media Kit * Home Delivery * Newsletters * Businesses * Place an Ad * About our Ads * Contact Us * Careers * FAQ's * Feeds * Site Map Use of this website signifies your agreement to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. © Copyright 2015 NYDailyNews.com. All rights reserved.