Money is Everything?

[whynaut]

It may seem shallow to say that money is everything, but this is actually the basis for many of the postmodern philosophers, authors and artists. Specifically, these people are talking about capitalism as the underlying motivation for modern day humans.

Once upon a time, kings and lords could control people simply through an intangible aura of status. Nowadays it is money, not even necessarily the people with money, that can control people in the same way.

The reason for going to school is not knowledge, but so that we can acquire harder jobs to get paid more money. People with money are granted all kinds of power, control, and freedoms (see the thread on Freedom Theorem), but take away the money and the human looses all of this. Language is still a barrier of communication for most countries, but all of them share in the buying and trading of economy. Human beings die on the street everyday because their continuing lifespan is dependent on money.

I could go on like this forever (and I haven't even touched on material wealth yet), however I think you guys get the picture.

Do you agree or do you think this is a short-sighted view of humanity? Or a third option perhaps?  

[Light-of-Essence]

In some cases I agree that money is of extremely high power. Without money (or stealing) how would one acquire food or keep under a stable roof? No doubt that it is the underlying motivation--but then again, I also believe that most people have lost sight of what truly matters in life and only occupy their selves with figuring out how to survive it.

They put themselves through levels of education because they feel its necisary to obtain higher status--"The rich get richer and the poor get poorer"--It's simply a contest. I, for one, would like to continue my education for the mere pleasure of it and if that allows benefits in the future than that would be a bonus.  

[Ketsuyin]

You could say money is everything, but I don't quite agree. I think it would be better to say that everything is money. What I mean by this is that money is nothing more than a representation of work. If I go to work, I get money, so I have traded my time and energy in exchange for money. I can then use that money to buy food or whatever else I need. Money is simply the transition state. Effectively I am trading my time and energy for food, which gives me more energy and a longer lifespan, or in other words more energy and more time. If you really want a great book about money and society in general I recommend you read the book Walden, by Henry David Thoreau. It's really an amazing book, I didn't read the whole thing but I loved what I read. Thoreau says that the basic human needs are food and shelter, and that everything else is a complication of those needs. It's very well written, so you should check it out.  

[27x]

Money isn't all so evil in it's basic intentions. Origionally, we had to have just the right ammoutn of carrots, or belts, or wolf hides to buy whatever it is we needed. Finally, we just cut this tough process in half. We had a coin that was worth a certin ammount, and we coudl trade these coins for any items that matched their worth. This seemed to make things simpler, since people might think that a wolf hide is worth twenty carrots(something I just made up so don't pester me), but one person might need a wolf hide, and the other might not need carrots. Money is something that everybody could use. However, after that a few probelmbs arose. Firstly, you would have to have enough coins to go around, but not so many coins that they become worthless(though we really only noticed this later on). Secondly, these coins where hard to carry in large ammounts(we essentially fixed this). Lastly, trade items would go bad, but these coins could last for a long time. You could simply keep these coins and they wheren't as likely to get spoiled as quickly as carrots(depending on how weathly you where, and how good your locks where.)

I would say money is a usefull thing, but I also think that if we lost money, we would simply recreate it in some manner. Supposing we couldn't do the latter, the world might be a better place, but things might get slighly more complicated.  

[PhilosophyMind]

I agree that money is a transition point. And trading simplified. If money did not exist, it would have something similar in its place, the same concept, just called something else.

Not all people can be self-reliant and therefore they need other humans in order to survive. Therefore, we created a method by which everyone had the ability and option to obtain items they needed by earning currency.

I suppose, from my POV, humans are everything, and money is just an aid.  

[Arson Hiroha]

I also agree that money is a transition point, and is basically a representation of some material good. Although, even if we accept this concept, I shall challenge your philosophy even further. Are material goods everything? To this, I shall propose a story to present a theory.

I hate to quote a movie, but it serves as a good example (and Braveheart even). Towards the end, the main character is trapped by the king. He faces extreme torture in the morning, all aimed at getting him to kiss the king's ring. At night, the woman who is in love with him visits him in his cell and offers him morphine to quell the pain. He refuses, and she kisses him trying to transfer the pill into his mouth. After she leaves, he spits out the pill. He knows that if he were to take it, his judgement may be hampered, and he may kiss the king's ring.

The next day, he is taken out to the courtyard. He is threatened with extreme torture, and all he has to do to quickly face the guillotine is to kiss the kings' ring. And so he's placed on the ring, and even had his intestines removed bit, yet he constantly screamed his refusal. As he dies from bloodloss he can see the ghost of his beloved, and as he shouts out the word "Freedom", he drifts off to the afterlife.



Now, in this story, would you say that he was truly happy at these last moments? Indeed, if this is true, then there is something beyond material goods. Was he free at these last few moments? Indeed, then there is something more than money.

If you propose that this does not work because it's not of modern society, then I shall propose the same situation, but with a soldier and a foreign force. In addition, many people with a lot of money are incredibly miserable, and often turn to drug use and suicide, or just make horrible decisions. If you need example, look about half of the celebrities. If you apply it as material goods to leaders, who have it in the greatest numbers, there are countless in history that have gone completely mad. So once again, the question is raised. Is the state of the man in the example not only necessary for happiness, but as I further propose, the only requirement?  

[whynaut]

You all point out compelling arguments concerning money. However, my premise is not that money is evil nor that money brings happiness; my premise is that money is tied to our being, our lifeforce, our very existence. That money (or if you prefer capitalism: the concept of money) has become so powerful that it has become an extension of humanity and humans as individuals: as ingrained and as natural as a limb. It is the mere idea that money (scraps of paper, or worst, numbers on a computer screen) can give power, status, continued life, and yes, even freedom.

In the beginning it was only physical actions that could provide this: you actually had to reach out and grab these things. Later on god-given nobility could achieved these things; and though it was more ethereal that physical actions it was still ingrained into a person i.e. it could not just go away.

But now these factors of life are directly proportional to money. Money that can be given and taken away by the fate of chance. So I submit that money is not merely an aid to humans. This is because money is always worth its value. It does not matter where it is or who has it. 1 million dollars in the hands of a New York executive still holds that same power as 1 million dollars in the hands of a Bangladesh beggar. The same thing sadly cannot be said for people. Money itself has become a force that only allows people to be lent some of its power; in the same way a King might have once appointed a Duke. Therefore it is no longer a world where people use money, but it is money as an institution that now uses people.  

[emperor_Hikaru]

As a Rand fan, I understand what you mean.

Money is a representation of power. It represents how much someone values your time and work. Someone earlier noted that we trade time and energy for money, but note that not all time and energy is equal. That is why some get pay more for others. It represents how people respect and like you, which is why companies spend so much time trying to be viewed as community oriented. Money is a representation of everything that we hold dear. And a representation becomes the thing in the mind of the people, this is how the idea of gods started. And that is why money can be said to be everything.  

[Arson Hiroha]

It seems you're trying to point out a societal trend, and not one about humanity. Obviously if you trapped 10 people on a deserted island, no one would give a damn about wealth. This also raises another point. You could very well not only dislike someone who has money, but because they have it. Take all of the politicians catering to people who are infuriated at the wealthy in American society. That is not to say that I agree, but nonetheless, money cannot bring you a good reputation, unless you're all ad campaigns and no person. Thus, we have established that money most certainly is power, but not all power.

Therefore, the question changes. Is power everything? You've made the distinction that you mean money is power, but you also say that it defines our society. Are you going to then, by transferrence, make the statement that power defines our society (or at least the type money gives you?

(If you contest the last question, let's use the age old example. If A=B, and B=C, then A=C. If money=power, and money=most important thing in our society, then by your statements, power=most important thing in our society.)  

[whynaut]

I see your point. Money would be worthless on a deserted island. So it can then be assumed that money has no inherent power. However, this also means that it is people who willingly give power to money. As I mentioned before, humanity is not necessarily giving power to people with money, but rather to the money itself (with an incidental person attached). We can see that there is no real reason for people to do this except for the institution that money has created. If everyone in the world stopped believing in money it would have no power, but in all areas that subscribe to capitalism (this means not deserted islands, but any place with a government) people have let money ensnare them in this way.

I also agree that money does not give a person respect or love, but money still does give power to a person who is not respected or loved. While once upon a time these traits mattered, now they do not. A jerk with money can still get someone to drive him around town, just the same as the considerate man with money. In fact, even the chauffeur's performance at driving will be the same for both men because the chauffeur is not doing his job for the prize of added consideration, but for more money.

Now while money may bring power to anyone in a capitalistic society, the question remains, "Is power everything?" But perhaps "power" was the wrong word choice for me, and sadly it was the closest word I could grasp at the time. The notion I am still grappling with partially has to do with control and partially has to do with freedom. Like a limb, this concept is an extension of person that allows that person to be more of themselves with less limitations. If we were to detach ourselves from capitalism, this "power" would be based on something else (perhaps the limitless facility of the mind?). However, going back to the beginning of this argument, humanity has been duped by money into believing that money is power. This is because the odds have been stacked against us in the beginning: we defined capitalism as money oriented.

Maybe on another world the people developed love oriented societies or work oriented societies, but on this world we both chose and had chosen for us capitalism. It is therefore like playing cards with a man who makes up the rules so that he wins every hand, but that is how it is.

Money is power because we told money it was powerful, and now money is telling us that it is powerful.  

[Arson Hiroha]

Hmm, now this is getting interesting. At first you appeared the advocate of money, but now you almost take on the role of its detractor in arguement. I agree in money's nature, indeed it would only be pieces of paper if we didn't use it to represent something else. Money began as a tool, and this tool developed into a rule.

Although, there are indeed many things a belligerent man with money will never gain for lack of love or respect. For example, if many millionaires ran for president we would highly dislike them for the job. Although many who are businessmen and women have respect, imagine Paris Hilton running for president. Legislators across the nation would shoot themselves. At the same time, you can see through her how a person themselves can become a parody of our society itself. She is the heir to the Hilton fortune, however her greatest accomplishment, to be blunt, was a sex tape. Money seems now to take on the sole role of being a means to greater ends. Perhaps money is indeed only a means to another end? But then this raises the question, to what end do you want money? If you say power, then it shall further extend. Why do you want power? If you follow this down to the final meaning, then we may have a clearer view.

I suppose another question is simple, to see where we both stand on the subject. Do you believe our use of money in society to represent our wealth to be positive or negative? If not that, but our focus upon it? By Plato's definitions, we are very well a combination of an Oligarchic society and a Democratic society. Once focuses on money, then gives birth to the other, which focuses on freedom. Actually, miss Hilton is a good example of this... Daughter of an Oligarchy, she represents the most base freedoms... Hmm....  

[whynaut]

Arson Hiroha

Hmm, now this is getting interesting. At first you appeared the advocate of money, but now you almost take on the role of its detractor in argument.
[...]
I suppose another question is simple, to see where we both stand on the subject. Do you believe our use of money in society to represent our wealth to be positive or negative? If not that, but our focus upon it?

Personally I dislike anything that detracts from freedom, but since money has become so all-encompassing it would be futile to argue against it (I might as well argue against air because it causes us to age rolleyes ). As philosophers, we must define the reality we live in rather than a reality we would merely like to live in.

Anyway, in regards to the goal of money. I think that people want money with the intention that it will expand their being, for lack of a better phrase. For instance, if you buy a video game then the experience of the game expands your capabilities of what you can do. Again, one should see both goods and services that money provides as if it were a limb. Remove that limb and what a person can experience is now diminished. This is why we feel that theft is such an heinous crime because a thief is not just stealing stuff, they are stealing pieces of a person. I can say from personal experience that whenever my internet goes out, I feel blind and deaf to an extent.

However, as we have mentioned before, the added feeling of experience may be real, but it is not inherently real. Buddhists and many other religious sects have seen this a long time ago, which is why they attempt to detach themselves from worldly possessions.

The real goal of money is not the intent people have for money, but rather the intent of money itself. If we look towards Baudrillard, the goal of money, like any institution, is to gain power. Money's intent is to get people to believe that money is powerful. It does this in many ways, but a common method is to dangle material wealth in front of us and tell people, "I [money] am the only way you can get that object (i.e. attain a greater level of experience)." But once again, this is not true because not only can we steal items bypassing money all together; we can also deny experience gained through money and look towards new experience without money.

Though as a person sitting in a nice house with a $900+ computer in front of me: consider me officially duped.  

[Arson Hiroha]

Quote:

Personally I dislike anything that detracts from freedom, but since money has become so all-encompassing it would be futile to argue against it (I might as well argue against air because it causes us to age rolleyes ). As philosophers, we must define the reality we live in rather than a reality we would merely like to live in.

I agree, that is very true. you'll have to forgive me on that one, I'm used to argueing with Capitalists or Socialists who believe the concept of money to either be an inherent evil or good. I forget we are trying to find the state of things, and not a certain belief true. Although philosophy isn't just a tool to define the world we live in, but also to know how to improve it, and to what ends. Otherwise mankind would always remain stationary. So, let us continue.

Quote:

Anyway, in regards to the goal of money. I think that people want money with the intention that it will expand their being, for lack of a better phrase. For instance, if you buy a video game then the experience of the game expands your capabilities of what you can do. Again, one should see both goods and services that money provides as if it were a limb. Remove that limb and what a person can experience is now diminished. This is why we feel that theft is such an heinous crime because a thief is not just stealing stuff, they are stealing pieces of a person. I can say from personal experience that whenever my internet goes out, I feel blind and deaf to an extent.

Indeed, though this roughly translates to power, or ability. To say I am more powerful would be to say I simply have longer "limbs". *tries to hold back the sex joke*


In addition, do agree that money is necessary in a larger society. Even supposedly "socialist" countries have currency. Although, even if we accept this, we still have the original dispute. Do we now both agree that money is important, and almost necessary in a large society for it to function, but not everything, nor the most important thing in a person's life? (I say a larger society because in smaller ones it is quite easy to act using verbal contracts)

Quote:

The real goal of money is not the intent people have for money, but rather the intent of money itself. If we look towards Baudrillard, the goal of money, like any institution, is to gain power. Money's intent is to get people to believe that money is powerful. It does this in many ways, but a common method is to dangle material wealth in front of us and tell people, "I [money] am the only way you can get that object (i.e. attain a greater level of experience)." But once again, this is not true because not only can we steal items bypassing money all together; we can also deny experience gained through money and look towards new experience without money.

Let me clarify, do you mean that this is the intent of those who originally created money, maintain its use, or the set course of money itself? In the latter case I agree with the lower part of your paragraph entirely, although there is one thing you forgot to include. The thing that money, if it is on a set course as you suppose, must despise is charity. You get something for the simple reason of not having anything. So if you agree with all of this, I suppose we should move on to another question. Is this healthy for society, making them money-centric (to invent a new term, not knowing the latin term for money), or simply a necessary evil? Also, if it is indeed necessary although evil, then how do we get the necessity out of it with the least "evil" possible?

Quote:

Though as a person sitting in a nice house with a $900+ computer in front of me: consider me officially duped.

As are we all, my friend. As are we all.  

[whynaut]

First you should understand that I consider myself a student of the Baudrillard school of postmodern philosophy. I find I agree with the man on most things (not necessarily his thoughts on hyperreality because how can you define reality as a simulation if that is the new basis of reality?), so as we break out of philosophy and into opinion country you can take my words with a grain of salt.

Anyways, my point being is that it makes prefect sense to me that money alone can maintain itself without people. Most institutions are headless beings detached from any real human intent anyway, so why not money? Personally, while I feel that the rich have a vested interest in money, not even they could have personally intended the monster/god money has become. I don't think that human beings have the capacity for the dreams or nightmares needed to create something so powerful. But again, that is a personal feeling.

As you can see, it is taking a lot of will-power not to call money evil. My gut instinct is to say, "Yes, money has gotten its tentacles into every facet of modern society and it must be stopped." But on the other hand, none of us can deny that capitalism is working (be it with ups and downs). Whether or not humanity inherently needs money? I don' think so. Though as I admitted before, I subscribe to a philosophy that claims that life itself is inherently meaningless anyway.  

[Niniva]

Quote:

Anyways, my point being is that it makes prefect sense to me that money alone can maintain itself without people. Most institutions are headless beings detached from any real human intent anyway, so why not money? Personally, while I feel that the rich have a vested interest in money, not even they could have personally intended the monster/god money has become. I don't think that human beings have the capacity for the dreams or nightmares needed to create something so powerful. But again, that is a personal feeling.

I'll call on absurdity here. Money can maintain itself without people? Maybe structurally, but the VALUE placed on money is a human thing. Money is worthless (as we see in economics) without a system to maintain it. No matter what it is made out of the value of it is not within the physical make up of it. Without people to maintain the desire to have it and the desire to spend it then money becomes worthless as it did in dark ages. Suddenly a system of barder takes over and money is nothing to anyone. Money is nothing....unless it has value...if people don't want money but rather want services in exchange then money has zero value and cannot be maintained as anything more then paper or metal.

Quote:

As you can see, it is taking a lot of will-power not to call money evil. My gut instinct is to say, "Yes, money has gotten its tentacles into every facet of modern society and it must be stopped." But on the other hand, none of us can deny that capitalism is working (be it with ups and downs). Whether or not humanity inherently needs money? I don' think so. Though as I admitted before, I subscribe to a philosophy that claims that life itself is inherently meaningless anyway.

Two problems here. First:

Money is an object without a consciousness. An object alone cannot be evil as it has no free will and cannot act on it's own and so therefore the value and desire for money are the traits that CAN be bad, those are human traits and so what makes money "evil" in this sense is not money itself but people who don't control those two traits.

Second:

As I explained above humanity is what gives money it's value in the first place, but the reason we have money is because it is natural to want to trade something of value for something of value. Mankind has done it since the begining of time and if we did not call it money we would call it something else. "services" "clams" "rocks" "Trade" Whatever. A system of monetary value has evolved from people, but the reason it is there is because it is the easiest and safest way to get what you want or desire without having to give up anything. You work to make money so you can afford things like food and shelter. If we had no monetary system then your reward for working would be the same, you trade someone house cleaning for a room in their home, you trade someone grain for the bread they can make, you trade someone a cow to cut it into meat and split it 50-50. Money isn't "necessary" but a system of monetary value of some sort is. Worth of things is a natural occurance so long as people have desires then money (while you are in a way correct, we don't "need" it) is the safest way to get what you want.

For example, in a barter system, what if you have nothing that is of any value? No skills, or are lame, or are maybe you have things...just not the right things. Say you are a farmer, you grow grain, but you need shoes to farm, the shoe maker has it good because everyone needs shoes so he will eat, he will have a house, he will have whatever he needs so long as he provides things other people need. All you provide is grain. To the shoe maker, he gets food and bread from the bread maker for making shoes....he doesn't need your grain for any reason, so when you go to him for shoes he asks "What do you have?" You can only say "Grain" He replies. "I need no grain it does me no good!" And so you are left to farm barefoot, your work-load is doubled because you can hardly walk two days out of the week and so your production is cut in half. You can no longer support your family, feed them, or give them clothing because no one in town needs what you have to offer.

So you and your family are s**t out of luck because there is no monetary system. People cannot pay you for your grain so that you can take what they pay you and give it to the shoe maker for shoes.

You could argue that the shoe maker could take your grain and give it to the baker to make bread with, but why would he do that when the baker has enough grain and the shoe maker can get bread without having grain simply by making shoes?

This example is obviously very vague but this example is also why it took 1100 years to get out of the dark ages.