Money

[Venetia]

This is a dog-eat-dog world, but not everyone craps all over their neighbor to make a buck. Some do it through hard work. If you can make it big without infringing on another person's right to happiness, then you succeeded in life. But it's good that you know that anyone else'll screw you over in a second, it'll make the road less bumpy when someone actually does it to you.

It's not a pretty picture, but it's a realistic picture. All you can do is try to be as selfless as you can and hope for the best.

 

[Bestone]

(i updated my previous post probably as you were writing that but yeah)

Thats not all you can do, thats just the least you can do. Actually, its what you have to do to get by. But, its most certainly not all you can do.

also on the flipside of the coin. No-one can really come in here and act all high and mighty..... cause chances are you already are living comfortably, and guess what? people are dying elsewhere, its happening.

Yeah, but really....it doesnt need to be...

 

[Jason]

Well I 110% with eharper256 here, People are more important than money, money is inanimate, money runs out, I don't care how much I was getting paid, I wouldn't get rid of my friends, I wouldn't get rid of my ex, We might not talk much anymore but I still love her inside.

Venetia, just wondering, you say you'd rather have money than people, surely your husband brings money to the house ? If not he's a freeloading gimp lol (No offense he might be a nice man), but surely you'd rather be with him than not and have money ?

I know that people like money, I mean, 99.99% of everything around us needs money, but these are just the inanimate things, what can they do for us ? Besides, they'd break eventually.

Items break, People don't:

That was the headline of an arguement that was somewhere on the internet a while back, and as silly as the point may seem, I thought it brought a good point, and I'm going to put people in scenarios here:

You've grown up with your friend since the day you were born
When your in your 20's, you wake up with them in bed, welcome to Family !
Your marriage lasts until you are both 80...
Your husband/wife dies slowly in your arms from a serious cancer as you are sat in a hospital room.
Your too old to find someone else, you have to sleep alone every night, you can't do anything without being reminded of them...

How would you feel ? Could you live like that ? Could money fix that ?

You're born into the wealthiest family around
By the age of 18 you are the 9th richest person in the world
You have no friends because of your snobbiness, most people hate you
Your business (Yep you own a MASSIVE one) is doing SO great you decide to invest EVERY LAST PENNY YOU OWN  into it
You find out it was the worst decision ever, and the business goes bust
You are left with no money at all since you wasted it.
You are poor and can't afford living status, you must live like...

How would you feel ? Could you live like that ? Could people fix that ?

Which one of those would hurt the most ? Which would you rather have ?

Well for me, I know I'd rather be in the bottom one, Sure you'd be a snobby bastard for a while, but when people come to see the pain you've been cause by how poor you are, they will forgive you, and give you a second chance, these people are friends, and thats what friends do.

Now, if it were the first one, you've lost your most loved one, money can't bring him/her back, nothing will, but people can still be there for you and look after you...

Both of these scenarios can become reality, and for some people, ARE reality, these are the people who treasure people more than money, and to be honest, I'm one of those people, I would choose people any day.

Let me ask you all a question that will most likely (And I hope not) ever be asked:
If someone asked you "Would you let me pay you £100M ($200M) to kill your friends and 10 other people close to you ?"

What would your answer be ?

 

[Venetia]

Venetia, just wondering, you say you'd rather have money than people, surely your husband brings money to the house ? If not he's a freeloading gimp lol (No offense he might be a nice man), but surely you'd rather be with him than not and have money ?

I don't know. I'd be sad without him, but I'd get over it, just like people get over it in rather one-sided divorces or after deaths. It follows you around, but you come to terms with it and move on. It'd be a hard choice, but I think I might go with the money, if I thought he'd end up alright without me. And yeah, he makes more than I do, and is in school to be an attorney, so luckily I don't have to decide between him or money.

Let me ask you all a question that will most likely (And I hope not) ever be asked:
If someone asked you "Would you let me pay you £100M ($200M) to kill your friends and 10 other people close to you ?"

What would your answer be ?

I'm not close to even 10 people. More like ... Eh, 3?

And no, I wouldn't kill them for the money, or any money, that's sick.

But these hypotheticals can never be so there's not much point in debating about them.

 

[eharper256]

W00t, glad that I seem to have some more support, jbrist. Thought I was totally unique again in my capitalist hate, lol, although:

Items break, People don't

technically, that is debatable, lol.

You've grown up with your friend since the day you were born
When your in your 20's, you wake up with them in bed, welcome to Family !
Your marriage lasts until you are both 80...
Your husband/wife dies slowly in your arms from a serious cancer as you are sat in a hospital room.
Your too old to find someone else, you have to sleep alone every night, you can't do anything without being reminded of them...

Yup, in such a scenario, where at the end of ones life, one has achieved nothing substantial besides love a single individual and raise a family, I would be terrified to die. Because I didn't do anything remotely unique, and I will be remembered for at the most three generations. Its not that I would neccessarily need to leave a lasting legacy, but I would like to be to look back and think, 'Woah, that was cool, so worth living just for that, and that, and, oh yeah (giggle) ~that~'.

But nevertheless, thats going somewhat off topic.

As has been noted, these arguments and hypotheticals will actually go nowhere, as one's attitude towards society and capitalism is usually quite deeply ingrained by the time one reaches adulthood. We can't sway one another simply from expressing our heated points of view, in this instance, at least, because everyone is aware of the facts and its simply a matter of interpreting them as one sees fit. If one values money above people, then that is their choice. If they've analysed the matter and come to that conclusion, then fine. This viewpoint is the one that society wants you to hold, however, and what I despise is the idea that someone is using a borrowed ideal for convienience or because it is expected of them.

Personally, I hate the idea of succumbing to what society wants. If I'm a cog in the machine, I want to be the cog that's always turning the wrong direction. This is evident in the fact that I have no desire to get wealth, I enjoy supporting underdogs, and I support a political party that will probably never win precisely because they will never win. But I realise these concepts are abhorrent to some people. Its just the way things are.

 

[Dissonance]

I wouldn't get rid of my ex, We might not talk much anymore but I still love her inside.

Jesus christ Jbrist get the fuck over it.  :|

You can pixel just as easily with windows paint as you can with Adobe photoshop.

O lawd

if you ever complain about someone screwing you over for money, someone robbing you, or taxes being raised, or any other way for someone to take money from you, your a hipocrate

The system is specifically built so that your job is to keep the people below you subservient while trying to usurp the people above you.  So it's not hypocritical at all, in terms of the system you're talking about, to complain when people do things to you that you've done to them.

Yeah, but really....it doesnt need to be...

Yes, it does.

Can you think of a system that would increase the quality of life in other areas of the world while keeping our own quality of life intact?  Guess what - it doesn't exist.  We are so rich BECAUSE they are poor, starving, and dying.  Helping them hurts us.

 

[Neverplayd]

     I may be talking from an alien standpoint or being a hypocrite, but money is one of the dumbest ideas man has created. It is actually ingenious in its original purpose; to make it so that ppl can give and take goods without having to worry about their supply running out. (I guess it was a better way to trade... at first.) Money's true intention was to help the circulation of goods around the world; so basically it was made as the blood vessels and/or heart of the world. However, somebody should have guessed that perfect circulation of money was impossible. (They probably did, and just counted it as another flaw that was unable to be fixed).

Can you think of a system that would increase the quality of life in other areas of the world while keeping our own quality of life intact?  Guess what - it doesn't exist.  We are so rich BECAUSE they are poor, starving, and dying.  Helping them hurts us.

     Actually, it isn't exactly like that. We are rich because the government has created a good flow of money from the people to the government. In some points in history, that wasn't the case... ex. the Great Depression, and maybe the recession we are entering currently. In some of the poorer or third-world countries,(Not all of them, but some that I know of) there are corrupt governments or uncapable governments that are unable to properly circulate the flow of money from the people to the government, which causes them to basically fall deeper into financial instability. These countries have a lot of resources, like oil, gold, etc., but they can't work together to make use of them. So how could we help them? We try to jumpstart the circulation. People think that we are completely funding these nations; But why would we have to fund nations that probably have a greater amount of resources than us hidden in their land somewhere? So really, it wouldn't be as if we were draining the money from our pockets into their own, but more like jumpstarting their engine with our own.
     However, the major problem is the fact that even if we give corrupt governments money for their nations... well, they're still corrupt. Why would they share with the people if we gave them money? Also, American government doesn't want other nations to use the money to become a superpower and attack us. So, helping doesn't hurt us; we just think it will. But yeah, off topic. But then again, hardly any of this post is on topic.
---
If you guys are arguing whether money is a better subsititute than people, I say no. Money is just luxury(I won't say that I can live without it. Because in today's society, that is almost impossible), but people are the base of our society. People make money and everything else. Money was made solely as a way to improve trade; so in reality its worth is more illusional than people think it is. If we were to get rid of the whole monetary system, millions, no billions of people who devoted their life to money would be ultimately fucked and psychologically distorted. People take money way too seriously. The enjoyment comes from the people(who make the money), not the money itself.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

I may be talking from an alien standpoint or being a hypocrite, but money is one of the dumbest ideas man has created. It is actually ingenious in its original purpose; to make it so that ppl can give and take goods without having to worry about their supply running out. (I guess it was a better way to trade... at first.) Money's true intention was to help the circulation of goods around the world; so basically it was made as the blood vessels and/or heart of the world. However, somebody should have guessed that perfect circulation of money was impossible. (They probably did, and just counted it as another flaw that was unable to be fixed).

That is not the point at all.

The intention of money was a controlled currency.
Look at old school China.  They invented a form of currency that those around them could not make themselves, and gave it only to their people.  They made it worth more than a chicken.  Why am I going to trade you a chicken for a bucket of wine?  I can just spend the money as it were, and you'll give me the wine and I get to keep the chicken.  I can have wine with my chicken dinner.
Best of all you now can use the money elsewhere.  That's true, and a huge point in it's reason for succeeding.

But China did it to control, tax, and grow rich.  With them controlling the coin made, they can distribute it as they see fit.  The could tax it as they see fit.  They could enforce it as they see fit.  The Mongol over there living next door, well he doesn't have any money, and we won't trade our wine for his oxen.  We'll buy the oxen, and keep the wine.  When he wants the wine, he'll give us back our money.  Why?

Because that Russian tribe living next to him, yeah they don't use our money.  So he'll have to come back to us for it.

Just exchange China for Rome, Russia for Africa, and Mongol for Spaniard and it's the same case.  Take any "great" civilization that started producing money when their neighbors were still in the barter system, and that's the real reason.  We can enforce how you trade, and therefore we can profit off of it, and you'll have to trade threw us.  The iron based currency of one nation is pointless to the brass token currency of another, they'll have to sell to us to buy from us.

As for the "perfect circulation", that's a pipe dream that I don't think was ever intended.  Money is not meant to have a perfect circulation, else old bills wouldn't be burned off.  It's meant to be limited, controlled, and harder to come by than it really should be.  At times more money is destroyed than actually pressed for a reason.
To keep it far from ideal.

 

[eharper256]

Actually, both of you are correct, money ~was~ meant as a bartering assist, but it was always ~also~ a form of control. It is for that very reason that we, as a world, still refuse to adopt a fully universal currency. Because that would make us all equal, and humans always feel the need to be superior to one another. Exchange of currency between different types is rarely a profitable business unless you're extremely business savvy.

However, some might argue that this will eventually crumble due to the pressures of globalisation. Probably not within our lifetimes, however, even if we have seen progress with the euro being formed and the ability to use credit cards abroad/on the internet. (They still exchange currency via credit in this case, however...)

 

[saintninja]

My opinion next: money it's tool for our good life, but I hate money, because ALL needs money, even small adventure need money, eat need money... And all full life of simple man is take and give money.

 

[korgul]

I don't think it's possible to make an absolute comparison between the two things, money and people. Both things arn necessary, we can't live with'out any goods or without other people. But, having the right ammount of money to leave with decent standard (not drowning in debts, having some place ti live, to eat and, yes, I NEED an internet connection) I found much more satisfaction in staying with people that I love, than in accoumulating othe goods).
Another way to put the question: Would I trample over other peaple if I really need money? I would like to say no, but honestly I must admit that i can't really know how I will behave in a very harsh situation. But I think I'll value people I really care off even above survaival matters.

 

[Samboy]

With close friends I openly share my money and don't respect any back. In that regard, people are worth more than money. If someone on the stree wanted a few dollars I would share, only if I had another $50 note in my back pocket. No backup coinage, no way.

Personally, I think people are worth more than money. You can have all the money in the world, but without people, we're screwed.

 

[Coen]

Money vs People

I think it is a regional thing. In modern countries that still contain government death squads, human life is not worth much.

However in modern democratic society where people are more comfortable and cautious there are services (like welfare) that involve the community pitching in cash through taxes to help those who are struggling financially.

@ Samboy: Dude watch you Grammar :neutral:

 

[iceplosion]

With close friends I openly share my money and don't respect any back. In that regard, people are worth more than money. If someone on the stree wanted a few dollars I would share, only if I had another $50 note in my back pocket. No backup coinage, no way.

Personally, I think people are worth more than money. You can have all the money in the world, but without people, we're screwed.

Exactly.

Can you think of a system that would increase the quality of life in other areas of the world while keeping our own quality of life intact?  Guess what - it doesn't exist.  We are so rich BECAUSE they are poor, starving, and dying.  Helping them hurts us.

And you're okay with that?
I'm not, I'd give up everything I own if it saved all the people who are starving and dying, because people are worth more to me and because I know I could get it back if I worked for it (and believe me, I'd have a lot to give up)

I'd like people to consider a hypothetical situation:
You have a choice, all the money you want in a world with no people, no one to grow food, no one to make the things you want to buy, just a lot of useless paper with you by yourself, you're going to have to learn to survive, or you can be the most popular person in the world who will never have so much as a penny, when you go to restaurants the owner (a good friend of yours) lets you eat for free, when you go shopping stores give you clothes/cars/whatever for free because they like you so much and want the most popular person in the world to be seen with their stuff, you live at a friends place, because you're friends with everybody that means you live wherever you want, for free.

They're both ridiculous situations, but showing extremes of both sides might make people realise my point, as much as we need money we need people a whole lot more, money is just something people invented and it's only worth something as long as people say it is, people will always have worth and that can never change.

 

[Venetia]

I couldn't give two shits if someone I never met and most likely wouldn't piss on me to put me out were I on fire has an easier time in life.

My money is mine and I shall spend it as I like. If you want to throw it all away on people you'll never know, in ways you'll never be exactly sure of, enjoy.

If you'd rather money over your loved ones, that's a harder decision. But money vs. random populace? How much of a bleeding heart liberal do you have to be to be willing to give up your livelihood for someone who never earned it like you did?

 

[iceplosion]

Someone who grows the food you eat? Someone who makes the things you need to survive?

It's kinda hard not to care about milllions of people dying because they don't even have food or water.

 

[Venetia]

Someone who grows the food you eat? Someone who makes the things you need to survive?

It's kinda hard not to care about milllions of people dying because they don't even have food or water.

Is it really? Before you turned on your television and saw some B-list celebrity walking around with an Ethiopian child in their arms, did you even know that child existed? Will that child ever know you? Were you in opposite situations, would that kid help you?

Yes, I know, being conservative is evil and terrible and selfish. Yes, it's so, so selfish to want the fruits of YOUR labor to be YOUR fruit.

Why should I pay for some crack whore's kids on the bad side of town, just because she felt like making all the wrong decisions and resigning herself to the fact that suckling off Welfare's teat is easier with lots of kids?

Why should I send money to people of third-world countries, if it doesn't go towards teaching the people how to establish a government that won't abuse the shit out of them, or toward an initiative to allow them to stop bringing children into their horrid world just to starve them?

Why should I support people who can't support themselves? Why? Because I'll be a better person? Will I really? If I gave everything I own to that Welfare crackhead, would it change them? Would they become like me? Will they realize they need to start working? Probably not! And then I'd be in the same boat as the crackhead was!

(BTW -- The people who make the food I eat and the shit I use? Yeah, they have jobs. Their jobs? Making my consumables! So ... Not the same.)

Anyway, I've derailed the topic. It was about money v. people, not socialism v. conservatism. My apologies.

And I suppose, if there weren't bleeding heart liberals out there, I guess the world'd be a much colder (if not less annoying) place.

 

[iceplosion]

Is it really? Before you turned on your television and saw some B-list celebrity walking around with an Ethiopian child in their arms, did you even know that child existed? Will that child ever know you? Were you in opposite situations, would that kid help you?

I couldn't care less about those ads and of course I'd know those kids existed, anyone with a decent education will know about the different cultures in the world.
Aside from that my family contributes a lot to different charities so I've always known about this, I've actually been to some of these countries.

Yes, I know, being conservative is evil and terrible and selfish. Yes, it's so, so selfish to want the fruits of YOUR labor to be YOUR fruit.

You have a twisted idea of what being conservative means, anyway it's not like you're entirely responsible for the things you have, you owe at least a little to the society which allowed you to get those things and I can guarantee you third world labour contributes to your income in some way.

Why should I pay for some crack whore's kids on the bad side of town, just because she felt like making all the wrong decisions and resigning herself to the fact that suckling off Welfare's teat is easier with lots of kids?

Because the kids shouldn't suffer for something they had nothing to do with? Because like I previously mentioned you owe something to the society that gave you what you have, you could have been that crack whore or one of her kids and you'd have died because you couldn't afford food (no welfare, no income and it's not like a two year old can get a job)

Why should I send money to people of third-world countries, if it doesn't go towards teaching the people how to establish a government that won't abuse the shit out of them

Because you're helping these people survive, you don't get to make their culture like yours, they have their own culture and forcing them to change it would be wrong. (and a violation of human rights)

toward an initiative to allow them to stop bringing children into their horrid world just to starve them?

You're advocating genocide because they're poor?

Why should I support people who can't support themselves?

Because you were once one of those people, because ultimately that kind of behaviour is bad for humanity and causes serious social problems.

Why? Because I'll be a better person? Will I really?

No, it won't change you at all, I never said it would, nobody did.

If I gave everything I own to that Welfare crackhead, would it change them? Would they become like me? Will they realize they need to start working? Probably not! And then I'd be in the same boat as the crackhead was!

Now you're being ridiculous, when I said I would give everything I own I meant if it would stop all these problems, I wouldn't just give everything away without thinking, but giving what I can to support those who need it to survive is important, you can't control where you're born so you would allow people to die just because they were born poor? Because you wouldn't be as comfortable if they got to live?
You have to ask yourself if that kind of behaviour is healthy.

The people who make the food I eat and the shit I use? Yeah, they have jobs. Their jobs?

You ever buy something that isn't fair trade? You have anything made in a sweatshop?

Anyway, I've derailed the topic. It was about money v. people, not socialism v. conservatism. My apologies.

Yeah and I continued to derail it >_>

And I suppose, if there weren't bleeding heart liberals out there, I guess the world'd be a much colder (if not less annoying) place.

bleeding heart liberals? really? that's such an odd  term, understanding that there are needs beyond you own shouldn't make someone a target for insults.
Also the human race as we know it would be gone (after all, no liberals to support the poor, no poor to support the rich, society crumbles and we all die or at the very least do nothing but look out for ourselves as society regresses)

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

You ever buy something that isn't fair trade? You have anything made in a sweatshop?

If you don't know, in certain regions the best job for the local natives is the sweat shop.  Sure they make a quarter of a penny a month, if that, and the conditions are horrible, but it beats tilling the soil of 4 seeds - 4 of which won't grow, while using the leg bone of your uncle to dig and toil with.

***

I'm horribly poor.  The luxuries in life are cable in the living room, and in my sister's bed room, and I have internet.  My TV was actually black and white till I got a new one, used - and 11 years old.  Sure, there's thousands of people in the world who would change places with me in a heart beat.  There's billions of lives worse off than I am, I do actually have a roof.

I don't see anyone giving me money, and I don't see many people doing anything to help me or those like me.  I see a lot of people worry about other countries and other peoples.  I see large pledges on television and bad actors and actresses show off the shame of the world in the streets of somewhere far away.

It's nice to help the people we don't know.  Who aren't part of us.  Makes us feel good.  I couldn't give two shits about some poor shmoe who has to work in a sweat shop or tilling the fields with his uncle's bones, I don't care if they starve.  The price of milk is like $4 a gallon, fuck them.  I needs me some milk.

 

[iceplosion]

If you don't know, in certain regions the best job for the local natives is the sweat shop.  Sure they make a quarter of a penny a month, if that, and the conditions are horrible, but it beats tilling the soil of 4 seeds - 4 of which won't grow, while using the leg bone of your uncle to dig and toil with.

Well yeah, that may be, but my point was that in doing that you kind of owe these people something.

And sixty, that's fine, you need that money to survive, I'm not saying people should just throw their money away to people less fortunate if it makes it difficult for you to survive, I'm saying people should recognise the importance of human life and that it has more value than money does.