That thing rich people do where they make money into more money

[Nixie]

I'll be sixty in a week and a bit. People do become more balanced as they age. Being an INTP and having all kinds of interesting ideas and intellectual interests is all well and good, but sometimes you just need to implement those ideas and reduce those inventions to practice. My experience with INTJ's (I've known several and my older son is one) is that they are some of the most effective people in getting things done effectively and efficiently. My INFJ wife is a physician and medical scientist who slips into her INTJ mode quite easily. INFJ's with a well developed "T" can sometimes appear to be INTJish. I guess I would say that nobody is limited to just four letters.

Yea, it was just a way of saying that I agreed with you--so obviously, you had to be an INTJ...

Yea, I'm also glad that we aren't limited to just four letters too--I would pick the four letters starting with F that spell out a dirty word if that was the case--otherwise I would end up with some screwed up letters that didn't spell any words...oh wait, are you talking about MBTI??? Oh, nevermind then.

 

[not sure]

[MENTION=1678]Norton[/MENTION]. This is the argument of yours that I dispute.
We disagree on money always = power. Power can come from different sources, money is only one. Inheritance of money does not increase/decrease your chances of lacking power. Being outmaneuvred by people who are more powerful than you or the peculiarities of your environment have effects on your power and can effectively neutralize it. I don't think we disagree that power extends the reach of evil or good.

The section regarding the relationship to power and evil are not directed at your arguments but at general arguments of that nature. Sorry if that was not clear.

 

[Moya Anomalous]

It's called investing. The wealthiest family in the world is involved in Foreign Exchange investing. You should try it...

 

[muir]

Money has no intrinsic value, it is an illusion created to empower some and impoverish others

The game is not equal and much wealth is inherited wealth; the game is rigged.

Have you ever played the board game 'monopoly'?

That game is like a microcosm of the larger macrocosm of the capitalist system.

In my experience of that game, it rarely ends well. Basically one person ends up with all the money and properties and basically taxes the crap out of everyone else leading to frustration on the part of the other players.

That is what has been going on under capitalism and now there are certain families who own vast amounts of the worlds wealth. The major difference being, of course, that in 'real life' we don't all start with the same amount of money.

The wealthy then get to weild more power, live better qualitiy lives and exercise control over others.....why.....because we all buy into the illusion that money is real....but it isn't. If you were king of a desert island you could create your own currency and make sure that anyone who came to your island had to use that currency....the currency might be sea shells. They have little intrinsic worth but because of the perceived worth they have value.

It is all an illusion of value

Money allows the imbalances we see around the world and that is why it is described as the 'root of all evil'

we will never solve the worlds conflicts or the destruction of the environment (which are externalities due to the markets) until we get rid of money and start allocating the worlds resources according to the needs of the people

The people who have a lot invested in the current system will of course always resist such a change with every means available to them

 

[not sure]

Money has no intrinsic value, it is an illusion created to empower some and impoverish others

The game is not equal and much wealth is inherited wealth; the game is rigged.

Have you ever played the board game 'monopoly'?

That game is like a microcosm of the larger macrocosm of the capitalist system.

In my experience of that game, it rarely ends well. Basically one person ends up with all the money and properties and basically taxes the crap out of everyone else leading to frustration on the part of the other players.

That is what has been going on under capitalism and now there are certain families who own vast amounts of the worlds wealth. The major difference being, of course, that in 'real life' we don't all start with the same amount of money.

The wealthy then get to weild more power, live better qualitiy lives and exercise control over others.....why.....because we all buy into the illusion that money is real....but it isn't. If you were king of a desert island you could create your own currency and make sure that anyone who came to your island had to use that currency....the currency might be sea shells. They have little intrinsic worth but because of the perceived worth they have value.

It is all an illusion of value

Money allows the imbalances we see around the world and that is why it is described as the 'root of all evil'

we will never solve the worlds conflicts or the destruction of the environment (which are externalities due to the markets) until we get rid of money and start allocating the worlds resources according to the needs of the people

The people who have a lot invested in the current system will of course always resist such a change with every means available to them

‘The established political parties are saying it has to be the market, the market is the only mechanism that can be progressive and to that extent history has stopped. And to reassert others ideas, that in fact the market will lead to mass unemployment, will always lead to poverty, will always lead to exploitation, will always lead to war and that the value of collective strength has a way of providing for our needs and generating a more tolerant, less abrasive place to live; reasserting that is a very tough job today’- Ken Loach on the extras disk to Land and Freedom

Yes money is an idea. Yes capitalism will always end with one group of people having an unequal share of the wealth. What seems lacking in the current system is a practical way to redistribute the wealth through the society. Even if the wealthy are taxed more the money quickly comes back to them because they use the system more effectively. The same things happens if the wealthy are charitable. The dynamic occurs whether or not the people in the system are decent because capitalism is dependent on the exponential growth of money and no exponential system I've ever heard of lasts forever in the real world. Either a new or improved system is needed but that system must recognize that our resources are being depleted while our populations grow. If that fact isn't dealt with I can't see any chance for true equality. Maybe I'm missing something.

 

[muir]

Yes money is an idea. Yes capitalism will always end with one group of people having an unequal share of the wealth. What seems lacking in the current system is a practical way to redistribute the wealth through the society. Even if the wealthy are taxed more the money quickly comes back to them because they use the system more effectively. The same things happens if the wealthy are charitable. The dynamic occurs whether or not the people in the system are decent because capitalism is dependent on the exponential growth of money and no exponential system I've ever heard of lasts forever in the real world. Either a new or improved system is needed but that system must recognize that our resources are being depleted while our populations grow. If that fact isn't dealt with I can't see any chance for true equality. Maybe I'm missing something.

Hi AS I'd like to respond but it may have to wait until tomorrow as it is definately my bedtime!

 

[aerosol]

Compose a catchy mainstream pop song.
Then have Katy Perry sing it, or whatever generic singer you believe would make a good fit.

 

[This]

Compose a catchy mainstream pop song.
Then have Katy Perry sing it, or whatever generic singer you believe would make a good fit.

There's little money in the record industry anymore. The real money is in movies.

 

[aerosol]

There's little money in the record industry anymore. The real money is in movies.

Disagree. There's lots of money in royalities. If you write one big hit you'll get paid everytime it gets played on the radio, and etc. Some people are economically indendent due to having written only one good song or two.

 

[This]

Disagree. There's lots of money in royalities. If you write one big hit you'll get paid everytime it gets played on the radio, and etc. Some people are economically indendent due to having written only one good song or two.

Try getting a contract where you can work that out.

 

[magister343]

"root of all" sound familiar???

Most English translations actually "The love of money is the root of all kinds of evils." When I looked up Timothy a couple Greek versions I found the phrase "παντων των κακων" (which google translate says is "all kinds of evil") in all of them, and none saying "all evil."

Edit: I just found that the Greek versions that use diacritics/accent marks are being translated as saying "all evil" instead of "all kinds of evil," even though every word is otherwise identical.



Young's Literal Translation does say all evils rather than all kinds of evils. However, it does not say "the root," but rather only "a root." Greek does not have indefinite articles, but it does have definite articles. Generally (although not always) when no definite article is used in the Greek then the meaning is the equivalent of using an indefinite article in English. The original text of Timothy does not use an article here, so "a root" is probably more correct. There is nothing saying that the love of money is the only root of evil.


Those versions that don't say "kinds of" are likely under the influence of the very familiar Latin version "radix enim omnium malorum est cupiditas." Note though that Latin does not use any articles (definite or indefinite), so there is no way to tell from this if it means "the root of all evils" or merely "a root of all evils." Also note that while "cupiditas" often does mean "the love of money," a more literal translation is simply "desire." It can apply to the desire for money, power, respect, sex, or pretty much anything else.

I don't know enough Greek to be sure, but I suspect that φιλαργυρια, the original Greek term for "love of money," may also have a broader meaning like cupiditas. The only other translations to come up immediately though are avarice, parsimony, and greed. Still, I see no reason that such greed could not exist in an economy that lacked a standard medium of account and exchange.




Regardless of the scripture though, money remains but a means that has a tendency to become destructive when made into an end unto itself.

 

[This]

Regardless of the scripture though, money remains but a means that has a tendency to become destructive when made into an end unto itself.

I agree [MENTION=2648]magister343[/MENTION] however I believe most people just want financial freedom and security for themselves and their families.

 

[bamf]

To have a rich we have to have a poor. It is unreasonable to believe that the poor can move up the ranks in significant numbers. The top 10% own somewhere in the range of 80% of all the wealth whereas the bottom 90% (that includes the rich, but not wealthy, and the mystical 'middle class') owns the remaining 20%. You can't invest when you can't afford to eat, and you can't go to school when you can't afford not to work. There is no real tangible way for the masses to more towards economic stability when the wealthy own so much, including our time. To make elevate the poor we have to knock down the rich, or collectively enjoy poverty spread among the 90% of us fighting for that one piece of a five piece pie.

To accept exuberant wealth you have to accept that there will be an abundance of poverty. That wealth the rich control does not trickle down, rather it is consolidated to generate a wider pool of wealth for them to draw from. Money does in fact equal power in the grand scheme of things. When we cannot afford to go to school because we have to make money to eat, we are willing to do jobs we wouldn't normally do just to get by giving our rich bosses power over us. We lose the ability to decide what to do with our lives and end up doing what is given to us by those who 'create' jobs. Where there is great wealth disparity there is no equality.

If only I could go back in time to meet the first person who thought of individual ownership...

 

[invisible]

i want money
that's what i want
i want money
i want lots of money
in fact i want so much money
give me your money
just give me money

 

[invisible]

If only I could go back in time to meet the first person who thought of individual ownership...

i have often felt this way. i would love to throw that person a party. without them i would not even have ownership rights over my body. someone more powerful could do whatever they wanted with it.

 

[This]

If only I could go back in time to meet the first person who thought of individual ownership...

As a business owner I'm not sure if I should feel threatened or not >_<

 

[bamf]

As a business owner I'm not sure if I should feel threatened or not >_<

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y"]YouTube - Twilight Zone intro.[/ame]

 

[not sure]

To have a rich we have to have a poor. It is unreasonable to believe that the poor can move up the ranks in significant numbers. The top 10% own somewhere in the range of 80% of all the wealth whereas the bottom 90% (that includes the rich, but not wealthy, and the mystical 'middle class') owns the remaining 20%.

No disagreement but all systems have a natural tendency towards imbalance. If you set up another system at first it will work well but eventually you'll run into a similar problem that requires intervention of some kind. It's up to us to restore the balance. Debt forgiveness (for humans not corporations) perhaps.

You can't invest when you can't afford to eat, and you can't go to school when you can't afford not to work. There is no real tangible way for the masses to more towards economic stability when the wealthy own so much, including our time. To make elevate the poor we have to knock down the rich, or collectively enjoy poverty spread among the 90% of us fighting for that one piece of a five piece pie.

Say for argument's sake we spread the entire pie about evenly, will that eliminate poverty? Or will it simply make us all poor and expose that at the root of everything is that there aren't enough basic resources for everyone. On my island if we eliminated money and ownership, who would trade with us so that we could buy food for both rich and poor? Since, the only crop we've ever grown successfully on a large scale is sugar cane how would we feed ourselves? Do we even have enough land to do it? I maintain that the core problem is that our populations are outstripping our resources. China as I can see is the only country that's tried to be realistic about it. They haven't found a workable solution but at least they are aware.

If only I could go back in time to meet the first person who thought of individual ownership...

I'd like to meet that person too and shake his hand because I'm convinced that if I had to depend on the collective I would be banished to a dark corner and forgotten. At least with individual ownership I have some chance of survival.

 

[Norton]

No disagreement but all systems have a natural tendency towards imbalance. If you set up another system at first it will work well but eventually you'll run into a similar problem that requires intervention of some kind. It's up to us to restore the balance. Debt forgiveness (for humans not corporations) perhaps.

True. Balance is the optimum condition for political, economic, environmental, electronic, mechanical, etc. systems, yet it takes intervention and energy to achieve and maintain. Most systems tend toward imbalance when neglected and/or designed without enough regulation. Too much regulation, however, leads to a slow, unresponsive system lacking in "gain." An amplifier without sufficient regulation (i.e., negative feedback) quickly produces the "positive feedback" we sometimes hear from PA systems. This can blow out the audio output transistors. Too much regulation, however, limits the amplification factor (i.e., "gain") and bandwidth, and what good is an unresponsive amplifier that doesn't amplify enough? The same is true of economic systems, but unfortunately, we seem to oscillate between too much regulation and too little. Partially, this is because political systems are also unbalanced. Political imbalance occurs when there is too much power on the political extremes and too little incentive to compromise. This is what is happening now in the U.S.

 

[not sure]

[MENTION=1678]Norton[/MENTION], I'm in complete agreement.

I think we also need to look at limiting the size and lifespan of corporations but once again it's a complex issue. Some corporations to be effective must be large and/or have an international span. How do you decide which corporations? and how do you impose limits without suffocation?

Intellectual property is another area that needs refinement. I think a huge mistake has been made by allowing corporations to extend those rights beyond 70 years.

The class segretation that naturally arises in capitalist societies is also another issue.

Perhaps, the whole system should be scratched and replaced with one more appropriate for the current situation but even that will result in massive displacement and suffering. Conundrum.