BF2S Forums What is money?

ATG wrote:

Except that what we have now, across the board is an insane power grab by the feds.
All bets are off and common sense is dead.

The idea of money is completely irrelevant.

AussieReaper wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

There are times when they want more people unemployed for the good of an economy and will work to achieve that.

When the economy is growing, they limit growth through the methods you outlined. When the economy is shrinking, they do the opposite.

It is not tied to a master plan of keeping the rich and keeping the poor poor. It is about maintaining a stable economy, which is best for the rich and the poor in the long run.

Yeah, best for the people as a whole sure. However you can't deny that there are times they will want someone to be unemployed, carry out monetary and fiscal policy to achieve that goal, and that person does hurt in at the very least the short term. But as I said, "technically" they are conspiring against you if you are in that position. Whether they do it in good intentions or not.

But I agree with the Keynesian Macroeconomic Theory wholeheartedly (as I'm guessing you do?).

The pain is indiscriminate though. Above you were saying that it's keeping the poor poor and the rich rich.

Keynesian economics is okay. If it worked as advertised there is no reason not to. The problem is nobody ever wants to slow the economy when it is doing well, they just want to spend when it goes down the shitter.

As a result I think it's better for all involved if the government makes everyone stick it out. It depends on the competency of the government though.

Money is just a representation of the world's assets, in a simpler form.

The idea that ATG brought up , seems very similar to Communism to me.
The Star Trek idea seems great, but I think there is always going to be items that people may want. For example, you may be given a place to live, but that would mean you get jealous of the guy with the house close to the sea ( for example). I dont know how the Communist/Star Trek system would account for that. I guess thats where money comes in.

JohnG@lt wrote:

BN wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

A necessary physical representation of skill and/or effort.

<3

there are plenty of actors and singers who have very little talent but are very rich.

Then stop buying their records and attending their concerts if you think they have little talent. Someone obviously feels that they warrant money being spent on them.

I dont by them. Not sure why you would assume that.

Talent in the entertainment industry often has little relation monetary success.

Success is that industry is based around marketing, sex, product development, hype, etc

JohnG@lt wrote:

I've heard a few people here say they wish they lived in a world without money. That it is inherently evil and causes strife in the world between the rich and the poor. So... the question is quite simple:

What is money?

"That it is inherently evil and causes strife in the world..."

Actually, no, people put an excessive value on money, hoard it, and basically let it control themselves.  Money itself is not evil.  Having a lot of money is not evil.  It's when you let money control your destiny that you let yourself become "inherently evil and cause strife".  Using your terms this morning because coffee hasn't kicked in yet.

Varegg wrote:

I'm waiting for the thread: What is hedge-funds? aka if you knew the plane would crash would you still get on board?

But  the plane can't crash, so of course you'd get on board. Dur.

I guess the thing about money is it has no intrinsic value, so its very easy for govts to manipulate - and stuff up.

Pug wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Pug wrote:

"That it is inherently evil and causes strife in the world..."

Actually, no, people put an excessive value on money, hoard it, and basically let it control themselves.  Money itself is not evil.  Having a lot of money is not evil.  It's when you let money control your destiny that you let yourself become "inherently evil and cause strife".  Using your terms this morning because coffee hasn't kicked in yet.

Right, but the point is that money has no traits of it's own except as a means to facilitate time transactions. If it wasn't money those people were hoarding it would be something else that they value like food or clothing or any number of other things. Hell, some people have fifty cars just because they like cars. I'm also sure that the obsession those car lovers have would turn violent in a very small number of people. It's just human nature.

And confusion sets in...

"Right, but..."  and then you go on to agree with me.  Not sure why "but".

And sort of on topic:

Who invented "share the wealth"?

It's an old concept but in modern times it was cemented into our politics by Marx, Engel and Lenin.

Who keeps complaining about not having enough money?

In my experience, most people complain they do not have enough money. Even the wealthy want to be wealthier.

Who gives you a paycheck so you can feed the family and put a house over your head?  The rich.

Not always true but yes, generally correct.

So the rich contribute, but apparently its not enough to eliminate the crying.  That doesn't mean the rich should stop what they are doing...

Never said they should. Jealous people just like to bitch about the gap between the very richest and the very poorest even though 99% of the time there are very real and solid reasons for the disparity. We are not in fact all born equal no matter how badly some people wish it to be otherwise. There will always be those that are more intelligent or that work harder or are born taller etc. Unless we're talking clones the equality those people desire is not possible and the pursuit of it is dangerous.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-09-29 06:33:21)

Who invented "share the wealth"?

It's an old concept but in modern times it was cemented into our politics by Marx, Engel and Lenin.

Okay, but the origin was from the poor and adopted into modern politics.

Who keeps complaining about not having enough money?

In my experience, most people complain they do not have enough money. Even the wealthy want to be wealthier.

Sure, but the rich don't have their hand out.

So the rich contribute, but apparently its not enough to eliminate the crying.  That doesn't mean the rich should stop what they are doing...

Never said they should. Jealous people just like to bitch about the gap between the very richest and the very poorest even though 99% of the time there are very real and solid reasons for the disparity. We are not in fact all born equal no matter how badly some people wish it to be otherwise. There will always be those that are more intelligent or that work harder or are born taller etc. Unless we're talking clones the equality those people desire is not possible and the pursuit of it is dangerous.

"there are very real and solid reasons for the disparity".  Like what?  What is a solid enough reason to make me donate more than 50% of my salary that I already pay, while others not as fortunate as me pay 10%?

Pug wrote:

"there are very real and solid reasons for the disparity".  Like what?  What is a solid enough reason to make me donate more than 50% of my salary that I already pay, while others not as fortunate as me pay 10%?

I think you've got me confused for a liberal Just because I'm from New York does not make it so. I believe in a flat tax.

Anyway, the solid reasons for the disparity between the wealthy and the poor comes down to talent or a lack thereof and the drive to work hard. Sure, some of it may come from being born into a wealthy family but there are just as many idiots that come out of those families as come out of trailer parks. The difference between the two is that the wealthy family will push their kid through school and emphasize education even if the kid is Tommy Boy. The trailer park family will 9 times out of 10 piss on education and their kid won't value it.

People bitch about how much money NFL players make but how many of them have the talent or size required to play the game? Those same people still buy season tickets or tv packages or jerseys etc. Where's that money supposed to go? To feed the poor? Please. I can't sing, I can't act and I can't play professional sports. I know this and while I may think it's mildly retarded that a scientist makes so much less money than an actor I also know that for every person making money in Hollywood there are ten thousand starving wannabe actors waiting tables.

I don't like calling it luck but some people are just born with all the positive traits to make them succeed in life while others aren't. It's just life. Nothing you can do about it.

Pug wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

I think you've got me confused for a liberal Just because I'm from New York does not make it so. I believe in a flat tax.

Anyway, the solid reasons for the disparity between the wealthy and the poor comes down to talent or a lack thereof and the drive to work hard. Sure, some of it may come from being born into a wealthy family but there are just as many idiots that come out of those families as come out of trailer parks. The difference between the two is that the wealthy family will push their kid through school and emphasize education even if the kid is Tommy Boy. The trailer park family will 9 times out of 10 piss on education and their kid won't value it.

People bitch about how much money NFL players make but how many of them have the talent or size required to play the game? Those same people still buy season tickets or tv packages or jerseys etc. Where's that money supposed to go? To feed the poor? Please. I can't sing, I can't act and I can't play professional sports. I know this and while I may think it's mildly retarded that a scientist makes so much less money than an actor I also know that for every person making money in Hollywood there are ten thousand starving wannabe actors waiting tables.

I don't like calling it luck but some people are just born with all the positive traits to make them succeed in life while others aren't. It's just life. Nothing you can do about it.

I didn't lump you as a liberal, just like you think I'm conservative.

But if I follow your response, I would say the answer it's social standing, but a problem with the educational system.

On a related note: my six year old can add, multiply, subtract and divide.  He can add and subtract five & six digit numbers.  He can add, subtract, multiply and divide single digit numbers in his head.  I did not teach him that.  At his age, I was only writing the numbers in the right order.  One day I'll be working for him, or die by his hand.

That was me as a kid. My grandmother had me doing multiplication and division before I even started kindergarten. I was reading at a college level in first grade.

Money is the paper equivilant to gold. back in the day before tyrantical criminals ran the country and printed money to pay our own debts causing pending super inflation money was  backed by a countries gold supply.

Gold being (i believe) the highest and most well-known currency of that day

Which leads me to my next idea:

Why not go back to using gold as the currency in the form of coins. Value of coins would be based on amount of gold in the coin. This way, tyrantical suits cant just print new money. The dollar can drop to 0 but gold cannot.

Last edited by Mitch (2009-09-29 10:09:07)

I've always wondered why Gold is valuable. It's utterly useless. Found in small amounts. Doesn't really do anything. The only reason it probably ended up being valued by Human beings was because it was "shiny" and didn't corrode. Same with Diamonds, yeah I know they have their real uses, but for the most part people like them because they're "shiny"

What is this fascination with shiny objects. Is it some bizarre ancestral/evolutionary trait that made its way through to humans. Why Gold... Why?