Lop-Sided Philosophy: MoneyPositronWildhawk Money, so they say, is the root of all evil today, but if you ask for pay rises, no surprises they're giving none away.
So what is this supposedly evil atrocity on society? In my country, it takes the form of a series of copper, silver and gold discs, before green, pink, purple and red rectangles of paper, all with HRH on one side. Let's stop to look into that dame's eyes for a second. How can any heterosexual male even keep his mind when there's that to gaze upon? Every man is driven to do dastardly things for that prize he will never obtain, and that will span two extremes: stash it for the sake of having as many of these things as achievable, or spread the phenomenon by throwing them all away in exchange for shelf-displayed crap. The latter is what the government use to justify money to us.
The social and economic custom is simple: money can be exchanged for goods and services. This means that citizens like you and I can make a compromise on a day-to-day basis. Do I really want that KitKat? Or do I want to stash it for that space rocket that I've wanted all my life? But more importantly, should this be a need? In a free country such as mine, all of our people are entitled to the same rights. Why, then, should money be valued cumulatively in this way? 55p will get me a KitKat, but it won't get me a rocket. Each is a priced good, just as car insurance is a priced service, and we should be entitled to these, should we have money. To force one of low income to continuously save to get that rocket, while another can obtain one instantly, is technically social injustice. This "stasher" faces a dark turn; he is determined to hoard all of this to the point of no return; his greed affects those who need his wealth more. The government is encouraging the third deadly sin, but the fact is, they exploit it themselves. So much of this money is legally taken away for their use; a further violation of equal rights.
So maybe take a moment to think if money was actually a token to use any good or service. Every human being with this token could use it for a KitKat or a rocket, whichever they choose. There is no cumulative cost; each of these indivisible units can buy any bearer of even one token any item which is available to them. The rich are simply those with more opportunities. This makes it much easier for the poor to invest in the rich; another step to equality. Better still, communism may have worked if it were for this non-monetary-unit currency; as every civilian has the right to any item in their range, and there would be no need for one to spend time saving while another gets this instantly. Financial responsibility is so overrated.
So what about the companies, the manufacturers, the hard workers? They gain money from sales, subsidies and such, and they are meant to spread it among their workers. This is how everyday people obtain their wealth, but of course, all of this is mediated by the company, which may or may not choose to bias their payments in a certain favour. This inequality is in their hands, and so it would make sense for those in charge at Tesco, Nissan and other large companies to have the responsibility that financial t**** in the government do. But just as today's government is influenced by avarice, so is the company. And so, the workers in a capitalist-based company and government are unlikely to receive the profits they would fairly set out for, at the benefit of those above their power. With the investment system we currently have, this enables them to obtain goods that others cannot, but with the hypothetical situation above, this imbalance is further amplified.
Not to mention the imbalance which they receive themselves in the market. To manufacture a sellable product, they often invest a lot of their own profit on resources found from others, and the maths show that the latter gains on the losses of the former. That's ten depleting, expensive resources into one cheap finished product. In the hypothetical situation above, that's ten units out, one unit in. There is a hierarchical ladder of gain and loss no matter what, the highest ranking being the utility monster (Nozick's entity).
In a system with token currency, as previously described, the aim would be to create a net-zero flow of wealth. As long as one does not profit over another, they have equivalent utilities at hand. So the hypothetical policy would be that one unit of a resource would contribute to granting as much as needed to the company to make as many products as the number of resources put in. To the customer, this would sell that many of the product to them, which makes the benefit of buying stronger. Ten identical cars, for instance, is a must if cars are frequently stolen in your area, and if you buy ten KitKats, you can save nine for later if you're cutting down on the calories. Another one of the perks of a fair economy.
The side-effects? Clearly, an economy with zero net flow of money from one individual, firm or country to another is one where money itself has no purpose. Maybe my lop-sided philosophy on this case is a way to abolish money completely, and so I should probably justify why this is feasible. For a start, there is no rich or poor, and poverty is what divides modern society more than most things. And yes, there's no reward for labour, strictly speaking, but one has to do something aside from freely acquiring goods and services. The more highly educated and responsible of us shall continue to produce necessities, such as healthcare and food, so the remaining content of the economy, from farmers to car makers, shall continue to thrive with the same unlimited privileges of your average Joe, with only the minor economic problem: scarcity of resources.
That is my lop-sided philosophy on this case, and writing this post has consoled me about not getting paid. With a system like this in place, who needs coins and notes, for you and I can now get literally anywhere in life. Even when we're back in the dark ages, we'll still be equally happy, so let's take a moment to count our blessings for this broke and dying utopia.
I like money mainly cause it buys you stuff. But as you said, you could still get places without money. - Therandom
Well money in itself is worthless. It's only important as a means of exchange for more important goods.
As a quote from One Piece says, "Money won't fill your stomachs (It's the food that actually does that)." - Kiteretsunu
Agreed with Kiretsunu on August 1, 2015 - CityGuru
Money, it's a hit. Don't give me that do goody good bull. - PetSounds
This was supposed to say bulls-h-i-t. Censored! - PetSounds
Personally, I find it to be real important. I would rather be using the greenbacks and getting greedy than continue to barter with a sheep's lung and a glass eye or whatever. That would just be infuriating. - visitor
You write a lot of good post - visitor
Ya, mine are horrible - Oliveleaf
MOnEY Is UsED TO MaKe DoG ToYs! - pupcatdog