Are we slaves to money?

Post Reply New Topic

Money is not a completely failproof yardstick for demand. In fact, i'd say its a wholly unreliable one. 'Marketability' is a measure not of the demand of numbers of people, but of individual spending power.

Take for example a factory that produces baked beans, and another that produces fast cars or yatchs for the incredibly privileged.

The bean factory may have a high demand among people who can only pay a small amount per unit, but one person who wants a yatch may stimulate the same sort of 'demand' as a million people who want beans. This implies that there is much demand for yatchs as there is beans which in practical terms, is completely arbitrary and nonsense.

Meanwhile, to further exacerbate social inequality the people building these yatchs and sports cars could have been using their skills to help a broader range of people. Herein lies the problem of the price system paradigm.

My desire for yatchs or approval of yatchs as base commodities are neither here nor there. My greivance is with the system that pins such a high value on them and allocates a high proportion of human energy expenditure for the benefit of tiny group of humans.

Anthropological evidence suggests that self superiority is a western construct. Explorers found remote rainforest indians without concepts of analogous things like money, leadership or heirarchy.

we exaggerate only barely in saying that a male chimpanzee in his prime organizes his whole life around issues of rank. His attempts to achieve and then maintain alpha status are cunning, persistent, energetic, and time-consuming. They affect whom he travels with, whom he grooms, where he glances, how often he scratches, and what time he gets up in the morning. (Nervous alpha males get up early, and often wake others with their overeageer charging displays.) And all these behaviors come not from a drive to be violent for its own sake, but from a set of emotions that, when people show them, are labeled "pride" or, more negatively, "arrogance""

Even the animal kingdom is rife with instances of 'altruism'. Ants, hyenas, prides of lions all work together and better as a team.

Is not the point. You said selfishness greed etc is human nature. Its not. Its a construct.

Is not the point. You said selfishness greed etc is human nature. Its not. Its a construct.

Apparently since this thread is still going on, I may as well share something:
http://www.deirdremccloskey.com/editorials/sandel.php

It's a writing by economist Deirdre McCloskey to counter philosopher Michael Sandel. Many of her points are somewhat related to the discussion. It is definitely fair to note that Dr. McCloskey is more free-market relative to the rest of the profession as far as I can tell, but she's definitely smart and thoughtful.

You misread 2 and 3. 2 and 3 are criticisms of certain kinds of criticisms. It is absurd to criticize a society for not allowing people to refrain from eating.


His belief can only make sense with the additional belief in a technological utopia. The issue is that a belief in a technological utopia as something that can be constructed now is kind of absurd. Lots of people talk about it, but most of them are cranks.

Maybe I am being knee-jerk, but my reaction isn't erroneous given that I think we both broadly agree on the current state of affairs.

First of all "greed" is a scare word and has little factual basis. Selfishness can range from rational self interest, interest in one's self and one's kin all the way to reckless "I don't care" behavior bordering on the sociopathic.

Rational interest in one's own survival needs and that of one's kin (if one has kin) is likely to assure that one's biological line will survive to reproduce. And that is all the nature "cares" about. Successful reproduction is what determines the nature and character of any species.

Exercise: Read -Origin of Species- by Charles Darwin.

ruveyn

I've always considered myself fiscally conservative and still do, but recently, with my inability to find a job added to the fact that America is a workaholic nation, are we really slaves to the almighty dollar?

One common sentiment is that under communism, you are a complete slave to the government, and I agree. But no one seems to question capitalism. I believe capitalism is the most free compared to socialism and communism, but many conservatives treat as a system without flaws.

A hundred years ago, people obviously still earned and spent money, but it wasn't the required object that it is today. People bartered and traded all the time. Not to mention that when you owned a piece of land, you kept it after paying it off. No property taxes, and no income tax on what you earned. So, in theory, a person back then who owned land and animals only needed money to acquire the basic items from the town store.

Not everyone had access to these commodities, but there wasn't a general push to earn big money and college wasn't a required path to attain a good wage.

Since then, I think society has become very materialistic, and because of this, we now have two groups of people who are affected. First, we have created a group who are constantly one-upping everyone else, and who are obsessed with their "social status." Second, we have a group of people who have no desire to be rich, but are constantly told from day one that they need to grow up to an expensive university that they can't afford in the first place, just to hopefully get a higher chance of attaining a well-paying job, which is used as a way to impress others, as seen in group one. Group two are the people who reject this, but are still subjected to the system. If people refuse to go to college due to cost, they instantly are not taken as seriously by employers as would someone who obtained a degree. If they don't care about impressing others, it might cause depression and a lower chance of success in the corporate world, which revolves around "faux professionalism."

Is this the kind of system that money has created for us? It sure seems so. We may not be under communism, but we sure are slaves to money and the system that it's created.

People are selfish enough on their own. They don't need entire ideologies built to justify certain behavior that's going to be a recipe for anger, strife, and conflict.

The misuse of the word "rational" also bugs me. Rational cannot be used to describe ultimate ends. Reason is like a flashlight that illuminates the path to follow to reach some desired end. Reason doesn't tell you where you would like to end up. Only personal desire or moral conviction can do that.

Rational interest in one's own survival needs and that of one's kin (if one has kin) is likely to assure that one's biological line will survive to reproduce. And that is all the nature "cares" about. Successful reproduction is what determines the nature and character of any species.

Apparently since this thread is still going on, I may as well share something:
http://www.deirdremccloskey.com/editorials/sandel.php

It's a writing by economist Deirdre McCloskey to counter philosopher Michael Sandel. Many of her points are somewhat related to the discussion. It is definitely fair to note that Dr. McCloskey is more free-market relative to the rest of the profession as far as I can tell, but she's definitely smart and thoughtful.

Why is self-interest a recipe for anger, strife and conflict?

No misuse:

Because when taken to an extreme the pursuit of one person's self-interest of one is going to limit the pursuit of someone else's self-interest. It's not rocket science. That a huge number of people become unhappy and protest should be reason enough to see that something is wrong.

Neither personal desire nor moral conviction are inherently rational. They are not inherently irrational either. They just are what they are. They exist on an entirely different plane from reason. Reason pertains to describing potential pathways, not prescribing which path one "should" follow.

And cooperation and altruism are just as important as selfishness in determining survival value. Humans are social creatures. We are physically slow and weak compared to most animals. In primitive times we survived to reproduce by working in groups. If evolution selected for your type of moral disposition how can you explain the existence of "bleeding heart liberals" like me? By biology we should all be cold heartless Randians like you.

Apparently since this thread is still going on, I may as well share something:
http://www.deirdremccloskey.com/editorials/sandel.php

It's a writing by economist Deirdre McCloskey to counter philosopher Michael Sandel. Many of her points are somewhat related to the discussion. It is definitely fair to note that Dr. McCloskey is more free-market relative to the rest of the profession as far as I can tell, but she's definitely smart and thoughtful.

I have another big criticism of an argument the author made that I see repeated a lot. Because a poverty wage in the US is often above the average wage in developing countries, Americans living on the edge are basically told to shut up and be grateful, you could have it much worse. The problem here is the bad assumption comparing wages in dollar amounts from one country to the next is an accurate way to compare social welfare. It completely sweeps under the rug vast differences in the cost of living as well as the degree of social adaptation of the society to poverty conditions. Someone with an annual income of $5000 is going to be a lot better off in a country like Costa Rica than a country like the US. In the US a family income of $5000 or less will most likely lead to being homeless. Not so in a country like Costa Rica.

Assuming that the people becoming unhappy and protesting are not just serving their own self-interest.

And when taken to an extreme, the pursuit of moral convictions yields better outcomes?

Foul play. I deliberately posted 2 quotes in the same context. Breaking them up is like saying that Nixon said "I am a crook". He did say that, but he also included a "not" in the statement.