If you want a demonstration of how fundamentally wrong our relationship with money, just look at what it has done to us. As described in the article. Larger and smaller, I hear them every day. We don't have the money for that.

We make money in that we give it the value. As a society. Currency = confidence in the abilities of someone else to give us that which we desire. That is all that any currency has ever been. It doesn't matter if based on gold or platinum or lead or nothing. Hey look at that! I've got a piece of paper that says it is worth 20 bucks.

Maybe I'm missing something here but what article are you responding to?

I pointed out corrosive power of greed on the ideals of Christianity because Christianity was intended to be the antithesis of self-motivated greed. Yet Christianity lies debauched by the market; nothing more than a brand, seeking to hold on to its share of the faith market as a means toward working it's will on the secular world.

The "ideals of Christianity" have not changed. Christ has not re-appeared and claimed that his original teachinngs were wrong, and he has not given us an amended version! Rather, there are some people who misinterpret them. But that's nothing new.

Christianity lies debauched by the market;

I disagree. The principles of Christianity have not changed.

But I am willing to consider the possibility that I am wrong-- so I would be interested in seeing any actual facts you could provide documenting how "Christianity has been debauched the market."

The thrust of the comment is why I wrote the article, not the original article. (It was Dylan Hunter's article on legality vs morality with regards to people who were given notice that the lots their trailers were on had been sold.)

My contention is that the relationship that mankind has with money is flawed at its very core. We love money to the exclusion all else, and when it comes down to a choice of money or anything, money wins, hands down. Even though we can conceptualize a world that is not zero sum, we cannot seem to move beyond the, I've got mine and it is mine mentality.

It is this mentality that I was addressing in the comment.

C'mon Bob! Give us A little more to go off of....

Unfortunate, but true. Money is needed to find solutions to the world's problems, from hunger to disease to education and upliftment from poverty.

Well, Bill Gates was the richest man in the world (I believe that this year he fell to second place ). Do you know what is his relationship to money?

Well, Bill Gates was the richest man in the world

His friend Warren Buffet is now the 4th richest billionaire.

While he is perhaps best known for his contributions to political campaigns , there are some other highly significant aspects to his relationship with money as well.

I hear what you're saying, but there's another thing, separate from greed, dunno exactly what to call it. For example, a couple of years ago I read a story about a woman who spent 2 million dollars on a birthday party for a 2 year old.

What the hell do you call that? It's not greed. It's certainly conspicuous consumption taken to the nth degree. But it's the kind of thing that shows a disconnect between that woman and 99.9999...% of the world's pop.

My contention is that the relationship that mankind has with money is flawed at its very core. We love money to the exclusion all else,

Who's "We"?

IMO that's quite an over-generalization!

I don't-- and my friends do not either.

Perhaps you are hangin' out with a bad crowd...?

and when it comes down to a choice of money or anything, money wins, hands down.

Greed is the Symptom, not the disease. The disease is a lack of compassion. We make the proper mouth noises to assuage our conscience, then continue on under the same heading.

Until and unless we make the fundamental shift from me/my/mine to, "Do you need some help with that," we will never progress towards the supposed greatness that we can achieve. And that is a difficult transition to make, it takes trust, a commodity that is seriously lacking in todays society.

Thanks.

Very charitable?

Yup. Very!!!

In fact, if I'm not mistaken, his interaction with Microsoft is now rather limited, and he now spends most of his time and effort (and vast sums of money!) contributing to the betterment of humanity:

The Gates Foundation: What We Do

We work with partner organizations worldwide to tackle critical problems in four program areas.

Our Global Development Division works to help the worlds poorest people lift themselves out of hunger and poverty. Our Global Health Division aims to harness advances in science and technology to save lives in developing countries. Our United States Division works to improve U.S. high school and postsecondary education and support vulnerable children and families in Washington State. And our Global Policy & Advocacy Division seeks to build strategic relationships and promote policies that will help advance our work. Our approach to grantmaking in all four areas emphasizes collaboration, innovation, risk-taking, and, most importantly, results.

We = mankind. And yes it is a generalization, an overly broad one at that, designed to start discussion.

How about, then, this statement: As a race we tend to exaggerate the importance of money, to the point where we wring our hands over the wrongs of society that could be corrected by money, but do little to supply the means to solve these problems.

I believe that he and his wife have started foundations to help with several of the worlds pressing issues. Therefore he is now known as a philanthropist. He still has more money, or rather wealth, than he knows what to do with.

Yes, our relationship to money is flawed; when we have it, we feel powerful. Without it, we are diminished in what we can achieve or accomplish. We are compromised without it, socially and economically. That leads to loss of power over our own lives.

Indeed, that is true for many materialistic folks. Probably even the majority...Perhaps they are the "we" you & Brolly are speaking of? (But please don't include me in your stereotype).

However, there are people who are not as materialistic as those people (the "we") you mention. Outside of that group, there are people whose lives are governed by other factors. Yes, there are some people who do have different values. Not everyone is as superficial as those you describe.n(And, btw, that includes both some "economically challenged" as well as wealthy folks).

I'm wondering if we shouldn't start considering strictly limiting the size of organizations.

Of course many (most) of those large corporations are publicly held-- meaning people can buy stock in them and share in the profits.

There was a time when most of the people who owned stocks were wealthy. But times have changed. For example, if you are a middle class working person, and you belong to a union, there's a good chance your union's pension fund owns stock in some of these corporations-- and shares in their profits.

With corporations running around competing in the same environment as the individual

Most major corporations are owned by individuals- - people who own stock in the company. (For example, I own some stock in Apple. That means I own part--[ a small part]-- of the company. At the current stock price, Apple pays a me a 2.5% dividend. (I am in no way "competing" with this huge corporation. In fact, I see their success asallied with my interests-- not opposed to them).

Krishna,

We=the human race. Every man woman and child on the face of this earth, including me.

Fundamentally flawed: Flawed in the basic design and structure intrinsic to the whole.

Consider: The head of a household has enough money to buy the commodities necessary for a month budgeted and is just able to make the payments. They are just getting by. But then there is an accident in front of their house and a person from out of town is left without an auto and without transportation. He is from out of town. After all is said and done the police drive of, the auto is no more, a total loss, leaving the person standing there with no way to get home. What does the head of the household do?

Consider: Fat Jack has been livin' large off of scamming people. He is so smooth, he could talk a nun out of her habit. He sees an obviously confused and affluent person walking around asking people questions, trying to find out something. What does Fat Jack do?

This isn't a test to see what you would do. These examples show the relationship with money that these individuals have.

I am not talking about class warfare. I am not talking about the redistribution of wealth. I am not talking about giving a few dollars or even many millions to charity.

What I am talking about is the relationship that money has to us, that we have to money. It is hard to break away from the conventional thought patterns because they have been rooted in acquisition mode for so long. Gather it. Store it. Hoard it away. Keep others away from it. This relationship is the source of wars. This relationshipis the source of power struggles. This relationshipis the source of neighborhood conflicts, ghetto wars and street violence.

Money, power, it doesn't matter what you call it, it is all arbitrarily defined and universally accepted.

All folks. Me You. Your Mother. The rich folk, the poor folk. All are drawn into the relationship with money.

Money. We need it to survive. Except for the very few cultures who have not been touched by its insidious nature, it holds universal sway over the decisions made every day by every person who is acting of their own accord, because it is necessary.

So those people who think about money are superficial? Really? I have to think about money every day. It is not a choice.

True for many materialistic folks? Ha! Every day you make calculations based on money. I would go so far as to say it is indivisible from your though processes. It is ubiquitous. Governed by other factors? Like what? Take away all of your money and what do you have? Nothing in terms of todays society. Not one thing.

"Well, I can do X" ... Yeah, if some one wants X, and actually believes you can do X, they Might pay you to do it. Being penniless doesn't help your position in the slightest.

Tell me, please, of someone who has a life that is not governed by money. Chances are, if that persons life isn't governed by money, then they have so much of it that they couldn't possibly lose all of it, or they have none of it and have given up.

You miss the whole point. Entirely.

When we have to make the decisions posed in the article, based on money, can you really say that we are not, that I am not, that you are not making those decisions predicated on our relationship to money?

So those people who think about money are superficial? Really? I have to think about money every day. It is not a choice.

Sorry if I was unclear. Of course you have to think about money--except for the few people living in societies or experimental communities where money isn't used

(I have lived in a few of those-- but that's another story )

But what I was trying to say is that there's a difference between thinking about money in order to function in our world-- and making the pursuit of it the most rewarding goal in life (or, rather, thinking that having lots of money will bring happiness-- giving it the #1 priority).

Krishna,

I know what a corporation is and a publically held company. I'm also familiar with stock...

I am not talking about class warfare. I am not talking about the redistribution of wealth. I am not talking about giving a few dollars or even many millions to charity.

In theory, redistribution of wealth sounds good. After all, its about fairness. (For much of my life I believed in Socialism as a cure for the worlds' 'ills...I was very idealistic..and also politically active)

However, my view now is that even if you could take all the wealth in the world and divide it equally amongst the worlds' population, within a period of time the inequalities would reappear.

(Obviously non one here is advocating anything even close to that. But my point is that people are different-- and different consciousness creates different circumstances).

Alright, so we have gotten beyond my initial diatribe , and my poor choice of wording. So I am going to plunge right in and try to get a verification of understanding.

I fully realize that money is not the penultimate reward. But, given the ubiquitous nature of the monetary creed, the quest for and the reward from receiving such, does it not seem unlikely that the relationship between money and people controls the interaction?

Most real Christians live paycheck to paycheck like most people. Yes, we have our False Prophets who are in it for the money, but most are not. I agree, preachers don't need million dollar homes,and if yours has one--leave that church. I also dislike extravagant Mega-Churches. As you note, that money should have been plowed back into the community helping the misfortunate. If there really is a Judgement Day, then these False Prophets will pay an eternity of torture for a few decades of sinful indulgence. If not, thenin the spirit ofthe immortal Yogi Bear, I guess they will prove to be smarter than the average Christian..

There are sincere Christians; however, I'd submit that even most of them need to rethink their relationship with money.

ncregister

A recent study reveals that states where religious participation is highest give the greatest percentage of their discretionary income to charitable organizations. Conversely, states that are less religious give less.

How America Gives, by The Chronicle of Philanthropy , is based on Internal Revenue Service records of people who itemized deductions in 2008, the most recent year statistics were available. It revealed that the most generous states were Utah, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee and South Carolina.

The least generous states were New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts and Rhode Island....

...Religious people give more, said Arthur Brooks, author of Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism, Who Gives, Who Doesnt, and Why It Matters . That doesnt mean those who belong to a congregation. Its all about how they practice.

Until and unless we make the fundamental shift from me/my/mine to, "Do you need some help with that," we will never progress towards the supposed greatness that we can achieve. And that is a difficult transition to make, it takes trust, a commodity that is seriously lacking in todays society.

I hear this a lot. But I rarely see it. So that makes me suspect it's a regional thing or something. "Do you need help with that" has been a staple of every neighborhood I've lived in and extends out to every community those neighborhoods were a part of.

Maybe an urban v rural thing? I don't know. Heck...."do you need help with that" isn't just a nice thing to do out here. It's a necessity.

If you agree that "helping others" is a natural and necessary part of a decent society... then why do you have a problem when that help is channeled through a local/state/federal government?

Because government simply isn't set up to effectively administrate charity. The budget of various government social service agencies is set up in such a way that they receive more money based on the number of people they have ON a program. Not how many people they help get OFF of a program. So there is no incentive in those agencies to get people off of government dependence. If they got everyone off the program, the program would cease to exist.

But on an individual level or not-for-profit level, the incentive is placed more on direct assistance. Is my neighbor struggling with the grocery bill? I can make some freezer meals that would cover a week's worth of good meals a lot cheaper than the government can provide food stamps for a week. Does my farmer friend who just had a stroke need help repairing a fence? I can spend an afternoon helping him out. The government has nothing for him and will in fact, fine him if his cows escape. What clothing assistance does the government have? A lot of non-profits have coat drives so kids can stay warm in the winter and Goodwill has extremely cheap clothing and the money they get from the sale of it goes into work and education for the disadvantaged and disabled.

Charity comes from the heart. Not from the federal government.

I don't think I've seen so many rhetorical questions in my life.

But I am curious. How much of your time and money have you donated to all of these poor people you see wandering around that you claim charity refuses to help? And if the government programs are so great...why are these people still poor?

I think there was more of an attitude of helping out,agreater sense of community, when we were closer to the land, or when theimmediatepayoff or penalty was moreapparent. The more distant, the more that we separate ourselves from the workings of life, the less that we feel the need to share our selves with others. (At least, for now, that sounds like a good place to start a hypothesis.)

I am going to post this now so I don't get distracted and accidentally navigate away from the page.

Again... interesting. I said "helping others"... and you answered "charity".

Since you seem to be struggling with the definition of charity...let me help:

charity

• benevolent feeling, especially toward those in need or in disfavor:

Now how do thosethree bullet pointsNOT translate into "helping others" in your mind?

And there are an awful lot of stone-hearted people out there! The result is that there are an awful lot of poor people, either just making ends meet... or not even managing to do that.

Why is that happening if the plethora of government programs are so successful at making their lives better?

Why is Goodwill an acceptable intermediary, but the government is not?

Because 87% of contributions to Goodwill go directly to those in need. With the federal government, 42% of taxes taken in for those programs makes it to the people in need.

Not at all. "Charity" is a sub-set of "helping others". It is not a synonym.

Yes it is. Definitions 1 and 2:

• generous actions or donations to aid the poor, ill, or helpless:
• something given to a person or persons in need

(If I were as knee-jerk reactive as some folks... I might even say that you are struggling with the meaning of "helping others"...

OK. Humor me. If 'helping others is NOT generous actions/donations to aid the poor, ill or helpless and it's NOT something given to a person or persons in need, then what is it?

but saying something like that would not be at all constructive... and of course we are BOTH trying to be constructive... aren't WE?

If this is leading down your well established path of: "if you don't agree with me, then you are being combative"...then I refuse to play.

Now THAT is a very significant fact... if it is a fact. Do you have a source?

en.wikipedia

If you're one of these people that doesn't like Wikipedia and thinks every word on it is false, there is a link to the souce for the data within the above link.

Here's more:

snopes

UNICEF: 91%, Red Cross: 92%, United Way: 89%, Salvation Army: 82%

Remind me again what the efficiency of the Federal goverment is?

And worth repeating, since you ignored it the first time....The incentive for these organization is to actually HELP people. They will not receive donations if they aren't effective. The incentive of the federal government is to get as many people as possible ON programs. Not off of them.

If this is true, then I would propose to pass all government aid through Goodwill. Simple!

Great. Start proposing.

Well, well...

I see a bunch of folk on here arguing about how to distribute money, charity, which is a nice discussion in and of itself, but not really the point. At all.

The mere fact that we (yes, Krishna, we) are having this argument at all is indicative of the fundamental flaw in our relationship to money. We have what we have, and at acertainpoint, will give no more.

We made the stuff up, money. All money is intrinsically worthless. It gains it's worth only through societal agreement, and that is true if it is gold, silver or just pretty little pieces of paper.

So, when we say, "Sorry, we can't operate on you because you do not have the money to pay us," in effect we are saying, "Sorry, but you do not have the value as a human being to defray the cost to us," because you do not make enough money, do not have the proper insurance, whatever the justifying excuse is, not just as a personal one on one matter, but as a societal value judgement.

"Well that is just the way it is," some of you will say.

Some of you will say, "It's all the rich folks fault," and then the rich folk come in with, "Well, I give at the charities... a lot even," and all will still be missing the point. I don't even know if the language exists to talk about this fully. It seams such a simple concept, I can see evidence of it every day, this breakdown between what is and what should be. Between what is the moral thing to do and what we actually do.

And I guess that society is comfortable with it, because there don't seem to me to be any crusaders out there for it.....

Money is that thing that most people only seem to have enough of to live (no matter the exact amount).

The government is well situated to know where to spend money because it has the data. It is a government interest because in some respects, it is the responsibility of government to assure a well functioning society for all those living in the country.

Everyone has a different sense of morals. Many think their individual morals should be shared by all. However, like money - morals are not shared by all. Many twist legality to support their particular brand of morality which usually means they make more money from it. Pure altruism is pretty rare and there have been plenty of studies indicating that no one does anything out of pure selflessness. There's a reward (perhaps a spiritual reward) in any act of giving.

In the future years where automation replaces more and more jobs, there will be a need to develop another model. We cannot allow millions of people to live in squalor because their contributions to society don't fit a 20th century idea of what "work" is.

The ideas of what is "worthy" and "unworthy" will also have to change. Many of the ills in society stem from one idea; the notion that other people are not proper to associate with because of their social station, their pocketbooks, their race, their religion, etc. When we can get that straight, their won't be such a focus on how much money a person haves, or gives. Morality will have gotten a significant boost.

Broliver

Money is simply the instrument. Funding is to a large degree a matter of prioritization. The most obvious action (internal) is to find funding for that which is most important by lessening the funding for lower priorities. Another action is time (and effort). An entity can focus its effort on raising the funding it needs for top priorities (external). Logically if the top priority truly cannot be funded then the entity itself is not viable.

"We do not have the money" = "We do not really hold this as a key priority" = "This is not important (enough) to us"

What is the 'right thing'? Who decides? People disagree ... morality is not absolute.

I tell you what. Why don't each and everyone of you look deeply into your soul and tell me that our relationship with money is not fundamentally flawed when such things can and do occur every day.

It is only flawed, if money to means to an end. There are many people who have made lots of money, and have given much of that money away,

And a true act of charity is done without notice.

All beyond the law of course; while each using the law to enrich themselves at the expense of others. All that restrains them is their own personal ethic.

Really nice comment, flameaway. I think you summed it all up quite nicely.

Emotions, those that meant putting people first, despite the financial deception of religion, went out the window when the age of Reasoning, the Enlightenment Philosophers, began to replace *basic* Christian virtues, values and ethics with reasoned thought (for money).

You might not agree, but I see that happening yet today: Progressive elites (Technocrats/Bureaucrats) undermining Business. Business represents wealth, independence, entrepreneurism, choice and opportunity - and yes, as you point out, classism. Yes, business is often associated with oppression, but opportunity is often prevalent, as well as *incentive* to improve (yes, using money).

I see the the point being wealth transference - going from earned (labor and capitalism) to making money without labor (interest, loans, investments, futures)...and yes, greed & power are still the motivation as it was before the Age of Reasoning, but what is different now is that they are shifting the wealth and power from Business to the Bankers/Bureaucrats who still oppress the laborer --- they just do it differently using Government agencies and specific regulations. We still end up with classism - two instead of three. I think we are better off with a three class division, because I see it as giving more power "to the people." (hahaha --sounds so..so..so trite or something:)

I don't see it as a L or R thing, but as a Aristocracy(L&R) vs. the common man - what's been going on for years, removing the common man's principles of human rights, choice and freedom from over-taxation.

And, so it goes, our Government is aligned with business (and the unions) to continue the trend of putting money ahead of the people, laying them off or not employing more - so that the tax dollars can be used to benefit the wealthy.

I don't see an answer. Do you ? Aren't we stuck now that they have us so globally intertwined and invested in other countries, instead of our own citizens welfare ?

___

Hi Broliver ! Nice article !! Thank you!

Hi Neetu! Of course, I remember you! lol

I was going to get around to bumping into you sooner than later, but I'm not here when you are, it seems.

Btw, please excuse all of my syntax errors. I free-lance everything, so it means if I'm typing too fast I'm not watching for punctuation and spelling, et al.

Well, the problem with the Technocrats/Bureaucrats being in control, as I understand it (and could be wrong), is that they use their 'reasoning' and intelligence to get around Law and constitutional protections, bypassing due process and democratic procedure (self-appointing other bankers and elite) using International Law (which is immoral and unethical). The goal of the EU, once again as I understand it, is to become a *global government* of self-appointed (as they currently are) bureaucrats and bankers, that will impose global taxes on us to remain in control of our wealth. As you might know, our Federal Reserve System is made-up of over half private European bankers. They aren't investing us globally to make things nice for us or the world populace (in fact, the result is quite the opposite) - it's to maintain their financial control.

I understand your implication that to take care of ourselves might sound selfish, but I'm seeing it as less selfishness, and more about self-preservation for future generations. Nice to see you!

Flameaway,

I've considered many of the same things you mentioned.

It's one thing to have a more user-friendly planet because we, as communities, built and planned those eco-friendly environments and reap the financial gain to be put back into 'us;' and it's quite another thing to have that environment planned and implemented for us, in a way that we might not be comfortable in, by the uber-wealthy global bankers and investors that are currently doing that - and are taking the gains for themselves in their investments.

For example, the UN's social engineering project, ICLEI might 'look' good, but I believe it's all about 'control.' (Rockefellers influence the UN) From telling us how to live, where to live, what we can and can't eat and grow, as well as planning our business communities -- for their own profits in those mandates. I think if we were to implement such controls (which I don't agree with all of them), they should be to our own financial advantage. Upswing has left NV, but he had a lot of information on this and videos from areas where this was already happening, business being dictated to comply with government self-imposed regulations coming out of the UN agenda.

What do you think of this, if you have previously read about it ?

(I'm sorry to be slow about getting back to you tonight!)

"It's a jungle out there" - for sure!

No Problem, CL.

Ok, Good.. I didn't see one, either. :P

..Other than money.. People do so many stupid, immoral, unethical, deceitful and hurtful things out of the love for money. We need it with the way our economics work, but to live 'for' it by looking for ways to take it from others is why we need to be vigilant in recognizing what the basis of the problem is, imo.

When we discuss the richest among us we are really looking at this problem, this fundamental flaw, from the wrong side. The rich have absolutely no reason to discuss their relationship with money and could hardly be expected to view the same as flawed. After all, what they are doing works for them. I wonder if the conception is common among the well-to-do that if the same path is followed by all, that the same rewards will follow?

Personally, I have had a long and twisting path through life, sometimes running up against the walls of society, sometimes flowing along smoothly within them. In 2007 I took a departure from the norm, quitting my job as a PCB designer with a regular salary and embarking on a new path . It has been greatly rewarding on the personal level to work not for a paycheck, but to pull my own weight around, helping people I love and knowing that I am making the burdens bearable.

This experience has brought me closer to the realization of the interconnectedness of humans and how there are truly no self made people out there. Everyone has had some help at some point in their lives, and no one can rightly claim that they are self made. It just does not happen that way.

I think we need to figure this out on a larger scale, this idea that with out those around us, we would not be where we are. I think that too many people think that they are self made and might not realize the extent that we all help or hinder each other. I also think that this idea of being self made is one of the contributing factors to the fundamental flaw that we have with money.

Welcome, TiG! Thanks for stopping by.

I agree with your analysis, but am wondering, do we throw our hands up and say, " We cannot help because we don't think that you are worth it"? Because, in effect, that is what happens in many cases.

In the several cases that I have posed over the course of this article and comment section [1] [2] , I have tried to show that the relationship we humans have with money isfundamentallyflawed in that our expectations are to be monetarily compensated for most things we do and that money causes us to make decisions counter to the basictenetsof civilized society.

Quite the difficult question to grapple with.

Thanks again for stopping by.

Perrie,

So when the people who don't make enough money to be productive members of society, they are using there relationship to money in a flawed way? I mean, people who barely get by need to look at money as a means to an end, it is just that their ends are different from the fabulously wealthy.

I was driving at a more fundamental flaw that places the procurement of money above acts that can be viewed as moral, and the forcing of choices between these two aspects by the need for money in order to live. It would seem to me to be much more apparent in those who have to make ends meet than those who are comfortable.

Read

I've read that too.

It is a social illness that I have seen seep into many including many a church. I knew we were in trouble when those younger than me would say things like, "You can never have enough money". They haveforgottenthat you can not mixpoliticswith religion. Both are flawed but together they aredangerous.

Bob,

I really couldn't say, other than me talking about this fundamental flaw to the relatively minor audience that I have, I've not heard (m)any people mention it. Maybe my views are toominusculein the context of the larger society.

Or, it could be I am just a freak.

Maybe I could start a non-religion? Give it a cool name like Not the Church of Money....