For the longest time I could not square the dual nature of money in my mind...

For the longest time I could not square the dual nature of money in my mind. It seemed to me like it was both a neutral store of value, and a symbol of amounts due, a particle and a wave if you will, both material and abstract. I thought the core of the problem was fiat money, taking away true value from money, and replacing it with just a symbol of obligation. But that's not the full extent of the corruption.

I think I've found an inkling of my answer in the "Money" speech of Francisco d'Aconia:

working-minds.com/money.htm

>Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.

I recommend anyone to read it.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=wCk-O1eQknA
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

If you don't feel like reading you can listen to it:

youtube.com/watch?v=wCk-O1eQknA

Should be obvious but I guess I forgot to mention, it's from Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.

Money is an inanimate object it's neither good or evil. Humans on the other the hand that greed after it.....

Well that's the thing, money is just a meta representaiton of humanity's nature. As I can see it it represents at least 3 human values/virtues/natures:

1. Free exchange - value for value
2. Credit - promise of value
3. Competition - relative value

Those things are deeply embeded in human nature, and make things like societies, and money, exist. So the real question is, is it human nature that corrupts money, or is it money that has been fundamentally changed and is corrupting human nature.

Some might argue that the idea of credit is the root of those problems. Maybe.

Another quote from the speech to underline my point:

>Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it becomes, marked: 'Account overdrawn.'

Nothing wrong with greed, except when it leads to something that is actually wrong - like theft, extortion and exploition. The problem we have today is that the system is built in a way that makes these things easy for greedy people. One can be honest and greedy at the same time user.

money is for naggers.

Spot on. There's nothing wrong with greed as long as you pursue it within the rules of society. Being greedy and producing what people want and are willing to pay for is simply being industrial. Being greedy and stealing is the problem.

All human beings are driven by their own profit and profit to their family and less so friends. People are selfish, that's their nature, and it makes sense in the evolutionary context. The beauty of money is that you can shackle that nature in the service of human prosperity by leading it down the path of free exchange, no force involved.

Money is essential for modern society existing. You could not build the empires we built without a generic and fungable store of value everyone respects. Barter is not efficient enough.

The prophet of god himself has confirmed the rich don't go to heaven, therefore they are evil.

>He never read the money speech before

Hank Rearden makes my pee pee tingle

But that's exactly the point, not all rich are evil. There's plenty of rich who built their wealth on their ability and drive. They MADE money, they didn't earn it, or steal it, or tax it away, they MADE it.

>If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose – because it contains all the others – the fact that they were the people who created the phrase 'to make money'. No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity – to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted, or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality.

I actually did when I was much youger, back then it didn't resonat with me as it does now. I guess it's called growing up.

And yes, Rearden is a man's man. Truly the picture of perfect self-made man.

>There's nothing wrong with greed as long as you pursue it within the rules of society

problem with that is that the rules of society include stuff like central banking, so that money can be printed for big banks and big gov on everyone elses expense (essentially theft).

Agreed, which is why I think this speech is so brilliant. The changing of real money into fiat money is the fundamental breaking of societys values. And I guess it was only possible becaue people themselves rarely ever understand how important money is. They forget or have never known that money is the lifeblood of modern societies, and if you mess with that, you mess with the nature of that sciety.

Is "money the root of all evil"? No, but fiat money just might be.

Oh shit guys, I have to go shopping. And just as the thread was starting to get interesting. Keep it up if you will, if just to let some more people see and read the speech.

this. wicked times and wicked mores make all kinds of thing tainted.

this quote makes me like the author more. as she recognizes the problem with current money creation.

in current climate though to look at the moneyed a massive amount of suspiscion is quite earned. esp if they are connected to the central credit. otherwise being wealthy yes is not a sin its self.

>she recognizes the problem with current money creation
I think she always did. If remember correctly she wrote about it a good deal in "Virtue of Selfishness". Ayn Rand is probably the only female author I really respect.

money is fine and a very useful tool for bartering
banking and bankers (any sort of money "speculators") should be exterminated with extreme prejudice

But where do you draw a line? Credit is a perfectly human thing. It is but a more abstract representation of a simple idea we all hold - debt.

If I I give you goods or knowledge or effort, you we me for those things and agreed upon amount. This is nothing new. And it is also the underpinning idea behind investment. One cannot invest in another man's enterprise without that enterprise being in a way indebted to the investor.

What is the distinciton between good and bad credit, good and bed debt, good and bad obligation? I'm all for fighting the money changers who drain value out of our effort through fiat money, but I need a clear principle to know when an obligation is a benefitial investment, and when it's a detrimental debt.

go to a credit union

Not really an answer to my question. Where is the line?