We've Moved! Visit our NEW FORUM to join the latest discussions. This is an archive of our previous conversations...

You can find the login page for the old forum here.
CHATPRIVACYDONATELOGINREGISTER
DMT-Nexus
FAQWIKIHEALTH & SAFETYARTATTITUDEACTIVE TOPICS
12NEXT
Critisim of "money turns you into a psychopath" thread Options
 
The Day Tripper
#1 Posted : 7/13/2013 5:35:31 AM

Rennasauce Man


Posts: 853
Joined: 27-May-2011
Last visit: 25-Feb-2019
Location: A Pale Blue Dot orbiting a GV2 Yellow Dwarf fusion powered Luminous Ball of Plasma at 30km/s
Since this is more suited to philosophy, I'd rather start a new thread here. The thread in question is here-

Money turns you into a PSychopath

Rolling eyes Stop

I think the "science" behind that study is flawed, due to its reductionist and simplistic nature. You can't just use the board game monopoly as a model for a real world economic system. But that's a scientific critique of the study.

This is the point i want to make here, money is a tool. Its a means of exchange that simplify's and modernizes the barter system we once had, to be more effecient and allow sellers/buyers a better system to exchange goods/services.

There is nothing wrong with money itself. You can critique society, you can critique economic policy, social psychology, whatever. But to reduce the economic gap problems to "money is bad, mkay" is far from scientific for one, and imho absolutely wrong for two. Wrong in that its the most superficial and easy way to see the problem and offer a solution, like "just say no" to drugs. You're way oversimplifying an issue, and scapegoating money for grievances that have arisen from a multitude of different factors.

But i fail to speak eloquently about this topic, so i'll quote a speach from the Novel Atlas Shrugged, bear in mind i've only seen the movies, but understand the rough context of this passage of the book.

IMHO, this is why saying money is bad, the root of all evil, causes men to do bad things, is a rediculous way to look at the problem. Just like people kill people, drugs don't kill people, people kill people or od, or whatever casualtie associated with drugs is not from the drug, its the individual that caused the problem.

Anyway, enough rambling, heres what i started this thread for-

Source-

fransico's money speech

Text-

Quote:
“So you think that money is the root of all evil?” said Francisco d’Anconia. “Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?

“When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears not all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor–your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money, Is this what you consider evil?

“Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions–and you’ll learn that man’s mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.

“But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man’s capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made–before it can be looted or mooched–made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can’t consume more than he has produced.’

“To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss–the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery–that you must offer them values, not wounds–that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of goods. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men’s stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best that your money can find. And when men live by trade–with reason, not force, as their final arbiter–it is the best product that wins, the best performance, the man of best judgment and highest ability–and the degree of a man’s productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?

“But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality–the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.

“Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants: money will not give him a code of values, if he’s evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he’s evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

“Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth–the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve the mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

“Money is your means of survival. The verdict you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men’s vices or men’s stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment’s or a penny’s worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you’ll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is this the root of your hatred of money?

“Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause. Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the unearned, neither in matter nor in spirit. Is this the root of your hatred of money?

“Or did you say it’s the love of money that’s the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It’s the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money–and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it.

“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.

“Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper’s bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another–their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.

“But money demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or to keep it. Men who have no courage, pride or self-esteem, men who have no moral sense of their right to their money and are not willing to defend it as they defend their life, men who apologize for being rich–will not remain rich for long. They are the natural bait for the swarms of looters that stay under rocks for centuries, but come crawling out at the first smell of a man who begs to be forgiven for the guilt of owning wealth. They will hasten to relieve him of the guilt–and of his life, as he deserves.

“Then you will see the rise of the men of the double standard–the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money–the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law–men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims–then money becomes its creators’ avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they’ve passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.

“Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion–when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing–when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors–when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you–when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice–you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that is does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.

“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 bounces, marked, ‘Account overdrawn.’

“When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, ‘Who is destroying the world? You are.

“You stand in the midst of the greatest achievements of the greatest productive civilization and you wonder why it’s crumbling around you, while you’re damning its life-blood–money. You look upon money as the savages did before you, and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of your cities. Throughout men’s history, money was always seized by looters of one brand or another, whose names changed, but whose method remained the same: to seize wealth by force and to keep the producers bound, demeaned, defamed, deprived of honor. That phrase about the evil of money, which you mouth with such righteous recklessness, comes from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of slaves–slaves who repeated the motions once discovered by somebody’s mind and left unimproved for centuries. So long as production was ruled by force, and wealth was obtained by conquest, there was little to conquer, Yet through all the centuries of stagnation and starvation, men exalted the looters, as aristocrats of the sword, as aristocrats of birth, as aristocrats of the bureau, and despised the producers, as slaves, as traders, as shopkeepers–as industrialists.

“To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of money–and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man’s mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being–the self-made man–the American industrialist.

“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.

“Yet these were the words for which Americans were denounced by the rotted cultures of the looters’ continents. Now the looters’ credo has brought you to regard your proudest achievements as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards, and your magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt. The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide– as, I think, he will.

“Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns–or dollars. Take your choice–there is no other–and your time is running out.”

The following is an excerpt from Atlas Shrugged, © Copyright, 1957, by Ayn Rand. It is reprinted in Capitalism Magazine by permission of the Estate of Ayn Rand.May not be reproduced elsewhere without the permission of her Estate.


I am quoting this under the fair use exemption of the Copyright Act of 1976. Mods please delete the text, but keep the link for those who wish to read it if i am wrong, or this violates any copyright laws.

I welcome any rebuttal, or debate on the IMHO false proposal that money is inherently a bad force in society, and that the individual is NOT the problem instead and bears less responsibility than money does.
"let those who have talked to the elves, find each other and band together" -TMK

In a society in which nearly everybody is dominated by somebody else's mind or by a disembodied mind, it becomes increasingly difficult to learn the truth about the activities of governments and corporations, about the quality or value of products, or about the health of one's own place and economy.
In such a society, also, our private economies will depend less upon the private ownership of real, usable property, and more upon property that is institutional and abstract, beyond individual control, such as money, insurance policies, certificates of deposit, stocks, etc. And as our private economies become more abstract, the mutual, free helps and pleasures of family and community life will be supplanted by a kind of displaced citizenship and by commerce with impersonal and self-interested suppliers...
The great enemy of freedom is the alignment of political power with wealth. This alignment destroys the commonwealth - that is, the natural wealth of localities and the local economies of household, neighborhood, and community - and so destroys democracy, of which the commonwealth is the foundation and practical means.” - Wendell Berry
 

Good quality Syrian rue (Peganum harmala) for an incredible price!
 
jamie
#2 Posted : 7/13/2013 6:46:26 AM

DMT-Nexus member

Salvia divinorum expert | Skills: Plant growing, Ayahuasca brewing, Mushroom growingSenior Member | Skills: Plant growing, Ayahuasca brewing, Mushroom growing

Posts: 12340
Joined: 12-Nov-2008
Last visit: 02-Apr-2023
Location: pacific
The interest is more of what is evil about the banking system etc..money is just currency..and many tribal peoples have had some form of currency. The way it was all set up from the start for us with interest etc is what is totally wrong about the whole thing.

Bartering is pretty awesome.
Long live the unwoke.
 
causmic
#3 Posted : 7/13/2013 6:52:51 AM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 57
Joined: 23-Mar-2013
Last visit: 06-Mar-2017
Location: The Causmos
I replied in the original thread, but I saw this on my way out..

First of all, I don't think ND was being as extreme as you make out here. But I suppose he could weigh in on that.

Second, the Stanford prison experiment shows us that this behavior of entitlement is very real, and that it's not the money, per se, but the entitlement the money provides which results in the psycopathy. So I guess I agree with you. Laughing

http://en.wikipedia.org/...nford_prison_experiment

*** causmic is a figment of your imagination. A manifestation of your own consciousness and a projection of mine. causmic is a fictitious and wholly imagined character, and through his/her/their imagined life I share metaphoric, poetic, and abstract streams of consciousness, and although may provide statistical or scientific fact, any and all information posted by causmic is in the form of an imagined and entirely theatrical persona, tall tale, or cleverly faked photograph(s). Nothing I/we say has any basis in reality. All descriptions of events are fictitious, for entertainment and educational purposes only, and any similarities to real persons or situations existing on planet earth are entirely unintentional and coincidental. Nothing posted is to be taken "as fact". The information provided by "causmic" is assimilated at your own risk. By reading the posts made by "causmic" at "dmt-nexus" you have agreed to these terms and waived the account holder(s) (causmic) from any and all liabilities and/or consequences relating to and/or stemming from the (fictitious) information contained therein. ***
 
jamie
#4 Posted : 7/13/2013 7:02:37 AM

DMT-Nexus member

Salvia divinorum expert | Skills: Plant growing, Ayahuasca brewing, Mushroom growingSenior Member | Skills: Plant growing, Ayahuasca brewing, Mushroom growing

Posts: 12340
Joined: 12-Nov-2008
Last visit: 02-Apr-2023
Location: pacific
“So you think that money is the root of all evil?” said Francisco d’Anconia. “Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?"

^ that is somewhat just bullshit fantasy though though. Money is made possible by people who print money, and then add interest, and then rig the economy so that everyone else actually works for the resources that are the REAL economy get an unfair share of. The people who make the money and the people with the most money quite often are the ones who do the least work, and contribute the least..in fact often what they contribute is largely negative.
Long live the unwoke.
 
jamie
#5 Posted : 7/13/2013 7:06:24 AM

DMT-Nexus member

Salvia divinorum expert | Skills: Plant growing, Ayahuasca brewing, Mushroom growingSenior Member | Skills: Plant growing, Ayahuasca brewing, Mushroom growing

Posts: 12340
Joined: 12-Nov-2008
Last visit: 02-Apr-2023
Location: pacific
"Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns–or dollars. Take your choice–there is no other–and your time is running out.”

^that is also just kind of ridiculous to me..as if before currency all people are/were just barbarians running around raping and killing everything..which I don't believe.
Long live the unwoke.
 
proto-pax
#6 Posted : 7/13/2013 7:57:15 AM

bird-brain

Senior Member

Posts: 959
Joined: 26-Apr-2010
Last visit: 30-Oct-2020
Ayn rands philosophy is a broken idea. Humans work together. Capitalism objectivism socialism etc are just modes of thought for cooperation.


There isn't a "right" way.
blooooooOOOOOooP fzzzzzzhm KAPOW!
This is shit-brained, this kind of thinking.
Grow a plant or something and meditate on that
 
oldsoul
#7 Posted : 7/13/2013 9:51:21 AM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 94
Joined: 28-Mar-2013
Last visit: 11-Aug-2013
Location: Underwater
I agree. Money itself is just a tool. There is not a thing inherently evil about it, it's simply a way to facilitate exchange. Almost anything has been used as money in different times and cultures. Animal skins, precious gems, gold, silver, copper, cigarettes, food items, stone cylinders.

However, the privilege to charge interest is definitely the cause of the wealth gap. Completely 100%. This is because those who own money can loan at interest, thus over time ensuring themselves a higher share of the pie, which they use to influence the system. This is why Jesus threw moneylenders out of the temple and why ancient cultures had debt jubilees every 7 years.

The money we have is evil though, because of how it's created. Today, money is fiat currency, is created as debt, and the privilege to create money is given to privately owned banks. The interest on the debt is never created, which means that more money must be created over time to pay back the previous debts plus their interest. If the economy and money supply stop growing, people can't pay their debt, and social chaos ensues. This is the drive behind more and more consumption and more debt. However, this system ignores the fact that we live on a finite planet and we're running out of things to monetize into debt. This incoherence is the root cause of environmental destruction, increasing wealth inequality, and many other ills. There is a great youtube here which explains this a lot better https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC720Cl3N-0 I hope people watch it and I'm highly interested to know what you think. Here is a good quote from the video, there are many:

Quote:
“Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money.”
–Sir Josiah Stamp, Director of the Bank of England, appointed 1928. He was the 2nd wealthiest man in England at that time.


Also here is a great parable written by Bernard Lietaer which explains this with a lot of detail too. It clearly shows how competition, insecurity, and greed are woven into our economy because of interest and debt-based money, leading us to the myth of separation and paradox of scarcity amidst abundance. I truly feel this money issue is the most important topic for people to understand today in order to stop funding war, repair society and environmental destruction, and to live in synergistic harmony with each other and all of nature. Everything goes back to our money.

Quote:
*************************************************************************
“Once upon a time, in a small village in the Outback, people used barter for all their transactions. On every market day, people walked around with chickens, eggs, hams, and breads, and engaged in prolonged negotiations among themselves to exchange what they needed. At key periods of the year, like harvests or whenever someone’s barn needed big repairs after a storm, people recalled the tradition of helping each other out that they had brought from the old country. They knew that if they had a problem someday, others would aid them in return.

One market day, a stranger with shiny black shoes and an elegant white hat came by and observed the whole process with a sardonic smile. When he saw one farmer running around to corral the six chickens he wanted to exchange for a big ham, he could not refrain from laughing. “Poor people,” he said, “so primitive.” The farmer’s wife overheard him and challenged the stranger, “Do you think you can do a better job handling chickens?” “Chickens, no,” responded the stranger, “But there is a much better way to eliminate all that hassle.” “Oh yes, how so?” asked the woman. “See that tree there?” the stranger replied. “Well, I will go wait there for one of you to bring me one large cowhide. Then have every family visit me. I’ll explain the better way.”

And so it happened. He took the cowhide, and cut perfect leather rounds in it, and put an elaborate and graceful little stamp on each round. Then he gave to each family 10 rounds, and explained that each represented the value of one chicken. “Now you can trade and bargain with the rounds instead of the unwieldy chickens,” he explained.

It made sense. Everybody was impressed with the man with the shiny shoes and inspiring hat.

“Oh, by the way,” he added after every family had received their 10 rounds, “in a year’s time, I will come back and sit under that same tree. I want you to each bring me back 11 rounds. That 11th round is a token of appreciation for the technological improvement I just made possible in your lives.” “But where will the 11th round come from?” asked the farmer with the six chickens. “You’ll see,” said the man with a reassuring smile.

Assuming that the population and its annual production remain exactly the same during that next year, what do you think had to happen? Remember, that 11th round was never created. Therefore, bottom line, one of each 11 families will have to lose all its rounds, even if everybody managed their affairs well, in order to provide the 11th round to 10 others.

So when a storm threatened the crop of one of the families, people became less generous with their time to help bring it in before disaster struck. While it was much more convenient to exchange the rounds instead of the chickens on market days, the new game also had the unintended side effect of actively discouraging the spontaneous cooperation that was traditional in the village. Instead, the new money game was generating a systemic undertow of competition among all the participants.

This parable begins to show how competition, insecurity, and greed are woven into our economy because of interest. They can never be eliminated as long as the necessities of life are denominated in interest-money. But let us continue the story now to show how interest also creates an endless pressure for perpetual economic growth.

There are three primary ways Lietaer’s story could end: default, growth in the money supply, or redistribution of wealth. One of each eleven families could go bankrupt and surrender their farms to the man in the hat (the banker), or he could procure another cowhide and make more currency, or the villagers could tar-and-feather the banker and refuse to repay the rounds. The same choices face any economy based on usury.

So imagine now that the villagers gather round the man in the hat and say, “Sir, could you please give us some additional rounds so that none of us need go bankrupt?”

The man says, “I will, but only to those who can assure me they will pay me back. Since each round is worth one chicken, I’ll lend new rounds to people who have more chickens than the number of rounds they already owe me. That way, if they don’t pay back the rounds, I can seize their chickens instead. Oh, and because I’m such a nice guy, I’ll even create new rounds for people who don’t have additional chickens right now, if they can persuade me that they will breed more chickens in the future. So show me your business plan! Show me that you are trustworthy (one villager can create ‘credit reports’ to help you do that). I’ll lend at 10 percent-if you are a clever breeder, you can increase your flock by 20 percent per year, pay me back, and get rich yourself, too.”

The villagers ask, “That sounds OK, but since you are creating the new rounds at 10 percent interest also, there still won’t be enough to pay you back in the end.”

“That won’t be a problem,” says the man. “You see, when that time arrives, I will have created even more rounds, and when those come due, I’ll create yet more. I will always be willing to lend new rounds into existence. Of course, you’ll have to produce more chickens, but as long as you keep increasing chicken production, there will never be a problem.”

A child comes up to him and says, “Excuse me, sir, my family is sick, and we don’t have enough rounds to buy food. Can you issue some new rounds to me?”

“I’m sorry,” says the man, “but I cannot do that. You see, I only create rounds for those who are going to pay me back. Now, if your family has some chickens to pledge as collateral, or if you can prove you are able to work a little harder to breed more chickens, then I will be happy to give you the rounds.”

With a few unfortunate exceptions, the system worked fine for a while. The villagers grew their flocks fast enough to obtain the additional rounds they needed to pay back the man in the hat. Some, for whatever reason-ill fortune or ineptitude-did indeed go bankrupt, and their more fortunate, more efficient neighbors took over their farms and hired them as labor. Overall, though, the flocks grew at 10 percent a year along with the money supply. The village and its flocks had grown so large that the man in the hat was joined by many others like him, all busily cutting out new rounds and issuing them to anyone with a good plan to breed more chickens.

From time to time, problems arose. For one, it became apparent that no one really needed all those chickens. “We’re getting sick of eggs,” the children complained. “Every room in the house has a feather bed now,” complained the housewives. In order to keep consumption of chicken products growing, the villagers invented all kinds of devices. It became fashionable to buy a new feather mattress every month, and bigger houses to keep them in, and to have yards and yards full of chickens. Disputes arose with other villages that were settled with huge egg-throwing battles. “We must create demand for more chickens!” shouted the mayor, who was the brother-in-law of the man in the hat. “That way we will all continue to grow rich.”

One day, a village old-timer noticed another problem. Whereas the fields around the village had once been green and fertile, now they were brown and foul. All the vegetation had been stripped away to plant grain to feed the chickens. The ponds and streams, once full of fish, were now cesspools of stinking manure. She said, “This has to stop! If we keep expanding our flocks, we will soon drown in chicken shit!”

The man in the hat pulled her aside and, in reassuring tones, told her, “Don’t worry, there is another village down the road with plenty of fertile fields. The men of our village are planning to farm out chicken production to them. And if they don’t agree … well, we outnumber them. Anyway, you can’t be serious about ending growth. Why, how would your neighbors pay off their debts? How would I be able to create new rounds? Even I would go bankrupt.”

And so, one by one, all the villages turned to stinking cesspools surrounding enormous flocks of chickens that no one really needed, and the villages fought each other for the few remaining green spaces that could support a few more years of growth. Yet despite their best efforts to maintain growth, its pace began to slow. As growth slowed, debt began to rise in proportion to income, until many people spent all their available rounds just paying off the man in the hat. Many went bankrupt and had to work at subsistence wages for employers who themselves could barely meet their obligations to the man in the hat. There were fewer and fewer people who could afford to buy chicken products, making it even harder to maintain demand and growth. Amid an environment-wrecking superabundance of chickens, more and more people had barely enough on which to live, leading to the paradox of scarcity amidst abundance.”
*************************************************************************

One epiphany short of a paradigm shift
 
causmic
#8 Posted : 7/13/2013 10:02:54 AM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 57
Joined: 23-Mar-2013
Last visit: 06-Mar-2017
Location: The Causmos
Ayn Rand's philosophy sucks.

After some more contemplation I must agree with jamie. The excerpt you posted is just not relevant today. Ayn Rand thinks that "Money is made possible only by the men who produce" and she condemns the "moochers and the looters". Well, if she could carefully analyze modern society, she would be quite shocked to find that, in our case, the moochers and the looters have cheated their way to the top, and are the ones who "make money possible", albeit in their own mooching, looting and undeserving way. They have actually rigged the game to slow, undermine, and even completely halt the progress of society in many ways in order to maintain their wealth and position at the top. The worst imaginable scenario, and completely backwards as to what Ayn Rand predicted.

Again, I shall refer to the Stanford prison experiment. Rand seems to count on the nobility of intelligent and productive people, however, when someone feels like they are "better" than everyone else, they act like it. Plain and simple. And what does having more money than 99% of the rest of the world do to a person? It makes them impartial to the other 99%. The documentary in the original thread presents this quite clearly.

Just to clarify, I believe it is these people's attitudes about money, and not the money itself. It's obviously not the stacks of paper's fault, and I do believe that a well balanced person can be in the 1% and not let it go to their head. However, these kind of people are not at the helm of society, as a more balanced person would likely have no desire to "control" anything.

The sad truth is, Wall street attracts all types of psycho and sociopath. It's the nature of the territory. If only Ayn Rand could see us now...
*** causmic is a figment of your imagination. A manifestation of your own consciousness and a projection of mine. causmic is a fictitious and wholly imagined character, and through his/her/their imagined life I share metaphoric, poetic, and abstract streams of consciousness, and although may provide statistical or scientific fact, any and all information posted by causmic is in the form of an imagined and entirely theatrical persona, tall tale, or cleverly faked photograph(s). Nothing I/we say has any basis in reality. All descriptions of events are fictitious, for entertainment and educational purposes only, and any similarities to real persons or situations existing on planet earth are entirely unintentional and coincidental. Nothing posted is to be taken "as fact". The information provided by "causmic" is assimilated at your own risk. By reading the posts made by "causmic" at "dmt-nexus" you have agreed to these terms and waived the account holder(s) (causmic) from any and all liabilities and/or consequences relating to and/or stemming from the (fictitious) information contained therein. ***
 
Ringworm
#9 Posted : 7/13/2013 3:44:54 PM

DMT-Nexus member

Senior Member

Posts: 435
Joined: 10-Jan-2012
Last visit: 16-Dec-2018
Please also remember that Ayn Rand's philosophy was an ideal.... It was something to set the bar, not any sort of actual representation of how it is, past or future.

I completely agree with much of her philosophy, but like many lines of thoughts, it is great on paper and not great when humans try to reproduce it.

If you've actually digested Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, it isn't just a "money for the sake of money" kind of thing. In fact she shows via her characters that a man that uses the environment to make his way respects the environment and cares for it to continue sustaining him. This person also takes care of workers that are quality workers.

Money does not make people crazy. The pursuit of money (or anything) above all else tends to make people crazy. For the rest of us that are more level headed in our pursuits, it is just one aspect of a well lived life.
"We're selling more than a cracker here," Krijak said. "We're selling the salty, unctuous illusion of happiness."
 
The Day Tripper
#10 Posted : 7/14/2013 1:45:57 AM

Rennasauce Man


Posts: 853
Joined: 27-May-2011
Last visit: 25-Feb-2019
Location: A Pale Blue Dot orbiting a GV2 Yellow Dwarf fusion powered Luminous Ball of Plasma at 30km/s
jamie wrote:
"Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns–or dollars. Take your choice–there is no other–and your time is running out.”

^that is also just kind of ridiculous to me..as if before currency all people are/were just barbarians running around raping and killing everything..which I don't believe.


I think your taking that quote out of context, to me, it means that when money is corrupted as you and many others have pointed out already, rightly so, that is not a true representation of a fair, or honest form of currency.

And yes, i don't think before money people acted in such ways for a lack of money, but money is a tool that has done much good for society, and damage when thieves are allowed to control a nations currency.

And regarding the topic of creation of money, yes your also right. But, that's a symptom of corruption and problems in our currency system, on a global scale as well. It is the jackass greedy criminals who are in control of the monetary system, but that has not always been the case, need not be the case, and you cannot criticize the concept of money inherently, because of problems that can be re-mediated, and were not always the status quo.

But what i don't agree with, is that people with alot of money, by and large got it unjustly or at the expense of others. If you create a product that people want, is novel and useful, and you worked hard to design and test/refine it, you deserve what you charge for it.

And i do agree barter is an excellent way of exchanging goods, and, in some ways, could be a tool to deprive the government of the power they hold over the citizens by influencing the monetary system to their advantage. Then when the system falls apart, and the people with huge piles of money they do nothing to contribute to society with, they are the ones who are fucked.

The people using their money to invest, create jobs, resources, products, tangible goods, that in a system of barter would be not to say, unaffected, but the examples of how to use your asset's to the benefit of society, and far more shielded by the collapse of a corrupt currency, than the people who use their money not to benefit society, but merely hoard it for whatever reason.

At the end of the day, its mismanagement of your finances, regardless of whether or not those assets are tangible, or intangible in the case of fiat currency, or quasi-tangible, in the case of value backed, or non-corrupted forms of currency.

Thats how an ideal monetary system should work, but, to say money is evil, inherently, without taking into account the fact that PRESENTLY, our currency system is manipulated and controlled by a few large players, who serve their own interests, is ignoring the fact its not the concept of money, but a social problem that the people are ok with and by and large go along with it.

Which brings me to a good point about bartering. You could DESTROY the banks, the federal government, and institution that uses money to buy influence/action to perpetuate their own self interests instead of society's interests though a transition to bartering, or alternative forms of currency like BTC.

Thats the time to set up an honest monetary system, perhaps something decentralized and unable to be centrally manipulated, like how bitcoin is setup. Perhaps i took ND's intention a bit too seriously, but to say that libertarianism, or other political philosophies are inherently flawed because money is corrupted, is not true either.

The free market died a long time ago, so don't blame today's problems on capitalism/free market ideas. The government has screwed with the economic and financial systems in this country, it would be a perversion of language to call what we have a free market, or say libertarianism is flawed for the same reasons.

i think I'll just start calling libertarianism classical liberalism. Or say that's a more fitting concept to describe the political ideal i think is the most productive for society.
"let those who have talked to the elves, find each other and band together" -TMK

In a society in which nearly everybody is dominated by somebody else's mind or by a disembodied mind, it becomes increasingly difficult to learn the truth about the activities of governments and corporations, about the quality or value of products, or about the health of one's own place and economy.
In such a society, also, our private economies will depend less upon the private ownership of real, usable property, and more upon property that is institutional and abstract, beyond individual control, such as money, insurance policies, certificates of deposit, stocks, etc. And as our private economies become more abstract, the mutual, free helps and pleasures of family and community life will be supplanted by a kind of displaced citizenship and by commerce with impersonal and self-interested suppliers...
The great enemy of freedom is the alignment of political power with wealth. This alignment destroys the commonwealth - that is, the natural wealth of localities and the local economies of household, neighborhood, and community - and so destroys democracy, of which the commonwealth is the foundation and practical means.” - Wendell Berry
 
Mr.Peabody
#11 Posted : 7/14/2013 4:50:18 AM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 1310
Joined: 27-Sep-2012
Last visit: 01-Feb-2022
Location: Lost in space
I also agree with much of Rand's philosophy. I am quite surprised that others here do, as well. I wasn't expecting that. I understand how some might be critical of it, though.

In the instance of people being attracted to power, that was one of the major themes of The Fountainhead. It was a story about how people who create are not drawn to power, but rather the act of creation itself. Money is not the inherent goal to people who truly produce, which was also one of the main points in the Zietgiest movies. It is much how I am, as well.

One of the main antagonists in The Fountainhead was drawn to power, while the protagonist, Howard Roark, was driven only by the will to create as he saw fit. The story clearly shows Rand's abhorrence of people who seek power, whether by money or controlling information/people's minds.

In Atlas Shrugged, in the ideal society created by the "movers and shakers" of the world, the currency of the city was gold. She used this because of the inherent value of gold, and how gold is less susceptible to government manipulation. Whether or not this is true in practice is ripe for debate, but I agree that a financial system should be free of the ability to be manipulated in a way ours is, because as it has been stated already, positions such as that draw the corrupt and sociopathic.

Rand used successful people in her stories mostly for the fact that they can most easily illustrate the issues tied to her philosophy. Anyone can be a person who produces, not just a rich person, or one who's part of the 1%. Rand never meant to disparage less successful people, and that is evident in how some of the main characters, such as Roark, were more than willing to work low-level, hard-labor jobs.

My thinking on the "evils" of money are this: have enough money, and you can do what ever you want in this country. Why? You can buy anything. You can buy politicians. Why? Because people keep electing politicians who can be bought. Money is not evil, and rich people are not inherently evil, but it as if our society was created in such a way to cultivate rich people who are evil. So why don't we change that?
Be an adult only when necessary.
 
causmic
#12 Posted : 7/14/2013 6:57:59 AM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 57
Joined: 23-Mar-2013
Last visit: 06-Mar-2017
Location: The Causmos
^Great post. I'm obviously clueless about the depth of Rand's philosophy. My posts here are based on the excerpt only, I've never read any of her stuff. Guess I should? Sounds well put together Laughing
*** causmic is a figment of your imagination. A manifestation of your own consciousness and a projection of mine. causmic is a fictitious and wholly imagined character, and through his/her/their imagined life I share metaphoric, poetic, and abstract streams of consciousness, and although may provide statistical or scientific fact, any and all information posted by causmic is in the form of an imagined and entirely theatrical persona, tall tale, or cleverly faked photograph(s). Nothing I/we say has any basis in reality. All descriptions of events are fictitious, for entertainment and educational purposes only, and any similarities to real persons or situations existing on planet earth are entirely unintentional and coincidental. Nothing posted is to be taken "as fact". The information provided by "causmic" is assimilated at your own risk. By reading the posts made by "causmic" at "dmt-nexus" you have agreed to these terms and waived the account holder(s) (causmic) from any and all liabilities and/or consequences relating to and/or stemming from the (fictitious) information contained therein. ***
 
Nathanial.Dread
#13 Posted : 7/14/2013 7:37:17 AM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 2151
Joined: 23-Nov-2012
Last visit: 07-Mar-2017
I posted the article and study in the SCIENCE forum specifically to avoid this kind of conversation.

I do not claim that money is good or bad or anything but a currency for exchange. I'm not interested in the moral implications of money or the philosophical trappings of cash. I was interested in the psychological experiments that have been done and the concrete, statistical analysis that was performed on the data.

According to the experiments, having money (even fake, Monopoly money) triggers certain behaviors in individuals that we associate with psychopathy: decreased empathy, entitled behavior, etc. If you take issue with the experiment in question and have a problem with the set-up or the analysis, that would be an awesome discussion to have.

If you take what the study says as true (which I do), then what does that mean for things like economics? Can we, in good conscience, advocate a free-market, anarcho-capitalistic economic system if we know that those on top are going to abuse or neglect those on the bottom? What does this say about human nature?
Can we extrapolate this kind of behavior into other areas of psychology?
Why might this money=psychopathy pattern exist in the first place?

Those are interesting questions that might actually lead to something.

Blessings
~ND
"There are many paths up the same mountain."

 
causmic
#14 Posted : 7/14/2013 7:47:58 AM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 57
Joined: 23-Mar-2013
Last visit: 06-Mar-2017
Location: The Causmos
^This
*** causmic is a figment of your imagination. A manifestation of your own consciousness and a projection of mine. causmic is a fictitious and wholly imagined character, and through his/her/their imagined life I share metaphoric, poetic, and abstract streams of consciousness, and although may provide statistical or scientific fact, any and all information posted by causmic is in the form of an imagined and entirely theatrical persona, tall tale, or cleverly faked photograph(s). Nothing I/we say has any basis in reality. All descriptions of events are fictitious, for entertainment and educational purposes only, and any similarities to real persons or situations existing on planet earth are entirely unintentional and coincidental. Nothing posted is to be taken "as fact". The information provided by "causmic" is assimilated at your own risk. By reading the posts made by "causmic" at "dmt-nexus" you have agreed to these terms and waived the account holder(s) (causmic) from any and all liabilities and/or consequences relating to and/or stemming from the (fictitious) information contained therein. ***
 
Mr.Peabody
#15 Posted : 7/14/2013 2:52:57 PM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 1310
Joined: 27-Sep-2012
Last visit: 01-Feb-2022
Location: Lost in space
You make some great points, Nathanial. I have often wondered if a new system could be made. There are some inherent flaws with capitalism/free market economics, as we are all aware. To me, right now, it seems to be the most free system available, and I try to tend towards more freedom.

I do find the idea of a resource-based economy intriguing, such as what the Venus project proposes. At first I wasn't sure, but the more I think about it, it kind of cuts out the intermediate step of monetary exchange. It seems like it as free as capitalism, and if it works as advertised, possibly freer.

I do notice some of those sociopathic tendencies about the way I behave with money, now that you mention it....Laughing
Be an adult only when necessary.
 
anrchy
#16 Posted : 7/14/2013 3:40:21 PM

DMT-Nexus member

Senior Member

Posts: 3135
Joined: 27-Mar-2012
Last visit: 10-Apr-2023
I don't see the point in there being two seperate threads about the saw thing. I hope a mod will merge the two.

That's why I lean towards the zeitgeist idea of a resource based economy. It's not realistic right now to implement, but when automation becomes majority, it will just make sense to most.

The study that these two threads are about IMO are flawed. Comparing a competitive game to real world scenarios does not show anything. To me this isn't a controlled study and there are too many variables for there to be any results worth noting. Games inherently create competitiveness. That fact alone contaminates the study.

Also I think the title is wrong. This would imply that by removing money you are curing psychopathy. If this were true we need to go around robbing people.
Open your Mind () Please read my DMT vaping guide () Fear is the mind killer

"Energy flows where attention goes"

[Please review the forum Wiki and FAQ before posting questions]
 
Nathanial.Dread
#17 Posted : 7/14/2013 4:21:53 PM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 2151
Joined: 23-Nov-2012
Last visit: 07-Mar-2017
Anrchy - and life isn't competitive?

It wasn't covered in the article, however, Paul Solomon recently did a short on The News Hour on PBS that also dealt with this issue. One of the things he touched on was a study done in California about which cars are more likely to stop for pedestrians. (In CA there is an unenforced law on the books that cars must always stop for pedestrians.)

The researchers recorded a crosswalk for hours and hours, and then went back and tallied which cars stopped for pedestrians and which didn't.
Based on their analysis, luxury, high-end expensive vehicles where much, much more likely to blow through the crosswalk and not stop for pedestrians.

The more expensive the car, the less likely the driver was to take time out of their day to stop for a pedestrian.

So, the statistics seem to show that there is at least some evidence that wealth is positively correlated to general dickishness.

Here's the newsbite that covers both that and the monopoly game.

http://www.pbs.org/newsh.../makingsense_06-21.html

~ND
"There are many paths up the same mountain."

 
anrchy
#18 Posted : 7/14/2013 4:44:34 PM

DMT-Nexus member

Senior Member

Posts: 3135
Joined: 27-Mar-2012
Last visit: 10-Apr-2023
Life can be competitive but that doesn't mean it is. Games strictly ARE. Which was my point. Competitiveness IMO isn't the cause. I just think there are way more things that need to be taken into consideration and that money itself isn't a root cause nor is competition which to me this study seemed to state that it is.

As far as the study on crosswalks, how can you disregard all the other variables going in there? Simply going by how nice a car is tells you nothing about the person. How many people have nice cars that are living beyond there means? What about rentals?

There are so many things that can cause a person to act in such a manner that simply tallying it all to having lots of money seems very silly to me. Both studies were not controlled studies and have to many variables to be taken seriously.

"Owning a car isn't the cause of someone not letting a pedestrian cross even though everyone that blew past owned a car." Kind of an example of how they are thinking.

Maybe a higher percentage have nagging wives or cut throat bosses.
Open your Mind () Please read my DMT vaping guide () Fear is the mind killer

"Energy flows where attention goes"

[Please review the forum Wiki and FAQ before posting questions]
 
Nathanial.Dread
#19 Posted : 7/14/2013 7:14:10 PM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 2151
Joined: 23-Nov-2012
Last visit: 07-Mar-2017
I didn't say the car study was irrefutable evidence that money makes people assholes, but that between the car study and the monopoly study, there is evidence to support the idea and that we should take it as a sign that we should look further into the issue.

Are you saying that it as a massive statistical fluke that more expensive cars are much less likely to stop for pedestrians?

Blessings
~ND
"There are many paths up the same mountain."

 
anrchy
#20 Posted : 7/14/2013 7:45:35 PM

DMT-Nexus member

Senior Member

Posts: 3135
Joined: 27-Mar-2012
Last visit: 10-Apr-2023
First I want to say I'm not attacking your POV, just simply stating I don't agree with it and why. Second I believe it is a flawed assessment as to why those people didnt stop for a pedestrian.



I think it would be safe to say that it's possible:

Some were late to a meeting.

Some were upset at either other drivers, something going on in there life, ect.

Some were not clear that you were suppose to stop for pedestrians or whether or not the pedestrian was actually going to cross.

Some were distracted in some way or flat out did not even see the pedestrian at all.

And as well with the study using monopoly, I migh have missed it but were the subjects tested using a personality test before hand to rule out propensity for having that type of attitude by default towards that situational circumstance?


If you were to study my driving habits over the period of a normal week of driving you would notice that:

I don't stop to let all pedestrians cross.

About 60% of vehicles in a center lane I allow to enter by slowing down enough so that way tey can safely enter.

If I have vehicles behind me I do not impede traffic under most circumstances to yield to either pedestrians or other motorists. I have both a nice truck and a cheap car.
Open your Mind () Please read my DMT vaping guide () Fear is the mind killer

"Energy flows where attention goes"

[Please review the forum Wiki and FAQ before posting questions]
 
12NEXT
 
Users browsing this forum
Guest (2)

DMT-Nexus theme created by The Traveler
This page was generated in 0.147 seconds.