Money, is it worth it?

[Sensei]

In "good old times" (before "invention" of financial instruments) money was a tool to buy somebody time of life. e.g. anybody can sow the seed, harvest grain and bake bread. All by himself/herself. But it all takes time. There are easy tasks which anybody can perform with none or minimal schooling, and as a result they have low value per second, and there are hard tasks which have extremely high value per second of work. They require specialist knowledge and/or expensive equipment etc.

Wages of working people, prices of products, expressed in local currency, are methods of weighting time of life of different people.

The introduction of financial instruments, then movement to "worthless" *) paper (or equivalent) cash, then movement to virtual money in a computer memory/storage, broke the all rules..

*) "worth as much as we agree", which is/can be very volatile (Forex) and artificially intentionally modified..

 

If everybody would agree "we work as usual and nobody asks for money for anything" entire world would still work, a lot of good things would happen. Nobody would steal and kill for (not existing anymore) money. Crimes involving interception of somebody money would disappear. Narcotics and crimes related to them would disappear. The only narcotics dealers would be the one which are addicted by themselves.

Some would say it would be "world of slaves"..

But right now this world currently is "world of slaves of money"..

[ahmet]

10 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Money is not a tool it's a concept, so when we make our money work for us; it asset strip's the future.

if you have not confused the description with blockchain,then ,no it is not a concept. 

by definition, money has embodiment, you can handle ,see and use it. so it is not an abstract idea. 

by the same properties, it is not an intention and a plan. rather, it is a content of intention and / or plan. (i.e. a tool)

 

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, ahmet said:

by definition, money has embodiment, you can handle ,see and use it. so it is not an abstract idea. 

I can assure you that the vast majority of my money (or even the money supply of the entire United States) can neither be seen nor handled. 

You both are defining 'money' narrowly to meet your own purposes.

[swansont]

12 hours ago, ahmet said:

by definition, money has embodiment, you can handle ,see and use it. so it is not an abstract idea. 

Handle/see is true of cash, which hasn’t been the only form of money in quite some time.

[ahmet]

well ,to my existing knowledge, by islamic approach; only gold and silver can be accepted as money. in fact, I am not sure even about silver because just gold  is being accepted or calculated as entity to be responsible for something.you may consider to think that bancnotes, credit card's credits , bank accounts' amount were money 

but as the definition is changing to one by one and by other entities, 

what is the measurement of wealth?

I think here, we may have to wait for some time, somethings will be more complicated in near future, however, I am hopeful to expect the clearer air/environment.

cheers  

 

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, ahmet said:

well ,to my existing knowledge, by islamic approach; only gold and silver can be accepted as money. in fact, I am not sure even about silver because just gold  is being accepted or calculated as entity to be responsible for something.you may consider to think that bancnotes, credit card's credits , bank accounts' amount were money 

but as the definition is changing to one by one and by other entities, 

what is the measurement of wealth?

I think here, we may have to wait for some time, somethings will be more complicated in near future, however, I am hopeful to expect the clearer air/environment.

cheers  

 

Gold is no more valuable than paper, if what you need to buy is a loaf and there's none on the shelves.

[dimreepr]

I'm not trying to define money, we all know what it is, I'm trying to explore it's value; and why we tend to place that value as an absolute; rather than it's pupose, which is to make it easier to exchange a pig for some egg's.

Not to exchange money for time; it's interesting how we view the practitioner's of this:

The poor = gambler with a problem that adversely effect's society.

The bank's = gambler with a problem that adversely effect's society.  

The former we pitty, the latter we praise.

If, however, we assign an equal value to both; there is no problem, just two people enjoying what they do.

[dimreepr]

There is no utopia, but if most of us just relax a little and except the poor as unlucky gambler's, a better place is possible; for you, at least.

[iNow]

3 hours ago, ahmet said:

to my existing knowledge, by islamic approach; only gold and silver can be accepted as money

Then your existing knowledge completely ignores how the vast majority of the world actually functions and can be dismissed as not being relevant to the discussion here. 

[Area54]

15 hours ago, zapatos said:

I can assure you that the vast majority of my money (or even the money supply of the entire United States) can neither be seen nor handled. 

All of my money is tied up in loose change!

[Sensei]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

The bank's = gambler with a problem that adversely effect's society.  

You mix (and put them in the same bag) investment banking, enterprise banking, with classical banking ("retail banking") i.e. an institution which just collects deposits from people with money/assets, and distributes them across investors which need funds to build new businesses. A successful businessman, with good business plan (which is carefully analyzed), will have the money to pay back loan and the bank will have the money to give their deposit owners plus interest. Interest of classical bank is identical with client's interest. They both want to build a successful business that works flawlessly.

The investment bank/enterprise bank is often a hidden player i.e. knows how much other players (bank clients) put into some financial instrument, and having this abnormal knowledge is/can be actively playing against them, or employee of an investment bank can play against his/her own clients, or release info to other players (typically for bribe) to give them an advantage over other players etc.

Even classical banking eroded these days i.e. because bank employees are receiving premium bonus to wage for every new loan they gave. Typically regardless of quality. From point of view of bank client which received credit and pays regularly loan installments is good client. From point of view bank employee what only really matters is quantity of clients, and amount of bonuses. i.e. bank's interest is against bank employee's interest (!) and he/she can play against institution in which he or she works for (by giving loans to people who will surely have troubles pay them back) !

Bank (in good classical banking) wants to have as few as possible 'bad credits'. Bank (in extremely eroded classical banking) wants to cause bankrupt of their own clients which received loans to intercept their assets (which is often the case in US these days.. what happened in 2008/2009 was "fixed" in the most worstest way).

Classical banking eroded in many ways: consumption loans. Such are bad loans since the beginning! Because they give nothing worthwhile (maybe except volatile, a few day, joy) to the client which took them. Instead, often puts them into debts and troubles. Loans for Christmas Holidays? For better food, gifts to family and friends? Absolutely silly to take and give such loans! Every year, every holiday, I hear the same advertisements of quick and cheap loans around November and December.. If you can't afford it, you should not take loans for extravagances.

The economic system and banking system on this world are totally eroded. Interest rates with variable part? Client for loan should know since the first day, before taking loan, how much will have to pay at the end, and any bit more. Regardless how long it will take to pay back. Currently you can take $100 and you might end up returning $1000..

Any attempt to fix the situation e.g. return back to positive interest rates would result in complete collapse of economic system, because borrowers would not able to pay them back anymore. Borrowers (individual and corporate) who took the money (with current minimal rates) and invested in stock exchange, would have to sell stocks (the all borrowers, at the same time), and stock markets would collapse. Then, corporations with loans by themselves, which used their stocks as guarantee, would be put into trouble and forced to sell them, forced to introduce optimizations i.e. sell assets, fire employees. etc. etc.

The economic and banking system in this world is a "house of cards" ...

 

[dimreepr]

9 minutes ago, Sensei said:

You mix (and put them in the same bag) investment banking, enterprise banking, with classical banking ("retail banking") i.e. an institution which just collects deposits from people with money/assets, and distributes them across investors which need funds to build new businesses. A successful businessman, with good business plan (which is carefully analyzed), will have the money to pay back loan and the bank will have the money to give their deposit owners plus interest. Interest of classical bank is identical with client's interest. They both want to build a successful business that works flawlessly.

The investment bank/enterprise bank is often a hidden player i.e. knows how much other players (bank clients) put into some financial instrument, and having this abnormal knowledge is/can be actively playing against them, or employee of an investment bank can play against his/her own clients, or release info to other players (typically for bribe) to give them an advantage over other players etc.

Even classical banking eroded these days i.e. because bank employees are receiving premium bonus to wage for every new loan they gave. Typically regardless of quality. From point of view of bank client which received credit and pays regularly loan installments is good client. From point of view bank employee what only really matters is quantity of clients, and amount of bonuses. i.e. bank's interest is against bank employee's interest (!) and he/she can play against institution in which he or she works for (by giving loans to people who will surely have troubles pay them back) !

Bank (in good classical banking) wants to have as few as possible 'bad credits'. Bank (in extremely eroded classical banking) wants to cause bankrupt of their own clients which received loans to intercept their assets (which is often the case in US these days.. what happened in 2008/2009 was "fixed" in the most worstest way).

Classical banking eroded in many ways: consumption loans. Such are bad loans since the beginning! Because they give nothing worthwhile (maybe except volatile, a few day, joy) to the client which took them. Instead, often puts them into debts and troubles. Loans for Christmas Holidays? For better food, gifts to family and friends? Absolutely silly to take and give such loans! Every year, every holiday, I hear the same advertisements of quick and cheap loans around November and December.. If you can't afford it, you should not take loans for extravagances.

The economic system and banking system on this world are totally eroded. Interest rates with variable part? Client for loan should know since the first day, before taking loan, how much will have to pay at the end, and any bit more. Regardless how long it will take to pay back. Currently you can take $100 and you might end up returning $1000..

Any attempt to fix the situation e.g. return back to positive interest rates would result in complete collapse of economic system, because borrowers would not able to pay them back anymore. Borrowers (individual and corporate) who took the money (with current minimal rates) and invested in stock exchange, would have to sell stocks (the all borrowers, at the same time), and stock markets would collapse. Then, corporations with loans by themselves, which used their stocks as guarantee, would be put into trouble and forced to sell them, forced to introduce optimizations i.e. sell assets, fire employees. etc. etc.

The economic and banking system in this world is a "house of cards" ...

 

Karma is a bitch, if you don't understand why...

Context, helps...

[ahmet]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Then your existing knowledge completely ignores how the vast majority of the world actually functions and can be dismissed as not being relevant to the discussion here. 

when I need to make a decision objectively dependent to some criteria,I only refer to the source and pay attention what the criteria were. But not the actions and people.

So, here, I do not rely on what other people do. the important thing, in fact , here is that what the source states.

Thus, that is not my core focal point what other muslims pay attention (with the condition that I am suficiently  knowledgeable about the source). The external people are also not important. 

The topic

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I'm not trying to define money, we all know what it is, I'm trying to explore it's value; and why we tend to place that value as an absolute; rather than it's pupose, which is to make it easier to exchange a pig for some egg's.

then could you define what the "value" was?

isn't it eventually personalized?

 

corollary: almost every change is the result of exchange.  

 

a notation: "almost" here is not an objective particle. But we needed to include indefinite things too. Indefinite things also include the contexts we cannot interfere them wholly as of the current time. 

Edited May 16, 2021 by ahmet

[iNow]

1 hour ago, ahmet said:

when I need to make a decision objectively dependent to some criteria,I only refer to the source and pay attention what the criteria were. But not the actions and people.

So, here, I do not rely on what other people do. the important thing, in fact , here is that what the source states.

Thus, that is not my core focal point what other muslims pay attention (with the condition that I am suficiently  knowledgeable about the source). The external people are also not important. 

Apologies, but the translation here is difficult to parse. I’m not clear what you’re trying to say. 

Previously, you said only gold and silver are accepted as payment. No matter how you translate that, it’s wrong. 

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, ahmet said:

then could you define what the "value" was?

Two rashers of bacon for one egg.

20 hours ago, ahmet said:

isn't it eventually personalized?

Not when there is no actual need involved.

20 hours ago, ahmet said:

corollary: almost every change is the result of exchange.

How is that relevant to the topic?

[dimreepr]

I see little discount to the value of money, in this metric...

[MonDie]

On 5/16/2021 at 4:29 AM, dimreepr said:

Gold is no more valuable than paper, if what you need to buy is a loaf and there's none on the shelves.

Yet the currency would still remain valid in those times, upholding those inequalities even in times of strive.  To give a more biological perspective, I think the ways the legitimacy of a currency is maintained are arguably very primatological:  territory/land, food patches/resources, safety in numbers/shelter.  If these things were still free, it would probably be easier to break from our currencies when they became counterproductive.

 

Cultural hegemony of the elites/majorities can be a, a, something with claws.

On 5/10/2021 at 9:14 AM, swansont said:

The best things in life are free
But you can give them to the birds and bees

Just give me money. That's what I want.

[...]

 

[dimreepr]

13 hours ago, MonDie said:

Yet the currency would still remain valid in those times, upholding those inequalities even in times of strive.  To give a more biological perspective, I think the ways the legitimacy of a currency is maintained are arguably very primatological:  territory/land, food patches/resources, safety in numbers/shelter.  If these things were still free, it would probably be easier to break from our currencies when they became counterproductive.

I'm not suggesting money isn't valid.

I'm suggesting that, the more people who have what they need to be content, the more people who see it's true value and thus reducing the need to protect the money they have; fraud only occurs when both parties think/feel they need more than they have.

Of course there's no perfect system, some people will allways want more than they have/need; the problem we have is, those people are in charge, and doing everthing they can to make sure fraud is viable.

 

I highly doubt Picasso painted because he knew how much money it would make now...

[ahmet]

39 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I'm suggesting that, the more people who have what they need to be content, the more people who see it's true value and thus reducing the need to protect the money they have; fraud only occurs when both parties think/feel they need more than they have.

Of course there's no perfect system, some people will allways want more than they have/need; the problem we have is, those people are in charge, and doing everthing they can to make sure fraud is viable.

 

don't bother yourself, as soon as  you die (and thus you leave from this world), some wordings will be expressed after your movement:

 

get past sir , 

the game is over. Any amount of money you collected will remain at your back. 

 

 

 

On 5/16/2021 at 12:29 PM, dimreepr said:

Gold is no more valuable than paper, if what you need to buy is a loaf and there's none on the shelves.

this is narrowed "paradigm "...

but gold is almost or already universal "acceptance". 

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, ahmet said:

don't bother yourself, as soon as  you die (and thus you leave from this world), some wordings will be expressed after your movement:

Was that something Mohammed taught?

[ahmet]

On 5/17/2021 at 2:18 PM, dimreepr said:

How is that relevant to the topic?

you succintly discuss the worth of money.

money is in fact an object inside of the exchnage process.

but the process I mention above (exchange),I think, rather generalised. 

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Was that something Mohammed taught?

apart from the reality or the type of reality, we all responsible what we do and believe. 

Thus , both yes and no. 

yes, because you could find many advices by him like that.

no, because you should find the realities by yourself. And none will be responsible by someone else's acts. 

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, ahmet said:

you succintly discuss the worth of money.

money is in fact an object inside of the exchnage process.

but the process I mention above (exchange),I think, rather generalised. 

You're confusing an object for a concept.

45 minutes ago, ahmet said:

apart from the reality or the type of reality, we all responsible what we do and believe. 

Thus , both yes and no. 

yes, because you could find many advices by him like that.

no, because you should find the realities by yourself. And none will be responsible by someone else's acts. 

What is true for you, is true for me...

For instance, if you think you're content; the chances are, you're content with that knowledge.

Some people need a teacher to make sense of the world, and some people find out for themselves...

Which is more valuable?

[dimreepr]

If you don't understand, what's the point of knowledge?

[Anand_Haqq]

. Money is not what it appears. Money is more deep-rooted. Money is not just there outside in the currency notes, it is something to do with your inner, mind, attitudes. Money is your love of things, money is your escape from persons, money is your security against death, money is your effort to control life, money is a thousand and one things. Money is not just in the currency notes, otherwise things would have been very easy.

. Money is your love – love of things, not of persons. The most comfortable love is of things, because things are dead, you can possess them easily. You can possess a big house, a palace – the greatest palace you can possess easily – but you cannot possess even the smallest baby; even that baby rejects, even that baby fights for his freedom. A small baby, howsoever small, is dangerous for the man who wants to possess him. He will rebel, he will become rebellious, but he will not allow anybody to possess him.

. People who cannot love people, start loving money because money is a means to possess things. The more money you have, the more things you can possess; and the more things you can possess, the more you can forget about people. You will have many things but you will not have any contentment, because deep contentment comes only when you love a person. The money will not revolt but it cannot respond either, that’s the trouble.

. That’s why miserly people become very ugly – nobody has responded to their love ever. How can you be beautiful without love falling on you, without love showering on you like flowers – how can you be beautiful? You become ugly. You become closed. A man who possesses money or tries to possess money, is miserly and he will always be afraid of people, because if they are allowed to come closer they may start sharing. If you allow somebody closeness you have to allow some sharing also.

. People who love things become like things – dead, closed. Nothing vibrates in them, nothing dances and sings in them, their hearts have lost the beat. They live a mechanical life. They drag, burdened, burdened with many things, but they don’t have any freedom because only love can give you freedom and love can give you freedom only if you give freedom to love.

. People who are afraid of love become possessive about money. People who love become non-possessive, money doesn’t matter much. If it is, it is okay, it can be used; if it is not, that too is okay, because love is such a kingdom that no money can purchase it. Love is such a deep fulfillment that you can be a beggar on the street and you can sing if you have love in your heart. If you have loved and you have been loved, love crowns you, makes a king of you. Money simply makes you ugly.

. I am not against money. I am not saying to go and throw it away, because that is another extreme. That is also the last step of the miserly mind. A man who has suffered too much because of money, who has clung to money and could not love anybody or become open, becomes so frustrated in the end that he throws away the money, renounces and goes to the Himalayas, enters a Tibetan monastery and becomes a lama. This man has not understood. If you understand, money can be used, but people who don’t understand are either misers, they can’t use the money, or they renounce the money, because in renouncing they are also saving the same mind. Now there will be no difficulty in using it: you renounce all and escape. But they cannot use the money, they are afraid of using it.

[iNow]

20 minutes ago, Anand_Haqq said:

Money is your love – love of things, not of persons.

Things like food, clean drinking water, shelter, opportunity, security. Sure, but you’re putting money in opposition to love of people and that’s frankly ridiculous since so many people seek money to better care for those they love and hold dear. 

22 minutes ago, Anand_Haqq said:

That’s why miserly people become very ugly – nobody has responded to their love ever.

Lol. Citation needed 

23 minutes ago, Anand_Haqq said:

This man has not understood.

I understand that you’re quite likely a bot in training.