As a debt owner, everyone in a political economy pits themselves against every other member in their own system. This is what Adam Smith tells us is the case in The Wealth Of Nations. We are pitting lust against power against the need for money. It is presumably normal for people to want to succeed, but at what point is wealth gathering (greed) treated as amoral? In the protestant faith it is highlighted that work ethic can be treated as rewarding with a byproduct of material wealth. This is to say that there is no correlation between wealth and religion but merely as something that is tolerated. My understanding is that passions can be executed in a manner that accumulates wealth and power over ones life. When the power trickles over into the subservience of your fellow man it can become a flaw. This to say that living humble can also be rewarding….and in America this can be a capitalist dream. I would posit that the idea of money being equated to greed is somewhat a notion of old. In a mirrored image where coins take the place of non-tangible assets then work ethic is a old fashioned idea and the working man can be engineered as a morally sound person due to their humble attitude. “Labour was the first price, the original purchase – money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all wealth of the world was originally purchased.” – Adam Smith
What is a Doctor is they are not performing successfully?
We only begin to monetize things when we place value that is extra inherent, this meaning that we tie value to things that are not necessarily valuable in their basic state.
How do we view the “value ” of money as an object of technology that specifically transform the way that we see objects based on how we value them. When we say something is expensive, we are saying that there is a value attached to that object that is directed and perceived based on our temporal model.
So what does it mean to have worth?
In the days of old prior to our concept of fiat currencies we based value on the utility of an object. So money does allow us to commodify services as well like a haircut or an oil change.
Projecting the future with credit has changed this in a way where people can put everything in their life on layaway based on the trust that they will pay their debts.
How does money bother us ethically? We borrow money against our own value and essentially slave ourselves to prior decisions. So I believe that borrowing the least amount of money is the most reasonably principled way to not enslave yourself. How have we become inherently transaction based as humans? Why are humans more valuable as they become rich?
After reading a synopsis for all the materials covered in the first week it seems fascinating that the study of the crossroads of money and currency as a cultural phenomenon. My question for the semester is how does money give power and vise versa in politics? Specifically the advantage of lobbying.
Welcome to onMason. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!