>From Mauro,
> . The problem is in the way money is taken as a value > in itself, when it should be considered just a convenient form > of replacement for other, real values. > The way money is valued, that's where the real problem lies. In fact, > we're in a really stupid state of affairs, come to look at it and > understand how it really works. But unless people are willing to look > at these things in the face, so to speak, without any kind of self > delusion, caused by dwelling in cloudy and vague ideas(where they > personal interests and ambitions also play a role, of course), nothing > will really change. People should start to feel ashamed for being part > of this state of affairs. That's what must happen first, and only then, > real change will be possible. I couldn't agree more, Mauro. I've made similar arguments. I shall now rant in more detail. (You have been warned!) ;-) Initially money (or currency) was initially represented in the form of precious stones and metals. There was always a limited supply of gold ands ilver, so the intrinsic value was kept relatively stable throughout the ages. Back then, most forms of currency literally represented the intrinsic value of what it was constructed out of. People across the globe always had faith that pieces of gold & silver would maintain its value, and they were right. However, in contemporary times, that has not been the case for quite a while, such as when the United States went off of the gold standard, and oh, what a bru ha-ha that caused! In place of the gold standard modern civilizations have attempted to maintain intrinsic value through a series of complicated policy controls. They also try to make the representation of currency extremely difficult to duplicate in order to discourage rampant counterfeiting which, if left unchecked, would dilute, or cause rampant inflation. Alas, the devil is in the details as to who actually controls the intrinsic value of contemporary currency - and there lies the rub. Whoever controls those knobs and dials assumes control of the world. In contemporary times, there seems to be an on-going battle for supremacy played out between federal governments versus big private businesses. Certain aspects of Big Businesses seem to believe that if they can accumulate as much currency as they can in their private piggy banks, by default, they will control the intrinsic value of currency. If enough of them accumulate the stuff they will end up making currency scarce. That means all the currency they have accumulated over the years is perceived as even MORE valuable. However, to maintain the illusion of scarcity, big businesses have to be assured that the federal government will not do something apocalyptic like print up additional currency and then hand out those notes to "needy" portions of the population via through various government sanctioned programs. That's where various forms of institutionalized bribery come into play with the objective of eliciting appropriate kinds of money policy behavior from governments. Likewise, it would seem that certain aspects of Big Government believe that if they can tax more individuals and private corporations that in turn will siphon off the ills of excess inflation-producing currency. By default that would also cause currency to become scarce, and more valued. I hasten to add however that I've never heard governments explain it in such terms. They would, in fact emphatically deny that THAT is what they are doing. However, by default, the more governments taxes, the less currency would be left in consumer & corporate pockets to spend. By default, that means the remaining currency becomes even more valued. In theory, it would seem, taxation can also counter the effects of inflation. What seems to have been lost in the translation is the fact that both Businesses and Governments are essentially BUSINESSES. Both systems have devised varies ways and means of collecting currency from customers. In return they all attempt to provide useful products and services for their "paying" customers. Customers, in turn, must decide if they are getting their money's worth. When it comes to assessing the value products produced from private businesses, if you don't like what you bought don't buy from them anymore. Buy from a competitor. When it comes to assessing the value of government services, vote the senator (or president) out of office, and attempt to install another more agreeable puppet that will do what you want him to do for you. The only appreciable difference is the fact that the business known as the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT can legally print up more currency (which, of course scares the BiJesus out of private corporations), whereas any other private or state business caught doing the same thing will be strung up by the short hairs. I suspect contemporary society will have to come to better terms with how we perceive the value of currency. IMHO, what has become an abomination is the fact that we continue to worship money, destructively so by continuing to propagate the illusion of equating currency as still the equivalent of pieces of gold and silver. Currency has become a deity in its own right. There has been little educational attempt to understand the fact that currency should do nothing more than represent the intrinsic value of products and services rendered. This is a subtle point, so I will reiterate: I think, too much of society (and governments) still perceive modern currency in terms of pieces of gold and silver. I think we need to understand the fundamental fact that virtual currency ITSELF should not possess any kind of intrinsic value in itself. Currency should instead only represent, by proxy, the value of products and services rendered between all parties involved. I must confess, however, that how we might go about making such a transition, where we stop valuing currency for the sake of currency itself. well that will not be an easy undertaking. I'm still trying to figure that out myself. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
