Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Reinstate Mary, Feb 19, 2009.
This is a question for any one who can read.
Never. It creates more greed.
we'll you can make greed look bad some how......I mean the church did a job of it? How was it lost?
Well, there always greed in the world but if we use money system. A lot of people would get more greedy; willing to cheat, steal, kill for money.
I don't understand the last question?
Exploitative labour is always a negative thing, or at least most people would agree.
how was that ideal lost? I mean the church set up many ideals that are still very prevalent in seocity today, how has greed been "allowed" to manifest into an acceptable practice?
Yeah, I'd say that greead would be a reason why thats even a probelm in the first place. if i was reading the sarcasm correctly
Christianity.....and the ideals of the 7 deadly sins.
I say because they actually did make it so that masses(funny how that looks and works) were not and are not greedy.
The fact that they did that is what I'm getting at.
I guess my lines arnt urs.
No. Nor can money ever be a totally negative thing. Money creates greed but they also motivate people to contribute to society. The only kind of society that could exist without money would be a very strict but yet successfull kind of communism.
I don't know that it would have to be strict. or communism per say.
How about if "money" was transformed?
It still money. Money is a myth.
Even if money was a direct representation of how hard one works. Some people are lazy and accept that they arnt in a better place in their life because of it, or many other reasons.
If litterly what you put in it was what you got out, and thats all that money was viewed as, as a measure of work and not a status, tho human nature would conceivably make it into a situation of status, would greed not take on a different tone.
Si or no?
Well people wouldn't work if they didn't get anything in return. If money didn't exist, work would probably be rewarded with food (kinda how things worked in the sojvet union, though poorly). People wouldn't want to get rid of money in return of basic necesseties (food, heat, water, shelter), they'd want something more. They'd want their widescreen tv's, cars, computers, etc. And if work would be rewarded with all of that (in the same amount as one could afford working the same job in a world with money), basically it'd still be "money" only the "middle-man" (credits) wouldn't be there. Economics is a complicated thing.
money is a scapegoat to greed. people don't like the money it's self, they like the things that money gets them, money is just the middle man, if we didn't have money you would still want the cool new boat your neighbor got, and the nice remodel your other neighbor got. money is just an extremely efficent way to do these things, unfortunately alot of people in this world get jelous when people have more things than them, and they would just rather wish noone had anything, and hurt society over an emotion, i like to call these people liberals.
thats a hefty charge you apply to the liberals, I would say that they are more geared to extream and excessive amounts of equality, like almost choking equality.
i never said they weren't for equality, they are very much so, it's just the way that system runs, everyone is equal with less. cuba is more fair than the us economically, doesn't that look like fun?
money is a scam. imho.