Is money evil?

[Anders Lindman]

My guess is that money need not be evil but charging interest on money-creation (loans/credits) seems to be a way of sucking people dry. In the world of business, such monetary system may be efficient, but for ordinary individuals it looks like a bad deal indeed.

[cruise4]

Its nothing compared to them inventing the stuff out of thin air and then you have to pay this 'thin air' back as a pound (in this country).

[kooo]

Usury is evil for obvious reasons. I would also go as far to say money is too because it leads to so many negative emotions, the people with money can become greedy and selfish, people with none often lead a miserable existence sometimes leading to crime to survive. There have been many suicides by people in debt, many murders by people who want to get their hands on another's money/insurance. Gold digging men and women cause distress to their victims shattering their confidence. There isn't much about money I find positive, money is one of the things I hate most about this world, it makes everything and everyone so competitive, I'll be glad to see the back of it.

And another thing, my mum has the money and she's got a scumbag gold digger living with her. Now the law has been changed to allow common law partners to stake a claim on property my future isn't looking very bright. But I've got over that one and I'm happy with what I have, a rented flat.

Money is only good for two things, yummy food and weed.

[anoninnyc]

the love of money is the root of all evil they say. money is not evil, it is an inanimate object. it is greed that is evil usury is part of that greed. money is just a tool to make trade easier. it is our covetous nature that is evil. not the money itself. it is the lying, thieving etc. all due to greed........

[mari]

Its only another form of energy; in itself, neither 'good' or 'bad'.

[lifeofbrian]

Money brings out the evil in people.

I say; let it.

Let's have a good, long, hard look at those wanting money for nothing.

[revolutionary_jam]

if everyone had the right to own the house they live in money wouldn' be such a problem

right now it's a comodity in itself: ie property speculation, currency speculation, stockmarket, loans etc etc etc.

[ngawaka19]

I guess 'blood money' is.

And, by now, money has probably collected a huge form of karma. Anyone who aspires to owning alot, is pissing in the wind if they want to find virtue, freedom and peace of mind.

Not often I try to quote the small amount that I know from the Bible but here goes.

'It would take a camel to pass thru the eye of a needle before a rich man can enter heaven'.

You all know the one I mean, but could someone correct me on this, it would be nice to know the real term.

love and light
ngawaka19

[auron]

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter into kingdom of heaven. :)

[sheartemis]

My guess is that money need not be evil but charging interest on money-creation (loans/credits) seems to be a way of sucking people dry. In the world of business, such monetary system may be efficient, but for ordinary individuals it looks like a bad deal indeed.

Money itself need not be evil. It need not be good either.
I guess it can be both. Or maybe neither.:D
It just is and what it is we have made of that is a shame.

Interests - that's evil. But - that is what we have made or allowed to happen.

Money is one of the most efficient means to make people slaves and make sure that they stay slaves.

I guess we should ask ourselves a couple of questions about what we need and what we want and why we want all these stuff we spend money on.

[Anders Lindman]

Interests - that's evil. But - that is what we have made or allowed to happen.


There probably was a good reason why usury was forbidden in the past. Somehow the bankers managed to make it legal again.

[Anders Lindman]

money is one of the things I hate most about this world, it makes everything and everyone so competitive,

I see competition as something useful, but it should be competition on the business level, not competition for the struggle to survive. Those who suffer most in the power pyramid (when it comes to money) are those at the bottom. I suspect the pyramid is thoroughly rigged and/or biased, and those at the top can much more easily make loads of money than those at the bottom.

Couldn't it be that there are enough resources in the world to feed, clothe and shelter everybody? It should be possible to provide that for everybody and still have a competitive free market economy on top of that for people and companies who want to make plenty of money.

[cruise4]

Money is a tool. You can use a hammer to smash someone's face in, or build a house with it.

Its the way money is used thats the problem!

[Anders Lindman]

Money is a tool. You can use a hammer to smash someone's face in, or build a house with it.

Its the way money is used thats the problem!

How money is used AND how it is created. How money is used is one thing, and how it is created another.

[sheartemis]

There probably was a good reason why usury was forbidden in the past. Somehow the bankers managed to make it legal again.


There surely was. But, it has always existed, hasn't it? Actually, it is said to be forbidden in some religions/societies nowadays. But, if we even try to analyse it, we will be caught in a discussion about what usury really is and what it is not.

What we have now is a whole system in which usury is legal, normal, accepted - because it has different names and complicated definitions.

I see competition as something useful, but it should be competition on the business level, not competition for the struggle to survive. Those who suffer most in the power pyramid (when it comes to money) are those at the bottom. I suspect the pyramid is thoroughly rigged and/or biased, and those at the top can much more easily make loads of money than those at the bottom.

Couldn't it be that there are enough resources in the world to feed, clothe and shelter everybody? It should be possible to provide that for everybody and still have a competitive free market economy on top of that for people and companies who want to make plenty of money.

I see your point. It all seems so obvious. Of course, competition is useful in business, in sport... But - it's a game. It really is. We should compete and have fun and be happy for each other. It is great to work hard and have fun competing, right? Somehow, this is not what happens. Competition is war - it's your job or mine, your product or mine, your money in my pocket...:D
For so many people it means survival, which is the worst and the saddest part.
Instead of having fun and enjoying benefits from the results of our competition, we are having war and millions are miserable.
Something is wrong with that competition we see around, isn't it?

That in bold - I couldn't agree more. This is the world of future - hopefully. Today - far from it. But, the way you put it - it is the way I think it should look like. There are resources and they are kept by the few. They have taken what is not theirs and one day, they will give it back.
With interest. :D

With our words and with our thoughts (and feelings, too) we are contributing to the future we will not see in this life (but we don't care, we know) and that is so valuable and important. There is not much more really we can do at this point and so few of have chosen (or have been chosen):D to do that and to be like that.
These are the ones that have been bearing the light through centuries.

[cruise4]

Yes I agree Anders.. I meant creation was a use too.

Should we all get our money out the bank? The less real notes they have, the bigger their problem is as they have to claw 10 times the amount in. Can we hurry the collapse?

Could we just decide to use a new currency between ourselves and run it properly?

Could we spend big on cards and then default all at once?

I had a mate who just went bankrupt with £60,000 owing. He's well happy.

[Anders Lindman]

Yes I agree Anders.. I meant creation was a use too.

Should we all get our money out the bank? The less real notes they have, the bigger their problem is as they have to claw 10 times the amount in. Can we hurry the collapse?

Could we just decide to use a new currency between ourselves and run it properly?

Could we spend big on cards and then default all at once?

I had a mate who just went bankrupt with £60,000 owing. He's well happy.

The root of the problem seems to be charging interest on money-creation. As they explained in the Zeitgeist video, governments have to pay interest for the money the borrow from the central banks.

It's almost like a double scam. In the U.S. for example, the government has to pay interest for the money they get from the Federal Reserve (if I have understood it correctly). And the Federal Reserve is owned by a bunch of private banks who receives the interest from the government PLUS they receive all the interest on the out-of-thin-air fractional reserve loans and credits they dish out to citizens and companies in vast amounts hour by hour.

[cruise4]

Yes, its a double, triple, quadruple scam alright.

There should be one bank owned by the people that prints the money backed by Gold or something suitable. No debt allowed by the meritocracy government. Any money borrowed by the ordinary people has modest interest rate and this profit is used for the benefit of the people, whether citizen income or infrastructure building. Any other banks HAVE to provide their money as Notes bought from the central bank... no electronic money from thin air allowed.

[Anders Lindman]

Yes, its a double, triple, quadruple scam alright.

There should be one bank owned by the people that prints the money backed by Gold or something suitable. No debt allowed by the meritocracy government. Any money borrowed by the ordinary people has modest interest rate and this profit is used for the benefit of the people, whether citizen income or infrastructure building. Any other banks HAVE to provide their money as Notes bought from the central bank... no electronic money from thin air allowed.

I just got an idea. I don't know if it's realistic, but maybe it's possible to keep the monetary system and all the banks just as they are operating just as they do today with charging interest and all that but with one exception: Charging interest on money created through the fractional reserve principle will not be allowed. This means that a bank can then still charge interest on a loan, but the money they lend out must in that case be 100% from their own reserve, not any of it created by fractional reserve banking. The bank could still be allowed to use fractional reserve banking, for example create $9,000 "thin-air" money out of $1,000 of their own reserve, and then they can lend out $10,000 to a customer, but they will only be allowed to charge interest on the $1,000 that comes from the bank's own reserve. I think that could be fair.

[cruise4]

If you think you are going to deprive me of the satisfaction of ripping the banking sytem down about their ears, taking all their ill gotten gains from them and then altering the mindset from greed to altruism... you are sadly mistaken. I demand my reward after years of suffering in poverty:D

And the hard labour for the perps bit!

[Anders Lindman]

If you think you are going to deprive me of the satisfaction of ripping the banking sytem down about their ears, taking all their ill gotten gains from them and then altering the mindset from greed to altruism... you are sadly mistaken. I demand my reward after years of suffering in poverty:D

And the hard labour for the perps bit!

You don't have to worry about that. Taking away the banks' right to charge interest on the fractional reserve part and only allow them to charge interest on their own reserves will be enough to make the whole pyramid of cards to collapse. A soft collapse, because the banks who have real substance will not go down. :D

[Anders Lindman]

the banks who have real substance will not go down.

This could be used as a divide-and-control technique. To set up one kind of economic theory against another. On one side is the idea that interest should be charged for fractional reserve banking loans and credits. On the other side is the idea that interest should only be charged for the banks' own reserves. Both sides would allow fractional reserve banking, but only one side would support charging interest on the fractional reserve part.