Skip to main content

Is Money the Root of All Evil?

The vilification of money and the unequal possession thereof is merely the tip of the iceberg of imminently-recognizable disparities among individuals. Money, oddly enough, serves merely to express individual preferences across regular intervals of time, rendering possible and powerful the dynamic demands of all participants and the benefits of mobilizing to match those demands.
As it turns out, money most clearly reveals the costs of behavior, further motivating merit-based transactions. Without the expedient and efficacious tool of money, civilization regresses to a state of uncertainty and imperfect matches.
The civilization becomes more insensitive to its losses spawning from lower-level discrimination, while an agrarian or barter-style system of exchange, heavily limited by the double-coincidence of wants, restricts the reach and convertibility of goods in foreign markets, thereby inherently impeding relationships and hardening the civilization’s isolationist posture.
Of course, this not only causes the tragedy of inefficient, underperforming markets, which are sure to lift off through specialized trade and comparative advantage, but rather enfeebles the community in terms of intercultural relations and awareness and its capacity to endure supply shocks.
The popular phrase goes, “Money is the root of all evil.” This shorthand verse grossly misrepresents 1 Timothy 6:10, wherein the Bible states, “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.”
One must be sure to recognize the distinction here uncovered between money as the root of all evil and the love of money as its root. Remember the words of Aristotle from the Nicomachean Ethics: “The life of money-making is one undertaken under compulsion, and wealth is evidently not the good we are seeking; for it is merely useful for the sake of something else.”
This compulsion, if founded upon voluntary exchange, can yield handsome sums of wealth only by the mutual satisfaction of personal demands. This produces a non-zero-sum game in which all parties perceive advantage.
It is only by the mechanism of theft or coercion that zero-sum outcomes, or even net-negative results across the longer term, are even possible.
The condemnation of money, or such tools employed for exceptional achievement, serves only the shortsighted interests of a specific group of persons, historically clergy or statesmen who stand to gain from clever, compelling redistributions of wealth under the name of welfare, righteousness or social justice. Ultimately, these are merely euphemisms for selective privilege absent accountability.
Let us voyage into an example of such a civilization: Cambodia during the reign of the Khmer Rouge. The Khmer Rouge, a French name for Red Khmers, was a Communist regime that designed their own micro-utopia in Cambodia from 1975 to 1979. As it turns out, their ideal civilization was a dystopia rooted in agrarian socialism which resulted in the mass genocide of 25 percent of Cambodia’s total population, approximately 2 million people.
As it turns out, this power-play was the consequence of the appeal of government-guided mercantilism whereby the principal agenda, equality for the majority, translated to an elimination of money, a shortage of medicine, and caloric and dietary restrictions which led to cases of people eating spiders to survive.
Ultimately, this is how designs of equality and social justice end and there exists no sound theory by which man can make men equal. Any attempt to achieve this end is deliverable only at the expense of the individual, his potential and ambition and the expedient progress of his predecessors.
It is not to even the playing field, but to make life lousy and play-less, all while the prevailing governing body lays claim to any gains to sustain its monopoly over the social good.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Kaepernick Craze: Exposing the Nation's Fools One Conversation at a Time

The Kaeparnick craze and other viral movements haven't merely pressured people into becoming simpler caricatures of their prior selves, but they have manifestly exposed people for how foolish and uninformed they've been all along. 



In his final year in the NFL, Kaepernick ranked 17th in passer rating and 34th the year before that. 

He played through an entire season in only two of his six years in the league, and his best full-season performance ranks far outside of the NFL's top-250 single-season passing performances in the league's history. 

For reference, the oft-criticized Tony Romo posted a career passer rating of 97.1, as compared to Kaepernick's 88.9. 

Romo's passer rating dipped below 90 for only one season of the eleven seasons he played, whereas Kaepernick failed to eclipse the 90 mark on three of his six seasons, a full 50 percent of his time in the NFL. 

In fact, Kaepernick accomplished this feat only once if we are to discard those other two seasons in …

Institutional Racism: The Sasquatch of Political Folklore

A great confusion has arisen out of the clamor of political debate, one which presupposes that any dismissal of the merits of “institutional racism” somehow equates to one’s rejection of personal struggle. 

Whereas the struggle of any individual remains always and everywhere unique and wholly personal, his common bond of complexion with others who have struggled serves inadequately as the basis for any argument which regards this commonality as the cause, or as the reason, for that veritable struggle. 

To condemn the unidentifiable and nebulous abstraction, then, by castigating an unnamed institution which persists beyond our specific capacity to recognize its power, serves only to absolve individuals of their personal responsibility, to shift blame and culpability to a specter which exists only by the creative designs of our imaginations, which exists as the scapegoat for all outcomes popularly maligned as undesirable. 

This unactionable practice, then, swiftly and categorically excuses…

Homelessness More Lucrative than $150,000/Year Job in SF Bay Area

Most people in the United States long for a $150,000-per-year salary. This makes sense, as the nation's median personal income is roughly 80 percent below that mark. 

It's a lot of money. 

In fact, this income level qualifies for the top 4 percent of Americans and the top 0.1 percent of the world's population; it is 109 times the global average.

If this is true, how could an unemployed homeless person possibly make more money? Well, the federal, state and local governments: that's how!

Let's take a look at the numbers.

A single Bay-Area Californian earning $150,000 per year pays an effective income tax rate of 32.23 percent: this figure is inclusive of a 7.20-percent effective state income tax (and 9.30-percent marginal rate), an 18.27-percent effective federal income tax (and 24.00-percent marginal rate), and a 6.76-percent effective rate for Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes. 



In addition to income taxes, the homeowner incurs an annual mortgage cost amou…