4 ms·
> It is not and it does not become it by you repeating that claim Yes it is, and it does not not become it by you repeating that claim. Most people would not
by imaginenore 10y ago
> It is not and it does not become it by you repeating that claim
Yes it is, and it does not not become it by you repeating that claim.
Most people would not be working where they work if they didn't need money. They would do what they actually enjoy. The percentage of people who love their jobs is tiny.
> It is not, it is the explanation, what money actually is
No, it's the explanation of how money is introduced, not what it "actually is". Money is the measure of human labor. You clearly can't comprehend the difference.
- allendoerfer 10y agoI clearly described why lifetime is not money (because it is not traded, you still live) and what money is (it is not only the mechanism of how it is introduced, but also how it's value can be changed afterwards and so on). > Most people would not be working where they work if they didn't need money. They would do what they actually enjoy. Just a claim. Even if this were true, lifetime is still not lost. > The percentage of people who love their jobs is tiny. People like to be needed. Also just a claim. I think at this point the discussion makes no sense. I will stop writing this over and over again now, as long as you do not answer my main argument: When someone gives human labor and gets money, he does not give away lifetime in the way a murderer takes away his lifetime. He still lives while working.