3 ms·

Doesn’t the parent mean “acquiring money” rather than money as a concept? It’s people’s relationship to money that is being criticised rather than money itself.

Doesn’t the parent mean “acquiring money” rather than money as a concept? It’s people’s relationship to money that is being criticised rather than money itself. To rephrase what I believe the intent was “if people cared about improving society more than acquiring money”.

luckylion 6y ago
But "acquiring money" from others means, if you follow the idea of money as a placeholder for value, "producing value" for others. That's absolutely what we want. That is: if you care about society, you will want to produce something of value for your fellow beings in that society. Them giving you money is them saying "I like what you do", essentially. Of course it's not that simple, and of course every system gets gamed and you have irrational actors everywhere and customers get lured with false promises etc, but does it matter at the scale of the economy itself? For example, if you look at the US with a GDP of 20 trillion dollars and you believe that celebrities getting huge amounts of money is stupid and they don't actually add value ... How much do they "misdirect", 10bn per year? That seems like a small price to pay compared to the big picture. Like taking a life-saving medication but having to deal with a rash or occasional constipation as a side effect, not using the medication because of this undesired side-effect seems foolish.
- sukilot 6y ago
  "Celebrities" are misdirection. They generally he tmoney for value. Money siphoned by bankers and defense contractors and predatory advertisers are the real waste.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    They may well be worse than celebrities (though I don't see the large value generated there either, tbh; they are getting paid for advertising effectiveness), but even those are a small fraction of the economy.
- meheleventyone 6y ago
  Merely providing value to others is not necessarily making society better. That’s the point. Otherwise we’d celebrate slavery as selling one person to another is just telling them “I like what you do” and providing value. So there is clearly a whole different set of criteria where it’s possible to take a moral stance and not provide value in terms of acquiring money but sacrifice potential profit for social good. That this is hard for people to understand sometimes is why they get described as morally bankrupt.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > Otherwise we’d celebrate slavery as selling one person to another is just telling them “I like what you do” and providing value. No, we wouldn't. We consider the slaves part of society and their suffering is far greater than the gain of the slave owners. Society suffers.

luckylion 6y ago

But "acquiring money" from others means, if you follow the idea of money as a placeholder for value, "producing value" for others. That's absolutely what we want. That is: if you care about society, you will want to produce something of value for your fellow beings in that society. Them giving you money is them saying "I like what you do", essentially. Of course it's not that simple, and of course every system gets gamed and you have irrational actors everywhere and customers get lured with false promises etc, but does it matter at the scale of the economy itself? For example, if you look at the US with a GDP of 20 trillion dollars and you believe that celebrities getting huge amounts of money is stupid and they don't actually add value ... How much do they "misdirect", 10bn per year? That seems like a small price to pay compared to the big picture. Like taking a life-saving medication but having to deal with a rash or occasional constipation as a side effect, not using the medication because of this undesired side-effect seems foolish.

sukilot 6y ago
"Celebrities" are misdirection. They generally he tmoney for value. Money siphoned by bankers and defense contractors and predatory advertisers are the real waste.
- luckylion 6y ago
  They may well be worse than celebrities (though I don't see the large value generated there either, tbh; they are getting paid for advertising effectiveness), but even those are a small fraction of the economy.
meheleventyone 6y ago
Merely providing value to others is not necessarily making society better. That’s the point. Otherwise we’d celebrate slavery as selling one person to another is just telling them “I like what you do” and providing value. So there is clearly a whole different set of criteria where it’s possible to take a moral stance and not provide value in terms of acquiring money but sacrifice potential profit for social good. That this is hard for people to understand sometimes is why they get described as morally bankrupt.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > Otherwise we’d celebrate slavery as selling one person to another is just telling them “I like what you do” and providing value. No, we wouldn't. We consider the slaves part of society and their suffering is far greater than the gain of the slave owners. Society suffers.