I think you took my sentence too literally. I dont consider money as a concept oppressive. What Im saying is the wealthiest in the world don’t have the same val

I think you took my sentence too literally. I dont consider money as a concept oppressive. What Im saying is the wealthiest in the world don’t have the same values, they pursue different things. Where money is, and where it moves, matters because it has social and political effects. Money is power, or energy if you will. It amplifies the values of who uses it, shaping what they have under their control to their demands. Now the thing is, a few people own big stakes of companies, companies that employ the rest of the people. The owners want to profit, they want these employees to give as much as possible to increase profit. If the people at the bottom are powerless, they become batteries for the vision of the owner. And they can’t quit their job, because they wouldn’t be able to pay their mortgage that got more expensive with a higher interest rate. And when times are tough and they dont have liquid cash, they take credit with a high interest rate to get by the month. Now they’re in a bad debt cycle, they dont choose over their lives and have to stay in servitude until they can make that debt manageable again. Debt has good applications and bad applications but let’s not pretend that it’s not a tool for control. Yes, new tech can’t apply everywhere. If an improvement can be made somewhere but not everywhere, it should still be made in the place it can. The elite are pulling in their direction. The rest have to pull just as hard or the world becomes less equal.