4 ms·

I was prepared to be moved to some novel point of view on the nature of money, but the article doesn't ring true. We do get to choose how to spend our money, a

I was prepared to be moved to some novel point of view on the nature of money, but the article doesn't ring true. We do get to choose how to spend our money, and rich Americans who accrue millions or billions of dollars of personal wealth especially do. What do people choose to do with their money? * Often they invest it, so that their net worth goes up rather than down, while perhaps supporting a company or cause they believe in. It's true that when you put your money into something, it's no longer liquid. If you inherit a few million dollars and immediately buy a few houses as an investment, you don't have the money, you just have the houses. * They set up philanthropic foundations. This involves allocating money to ongoing aid. Yes, the money is earmarked, because you (the foundation) earmarked it. * If you want more money going to innovation, that's great, but it is not an axiom that money, where it exists, should be used to fund particular innovative projects that will transform society. For one thing, people disagree on how important it is to spend money on innovation versus other things. If you want to see a manned mission to Jupiter, say, you can either fund it yourself or convince other people it's a good idea and work out where the money will come from. You can't just complain it's not happening, despite all the money everywhere. * When wealthy individuals decide how to spend/blow/invest/donate a million dollars (say), I don't think they are ruled by social pressure, their hands tied by the ever-present danger of being shamed into oblivion -- so they decide it is safer to just buy a yacht. This sounds like an externalization of the feeling of self-consciousness some people may have. Now, one thing I'll say is that money is not necessarily being spent on big projects in a way that reflects what people want to see. Kickstarter is helping change this (see http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/559914737/the-veronica-mars-movie-project http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/559914737/the-veronica-m...) -- by tapping into discretionary money!

julespitt 14y ago
Often they invest it, so that their net worth goes up rather than down, while perhaps supporting a company or cause they believe in. It's true that when you put your money into something, it's no longer liquid. Your wealth is no longer liquid - but of course, someone now has that money instead, and it's liquid for them. This seemingly minor confusion happens in the article as well: But we live in a situation where very nearly all the wealth in the world seems to be tied up in destructive forms. If the money is fluid, why is it not able to simply flow from destructive forms to creative ones? He just switched from "wealth being tied up" - wealth is often quite illiquid - to money in the second sentence. Money is by definition (we all hope!) liquid. There are a lot of interesting issues raised in this article and the subsequent discussion, but it's all very muddled to me that I don't really know where to begin to respond.
- olefoo 14y ago
  A big part of the semantic confusion is that we have been subjected to a concerted campaign going on for at least a century now; that is specifically designed to render some thoughts unsayable, if not literally unthinkable.. If you want an amusing parlor game, ask a group of people to write down the definitions of the words 'capital' or 'free market'; and then compare them.
bitwize 14y ago
We do get to choose how to spend our money, and rich Americans who accrue millions or billions of dollars of personal wealth especially do. No. Capital is power[0]. Not just power to choose, but power to shape the choices of others (through marketing, propaganda, laws, etc.). Not power for the greater good, but power merely for its own sake -- because those in power fear losing their power. So they tend to use the power (capital, money) they have in order to consolidate and amplify their power base, which includes reforming the choices of others (meaning you and me) to their own advantage. In this way society is "creordered" to serve and benefit those at the top of the power pyramid. 0. http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/05/capital-as-power/ http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/05/capital-as-power/
- wolfpackk 14y ago
  If you are too stupid to critically assess the constant influx of information the information age has brought with it, then your opinion doesn't really matter anyway. ITT: Broke morons who don't understand economics.
- dgreensp 14y ago
  You seem to be introducing a new point rather than agreeing or disagreeing with me or the article. Actually, I think you are agreeing with me. Contrary to the article, large amounts of money are at the complete disposal of individuals, corporations, and organizations, who simply don't choose to spend it in ways we agree with sometimes. For example, they earmark it for Africa instead of flying cars. We don't know what Apple will do with its $XX billion piggybank, but I'm pretty happy with what they've done so far. Buffett pledged most of his billions to philanthropy. I believe these decisions are theirs to make. "Capital is power" is a metaphor. Capital certainly grants purchasing power. Some things (and people) can be bought and some can't. Laws shouldn't be as purchasable as they are, of course.

julespitt 14y ago

Often they invest it, so that their net worth goes up rather than down, while perhaps supporting a company or cause they believe in. It's true that when you put your money into something, it's no longer liquid. Your wealth is no longer liquid - but of course, someone now has that money instead, and it's liquid for them. This seemingly minor confusion happens in the article as well: But we live in a situation where very nearly all the wealth in the world seems to be tied up in destructive forms. If the money is fluid, why is it not able to simply flow from destructive forms to creative ones? He just switched from "wealth being tied up" - wealth is often quite illiquid - to money in the second sentence. Money is by definition (we all hope!) liquid. There are a lot of interesting issues raised in this article and the subsequent discussion, but it's all very muddled to me that I don't really know where to begin to respond.

olefoo 14y ago
A big part of the semantic confusion is that we have been subjected to a concerted campaign going on for at least a century now; that is specifically designed to render some thoughts unsayable, if not literally unthinkable.. If you want an amusing parlor game, ask a group of people to write down the definitions of the words 'capital' or 'free market'; and then compare them.

bitwize 14y ago

We do get to choose how to spend our money, and rich Americans who accrue millions or billions of dollars of personal wealth especially do. No. Capital is power[0]. Not just power to choose, but power to shape the choices of others (through marketing, propaganda, laws, etc.). Not power for the greater good, but power merely for its own sake -- because those in power fear losing their power. So they tend to use the power (capital, money) they have in order to consolidate and amplify their power base, which includes reforming the choices of others (meaning you and me) to their own advantage. In this way society is "creordered" to serve and benefit those at the top of the power pyramid. 0. http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/05/capital-as-power/ http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/05/capital-as-power/

wolfpackk 14y ago
If you are too stupid to critically assess the constant influx of information the information age has brought with it, then your opinion doesn't really matter anyway. ITT: Broke morons who don't understand economics.
dgreensp 14y ago
You seem to be introducing a new point rather than agreeing or disagreeing with me or the article. Actually, I think you are agreeing with me. Contrary to the article, large amounts of money are at the complete disposal of individuals, corporations, and organizations, who simply don't choose to spend it in ways we agree with sometimes. For example, they earmark it for Africa instead of flying cars. We don't know what Apple will do with its $XX billion piggybank, but I'm pretty happy with what they've done so far. Buffett pledged most of his billions to philanthropy. I believe these decisions are theirs to make. "Capital is power" is a metaphor. Capital certainly grants purchasing power. Some things (and people) can be bought and some can't. Laws shouldn't be as purchasable as they are, of course.