The debate "Money is more effectively the tool of evil" was started by
March 30, 2015, 12:06 am.
42 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 12 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
I_Voyager posted 18 arguments, Getmurked posted 9 arguments, teebee7 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Naudious posted 5 arguments to the disagreers part.
I_Voyager, stormshy, Getmurked, frozen_emily, tr, keepscrolling, Kaitlyn56, Fountaine550, ArsonLarson, amit, teebee7, Jimmy_123, Untamed, transfanboy, Shreedeep, AnkGanu, action007man, Alp4president and 24 visitors agree.
Naudious, dominic, BRG1102478, Mastermind, pie_goddess499, Austin7779 and 6 visitors disagree.
if you mean money as in trading values of the bills the government have made only then i agree because they are pretty evil because it is their tool. but originally money or value in things shall i call it are just things trading that people with different needs give each other.
alright man, and thank you, i agree. ill look more in deph into your system, and ill get you back with a more contradictory conclusion.
I think you're not quite getting everything I'm trying to say, though you're clearly trying, and to think critically about it, which I appreciate. I prefer intelligent criticism over blind criticism. I'd like you to read over what I've written more thoroughly, if you don't mind. If you're short on time and only have so long to devote to that, that's fine. Spend a week or to reading and thinking and hit me back with something that more completely contradicts what I've come up with. I don't just ask that because of the former claim in this paragraph, but also because I need to walk away from these debates for a while and while I like this conversation, I don't want to walk away and leave you with the feeling that "this f**ker just gave up!"
We don't see eye to eye, but I like your brain either way.
Or else, if we make illegal using digital systems to organize ourselves or modify ourselves and we instead rely on less advanced forms of system and simply account for human nature, then the illegal powers which DO use these technologies or modifications will always be significantly smarter than our security powers, and will ultimately come to control us from the shadows founding a dystopia. We do not want criminal organizations to create the AI, or to create post-humans. Or else if we try to regulate by way of government those corporations who seek to invent AI or post-humans, they will use lobbyists to make sure those regulating laws favor them (As they do now), and we will have no say (As we do now) in how the technologies impact our lives. We do not want corporations creating the AI or the post humans. And if we let governments do it, then the power they will have will be unlimited, and we will all become personally regulated without the freedom to be anything other than a pre-described unit of activity in the governing machine.
If it's going to happen no matter what, and those who do it will have the power, then the knowledge and ability to do these things must be considered a necessary universal literacy, and the impact of that literacy is - as the freedom to speak and write - the freedom of digital being, to protect ones self and ensure one always has choice in the matters of their life and their material property. It will not be easy. But no one said living on this planet was easy or safe. We all end up dying. But with great change comes the responsibility to meet these changes with optimism, and the belief that we CAN move forward with the change.
I think you think I don't agree with you that hackers will be a problem, I think the division in our view here is the optimism/pessimism problem. I see universal digital literacy as something that can give the average person a chance against the hacker. Right now, you don't. And if tomorrow, an extra 2% of the world's population decided to go and apply hacking to stealing and ruining peoples lives, there is no authority that would protect you.
I liken this to the right to bear arms to protect yourself, but instead, it's the right to possess knowledge. I think of literacy as a right, because we all need it to be free in a literate system. And in a digital system - and you must understand that all a digital system is, is the application of a kind of logic/math machine to compiling information - the same is necessary. We will be living in a digital system, and there is no difference between a digital system and a legal system, except that the languages are different. But if you agree that having the king or some rich guy deciding the rules is bad, and that true freedom involves the participation of everyone, then you must understand that a digital system requires no less effort on the part of the citizenry, and to a digital system is needed, as a right, a knowledgeable participation in order to keep it as secure as any so system can be.
As for the time frame, I think it'd take me than 40 years just to follow a semi-social, semi-political, semi-scientific method to implement the system. But then the development of the system from being in one nation, to being a global phenomenon would take longer than my life time (assuming my transhumanist ambitions are wrong). And once it's implemented, there may be a bit of a rougher ride, though I'm not convinced the same set of events which occurred in democracy wouldn't occur in this system. But I'm less concerned with universal safety as with freedom.
But I've still got many concepts to foster security and morality - but it'll take a long time to get into it. I see many possible problems, but no less I think then the founding fathers saw when they founded democracy. And I have no illusions that this could create a perfect system. But unless the way we advance certain intellectual sciences will result in individual people having the freedom to modify and enhance themselves freely, to be free, and not to receive upgrades by public or private license, we will end up a slave-race.
if your trying to state that hackers wont be a problem, you couldnt be more wrong. through any technologicial hardware system, there will be hackers, or whatever you want to call them, thier goal is the same. to infiltrate the system and to obtain the currency. if your going to prevent this, in any way shape or form, i see no alternarive but probaly a century or longer before such a system could work efffefrively and have enough fails safes to protect EVERYONE, and thats not countimg the facr that people who regulated and control the system wont be corrupt.
Hackers are not necessarily people who break into systems. Hackers are just people who find new uses or abilities in things no one saw before. Some hackers use this ability to take over other peoples' systems to benefit themselves. This is not a property of the word "hacker". We can add a different descriptor: thief, liar. And I cover those words under one umbrella term: manipulators.
The thing with Manipulators is, you'll always have them wherever a system can be exploited. In our system, lobbyists and politicians and powers themselves can be these manipulators.
I don't for an instant think my system will get rid of them. My system will make the conversation between the manipulator and the honest man even, as it was at the outset of and development of western democracy. Everybody must be armed with knowledge to fix the damage of the manipulative; but computer systems can be stored in memory, and restored to a last working mode. You can't do that in a political system which, once broken by manipulative political hacking, is broken for years or decades, to the constant profit of evil.
im going to shed some light on said argument. in order for such a scenario to work, countless, countless years would we wait for your system to be effective..the more technological we get, the more prone we are to hackers, which in your system, would have a field day.
you state that humans, not machines, have flaws. well humans build the machines, and can program whatever they want into it
with your system, the makers can cheat all they want and can make such systems fail, for they are humans, full of flaws
Linux was built on a lot less money than Windows, indeed it has 1% of the OS market, but hardly 1% of Windows functionality. In the design of complex machines and materials I see the value of money and corporation, but I don't see it in software. It seems to me a lot of the laws that enshrine and enable a rich person like Bill Gates to be that rich are more-so there to permit Bill Gates to give people Windows, and not to make sure there's something like Windows on every computer. Not that the latter is good and the former is necessarily bad, but I see it as irrelevant.
A few people loosely connected over time and space, knowingly enjoying what they do in their spare time can do quite a lot of valuable work by comparison to what it takes for a corporation to output something like Windows. I wonder what would happen if we enshrined THAT instead?
That's fine, time is short and precious.
I think that there are always forces which propel people do to things, and I don't believe in free will. I think it's more reasonable to say there is a limited conditional will.
It may be morally better that people are doing things because they've determined to do it, and haven't been made to do it. But I don't think "force" is the only way to compel people to do something, nor do I think the fact of legal agreements is always the same thing as "people agreeing to do what they want."
I suspect a lot more people "agree" to certain social terms because the opposite is starvation, because the resources necessary not to die are in the power center.
I think you're probably right that there needs to be a solid moral code in society. I'm just not sure there is a solid moral code at the head of society. I don't think that there are universal morals, even though I believe there to be objective morals, because I see the present as existing momentarily, and "truth" as being reflective of that momentary being or the recorded past (and more recently realized "truth" is a condition of a query, not a prior value).
But I think from a smaller, automatic framework could spread organically in reality in an open source anarchy if prior to the open source anarchy there is a proper capitalism enshrining those few economies in which efficiency is a necessity, and a proper social self-governing structure in a self-sufficient semi-military semi-academy which rather than imposing value systems, agrees to fight for moral causes by bodies in places.
Though we're now getting to areas of my philosophy which are in a rough developmental phase.
I think that the presumption that this society's only alternative is somehow only what came before, or nothing, is just a lacking of imagination born out of certain philosophical and political rhetoric. It's profitable to the minority for the majority to believe it. And that's the danger of enshrining the rich as if they aren't kings, when we are all born under their domain, learning his lessons and the reasons why we must click accept before we so do, because the otherwise is starvation, thanks to the enforcement of laws that allow that structure to be...
The king you discuss can't be a king unless people to join his domain.
In order to get that wealth, he has to provide something.
Bill Gates is uber rich. He gave everyone windows.
I didn't have time to read everything, i was short of time.
If accept that forcing someone to do something they don't want to do is wrong, capitalism is the only Moral economic system.
You have the realize that when you make a trade with someone, both sides believe there is a benefit to them, and there usually is ( unless fraud, a form of theft, is involved ).
If you decide that it is moral to force the rich to give to the poor, then you decide that sometimes forcing someone to do something is moral. Then it is open for people to try enforcing their beliefs work they believe to be moral. That's Anarchy.
You have to have a solid moral code at the head of a society.
The highest value is not the seeking of property, its seeking happiness. And capitalism provides you the freedom to seek happiness however you please. Without that freedom, someone could just as well force you to be a slave.
The idea is to use a system that generates a currency value in comparison to the productive value of a software or invention, or in the case of art, the subjective value, so that the mechanism that determines the distribution of wealth is not based on a subjective method, like convincing people to buy your product. Let the production or distribution of stuff be as digital as possible, and completely free, and let anyone enter or exit a market bubble and innovate/invent/re-create parts of any element of any bubble to their own productive profit. The algorithm's themselves can be commonly improved upon, which might make them vulnerable to exploitation - but that's where digital literacy comes in. The best you can do in any given system is give those who are honest and genuine a playing field of equal knowledge with which to apply against the manipulative and exploitative.
The primary purpose is to protect our genetic information, and the endeavors of transhumanism, from the modern economic bias, which is one of authoritarian control and mass-mis-information. We'll all be networked in a digital system no matter what, I'm talking about changing the way it happens, from one which represents this system, to one which represents a new system - open source intellectual property freedom, algorithmically determined bottom-up and representative politics, economics and law. The machine doesn't lie, people lie; lies happen because there is ignorance. The solution is to take fields in which there is mass ignorance and thus a massive opening to control through lies, and fill it with the implication of universal knowledge.
putting such funds and trust through digital means poses a much bigger risk, through technjcal failure, hacking, and many other methods that fall only to the ssusceptibility of computers and digital hardware.
i ask you, what does that change at all? its still a means of currency, can still be used for more evil and intentive purposes. all you are doing is making us fall to a digital realm, and always have to have access to computers. why would you ask for such a thing? to be so dependable om technology seems like a recipe for disaster. we shouldnt have to be so dependent on technologt, and saying that its going to happen eventually doesnt change the flaws that it holds.
no, what needs to be changed is the system of how cash can be distributed, and regulations upon it.
Why not? We're a;ready doing it, but the transition is still within capitalism. I still almost never carry actual cash on me. So if the internet goes out in my town, I'm moniless. That's happened only a couple times since I can recall. Technology fails, but not no routine, and not as often as humans fail, and usually when technology fails, it's because humans fail.
This is true of all things. But unlike social systems, technology is bound to be logical and specific. Social systems can fail in more tremendous and hard-to-fix ways.
There may be a spectrum of human intelligence, but it isn't fixed. Universal literacy was an insane dream your founding fathers had, but they pulled it off, and they had the same reasoning. Because in a democratic nation where the politics and law together are designed by a representative government tempered by the people, all men must read and write to debate over the validity of those laws. I'm saying the same thing - except that we extend literacy into the digital realm, build regulating computer programs instead of regulating paper programs, that everybody maintains rather than just a priesthood in silicon valley, which has been the case for a while, and which was the case before literacy, when only the rich or pious could read, right and frame how we use our societies.
I know a lot about computers, and I know that people are becoming more controlled by them, because they're being simplified for ease-of-use. That's an alright abstraction if you don't know much about computers, but computer language is as flexible as any other language. Everything we're using are stripping our rights and freedoms away. With the coming internet of things, and the technological singularity long afterwards, we need to be as world prepared to deal with it, and not just trust in a minority of experts to have our back when the AI rises, when they suggest we put nanobot computers into our brains and connect to the business network, being regulated like ants in a colony. I have a great deal of worry that the mass-stupidity towards computer technology will be our downfall, because as a branch of physics and a knower of philosophy I can see how it touches and relates to everything we do and are. The fact of computers should reshape our epistemologies but most philosophers treat computers like a bauble.
sure, if you count the fact that everyone has the same relative job, and everyone has the same technical intelligence. from what i read, its all based on the interent and computer hardware capabilities,.a major flaw, becauze technology always ends up failing every now and then and then your counting on the fact that everyone has the same intelligence to operare this system, and that they want too. its not effective in the grand scheme of things. for a small.community maybe, but to replace money, no way.
To quote just a small part of what I wrote - which included anticipating flaws/challenges in my system, and a justification of the system against capitalism and communism, and the admittance that certain areas in the economy would remain capitalistic in nature, and adding that I have versions of this for a more representative politics and law...
"My theory, and it is only a framework of a theory, lacking the more practical aspects of what is necessary for it to be a real testable idea (for now, as my self-education is leading towards this) is an "Open Source Input-Output Economy". This economy requires several prerequisite: universal and ubiquitous multi-material 3D printers, universal digital literacy (computer language and computer systems), a commonality of hardware knowledge and a communal decentralized internet (I think). Anything which can be regarded as "intellectual work" - science, computer programming, art, music, multimedia, literacture, hardware design, object design, etc... is contained within this economy. There is no legal system of regulation, there are automatic open source algorythm's which design new crypto-currencies and equate their value against a given bubble of development. Let's take a single project-type, like an operating system. Let's say this new idea for an operating system is being worked on across the world in an open-source capacity by three hundred people. These three hundred people enter into the OSIO Economy with a profile that sums up their education and work achievements (having worked on other projects in the past). The algorithm crunches the combined data of their potential for output to create a basic framework for value for a new crypto-currency unique to this project bubble. Investors can also convert their various currencies or the few remaining hard currencies into this currency type if they want.
But for people working on the project, to actually retrieve currency you must input work, and the value of the work is also algorithmically compared to the potential of use you've given to the operating system. But by giving the operating system new value you are also increasing the value of the currency. This would be a dynamic input-output economic system with hundreds of such bubbles rising and falling, people entering and exiting bubbles all the time."
If you've got a computer handy, the Debate Wars app is also a website located at discuss.fm.
i apologize as you cant seem to click on links on this app, at least for me, so i am stumbling blind into whatever you wanted to show me.
however, i interpreted the fact that you do indeed want to discard money as our currency, and use some sort of digital means instead. but i ask you, is it not the same thing. put whatever label you want on it, make it look however you want, whatever, it all.comes down to one simple fact.
it is a currency used to elevate an economy through a means of a common value
people can abuse it for evil jusr as they abuse money, the label doesnt matter, its the humam that matters. and i think you may have interpreted me wrong. no, i did not mean charity by selfish business executives and CEOS and celebrities, i meant how money is usee daily. one can barely go two days without spending a dime. but thats a whole other argument. what im trying to say here, is that money pursues our best interests to improve, and make a better life for ourselves. it provides a commom ground for everyone,where theres room for improvement. it helps you choose what to do in life, and gives you an incentive to do better, to put more bread on that table. it provides a standing framework that we all can understand easily, and helps us diffentiate the differences in society of what values what.
in society, there has to be a commom value for people to live amongst each other.
you say you want to improve and change, like any before us, and if you happen to provide a better option, i am all Ears.
I should probably respond to your comments on the fact that there is good in the use of money today.
I probably agree that there are many places in which the use of money has done some good, ans well as a few rich people who want to do good. I just don't agree that it has primacy over the evil use of money. I can name some billionaires in recent times who've poured themselves into noble pursuits, who seem to be doing so for the reason of doing good. But far more often I think corporations which ever do things that are perceived as good are just obeying Machiavellian principles that it's better to be seen doing good things, but be conceited at heart. That a few people are impelled to do some touch-stone good deeds by comparison to the evil they wrought around the world is irrelevant to me.
But I think the economic mechanism - and much the same, the political mechanism - is framed in such a way that it always requires certain measures of evil behavior in order to achieve the greater good they've set their sites on. And so long as that system exists in that way, I will neither be accepting of it, nor satisfied. Most people accept the way of the day as the best that can be achieved, but in every period there are those who are not content and dream of a better way of doing things. And when they succeed, we advance as a species. I'd rather be like them, than all those throughout history who thought, in great depression, that this is as good as it gets.
"Look back in time, no one heard the bells chime. They wondered how? How could they, this, allow. Exactly the same are the questions aimed your way when looking back on today."
I'd like to make a whole new system, to be honest. No, I don't want to regress into older economies. But if you don't mind, when I had this conversation with Psychdave it took four long posts to detail my philosophy of an Open Source Input-Output economy. I'd rather link you to that conversation, since we both concluded: A) A barter system is not better than captialism, B) Communism is not better than capitalism, C) There can be a new economy in a digital world which is not any of those.
Here's the link:
For some reason my first responses were listed as disagreements. Probably was some technological glitch.
Wanting money isn't evil, but it is futile. Wanting to do something of value is good. The production of money isn't solely good.
Example - an architect builds with arbitrary standards in order to possess money and power. Another denies himself work, because that work demands he compromise his productive ethic. He makes less money, because he's unwilling to do crap work to make money. In one case, the craving for arbitrary gains in some number system is more evil than is the discipline of the secondary person.
I'll agree that "wanting money" isn't pure evil, and can be a good incentive for some people (though not for me, by nature, and since a child, which is what always prompts me to doubt economic theory, because it doesn't describe me or my desire to have objective truth/good before subjective gain/experience). I'll also agree that killing, violence, oppression and theft can often be evil.
But I don't agree that the highest ideal is that someone owns all the property that they can own. I don't agree that efficiency is the only good. I don't agree that one highly efficient person could reign over vast lands like a king. I do agree it would be right to rebel against the king. The application of violence and redistribution can be moral.
And highly immoral.
But furthermore, presenting these economic moralities as the height of human endeavor is pointless. The pursuit of objective knowledge is a higher moral value. The use of digital systems to liberate knowledge from the vanity of "intellectual property" is morally valuable. Monsanto owning all the kinds of a property which contain within it a genetic marker they've tweaked is immoral. There are all sorts of things which both can be, and ought be, ubiquitous - so that we might use objective science and personal productivity to modify and improve the human condition.
The rule of the rich will lead to the slavery of the majority to a digital network in which we sign every right away at the chance of contractually obligated minimal living. Though capitalism worked for a while, it was under a different set of conditions. Knowing more about how reality functions, we should be seeking to better understand the implications of being life in this vast universe, and not pettily splitting and burning the resources we have on this tiny grain of sand we call a home.
so what,pray tell, do you suggest? in the hands of the corrupters it is evil, yes, but yoy cannot simply look at its abuse in some hands, but not see the good it does in others. i have come to the forclosure that money does more good then bad, and when it comes to todays society under crippling corruptionists and unlawful criminals, it seems that when somethimg must be sought out for it to be thought as beneficial or not, the facts must simply come into play, and that there suggests whether it is more beneficial, or more harmful, and in the case of money, more good is done then harm. you suggest the trading days be brought back? i cannot simply fathom the turmoil that would cause. no, money is accepted, and os used benefically and harmfully, just as anything else. some kind of currency, or a means of value, must be presented in an economy.maybe it doesnt directly impact everything, but indirectly its flow is essential to everything in our life. it simply cannot be used without, nor is it so simple as to discard its use
Wanting money isn't evil, its willing to agress against someone to get it which is evil.
I agree to the fact that money wasn't created for evil. I don't think it's proven, but it's not an unreasonable premise. But there are so many other things of which the use can be either good or evil which seem to pale in comparison. The only thing I can liken language to at the end of the day is language, which is another powerful tool of the rich and political and evil. Science can only either be true, or pseudoscience. It's application is objectively valuable, but because we live in a world which prioritizes the subjective, the use of subjective systems (economy, politics) can oppose the application of objective good. This is enabled by the way law frames the use of money in society. We incentivize evil, today.
I think a shift towards more objective reasoning is possible, and if we took the time and effort to make that shift (which I think could take no less than 20-40 years) we could use objective science to modify the human condition and make lesser those impulses which are evil. But we cannot do that while the political money powers reign supreme.
This is only somewhat true. There are PLENTY of people to whom the allocation of money is given, yet from whom little to no value is given. In so far as material resource is concerned, I'd probably agree with you. But in so many other areas of human activity, money is a corrupter that prioritizes subjective value over objective value. People eat along the path of least resistance, and money organizes their efforts, therefore the efforts of the majority end up going along a line of action that produces less of value for consumption. It's only once you start getting into smarter economies, such as where advanced materials are concerned - their production, their improvement, their application - that modern capital economy seems to be doing any good. And I'm all for capitalism reigning over the production of new metals, but I see no good in its application to art, health, governance, law, intellectual property, literature, multimedia, education, philosophy or international morality.
a good claim, however its only a tool of evil, when used in that means. specifically pinpointing human nature as flawed is the just way of describing us as natural humans. we tend to abuse things, whether it range from the most pleasant things, to more unpleasent, despicable things. we are an abusive species, of which it is hard to fathom that we are, but many of us seek to use and control as much of something as we can, as long as it holds substantial pleasure. anything can be used as a tool for evil, as you put it, and its the matter of in whose hands it is being placed upon. currency was not created for evil matters, but to make our existence much easier. upom this world, we are offered gifts, which we can use to the extreme or not.
I generally agree. The evil in human nature is prior to the evil application of money. If human nature didn't include evil, the use of money would not be evil.
I don't disagree. Money is a necessary phenomenon of trade and production. But there are so many ways to look at money, and I'm just struck by the multitudes of economic philosophies, none of which seem to accurately capture the reality, despite trying.
It is certainly evident that trade isn't evil. There is plenty of evidence to support that mutual trade can generate peace.
But where-as money is only the tool of trade, I disagree. It's so much more than that. It's a language to express value, to express invested human interest, to express the input of human effort.
The problem is not just fiat money, but also prioritizing subjective value over objective value. The hard part in that criticism is devising a system that can divide subjective value from objective value, but regardless I believe it still stands that subjective value drains value from an economy arbitrarily, where-as objectively valuable things continue to produce new value.
Because money is a phenomenon of human trade, and trade is a necessity of the economic limitations of human living on earth, money is a necessary phenomenon, but in the way it is structured today - which is the way which has been established by the rich and powerful of the last century - it decays and destroys, enables control and destabilizes true value. I'll repeat the first statement of my last argument - money is not the root of all evil. Evil precedes the use of money. But historically the greatest tyrants and oligarchies knew how to manipulate money to control power, and today more than ever it is the tool of control, arbitrary action, faith in unreasonable concepts and the greatest corrupter of politics. Therefore, objectively, money is more effectively a tool of evil.
essentialy money is just currency, paper and coins. it is the way we use it, and natural human nature, that is flawed.
Very poetic, but your definition of money is a specific one. The lack of value behind the current monetary system is a problem, but thats not the only form of money.
Most money in history is a simple bank note. Usually representing gold.
These Bank Notes just allow people to keep their gold in a bank, instead of carrying it around with them.
In that sense, money is just a tool of trade. Which means the question becomes is trade evil? No.
Trade allows people to exchance resources that are less valuable to them for resources which are more valuable.
Example: You have a $20000 boat and you move from Winsconsin to WV, a land-locked state. Someone else moves from WV to Wisconsin, and they have a $20000 4-wheel drive car. You sell the boat and buy the car, the other guy sold the car and bought the boat. Both parties became richer, because both parties gained items which are more valuable to them.
This system breaks down when force enters the equation (theft and fraud).
Money is a means of trading and voluntary cooperation to facilitate the allocation of resources to parties who have the highest value for these resources.
That's far from evil.
Money is not the root of all evil... But money is the great root of the most efficient of the evil. Money is a phenomenon of human living. It's not functionally true, like a material or a machine is; it's a consequence of the human condition. As any logical abstraction it can be partially redefined, the nature of any transaction altered, and the meaning of money and money use changed. But because the purpose of money IS transaction - a way of convincing someone to give you service/product on a social promise that the value of the money is worth a damn - it is also a method of speech, manipulation and power. Not every tool is so a machine, nor do they often achieve as much to move men as money does. And it is because of this, the desire of money often leads men to do evil things, to lie and cheat and kill and war and withhold and plot and break oath and make the weaker argument appear the stronger.
Far more like a religion then any science or language or 3D printer does money behave, moving men by the virtue of its own self to willingly do evil just to attain more. Money is transacted by, and rewarded to, master manipulators, and though not everyone who manipulates are evil, evil is often a lie, and the liar who knows now to manipulate the money and the economic law have been the most successful conquerors, tyrants and villains. The Rothchild, the Koch brothers, the IMF, Goldman Sachs, Exxon mobile, and a vast history of economics shows that where money thrives is where moral subjectivity, and the willingness to be morally lazy but actionably logical succeed. A slave-world here today of misplaced values has been built by those who seek and move the money.
Money can be used by the good when the rules permit it. And from time to time the rules are structured so that certain kinds of good become achieved. But the moral value of money has only been given some kind of primacy in a few nations, in the sense that only a comparably few nations have access to competent medicare, competent education, clean water and financial opportunity that affords both food and home. Even those nations which have it are slowly slipping into a depression, while businesses see record profits, while 32 trillion dollars of tax-free profit from Western corporations, laughing away civic duty.