I was on Gtalk with Kajak and got into the topic of money and what people will put themselves through for it. Strangely enough, the same topic came up in the chat... of which it seemed like an idea to start a topic about it in the forums.

So... here's the deal. I doubt there will be any debate as this is pretty much a one sided ordeal. But never the less: It seems that today that the neccessity for money has become too proprietary. I loathe it... and the need for it. But what gets me more are the people that not need as much, par say, and are hell bent on getting more.

But let's stick with the former. I'll throw up an example that I used in the chat. I have a good friend of mine. She has a kid... She is also in a realtionship with a douche. Why? Because he has alot of money. Now, I do understand to a degree that she wants the best for her son... but at her own expence and happiness.

It kind of hurts to see that you own happiness can be so easily forfeit for something so temparary. Now I know that ultimately, she could leave. And there is no making an excuse to get around that. But still, the whole reason this loop is started is based off of a monetary reason.

I could go on forever with stories like this... but I'd rather not bore you to the ends of the earth. So bascially, I'm just wanting to get out that the need/want for money is a very destructive thing. I hate to have my life so bound to it... reguardless of it's influence (or lack there of) on me.

</rant>

Elaborate?

Money keeps the world turning.
I guess it gives you a sense of power to see a homely guy on the street and to know you're more wealthy than they are. It also puts you up higher on the pedistool. I'm sure people would give their life to be an icon; just look at the military.

I wasn't trying to justify her actons... But if I was, I would say it was for her child. Tell me what mother wouldn't put herself in a bad situation for her own kid.

Anyway, that's not the point... While money does "make the world turn" or whatever, I think it's a broken system. There's either too much in one place or not enough in another.

The broken system idea is true.
But it goes back to my example of money gives power.
Who came up with the idea of curency though?

No one person came up with it... it was implied after bartering became obsolete.

Well when you look at it, currency is at it's base bartering. The only difference is money acts as an intermediary in the trade, and all items are given as their relative value to each other. So like it or not the core thing money represents is value, and that will never go away whatever you call it. Pretty sure the bartering days had this same problem.

At the base of it all is greed, and lust for power. Something that possibly may be ingrained in the base of nature itself, who knows.

But I do agree with you that the rich poor divide has been growing larger in the past years, and some of that has to do with the current tax laws. So while it does suck that money seems to be a necessity, really it's bartering power that is. If you don't have something someone wants, then you likely won't get what you need from them. If anything money makes it much easier to get all the things you need, and lends itself to specialization of the workforce, since people don't have to worry about making something that in itself is valuable to trade (not entirely true, but it does abstract it a bit).

As for the not needing it and wanting more, goes back to greed, which I believe is an inherent human trait. This could be anything, money, drugs, sex, food, etc. As for how deep down the slide you go, depends on how addictive your personality is, as money, power, value, etc are all highly addictive things. So money is at it's base a unit of measurement of value of something, be it a service or product. Like a gun or other tool, it in and of itself is not evil, it's how people use it.

@Lantis

What do you mean at her own expense and happiness? Are you saying that he was the only man to support her or just the richest one?

If she had other alternatives, the problem seems less to be money and more to be the deification of her child as she would then be under the belief that her child so deserves 'the best' that it is worth her expense and unhappiness when a more happy and less costly scenario could suffice.

lol, now we are delving into a woman's mind... which even the most sane person would have a difficult time to endure. I'm not entirely sure what options she may or may not have open to her, to be honest. But the guy she is with double's my salary, if that says anything.

But back on topic... I guess TTC is right. I mean, this would has to have it's system to run, reguardless of how broken it is. And I guess that's what grabbing my goat more than anything else. The apathy for it all seems overwhelming.... at least from my look at it.

Well I think the problem Lantis, is power is hard to control and tame. There is the old saying 'Absolute power corrupts absolutely' and for the most part it's proven to be true. This makes balancing the system completely, almost completely impossible as at some point someone has to have power (or money) to change part of the system, but it's hard to have that power and not be tempted to use it or try to hold on to it for as long as possible. Also to have a true balance of money, one of the few government structures build up for that is Communism, which is pretty enticing in theory, but usually sucks in reality (that whole power corrupting thing). Certainly it's also possible in a truly free market, but that assumes people are able to continually make products that are in demand, another hard thing to do.

Doesn't mean we can't strive for it, but I think the biggest question is how. One of the first steps would be to knock out the barons at the top, or find someway to redistribute their wealth. Which is not entirely fair to them. But to do this, one would have to have a lot of power, and resist the urge to be corrupted by such power. Then of course there is the problem of money management which a lot of people lack skills in. Just because you give a poor person a lot of money does not mean they're going to be able to keep themselves from being poor again.

I think Bo brings up a good point though, but really making her child happy could be her key to happiness at the moment. I'm personally of the volition that you make sure you can make yourself happy first, then worry about making others happy, but I realize it can also work in reverse.

In a perfect world, people would do and create the things they love, and give it away for free, as their experience doing and making is reward enough. Like a baker who is nothing more than pleased when somebody enjoys the bread he made. Or in our case, making a game and giving them away to show why we have pride in them. (Although, admittedly, I'm sure there are a few of us who would sell our games if it were logically feasable.)

Alas, obviously, we do not live in such a perfect world. "Money is a neccessary evil."

It doesn't have to be an 'evil'. It can be merely an 'annoyance' or a 'frustration' with the proper perspective.