I’ve Looked At Money From Both Sides Now

I have wanted to write about this for some time but it seems there was always something more entertaining to write about.  Now I have put it off long enough so, entertaining be damned, I’m writing!

I have long observed that people have very different views about money.  To oversimplify, there seem to be 2 primary views:

1. The view that money is a sort of commodity whose main purpose is to be spent.  Usually, spent as quickly as possible, even if that means spending money not yet earned (assuming debt).
2. The view that money is a resource – a tool that can be used to promote or improve productivity.  Usually with the express purpose of creating even more money.

To my simple reasoning, this goes a long way toward explaining that old saw that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.  One primary difference between the rich and the poor derives from their view of money – their understanding of the very nature of money.

We all should have learned from Ayn Rand that, at the very basic level, money represents productivity that has been completed with the corresponding consumption deferred.  That is to say, money is basically a buffer between production and consumption.  In a primitive, barter economy, the product of one person’s productivity is exchanged directly for the product of another person’s productivity, usually for consumption by the receiver.  Ergo, money was not needed.  Indeed, the need for money only occurs when one entity can produce more than it can consume in the same time frame – both by direct consumption and by the consumption of products bartered for.

While this may seem too mind-rot simple for a blog, it does raise an interesting point; if one’s only view of money is of something only to be spent, then does it not follow that those with that view would tend to spend it all, including any excess?  Does it not also follow that spending would become the whole point?

Contrast that with the likely actions of those who view money as a tool.  Will these people not tend to save any excess?  And, will these savings not tend to be invested with the hope of making even more money?  And, since money is the result of production, does it not follow that the way to expand one’s supply of money, without expending additional personal effort, is to use it as a tool to promote and improve productivity?

Could it actually be true that a main cause of poverty is the simple lack of understanding of the true nature of money?  After all, the true nature of  money seems such a trivial thing to teach.

Worst still, could it be that our government run schools don’t provide this trivial education because they actually like poverty and the dependence on government it leads to?

And, always remember that the shortage of money is a symptom of poverty.  It, in itself, is not poverty nor is it the root cause of poverty.  The root cause of poverty is a lack of values and/or the unwillingness to achieve them.

Think this over.  Then get even madder.  Buy even more arms.  And stand by.

Tweet This Post