Is currency evil?

I agree with what you're saying but my point is that we must recognize "evil" as a subjective term to answer the OP; after that we can debate why we believe money is or is not evil. If the OP said "Is the $100 US bill approximately 156mm wide?" then we could have an a conversation about it and come to an objective conclusion. We don't need to dig deeper in to the semantics than that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Didn't know that, I thought dogs ate shit to boost their immune system (or something). Also, flies seem to find shit tasty. With such an "obvious" observation that shit is objectively disgusting it's easy to see that this isn't necessarily the case.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

SUMMARY: Yes Fiat Currency, at least, is EVIL. But it will not be around much longer (China will back the RMB with gold)
For how, See: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?136309-Tapering-the-Taper&p=3123137&viewfull=1#post3123137
For why, See: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...l-Superpower&p=3117025&viewfull=1#post3117025
And for some source finally agreeing with my more than four year old prediction of an gold backed RMB see post 1305 a few posts more recent in same thread.
From link (1) below:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Live 39 years more, and YOUR DEBT will be more than 1 million dollars! (in current dollars)
I'm too old to live to see that and sitting the rise out in resource rich Brazil where China is already its main and rapidly growing export market.

(1) http://www.cyniconomics.com/2013/09...uble-when-even-the-cbo-says-theres-a-problem/
(2) http://www.cyniconomics.com/2013/10/06/why-the-debt-ceiling-debate-is-different-this-time/

 

I do not see how ANYONE can judge society (by studying sociology) because EVERYTHING has a place in society and cannot be separated from stated entity. Given this ANY study of society will lack "objectivity" and logic. However that is not to say that nothing can be learnt from studying society, merely that the conclusions will not be logical.

 

Well we can make conclusions based on studying many societies across history. Some things work, and some don't. Communism is a good example.

 

But anybody studying society is a part of a society so the results will be illogical. I'm not saying useless, just illogical.

 

Perhaps inconclusive but I wouldn't say illogical. Couldn't we make the same argument about anything?

We're an integral part of reality, therefore any conclusions we draw about reality while studying it are illogical.

Or maybe by illogical you mean that our conclusions will always have a subjective element to them. I think I agree with that.

 

As fiat, yes:

The banksters picked your pocket in two different ways: (1) Tax payers, not really FDIC take the loss & (2) You paid higher than free market interest rates, especially if your mortgage was of the ARM type.

 

Is currency evil?

NO!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I say yes... Everything should be free. Yeah, I know, never gonna happen. I can dream the impossible dream though.

 

Inanimate objects are not evil unless human define it that way. It takes humans to polarize neutral into evil. Money and currency is a means of exchange and trade that is compact and avoids having to trade chickens for pigs, when people don't need chickens. Money is more flexible and allows continued trade. It only becomes evil when humans get involved, since money without humans is not alive. Our imagination makes it alive.

Money being evil is based on projection, where things in the unconscious mind, are made conscious, by appearing to stem from outside in the money. A hammer can be used to build a house or bash a head. If we left the hammer on the table it will sit and rust. It takes a human to choose its function. The good man will build while the evil man will use the hammer to bash heads. If we take away the human, the hammer does not do anything.

The anti-gun lobby makes use of projection, since it is not very conscious of its own motivations. It sees its own dark side via the gun. The gun is alive and has magical powers that can force the hand to do thins it has no control over. The gun has evil JUJU that can control the humans like puppets. But in reality, this all starts in the human mind and heart, where all the evil dwells securely in unconsciousness.

Part of self awareness is to accept the projection as part of you so one can deal with it.

 

If everything were free, nothing would have any value.

I agree with wellwisher. To put it another way though, in Thoreau's Walden he describes a simple-minded woodsman who though he seems stupid often gets to the heart of matters and sees the origin of complex institutions. So when Thoreau asked him if money were useful, the woodsman thinks it over, and says,"What if I had an ox, but I needed a needle and thread?" He can hardly parcel off bits of the ox for small necessities, or rather he could with promissory notes. Hence: money.

As in the case of guns, or that Great Satan known as the Internet, money is merely a medium. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Money isn't evil, avariciousness is evil.

 

Well that isn't true. The FDIC is financed by the so called "banksters". It's a government insurance agency and it operates like an insurance company. Two, the LIBOR (London Interbank Operating Rate) which a lot of credit card and mortgage rates are tide was indeed manipulated by the so called "banksters". But the "banksters" were caught and are now paying for that transgression.

 

Avarice is a good word, and shorter.

Money is just a medium of exchange and neither good nor evil. Just there are crooks who steal it.

 

Crooks still steal a lot of things, not just money.

 

A very important point, one that few people will have noticed.

 

Are are you telling that if for several years I paid more interest on my ARM mortgage, with the interest rate tied to Libor that I will get a refund? I think not. I think the banksters will get slight fraction of their gain taken away is all that will happen, as usual.

I agree that making good on deposits in failed banks is the task of the FDI and that they collect an "insurance fee" from the banks, that usually, but not always covers it. FDI has had to asked Congress (the tax payers) for the difference at least once, twice I think.

But where do you think the banks get the money to pay that FDI fee? I don't think they find it under a old tire. I think they collect it from those with money on deposit in the banks - which is basically the same set of people, I called "tax payers."

 

Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. But this administration has been very tough on banks and been very aggressive in fining them for transgressions. These fines have inflicted real pain on the banking industry, more accurately on bank shareholders.

The FDIC, like the Federal Reserve, operates without government funding. Fees levied on banks fully fund the FDIC. However, the FDIC does have the ability to borrow money from the US Treasury. So if the FDIC borrows public money to pay losses, it must repay the US Treasury for those borrowed funds. Thus the FDIC would ultimately repay the US Treasury with money from the banking industry (i..e from the “banksters).

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/savings/how-the-fdic-pays-for-bank-failures-1.aspx

If you believe that banks and those who lead them are not in the business of charity and will charge the highest possible prices at any given time, then any additional costs come directly out of pockets of bank shareholders. Because were it not for the FDIC those fees would be pocketed by bank owners.