I do however think it is a crying shame the way money is often used. It used to be that the charging of interest was considered usury and morally shady.
When was that?
To those who would claim that the charging of interest is the only way to fuel growth, I answer: use your imaginations. Sheesh. There are so many possibilities it makes my brain ache to see things like that being said.
The thing I dislike the most is that we aren't allotted a place to simply exist to call our own. For this "privilege" we are required to submit to demeaning labor so that we may shovel money into the bottomless pit called rent. Ah, to live in a world where I could build a shelter for myself without being labeled a criminal..
Money is convenient, as well as freeing. Without money, who will decide how many widgets you need and who deserves what form of compensation for work done? Neither socialism or communism appeals to me. If my life is easier with one more widget than Sally has, too friggen' bad for Sally. If she wants an extra widget, she can damn well work for it.
To expand on that, going back to finding someone who wants the horse pucks that Arnie provides, isn't a lifestyle I'd be interested in.
Money is the wrong target, property is the problem. The idea that you can own something and have complete control of it including the right to deny other people use of it (even if they need it more - hell, even if they need it to survive) has been elevated to the position of an absolute moral right in some people's minds. Any suggestion that there might be an alternative to this is quickly shot down with indignation and sarcasm, as amply demonstrated by some of the commenters here
Sorry, this probably sounds like I'm trying to politicise this thread. Please ignore the raving lefty.
Money is the wrong target, property is the problem.
Interesting... but I can see how this could be the case. People who have sought spiritual enlightenment in both Eastern and Western streams of thought have commonly divested themselves of property. Poverty is a monastic tradition; and yet the abandonment of property has not necessarily led to deprivation (insufficiency of food, clothing, or shelter) except where that deprivation has been expressly and deliberately the goal. This is because the monastics have monasteries, physical and organizational structures in place that provide for their physical needs.
So for some, it seems that the solution to poverty is... poverty. Poverty with guard rails on it.
Which brings up an important question: What do we mean exactly by "poverty"? Do we mean physical lack that could cause suffering and health decline to the point of death if unabated? Or do we merely mean a low standard of living?