Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Money - Is it the root of evil?

Atheist-Independent
Posts: 776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 9:44:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 9:29:07 AM, Garfield wrote:
Is money the root of evil?

There was evil before money even existed. Also the entire concept of genocide, generally considered the worst evil of all, is never regarding money. It is quite simply to eradicate an entire race or culture.
Electric-Eccentric
Posts: 1,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 10:11:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
It is the WANT/LUST of MONEY that is the root of all evil.

WHAT is money?

Would there be money or a need of money if there were no humans?

Money is simply a illusion of wealth and power.

Money can be a two edged sword.

It can give Life and it can take Life.
It can give power and it can take away power.
and so on....

Money is the way of controlling a popular society.

Those with the biggest piles get to call the shots and rule over those that dream of BIG piles of money and the possible FAME that most times goes along with piles of money.

About all a person can do is not allow money to be their GOD and rule over them.

Moderation and planning is the key as in most areas of human development.

I learned many years ago that if I didn't chase the carrots,
they will come to you.

Think on that......

It has nothing to do with being LAZY.

It has to do with the MANY chase the gold,
and the FEW sell them shovels, picks, pans, food stuffs and other consumer goods.

It's a BIG BU$Y world filled with LAZY day dreamers all looking for a short cut to riches and fame of some sort.

Wise advice in carpentry is "measure twice and cut once."

The same "maths" can be applied in other areas of human conquest and so called advancement.
Life is what YOU make it,
Most just try and fake it...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 7:38:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 9:29:07 AM, Garfield wrote:
Is money the root of evil?

No. And arguably money can reduce violence if used correctly.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Garfield
Posts: 39
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 7:32:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 7:38:03 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/18/2015 9:29:07 AM, Garfield wrote:
Is money the root of evil?

No. And arguably money can reduce violence if used correctly.

By bribes. Bribes with moneyy are how people get stuff done. It can be used to commit crimes, lie, cheat and many other horrible things.
-Garfield
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 7:48:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
It is not money but desires.

One does not have to be greedy when presented with money. 'The man, who in the view of gain, thinks of righteousness; who in the view of danger is prepared to give up his life; and who does not forget an old agreement however far back it extends - such a man may be reckoned a COMPLETE man.' (Analects 14.13) Such men are proof that money do not automatically trigger evil.

It is the desire for gain - does not have to be monetary compensation, just gain - that is the root of all evil. The greed exists because we have animal instincts.

[Money is defined as a generally accepted medium of exchange. However, greed exists in a barter economy - in which money is absent - as well as people can be greedy for real assets. Therefore, greed is not limited to money.]

'There is no guilt greater than to sanction ambition; no calamity greater than to be discontented with one's lot; no fault greater than the wish to be getting.' (Laozi 46)
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 8:29:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Since no one has pointed it out yet, the saying is "Love of money is the root f all evil."

As another poster said, it is about desires.

Money is just a tool, for exchange of goods and services.
From my research fiat money goes back 4000 years or so. The idea that within recorded history barter was more common than fiat is very questionable. so also that use of precious metals predates fiat. More likely that fiat came first.
Tally marks on clay tables, transformed field work into food and necessities.

Desire, whether in the form of Love, wealth, power, can have negative outcomes, and without having given it considerable thought, probable all evil things have come from desire.
Many good things as well, someone might successfully argue. A double bladed sword.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 10:15:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 9:29:07 AM, Garfield wrote:
Is money the root of evil?

If money is the root of evil, it is the root of good too.

Money is simply the quantification of desire.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 10:20:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/20/2015 7:32:19 AM, Garfield wrote:
At 1/18/2015 7:38:03 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/18/2015 9:29:07 AM, Garfield wrote:
Is money the root of evil?

No. And arguably money can reduce violence if used correctly.

By bribes. Bribes with moneyy are how people get stuff done. It can be used to commit crimes, lie, cheat and many other horrible things.

Money can also be used for the opposite.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2015 6:10:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/20/2015 10:15:02 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/18/2015 9:29:07 AM, Garfield wrote:
Is money the root of evil?

If money is the root of evil, it is the root of good too.

Money is simply the quantification of desire.

Well, I would say wealth is the quantification of desire.
A person may be very wealthy, and have no money. I realize this would be an unusual situation in today's world, still, a distinction worth noting.
Money is simply a tool to transfer one form of wealth to another.
A family works in the fields so they can acquire food, housing, and clothing. The labor is expressed in the form of 'money', which is exchanged for necessities.
The land owner buys labor with money, sells the fruits of that labor for a profit, and increases his wealth.
People do not work or invest for 'money', it is wealth they desire.
History says a pile of 'money' will decrease in size until it is virtually useless.
It is best put to use by transferring it to a store of wealth.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2015 6:21:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/21/2015 6:10:21 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 1/20/2015 10:15:02 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/18/2015 9:29:07 AM, Garfield wrote:
Is money the root of evil?

If money is the root of evil, it is the root of good too.

Money is simply the quantification of desire.

Well, I would say wealth is the quantification of desire.
A person may be very wealthy, and have no money. I realize this would be an unusual situation in today's world, still, a distinction worth noting.
Money is simply a tool to transfer one form of wealth to another.
A family works in the fields so they can acquire food, housing, and clothing. The labor is expressed in the form of 'money', which is exchanged for necessities.
The land owner buys labor with money, sells the fruits of that labor for a profit, and increases his wealth.
People do not work or invest for 'money', it is wealth they desire.
History says a pile of 'money' will decrease in size until it is virtually useless.
It is best put to use by transferring it to a store of wealth.

If you're going to take this semantics route, then you should rephrase your OP "Wealth - is it the root of evil?" In which case my answer would be the same, if wealth is the root of evil, it's the root of good, too.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2015 8:27:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/21/2015 6:21:47 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/21/2015 6:10:21 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 1/20/2015 10:15:02 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/18/2015 9:29:07 AM, Garfield wrote:
Is money the root of evil?

If money is the root of evil, it is the root of good too.

Money is simply the quantification of desire.

Well, I would say wealth is the quantification of desire.
A person may be very wealthy, and have no money. I realize this would be an unusual situation in today's world, still, a distinction worth noting.
Money is simply a tool to transfer one form of wealth to another.
A family works in the fields so they can acquire food, housing, and clothing. The labor is expressed in the form of 'money', which is exchanged for necessities.
The land owner buys labor with money, sells the fruits of that labor for a profit, and increases his wealth.
People do not work or invest for 'money', it is wealth they desire.
History says a pile of 'money' will decrease in size until it is virtually useless.
It is best put to use by transferring it to a store of wealth.

If you're going to take this semantics route, then you should rephrase your OP "Wealth - is it the root of evil?" In which case my answer would be the same, if wealth is the root of evil, it's the root of good, too.

The OP is not mine.
I was merely trying to correct your apparent misconception that wealth and money are synonymous. The are not.
It is about the meaning of words. If you want to call that semantics, fine, I see no need to disagree. I disagree with your statement because of semantics, the logic of using words with particular meanings, not meanings we invent..
If you want to say they are both tools, and like all tools, they can be used for good, or bad, I would not disagree.
You seemed to equate them, say the are equal, and I strongly disagree with that.
More to the point, which you seem to be avoiding, is that money is not the quantification of desire. I do not know any people who want a stack of greenbacks to satisfy their desires.
If you want to disagree with that, defend your position.
If your language is so sloppy that you equate money and wealth, we probably have no middle ground. If you make no distinction, your economic theory is lacking.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2015 8:32:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/21/2015 8:27:45 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 1/21/2015 6:21:47 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/21/2015 6:10:21 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 1/20/2015 10:15:02 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/18/2015 9:29:07 AM, Garfield wrote:
Is money the root of evil?

If money is the root of evil, it is the root of good too.

Money is simply the quantification of desire.

Well, I would say wealth is the quantification of desire.
A person may be very wealthy, and have no money. I realize this would be an unusual situation in today's world, still, a distinction worth noting.
Money is simply a tool to transfer one form of wealth to another.
A family works in the fields so they can acquire food, housing, and clothing. The labor is expressed in the form of 'money', which is exchanged for necessities.
The land owner buys labor with money, sells the fruits of that labor for a profit, and increases his wealth.
People do not work or invest for 'money', it is wealth they desire.
History says a pile of 'money' will decrease in size until it is virtually useless.
It is best put to use by transferring it to a store of wealth.

If you're going to take this semantics route, then you should rephrase your OP "Wealth - is it the root of evil?" In which case my answer would be the same, if wealth is the root of evil, it's the root of good, too.

The OP is not mine.
I was merely trying to correct your apparent misconception that wealth and money are synonymous. The are not.
It is about the meaning of words. If you want to call that semantics, fine, I see no need to disagree. I disagree with your statement because of semantics, the logic of using words with particular meanings, not meanings we invent..
If you want to say they are both tools, and like all tools, they can be used for good, or bad, I would not disagree.
You seemed to equate them, say the are equal, and I strongly disagree with that.
More to the point, which you seem to be avoiding, is that money is not the quantification of desire. I do not know any people who want a stack of greenbacks to satisfy their desires.
If you want to disagree with that, defend your position.
If your language is so sloppy that you equate money and wealth, we probably have no middle ground. If you make no distinction, your economic theory is lacking.

I understand your points...you're taking an economist's perspective and using specific terminology, and I don't disagree with what you're saying. Yes, money and wealth are two separate conceptions that are not synonymous.

I interpreted this conversation as being rather colloquial, and in a collloquial setting, you can quantify wealth in terms of money...you can't really measure wealth without doing that. Once you measure your wealth in terms of money, then my statement holds.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2015 8:34:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/21/2015 6:10:21 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 1/20/2015 10:15:02 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/18/2015 9:29:07 AM, Garfield wrote:
Is money the root of evil?

If money is the root of evil, it is the root of good too.

Money is simply the quantification of desire.

Well, I would say wealth is the quantification of desire.

I would also say you're strictly incorrect here. Wealth cannot be quantified without a measure...that measure is money.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2015 8:55:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/21/2015 8:32:22 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/21/2015 8:27:45 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 1/21/2015 6:21:47 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/21/2015 6:10:21 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 1/20/2015 10:15:02 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/18/2015 9:29:07 AM, Garfield wrote:
Is money the root of evil?

If money is the root of evil, it is the root of good too.

Money is simply the quantification of desire.

Well, I would say wealth is the quantification of desire.
A person may be very wealthy, and have no money. I realize this would be an unusual situation in today's world, still, a distinction worth noting.
Money is simply a tool to transfer one form of wealth to another.
A family works in the fields so they can acquire food, housing, and clothing. The labor is expressed in the form of 'money', which is exchanged for necessities.
The land owner buys labor with money, sells the fruits of that labor for a profit, and increases his wealth.
People do not work or invest for 'money', it is wealth they desire.
History says a pile of 'money' will decrease in size until it is virtually useless.
It is best put to use by transferring it to a store of wealth.

If you're going to take this semantics route, then you should rephrase your OP "Wealth - is it the root of evil?" In which case my answer would be the same, if wealth is the root of evil, it's the root of good, too.

The OP is not mine.
I was merely trying to correct your apparent misconception that wealth and money are synonymous. The are not.
It is about the meaning of words. If you want to call that semantics, fine, I see no need to disagree. I disagree with your statement because of semantics, the logic of using words with particular meanings, not meanings we invent..
If you want to say they are both tools, and like all tools, they can be used for good, or bad, I would not disagree.
You seemed to equate them, say the are equal, and I strongly disagree with that.
More to the point, which you seem to be avoiding, is that money is not the quantification of desire. I do not know any people who want a stack of greenbacks to satisfy their desires.
If you want to disagree with that, defend your position.
If your language is so sloppy that you equate money and wealth, we probably have no middle ground. If you make no distinction, your economic theory is lacking.

I understand your points...you're taking an economist's perspective and using specific terminology, and I don't disagree with what you're saying. Yes, money and wealth are two separate conceptions that are not synonymous.

I interpreted this conversation as being rather colloquial, and in a collloquial setting, you can quantify wealth in terms of money...you can't really measure wealth without doing that. Once you measure your wealth in terms of money, then my statement holds.
Well, this is an Economic forum.
Colloquial language should not be expected, but now I understand your point as well.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2015 8:57:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/21/2015 8:55:34 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 1/21/2015 8:32:22 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/21/2015 8:27:45 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 1/21/2015 6:21:47 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/21/2015 6:10:21 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 1/20/2015 10:15:02 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/18/2015 9:29:07 AM, Garfield wrote:
Is money the root of evil?

Well, this is an Economic forum.
Colloquial language should not be expected, but now I understand your point as well.

I would agree if not for the rather colloquial tone of the OP. Cheers.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2015 9:07:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/21/2015 8:34:20 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/21/2015 6:10:21 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 1/20/2015 10:15:02 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/18/2015 9:29:07 AM, Garfield wrote:
Is money the root of evil?

If money is the root of evil, it is the root of good too.

Money is simply the quantification of desire.

Well, I would say wealth is the quantification of desire.

I would also say you're strictly incorrect here. Wealth cannot be quantified without a measure...that measure is money.

Wealth cannot always be (accurately) quantified with a measure of money. If it is not accurate, what good it is?
A man has a dozen sons with various talents and abilities, 1000 acres of fertile soil, a river runs through his land with fresh water, and he has a dozen cows midway through gestation.
Do you suggest that each of these resources or assets can be accurately expressed in a money value?
I will allow that any bookkeeper or IRS agent can place a dollar figure to them, that will not agree with each other, and will not agree with the father/owner.
IOW, arbitrary numbers can be assigned in dollar amounts - but arbitrary numbers are not accurate measure of wealth.
The measure of wealth is often very subjective.
An amount of money is not subject. One hundred dollars is one hundred dollars, no matter what. A pregnant cow, more complicated.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2015 9:12:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/21/2015 9:07:35 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 1/21/2015 8:34:20 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/21/2015 6:10:21 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 1/20/2015 10:15:02 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/18/2015 9:29:07 AM, Garfield wrote:
Is money the root of evil?

If money is the root of evil, it is the root of good too.

Money is simply the quantification of desire.

Well, I would say wealth is the quantification of desire.

I would also say you're strictly incorrect here. Wealth cannot be quantified without a measure...that measure is money.

Wealth cannot always be (accurately) quantified with a measure of money. If it is not accurate, what good it is?
A man has a dozen sons with various talents and abilities, 1000 acres of fertile soil, a river runs through his land with fresh water, and he has a dozen cows midway through gestation.
Do you suggest that each of these resources or assets can be accurately expressed in a money value?
I will allow that any bookkeeper or IRS agent can place a dollar figure to them, that will not agree with each other, and will not agree with the father/owner.
IOW, arbitrary numbers can be assigned in dollar amounts - but arbitrary numbers are not accurate measure of wealth.
The measure of wealth is often very subjective.
An amount of money is not subject. One hundred dollars is one hundred dollars, no matter what. A pregnant cow, more complicated.

Money is a subjective measure, the value of which changes at the whim of the market.

100% accuracy is not possible except in theoretical modeling.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2015 9:26:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/21/2015 9:12:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/21/2015 9:07:35 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 1/21/2015 8:34:20 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/21/2015 6:10:21 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 1/20/2015 10:15:02 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/18/2015 9:29:07 AM, Garfield wrote:
Is money the root of evil?

If money is the root of evil, it is the root of good too.

Money is simply the quantification of desire.

Well, I would say wealth is the quantification of desire.

I would also say you're strictly incorrect here. Wealth cannot be quantified without a measure...that measure is money.

Wealth cannot always be (accurately) quantified with a measure of money. If it is not accurate, what good it is?
A man has a dozen sons with various talents and abilities, 1000 acres of fertile soil, a river runs through his land with fresh water, and he has a dozen cows midway through gestation.
Do you suggest that each of these resources or assets can be accurately expressed in a money value?
I will allow that any bookkeeper or IRS agent can place a dollar figure to them, that will not agree with each other, and will not agree with the father/owner.
IOW, arbitrary numbers can be assigned in dollar amounts - but arbitrary numbers are not accurate measure of wealth.
The measure of wealth is often very subjective.
An amount of money is not subject. One hundred dollars is one hundred dollars, no matter what. A pregnant cow, more complicated.

Money is a subjective measure, the value of which changes at the whim of the market.

100% accuracy is not possible except in theoretical modeling.

Yes, of course. I should have said "all things being equal"
One hundred dollars is one hundred dollars, given a time and place.
But a two pregnant cows, same time, same place, will not have the same wealth or money value. So many variables, mostly having to do with genetics.

Your comment hardly shows your statement "Wealth cannot be quantified without a measure...that measure is money.", is accurate.
I stand by my statement "I would say wealth is the quantification of desire."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2015 10:26:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/21/2015 9:26:18 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 1/21/2015 9:12:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Your comment hardly shows your statement "Wealth cannot be quantified without a measure...that measure is money.", is accurate.
I stand by my statement "I would say wealth is the quantification of desire."

Please try to quantify wealth without a unit of measure that is not considered money.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2015 10:31:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/21/2015 10:26:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/21/2015 9:26:18 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 1/21/2015 9:12:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Your comment hardly shows your statement "Wealth cannot be quantified without a measure...that measure is money.", is accurate.
I stand by my statement "I would say wealth is the quantification of desire."

Please try to quantify wealth with[] a unit of measure that is not considered money.

corrected
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2015 12:01:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/21/2015 10:26:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/21/2015 9:26:18 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 1/21/2015 9:12:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Your comment hardly shows your statement "Wealth cannot be quantified without a measure...that measure is money.", is accurate.
I stand by my statement "I would say wealth is the quantification of desire."

Please try to quantify wealth without a unit of measure that is not considered money.

The individual does this for themselves.
A father knows the value of his sons - not to others, but to himself.

Look - let's go to a different scale.
Three countries, same land mass, one has no citizen population (only the rulers).
One has one million, uneducated, unskilled citizens.
The third has one million, educated and skilled citizens.

Who would argue that a definitive money figure can be applied to the population (or lack) of these countries?
Who would argue that the countries have the same wealth?
Wealth is often intangible. that does not mean it is not wealth.
1000 fertile unplowed acres has great value to one person, and much less to another.
A block of spruce is firewood to one person, an unfinished violin to another.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2015 12:20:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/21/2015 12:01:56 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 1/21/2015 10:26:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/21/2015 9:26:18 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 1/21/2015 9:12:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Your comment hardly shows your statement "Wealth cannot be quantified without a measure...that measure is money.", is accurate.
I stand by my statement "I would say wealth is the quantification of desire."

Please try to quantify wealth without a unit of measure that is not considered money.

The individual does this for themselves.
A father knows the value of his sons - not to others, but to himself.

Look - let's go to a different scale.
Three countries, same land mass, one has no citizen population (only the rulers).
One has one million, uneducated, unskilled citizens.
The third has one million, educated and skilled citizens.

Who would argue that a definitive money figure can be applied to the population (or lack) of these countries?

"definitive" is not a valid measure...we already discussed this, the value of money is subjective and accuracy is impossible.

Can you measure it? Of course you can...the economic value of a population is measured through time-labor.

Again, try to measure this value without using money.

Who would argue that the countries have the same wealth?
Wealth is often intangible. that does not mean it is not wealth.

It still means it can be quantifiable, and again, I challenge you to quantify it without using money.

1000 fertile unplowed acres has great value to one person, and much less to another.
A block of spruce is firewood to one person, an unfinished violin to another.

All measured through quantification. Again, I challenge you to quantify it without using money.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2015 12:23:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/21/2015 12:01:56 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 1/21/2015 10:26:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/21/2015 9:26:18 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 1/21/2015 9:12:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Your comment hardly shows your statement "Wealth cannot be quantified without a measure...that measure is money.", is accurate.
I stand by my statement "I would say wealth is the quantification of desire."

Please try to quantify wealth without a unit of measure that is not considered money.

The individual does this for themselves.
A father knows the value of his sons - not to others, but to himself.

Look - let's go to a different scale.
Three countries, same land mass, one has no citizen population (only the rulers).
One has one million, uneducated, unskilled citizens.
The third has one million, educated and skilled citizens.

Who would argue that a definitive money figure can be applied to the population (or lack) of these countries?

I suspect you're not trained in economics if you cannot see how this is quantifiable.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
GamrDeb8rBbrH8r
Posts: 341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2015 12:23:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 9:29:07 AM, Garfield wrote:
Is money the root of evil?

No. Money+greed=evil
"There's no diversity because we're burning in the melting pot."

-Immortal Technique

Rap battle VS Truth_Seeker: http://www.debate.org...
Garfield
Posts: 39
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2015 1:24:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/21/2015 12:23:54 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
At 1/18/2015 9:29:07 AM, Garfield wrote:
Is money the root of evil?

No. Money+greed=evil

The first thing in that equation, is Money. Without money, greed = greed. So therefore, Money is the root of evil.
-Garfield
GamrDeb8rBbrH8r
Posts: 341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2015 1:26:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/21/2015 1:24:35 PM, Garfield wrote:
At 1/21/2015 12:23:54 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
At 1/18/2015 9:29:07 AM, Garfield wrote:
Is money the root of evil?

No. Money+greed=evil

The first thing in that equation, is Money. Without money, greed = greed. So therefore, Money is the root of evil.

P1) without money, greed=greed
C1) Therefore money is the root of all evil

That argument is a non sequitir, ya goofball.
"There's no diversity because we're burning in the melting pot."

-Immortal Technique

Rap battle VS Truth_Seeker: http://www.debate.org...