Also are you basically arguing somewhat similar to a zero-sum game, where the poor must “sacrifice” their money for the “rich” to accelerate self to wealth?

O/w. I kind of agree with George and the post…

Money exists b/c it’s a place holder for other things. The other things almost always are similar to power. That’s why the wealthy are able to make the laws, b/c they have “power”.

Money has use both in the ability to be transformed into other goods and the *threat* of transformation.
It’s the same as a lot of video games, the threat/ability to do something can be greater than the actual event =)

It seems to be you have a LOT of really good points but somewhat crammed in that I’m kind of confused =)

This is actually a ‘triple-nested’ post-about-a-post-about-a-comment that I originally left on Brip Blap’s blog:

http://www.bripblap.com/2009/why-i-spend/

Now, I’m going to have to post on my own blog: it will be a post-about-a-post-about-a-post-about-a-comment!

It will be the ‘holy grail’ of blogging: the Quadruple Nested Post

From our modern perspective, we use money to account for food, shelter, and luxuries. Ideally, once one has met the food and shelter requirements for life, then the spending on luxuries commences. However, one does not know in advance how much of a lifespan one has, so one should approach luxuries with caution.

I find this line of thinking interesting, because I think you’re missing the real point. Left wing types seem to be out to save people from themselves. (i.e. they might make the right choices for themselves, but they want to make decisions for everyone else too) Right wing types don’t care that anyone is saved as long as they get a piece of the pie.

Both are necessary for society to function as a whole, but I am reminded of a quote from CS Lewis.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

The argument seems to be that from the perspective of the person holding money, money exists only to be spent, becuase that is its ultimate destination– sooner or later it has to circulate he says.

Well, if it has to “circulate”, a simple counter argument could be that money exists to be collected. From the perspective of the business owner– anytime the moneymonk spends, someone else must receive the funds– otherwise he hasn’t spent. The business sector as a whole can state “eventually it will be collected, sooner or later it has to circulate”.

As far as I can tell the only thing that seems to be “circulating” in moneymonk’s post is relatively simplistic support for consumerism.

sooner or later it has to circulate