The economy has always been in play, but not always operated in the way it is now. When we break it down, in essence, everything we do is an economic action of some sort, as it is all about value transfer, whether that value be comprised of money, goods, services, energy or social capital. It is about transfer of resources from one point to another for a trade of one thing for another.
What is the point of the monetary economy?
This is an obvious question with an obvious answer, as "money" in what ever form it comes is just a tokenized value, which allows us to more easily price goods of different types to enable the trade. Two swords for one shield, ten loaves of bread for fifty apples. Setting the price in "money" makes this process far simpler and can more accurately represent the actual value of goods and services by factoring in all of the supply chain costs too, like labor costs.
Originally in tribal groups, this was relatively easy to do, because it was contained largely within a group of people with a common goal - survival. This meant that trade value didn't have to be nearly as precise, because it was all covered by "for the greater good" of the tribe. This means that even if one action or good was more valuable than another, as long as everyone was pulling their weight for social protection and improvement, all activity was valuable to the tribe.
However, the more distributed we became as we began to expand past the borders of the tribe, the more disconnected we also became from each other, where "our protection and betterment" was more valuable than that of anyone else, so the relevance of the tribe decreased to where we are today, largely self-serving, without the need to serve others. But, this raises an interesting question in terms of the current monetary economy, because we all act on incentives.
Money is power.
Many might say that "Money is not be everything", but I could argue that because it is a tool that has purchasing power of pretty much everything that is important to us, it is "approaching everything", because it gives us the trade ability we have always needed, the protection and betterment, in the same way tribes needed it.
But, there is also a large disconnect from the tribe, because while we want the same things the tribe stood for, the incentive is to collect the tools of trade, even if it doesn't satisfy the same ends. So, we are encouraged to collect more money, even if it doesn't lead to greater security or opportunity for us, or anyone.
For example, I was talking with a client yesterday (which inspired this post) about health and how we know what we need to do to eat healthy, yet we struggle to do so, with the obesity epidemic worsening globally. This conversation started from the comment that "good food is expensive" - However, if you look at the facts of the matter, it is not really that way at all - it is just that for most of us, bad food is convenient. It also has sugars and other ingredients that we are naturally inclined to crave.
Think about the economy of it.
Someone who eats a lot of junk food spends more on all facets of the supply chain, where there is a full industry of mining, chemistry, packaging, advertising, etc that goes into the process and therefore, the price.
When was the last time you turned on the TV and saw an advert for pumpkin? Carrots, zucchini, broccoli? I don't mean mixed into something, I mean just the raw product. Never?
But, continuing with the obesity epidemic as the analogy, that consumption leads onto other supply chain values, where for instance, consumer spending is higher, illnesses like diabetes and cancers are increasing, health care and insurances are increasing and the entire supply chain of the pharmaceutical industry generates more value - taxable value. Unhealthy people generate more supply chain value than healthy people in this regard, in the same way that violence increases the supply chain value of weapons, and social disconnection increases the supply chain value of goods and services that cater to the lonely.
If you look at the "health of economy" though, it is all about consumer spending, where the value of the economy is whittled down to the monetary value of the tool, not where and how that tool is being applied. If you think about this in terms of the tribe, it is like saying that a sword is worth two shields and are more important, so everyone in the tribe will make swords and no shields. Or make bread, but grow no apples. The tribe would suffer because of this, which would mean that the "economy" of the tribe is failing, no matter how valuable those swords are as individual pieces.
With the incentive on generating the tool without the cross-refence of improving the people, there are a lot of issues that arise and questions, where for instance, what is the role of a government? Putting them in the position of "tribal elder" from the past, they should be geared towards improving the conditions of the tribe. Yet, if their focus and evaluations are all on the monetary state of affairs, they are evaluating their success on the state of the economy and value, so even if society is failing, their indicators will see it as a healthy economy - A success.
This is obviously not the case though, as not only are there large disparities in the wealth within the "tribe", there are also very large differences in the outcomes and opportunities available. If this really was a tribe, it would be failing and unable to survive, as there would be far too many people who are not producing toward improving conditions, even if they are producing to "add value". So the question is,
Who is the consumer a government needs to satisfy?
And this is obviously a big problem, because obviously, it should be the people themselves, but the indicators used, equate money to health, without looking at the actual health of people, in whatever form that takes. More money doesn't mean healthier people, unless the purchasing power is used on health improvement activities. And, because the focus is on generating more wealth without this purpose, the activities for gaining wealth will tend to be to minimize the improvement of society, to maximize the gains of the economy and of course, globally, this leads to a lot of unhealthy competition that leads to increased disparity, hardship and war.
And perhaps, here is the kicker, because while the monetary economy sounds terrible due to the misuse and abuse of purchasing power, we have labelled it all unhealthy, as if money itself is bad. This is not the case at all, it is just a token. What is "bad" is the way we use it to trade, because we are "tricked" into spending it on economic supply chain activities that are not actually in our best interest as individuals or society, but do increase the wealth of the economy and some individuals within.
But, if we are looking at the health of society as the goal of the economy, wealth generation doesn't go away, but how that wealth is generated matters, because the supply chain activities that have value, will be the valuable activities that improve tribal health, even if the entire planet's population is a single tribe. However, unlike the government attempts in the past, this can't be centralized, because that leads to a very poor pricing model, because the central authority will do what it has always done, make economic decisions that favor wealth generation, not the health of society.
It doesn't matter what form of governance is taken, when centralized, it is ultimately going to fail. Which is why the decentralized financial blockchain economy is going to be so important, as while in its infancy, it is able to accurately price the entire supply chain and provide precision values on different activities, based on what the decentralized tribe demands. In time, this will adjust where resources are spent, as supply will follow demand and if we are continually working in our own best interests, alignment of economic activity will happen to increase value in what increases our "health" - which Should eventually hit some kind of equilibrium where there are narrower and higher outcomes of life, but still the variation that incentives adding value to the economy.
A healthy economy is about trade, not charity.
And a healthy economy produces a healthy society, so what happens in the economy has to support that end. This means that the financial incentive has to enable healthy outcomes, which is driven by healthy consumption. So, it is up to us, isn't it? No centralized authority will ever look after the tribe adequately, because they are incentivized to look after themselves and the indicators they value, not the people they govern.
And, no charity is going to adequately look after the tribe either, because the value the charity spends has to come from economic activity incentivized through wealth maximization, which will end up creating a supply chain feedback loop creating more of the people that the charity end is trying to help. It is a stop-gap measure and is unsustainable, because the incentives through the supply chain are misaligned.
A healthy society is made up of healthy members of society and at the global scale we have now, the processes of the tribe have to be applied to the global economic activities. This requires a change in understanding of what is "healthy economic production" and a change in our reliance on others to provide for us, instead having a situation where people's wellbeing is more closely tied to the wellbeing of others in their community, so that there is the incentive to produce, bread, apples and shields and swords as needed by the end goal of healthy society, not the end goal of financial maximization.
But, this is no easy task and is definitely not going to happen quickly, because we have been conditioned as monetary maximization consumers, not as healthy society producers.
Will we ever use the monetary economy in a healthy way?
In my opinion, we might not, but we are currently on the path to learning how and if it is possible, even though the centralized forces and conditioning are slowing us down and trying to stop us from being successful. If we fail though, regardless of how valuable the economy might be, the disparity will be so great that we have failed as a society, failed as a tribe, failed as the human race and, as it will likely destroy us all through environmental degradation, social dysfunction and violence - one way or another.
The odds are stacked against us, because the economy is incentivized to keep us sick, as it maximizes financial wealth over societal health.
Money is power and what we purchase with it, matters a great deal.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Money allows one to avoid bumps in the road, earnings from labour in whatever trade, attaining purchasing power to make life better.
Individual choice is where money is spent, health options would be top priority. Fresh food prepared within the home is normally a far healthier option to buying in.
By investing in ones health avoids unhealthy bills from doctors, insurance houses and many others waiting for the sick to arrive.
Becoming obsessed with attaining money can also lead to stress and ill health, balanced life in most things we need to control at an individual level.
@tipu curate
I was talking about the cost of preparation of something decent in comparison to the cost of McDonald's in Finland. Stuff is expensive here, so if my wife and I were to eat the takeaway, it would be around 16€ - for that, we can make several pretty damn good salads. And in terms of convenience, it would take us about 20 minutes to drive to and from the restaurant.
The difference in feel after?
In terms of government policy though - they prefer me to eat takeaway, even though they don't explicitly say it. It happens through their view of the economy as being indicative of population health.
I think this is a problem where live as well, peoples diet has changed completely over the past twenty years with KFC, McDonald's and many more arriving here. Due to crime we never travel after sundown, restaurants normally one night out in rural places where food is still served at highest standards.
For me to make fresh salad, vegetable, fruits and meats still works out more economical in comparison to buying any takeaway, most times my homemade tastes better! For 5 adults I could comfortably say I could make an exceptionally good meal with all four components not exceeding US$25.00, shopping at stores I know carry fresh local produce or directly from market.
Pizza approximately US$8.80 plus $4 delivery fee. Local KFC/Nando's chicken US$15.00, Nando's got cheeky with additional per item $4.50 delivery fee. (Estimated conversion used here ZAR 17 to US$ 1) Nando's now phoning previous clientele offering "free" delivery.
Government will support food outlets, more tax collectable, most vegetables/fruits here are tax exempt.
I am glad I don't live in a place where crime and violence is a constant personal threat. This world is a mess.
It works out far cheaper to eat at home for us - far, far cheaper. And (when we have a kitchen again) it does taste better , as well is also more satisfying in some way. It gets the "made it myself" feeling - even if it isn't perfect :)
That is cheeky on the delivery fee....
Growing up learning to cook with my Dad, we grew a lot of our own I think he instilled personal pride and satisfaction serving fresh and healthy.
Savings in preparing adds up quickly, knowledge of what you eating, most fast food services today use cheap cuts doused in crumbs, who knows what you putting into your body.
Have a wonderful day!
This is very terrible...So ordering food is cheaper...In Nigeria, our government subsidises everything, because everyday Nigerian wouldn't be able to afford it if they didn't. We are getting poorer as a nation and there are no good plans to standardise prices except by borrowing more and more.
Basically subsidising fuel brings down the price of everything in the country because we use fuel to transport food across the country. If the prices of fast food were cheaper in the country that would be absolutely ridiculous.
Too many going to bed without a meal, many staple foods are tax exempt yet prices still high, resulting in more people growing some produce in their gardens.
Fast food outlets may make their prices cheaper, who knows what they mix into their patties for burgers, how often oil is changed for cooking.
In comparison buying and cooking in ones own kitchen at home is still very much a healthier option saving on doctors bills later.
I don't even want to imagine all of that. The oil is polymers would be altered and useless just so they can feed people and make them fat so those people can come out and shame people for trying to be fit all in name of body positivity.
Good bowl of traditional home food like Granny made through times of recession still healthier compared to cheap takeaway outlets !LOLZ
Very true...It's very clear this is how they think when you see public-private partnerships spring up. If they do not have people to use these things it would look very stupid...
Upvoted 👌 (Mana: 41/51) Liquid rewards.
The economy including money is a neutral force that can be used for good or for evil. Due to the power of greed or love of money, it is more often used for evil purposes without thought for anything healthy or pure. There are things in this world that are used more for evil intentions rather than good. Money is one of them on a larger list.
Yes, I think you are right and I think the reason it is more likely to be used for evil, as in some way, it levels the playing field as to who can have it. What I mean is, you don't have to be a good person to earn money and the way it is set up through incentive, it can also mean that not being a good person gives you an advantage. That leads down a dark path for society.
I see this as increasing the opportunity to increase purchasing power. Someone who has a lot of money will exchange it for something more.
In my country, the greatest severity is in middle-level people. They want to "look" like they have a lot of money and spend it without counting, whether it's shopping for food or shopping for a lifestyle. They even take loans for consumptive purposes. So they not only become physically unhealthy but also become financially unhealthy.
People who really have money will be more calculating with their purchasing power. They are very careful to keep expenses, only on what they need. Of course, they don't need to spend on health costs at all due to spending on food consumption and unhealthy lifestyles.
And, for those who don't pocket money every day-even if it's only 5 USD- they are free to switch to consuming vegetables that they buy at affordable prices and process themselves in their kitchens. They have less risk for health expenditure.
So, it is the middle class that poses a threat to stakeholders' monetary policy.
People with not much money, often exchange what they have for something less :)
It is crazy, isn't it? How do they not realize?
THe middleclass is also the driving force of the economy, as it is the consumer class - what they consume determines what gets supplied - we should be doing better than we are, but what we consume holds us back.
😅😅...🤔 Their value for their time is also messed up
I once read that actor Jim Carrey said, words less words more, ... "Money gives freedom". Freedom to do many, many things that we will never do without it. However, the wrong approach to money has brought us to the "harsh reality". Selfishness is the unhealthy ingredient that revolves around the global economy. The prevailing system has brought us to this alley, we are "between a rock and a hard place". If we do not reach a global consensus, if we do not put human beings and their environment first, then the planet's "days are numbered" and the human race will have self-liquidated. And simply put, reality will have far outstripped the fictitious freedom.
Yes and no. We would have self-liquidated - but the planet will live on, doing what it does - even if we have changed it. We aren't hurting the planet, we are killing ourselves.
The power of money is in its ability to purchase therefore what we purchase with it matters a great lot like you have conclusively sumerized.
But then, is it ever possible that we would have a society that is more concerned about the actual financial health of it's citizens?
I am not sure if society will ever get there, unless we take it there. I think it isn't just financial health though, it has to be actual health where the way to make money, comes from doing what makes us better as a society.
It is like the argument for how expensive "being green" is - it is an economy - price doesn't actually matter. What does suffer though, is that traditional energy sources will lose power and income and, they hold that power and wield it so they don't.
I am not getting into the conversation of whether "green" is actually good as it is today, but clean energy is good, if we can have it.
I quite comprehend..
Thank you @tarazkp
Zucchini and carrots are sold for $0.35 per kilogram. These are very healthy vegetables. And today I bought a small pepperoni pizza for $ 5 and I got heartburn, I haven’t had this in a long time. We often forget about healthy foods.
We actually have a weird thing in us as humans - where we value the "new" over what we know works. We do this in many ways and forgetting about what makes our bodies work the best is one of them. Being healthy doesn't feel special - even though it is no longer the norm.
I'm from central Europe. A week ago I was talking with american, who lives in LA, talking about food prices. When I was telling him about the way of life we have (semi self-sustainable, almost every house has big garden for vegetables and fruits) he was amazed 😄 It's funny because here that's a cultural thing. Plus, if you can not stand food prices, wouldn't you like to grow your own to give a middle finger to the system?
Yes, but there are also energy prices to consider. I am in northern Europe not too far from the arctic circle :D
In places like that, sun rooms usually do their job. Specially during time when almost 24h a day...it's actually a day 🙃
only for a couple months of the year though.
Money really matters a lot because I can't just imagine a life without a financial means to depend on. This would really affects in many areas that it is needed to survive and maintain a good life.
Money matters, health matters. The activity to get health, often requires money. :)
I have noticed that most of us tend to collect more money since our teenage as if we will surely be able to spend all it after getting old and retired.
There is a good phrase here;
The shroud has no pocket.
Never heard that phrase before - perhaps that is why the coins to pay the ferryman are placed on the eyes :)
Indeed, people would rather eat conveniently than eat healthy. It's really not incredible cause what else are we doing here if not to enjoy the pleasures of the world? I think the best way to go about it is intermittent sweet foods between the likes of 🥕 🥕 and 🥦. That way, it all balances out and everyone's happy. Habits do die hard.
P.S of course there are other things we're here for other than enjoying the pleasures of the world.
For most, eating healthy is hard, but I wonder how much of the "hard" is because of conditioning, and how much is in our nature. If we weren't incentivized to eat poorly, would we?
You're actually unto something here. It is as a result of conditioning if we really think about it from the roots. I mean back in the day, we all know how our forefathers fed. Canned foods, etc, are a new norm. Relatively.
It is always a question to get more, work harder, but if we use it to make us more healthy and put for more appropriate things. Our specie will make a good civilization where everyone will prosper.
I think that there is not only a wealth division growing, but also a health division - in the future, it is going to be a massive gap.
With how things are going these days, I doubt posts like yours will matter, I recently was educating ticktoker on how to create Hive accounts because stuff like this could help them and bring small followership to my account...My video was taken down cause it posed some sort of scam threat.
These days with the woke message being passed on Fat community becoming a protected group it is clear that companies like Coca-Cola, Bigmac and our governments are in on it together. They've so brainwashed people that to simply think that healthy living is to be commended is too much to ask for.
We are yet to see just how massive the effect is going to get but for now, it's offensive to call people obese even in medical practice, very soon autopsies and then they'll wipe out the word from the dictionary...The way humans are used as pawns is brilliant, but these people have no value for human life.
Then the humans in question are so lazy. I have never seen a lazier generation of people in my life man.....Just read about what you are doing to yourself... it become too much to ask
My post might not matter at a global level, but perhaps it will matter for a local individual - that might be enough.
The woke movement is all about changing the meaning to the point, life is meaningless.
Very true. I just hope more people can increase their attention span enough to read it.
I don't understand this though. But I understand the sentiments in the statement...Nihilism...Nihilistic feeling...I felt that way before.
without money we cannot keep the good health even.
I would argue the government exists outside the economy of voluntary exchange. Everything government has was taken under threat of violence for non-compliance. Queen Elizabeth II's ancestors were more blatant about it, but the modern democratic process just adds a veneer of participation, and doe snot stand as evidence for consent. Governments monopolize the provision of certain services to justify their plunder, but do not in fact produce anything directly.
Money matters and all the data they are mining from applications like Facebook or Youtube is conditioning people. It's kind of crazy to see the switch from finding a product that will last a long time to something that will only last for a while (warranty period).
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta