Thursday, August 11, 2011

Gold, Exclusivism, and the Economy of Help v.02

Why is gold valueable?
Exclusivism is good but when would Exclusivism became too much?
Is money really everything that matter for Economies?

Gold is valueable because of people's appreciation to rareness or exclusivism. The appreciation came from perception that those that are rare and different have a lot of solutions in their pocket, that they could use to provide exeptional help.

Powerful people in the past shows their power by showing off gold, a rare metal, to show that they have the solutions that enables them to access such difficult to get materials. People in the past tend to treat people with golds less badly, the same way kingdoms tend to make peace with other kingdoms that could create grand monuments.

People who could help a lot of people tend to care about details a lot. Exclusive neighborhood, exclusive club membership, exclusive arts, gadgets, and cars... are various forms of appreciation to details. These exclusive products help people to appreciate details important for certain types of productivity, and to maximize exposure as much as possible to elements of high quality solutions. It is understandable for professionals to feel better when surrounded with high quality products.

It's also understandable that it is essential for some people to have exclusive products, just for the sake of being exclusive. Special skills need special treatment by the society, and general society just doesn't treat general people nice enough. Specialized people have specialized needs.

But when exclusivism harms basic needs of many people... for example if a golf court was built by destroying rain forests that provides water, food, anti-floods, for many, or a new lamborghini was bought out of corruption money... than exclusivism in this case is not appropriate.

Should an economy worry when people are using their money less and less? Our scarcity is not of time and energy but of solutions, the scarcity of the world is not of time nor energy but of mutual solutions.
Should an economy be proud when their value of money increased?

In my opinion, the measure of prosperity should not be in terms of money, but in terms of administration. Could and would the people in the economy help one another to keep on experiencing interactions forever? Could and would the people in the economy help one another to tend to keep on experiencing interactions forever?

Yes the value of money could strongly portrays such measures, but the value and ownership of money should not be everything that matters in the economy. Economies should be able to measure administrations, instead of just money.

I worry that inflations might reduce people's willingness to help, and then, damages the ability of the economy to help the people. 
Let's reduce and eliminate the utility of intimidation, not otherwise.

No comments: