I’ve figured it out. I’ll expect my nomination for the Nobel Prize in Economics early next year, please.
People freak out when there are economic problems because, in the deepest recesses of their souls, they know: Money doesn’t exist.
Money, or value, is a group delusion. To most Americans, the ol’ greenback is a symbol more powerful than any wood or stone object in any church. The true problem — and it is indeed a moral one — is this: There is nothing behind money. If you believe in God (and I do), then there is something behind the mask. There is God, the great mystery, the source of existence. But there is no such thing behind money. There is only a promise, silently agreed to by everyone with money — and even by those without it.
This is not a complaint against Nixon for dropping the gold standard. That’s just transference. Whether we imagine value in a pretty rock or in pretty paper, it’s a story.
Let’s say you have a mortgage on a house. The value of that house drops in half. You still owe the original amount, so you now have to pay a debt on a fiction — an amount owed, as agreed to by a market, which is just a fancy business word that might as well be “what everyone believes.”
We have not advanced since we traded stones and shells.
Perhaps Greece could recover, easily — if it dropped the euro, returned to the drachma, and… believed in it.
Money is a prime competitor for God, not because buying things is bad, or wanting things is bad… but because it is the other most powerful, faith-based relationship, and most people cannot hold two loves in their hearts.
In this competing faith, the bankers are the priests, and the politicians are the prophets.
Yeah, I know, this is kind of a stoner-sounding idea. But… is it really so crazy?
No, I don’t think it’s so crazy. I always thought of money and ‘precious’ stones in this way – gold, diamonds, etc (and I’m the furthest thing from being a stoner) – they only have value because someone said these bright shiny objects have value so and everyone else believed it. Once upon a time, salt was far more valuable than gold. What the heck can you do with those stones? But salt has immediate survival value as a preserving agent for meat – essential in the days before the refrigerator.
And while I do agree most people THINK they can not hold two loves in their heart, I’m not one of them. I think love, and I mean genuine love, is expansive…the more you authentically love, the more love you generate. If it’s returned, you have even more love to give out. Love is not a finite quantity, as most people believe. It’s an infinite or perhaps renewable resource – almost recursive, even, like when two mirrors are facing each other and the objects in the mirror are reflected back infinitely. This is quite a concept when you think about it. And who was the epitome of this kind of Love? Jesus. He is the model for us, but we are all capable of loving just like that. Only most people try to hoard love than give it out to any and everyone they can.
Think about your daughters. With your firstborn, you might think, how on earth could I love more than this child. Then the second one comes, and then you know. If, let’s say, it were possible for you and Cecil to have a baby, would you stop loving your daughters? No, you’d find more room in your heart for more love.
Very nice points. Can’t write more from a phone, but still, well said. :)
>I think love, and I mean genuine love, is expansive…the more you authentically love, the more love you generate. If it’s returned, you have even more love to give out. Love is not a finite quantity, as most people believe.
Fully agreed. I believe that’s the core lesson of life.
My dad said it this way: You can’t take love from people; you can only give it.
I think many of us give love expecting or hoping for that exchange, and when it doesn’t come back as quickly or fully as we’d hoped, we’re disappointed, and start to think the world is a cruel place. (Well… the world is an indifferent place. People are cruel, or loving.)
So, you’re right. I suppose I’d amend my idea this way: Money is a bad investment for love because it doesn’t give love back. It gives stuff back. That’s a crappy exchange. And, I think that’s something spiritualists and materialists can recognize.