Money - a quick question/challenge

I'll keep it simple for now, since I'm having problems reconciling these two statements from Fransisco's money speech.

"But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver."

This and the statements following seem to imply that money is nuetral.

"... money is the root of all good.."

The opposite.

And I might add, overly simplistic. Is money really the root of ALL good? Honesty is a virtue to Rand, and while the exchange of money requires honesty (also in the money speech), honesty does not require money. The same could be said of "reason."

(Edited by Joseph S. on 7/25, 3:29pm)

Post 1

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 3:47pm

Money (and the productive labor it represents) is the only thing keeping most people alive, so yes it is the root of all good.

Money for personal use is only a tool. It can provide survival and happiness. It can also be used to provide death and destruction.

Jim

(Edited by James Heaps-Nelson on 7/25, 3:47pm)

Post 2

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 3:58pm

Please, that's rediculous. By the same logic breathable air is the root of ALL GOOD. Hooray for air! If that is all the argument means, it isn't even worth making.

It's still over simplistic, as I mentioned. Some people would still be alive without money, currency, or trade (though I am in favor of all) through farming their own food. Thus SOME good would be possible without it.

(addition)
Rand was thinking of money as more of an abstract concept (the productive labor you mentioned) than an object. In order for us to discuss whether money can be used for such evil purposes you mentioned, we must first agree to one meaning or the other. After doing so, perhaps Rand should have said "Money is the root of no evil." That isn't important for now though.

(Edited by Joseph S. on 7/25, 4:16pm)

Post 3

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 4:35pm

Who said "The color of freedom is green"?

If we could use "air" as a tool of exchange, you'd have an argument, Joseph. But we don't. Know why? Because air is as common as bad ideas or sand on the beach. It has no consumable value. Air just "is." It has no moral weight or equivalent. That's why we say things like "not worth the air he breaths" when we talk about mooches.

Money, on the other hand, which is a "frozen form of productive effort," has consumable value. It has moral weight, and it's equivalent is any effort that produces any value.

Get it yet?

Post 4

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 4:40pm

Joseph,

Rand was getting at the trader principle which she viewed as the epitome of good in social relations, money is the symbol of trade.We have to make money and that effort is a human endeavor which sustains life. Nobody has to produce air, it exists without our effort :-)

Jim

Post 5

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 5:11pm

I don't think you'll ever reconcile these two quotes neatly, but you can understand what Rand was getting at. "Money is only a tool" means that it's a necessary but not sufficient condition of a range of worthwhile activities. "Money is the root of all good" suggests, without quite stating, that it's a cause, a sufficient condition or nearly so, and it isn't.

Rand used the word "root" ambiguously. Sometimes it means necessary condition, sometimes sufficient; it can also be a motive, a psychological origin, a psychological concommiittant or a historical cause. This is what makes philosophy fun, like sandtraps in golf. If you read "root" as "necessary condition" the second statement becomes consistent with the first, but this doesn't fit comfortably with standard usage, which suggests something stronger. She was being calculatedely antagonistic for dramatic purposes. She did the same when she used "selfishness" or "greed" instead of "self-interest."

Peter

Post 6

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 7:37pm

Teresa, did you read the first post or just decide to speak condescendingly about something else? Here's a link, if you don't know what speech I'm talking about: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1826

Question for you: Is money the root of all good? If it was good in a (trading) society, as you say James, she should have said so. It's pretty clear when you say "all good" that nothing is excluded, making money, production, and/or trade the root of reason? (if you think reason is good) Sorry, no.

The only reason I mention air is to refute the argument that money is the root of all good insofar as it allows us to live, which seemed to be James's argument in Post 1. Let's not choke on it.

She was being calculatedely antagonistic for dramatic purposes.

Thanks Peter. I'd have to agree with you, and I really don't see a way to reconcile the statement, though I can appreciate it as good literature. It's always fun to fly in the face of a clich� statement that just doesn't work in reality.

While I'm on the money speech, here's another one: There is only one paragraph about the love of money, but it brought out an interesting point. What a lot of people might mean is that having money as one's (top) value is "the root of all evil." This is only interesting to me, because I was left to wonder, "what, if anything is the difference between having something as a (top) value, and valuing or appreciating something?" What do you think?

Post 7

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 9:30pm

Please, that's rediculous.

Who's condescending? No need to be trollish, Joseph.

Is money the root of all good?

You're ignoring the context of the Money Speech written in a work of fiction. I graciously gave you the benefit of the doubt, thinking you merely failed to understand it's meaning, which still seems to elude your grasp.
"The root of all good [within a social context]"

Maybe that'll help better, without getting all condescending about it.

Here comes the potential condescending part:

I'm not sure why you had the need to isolate a couple of sentences from their broader context, other than to try out your fledgling "Ah HA!" button in an attempt to refute something that scholars have accepted and written about for over 50 years.
Hint: it's making you look kinda soph-moronic over on this end.

Question for you: Is money the root of all good? If it was good in a (trading) society, as you say James, she should have said so.

But she DID say so!
You clearly didn't grasp the context, which was all about trade as "good." The speech goes on and on about how trade is everything between human beings, the "root of all good," between men, within a social context. How did you miss that?? It's practically the whole fucking plot in the book!

(Deep breath... I feel better now)

Peter:

If you read "root" as "necessary condition" the second statement becomes consistent with the first, but this doesn't fit comfortably with standard usage, which suggests something stronger. She was being calculatedely antagonistic for dramatic purposes. She did the same when she used "selfishness" or "greed" instead of "self-interest."

Joseph:

Thanks Peter. I'd have to agree with you, and I really don't see a way to reconcile the statement, though I can appreciate it as good literature. It's always fun to fly in the face of a clich� statement that just doesn't work in reality.

Have you even read Atlas, Joseph?

And don't ask what we think so you can in turn say it's "ridiculous," or "condescending." That's trollish and rude. You've done it at least twice so far. I'm keeping score on you.

Post 8

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 4:52am

Good points Teresa.

L W

Post 9

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 9:00am

Jeseph S.

I'm interested to here your reply to my last post on the agnosticism thread.

Ethan

Post 10

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 2:47pm

That was funny. :)

The language is misleading, that's all. So was mine, I should have said "she should have said that... instead." I'm sorry that was confusing for you. So money isn't the root of all good. I find it funny when people get upset. I find it ironic that "all" doesn't mean "all." That's all I was looking for.
I'd like to see the quotes better reconciled Teresa. I find your language wonderfully expressive, maybe you could help.

"I'm keeping score on you."
Neat! What happens when I get a higher score? Or is that for purely statistical purposes?
Or maybe these are trick questions, and thus you should not answer, having knowledge of my trollishness. It would be very trolish indeed if I challenged you under a topic labeled "challenge". Ahhh... the difficulties of paranoia, hmm?

By the way James, I didn't mean to insult you personally. In fact, I appreciate your personality and attitude, or what I've seen of it. It's so much harder to be or be with people who take everything gravely.

Post 11

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 3:58pm

Neat! What happens when I get a higher score?

You get ignored, or at best, laughed about. At worst, you get moderated again.

So you haven't read the book and are perfectly content taking those sentences out of context, as if you've made an interesting, relevant point, rather than exposing your ignorance as you have?

Post 12

Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 4:28pm

Lighten up Teresa Sumerlee Isanhart, you shouldn't let my ignorance upset you so.

Does it not seem a little inconsistent to take a statement which is used in reference to truly all evil, create an argument about part of that (trade in society), and then make a completely reversed conclusion?

I should have told you up front, I don't disagree with what she says, but how she says it. The same with selfishness, sacrifice, humility, money, etc. It seems misleading to me, or rather "purposefully antagonistic." Kinda funny, I came here kind of looking for a guide to thought. What I found were people who thought the purpose of life is to draw a line and spend all of one's energy making sure no one steps over. I think I'm done with this post, board, and philosophy. It isn't my style.

Anyone wanting to contact me, the email is mrjunkm@yahoo.com

Post 13

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 5:06am

Does it not seem a little inconsistent to take a statement which is used in reference to truly all evil, create an argument about part of that (trade in society), and then make a completely reversed conclusion?

No, not really. It would be interesting to read a more thorough argument from you rather than one liners, however. But seeing as that you haven't bothered to read the book, I'm not sure it would be possible to stay coherent with an expanded argument claiming inconsistency.

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 7/28, 5:07am)

Post 14

Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 1:43pm

What Teresa said.

Ed

Post 15

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 8:13pm

The idea that the existence of money goes hand in hand with the existence of humanity seems outrageous. Money isn't the root of all good just because it keeps some or "most" people alive, currency is still a neutral concept. Collectivists could be an example of this, or other people who may live without money or on little money.

Post 16

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 11:44pm

Dustin, are you familiar with something that economists call "the double-coincidence of wants"? It's what money facilitates as a medium of exchange. Money is so vastly more efficient than barter, it has revolutionized production and immeasurably increased our standard of living. In that respect, it is anything but neutral; it is a life-saver in the most literal sense of the term!

- Bill

Post 17

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 11:30am

Bill,

That's a new concept to me but now I understand what you're getting at. I suppose what could lead me to believe in it's neutrality is the fact that is also capable of producing bad results such as robbery and related crimes, but a lot of things are like that. If money is so much better than bartering, why do I long to barter and trade at flea markets and such? Perhaps I'm simply bored with money.

Post 18

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 1:16pm

Dustin, the act of robbing someone of their money really has little to do with the concept of money. Looting has to do with taking something that does not belong to the looter, whether it be money, a car or any other tangible asset. Money is simply a means of making trade more efficient, it can be used for bad things but that is just the same as saying barter trade can be used for bad things. There's nothing inherent about money that for some reason would create bad things such as looters.

EDIT: Just to add to that, by the logic that money can be considered bad because people steal over it, then food can also be considered bad because people have been known to steal food. Which would make little sense, food is not bad, nor is money, but stealing is.
(Edited by John Armaos
on 8/02, 1:19pm)

Post 19

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 2:22pm