Only those that work for money consider money to be valuable.

Someone else once said that above a certian level in our society, money isn't even used. The example given was that if Rupert Murdoch wants a Maybach, Rupert Murdoch GETS a Maybach, because others will desire a Maybach because he has one. And THEY will pay for one. Rupert might even discount ad time on NewsCorp affiliates, which is a massive media conglomerate planet-wide.

Money, not unlike Law, is the domain of the POOR. Not the rich.

Someone has seen that Charlie Manson youtube video that was posted here yesterday

He's not the first to say things like that. But I have seen the video you're talking about, yes.

This is very interesting. You're basically describing financial hegemony. I'm scared.

Not too far off. If you can lock a population into a failing economy, you make them increasingly more desperate. Then you don't have to worry about tricking them into doing your bidding. They will BEG you to let them do whatever it is you want them to do, for pennies on the dollar, a scrap of food, basic necessities that cost you almost nothing to provide.

Meanwhile, since you as an elite know the true value of money, you are able to adjust your assets and worth accordingly to stay above the fray.

We're staring down at the resurgence of the dark ages, rushing up to meet us.

Just because people do each other favors does not mean money isn't used.

It can and does mean that in some instances. The rich understand paper money is fiat, and therefore don't always trade in it. They can use minerals or straight up barter.

While you do get a lot for free when you're rich(Party fun bags are amazing and regularly worth $1000s) you still pay for a lot. And most of it costs cash.

Where did you get such absurd ideas?

Absurd how? You better say it

Those kind of things are sold only to the richest people. Of course they pay money for them. Sure, there may be some discount for someone who will give it a lot of publicity, but that's gonna be the exception, not the rule.

Here's an example of how the very richest live. A Swedish countess divorcing the former CEO of United Technologies Corp.

Douglas-David has filed court papers showing she has more than $53,800 in weekly expenses, including for maintaining a Park Avenue apartment and three residences in Sweden. Her weekly expenses also include $700 for limousine service, $4,500 for clothes, $1,000 for hair and skin treatments, $1,500 for restaurants and entertainment, and $8,000 for travel.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29760888/ns/us_news-life/t/wife-divorcing-ex-ceo-million-not-enough/

Thanks for the clarification. But then let's say I have 500 million dollars. Then $54000 dollars would not mean much to me, I think

Sure, I am just pointing out the absurdity of the notion that "above a certain level in our society, money isn't even used." This is like the old Eddie Murphy "White Like Me" sketch.

It's only 700 for taxi service? I pay $500 a week for a full time employee to watch my collection of future human resources.

Her weekly expenses also include $700 for limousine service

Well, damn, you've got to have limousine service. It's not as if someone with a hyphenated last name can ride in a taxi, like the riff-raff.

When your time is worth a lot paying a few extra % to have a black car service is well worth it. Thats probably not even that much more than their taxi costs would have been either if they had a dedicated service.

I too would like to know what you mean by absurd? Unless of course your definition of absurd is completely caked with sarcasm.

Why absurd? Where did you get such a closed mind?

The rich own more property than the poor, and that always will be wealth.

Which is why I laugh when people call to raise the min wage.

Silly proles, wealth is for the sentient.

If there is hope, it lies within the proles!

But they are so silly!

That's tough but fair. Still, making $15 an hr as opposed to $8 dollars an hr makes a huge difference to the average prole.

Stupid question. Are you saying if the min wage was 15 an hour people would be better off?

Well, I'm saying that they would be better off compared to making $8 an hr. This would also drive up the average hourly wage to aprox. 19-20 an hr which is most certainly a livable salary at this point and time. Of course, these are all hypothetical numbers, but I'm just trying to prove a point.

Now, I know there are plenty of macro arguments that state that in the long run, raising the minimum wage would actually have a negative impact by raising inflation and the cost of production, etc. ( however, most folks that state this are of what I call the 'neo-fascist' variety, i.e Michelle Bachmann, Paul Ryan, Koch brothers etc.)

But if you have a counter argument to raising the minimum wage, I'd love hear what you have to say. Always curious to hear alternative viewpoints.

First, Upvote for having an open mind. It seems like more and more people are getting the attitude of “My way is right and everyone else is wrong.”

Second, While I agree with the people you listed that raising the min wage is a bad idea, I don't agree with the majority of the other things they believe. While I believe that capitalism is the best option right now, I think it's bullshit that major corporations are getting refunds. I think we should have a flat tax. Everyone pays the same amount. This way no one can bitch about someone else not “Paying their fair share.”

That being said, I am a part owner of a small restaurant chain. I have seen first hand how the min. wage effects everything else ( I can provide proof but I ask that it be through a mod since it is personal info I am sharing.) Min. wage effects both Micro and Macro economics.

I live in the state of Oregon where we have a min. wage increase almost every year automatically. That means that almost every year I have to raise my prices just to keep my personal paycheck the same. I am by no means rich. I don't even own a home. With the economy the way it is it's hard to convince people to eat out as much as they used to. Then when the new year starts I have to raise my prices which pushes more people away. It is a very difficult cycle.

Another shitty fact about Oregon is that we can't pump our own fucking gas. We have to have someone else do it. If gas stations have to pay some guy 31k a year ($15 an hour at full time) then gas prices will go up and I am sure you can guess where that goes.

Sorry, kinda went on a fuck Oregon rant.

When the min. wage was first thought up it wasn't designed for a single person to provide for a whole family. It was designed to prevent sweat shops. The idea is that young people work at min. wage and as they learn more skills or get a degree they will be paid a fair wage to support a family.

neo-fascist

It's quite hard to refer to commissary notes (paper or electronic) as wealth, especially when most of it goes to your landlord.

Extremely true, but what if commissary notes were still worth their weight in gold/silver/some other valuable resource?

Then it wouldn't be a commissary note. :) It would be money.

Bingo! Real estate is "real" - get it? Livable, desirable land is limited (unless you really like sand or ice), unlike money which can be printed and gone digital, etc.

The riches assets are not liquid. They hedge and they hedge hard.

When the dollar pops, they will have seen it coming and invested accordingly.

Probably why a lot of very rich are buying gold, silver and natural resources by the droves. Allegedly.

We'll yeah, their wealth would decrease but relatively they become even more richer than the average american. The average peasent's measily saving become virtually worthless while the elite become less rich. They also own things like buisness that create money which invaluable not to mention they control resources which is more tangible than money. Their assests will see them through this kind of financial crisis. They are also global players and have their investments whidespread. If anything they will discover new ways to profit on the hordes of people who's small saving become worthless, and so does their personal value become worthless. If anything this only gives the elites a cheaper workforce to employ in their monopoly game.

no, they have tons and tons of gold and property.

No. The Rich invested in as many things as they can to get their hands on. Money as an exchange medium won't fall away - there will be a new one in a matter of months, and that new one will reflect investments. In other words - Land. Energy sources. Minerals. Vehicles. Skills. Real estate. Patents. Stores. Warehouses. Goods. Medicines.

These possessions will start generating a new kind of value. I dunno, amero, neuro, credits, krugerrands, latinum. Who cares? You won't have this new "value system" and you will want these goods. And consequently those in power will have you even worse by the balls

It's called winning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_(game)

Oh latinum, if only there was a substance so valuable that we needed to press it into gold bars for trade.

Do you have a mortgage on your house? If so, then you don't own it, the bank does. The corporations own the banks and the elite own the corporations. tonintetsuro made some very good points in his post.

actually, even if you paid off the mortgage on your house you dont own it. check into the district of colombia organic act of 1871. it clearly defines that a person(you,me) is actually more like a monster which is barred from owning property, and no im not being sarcastic or dramatic. it actually refers to people as monsters and not being allowed to own property.

it actually refers to people as monsters and not being allowed to own property.

That's a huge [citation needed].

The rich are pretty adept at converting fiat money into real property. It's how we got from family farms to corporate mega-farms. If you think there are rich people that don't own actual wealth instead of money, I think you're being naive.

No. it would be the largest transfer of wealth from the poor/middle class to the wealthy that ever happened in human history. The elite own stuff not just paper and the stuff becomes eve more valuable when the paper is almost worthless

This difference is that when the money becomes worthless, you'll be in debt and they, the rich, wont.

Then they will come in, and put liens against and seize everything you thought you owned. Why do you think there are basically no more family owned farms in the USA anymore? This boom-bust strategy has been continually used by the rich to steal from the poor - while convincing the poor that its their fault that they just didnt work hard enough. When in truth, they never had a fucking chance at the game. Continually devalue the currency so you can never get your head more than an inch above water no matter how hard you work.

The rich WANT the dollar to crash for this reason. As it crashes, more and more of you will be forced to take out loans, a second mortgage or whatever, to keep your heads above water, to keep food on your table. And they'll be happy to give you a loan. And then when its over and you default? They'll be coming for all your shit.

There's a great deal of truth in what you write. The system we live under wants us all in debt. All you need to do is look at the advertisements to buy, buy, buy, and at the solicitations to get more credit cards, and at the loans the banks are constantly pushing at anybody with any money. They aren't content unless you are in debt ... and then they own you.

no they will get out before it becomes useless. Before wamu went belly up, someone i know who has extremely rich grand parents got a call to pull millions out of the bank weeks before it went down.

Rich doesn't mean a big balance. It means ownership of productive assets. These will hold their value.

I think it was Trump that said "The more money you have, the less money things cost" or something to that effect. Basically, that when he wants a hotel, he doesn't call the reservations desk like us, he calls his friend Mr. Hilton who then reserves him a room at no charge, because he knows that one day he'll need something Trump has. It's the same with all the mega-rich. It's about networking. Knowing the right person, etc.

And once fiat money crashes, well Trump still owns office towers and needs to vacation, while Hilton still owns hotels and needs offices for his employees. And Mr. Bentley needs both hotels and offices, but knows that Trump and Hilton still need someone to drive them to/from events.

Fiat money is worthless. That's where power comes into play.

Once people well and truly realize that fiat money is not backed by anything at all, that's when the system collapses. We are close to that point. All we need is some runaway inflation.

Thing is, the elite want to move us all away from cash. They want us doing all our buying and selling by computer chip, so that they can monitor everything we do, and tax us on every transaction. They hate cash for that reason.

But -- and this is the interesting insight -- electronic money is fiat money. Think about it. What is it, except some bits and bytes? It's nothing, and it's backed by nothing except force of habit. It certainly isn't backed by trust any longer ... who in their right mind trusts the government, or the Federal Reserve, or the banks?

They use it to but the real assets.

Look at how the banks consolidated durring the great depression, or in 2008 for that matter.

They don't have the most to lose, but they also don't have nothing to lose.

I strongly doubt if money becomes completely worthless; that people will just bend over to the new system of essentially making those who own property overlords. If money is no longer of value in any way - then the fact that they "own" property is a facade.

edit;

I'm answering this question as if there wasn't a collapse, but if money had no value at all because of the title saying worthless.

When the collapse comes, certain hard assets will become incredibly valuable as paper currencies implode.

The uber-rich are very well positioned for the transition, to the extent that they will become even richer (comparatively) than before.

Do some research on Weimar to see what those assets are likely to be, with the proviso that in the coming conflagration there won't be any alternative fiat currencies to use as a life-raft.

Not too far off. If you can lock a population into a failing economy, you make them increasingly more desperate. Then you don't have to worry about tricking them into doing your bidding. They will BEG you to let them do whatever it is you want them to do, for pennies on the dollar, a scrap of food, basic necessities that cost you almost nothing to provide.

Meanwhile, since you as an elite know the true value of money, you are able to adjust your assets and worth accordingly to stay above the fray.

We're staring down at the resurgence of the dark ages, rushing up to meet us.

Extremely true, but what if commissary notes were still worth their weight in gold/silver/some other valuable resource?