Futile gesture or valid argument?

  Forum Editor 10:18 05 Sep 2009

"Protesters wearing masks of the G20 leaders gathered for a small demonstration in the City of London on Friday ahead of the (G20) meeting.

Waving placards saying "Stop letting money rule the world," they called for ministers to do more to protect ordinary people from the impact of the global downturn."

Are these people incredibly naive in thinking that money will ever stop ruling the world, or do governments have a duty to 'protect' ordinary people from the consequences of global financial events?

If a government must protect us, how would it do so, and with what?

  tein 10:42 05 Sep 2009

Peter i thought since this is breaking news & its totaly relevant to this thread id include it!!

click here

  jack 10:52 05 Sep 2009

with us probably 5000 years or more.
Instead of swapping a camel to get 20 goats to swap for grain- the tribes of the middle east took up tokens[money] and so it all began

An interesting listen this past week was the 'Book of the Week on BBC Radfio4 - 9.45 weekdays
This week it was
click here

  jack 10:55 05 Sep 2009
  Jak_1 11:01 05 Sep 2009

Both really though more futile than valid! Money does rule the world has has done ever since man learn't that when he had a surplus of something and others were short that he could use what he had to get what he wanted. The same is true now. However the government should be able to put constraints upon the so called 'Fat Cats' in order to limit them exploiting people less well of than themselves, this should be global. However they can't dictate the policy of another country to do the same!
Part of the problem is the huge 'bonuses' and 'golden handshakes' that industry awards themselves for a job well/not done! Maybe taxing bonus at a rate similar to the highest rate of the income tax band would not be out of order! Either reward jobs well done with a modest pay increase or tax the bonus, above a set amount, to a degree where it makes the bonus unattractive!
There is no easy solution and there will always be an outcry from one side or the other no matter what the government decides to do to try and alleviate the problem.
On the whole I find that 99.9% of protests are futile anyway! There are also the 'professional protesters' to contend with!

  OTT_Buzzard 11:17 05 Sep 2009

I have no doubt that the world could be a better place if you ditch even the concept of money. It's just a pity that we've entrenched ourselves on a path of social development that depends on money to survive.

In a bizarre twist to the structure, it seems that the only places where you could easily survive at a subsistence level are in the western moniterized world. The areas that are in most need of food are the areas that don't seem to be able to produce enough.....all because they are 'developing'. Developing into what? Starving nations? Corrupt governments? Money strikes again.

So, we're stuck with money. In which case the people who collect and re-issue it (i.e. government) have a responsiblity to ensure that it's people are fed, if they are unable to feed themselves.

  carver 11:21 05 Sep 2009

It's a sad fact of life that money does rule, if you haven't got it then you can't have the things you need to live, for some people making more money is the only thing keeping them going.

Wars are started over it, people are killed because of it, and some people expect more than is rightfully theirs. (MP and expenses)

I'd like to believe that money isn't every thing, but I would be deluding myself to think so.

  crosstrainer 11:34 05 Sep 2009

In my youth, (and still to a certain degree today) I was of pure Socialist commitment. System would work if you did not have "Fat Cats" creaming cash from the top....In fact no cash at all WOULD (in theory) work.

In reality, it just won't...It's a system that depends totally upon each and every one of us looking after those around us.

Sad conclusion is that yes, it is a pipe dream....

  Forum Editor 12:09 05 Sep 2009

that 'money isn't everything' or that 'there are more important things in life than money', and of course both statements are true........until you haven't got any money.

Then you discover the real truth about life.

  Jak_1 12:18 05 Sep 2009

Life is the most important thing, however, money (or some other token to be used to trade with) is required in order to sustain life in the human world. Hence, money becomes the next in line as the most important thing in life!

  OTT_Buzzard 12:22 05 Sep 2009

But then you can purchase life, and indeed pay to extinguish life, therefore life is a subset of money.

Conclusion: Life is the most important thing in money.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Fujitsu Lifebook P727 laptop review

Lightwell software lets you create mobile apps without using code

Best value Mac: Which is the best £1249 Mac to buy

Comment désactiver les programmes qui s'exécutent au démarrage de Windows 10 ?