27 Oct 2014
It has been known in times past that trust is key in the sphere of economics. Trust also happens to be key in relationships in general.
If there were no government over us, demanding taxes, enforcing restrictive policies, and taking over necessary jobs in society, would individuals be more inclined to take risks in starting their own business’? Is working for someone else really the lot for 95% of the population, or is that the periphrially-inhibited view that has grown over time? How much can individuals actually do on their own, instead of by the support of tax-paid government workers and policies? I remember learning about Rockefeller going up against the United States of America in court concerning oil. His corporation had grown so big, that one company could stand toe-to-toe with the U.S. Government. Not so today. Perhaps monopoly’s have some downsides, but is letting the government have all the work, and run up debts for supposedly wise, legislative decisions really acceptable? Is the government really allowed to push us around like this, on our joint payroll?
The government is a well-oiled machine, but it functions with the utmost in external professionalism. While on the surface it looks slick and streamlined, relational factors are kept out of political office. Of course, the Military, the Intellegence agencies, Police departments and US Marshalls are proper uses of taxes. But should the government be controlling the stockpile that taxpayers are paying into it? Who is to keep the government from passing a policy that raises taxes for things that are completely irrelevent, and the citezens are no better for it? Is the national debt an indicator of people’s individual debts? How is it that a nation’s government, who has no means of profit-making directly, is able to spend more then any private sector enterprise, and as a result, initiative is weak if not entirely lost. If the government takes over the jobs that should be done by individuals, where is the incentive?
Individuals at the beginning of America saw great success because of great risk-taking, and great labor, producing wealth for themselves individually. But now there are banks that hold everyone’s money, and banks promote loans (with the hopes of making more profit). But what happens when the government controls the bank that is holding the individuals money? What happens when people are led to believe they are able to retrieve their money anytime, but in reality, they are told to trust that their money is there? If the government isn’t producing wealth, where is wealth coming from? If small-business’s cease develop, then present wealth in circulation has to be stretched!
Where does relationships among people fit into the economy? How does social engagement affect economics? Putting one’s money into the trusting hands of a bank means it will be taken care of and secured. If trust is compromised, money is withdrawn, and money goes under the mattress. What happens when the government has the ability to change the value of the dollar bills hidden in mattresses? What happens when the government isn’t aware of what printing more money is actually doing? Citizens begin to generally despise the government they voted to protect them, both foreign and domestic. People begin to disrespect companies that pull dishonest business schemes, lawsuits ensue in which larger corporations simply payoff the unsatisfied individual.
Isolating the Core Factor
What is really at the core of the problem? Is government to blame? Government is just people elected into positions governed by a unifying document. Is big business to blame? They are simply creating wealth, by which many benefit, either by paid labor, or by business-to-business interactions, which help society. Perhaps at the core of all the confusion is actually one of the simplest solutions: relationships. If people are genuinely honest with one another, expressing mistakes, failures, circumstances, and internal disagreements, then larger, external issues could be prevented. Because money just represents stuff, and stuff only has value according to what man has given it. But relationships and human life is far more important that any amount of money or property. Where did we lose sight of that? Relationships are more important then lofty reputations, and karismatic social status’. The consumerism goes because stuff – it has moved into the social strata. People now pay to boost their reputation, or company’s reputation (simply for show rather then direct profit). But deep down, what are we really looking for? Is it more stuff, or is it better relationships with people, and with God?