Exploring the Art & Science of Marketing
What is money?
I got this email today from ProducerRevolution.com. I liked it so much that I thought I would share.
“Many people confuse money with currency. Money is any exchange of value between people. Currency is nothing but pieces of paper and metal that are REPRESENTATIONS of money; it has no intrinsic value. Money is closely tied to our unalienable rights in that it is something that nobody can give to or take away from us.
Our human life value is everything that we have to offer the world when we strip away all of our material possessions. It is our thoughts, our character, and our unique abilities. Money is the sharing of our human life value through free exchange.
The oftused and almost always misinterpreted phrase, “The love of money is the root of all evil” is true when we understand that it refers to paper and metal currency. It represents the belief that material things have value, with the corollary that people do not have value. But if money “properly defined” is evil, then human life value is also evil, and this is deception at its worst.”
Ever heard of the Producer Revolution? It was started by a guy named Les McGuire. He is no longer with us.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Russ on July 7, 2006 at 11:08 am, and is filed under Business, Les McGuire, Producer Revolution, Utah Public Relations Agency. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 5 years ago
Mmmm, I don’t buy it. The line, “Money is the sharing of our human life value through free exchange,” seems particularly contrived.
The usual misconception is that “money is the root of all evil”. But the real phrase “the *love* of money is the root of all evil” seems pretty clear! Equating money with human life sounds like a way to justify expensive cars and boats.
about 5 years ago
Are they splitting hairs? I don’t know, but I appreciate your comments because my brain is stirring.
I have been looking at money differently lately after I starting reading “The Use and Abuse of Blessings” by Brigham Young. He basically talks about what we have in this life and how well we put it to use. I’m sure he wasn’t just talking about material things either.
So, it poses the question in response to your answer . . . what is the difference between justifying say a candy bar and justifying “expensive cars and boats?” Do we have to justify a purchase of any kind? What is the standard?
about 5 years ago
One distinction the Book of Mormon makes is that the saints “did not wear costly apparel, yet they were neat and comely” (Alma 1:27) while the proud “love money, substance, and fine apparel.” (Mormon 8:37) Like apparel, cars and a lot of other things can be “neat and comely,” or on the other hand, “fine”.
That doesn’t answer the question of whether to buy a boat, but I think it is certainly advocating modesty over extravagance.
about 5 years ago
I see where you are coming from, but I don’t know that I would apply this across the board as the proud “love money, substance, and fine apparel” (Mormon 8:37) to mean that people who like substance and fine apparel are proud. MORE THAN, and I think it’s a key distinction . . . the proud love the above mentioned “more than ye love the poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted.” . . . “Why are ye ashamed to take upon you the name of Christ? (A very key distinction of the proud). Why do ye not think that greater is the value of an endless happiness than that misery which never dies—because of the praise of the world?” Expesive cars merely for praise? I see what you mean.
“Why do ye adorn yourselves with that which hath no life, and yet suffer the hungry, and the needy, and the naked, and the sick and the afflicted to pass by you, and notice them not?” – This was the distinction that was made before.
I also noticed a similar distinction about Alma 1:27 “And they did impart of their substance, every man according to that which he had, to the poor, and the needy, and the sick, and the afflicted;”
What is intriguing is what verse 28 starts out with before it describes the abundant life they live . . . “and because of the steadiness of the church. . .”
This is very interesting stuff, and I love the scriptures you are pointing out. It would be interesting to get together a group to talk about.
about 5 years ago
The problem with calling human life value a justification of expensive toys is that it takes away what a person can do with greater human life value. Consider this…
A person increases his human life value (including his cash assets) and in the process increases his disposable assets (ie, his ability to make charitable donations) to such a point where he is able to make twice the donation he was able to make before. Part of the price of being able to do those things is those expensive cars and boats and other toys.
I say that part of the price is those things because much like a company buys space on a billboard on the freeway, a tool of people attempting to increase their personal exposure to potential clients and business partners is those “toys” that draw attention. The cost of not getting those “toys” is that we lose the exposure and potential good we can do with the increased assets.
Does the desire to increase one’s human life value really equal a love of money? Much as everybody misuses the “money is the root of all evil quote,” you’ve done the same thing by saying that the desire to increase one’s human life value is a justification to buy expensive toys.
about 5 years ago
“A person increases his human life value (including his cash assets) and in the process increases his disposable assets (ie, his ability to make charitable donations) to such a point where he is able to make twice the donation he was able to make before.”
I never post on blogs, but on this I have to comment. To suggest, believe, or disseminate the idea that driving a $100,000 dollar car, SUV, or wearing nothing but Abercrombie and Fich is for the benefit of OTHER people besides yourself is an absolute load.
“I drive a Mercedes so that other people will want to be around me. That way I can make more money off of those people (because people are assets) who want a peak at my car, and then I can donate my old Gucci to the DI so that the all the people who’s money I took can now afford to have nicer clothes. See, this Benz is for the people!â€
One question, how come the pope has so much jewelry?
about 5 years ago
I\’m not saying you\’re wrong or right, but instead of saying \”it\’s a load\” I would like to hear your reasoning.
Money taken is theft. So, your point you made is moot because it assumes that because someone has a Mercedes that they \”took\” money in order to get it. If it isn\’t theft, the only way for someone to get more money is for someone else to give it to them, and people only give money for things that that value more.
about 5 years ago
Thanks for responding. I wasn’t sure anyone would read a response to a post a couple of months old.
To your point – “people only give money for things of value.†I wish this were the case. But I believe the issue of increasing ones cash has many shades of gray rather than just stealing is black and profiting is white.
Ask anyone who has come to realize they paid too much for a car. Consider the cost to businesses of accepting credit cards when the industry fixes their prices at around 2-3%
How about those who pay extraordinary amounts for real estate investing classes only to realize later it wasn’t all they thought it would be. None of these examples are “theft†per-say, but you can see how people don’t always equally trade money for “value.†The argument is that the “invisible hand†evens all things out in the long run. But the long run can take years, and even then there will always be an opportunity for those caught up in a trend to unduly profit off of the weak.
Now, I consider myself a capitalist, conservative, and a staunch defender of the rich. I was born into a life of what most would call luxury. I hear and understand all the current banter about “victim mentality†vs. “producer mentality.†The question is – what is it a person is actually producing? Is there a real product involved in terms of goods and services, and is it fairly priced?
The reason this post caught my attention is that Book of Mormon quotes were brought into play. I can’t help but be reminded once again that Utah is the home of both the highest bankruptcy rates and organized scam producers in the nation.
The short version: I agree %100 with Richard, not so much with djake.
I believe there is a right way and an obscene way to spend your money. The LDS church is the greatest example on earth of the right way. Everything the church spends its money on ends up being of amazing craftsmanship and efficiency. It’s leaders even use a private jet, at times, for specific service providing tasks. But does the leadership roll around in Maybachs?
about 5 years ago
This is something I have been thinking about a lot lately. There are a couple of thoughts I had.
- When does too much become too much, and if a person feels they paid too much, why did they pay for something in the first place?
- how much business would a business lose if it didn\’t accept credit cards? Would the cost be more than 2-3 percent? I personally use a credt card for everything (probably 95 percent of my purchases).
- Paying a lot for a class, in this case real estate, and then realizing it wasn\’t what they thought it was? Why wasn\’t it what they thought it was? How much responsibility sits squarely on the individuals shoulders in this case and how much sits on the shoulders of the company providing it? My thought is that if the company decieved buyers in its offering then there\’s a problem. If not, I don\’t see the problem of someone getting exactly what they were told they would get, which in many cases is exactly what they put into them.
Keep in mind that you never make an equal trade. Money is exchanged for something else like a can of soda because the person sees greater value in the can of soda than in the money in hand.
How does one define \”unduly profit?\” What makes it unduly? When does it reach this point?
How do you define \”fairly priced?\” What makes it fair? When does it reach this point? These questions are more along the lines of how I understand the invisible hand.
The point is, you don\’t decide alone. You don\’t get the right to say it\’s unduly or fair if everyone else is paying the price. It\’s only unduly and unfair for you. People who try to decide for others in this manner are known as socialists. The producer of the product or service decides the initial price, but the market decides what it will pay. That includes you and me and everyone else who does or doesn\’t buy.
Take a Bentley car for example. I personally don\’t like them. They cost $200,000 or so, but an $80,000 is much nicer to me. But the $200,000 is fairly priced because people pay for it. Actually fair has no place in this example.
Now to this \”I believe there is a right way and an obscene way to spend your money. The LDS church is the greatest example on earth of the right way. Everything the church spends its money on ends up being of amazing craftsmanship and efficiency. It’s leaders even use a private jet, at times, for specific service providing tasks. But does the leadership roll around in Maybachs?\”
In my mind, the LDS church is not, as you are suggesting, the greatest example on earth of the right way to spend, but the greatest example on earth of stewards over money.The church reminds me of the parable of the talents. Talents were actual money. You know the story. The one who did nothing with what he was given was called wicked and slothful. The church utilizes its funds in amazing ways, which it would absolutely have to do in order to continue to build temples, churches, etc…
Huge gorgeous temple buldings? Thousands of church buidlngs? Yes and Yes. Maybachs? No. What\’s the difference here? Why doesn\’t the church just build simple buildings that could serve the the purpose of worship? Why do people buy Maybachs when they could buy a Yugo for the purpose of getting from point A to point B?
The church has a purpose and a vision and an ideal of the experience they want people to have when they are in a temple or seeing one. Washington D.C. does this very thing. It serves as an incredible missionary tool. Why doesn\’t the leadershp drive Maybachs? I don\’t know, but I suspect it has something to do with what they are trying to accomplish and a Maybach may not be the best tool for them to accomplish its mission.
I\’m still thinking about more, but I want to let you respond to my thoughts first.
about 5 years ago
In my opinion…
Too much becomes too much when you have to ask the question “is this too much?†People may ask this question for several different reasons, such as: because the item is more than they can really afford, but the person feels compelled to keep up with the Jones. Or if the item will take time and focus away from family, religion, and personal relationships? Or the item will create a division between the person and their loved ones. (Either because of the pride of the owner, or the pride of the loved ones.) Can you really worship God as your god if you spend %60 of your income and %70 of your time and energy on making your Yugo payment, Honda payment, or Mcclaren payment?
“Why did the person pay too much in the first place…& real estate rip off’s†These examples are both hypothetical, and specifically meant to demonstrate the day to day dishonesty that occurs in the “business†world in between the effects of the ‘invisible hand.’ It seems to me that you are suggesting that the ‘invisible hand’ is so immediate and effective that it keeps everyone as honest as Abe Lincoln. My argument is that many salespeople are far more interested in maximizing their profit, regardless off what the hand says.
Businesses would obviously lose an enormous amount of money if they did not accept credit cards. This is exactly what makes the monopoly so, (and so destructive.) It is not unlike the price fixing of steel during the industrial revolution or even the 60‘s with JFK. How much business would companies have lost during the industrial revolution if companies didn’t use steel? Does demand justify immoral business practices?
“The point is, you don\’t decide alone. You don\’t get the right to say it\’s unduly or fair if everyone else is paying the price. It\’s only unduly and unfair for you. People who try to decide for others in this manner are known as socialists. The producer of the product or service decides the initial price, but the market decides what it will pay. That includes you and me and everyone else who does or doesn\’t buy.†– I agree, but again only in the long run. My examples are referring to the short run. When the producers have the opportunity to take advantage of the buyers before the market evens things out.
“In my mind, the LDS church is not, as you are suggesting, the greatest example on earth of the right way to spend, but the greatest example on earth of stewards over money.â€
To me there is no difference here other than semantics. You can spend your money on buildings or you can spend your money on investments that allow you to buy more buildings. Both require money moving out of one account into another. “Steward†v. “Spending†Same thing if your are using your dome.
“Why do people buy Maybachs when they could buy a Yugo for the purpose of getting from point A to point B?â€
Because people that buy Maybachs are buying them (or riding in them) for the praise of the world. Conversely, people do not buy Yugos because they are pieces of crap that WON’T get you from point A to point B.
Ultimately none of us can say what is and what isn’t appropriate for another person to spend their money on. We can use judgment and discretion on how we personally spend, steward, or invest our money. My concern is that more and more, people are not using wise judgment or exercising their stewardship over their talents. Again, Keywords Ponzi Scheme, Utah, Bankruptcy.