Today, no matter what you do, you need money to do it. Right? Right! Shop. Travel. Make a phone call. You even need to spend money in order to make money. Money is real. People seem to be under the assumption that information wants to be free and that enabling people to learn and follow their own interests will benefit society as a whole. Well, we no longer believe in society as a whole.
We believe in the economy as a whole – a black hole! Why should you be able to think things, and even learn things, without paying somebody for that privilege? Let’s get to brass tacks, the bottom line. Money. Money is a reality. You see this printed dollar bill. It’s far more real than topsoil, oxygen, the ozone layer, or sunlight. You may say that this is just a piece of paper with some symbols on it, but that’s sacrilege! This is the almighty dollar. Most of the dollars we worship are actually stored in cyberspace.
Prices start at $10
Prices start at $12
Prices start at $120
Prices start at $11
Dollars are just digital ones and zeros in a network of computers, but that doesn’t mean they’re only virtual reality, and basically one big fantasy. No, dollars are utterly and entirely real, far more real than anything as vague as the public interest. If you’re not a commodity, you don’t exist!
Of course, there are many elements of our lives that exist outside the money economy. There’s a lot going on in our lives that’s not-for-profit and that can’t be denominated in dollars. “The best things in life are free,” the old saying goes. Nice old saying. Gets a little older-sounding every day. Sounds about as old and mossy as the wedding vow “for richer for poorer,” which is a modern environment is pretty likely to be for-richer-or poorer following our prenuptial agreement.
Commercialization, a favorite buzzword of mine. It’s a very powerful phenomenon. It’s getting more powerful year by year. Now we all must ask ourselves is anything really free? Is there such a word and if so what is its true definition? Many would say “Yeah there are a lot of things out there in the world that are free.” but are they really are the questions?
Can you believe that Melville Dewey once said, “free as air, free as water, free as knowledge?” Free as knowledge? Let’s get real, this is the modern world — air and water no longer come cheap! Hey, you want breathable air, you better pay your air conditioner’s power bill. Free as water? If you’ve got the sense you buy the bottled variety or pay for an ionic filter on your tap. And free as knowledge? Well, we don’t know what “knowledge” is, but we can get you plenty of data, and as soon as we figure out how to download it straight into the skulls of students, we can put all the teachers into the breadline.
Now getting back to the fact of the air really being free. Yes, air does indeed have no economic value. The supply of air is plentiful and certainly, the use of air by one person does not prevent the use of it by someone else. But how about all the money that is going into making this planet “environmentally safe”? The thousands of dollars that are going into keeping the air clean due to the years and years of pollutants that mankind has been pumping into it. That certainly is not free.
We breathe in this compound composed of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and other insignificant gases, and never in our minds does the question arise about the worth of this indispensable compound. If it wasn’t for the four-eyed chemists in their white lab coats concocting new methods of cleaning the air in order to make it “breathable”. Where would we be?
Probably in the world filled with dust, radiation, and skyrocketing amounts of carbon dioxide. All this valuable research and data doesn’t come cheap. Every time you get your paycheck and you notice a couple of dollars missing and don’t really think anything of it. Think about it. Air is not free. It does have an economic value even if it is “hidden.” Once upon a time, we did actually have “free air” but due to our own ignorance, we now must pay for our very source of survival.
Fortune is inherently a private issue that only allows observers a peek from which to surmise the condition of the holder’s lifestyle and budget. However, it is from these glimpses that society draws its stereotypes, as there is supposed to exist a set of standards such as clothing, good looks, and automobiles that influence our perception of one another. This system could not be more flawed.
Wealth has no universal effect on a populace, as every being is an individual and therefore harbors independent views on the proper uses of wealth. That said, there is one gift which money conveys which, although not universal, is nearly synonymous with wealth; Freedom.
With wealth comes choice, and with choice comes opportunity; the basis of the American dream. Wealth buys opportunity from the very start. An infant born into a wealthy family begins its life a league ahead of its poverty-stricken counterpart. This is not so much because of the proximity of money, but because of what that money can do. Having ample funds allows the infant’s parents the freedom to spend more time with the child and it also makes the entrance of the baby much less traumatic for the family.
The other family however will face a much greater economic shock with the coming of a child and as a result will have to devote even more time to work, leaving the child to, in large part, rear itself. This difference in parenting techniques is said to have a large role in the eventual success or failure of the child later in life and therefore the wealthier child already has an advantage. This, however, is just the tip of the iceberg as advantages go.
The addition of wealth to a family unit has further consequences for the families’ children all the way through school and into the child’s adult life where the family acts as a safety net. Starting with elementary and secondary education the ability of a family to choose schools for its offspring allows the parents to put an end to bad situations and prevent stagnation in randomly assigned classrooms.
The poorer family on the other hand will not be able to afford this choice and instead will have to rely on Chance to see its children through the educational system. In addition to probably attending worse schools, this child will most likely have to take a job in order to help his family and to be able to afford the social trappings that are the survival gear of teenagers today. In contrast, the counterpart child will remain sheltered from the realities of life and be able to concentrate energies on growing up and learning.
Assuming that both sets of children excel at school at wish to attend university the gap between them will grow. With good grades, the child of the wealthy family will have the advantage of being funded by his family while he attends the college of its choice. Meanwhile, the poorer child will fight for financial aid packages and have to go where the money is provided, and while attending this college a part-time job will probably be necessary to pay for living expenses.
By being able to accept at a variety of universities, the first child will open further opportunities for itself while the second child will watch as these same doors open only for a moment before slamming home as his community college education will not cut it in many of the 21st-century job places. Once they exit college with degrees the child of poorer heritage will not have the funds to support himself during an extensive job search.
This means that he will enter the workforce quickly and the same lack of reserve funds in the future will steal the freedom of job choice from him forever. His counterpart however will be able to take time and find something that fits him as well as allows for growth. If perchance they both should lose their jobs or a fiscal calamity should strike, one will be able to fall back on the family for financial support, while the other can only expect encouragement.
Thus the cycle of life draws to a close as this is the point at which either one of the subjects would raise a family, and as shown it is unlikely that either has significantly altered his or her place on the socioeconomic ladder. This has shown how wealth and degrees of freedom can affect the lives of similar people in a supposedly free and democratic society, but it has ignored freedoms in the quality of those lives.
Once again, wealth fundamentally alters purchasing power and this alteration allows those with the means to live more or less however they want to while their counterparts flounder in government regulations and necessity. Once a family has sunken into poverty they have crossed one of society’s invisible lines and they are no longer privileged to the basic rights that the rest of society tends to take for granted.
A family in poverty has little if any privacy as it suddenly becomes the business of greater society what that family does. The finances, the family decisions, and the living conditions are all subject to regulation by government and charity. Instances of child removal and repossession increase dramatically for poor families as compared to middle-class families.
This happens when a family is already down and out, as though the government was punishing them for misfortune. A welfare family gets periodic reviews of its finances and living situation by government agents, and if anything does not agree with that agent’s views on family life then the family may be subject to further humiliation. All this occurs because the family does not make enough, and it is all in addition to the inherent losses of freedom that come with poverty.
Freedom and liberty cannot exist without choice and therefore, options to choose from. The most direct effect of wealth is the ability to have more choices in what, where, and how much is purchased, and this indirectly affects almost every other aspect of life. By definition, a poor family cannot afford many of the things which a large part of society takes for granted. While the poor family is relatively free to move about, they probably cannot afford city to city moves and vacation trips are out of the question.
Even mobility within the local area is somewhat restricted as many police and wealthier families harbor innate prejudices against the poor because they associate poverty with a crime, and as such the poor must tread carefully when they are not on familiar ground. The freedom of choice in shopping is also restricted for these people as they once again cannot afford to shop anywhere and are confined to thrift shops and discount grocery stores.
The loss of the ability to shop anywhere, move anywhere, and even walk freely in a town represents a grave loss of freedoms for these people. Finally, the poor are not even free to live comfortable lives, as most are merely a paycheck away from the street. They cannot coast for even a moment or let down their guard for it only takes a small push to send someone in the delicate balance of poverty spiraling further into the depths of misfortune.
In sharp contrast to this, the wealthy are blessed enough to have such horrible situations that plague them only in nightmares. For many wealthy families, the question of freedom never crosses their minds as they take most of it for granted. Beyond the basic ability to shop and buy what they want, the wealthy can travel freely and have a choice in career and education as well as many more intangible freedoms. Members of society that have enough money can do whatever they want with their lives.
While a poor man is forced to slave away at work for long hours a wealthy man can not only take the time off, but if he has enough money he can choose not to work at all and coast instead. Essentially this man is buying back his free time. He can also go further by hiring men to do every little task from changing light bulbs to mowing the lawn.
Although this is a definite extreme case, it is still far from unfeasible. Sickly enough, a man could also choose the other extreme and give away his entire fortune to charity and thereby choose to live the life of a poor man. Of course, the difference between this man and another poor man is that this man has chosen his lot in life while the second man had it forced upon him by misfortune. The wealthy also has the freedom to change how society perceives them.
If one took the time to examine the punk scene or the skater groups that roam the streets, they may be surprised to find out that the vast majority of these “slackers” who are shrugged off by society actually come from the middle class and upper-class backgrounds. Because these kids have moneyed families behind them they do not have to worry about the stereotyping and prejudices that they gain along with their clothes and attitudes.
If they are jailed for looking suspicious they are quickly bailed out, and even if they commit a crime the bail does not come far behind. Their counterparts among the poor, however, would rot in the jails for a longer time and many could not afford to go to jail in the first place, because as stated earlier, many cannot miss a paycheck.
The rich kids can also afford the expensive leather jackets and skateboards as well as they can afford Abercrombie & Fitch clothing. In this way, the rich have the opportunity to camouflage themselves. The adults can “dress down” in older clothes to alter their appearance while the poor lack the ability to “dress up” inexpensive outfits.
As with every rule, there is an exception. For some wealth is far from a blessing and instead, it becomes a curse. For these few it is indeed the fortune that steals away their freedoms, becoming the master of these souls that become its slave. This growing segment of society is made up of men so hungry for money and the act of acquisition that they slave away evermore to fill their overflowing pockets.
This stereotype of man cannot bring himself to stop and enjoy what he has won; instead, he drives himself ever forward. This action effectively negates every effect discussed above. By consuming themselves with their fortunes, these few may ignore their children, taking away the advantages that wealthy parents usually convey, and occasional this removal can even have negative effects, causing the child to developmental abnormalities.
This caricature will also refuse to spend freely and therefore refuse the gifts of travel and economic freedom. Finally, individuals such as this worry more about finances than even the poorest of the poor and end up giving up even the peace of mind which normally comes with wealth. Though this depiction is indeed a caricature of men, beware for they do exist and the icy touch of the money monger can mean death to the unprotected.
Wealth in itself is just money; paper that literally isn’t even worth the material it is printed on. But the advantages of wealth still cannot be refuted. At every stage of life and at every step on the socio-economic ladder wealth means choice and choice means freedom. This is the very epitome of wealth and whether they know or not this is the reason that everyone strives for greater economic gains. Deep down almost every person in America realizes that in order to accomplish their dreams they need the cold cash to buy the opportunities.
In my opinion, having a happy family life is more important than having a lot of money. Personally, my family is the most important thing in my life. Without my family, I would not be able to be as successful as I am today.
My family is always there for me, and I know I can always count on them. If I need anything, and I mean anything at all. I love my family a lot, and they love me. If I had a bad family, my life would be miserable and all of the money in the world couldn’t make me feel better.
Sure, money is important, but it is not as important as family. If you had a lot of money you could anything you wanted, but you couldn’t buy love. That’s why family is more important. For example, count the times you get a cough, what would you rather turn to money or family. Family, of course, they will always help you through the good times and the bad and won’t ever leave your side. Whereas money can’t last forever.
I think that there is no way a lot of money can give the same amount of happiness as a happy family. So if I had to choose between having all the money in the world or a happy family, I would choose to have a happy family, with no questions asked.
What is “money”? How is the supply of money affected by the aims and the actions of the commercial banks, the central bank, and the government’s financing of the PSBR? The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines money as “a current medium of exchange”. This definition, if rather sparse, does detail the essential nature of money: it is a recognized form of exchange for goods and services.
It can take many forms: anything which is accepted by the seller, because it has a recognized value which can be used to purchase further goods and services, will suffice as money. Why money exists, even in centrally planned economies, is because it is efficient. A barter economy, in which no money was used, requires those wishing to make a transaction to exchange goods and services.
The complexities involved in such a system are immense. For example, an apple seller, wishing to obtain a hammer, would not only have to find a toolmaker wishing to obtain apples but would also need to make an agreement regarding the appropriate apples/hammer exchange rate. The former problem is known by economists as a double coincidence of wants whilst the latter demonstrates the hassle of having to know relative prices, not only for apples and hammers but also for every other good or service in the market.
If, however, one good becomes the numeraire good, and the value of every other good or service was measured in relation to it, transactions will be made much more easily. This numeraire good would become the money of the economy. To be effective, the money will have to fulfill some or, preferably, all of the following. It must be accepted as a unit of account and a means of exchange or payment, be durable, scarce, easily dividable, and stable in value.
In modern societies, coins and notes (token money) are obvious forms of money, but money, and the money supply, take on more forms than just these. Hard currency, such as notes and coins, are considered the most liquid monetary asset there is, as it can quickly be turned into money. Its liquidity is very convenient, but it does not hold its value as well as other assets, as not only does it not earn interest, but also its real value will drop during periods of inflation.
1 is still 1 after a period of time, but due to inflation, its purchasing power will be less. Less liquid assets earn interest and thus are not as affected as money is by inflation, although they are harder to convert to money. It can be argued that sight deposits, which are instant access chequing accounts, are only slightly less liquid than money, as cheques are accepted as a form of payment. Wealth need not be only stored in money but in other, less liquid assets.
The amount of money in an economy is a necessary tool for fiscal policy, and thus it is necessary to know how it can be calculated. The supply of money is the stock of liquid assets in an economy that can be exchanged for goods or services. It is not simply the number of notes, coins, and deposits of banks held at the central bank). This has a number of names: it may be called the monetary base, high-powered money, M0, or narrow money.
This definition of the money supply is rather limited, being not much more than a mere description of how much token money is in circulation and how much is lodged at the central bank. Although other, wider definitions are used, known as broad money, the most common one is M4. This covers all that M0 does, but also non-interest-bearing bank deposits, other bank retail deposits, retail shares and deposits at building societies, and wholesale deposits (including certificates of deposits) at banks and building societies.
It has been argued that the simple summing of M4 to estimate the money supply takes into account neither the liquidity of the various assets nor of their differing abilities to earn interest. M4, it is said, erroneously presumes they are perfect substitutes. The Divisia Index avoids these problems by weighing each component of m4 according to their role in transactions.
This, though, will not affect the theory discussed below. M4 is therefore far larger than M0, and this is mainly due to the actions of banks. If banks merely stored all that was deposited in them, the money supply would not be increased. However, banks realize that not all that is deposited in them will be withdrawn at the same time. Thus, they contribute to the money supply by loaning money.
This can be explained by the use of an example: 100 is deposited in a bank, which has estimated that only 10% of deposits need to be kept (this is its reserve ratio). It now has liabilities of $100, and assets of $100. In order to keep to its 10% ratio, it loans $90 to another customer, keeping $10 in reserves. The money supply has increased by $90 the original depositor still has a deposit of $100, but the borrower now has $90. This $90 will then also be deposited, either in the original bank or another one.
The process will then continue again: the bank will hold 10% and loan the rest. With each deposit and loan, more money is created and enters the money supply, albeit not infinitely. The formula that calculates the total money created by an initial deposit is (1/rr)*D, where rr is the reserve ratio and D is the initial deposit. In this example, with rr=0.1 and D=100, an extra $1000 can be created. The banks have an incentive to do this because they can charge interest on the loans.
The real figure of rr used to be controlled by the government, but nowadays it has been deregulated and can be as low as 0.02! This process is called fractional-reserve banking. There is a risk of a run on the bank occurring, where too many people try and withdraw funds, thus the bank cannot pay them, although these are rare in times of stability. Moreover, many central banks are able to bail out banks in such circumstances.?
The money supply is thus larger than the monetary base. So long as the money is deposited into the banking system, it does not matter which bank it is deposited in- the principle remains the same. This process is known as the money supply multiplier, which tells how much the money supply will rise if the monetary base is expanded. The value of the money supply multiplier is going to be determined by the depositing decisions made by the holds of currency, and the reserve ratio the banks which to have.
It is determined as the ratio of cash to total deposits and the bank’s desired ratio of reserves to total deposits. To calculate its level, the formula below is used. Here, C is the amount of currency, D is the number of total deposits, and R is the desired level of reserves. The multiplier will therefore be: (C+D)/(C+R) As C+D equals the money supply (M) and C+R equals the monetary base (B), the level of the multiplier will be the money supply divided by the monetary base.
With this figure, the formula can be rearranged so the amount the money supply is increased by this process is shown. It is M=mB. A criticism of the money supply multiplier is that people’s desire to deposit is not very stable, although it has been suggested that changes in interest rates may affect the volume of withdrawals and deposits. The supply of money may also be affected by the central bank, which in the UK is the Bank of England.
Firstly, the central bank could do this by setting a required reserve ratio, which would restrict the ability of the commercial banks to increase the money supply by loaning out money, as the money suppler multiplier would be reduced. If this requirement were above the ratio the commercial banks would have wished to have, then the banks will have to create fewer deposits and make fewer loans than they could otherwise have profitably done.
If the central bank imposed this requirement in order to reduce the money supply, the commercial banks will probably be unable to borrow from the central bank in order to increase their cash reserves if they wished to make further loans. They might try to attract further deposits from customers by increasing their interest rates, but the central bank may retaliate by increasing the required reserve ratio. A similar way the central bank can affect the supply of money is through special deposits.
These are deposits at the central bank which the banking sector is required to lodge. These are then frozen, thus preventing the sector from accessing them, although interest is paid at the average treasury bill rate Making these special deposits reduces the level of commercial banks’ operational deposits, which forces them to cut back on lending. In the UK, special deposits have not been used since the 1970s.
The supply of money can also be controlled by the central bank by adjusting its interest rate which charges when the commercial banks wish to borrow money (the discount rate). Banks usually have a ratio of cash to deposits which they consider to be the minimum safe level. If the demand for cash is such that their reserves fall below this level, they will able to borrow money from the central bank at its discount rate.
If market rates were 8%, and the discount rate was also 8%, then the banks could reduce their cash reserves to their minimum ratio, knowing that if demand exceeds supply they will be able to borrow at 8%. The central bank, though, may raise its discount rate to a value above the market level, in order to encourage banks not to reduce their cash reserves to the minimum through excess loans.
By raising the discount value to such a level, the commercial banks are given an incentive to hold more reserves, thus reducing the money multiplier and the money supply. Another way the money supply can be affected by the central bank is through its manipulation of the interest rate. This is akin to the discount rate mentioned above. By raising or lowering interest rates, the demand for money is respectively reduced or increased.
If it sets them at a certain level, it can clear the market at the level by supplying enough money to match the demand. Alternatively, it could fix the money supply at a certain rate and let the market clear the interest rates at the equilibrium. Trying to fix the money supply is not as easy as this essay has suggested, so central banks usually set the interest rate and provide the amount of money the market demands. The central bank may also affect the money supply through operating on the open market.
This allows it to manipulate the money supply through the monetary base. It may choose to either buy or sell securities in the marketplace, which will either inject or remove money respectively. Thus, the monetary base will be affected, causing the money supply to alter. To illustrate this, suppose the central bank sold gilts worth $10 million.
$10 million would flow from the deposits of the purchasers to the central bank, taking the $10 million out of the monetary base. To inject money into the economy, the central bank would have to buy the gilts. The financing of the public sector borrowing requirement (henceforth, the PSBR), may also affect the supply of money. The total PSBR can only be met through the sale of debt, foreign currency reserves, or by increasing the monetary base.
Selling government debt can be done in one of two ways, by selling the debt to the central bank, or by selling it to the non-bank private sector. The former would cause the government’s account with the central bank to be credited with an amount equal to the value of the debt sold. Unfortunately, the spending of these deposits would flow into the banking system, causing the monetary base to rise, increasing the money supply.
It has been said that this is the modern-day version of printing money, which also carries this risk, and this is probably a correct assumption. Does the latter method cause the banks? operational deposits at the central bank to fall, thus reducing the monetary base and the money supply. This only works if companies in this sector, which include insurance group, pension funds, and joint-stock companies, can be persuaded to purchase the debt, which depends on the government’s willingness to accept increasing rates of interest.
Its impact on the monetary base is, therefore, less than what the model suggests, as interest rates are now commonly used to reduce inflation. If commercial banks purchase debt, their operational deposits will obviously be reduced, but will soon recover once the government spends the money. Thus, the money supply would be unaffected. If the foreign exchange markets are intervened with by the government to adjust the exchange rate, there may be an effect on the monetary base and the supply of money.
When the currency is falling, foreign currencies must be sold and the currency must be bought to stabilize its price. The use of deposits of the national currency to do this suggests that the operational deposits of the banking sector must be reduced, causing the monetary base to fall, affecting the supply of money. Conversely, by selling the national currency to reduce its rate, the monetary base will rise.
Securities may be sold on the open market in an attempt to dampen the effects of inflows of the national currency, but this would imply an increase in interest rates and cause the currency to rise further still. A number of institutions can affect the supply of money, but the greatest impact on the money supply is had by the commercial banks and the central bank. The efforts of the government to finance the PSBR may, though, also affect it.
Some people say that money is the root of all evil, but even so, it is realized that one cannot survive without it. Money is a necessity, and most everyone can agree to the fact that financial security can make one’s life easier. The underlying theme of money plays a central role in Henrik Ibsen’s play A Doll House. The economic theme shapes the plot of the play, affects each character’s behavior, and decides the characters? situations.
First, in the plot, readers can quickly see that it is built on economics. One gets this right away when it is revealed that Helmer, Nora’s husband, has just become the new manager of a bank. Not only does his new position bring in financial security, but also the bank itself is a symbol of money or economy. As the story progresses, the reader slowly discovers the financial insecurity that the family had suffered in the past.
Because of the hard times, Helmer was forced to find extra work and his many jobs caused him to become sick. It is based on this previous economic insecurity that Ibsen develops the plot. To save Helmer’s life, Nora is forced to borrow money for a trip that he must take from an old acquaintance, Krogstad. The story revolves around the fact that Nora has kept her borrowing money from Krogstad and slowly paying off her debt monthly an incredible secret from Helmer.
Nora’s secrecy creates an air of tension in the play. ?But that’s the point: he mustn’t know! My Lord, can’t you understand? He mustn’t ever know?? (Meyer, 1572). In the end, economic matters also add to the plot. Driven by the need for financial stability, Nora decides to leave her husband and her family so that she may make a living on her own.
She realizes that she has been dependent on Helmer for everything that she has needed and wishes once and for all to be free of the burden of economic insecurity. ?I have to try to educate myself. You can’t help me with that. I’ve got to do it alone. And that’s why I’m leaving you now? (1609). Another point in the play where money plays a key role in the plot is when Nora’s friend Kristine shows up at her house with not a penny to her name.
Kristine asks Helmer for a position at the bank, which he gladly gives her. But, Helmer does so by firing Krogstad. I’m also aware now whom I can thank for being turned out? Krogstad says angrily (1578). Money obviously plays an important function in the plot of the play.
Aside from the plot, the characters? behaviors and ways of thinking are strongly influenced by economic situations. First, Nora’s behavior can be compared to that of a stereotypical housewife. Because Nora lacks money, she is completely dependent upon her husband for support. Anything she wishes to buy she must first get money from Helmer, and in a way, also get permission. ?You could give me money, Torvald. No more than you think you can spare; then one of these days I’ll buy something with it? (1566).
Nora also equates personal freedom with how wealthy she is. Since she does not work and does not make any money, she does not believe that she is free and allows Helmer to control her. Nora’s psychological attitude is also affected by money. The reader can note how Nora’s mood changes in relation to how much money she has. When Nora has money, it is evident that she is ecstatic and thinking of how to spend it.
When she is lacking money, her character becomes depressed and upset. ?Oh, Kristine, I feel so light and happy! Won’t it be lovely to have stacks of money and not a care in the world?? (1569). In Helmer’s case, he too is easily manipulated with money. The reader can see that Helmer acts more powerfully when he has more money. Helmer believes he is more powerful and is more important than others because he possesses more wealth.
In this way, the fact that Helmer has money affects his relationship with his wife. Helmer treats Nora as if she were a child, someone without knowledge or capability to do anything for herself. Whatever comes, you’ll see; when it really counts I have strength and courage enough as a man o take on the whole weight myself? There, there, there not these frightened dove’s eyes? (1588). Another economic aspect that forms Helmer’s character is that he also does not believe in borrowing money.
He thinks borrowing puts a person in a disadvantageous position and he refuses to ever go into debt. His feelings are evident when he tells Nora, No debts! Never borrow! Something of freedom’s lost and something of beauty too from a home that’s founded on borrowing and debt? (1565). Clearly, wealth and riches influence people’s behavior and ways of thinking.
Finally, throughout the play, the acquisition of wealth plays a function in the character?s situations. In Nora’s case, the fact that she had borrowed money, and done so illegally with a forged signature, puts her in a grave situation where she can be blackmailed by Krogstad. ?Do what you want now. But I’m telling you this: if I get shoved down a second time, you’re going to keep me company? (1580).
Because Nora had to borrow funds, she is now under the control of an unrespectable man and lives in fear that he will reveal her secret. Krogstad and Anne-Marie’s situations are also similarly shaped by monetary needs. In Krogstad’s circumstances, his lack of money forced him to look toward dishonest means of becoming financially secure. As a result, he has created a terribly poor reputation. Krogstad’s lack of money also meant that he could not support his children as he would like to.
Krogstad desperately needed to keep his position at the bank so that he could improve his status and earn money at the same time. I’ll have to win back as much respect as possible here in town. That job in the bank was like the first rung in my ladder? (1578). Quite similarly, Anna-Marie had also had financial problems. So much that she could not take care of her children either.
This caused her to give up her children in order to make money by becoming the family’s nurse. When Nora asked how she could give up her children, Anne-Marie replies, When I could get such a good place? A girl who’s poor and who’s gotten in trouble is glad enough for that? (1584). Another character’s situation shaped by lack of riches was Kristine’s. Kristine had been poor and married for money, not for love.
Needless to say, her marriage fell apart and she was left with nothing. Her situation led her to come to Nora for help. ?If only I could get a steady job, some office work –? (1570). All of these characters? situations were based on financial insecurity and need. In conclusion, the characters of A Doll House, and the play itself, are greatly affected by money.
Do monetary conditions influence the plot of the play, the manners, and conduct of the characters, as well as shape the situations that the characters are in. Economic conditions are the central theme of the play and most aspects of the play revolve around it. Ibsen’s play reflects the importance of money in people’s everyday lives and demonstrates what can happen if one’s focus relies completely on wealth.
In modern times, Money is energy for life and could purchase every thing, but sometimes money can’t buy a truelove. In fact, if we have no money, we won’t spend on our life. Money is as well as blood in our bodies. Therefore, one of us can’t lack it. On the other hand, money isn’t more important than friendship. I would like to tell you about my concerns about money in my life.
First, money to a young man, When I was young, my father always said that is the power of money although it makes a person becomes happy or sad in their life. It effects a mental person. When I was young, I had money. I feel the sky is shiny and bright look like a rose is delicious and beautiful, but when I didn’t hang out, my father knew that I didn’t have money.
At that time I feel that there was a gray dark cloud over my head and my heart got so boring because I couldn’t go with my friend to an entertainment. And then, when I began to work for my life, my father said that is work for life, but not work for money. This is the second thing that I got. Now I have known that means. If a person always thinks about money, they will not be happy and enjoy their life.
Although they have a lot of money, they still feel not enough because they want to be the richest millionaire. For me, I still remember my father’s word that is I have to learn one of the occupations for my life such as engineer, accountant, or businessman.
These methods make money, but work for money is easy to go to jail. Third, money is the devil. Sometimes it makes someone forget their ability. For example, although a constructor works hard, he goes to the casino for a gamble. After a few months, he becomes without responsibility to his family.
Money is the medium used by people to buy the required goods and services. It is used as the source to fulfill basic needs and is also a source of comfort in life. Money is the most important source to live a healthy and prosperous life; however, it cannot be compared with the significance of love and care. Both have their own importance and benefits. Nevertheless, money is a useful and necessary commodity to live contentedly disposing of all your usual liabilities towards your family and loved ones.
Money is the most basic requirement of life without which one cannot fulfill his basic needs and requirements of the daily routine. We can never compare the importance of money with the importance of love or care. When one needs money, love cannot fulfill this requirement and if one needs love, money cannot fulfill this requirement.
Both are highly required for a healthy life but they have their significance and importance separately. Both are required by us on an urgent basis so we cannot rank both on the same scale. We need money everywhere such as to eat food, to drink water or milk, to see TV, news, subscribe newspaper, wear clothing, get admission and many more requirements.
Money is the basic requirement of life without which one cannot imagine a healthy and peaceful life. We need money even buying a little needle. In modern times, where the growth of civilization is going very fast and following western culture, we need more money because of the increasing prices of everything. Earlier there was a system called barter system in which one was allowed to exchange things to get goods however, in the modern one need only money to buy everything.
The importance of money is increasing day by day as living has become so costly. The significance of money has increased to a great extent in the field of production, consumption, exchange, distribution, public finance and etc. It plays a very crucial role in determining the input, income, employment, output, the general price level of anything, etc.
In such a costly and competitive society and the world, no one of us can live without money. We need money to fulfill our basic needs of life such as buying food, and other basic necessities of life which are almost impossible to buy without money. People in the society who are rich and have property are looked at as honorable and respectful people of society however a poor person is seen as hatred without any good impression.
Money increases the position of the person in society and gives a good impression to him. All of us want to be rich by earning more money through a good job or business in order to fulfill all the increasing demands of the modern age. However, only a few people get this chance of completing their dreams of being a millionaire.
So, money is the thing of great importance all through life. Money is required by everyone whether he/she is rich or poor ad living in urban areas or rural areas. People in the urban areas are earning more money than the people living in backward or rural areas as the people of the urban areas have more access to the technologies and get more opportunities because of the easy sources.
There is no doubt that money is so essential for our healthy living. Money is almost everything for us to live a life and maintain good status in society. It is the money that fulfills the need of bringing necessary comforts and amenities of life. If one has money, he/she can get anything in his/her life. It is the money that helps us in developing a good personality, improving confidence, makes us able to creditworthiness, improving capacity, increasing capabilities, and enhancing our courage to a great level.
Without money, we feel helpless and alone in this world where no one is ready to help and assist. In the current materialistic world, money is a very important and powerful thing without which one cannot live and survive. Nowadays, in order to earn more money in the wrong ways, bad people are taking the help of corruption, bribe, smuggling, murder rich people of the society, and other callous activities by degrading the moral and ethical values of humanity.
Lazy people follow the wrong ways to earn money as they understand that these ways are simple and easy however it is not true. One can earn more money in less time and effort but not for long; surely he would be lost in the near future as he is following the wrong and weak way. The people who are earning money by following all the rules of humanity earn less money but for a long time and they become the high-status personality of the society.
People doing corruption save their money as black money in other countries to keep hidden from the common public and use that money for bad works or increasing their physical luxury. However, common people of the society respects a lot to the people earning money using wrong techniques as they have fear of them and little bit greediness that they can get some money in return whenever required by giving them respect.
They are generally called as the bhai or dada or don. Money cannot buy or stay the time as well as cannot give true love and care however highly required by all of us to run the life on the right path. It cannot give time and love however gives happiness, confidence, satisfaction, a feeling of well being mentally and physically, makes life easy by solving all the difficulties, and many more.
Example #7 – interesting ideas
Until the time comes when all things produced are given away for free, there will remain a need to maintain some method of trade. At the present, we use the note for the transfer of goods and services. Electronic money (credit cards) is fast becoming the preferred method of trade. Not necessarily. Remember, humans survived long before money was introduced as a vehicle for trade.
An essay question of the sort that was written in the Yahoo question is answered this way:
Start your essay question with this old phrase, “Never a borrower or a lender be.” a modified idea from the famous philosopher, Aristotle.
Then first, write this One should never borrow money for an emergency but develop local bank savings account with enough savings in the account to provide for your living expenses, rents, and taxes for a period of three months.
Second, borrow from a friend for the expenses for three months. However, if that is done developing a loan form yourself with the amount borrowed, the purpose, and the time and amount to be paid back each month. Honor that contract when it is signed by both parties, the borrower and the lender.
Third, never borrow money for any reason from the storefront pay-day, or cash $300 storefront businesses. They are supported by the local banks and their interest rates on what is borrowed in huge.
Cite this page
This content was submitted by our community members and reviewed by Essayscollector Team. All content on this page is verified and owned by Essayscollector Team. All comments and user reviews are moderated by Essayscollector Team. In the case of any content-related problem, you can reach us through the report button.