You simply cannot have everyone assuming the position of the average - middle class. If we always reset everyone to the same average wealth... there would be no point in exchanging resources and services because you are never going to become wealthier for it. — Benj96

Why would that be the case? You'd still have to actually exchange resources, because not everyone would have the same resources or do the same job.

I saw a meme the other day where one women is telling another women (paraphrased) "If you raise wages then the cost of goods and services will go up." The other woman says "So you agree, capitalism does not provide upward mobility for the middle class?"

Anyway, I think all the "down sides" exist, or would exist without money. Money is just convenient. I don't think it exacerbates distinctions or problems.

As is always the case, if you want to fix a problem, fix people. The problem is, the rich want to fix the poor instead of themselves. The poor want to fix the rich, instead of themselves. Neither perceives themselves as having a problem. But both need to be fixed; especially those who don't perceive a problem.

People can be unethical, not money.

People can be unethical, not money — James Riley

Agreed any ethical concern comes from the animate aware conscious beings involved not the paper bills/ notes that sit there as a symbol of value and nothing else.

So I guess you’re right even if we remove money from the equation and used a bartering system the same phenomenon of poverty and wealth emerges.

So my question then would be is greed or sharing the more natural state of the human psyche? Or do we have equal capacity for both?
We know that the poor are somewhat looked after by people who are better off but interesting it doesn’t correlate with wealth. Most philanthropists are middle class do gooders not the wealthiest 1%.

I have my suspicions that it is when one has a taste of poverty and then becomes more affluent that they remember to give back. When one has never had to come even close to begging they cannot possibly sympathise.

So my question then would be is greed or sharing the more natural state of the human psyche? Or do we have equal capacity for both? — Benj96

We have the capacity for both. However, I am aware of some indigenous, tribal cultures where the biggest, baddest, strongest, most-looked-up-to, admired and respected man was the one who gave the most to the community, and particularly to those who could least fend for themselves. This person became the de facto leader in a community that eschewed (generally) the idea of leadership:

"What do we want to do about that problem over there (enemy tribe, drought, game migration, whatever)? Let's ask Bob."

It was a classic case of where a virtue had been made of necessity; an evolutionary outcome where those who could function like a pack, working together, would succeed, and those who could not would succumb. No one was mandated to participate and there was no physical or verbal punishment. There was, however, ostracization (i.e. "consequences" or "cancel culture) which is a good thing; a peaceful method of social engineering which maintains respect for the individual and freedom of choice.

When you think about it, the best provider could provide more than he could use. It would rot if he didn't share. He could just receive less in the first place, but it was to his evolutionary advantage to receive more than he could use and then share it with those who made him stronger. (I use "receive" when talking of the Earth, because the word "take" sounds so inconsiderate, disrespectful, and presumptuous).

This is where we get the idea that single payer, universal health care is a human, or natural right. We look at man in his natural state and see that a huge, unique, distinguishing character of man found in the archeological record, going back to Neandertals and before, was the fact we took care of the sick, lame, stupid, lazy and crazy.

I think sharing is the more natural state of the human psyche. Even where "greed is good" the enlightened man uses what early philosophers of capitalism (during the Enlightenment) called "enlightened self-interest" or "self-interest properly understood"). We've only fallen away from that since the greedy were allowed to delude themselves into thinking they were capable of defying the laws of physics by pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps. Some have made a virtue of our demise. Sometimes, if they can't learn the lesson on their own, we have to remind them. Sometimes we use a guillotine. It's always best if we can avoid that. But we need their help. They have to want to learn. If they refuse, we do what comes naturally.

I remember an Indian (American) once told me a story about a kid who grew up on a reservation getting bullied by this other guy from very early. The bullying continued from adolescence up until he was about 25 or 30 years old. The bully harassed, poked fun at, and generally hazed the person all his life. During this time, the kid worked hard and quiet and diligent and patient. He eventually became a well-respected, relatively wealthy man who helped others in the community. One year at the annual Pow Wow, all the people were there, drumming, singing, trading, eating, engaging in ceremony and otherwise carrying on like his people do at Pow Wow. Then came the time for "Giveaway."

During Giveaway ceremony, people deliver to the center of the circle a gift that they want to give to someone else in the community. Blankets, baskets of food, animal skins and other good and valuable things are brought to the center. Some elders would then go to the center, pick up an item, call out a name and the person would go forward to receive the gift. When the bully was called he went forward and was given the keys to a big, brand new Ford F-250 Pickup Truck. Every one in the tribe new what had happened. Lessons were learned by those who didn't know any better, or who had forgotten; but especially by the children. And that was the end of the matter.

What do we find virtuous? That will tell us who we are. It's not what we actually are, but the ideals that we aspire to, and the extent of our effort/struggle toward it, which is important. If we make a virtue of necessity, all but the sick will aspire to it.

So I guess you’re right even if we remove money from the equation and used a bartering system the same phenomenon of poverty and wealth emerges. — Benj96

It should perhaps be noted that the alternative to money is not bartering - bartering presupposes a basic notion of money, though not necessarily of currency.

The alternative to money would be a form of natural socialism, as it exists in band and tribal societies, where goods are simply shared without any commercial relationship resulting. The problem is that this relies on personal relationships which are simply not plausible for modern population densities.

So my question then would be is greed or sharing the more natural state of the human psyche? Or do we have equal capacity for both? — Benj96

Greed already implies a moral judgement. We have a desire for security and status, and this desire can lead to behaviour we judge as greedy. There is not ultimately a disconnect between this and our inclination to share - they result from the same desires.

I have my suspicions that it is when one has a taste of poverty and then becomes more affluent that they remember to give back. When one has never had to come even close to begging they cannot possibly sympathise. — Benj96

Possibly, though personal charity is, in my opinion, not a convincing foundation for a society.

. Sure ...

. Otherwise ... money ... as such ... would not be politically legitimized ... and ... would not be a mean towards an end ... or even ... an end towards an end ...

. People are dependent on ethics ... they can't live without that which is not ... ironically ...

. And ... money ... is a mean ... where people through it ... can ... negotiate throughout their whole Life ... in order ... to put their lives more and more miserably comfortable ...

. So ... to people ... money is an end unto itself ... therefore ... your so-called ethics ... as the mean ... justify anything that you do with money ...

. This is what I call - power politics ...

Money seems to have two dimensions to it with respect to its value. The only good analogy that comes to mind is philately [stamp collection]. A stamp, back in the days before email, had two kinds of value viz. 1) to send mail (a use that's dying out or is already nonexistent) and 2) as part of a philatelist's precious collection.

Money too has a more or less similar value pattern viz. 1) purchasing power (buy stuff) and 2) as a collector's item in a manner of speaking (hoarding greenbacks, gold, etc.)

As for the ethics of money, both what one spends money on and how much of it one collects can matter, right? The two seem related in quantitative terms as the amount one possesses will vary inversely with the amount one spends.

However, if you must know, to seek the link between ethics and money per se seems to be, in a sense, a misconception. One only has to turn the pages of a history book to realize that - ethical and unethical deeds motivated by economics predate money, by thousands of years in all likelihood.

That said, money is, all said and done, a unique economic invention and it could be that there ethical issues exclusive to it. Analyzing the ethics of money would then require us to get a handle on the modus operandus so to speak of money and what psychological aspects of humans are vulnerable to such.

personal charity is, in my opinion, not a convincing foundation for a society. — Echarmion

:100: Bingo!

When we grow beyond the population levels which allow for the old band/tribal protocols, and enter the realm of modern population densities, we need a state. Personal charity (an old band/tribal protocol) relieves the state of some of it's obligations that come with the reason for it's existence in the first place (population densities). Relieved of those obligations (at least in part) frees the state up to engage in other activities inimical to the best interests of the people.

That is why I always hesitate to do for the state what I feel it should be doing with my tax dollars. It's not like if I give $100.00 to X, then the state will double down on my contribution. No. The state will instead reduce what it gives to X by $100.00 and use that $100.00 for Y (gun-boat diplomacy, subsidizing favorites, etc.).

Then we have the large donors. They are not unlike the crime lord, providing goods and services to buy the loyalty of the community in which they operate. The plutocrats on the one side; the cartels on the other, and government left in the middle as punching bag for the people, blaming it for their woes. The plutocrats and crime lords chuckle all the way to the bank. They keep government running at an anemic level just for that reason.

money is, all said and done, a unique economic invention and it could be that there ethical issues exclusive to it. — TheMadFool

One of those "ethics" is the case where the law actually mandates a fiduciary take all legal action to look out for the best economic interest of beneficiaries (shareholders, et al), even if that action is otherwise unethical or immoral. So the law says what is "ethical" (even it's not) and provides legal cover for fiduciaries. There are some limits, but an unscrupulous POS can pass the red face test and still sleep at night.

Compare: Lawyers are compelled to zealously represent their client's interest and, justice is supposed to come out of the fray, as determined by an independent, neutral third party. However, lawyers work under a ton of limitations on their advocacy, ethics, statutes, rules and bar oversight, along with insurance, etc. CEO's, Fiduciaries, not so much. Money can buy law makers.