When the focus/fixation is on a person, rather than performance, gossip is inevitable. Is jockeying for status equally inevitable?

What makes people think they can make others hate or like them?

Personous people. They create the illusion that they care about others, but the other is merely a foil or standard for self-significance.

The inessential and insubstantial nature of money allows it to be abused with abandon. Not only is it worthless, but there is always more. So, there is no reason to be careful, cautious or economical. That latter point is particularly significant in a society where economy has become synonymous with money.

So, while the original intent of economic behavior was to avoid waste and enhance usefulness, as money became ubiquitous, the original intent evaporated into the ether.

Is the monetary economy esoteric? I have compared it to theologians becoming fascinated by angels dancing on pins. Perhaps it is another example of the triumph of the idea over the real–or the res. The thought over the thing.

We never hear materialism decried anymore. I wonder why.

If thought is disconnected or unconnected to the material world does the lie matter at all?

When one is dealing in figments of the imagination, what consritutes a fraud?

Well, we have a large and growing body of non-productive persons who claim a share of what is produced for moving things and people around. They are the commercial class and the entrepreneurs and the “managers” whose functions and behaviors are actually left out of economic calculations. Why? In large part because economists (who are themselves non-productive) took over the binary model which accountants had developed in the interest of promoting accuracy in their summations. (If everything is counted twice and the resukts are the same, there is a better chance the sums are correct). The reality, of course, is that there are many more players in an economy than the two designated agents (sellers and buyers or producers and users). And then there is the fact that currency, an inanimate participant in any transaction, has been transformed from a practical universally available tool into an agent of restriction and control.

If currency/money were a simple measuring tool like the inch or the ounce or even just a symbol like the script we use to represent meaningful sounds, rather than being rationed and distributed to privileged entities, then it could not be used to regulate and restrict enterprise as it is. It is my sense that the accumulation of currency by select individual players, which is facilitated by exempting them from returning it to the issuer, is designed to disguise the interest in keeping currency relatively scarce. Congress is supposed to distribute the currency into the economy as needed. Instead, it distributes some and lets the Treasury distribute some to designated middlemen, the banks, who then determine who is qualified to receive and use more of this inherently unlimited asset.

Currency is an instrument of control. This leaves us with the question,”why are public servants trying to exercise control?”