Cynically, would there be a greater chance of Peace in the World if Rich Bankers with their appetite to get richer no longer existed?


0|1
2|15

Most Helpful Girl

  • No there would just be some other greedy bastards to take their places. Even if everyone had more money than they could spend there'd be other things to go to war over, religon, race, and whatever else people can come up with to fight about.

    Peace is an illusion for lack of a war or a fight of some kind. There will always be evil, it's a given. Evil balances out good just as night does day, rain balances out sunshine, cold balances out warm, hunters balance out prey.

    0|0
    0|0

Most Helpful Guy

  • Yes, easily.
    Jesus said, "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."
    And I wholeheartedly agree with that

    0|3
    0|0

What Girls Said 1

  • No because someone else will come up. Lack of peace is there to keep balance with peace. Otherwise we won't know peace because all we'd have is lack of wars. And that is not peace.

    0|0
    0|0

What Guys Said 14

  • No because if a poor person hates the rich because they are rich then they are no different. If a poor person demands what another has then the fact that they are poor does not change the fact that they are being selfish. So if their rich or poor selfishness will always exist it does not stick to economic status. Then you have the issue of what is rich? Its relative I am rich compared to some but for most others I would be most certainly impoverished. So what happens when you remove the rich? You will still have poor and you will still have those who have more then them ergo they will still have poor and rich. The more you take the more things will devolve as more people will see it as a reasonable course of action and thus cause a fracturing of society as every one then indulges their selfishness as its perfectly exceptable since its always the fault of the person who has more and their is always a person who has more. This would end up impoverishing everyone instead of eleveating the poor you have simply draged the rich, kind of rich, the middle class and the lower middle class all down to the point of being impoverished. All the while removing any ability you may have to fix the problem, also it would destablize the societal system and result in everything falling apart as being able to work together is the only thing that keeps us functioning. Furthermore power will always cause people to fight so its not even always money, similar though it may appear their is a difference.

    0|0
    0|0
  • To do that you'd have to eliminate human nature, greed among many things are as natural to us as the air we breath.

    Just like everyone has the capacity and the ability to be a horrible, cruel and cold person or even a killer. All humans inherently have the ability and the will to be greedy, all it takes is a taste and you can quite easily get swept up in the life of the rich.

    Sometimes greed stems from pure intentions like wanting to be financially secure for your family or soon to be family. Or to help pay the bills or pay for medicine or a surgery, or taking care of someone something like that. And that can lead to wanting to get more and more money, and then the spiral down the rabbit hole begins.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Yes.. People and thier way was detroyed by being devalued against the value of the monetary holdings for interets rates instead. Which grew atromnomically high in portion against human value as status quo.

    0|1
    0|0
  • yes i think so

    0|0
    0|0
  • It's not only the bankers who have that appetite to get richer.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Yes. Many wars in history would not have been a reality if it was not for them. Almost all wars over the course of history have been executed with loaned money.

    0|1
    0|0
  • No, and Yes. Some groups are not financially motivated to harm others, and their reasons for doing it may stem from political or religious beliefs.

    0|0
    0|0
  • That might be true, but greed will always be deep seeded with an our thoughts. Most people are greedy and one way or another.

    0|0
    0|0
  • People would find another excuse to fight if money wasn't a factor. Religion's a good one.

    0|0
    0|0
  • To a good degree i would say yes: it could heal a lot of the problems we as a people face in today's world of monopolization, but on the flip side there will always be others that will fill the void. I think the defect lies more in the system than it does individuals, although there are those who know fully well what they do & to them the ends will always justifies the means, we need take the source they draw there power from or we will just keep seeing repeated history.

    0|0
    0|0
    • 3mo

      when i say 'take' i mean it needs to be handed back over to the government of the people and not private interest

  • No, their loss of earning would dramatically effect the economy. What we need is to bolster back up middles class employment and salaries. They support the economy, hence the "Great Recession "

    0|0
    0|0
  • Religious nuts disrupt the peace, not the rich.

    0|0
    0|0
  • No. Rich bankers are a relatively recent phenomenon, yet there seemed to be quite a few wars.

    Wars are ultimately about power and resources. If banking wasn't a source of power, there would be powerful people in other areas pulling the strings. That said, I think bankers have relatively little impact on war policy. There are organizations that make money off war much more directly.

    0|0
    0|0
  • ISIS are bankers?

    0|1
    0|0
Loading...