If money doesn't rule the world, according to a lot of people, then why do a lot of people, not want to be poor?

[Anonymous]

[andreasderjuengere]

Not to be ''ruled'', but still using money as a tool to supply oneself aren't the same things.
Or with other words: Without ''money'' I can always trade my (hypothetical) farming products for other goods.
But when I have no goods at all - that makes me ''poor''.

[Asker]

When you have nothing to get those goods, you're poor, right? I mean, someone who has it all, is rich. So, the opposite, is poor

[andreasderjuengere]

I can get goods by growing them, mining them, inventing them, making them?
I would not have money still - am I poor?
Also: ''your'' house, ''your'' car, ''your'' business... all based on credit/loans and so actually owned by some bank or investor - are ''you'' rich?

[Asker]

Until you pay it off

[andreasderjuengere]

So I'd say: until 'you' paid off you had volunteered to be ruled by the bank - which represents ''money''.
But that was a free decision - to be unfree.
As an alternative, one could live with less, but is free to decide.
If we make a definition that ''poor'' is the absence of monetary means, then I can agree to it.
But I still have this idea that one can be kind of well enough off with not one cent in his pockets.

[andreasderjuengere]

The mysterious AI Bot has spoken. - - - q. e. d.
( :D )

[OddBeMe]

Common issue, but like all things moderation is key to happiness. Research finds people making $70k are happiest. Just enough to live, take vacations yet value the things you save up for.

[BarryLiverstone]

Because money provides resources

[andreasderjuengere]

How about: It doesn't :) The resources are there anyway - if money's present, or not.

[BarryLiverstone]

Untrue. If I don’t pay, the bank would take away my house. By me having money to pay the shelter is provided to me

[Asker]

The reason he has a house, is BECAUSE he has the money to