Evaluate our own discourse community, think about target audience, generate contribution and platform. Contribution will be set and expressed through platform. Opening will point to contribution and determine the context and key point, then expand and give detail to what research has been done and facts that have been found and already been done and also what we are adding. Add pictures, videos, articles, blog, personal opinions and comments, etc. Determine audience formal or informal? Tone, context, specifics, and mood of text suited to audience. Make sure to include additional required elements of format for platform (ex. index, page numbers, colors, size of text, MULTIMEDIA!, illustrations, music, symbols, keys, web addresses, sources, etc.). Add personal media, perspectives and input. Put this in general authority, not just specific to the class.
-Call for submission journal money
How can people be convinced to think about the environmental consequences of their behaviors? New research suggests one surprising piece of the answer may be: Pay them a salary, rather than an hourly wage.
In five studies, described in the journal Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, they consistently found that “thinking about the economic value of time decreases environmental behavior.”
-Call for submission journal saving money
Nearly every time the wind blows in Mower County, Minnesota property taxes drop.
-Call for submission journal world without currency
The 2007-2008 global financial and economic crisis precipitated a significant shift in the financial regulatory worldview (or paradigm) of political and central bank leaders from leading advanced and emerging states. With a common consensus on the required financial reforms, these actors moved swiftly to create a new organization. The Financial Stability Board (FSB) now stands at the centre of the global regulatory architecture, but it remains obscure, opaque, and closed to most external observers. The FSB needs to change as it matures to reflect its key role in global financial reform efforts.
Two ways of thinking about the causation of the Great Recession are contrasted: the ‘mainstream approach’ and the ‘monetary interpretation’. According to the mainstream approach, the Great Recession was due to the potential insolvency of the banking system and the correct antidote was tighter regulation. The paper proposes an alternative ‘monetary interpretation’, arguing that the macroeconomic trajectory of the major G7 economies in the Great Recession is readily understood by means of the monetary theory of the determination of national income. The main cause of the Great Recession is seen as a collapse in the annual growth rate of broad money from double-digit annual rates in the years before mid-2008 to virtually zero in the following three years. Further, the dominant reason for the money growth collapse was the abrupt and comprehensive tightening of bank regulation in late 2008. In particular, the raising of regulatory capital/asset ratios was a shock that intensified the downturn.
The recent financial crisis has reignited interest in the role of money and credit in driving economic activity. This article takes a broad overview of the historical data available for assessing the link between money, credit and activity, using the quantity theory of money as an organising framework. The article shows that when trying to apply this theory to historical data, a complicated interaction between money and nominal spending emerges. And a deeper understanding of the forces driving money demand and supply is required to interpret the information contained in money about the level of activity and inflation.
The severe financial crisis that grips Spain has multiple causes. One has been the massive and continued expansion of the money supply since Spain’s accession to the Eurozone, and the non-negligible effects of this expansion on asset prices as well as on the structure of the economy. We analyse the main hypotheses underlying the mainstream macroeconomic models used in recent years to explain inflation and its relation to money. We then apply an ‘unobserved component model’ to test for the cyclical relation between money growth, inflation, asset (stock and real estate) prices and real GDP in Spain from 1998 to 2013. Based on the Spanish experience, our main finding is that, even though the money supply has become endogenous within the monetary strategy developed by the US Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank in recent times, the broad money supply and asset prices have shared the same cyclical component in the latest business cycle (1998–2013).
It comes down to real and direct interactions with other human beings. People are not corporate entities, they have feelings. They need to connect. The connection brings openness, availability and understanding. “For me,” says Jerry, “a breakthrough thought is that money is just a form of energy. Empathy is just a form of energy.” And furthermore, he says, “we can have this dialogue about how if everything we do is a means of reinforcement for our interdependence and interconnectedness as beings, then hot damn! We don’t have to be so alone!”
“Let me tell you something. There’s no nobility in poverty. I’ve been a poor man, and I’ve been a rich man. And I choose rich every time” – Leonardo DeCaprio as Jordan Belfort, The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
-Call for submission journal social behavior money
We develop an intricate theory with provocative implications: Procedural justice produces obedience. For “individualists”, interactional justice inspires loyalty and, interestingly, distributive justice “can only buy” participation, but “can’t buy” loyalty. Therefore, for individualists, interactional justice outweighs distributive justice for organizational loyalty. Based on Kyrgyz citizens’ justice, OCB, and individualism, our theory reveals novel insights regarding culture, money attitude, and intrinsic motivation and provides critical and practical implications to the field of business ethics.
Online Library Wiley
- Money-is-all attitude;
- cross-cultural comparison;
Money is increasingly being attributed more value in society, although a money-is-all attitude decreases social relationships and increases alienation in modern, industrialized societies. This research investigated the influence of this money-is-all attitude on alienation based on a cross-cultural comparison of Korea, the US and Sweden. The money-is-all attitude was defined as a perspective in which money is regarded as an indicator of achievement or success.
Self-administered online surveys were conducted with consumers ranging between the ages of 20 to 49 in Korea, the US and Sweden. The money-is-all attitude and alienation seemed to be more pervasive in Korea than in the US or Sweden. The money-is-all attitude was the factor with the strongest influence on alienation when controlling for socio-demographic factors. Furthermore, participation in sports activities was an important factor in decreasing alienation levels. The findings of this research imply that materialistic ways of thinking increase alienation and that money cannot contribute to human happiness and well-being. In addition, active participation in social activities can decrease alienation.
The research results suggest that a materialistic, money-is-all attitude negatively influences alienation across cultures; in addition, in the US, an affluent consumption-based country, the money-is-all attitude had more explanatory power for alienation than in Sweden and Korea. A change in values to overcome the money-is-all attitude is required and the concepts of sufficiency and mindfulness are suggested as alternative life perspectives for the pursuit of well-being.
Surname, Initials (year), “Article title”, Newspaper, date, pages.
e.g. Smith, A. (2008), “Money for old rope”, Daily News, 21 January, pp. 1, 3-4. – See more at: http://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/products/journals/author_guidelines.htm?id=ijebr#sthash.f4sqL0jc.dpuf
Journals Elsevier Search
Throughout working on this inquiry project, both of my group members and I have been exploring different avenues of this topic. Each of us were assigned specific questions that we were to try and answer about our topic, through our individual research. During this process we have all been realizing just how difficult it is to find sources and concrete research on this topic. Given the fact that our main question is “what would the world be like without money?” is a hypothetical question, research on this topic is limited. Even with these constraints, I believe my group and I are doing a great job so far evaluating the possibilities and picking apart this topic.
Ellana’s job in in this inquiry process is evaluating the questions: Psychology between owing someone something, why as humans do we need to be paid back? And was there a turning a point for money to come into existence? One thing I’ve noticed since reading Ellana’s posts is that she has a great line of clear thinking that goes into her writing, you can really she the definitive avenues she choses to go down throughout her research and writing. There is a great amount of detail she presents and lots of intriguing questions she asks to further her writing process. So far, I think she is doing a great job with her part of this inquiry project. One suggestion I might have for her is to explore different areas of thinking, try and piece things that seem unrelated to the topic into new directions of her writing.
Larissa’s job in this inquiry process is evaluating the questions: How did currency develop in cultures? And how did bartering turn into currency? One thing I’ve noticed since reading Larissa’s posts was how great her research is and how much she is able to relate things from her sources into answering her specified inquiry questions. However, I am beginning to realize a narrowing of the topic instead of a broadening. I realize this is because she has the challenging job of taking fact based material and trying to turn it into something more abstract or create a new line of thinking while still remaining on topic and within the confines of her specified questions. She has given great detail so far in her writing and I feel like if she could continue this same way of writing while branching out a little more, she could accomplish a lot through her writing on this topic. One word of advice I would give to her would be to not to be scared to go completely out of range in her research from what she has been typically sticking to At this point our questions will be changing no matter how hard we try and that’s okay. It will allow for more opportunities and knowledge on exploring different angles of this theoretical society and its true potential.
One thing that is extremely influential in today’s society is money. Many times people’s entire lives depend on it and the success of their careers to bring in as much money as possible. But just imagine what the world would be like it without it. Would the world turn to madness and have to structure or economy? Or would we function off of trade and favors out of generosity and the willingness to help others?
Personally, I believe the world really would be a better place if money never developed. I believe that most people who do some of the hardest most taxing job often get less appreciation and get paid much less than those in positions of less taxing jobs. It’s just the way our society has developed. Due to the high interest in more material things in life and the need for so many jobs in the electronic or technological field of advancement, a lot of times people forget about the “little people” who keep the rest of the world running like it’s supposed to. Maybe our world shouldn’t rely so much on these advancements. I’m not saying they never should’ve developed, but I don’t agree with how high of a demand our society has for these things. Like cell phones. I love my phone, but one time I went an entire summer without a cellphone and instead of working at my moms graphic design office answering phones, I volunteered at a children’s center and helped with daycare and keeping the facility clean. Its jobs like that and other manual labor jobs that should be among the most important. And not having my phone for that entire summer was honestly kind of refreshing.
There are many different opinions on this particular subject, on man in a post I read says “…society would split itself into various Groups/Sects based on Profession and then there would be exchange of Raw Material, Grocery, Clothe, Precisions Stones and Goods…. It would be a world that would justify certain social inequalities that exist today…” One thing we could identify here is “social inequalities”; what are these social inequalities? Are these in terms of recognition for hard work? Funding for more unnecessary projects rather than necessary projects? For example, would the farmers and construction workers success tower over the computer IT guys, or the founders of programs such as Microsoft or Apple, or maybe ever cellphone companies?
One thing that could be left up to dispute in this statement however, is “society would split itself into various Groups/Sects based on Profession”. How do we know that would actually happen? Would people break off into groups based on what they are already doing or would they instead break away and try accepting and learning new skills given this new opportunity in society? Would they maybe experience something new in light of being able to have greater and easier access to being able to lean a new profession? This statement isn’t really absolute, there is no actual way to predict how people would react in terms of productivity when it comes to a huge societal change.
A man named Richard Luster claims “Our technology is now at a level where we can comfortably provide for everyone without the need for hard labor… We don’t need money to build machines, we can just build them. Tasks that can’t be automated can be rotated among a populace who would be more than happy to dedicate a small portion of their time to a community that sustains them.” One term to evaluate here is “comfortable provide” a lot of times in our society, what one person believes to be “comfortable living” may not necessarily be the same thing for another. Due to the extreme differences in income and lifestyles of our society it would most likely be hard for people to agree upon a common standard of what “comfortable living” is. People are always going to have varying standards and desires for their way of living.
One statement that could raise question or add complication to the general idea is “…rotated among a populace who would be more than happy to dedicate a small portion of their time to a community that sustains them.” Would people really be that easily persuaded and motivated to work for free or just for the good of society? Would there have to be other compensation or incentive given for people to actually get up and out and work and do their necessary jobs? Would a trade system have to be put forth in order to maintain a natural balance of what does what and who is owed what?
In general, the idea of a world without money could potentially be an amazing and easier way of living. It could allow people to do more of the jobs they want to do instead of the ones they feel they “need” to do because of the income it brings. However, there are many aspects of living in a society like this that would have to be handled and carefully accessed to create a specific set of rules or a system for exchange and trade in order to keep order within the society. I believe there is much potential for a society with such values and standards, it would just require extreme enforcement.
Upon my writing for Inquiry Logs 1 and 2 and approaching Log 3, “Extending Ideas” is one of the key components of this process. My topic, Money’s Connection to Humanity, I have been searching for credible sources and acknowledging the fact that I have to build my own ideas on top of the ideas of others who have already evaluated this topic. It is extremely important when extending upon others ideas, that one doesn’t have a single minded view or filter to the ides. It is vital that the ideas you extend upon have multiple view points. This goes along with understanding the writer’s frames. The writer’s frame is kind of like the lens in which the writing is viewed through. It is the writer’s focus point of theme or persuasion of the piece. Every piece of writing should have a good frame or view point through which it is seen.
There are many possibilities when it comes to a society and its economy. In our society we have a strong focus on money and the possibilities it can open for us. But imagine a world without it. Do you think it is even possible? Maybe it could be if money never came into existence? But could there still be any chance of converting to a world without it, or is it too late? These are just a few of the questions I have found I am asking myself while inquiring about this topic. The issues at hand for this topic are: Is a world without money a realistic possibility in today’s society? If there were no money, would we have an alternative type of currency? Or would be simply use a trade system? And if there were no money, could that potentially limit the advancement of technology today?
In Jacques Maritain’s, A Society Without Money, he talks about a theoretical society being converted from one based on money in its transition to a world where trade is used and money is seized by the government. He says, “Trade with other countries, who live under the regime of money, requires that our State possess a supply of money kept in a special fund to which it alone will have access.” To me the frame and focus through which he is speaking is almost communistic. He is speaking about total government control of money and having the people run on a trade system. A society where any money used in trade with other countries would be taken by the government and they would have total control over it. I believe this relates to my inquiry because it shows one way of a society being run without money. This could have a very negative impact on the people of such a society. The compliance of citizens to the government is really at stake in a situation like this. One question I have for this theoretical situation is how would one anticipate people going along with government being in complete control of money and the economy? Would members of such a society trust the government to keep the peace and develop a trade system? Or how might people stay motivated to work if they aren’t getting paid?
Another source I found on this topic was on the article “No More Money” this author claims that without money, “There would be no rich or poor. People don’t need to work hard because they don’t need to have lots of money to spend for their daily needs. They just need to hunt for their food. There will be no war. No racists, too, because there’s no supreme race or blood. Without money, there’s equality.” I believe the issue at hand with this statement is people working hard. Who is to say whether or not people would have to work hard? There may be people who are used to never having to work who suddenly are forced to work. Or for others, those who work excessively will no longer have to work so hard because their world won’t be based off of solely how much money they have to make. The focus or frame this writer has is on a society being more equal if money were eliminated. They are trying to explain how life would be more simplistic and reasonable if money didn’t exist. Theoretically, there would be more peace in the world without money. I feel like this relates to my inquiry because it is a different view on how a society without money would affect the people. This person believes that without money, people would have a better work ethic, but a more reasonable level of how hard they have to work. One question I have for this writer would be, if money weren’t the determining factor in class or status, would something else not just take its place creating different classes? Would there really be equality or are we as a society doomed to inequality no matter the object, money or something else?
One very interesting article I found was on the Venus Project. This is a theoretical society developed by a man who truly believes in a thriving society without money. He claims that “It appears that the real wealth of any nation is in its natural resources and its people who are working toward a more humane life-style through the elimination of scarcity. All social systems, regardless of the political philosophy, religious beliefs, or social mores, ultimately depend upon natural resources…” This is yet another view on how and what or society really depends upon. This writer’s focus and frame is on the fact that we don’t actually rely on money, we rely on our own natural resources to which most of which don’t even have a price. I believe this relates to my inquiry because he believes that a society without money could work due to the fact that we are already provided with the materials we need to survive. And that these necessary things are already provided to us at no cost. One question I have for this writer is, what would happen to the society if people became greedy with these natural resources? What and who would mediate between who gets what and how much of it they get? Would a trade system have to be brought into existence in order to sustain equality?
One last source I found was by Paul Piff. He wrote an article and conducted a seminar called “Does Money Make You Mean?” I this article it states, “through surveys and studies, Piff and his colleagues have found that wealthier individuals are more likely to moralize greed and self-interest as favorable, less likely to be prosocial, and more likely to cheat and break laws if it behooves them.” The issue at hand here is, could money be poisoning our minds? Has our society conformed to a more selfish and immoral way of life because of the prevalence of money in the importance of our every day lives? I believe the Piff’s focus and frame in this article is to explain that as much as we as a society love and appreciate everything money does for us, is it morally justifiable? He tries to explain how psychologically money has a negative affect on the mind and it drives us to do things we wouldn’t be as likely to do without the influence of money. This article applies to my inquiry because it addresses the psychology behind money’s affects on our society and a person in general, through poles and statistics. One question I have for Piff would be, how would you suggest dealing with these psychological affects? Do you think they are inevitable whether or not money is the object of selfishness or if anything could take its place? Also, do you think people would be more generous and law biding if money weren’t so influential in society, or even nonexistent?
What is at stake with all of these findings is the potential for a society without money. There are many people who truly don’t believe in this idea and find it completely unrealistic. However, there are people who have hope in bettering society and hope to stray away from a society based so heavily on money. I hope that in further researching this topic, I will find better ways to expand the possibilities of a society such as this.
In society, we have a major dependency on money to keep this economy afloat. Often times, money causes such stress in people’s lives for those who don’t have much of it. My inquiry groups question was, “what is money’s connection to humanity?” I guess what we are really asking is more so, what and why, money has become so important to our society. My two focus points in entering this large question are: What would happen if money never developed in our society? And If we still used trade system how would that affect our advancement in technology?
The first question I attempted to answer upon my ‘listening’ process was “what would happen if money never developed in our society?” This was a little tricky to answer especially because there is no definitive, general consensus to this question, given that it’s hypothetical. One post I found about this question was “…society would split itself into various Groups/Sects based on Profession and then there would be exchange of Raw Material, Grocery, Clothe, Precisions Stones and Goods…. the people who know farming/carpentry/blacksmiths/potters etc would probably be at a greater advantage compared to others. It would be a world that would justify certain social inequalities that exist today…” (N, 2013). Another man spoke about the 1960’s mince experiment conducted by John B. Calhoun. In this experiment, the mice were provided with anything they needed all the time and lived blissfully and easily. Then one day some mice went mad and because aggressive and cannibalistic. After these less stable mice weeded themselves out, there population was left to the few calm and gentle minded mice who then reproduced and rebuilt the population with what would basically be a highly intelligent bread of mice. There could be many pros and cons to both of these situation but one article I came across by a man named Viswanathan, was about the eight components of an economy that would be in contrast to todays society, if the world didn’t have money. These eight components are: Matrix Problem leading to high cost of transaction, multiple grades, verification of authenticity, things get spoiled and hence savings become impossible, banks will die, transfer of money will get really hard, taxation and data collection will be real problem, indivisibility problem. Each of these components is very important in in our economy today.
My second question of this idea was even harder to answer, being that there is not way to actually test this theory, and it is mainly just ideas and hypotheses. An article written by Andrew Beattie says, “Bartering is a direct trade of goods and services – I’ll give you a stone axe if you help me kill a mammoth – but such arrangements take time. You have to find someone who thinks an axe is a fair trade for having to face the 12-foot tusks on a beast that doesn’t take kindly to being hunted. If that didn’t work, you would have to alter the deal until someone agreed to the terms.” This example shows that the process of bartering is one that takes time and acquaintances and knowing the people well. Money however, isn’t thought about with such great details. You simply want something, and you use money to get it. As far as trade affection technology, I believe it may have an affect on how quickly our society develops new technologies. Given the amount of times it takes to make exchanges and deals with people for needed materials and recourses, the speech of this process would most likely drag behind the rate of which new idea and projects of people develop. This would in turn theoretically slow down our technological advancement of society. But who is to say that is a bad thing? Aren’t there many people today who wish for a less technology-involved society? If we had never switched to a money based economy, maybe we wouldn’t know any different and me more happy and content with a world less focused on technology.