Basics of Making Money
I will give you the basic theory behind making money, and how it can be done in practice in this article.
First of all money, in it's ideal form is a representation of the purchasing power over the economy. So 1 unit of money should represent 1 unit of purchasing power, and all units of money represent all power over the economy. Money is power, it is purchasing power, and it's a logical construct where the entire economy is divided into units of money, so technically the more money you have the the more power you have over that economy.
Currency
Currency doesn't necessarily represent accurately the purchasing power over the economy, and therefore it's not money, because it's a phony unit of measurement, in a very flawed financial system that we live in today.
Not symmetric
It is not symmetric, meaning that ideally, when the economy grows, you are making money. But when the economy shrinks, you don't necessarily have to lose money, because there are always sectors that are blossoming.
Inflation
Also we don't live in an ideal world, and there is a thing called inflation, that is siphoning away your purchasing power every second. So if you don't multiply your capital by a higher rate than the inflation, then you are losing money, even though it may look like you are making money, that's just an illusion that the politicians want you to believe.
You can calculate your net worth like this, and figure out if you actually make money or not:
The Theory
The theory is very simple, because money is a representation of the economy, the honest way to make money is to invest in areas that are growing in the economy. Now that be:
- Capital investment, where you invest your existing capital into projects or areas that generate a positive return
- Labor investment, where you invest your physical or mental labor and skills into things that will give you a financial reward
- Time investment where you spend your time to learn or improve skills, that in the future can be used to generate money through labor
It's that simple, you have 3 main assets as a human:
- Time: Your life time, that you can spend by doing things throughout your life.
- Labor: The ability to combine your existing skills and talents with physical or mental labor to generate capital.
- Capital: Your actual money and assets in the economy.
Time is Money
Time is money in the sense that you can spend your time as you wish, but if you want to be efficient, then you would spend your time in away to generate the most amount of profits with the least amount of labor, while the remaining time spending by acquiring experiences in life and enjoying life.
Labor should be minimized
You can only be efficient if you make the maximum money with the least amount of labor, otherwise you are not efficient. Physical labor is not shameful, but it should be minimized, since it is not worth a lot in the robotic age. Instead physical laborers should spend their spare time learning other skills that pay better. Wage slavery and sweatshops should be a thing of the past, people need to learn better paying skills.
Capital Investment is preferable
Capital investment is the preferable occupation, but it's the riskiest. While your labor and time is plenty, so you can afford mistakes. In the investment game, you can't. You can do risk management procedures to minimize the risk, but that is only worth so much, because it lowers your profit too.
It's not easy to make money by investing, and it's not for everyone. But those that invest, create new things, which will be a good asset for the next generation of opportunists that will earn money there with less risk.
Steemit is an example. Initial investors took huge risks, but also made money. But they have created a platform where 2nd generation users can earn money with basically low risk, just by blogging.
So both investors and laborers are needed. Sorry Marx, your theory is nonsense.
This is how money can be made, the free market can provide an income for everybody.... until it doesn't get infested by Government regulations and high taxes.
Sources:
https://pixabay.com
And it should be in Swiss Francs?
What theory of Marx are you alledgedly refuting?Marrx was a intellectual giant,and most of what he wrote is still valid.And he was right about capitalism in so many ways. The system is collapsing.Marx actually foresaw technological unemployment as well,and saw how it would undermine capitalism.Btw,no,I'm not a marxist,or a communist,or a socialist.
The funny thing about the fact that he foresaw the technological unemployment, is that the cause of this is socialism. In a free market without minimum wages, the wages of physical work will slowly go down when automation is rising (simply supply and demand of labour). Now the workers will one by one / slowly choose other jobs, because they are not happy with their salary and education will change, so that inflow of new workers in this profession will stop. The society will change slowly in a natural way, workers will adjust the choice of their job to the changing market. In a socialist society the wages for disappearing jobs will remain high and unemployment will be paid by governments, so people will not take the initiative to adjust their career. This will go on till this profession will disappear and the technological unemployment is born. In my opinion this is often the case: socialism creates problems that people hope to solve with more socialism.
Tell me where you find this socialism?It's not possible to have socialism in a global economy,the capitalists rule politics.If you define socialism as an absence of the free market,you are simply defining it wrong,this is not a definition which is used by anyone but the most hardcore libertarians and an-caps. The reality is that there has never been,and never will be,a free market,as market players will seek to strengthen and consolidate their power,for instance by protectionism and cartels.In a democratic socialist society you have state owned businesses.This is a system that has worked well in scandinavia among other countries. Mind you,private businesses has been booming at the same time,it's just that the state provides more secure income for the citicens,and jobs.I'm not saying that this is a good system,as I'm not a socialist,but a communalist,and I work for a post scarcity society. Economy is bullshit.Everything needs to be free,and the power needs to be divided equally.It's possible to imagine a society where capitalism survives,but the only thing you can buy and sell are intangible goods,like software. But I much prefer a gift economy, on top of all the free stuff,which will not be possible to profit from selling anyway, as it will be too easy to produce,by anyone.
I define socialism as a lot of interference in the economy by governments to adjust the economy to their favor (In my opinion the economy is the same as nature, the more you interfere, the less efficient it will get and the more excesses will appear). I admit that it is hard to bring socialism to the global economy and thats why it is less influenced than individual countries. However when 90% of the countries on the globe are ruled by an socialist government (Socialist in my definition and not the media's definition, the European political spectrum from liberal to socialist is in my opinion right socialist to left socialist), the result of all these individual countries together will create a global result.
I believe a 100% free market is possible, protectionism in a free market is only possible with force and violence and this will be punished (by government or private compagnies) and cartels will make even less chance in a free market. The scandinavian countries did well for a while, but now the former 3rd and 2nd world countries are rising they can't compete anymore, so they have to devaluate their currency (or burn their wealth) to remain able to compete while carrying a lot of extra cost's for their socialist inefficiency.
I think you will always need an economy. Our life has to be fueled with goods and services and someone has to deliver effort for this. Money is the tool to manage the ballans between delivery of effort and consuming of these goods and services. In an free economy this will work most (nearly 100%) efficient.
I disagree, Marxism doesn't work for many reasons, that I have already refuted many times in my previous posts. It will never work, the best we can do is to have voluntary cooperation between people, while also allowing people to compete if they choose so. Don't ban anything, let the best system win.
In all due respect, to say that you refuted Marxism is just a preposterously arrogant statement.There will always be an answer to your so called refutation, and an answer to that again, this is how it works, in political philosophy and other branches of philosophy. This is called dialectics. Just because you believe your arguments does not make them the ultimate truth. Free market philosophies are of course all completely refuted in my subjective opinion, but I don't expect you to accept that. Btw, again, I'm not a Marxist, or a socialist, but a post-scarcity anarchist/communalist. Voluntary cooperation between people sounds good, but in what framework? As long as people can profit from other people's labour, and make profits from capital, there will be no truly voluntary cooperation, as power concentration in the hands of private capitalists acts as coercion. There is no free market. And if there ever was, it would be horrifying, even worse than the disaster we have now, where corporate players are controlling world politics, and fucking the planet over completely, leading to ecological destruction, and endless suffering.