Are those who manipulate money to make more money productive members of society?

Question

Or parasites?

Answer 1

Investing is amoral. Not immoral, not moral. And I think some people don't understand how it works. It is like buying part of a company. If it looks like the company is going to do good (bigger profits) the value of your shares go up. And vice versa. The only time the purchase of stocks really causes increased production is in initial stock offerings. It is the production that determines the value of the stock, not the stocks that determine production.

Now to be fair, if I have good investments, make some money, that increases my income, and I can buy more stuff, which is good for the economy, as long as I'm not carrying debt to get the stuff. So investing is good for the economy in an indirect way.

Now if you're talking about people like Ken Lay that "cook" the books, then yeah they are parasites, because they made themselves look better for a short time, made a ton of money, but when it falls apart, the value of the stock drops like a stone, and honest people that are into the company's stock lose their asses. That includes employees with stocks, profit sharing.

Answer 2

You are not alone in your wondering.

Investors are productive, because their investments allow people to produce goods and services for the rest of the world. All they do is promise "I'll help you out, and I hope you will help me in return". Without investments and loans, few things could be produced.

Of course, the farther up the chain of investors you go, the less clear how productive a member is to society. Investors can invest in other investors... If they invest in "the good guys" (whatever THAT is) then you could say they're still helping and being productive.

I must wonder what happens on the currency trade market. This is definitely a money manipulation market... The whole idea kinda sickens me because it seems so far removed from the actual investments people will make and is more based upon personal opinions of countries or whatever. I guess its not that far removed from stock investments, but at least with stocks It would seem you may be able to make some reasonable assessment.

Yet, without that currency market, because countries are in charge of their own currencies, there would be no effective way for countries to trade. So even if the people investing in that market are parasites, their actions are necessary for the global community.

Of course there is other ways to manipulate money, (I.E. manipulate supply so that demand goes up.) The government willingly controls the supply of foods (wheat, corn) so that their prices do not shrink so far low that the farmers cannot raise a food necessity nor grow so far that no average us citizen can afford it. I suppose that's probably a good thing, but economists have been arguing about this for years.

Manipulation of the supply of Power is very interesting field. Again, without a system in place to barter for oil and gas, there would be no way to send power to the millions of users. But this supply is so easy to manipulate. OPEC has been doing it for years. Enron unethically raised demand by rerouting power and creating false power shortages. I'd say some in those investment communities are parasitic

I think within any investment community, there are the parasites. It probably matters most how you conduct your business.

Answer 3

Of course they are. People who manipulate money to make money are called investors. Without investors there would be no growth at all. Where do you think that money would come from to build new companies to the giants that provide the world with the products and services we have become so accustomed to? When you invest in a company, you are helping that company become more prosperous (depending on how management uses that money, of course). Do you think Microsoft would be where it is today without investors? Even if you hate MS, you cannot deny that it has changed our world. Now, Bill Gates is becoming the world's biggest philanthropist giving amounts of money that only countries could give before, to valid causes like immunization, malaria and other world problems. Yes. These people are productive members of society.

Answer 4

"How productive?" is the relevant question. The employees create the value of the investment, so the rich should be considered just the hired help. They are necessary but unimportant, just as a car key is necessary but only worth $5.

An investor is like a dollar bag of seeds, which workers use to create $100 worth of plants. But the rich practice humiliation and mind control, so we have too many sick people who actually like to get pushed around and manipulated into supporting Wall Street's oinkonomics.

Answer 5

On first blush, I'd say yes.

These are the kinds of people who "generate" money. Investors, expecting a "profit" or gain of some kind, stimulate production, which meant more jobs, more money to spend on the products, etc.

The downside is, of course, the moment an investor "takes" his profit, in other words, pulls his investment out, the economy suffers until someone else puts in more seed money.

Answer 6

Do the 400 people named as America's richest by "Forbes" magazine desirve to own 1/3 of the wealth in America? That is as much wealth as is owned by 57 million American famlies.

Answer 7

They say money makes the world go round so I guess they have to be considered productive.

Answer 8

Productive. Liberals are parasites.

Answer 9

I suppose it depends on what exactly they do with the money to make money or on what other things their money is spent.

Answer 10

The next time you go grocery shopping, try doing it on your good looks...