shouldn't farmers be monetarily richer than say actors and rock stars or even CEOs of some arbitrary companies that deals with middle management between industries and business sectors.
money is just a paper currency that promises values of future goods. it's a linkage between what you've produced and what products you want to buy/get.
yet, companies that deal with money and related services are richer, get paid alot more than farmers and similar industries that provide needs for life.
if firms and entertainers etc make more money than say farmers etc, then what does that say about our priorities in today's society? if we're truly that far advanced and such primitive survivals are out of the question then why a huge chunk of humans dying everywhere from starvation etc and why are there still battles and wars that cry out primitivism?
that being said, is our value of money justified and correctly allocated by having money management firms and stock firms ranking high up there, along
2007-10-20
10:00:22
·
2 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Social Science
➔ Economics
with entertainers and lawyers ...etc.
those seem like social benefits, interactions amongst people, whereas food and water etc are necessities above all things including man-made priorities.
2007-10-20
10:02:22 ·
update #1