Is that what you consider evil?

Camille Kelleher

9/8/13

Post #4

Throughout pages 380-385, Francisco redefines the role of money in the American economy and society. His opinion is a truthful justification that realigns the value that money had held in society before industrialism, a definition that has withered away along with the growing sense of hopelessness. 

When money is not controlled by the government and disrespected by elitists; it exists as fair, just, efficient, and honest. I agree with Francisco’s explanation of money in its natural form. A man who has been compensated for his hard and honest work in his industry should not feel ashamed of his wealth. He has sacrificed his time and creativity into a system that reaps benefits according to the amount of effort an industrialist exerts into it. The Bill of Equalization counters this natural and free mechanism. It will only encourage more looters into the system because everyone gets the same amount of benefit, indifferent to the amount of honest effort they exert into their work. If the economic system is controlled by “brotherhood,” it will result in artificial and unsustainable benefits that will be a burden for society. The economy and society will only succeed when the government does not control the mechanism of money and people learn to take responsibility for their progress in society. 

Although Francisco established a sense of reason and fairness in the system, he missed a major fault in his theory. Simplified, the exchange of money is like the exchange of pieces of paper. Economic systems only work when people have faith in their system and that the pieces of paper that they trade hold a certain economic value. If society becomes chaotic and everyone loses faith, then all wealth will become nothing. Since omnipotent money is naturally unstable, should it be the sole indication of human progress and success?