[primroot]

I agree with the sentiment that there is significant absurdity hiding beneath all the economic abstraction around employment and investment, which obscures the origin of money as a requirement. The way I see it (and this is a rather centuries old observation) is that the economic system is set up so that most of the population requires earning money for their survival. Earning money is a social requirement not a biological one. But if the resources are cheaper now that money is more valuable, what is the problem with earning less money for one's work? The problem is that some people would rather keep charging the same for what they sell. If one doesn't own much, then one can't afford waiting for a better deal. In this situation having power means owning money, houses, land, machinery and little debt. This makes workers require the same salary in order to survive and perform their jobs, this contributes to the (abstract pseudo-)problems of less employment, less consumption, less debt obligations being fulfilled. The real problems is on the one hand the resources required for survival being out of reach, and on the other resources, machinery and skills going to waste. For many, directly tackling the real problems may come dangerously close to disregarding social requirements. Hence, we keep talking about this problems in abstract terms, so that important members of society can live off the rent, by convincing the rest, by whatever means necessary, of the survival-money exchange rate. Money is a peaceful mean to make them follow orders.