slug.com slug.com

0 0

Anthropology of Money - Questioning societal dogma with regards to personal inheritance and corporate structure and validity.

So I have been considering money and its evolution and original intentions within human anthropology (anthropology of money). For perspective on my mental meanderings, my political orientation is typically middle right conservative, so my current thoughts on this topic are out of line with my orientation.

Under the current capitalistic system framework, from an individual's point of view with respect to corporate structure and from broader society's point of view with respect to personal inheritance, I am beginning to consider both of those social/economic/fiscal constructs as, at least potentially, economically unhealthy and not in line with the original rationale for a standardized currency .

Rationale: Per my understanding of the anthropology of money, money evolved as a means of standardizing exchange between bartering parties. A standardized currency ensured a party received compensation commensurate to the value of their product within society at the time of the exchange. That point is key to my thoughts.

First, on the construct of personal inheritance, if a producer amasses a huge fortune during the course of his/her life due to the perceived extreme high quality of the product he/she produces, & thus the extreme value to society at the time of transaction, is it societally prudent/advisable to transmit that fortune to an heir, given the fact that the heir may have little or no intrinsic value to society? The fortune was nothing more than a load of analogical social value chits from the heir's parent's lifetime, and quite frankly, that epoch in human history may now have passed (i.e. a maker of fine slide-rules). Plus the fact that there is no way to ensure the heir is not a social degenerate unworthy of social value chits earned by their parents. Interesting thought.

Second, on the construct of corporate structure, using the same arguments with regard to personal inheritance, is it wise to allow entities to capitalize and amass fortunes on products/ideas from many years past, which today may have even proven very detrimental to society (i.e. cigarette/tobacco corporations). Yet, despite the possibility of ultimate adverse affects to individuals, environments, societies, etc, corporations are able to maintain wealth in the face of negative business cycles (i.e. covid virus shutdown) due to the overwhelming backing of capitalization on past enterprises while individual and recently established businesses, which are not propped up by stockholders, fail. Thus reducing competition and increasing corporate profits as economies emerge from the business downturn (and, essentially, increasing, or at the very least preserving socioeconomic disparity between economic classes). Humorously I am beginning to sound like those opposite of my political orientation on the other side of the isle...HA!

Let me wrap up by stating I have no intention of embracing the other side of the political isle. I am 100% anti-socialist/Marxist/communist. I believe, without doubt, that misguided and foreboding ship left port in the 20th Century leaving behind it a trail of human bodies floating in it's wake (100 million or more by some estimates). But I do believe there is another way. I am searching for a direction in which to carve out a new mental course. What say you?

OneEyedHillbilly 4 Apr 28
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:93756