While that the simple pursuit of money as an end and not a means strikes me as odd, I believe the article over-simplifies our current financial system and fails to take into account the numerous benefits it provides.
The claim that banker makes money by "doing nothing" is simply not true. If there wasn't a reason for a bank to provide the numerous services it provides, it wouldn't exist-people wouldn't pay for something they could do themselves. Providing credit, insurance, safety for an individual's wealth, access to cash, and brokerage services are valuable - not exactly "doing nothing". Credit and insurance services allow for job-creating corporations to expand and employ individuals, something that seems to be a good for a lot of people. Society simply could not operate without these services; modern prosperous society, that is.
The notion that interest is "bizarre" leads me to believe that Mr. Murad doesn't really understand the concept of opportunity cost or the relationship between time and money.
A warning about the distractive potential of unfettered greed is appropriate, but a warning of "complete catastrophe" seems a bit sensationalistic. Of course Wall Street was greedy, but there are many other factors that played into the meltdown of the past few years. Perhaps Mr. Murad should examine monetary policy and incentive structures provided by governmental agencies as well, before alluding to greed as the sole cause of the "abyss".
I think the moral premise of this article is correct--greed can and often does leave one unfulfilled, lonely, or worse, poor. A warning against the pursuit of wealth and possessions for the sake of having them (i.e. money as the end instead of simply means for survival, sustaining a certain level of comfort, etc.) is well-heeded regardless of what religion you chose to follow.
However, I agree with Jarrett that Mr. Murad may be oversimplifying the problem a bit. Gold or silver are impractical because they are too expensive to be readily divisible for inexpensive items. (For example, it would be ridiculous to price soda in silver.) Money is not the root of greed; it simply makes it easier to be greedy because we can control its value.
I do think that this article has major implications for the current environmental crisis. Land is after all, the constant constant in Intro Econ. Natural resources are very finite resources and they are often sacrificed to generate more of the infinite one that Mr. Murad warns against. While I do not agree with his all of his claims, I do agree that in relation to the environment, it is time to be smarter and more self-restrained.
Greed obviously played a major role in our current financial crisis. People want things they can't necessarily afford so they borrow. For many of these people paying back these loans is not possible and we see defaulted loans. The housing industry put a microscope over the greed of individuals to have houses they can't afford and the social costs of realizing this. Greed also sways the decisions of management, often putting private benefits over social ones. The radical change suggested by Murad may prove to be beneficial in terms of a more secure financial market, but are not realistic. Money will continue to be theoretically infinite and greed will continue to infest the minds of business executives, investment bankers, and the like.
Once this has been recognized, realistic means can be taken to prevent another monumental financial meltdown. This should come in the form of an increased institutional role in the economy. Policies should be implemented to correct market failures, creating a just labor market and avoiding financial bubbles. Executive boards need to be increasingly scrutinized and controlled and incentives need to be provided to promote actions that benefit everyone not just those at the top.
Murad is correct in his claims of a supremely materialistic world, but his advice if ineffective and unrealistic. However, change does need to occur if we want to avoid future financial disasters. Since it will likely be impossible to change the mindset of billions of individuals, an increased institutional role is a more realistic approach that would aid in guiding the invisible hand of a capitalist economy and society.
I think this article touches on some interesting and applicable ideas but presents them in a manner that is going to turn many people off to it. Generally, the idea that it's important to focus on long-term benefits rather than short-term excessive consumption seems valid both in the context of the developed world and the developing world. (This article discusses the idea in terms of the developed world, but it seems that it could also apply to the idea that families in the developing world often spend more on entertainment, sugary foods, etc. than on more long-lasting investments.) The article also seems to highlight some of the problems of inequality. The idea that people in the most wealthy groups are caught up in a financial competition that really has nothing to do with basic survival or living a simple but comfortable life certainly hightlights the start differences between said income groups and the lowest income groups (in both the developed and developing countries) who can't even support themselves and their families with basic nutrition, healthcare, and education. However, the fact that his article is expressed in such specific religious terms makes it seem less accessible. Will the message get across to people who don't share the beliefs of the author?
While values and morals can certainly play an important role in explaining economics, it should not be used as the sole explanatory variable to explain anything. The financial crisis in moral terms, was somewhat a result of the greed on wallstreet but most of the phenomenon can be explained by economic terms. The failure was not caused because greed always leads to doom but because our market fundamentals were wrong. There was too much deregulation, there was information asymmetery as the people taking out the loans did not always know what they were signing up for. The differences between wall street and main street is characterized by huge information asymmetery and the wall street exploited this fact. This caused the home crisis. The rest of the unrest followed because we live in a modern world where everything is closely interlinked. It is hard to change one thing without affecting the other. Sure there are problems with the financial systems and there always will be as we do not live in a perfect market but most of those anomalies can be explained by economics, use of religion might not be necessary.
While I see his points in this article, I find them highly contradictory in practical Islamic Culture. If you look at the majority of Middle Eastern Nations, they are dominated by extremely high incomes, extremely high inequality and opulent displays of wealth. Where's the adherence to the Quran, in that? Think UAE and countries in the Middle East where License Plates costs millions of dollars as rich businessmen (of Islamic descent) place high value on the symbolism of low number license plates (indicative of wealth). The argument he makes seems more reminiscent of social commentary with little relevance in practical, and empirical thinking.
Attached you will find a very interesting interview with Abdul Hakim, previously known as Tom Winter: http://www.abc.net.au/sundaynights/stories/s1237986.htm
Whether or not you agree with the morality of this argument or the role of financial markets, one thing is correct: accumulation of money should not be the end goal (particularly in development economics.) Money cam be a means to achieving a better quality of life, so we should measure progress in factors such as health, education, happiness, capabilities, etc., rather than income.
Also, perhaps we should be more cautious when setting up financial markets in developing countries to prevent the information assymetry and greed that can lead to collapse.
I am not very familar with this Islamic concept that there is no real value of money, but I do have to say it is a compelling idea. I think it is intriguing and proper that they believed that the accumulation of money is not really supposed to be the end in and of itself. Additionally, the fact that they used finite assets as the only form of value was very interesting. The fact of the matter though is that the world we live in will never be able to conform to these types of strict morals. I know that there are greedy people out there who could lead us to catastrophe, but as Caroline pointed out, money can be a means for development and a lot of times it is.
Moreover, this article brings up a lot of moral issues that are tearing this world down, but realistically there would be no way to actually completely conform to this type of culture.
I think W&L (especially the C-school) often breeds people who are primarily concerned with the number of figures in a salary. I mean...I know that sounds terrible, but I see it in my friends all the time as we are all looking for jobs. As soon as someone gets offered 70k, then the 60k someone else was offered is suddenly not so good. But thats a terrible way to think... We need to put more emphasis on quality of life. Yeah person B is making 10k more than person A, but how terrible are the hours? AND...person A is incredibly lucky to have a job at all, especially in the current job market.
Maybe I totally got off the topic, but its all I can think about when I read this sort of thing. I think we tend to lose sight of the fact that its just money ... there is so much more to the workplace and so much more to life.
While the message of the article is certainly altruistic, I think that using religion in the context of economics and economic development will not be effective. First of all, I cannot think of a single religion who actively promotes the pursuit of wealth and money and therefore I do not think that Mr. Murad's message was unique. Secondly, I think that Logan brought up a good point by mentioning the hypocricy of Islamic nations such as UAE, where there are huge income disparities. Oil has brought the middle east a phenomenal amount of wealth and power, which seems to contradict the message of Mr.Murad's article. I find this article to be too theoretical to be effective. Obviously there were and still are flaws within our economic system, but the Quar'an will not provide an effective model for solving these issues.
While Murad's efforts and ideals seem benevolent, I can't help but feel that his mentality is old-fashioned and not applicable to present day. Referring back to the gold standard and how it was great because of its finite asset may be a valid point, but impossible to revert back to. Obviously the financial crisis occurred in part due to the "infinite" quality of money that can promote greed, but that does not mean the entire system is wrong, merely that it is complex.
Furthermore, trying to tie current finance into ideals of the Qur'an is troubling. Allowing religion to guide one's life is admirable, but taking a textualist approach to a document written in "632 CE" is impractical.
Much like other posts have noted, Murad's words are too idealistic and not very applicable to our current global economy. Yes there was an economic meltdown but to go as far as to say it is completely the fault of the banks and their charges of interest is unfair and incorrect. I think he was trying to spur more emotional feelings, trying to get people to realize a return to a life of frugality is what "God" wants. While almost every religion adheres to this type of dogma, it is ridiculous to think that we can somehow revert back to archaic ways of handling money, and it's even more ridiculous to think that it would fix our current economic problems. The world has advanced too far and become too reliant on banks/the services they provide to change them now.
Murad's good idea, that people need to return to a life of frugality and give more support for the less fortunate, is overshadowed by his mistaken rant against necessary financial institutions within our economy.
I don't necessarily agree with Murad's implication that the financial system is systematically evil and society could benefit from their elimination. I think its an interesting thought experiment to imagine what our world would be like without banks and much capital formation.
If banks were not around, the world would be much similar. There wouldn't be much for average people to invest. We'd go back to a sort of feudal system where money is held by the elites and only available to them. Technology would stagnate because there would be little outlet for it without capital. As a result, I'm sure health care would be worse and more of us would be subsistence farmers.
I wouldn't want to live in that world, but wonder how bad it would be. Would we Americans be incredibly miserable? Would we all die off? I would venture two ideas (I have no idea if they're true). 1) Our quality of life would decrease, but I don't think people would be substantially less happy. 2) A large portion of the world's population lives like I've just described.
I'm still thinking about this, but my initial thought is that only rich folks like us get bent out of shape by Murad's ridiculous idea. That said, banks definitely have a great potential for good--they just don't always use it.
It is fascinating to see the correllations between various faith traditions on the subject of monetary gains, financial markets, and humanity. In my mind, if multiple traditions (in this case Islam, Christianity, and Judiasm) have written in their scriptures the same fundamental principles, then there is certainly a truth to it that must be hearkened. Usury is bad, yet our entire financial system is based on making money out of money. And they all warn about excesses of greed, creating idols, and storing up treasures on earth. Regardless of one's beliefs, it seems safe to agree that religions warn about these things, not so much in order to "save the soul" of an individual, but because collectively, this form of living will destroy us. The excessive greed, speculation, and disregard for the well being of others that has plagued the current world financial institution cannot continue forever. The environmental change and impending global climate change is a perfect example of this excessive greed and consumption resulting in destruction. We cannot maintain our level of consumption indefinitely without dire consequences for all of humanity.
"Now is the time to seriously think about finding an economic system to replace..." I cannot even fathom another economic system taking the place of laissez-faire economics; but so far, Chinas incorporation of strict governmental control with a level of free market appears to be a solid foundation on which to explore a more equitable future. Yes, inequality is still increasing in China, but it has produced a machine to lift millions out of poverty,now further research needs to be done to resolve the issue of rising wealth gaps.
I agree with the majority of comments here that greed had its part in the economic meltdown and that to much greed is a bad thing. However, without greed, there is little incentive to work towards bettering society as people do not normally work for others without the potential of some sort of personal gain. Under the capitalist society through which people have competed and attempted to be better than their neighbors, there has been phenomenal growth around the world which has also brought about a drastic drop in absolute poverty. Sometimes, greed is good but it needs to be regulated otherwise meltdowns such as the recent one can occur. Where this equilibrium may lie is a difficult question to answer, but one that must be addressed immediately to protect society as a whole.
Mr. Murad is right about one thing: the pursuit of money for the sole purpose of itself will lead to disappointment. There will always be someone more rich, always someone more poor. Money is something that should be accumulated for what it represents, what it can provide you with. Money should not be accumulated to create self image, ego, etc. If I was laying on my deathbed with 50 billion in my bank account I will have failed. Because I will have wasted 50 billion dollars. Sure I would like to leave money for family, but like Mr. Murad says money should be used for the traveller, the poor, because it is not truly ours until it is given away. What money can do is infinite, but what it provides me to consume is finite. I disagree with Mr Murad about his simplification of the financial system, and his "old-fashioned" tone. He is so critical, so self assured, and that makes me uncomfortable. It brings to mind a zealot who has convinced himself of extreme beliefs. His glorification of the gold standard, hatred of interest, and hatred of paper money seems like a stubborn cling to the way things once were. Overall I like the idea of the article, that if we are not careful, money can play too large a part in our lives.
"... lasting benefit comes only from using our wealth to uphold the rights of others; namely the orphan, the traveller, and the needy."
Though the article focuses on Islamic belief and its implications for the global economy, it lends itself to development economics as well. Islam discourages against the pursuit of money as an end. Like the article on the development of faith communities, this message about Islam also appeals to value-based economics. The article cites the departure from the gold standard to the current monetary system as a source of instigation for greed and excess wealth.
I agree with many of the posts in that Murad's ideas surrounding the financial system are a little ignorant and that it would be detrimental to try to change our financial system.
I do think though, that while a little extreme, Murad's ideas surrounding money and greed are valid and intriguing. Losing some of the excess in life could could have many positive implications in relation to development. The article says, "But humans are short-termist; we think primarily of our pleasures now rather than the harmony and serenity of the world to come." This directly relates to many of our readings surrounding environmental impacts of consumption patterns now, especially on developing countries. It is up to humans to determine the future and think about the long run. This also relates to our thinking about development in the big picture. People in developed countries like the U.S. don't think about the positive and negative impact our decisions can make for developed countries. We consume what we want when we want it, while the resources we use could be put towards other, more important things for the future.
There are two sides to this argument, both with valid points. First of all, it should be noted that the drive for "worldly gain" and money is the force behind much of the world's productivity. Without greed, the standard of living of virtually every human being would be significantly lower than it is. Therefore, greed should be encouraged to a certain extent. The idea of regulation is to direct greed to productive rather than unproductive ends. On the other hand, the articles message about the personal effects of greed rings true. When one's life is consumed by business deals and competition, it is virtually impossible to find happiness. Therefore, greed leads to a diminished satisfaction that could be avoided with simple appreciation for other elements of life. While this is true, I believe that the search for worldly gain is necessary for survival and success of the human race.
While that the simple pursuit of money as an end and not a means strikes me as odd, I believe the article over-simplifies our current financial system and fails to take into account the numerous benefits it provides.
ReplyDeleteThe claim that banker makes money by "doing nothing" is simply not true. If there wasn't a reason for a bank to provide the numerous services it provides, it wouldn't exist-people wouldn't pay for something they could do themselves. Providing credit, insurance, safety for an individual's wealth, access to cash, and brokerage services are valuable - not exactly "doing nothing". Credit and insurance services allow for job-creating corporations to expand and employ individuals, something that seems to be a good for a lot of people. Society simply could not operate without these services; modern prosperous society, that is.
The notion that interest is "bizarre" leads me to believe that Mr. Murad doesn't really understand the concept of opportunity cost or the relationship between time and money.
A warning about the distractive potential of unfettered greed is appropriate, but a warning of "complete catastrophe" seems a bit sensationalistic. Of course Wall Street was greedy, but there are many other factors that played into the meltdown of the past few years. Perhaps Mr. Murad should examine monetary policy and incentive structures provided by governmental agencies as well, before alluding to greed as the sole cause of the "abyss".
I think the moral premise of this article is correct--greed can and often does leave one unfulfilled, lonely, or worse, poor. A warning against the pursuit of wealth and possessions for the sake of having them (i.e. money as the end instead of simply means for survival, sustaining a certain level of comfort, etc.) is well-heeded regardless of what religion you chose to follow.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I agree with Jarrett that Mr. Murad may be oversimplifying the problem a bit. Gold or silver are impractical because they are too expensive to be readily divisible for inexpensive items. (For example, it would be ridiculous to price soda in silver.) Money is not the root of greed; it simply makes it easier to be greedy because we can control its value.
I do think that this article has major implications for the current environmental crisis. Land is after all, the constant constant in Intro Econ. Natural resources are very finite resources and they are often sacrificed to generate more of the infinite one that Mr. Murad warns against. While I do not agree with his all of his claims, I do agree that in relation to the environment, it is time to be smarter and more self-restrained.
Greed obviously played a major role in our current financial crisis. People want things they can't necessarily afford so they borrow. For many of these people paying back these loans is not possible and we see defaulted loans. The housing industry put a microscope over the greed of individuals to have houses they can't afford and the social costs of realizing this. Greed also sways the decisions of management, often putting private benefits over social ones. The radical change suggested by Murad may prove to be beneficial in terms of a more secure financial market, but are not realistic. Money will continue to be theoretically infinite and greed will continue to infest the minds of business executives, investment bankers, and the like.
ReplyDeleteOnce this has been recognized, realistic means can be taken to prevent another monumental financial meltdown. This should come in the form of an increased institutional role in the economy. Policies should be implemented to correct market failures, creating a just labor market and avoiding financial bubbles. Executive boards need to be increasingly scrutinized and controlled and incentives need to be provided to promote actions that benefit everyone not just those at the top.
Murad is correct in his claims of a supremely materialistic world, but his advice if ineffective and unrealistic. However, change does need to occur if we want to avoid future financial disasters. Since it will likely be impossible to change the mindset of billions of individuals, an increased institutional role is a more realistic approach that would aid in guiding the invisible hand of a capitalist economy and society.
I think this article touches on some interesting and applicable ideas but presents them in a manner that is going to turn many people off to it.
ReplyDeleteGenerally, the idea that it's important to focus on long-term benefits rather than short-term excessive consumption seems valid both in the context of the developed world and the developing world. (This article discusses the idea in terms of the developed world, but it seems that it could also apply to the idea that families in the developing world often spend more on entertainment, sugary foods, etc. than on more long-lasting investments.)
The article also seems to highlight some of the problems of inequality. The idea that people in the most wealthy groups are caught up in a financial competition that really has nothing to do with basic survival or living a simple but comfortable life certainly hightlights the start differences between said income groups and the lowest income groups (in both the developed and developing countries) who can't even support themselves and their families with basic nutrition, healthcare, and education.
However, the fact that his article is expressed in such specific religious terms makes it seem less accessible. Will the message get across to people who don't share the beliefs of the author?
While values and morals can certainly play an important role in explaining economics, it should not be used as the sole explanatory variable to explain anything. The financial crisis in moral terms, was somewhat a result of the greed on wallstreet but most of the phenomenon can be explained by economic terms. The failure was not caused because greed always leads to doom but because our market fundamentals were wrong. There was too much deregulation, there was information asymmetery as the people taking out the loans did not always know what they were signing up for. The differences between wall street and main street is characterized by huge information asymmetery and the wall street exploited this fact. This caused the home crisis. The rest of the unrest followed because we live in a modern world where everything is closely interlinked. It is hard to change one thing without affecting the other.
ReplyDeleteSure there are problems with the financial systems and there always will be as we do not live in a perfect market but most of those anomalies can be explained by economics, use of religion might not be necessary.
very nice comments - keep up the good work
ReplyDeleteWhile I see his points in this article, I find them highly contradictory in practical Islamic Culture. If you look at the majority of Middle Eastern Nations, they are dominated by extremely high incomes, extremely high inequality and opulent displays of wealth. Where's the adherence to the Quran, in that? Think UAE and countries in the Middle East where License Plates costs millions of dollars as rich businessmen (of Islamic descent) place high value on the symbolism of low number license plates (indicative of wealth). The argument he makes seems more reminiscent of social commentary with little relevance in practical, and empirical thinking.
ReplyDeleteAttached you will find a very interesting interview with Abdul Hakim, previously known as Tom Winter: http://www.abc.net.au/sundaynights/stories/s1237986.htm
Whether or not you agree with the morality of this argument or the role of financial markets, one thing is correct: accumulation of money should not be the end goal (particularly in development economics.) Money cam be a means to achieving a better quality of life, so we should measure progress in factors such as health, education, happiness, capabilities, etc., rather than income.
ReplyDeleteAlso, perhaps we should be more cautious when setting up financial markets in developing countries to prevent the information assymetry and greed that can lead to collapse.
I am not very familar with this Islamic concept that there is no real value of money, but I do have to say it is a compelling idea. I think it is intriguing and proper that they believed that the accumulation of money is not really supposed to be the end in and of itself. Additionally, the fact that they used finite assets as the only form of value was very interesting. The fact of the matter though is that the world we live in will never be able to conform to these types of strict morals. I know that there are greedy people out there who could lead us to catastrophe, but as Caroline pointed out, money can be a means for development and a lot of times it is.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, this article brings up a lot of moral issues that are tearing this world down, but realistically there would be no way to actually completely conform to this type of culture.
I think W&L (especially the C-school) often breeds people who are primarily concerned with the number of figures in a salary. I mean...I know that sounds terrible, but I see it in my friends all the time as we are all looking for jobs. As soon as someone gets offered 70k, then the 60k someone else was offered is suddenly not so good. But thats a terrible way to think... We need to put more emphasis on quality of life. Yeah person B is making 10k more than person A, but how terrible are the hours? AND...person A is incredibly lucky to have a job at all, especially in the current job market.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I totally got off the topic, but its all I can think about when I read this sort of thing. I think we tend to lose sight of the fact that its just money ... there is so much more to the workplace and so much more to life.
While the message of the article is certainly altruistic, I think that using religion in the context of economics and economic development will not be effective. First of all, I cannot think of a single religion who actively promotes the pursuit of wealth and money and therefore I do not think that Mr. Murad's message was unique. Secondly, I think that Logan brought up a good point by mentioning the hypocricy of Islamic nations such as UAE, where there are huge income disparities. Oil has brought the middle east a phenomenal amount of wealth and power, which seems to contradict the message of Mr.Murad's article. I find this article to be too theoretical to be effective. Obviously there were and still are flaws within our economic system, but the Quar'an will not provide an effective model for solving these issues.
ReplyDeleteWhile Murad's efforts and ideals seem benevolent, I can't help but feel that his mentality is old-fashioned and not applicable to present day. Referring back to the gold standard and how it was great because of its finite asset may be a valid point, but impossible to revert back to. Obviously the financial crisis occurred in part due to the "infinite" quality of money that can promote greed, but that does not mean the entire system is wrong, merely that it is complex.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, trying to tie current finance into ideals of the Qur'an is troubling. Allowing religion to guide one's life is admirable, but taking a textualist approach to a document written in "632 CE" is impractical.
Much like other posts have noted, Murad's words are too idealistic and not very applicable to our current global economy. Yes there was an economic meltdown but to go as far as to say it is completely the fault of the banks and their charges of interest is unfair and incorrect. I think he was trying to spur more emotional feelings, trying to get people to realize a return to a life of frugality is what "God" wants. While almost every religion adheres to this type of dogma, it is ridiculous to think that we can somehow revert back to archaic ways of handling money, and it's even more ridiculous to think that it would fix our current economic problems. The world has advanced too far and become too reliant on banks/the services they provide to change them now.
ReplyDeleteMurad's good idea, that people need to return to a life of frugality and give more support for the less fortunate, is overshadowed by his mistaken rant against necessary financial institutions within our economy.
I don't necessarily agree with Murad's implication that the financial system is systematically evil and society could benefit from their elimination. I think its an interesting thought experiment to imagine what our world would be like without banks and much capital formation.
ReplyDeleteIf banks were not around, the world would be much similar. There wouldn't be much for average people to invest. We'd go back to a sort of feudal system where money is held by the elites and only available to them. Technology would stagnate because there would be little outlet for it without capital. As a result, I'm sure health care would be worse and more of us would be subsistence farmers.
I wouldn't want to live in that world, but wonder how bad it would be. Would we Americans be incredibly miserable? Would we all die off? I would venture two ideas (I have no idea if they're true). 1) Our quality of life would decrease, but I don't think people would be substantially less happy. 2) A large portion of the world's population lives like I've just described.
I'm still thinking about this, but my initial thought is that only rich folks like us get bent out of shape by Murad's ridiculous idea. That said, banks definitely have a great potential for good--they just don't always use it.
It is fascinating to see the correllations between various faith traditions on the subject of monetary gains, financial markets, and humanity. In my mind, if multiple traditions (in this case Islam, Christianity, and Judiasm) have written in their scriptures the same fundamental principles, then there is certainly a truth to it that must be hearkened. Usury is bad, yet our entire financial system is based on making money out of money. And they all warn about excesses of greed, creating idols, and storing up treasures on earth. Regardless of one's beliefs, it seems safe to agree that religions warn about these things, not so much in order to "save the soul" of an individual, but because collectively, this form of living will destroy us. The excessive greed, speculation, and disregard for the well being of others that has plagued the current world financial institution cannot continue forever. The environmental change and impending global climate change is a perfect example of this excessive greed and consumption resulting in destruction. We cannot maintain our level of consumption indefinitely without dire consequences for all of humanity.
ReplyDelete"Now is the time to seriously think about finding an economic system to replace..." I cannot even fathom another economic system taking the place of laissez-faire economics; but so far, Chinas incorporation of strict governmental control with a level of free market appears to be a solid foundation on which to explore a more equitable future. Yes, inequality is still increasing in China, but it has produced a machine to lift millions out of poverty,now further research needs to be done to resolve the issue of rising wealth gaps.
I agree with the majority of comments here that greed had its part in the economic meltdown and that to much greed is a bad thing. However, without greed, there is little incentive to work towards bettering society as people do not normally work for others without the potential of some sort of personal gain. Under the capitalist society through which people have competed and attempted to be better than their neighbors, there has been phenomenal growth around the world which has also brought about a drastic drop in absolute poverty. Sometimes, greed is good but it needs to be regulated otherwise meltdowns such as the recent one can occur. Where this equilibrium may lie is a difficult question to answer, but one that must be addressed immediately to protect society as a whole.
ReplyDeleteMr. Murad is right about one thing: the pursuit of money for the sole purpose of itself will lead to disappointment. There will always be someone more rich, always someone more poor. Money is something that should be accumulated for what it represents, what it can provide you with. Money should not be accumulated to create self image, ego, etc. If I was laying on my deathbed with 50 billion in my bank account I will have failed. Because I will have wasted 50 billion dollars. Sure I would like to leave money for family, but like Mr. Murad says money should be used for the traveller, the poor, because it is not truly ours until it is given away. What money can do is infinite, but what it provides me to consume is finite.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Mr Murad about his simplification of the financial system, and his "old-fashioned" tone. He is so critical, so self assured, and that makes me uncomfortable. It brings to mind a zealot who has convinced himself of extreme beliefs. His glorification of the gold standard, hatred of interest, and hatred of paper money seems like a stubborn cling to the way things once were.
Overall I like the idea of the article, that if we are not careful, money can play too large a part in our lives.
"... lasting benefit comes only from using our wealth to uphold the rights of others; namely the orphan, the traveller, and the needy."
ReplyDeleteThough the article focuses on Islamic belief and its implications for the global economy, it lends itself to development economics as well. Islam discourages against the pursuit of money as an end. Like the article on the development of faith communities, this message about Islam also appeals to value-based economics. The article cites the departure from the gold standard to the current monetary system as a source of instigation for greed and excess wealth.
I agree with many of the posts in that Murad's ideas surrounding the financial system are a little ignorant and that it would be detrimental to try to change our financial system.
ReplyDeleteI do think though, that while a little extreme, Murad's ideas surrounding money and greed are valid and intriguing. Losing some of the excess in life could could have many positive implications in relation to development. The article says, "But humans are short-termist; we think primarily of our pleasures now rather than the harmony and serenity of the world to come." This directly relates to many of our readings surrounding environmental impacts of consumption patterns now, especially on developing countries. It is up to humans to determine the future and think about the long run. This also relates to our thinking about development in the big picture. People in developed countries like the U.S. don't think about the positive and negative impact our decisions can make for developed countries. We consume what we want when we want it, while the resources we use could be put towards other, more important things for the future.
There are two sides to this argument, both with valid points. First of all, it should be noted that the drive for "worldly gain" and money is the force behind much of the world's productivity. Without greed, the standard of living of virtually every human being would be significantly lower than it is. Therefore, greed should be encouraged to a certain extent. The idea of regulation is to direct greed to productive rather than unproductive ends. On the other hand, the articles message about the personal effects of greed rings true. When one's life is consumed by business deals and competition, it is virtually impossible to find happiness. Therefore, greed leads to a diminished satisfaction that could be avoided with simple appreciation for other elements of life. While this is true, I believe that the search for worldly gain is necessary for survival and success of the human race.
ReplyDelete