[ambush]

O
No, that is what the leftwing says.

ambush let me explain how it works. The left think the rich should give MORE than their share to compensate for the poor. In other words, the left are taxing the Rich to death.

SO when someone in the RIGHT takes over, they LOWER the taxes back to a reasonable level. And then the left scream "THEY ARE FAVORING THE RICH!@!@!11" And that isn't the case. They are just making it more EVEN.




Heh socialism promotes mediocrity. There will always be capitalism somewhere ambush. You are still young and idealistic. So I don't fault you for thinking in such a way.

Zimphire.. I know I can be very straight.. but would never want to offense you. I have a delicate question for you tho.

What is your level of education? Don't take this as a personal attack PLEASE don't... I was always CURIOUS about your level of education..

for myself.. I'm studying in the international field.. politics, law, philsophy.

anyway.. my PHD teachers are (YAY) left wing.

why are the poor getting poorer in your country zimphire??? this is not right.

like my politics teachers say... capitalism is not right...

[wataru]

I didn't read the old debate, but here's my take: Corporations cannot be trusted to behave themselves. For that single reason I believe government regulation is necessary, and that true, free-market capitalism is not a good thing.

[ambush]

Yes, lowering taxes is favoring the rich (and MORE IMPORTANTLY THE BIG COMPANIES)...

look at this REAL LIFE example in a moderately centered country like Canada.

a 10% tax cut:
A milionaire family with 4 children will save 60 000
a family with 4 children that wins 30 000$ a year: 496$
a family below 30 000$ : NULL.

this is taken from a serious study... do you think it's fair?

[Jaey]

Capitalism sucks ass.

Sweden (a socialist country) did not have a single homeless person until the year 2000.

Maybe they have something right?

Almost all of Europe has free health care (so does Canada). Maybe they have something right?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by ambush:

What is your level of education? Don't take this as a personal attack PLEASE don't... I was always CURIOUS about your level of education..

No offense. I went to college if that is what you are asking.

for myself.. I'm studying in the international field.. politics, law, philsophy.

anyway.. my PHD teachers are (YAY) left wing.

BIG SURPRISE most college professors are.

why are the poor getting poorer in your country zimphire??? this is not right.

ambush the "poor" in this country have cars, TV, and computers. Did you know that?
I know some that are DIRT poor that CHOOSE to live that way. Not that they like it, but they refuse to do anything about it. They wait for handouts. Those people you can do nothing about.

like my politics teachers say... capitalism is not right...

Of course he says that. He lives in the middle of Socialism.

Socialism to me breed mediocrity.

BTW this belongs in the PL. It should have been posted there.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by wataru:
I didn't read the old debate, but here's my take: Corporations cannot be trusted to behave themselves. For that single reason I believe government regulation is necessary, and that true, free-market capitalism is not a good thing.

If individuals cannot be trusted to behave, and thus need laws et al, so do corporations.

It's not a very complicated idea.

BG

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by ambush:
Yes, lowering taxes is favoring the rich (and MORE IMPORTANTLY THE BIG COMPANIES)...

look at this REAL LIFE example in a moderately centered country like Canada.

a 10% tax cut:
A milionaire family with 4 children will save 60 000
a family with 4 children that wins 30 000$ a year: 496$
a family below 30 000$ : NULL.

this is taken from a serious study... do you think it's fair?

Ambush do you know our "rich" pay for 60% of our taxes now?

That is the top 5 or 10% pay for 60% of our nations taxes.

And the left want to tax them even MORE!

Now tell me. How is that fair?

Why should you punish those that create something of themselves?


You know my friend Bekah got $2k more in taxes every year Bush has been in office than she did with Clinton.

And she is getting help from the state.

Don't give me this the poor isn't getting anything nonsense.

I live in one of the most POOR state in the Union. I am here in the middle of it.

[Shaddim]

*cue pic of Bush with his finger pointing up*

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
*cue pic of Bush with his finger pointing up*

That sad part is, ambush knows better.

[ambush]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

No offense. I went to college if that is what you are asking.
[/b]
BIG SURPRISE most college professors are.
[/b]
ambush the "poor" in this country have cars, TV, and computers. Did you know that?
I know some that are DIRT poor that CHOOSE to live that way. Not that they like it, but they refuse to do anything about it. They wait for handouts. Those people you can do nothing about.

Of course he says that. He lives in the middle of Socialism.

Socialism to me breed mediocrity.

BTW this belongs in the PL. It should have been posted there. [/B]

people waiting for handouts are doing it by choice. someone might not be interested by work. they have their rights. here they receive a welfare check. we pay for them. they include handicaped ppl, old ppl, ppl with disabilities, etc. etc. People who do not work are not very happy. it's their choice (or not, depending).

In a communist system, you work. it's the ****ing law.


Anyway... I donno why you brought this up... since the class I'm talking about it the WORKING class. they are being abused by the big companies. those people WORK their ASS off. it's NOT fair. w/o them the world is nothing. when ppl realize that, it won't be funny.

[ambush]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Ambush do you know our "rich" pay for 60% of our taxes now?

That is the top 5 or 10% pay for 60% of our nations taxes.

And the left want to tax them even MORE!

Now tell me. How is that fair?

Why should you punish those that create something of themselves?


You know my friend Bekah got $2k more in taxes every year Bush has been in office than she did with Clinton.

And she is getting help from the state.

Don't give me this the poor isn't getting anything nonsense.

I live in one of the most POOR state in the Union. I am here in the middle of it.

ISN'T IT THE BASE OF CHRISTIANITY

HELP YOUR FELLOW HUMAN.

is it OK that a handful of ppl control more than 90% of the world's money? they have more power than the gvt. (i.e. irak war, chavez coup)

[PacHead]

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by ambush:
people waiting for handouts are doing it by choice. someone might not be interested by work. they have their rights. here they receive a welfare check. we pay for them. they include handicaped ppl, old ppl, ppl with disabilities, etc. etc. People who do not work are not very happy. it's their choice (or not, depending).

In a communist system, you work. it's the ****ing law.


Anyway... I donno why you brought this up... since the class I'm talking about it the WORKING class. they are being abused by the big companies. those people WORK their ASS off. it's NOT fair. w/o them the world is nothing. when ppl realize that, it won't be funny.

Ambush America has some of the BIGGEST salarys on this planet. So much so some are trying to hire out of the country. Don't tell me about companies abusing the employees. You are being a armchair American that really has no clue what is going on here.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by ambush:
ISN'T IT THE BASE OF CHRISTIANITY

HELP YOUR FELLOW HUMAN.

YES! YES IT IS! Helping them WITH YOUR OWN FREE WILL!

NOT BEING FORCED TO BY THE GOV.

is it OK that a handful of ppl control more than 90% of the world's money? they have more power than the gvt. (i.e. irak war, chavez coup)

Does it matter? Sounds like jealousy to me. Money seems to be very important to you.

[Sage]

Originally posted by ambush:
ISN'T IT THE BASE OF CHRISTIANITY

HELP YOUR FELLOW HUMAN.

Christianity should have no part in government � nor any other religion. Government's purpose is to protect people from direct attacks from others (police, military), and to set up basic emergency services (E.R.s, firefighters, etc.).

The government has no business basing anything off of religious or anti-religious values, and there's no good reason why it should meddle into other things.

Here's why Capitalism works: If you make more money through more work, you keep the damn money. This creates incentive to work harder and make more money, which only helps yourself and the economy. If you work harder, make more money, then it gets taxed off of you, then where is the incentive to work harder? Zimp is spot-on by saying that Socialism breeds mediocrity... if there's no incentive to work harder, then why do it? Might as well work less so that you can steal money from those working harder than you.

Also, here's an important note that so many people miss. The left-wingies claim that executives, such as CEOs, don't do enough work to justify their pay. They conveniently forget though that it's these people who make it possible for the "workers" to have a job in the first place. Here's a personal example... I have a cousin who founded the search engine company Inktomi (which recently was bought by Yahoo!, but that's irrelevant to the story). It was because of his idea (to create a search engine based on 50 networked computers instead of one supercomputer), his leadership (as CEO of the company), and his willingness to venture into something new (with a possible downfall) that allowed him to create this company, which, (surprise!) employed hundreds/thousands of other people, so that they could create their own wealth. If he's creating millions of dollars in wealth for other people, why shouldn't he receive the same?

And branching off of that, another key point that many people miss is that to gain wealth, you do not have to steal wealth. Wealth is not a constant, but can increase without anybody losing any of it (in an ideal world anyway). My cousin did not steal a dime from anybody, but made millions because he made it physically possible for his employees and shareholders to create more wealth. Now tell me � why the hell should he get punished for doing that by being taxed more money? I call that unfair.

[Jaey]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Does it matter? Sounds like jealousy to me. Money seems to be very important to you.

Where the **** did that come from? I'm with ambush on this one. What was that statistic again? 5% of the people in the world control 90% of the world's money? That isn't right. More of that money should be used to help people in need.

I.E. Starving people, homeless people, people with disabilities, medical needs, etc.

That's what socialism is about

[TheBadgerHunter]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

YES! YES IT IS! Helping them WITH YOUR OWN FREE WILL!

NOT BEING FORCED TO BY THE GOV.

Does it matter? Sounds like jealousy to me. Money seems to be very important to you. [/B]

By that logic tax is sin, which is exactly why you can't apply christian principles to this kind of thing.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Sage:
Christianity should have no part in government � nor any other religion.

I don't think that is what he was saying.

Ambush was just trying to make me feel bad for being a Christian while voting for Bush.

Which is a bit absurd of a stance to take on his part.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Jaey:
in need.

I.E. Starving people, homeless people, people with disabilities, medical needs, etc.

That's what socialism is about

Socialism doesn't cure that. Do you think there wasn't any starving people in the U.S.S.R?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by TheBadgerHunter:
By that logic tax is sin,

No, because you are paying for a service with tax.

which is exactly why you can't apply christian principles to this kind of thing.

I'll agree with you there.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by Jaey:
Where the **** did that come from? I'm with ambush on this one. What was that statistic again? 5% of the people in the world control 90% of the world's money? That isn't right. More of that money should be used to help people in need.

I.E. Starving people, homeless people, people with disabilities, medical needs, etc.

That's what socialism is about

Too bad for you we're never going to change to a socialist society. What's the point of this thread? Its not going to happen. In fact the world becomes more capitalistic everyday. It is more inline with human nature and once exposed to the benefits of it people are not going to go back barring the intervention of one thing you people hate more than capitalism, religion.

[Jaey]

Originally posted by Sage:
Here's why Capitalism works: If you make more money through more work, you keep the damn money. This creates incentive to work harder and make more money, which only helps yourself and the economy. If you work harder, make more money, then it gets taxed off of you, then where is the incentive to work harder? Zimp is spot-on by saying that Socialism breeds mediocrity... if there's no incentive to work harder, then why do it? Might as well work less so that you can steal money from those working harder than you.

Also, here's an important note that so many people miss. The left-wingies claim that executives, such as CEOs, don't do enough work to justify their pay. They conveniently forget though that it's these people who make it possible for the "workers" to have a job in the first place. Here's a personal example... I have a cousin who founded the search engine company Inktomi (which recently was bought by Yahoo!, but that's irrelevant to the story). It was because of his idea (to create a search engine based on 50 networked computers instead of one supercomputer), his leadership (as CEO of the company), and his willingness to venture into something new (with a possible downfall) that allowed him to create this company, which, (surprise!) employed hundreds/thousands of other people, so that they could create their own wealth. If he's creating millions of dollars in wealth for other people, why shouldn't he receive the same?

And branching off of that, another key point that many people miss is that to gain wealth, you do not have to steal wealth. Wealth is not a constant, but can increase without anybody losing any of it (in an ideal world anyway). My cousin did not steal a dime from anybody, but made millions because he made it physically possible for his employees and shareholders to create more wealth. Now tell me � why the hell should he get punished for doing that by being taxed more money? I call that unfair.

Socialism wasn't created so that everyone would be perfectly equal in wealth. There are rich socialists and there are poor socialists. The purpose of socialism is to make it so that the rich socialists spend a little extra money to help the poor ones who can't afford important things such as health care. The fact is, there are always going to be people who work their asses off and get paid dirt for it. Socialism gives those people a little compensation. If they were under a capitalist government they wouldn't be able to afford anything that most others take for granted. For example, food, health care (again), housing, etc. You're not "stealing" if you work less in a Socialist government. You are making less money. But it is my firm belief that everyone has a right to all of the things mentioned above, and in my opinion having a doctor is not "stealing."

As for the CEO's, well, I partly agree. They should be rewarded for their efforts and the fact that they provide jobs for sometimes thousands of people. However, the millions and millions of dollars some of them make is just disgusting. It's kind of like being a movie star: You make so much money every month you could feed 10,000 starving children in Africa, find an alternate energy source, cure cancer and fly a rocket to mars (maybe a slight exaggeration).

The reason your cousin (and other rich people) should be taxed so much more is because they have so much more. If you have, say, 2 million dollars and are taxed $400,000 a year (a little extreme, I know), that $400,000 should go directly into the welfare system for underpriviledged people.

[Jaey]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Socialism doesn't cure that. Do you think there wasn't any starving people in the U.S.S.R?

The U.S.S.R. is not an ideal example of a Socialist society...

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Jaey:
The U.S.S.R. is not an ideal example of a Socialist society...

That is just it. Everyone has an Idealistic view of what they think Socialism should be. But it never is.

Idealistically Socialism should work!
But it usually doesn't in the way it was intended.

Greed and corruption will always taint

[Jaey]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
That is just it. Everyone has an Idealistic view of what they think Socialism should be. But it never is.

Idealistically Socialism should work!
But it usually doesn't in the way it was intended.

Greed and corruption will always taint

This of course does not apply to Europe.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Jaey:
This of course does not apply to Europe.

It applies to anywhere there is humans controlling it.

[Jaey]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
It applies to anywhere there is humans controlling it.

So you're saying my previous example of Socialism (god forbid) actually working was because of greed and corruption? Or that Sweden will eventually deteriorate into an evil communist empire? Help me out here.

[Shinigami]

And of course, America isn't tainted more than Europe.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Jaey:
So you're saying my previous example of Socialism (god forbid) actually working was because of greed and corruption? Or that Sweden will eventually deteriorate into an evil communist empire? Help me out here.

I am saying that socialism is never as idealistic as people point out it being.

[Jaey]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I am saying that socialism is never as idealistic as people point out it being.

It's pretty sweet though...

EDIT: Ach, I'm done arguing. Bed time.

[smacintush]

Originally posted by Jaey:
Or that Sweden will eventually deteriorate into an evil communist empire? Help me out here.

The point is that Sweden never was and NEVER EVER will be an economic 800lb. gorilla under that system.

[smacintush]

Originally posted by Jaey:

Sweden (a socialist country) did not have a single homeless person until the year 2000.

Says who? You do realize governments have been known to be full of sh*t sometimes.

Almost all of Europe has free health care (so does Canada). Maybe they have something right?

It's not free. They pay dearly for it.

In terms of money AND especially quality.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by smacintush:
The point is that Sweden never was and NEVER EVER will be an economic 800lb. gorilla under that system.

And maybe being an economic 800 lb gorilla isn't the end all be all goal for a society. Health, comfort, and happiness are all at least equally important.

I'm not saying that the U.S. is a sick, uncomfortable, dreary society - we just strike a different balance than the Swedes. Frankly, I think I would prefer a more Sweden like balance than the one we have.

BlackGriffen

[Spliffdaddy]

Doesn't matter what you have today - if it can be taken away tomorrow.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Doesn't matter what you have today - if it can be taken away tomorrow.

Then it doesn't matter what you have today, because everything can be taken tomorrow; even your life. It doesn't have to be the government, either.

The trick is to realizing that your choices are these: the government, or a feudal lord. An unregulated, purely capitalistic economy, quickly devolves into the economic equivalent of feudalism.

Conservatives seem to have arrested development at 4 years old. They're always going, "MINE! MINE! MINE!"

BG

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
That is just it. Everyone has an Idealistic view of what they think Socialism should be. But it never is.

Good point. But Capitalism has never attained its idealistic aims either. Socialism ends up being rife with inefficiency. Capitalism ends up being rife with profit making overtaking the common good and common (even Christian) morality. Eg. when Ford's Pinto was found to have a defect that caused them to explode when hit from the rear. Ford's bean counters did a very cold study and concluded that the total expense of lawsuits against them (given accident rates, etc) would be less expensive than a major design overhaul to make the vehicle safer. In other words .. X number of people would die, but that was OK because it'd was the option that would maximize Ford's profit by minimizing their cost to address the issue. Bet none of the people who figured this grisly balance sheet drove Pintos

[smacintush]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
And maybe being an economic 800 lb gorilla isn't the end all be all goal for a society. Health, comfort, and happiness are all at least equally important.

I'm not saying that the U.S. is a sick, uncomfortable, dreary society - we just strike a different balance than the Swedes. Frankly, I think I would prefer a more Sweden like balance than the one we have.

BlackGriffen

We create so much wealth that we can be (by FAR) the number one exporter of food.

We can throw BILLIONS of dollars of aid to to a bazillion countries who are too inept to take care of their own problems.

We can afford to contribute (by FAR) the most and best military for NATO and the UN missions as well as many, small unilateral efforts.

Being an 800lb. gorilla is not necessarily selfish. People tend to forget just how much we give to the world BECAUSE WE CAN.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Then it doesn't matter what you have today, because everything can be taken tomorrow; even your life. It doesn't have to be the government, either.

The trick is to realizing that your choices are these: the government, or a feudal lord. An unregulated, purely capitalistic economy, quickly devolves into the economic equivalent of feudalism.

Conservatives seem to have arrested development at 4 years old. They're always going, "MINE! MINE! MINE!"

BG

The point was that while it's nice to worry about the snail-darter, ozone, and acid rain - it really won't mean jackshit if we don't protect and vigorously defend our ability to exist into the future...where a ozone hole might someday become a problem.

The fact that so many Americans feel secure enough about the future of America to worry about future problems is a very telling thing. It means, so far, America has been successful in at least making its citizens feel secure.

Look, you guys can worry about things that might become problems in the future - and I'll worry about making sure there *is* a future for Americans.

All your worry, planning, and hard work will be for naught, otherwise.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:

Look, you guys can worry about things that might become problems in the future - and I'll worry about making sure there *is* a future for Americans.

I can imagine a world without the US. Can't really imagine a US without a world for it to be in. I have a hunch that the world will outlast the US government ..... even if only inhabitable by roaches.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by Jaey:
Socialism wasn't created so that everyone would be perfectly equal in wealth.

State socialism, aka state capitalism: when the two ends meet in a common authoritarian institution, they aren't all that different!

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by smacintush:
(re: Free health care))
It's not free. They pay dearly for it.

In terms of money AND especially quality.

Back this up: how did you get to that conclusion?

[vmarks]

Originally posted by ambush:

anyway.. my PHD teachers are (YAY) left wing.

like my politics teachers say... capitalism is not right...

Good teachers teach without revealing their personal political positions. They teach concepts and allow you to reach your own conclusions.

Furthermore, taking economic advice from political professors without any further elaboration seems to be absurd. It is akin to asking a poet to describe two trains passing at different speeds and how long one will take to brake to a stop. Asking the poet is nice, but asking a physicist will give you a far more informative and accurate answer.

Capitalism is not wrong, it is the system by which people with less gain more and improve their lives without imposing force. If I go to the store and buy milk, I'm valuing the milk more than my two dollars, and the store values my two dollars more than their milk. It is cooperative and we both gain what we want. In other economic systems, Government forces the store to sell milk at a lower price, and thus is actually making the claim that Government owns the milk, not the person selling it. The beauty of Capitalism is that both parties have to agree that they want what the other person has more than what they already have. It is driven by agreement rather than by force.

Now for some levity:
Your first college degree might be called B.S. This is not a coincidence.
The second one might be M.S. This is more of the same.
Lastly, when you've spent more years learning than practicing in a field, you might be awarded recognition, called Ph.D. This is Piled Higher and Deeper.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by smacintush:
[Free health care is] not free. They pay dearly for it.

In terms of money AND especially quality.

Oh?

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Capitalism is not wrong, it is the system by which people with less might gain more and improve their lives without imposing force.

fixed�.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by smacintush:
It's not free. They pay dearly for it.

In terms of money AND especially quality.

well, in the country i live i pay 280,- � a month (when i was employed full time 140,- � from standard pay) for healthcare (covers dental and all), and don't really have to worry about anyhting. my dentist is top notch, and the two hospitals within walking distance are some of the finest medical facilities i've seen. my doctor is great too ( a classical philosopher as well as first rate internist). my personal otorhinolaryngologist is not only one of the best in the world, but one of my closest friends as well.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Furthermore, taking economic advice from political professors without any further elaboration seems to be absurd. It is akin to asking a poet to describe two trains passing at different speeds and how long one will take to brake to a stop. Asking the poet is nice, but asking a physicist will give you a far more informative and accurate answer.

I don't agree with you vmarks. Not better. Different.

It is a different description of reality, yet the same reality.

If your thing is a scientific description of reality, it will stop at %5 error on measurement, related to the imperfection of the instruments (which includes the eyes, the ears, etc.).

The artist has a different point of view that can be more revealing of how people perceive reality; same process, different means, different language, different interpretation.

The mistake is in monopolizing one way and alienate the others because of our preferences.

If teachings were about truth, our societies would have collapsed a long time ago.

Heck, maybe that is how whole civilizations collapsed! The dictature of an apparently single Truth!

Capitalism cannot suffice to itself. It is not complete It requires a form of communism in parallel, simply because it provides freedom of choice for people who don't completly identify to one system. Different perception of the same reality again, imho.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
Capitalism cannot suffice to itself. It is not complete It requires a form of communism in parallel, simply because it provides freedom of choice for people who don't completly identify to one system. Different perception of the same reality again, imho.

Also considering that capitalism, even when "free" (almost impossible in reality, due to its essentially exploitative nature), isn't really the most rational and sensible thing one could think about. For example, why should we need money (and especially useless intermediate levels such as finance, etc.), when we could produce and exchange the same things only - or almost only - for the pleasure of doing it? Of course, this if humans aren't educated to artificial indolence, as seems to be the case in today's divisive schooling "system", which tends to submit the individuals' free will to the economic status quo...

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by Jaey:
However, the millions and millions of dollars some of them make is just disgusting. It's kind of like being a movie star: You make so much money every month you could feed 10,000 starving children in Africa, find an alternate energy source, cure cancer and fly a rocket to mars (maybe a slight exaggeration).

Aw, play me some fiddles.

The reason your cousin (and other rich people) should be taxed so much more is because they have so much more. If you have, say, 2 million dollars and are taxed $400,000 a year (a little extreme, I know), that $400,000 should go directly into the welfare system for underpriviledged people.

There is no legitimate excuse to tax one person at a higher rate than another.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by Sven G:
Also considering that capitalism, even when "free" (almost impossible in reality, due to its essentially exploitative nature), isn't really the most rational and sensible thing one could think about. For example, why should we need money (and especially useless intermediate levels such as finance, etc.), when we could produce and exchange the same things only - or almost only - for the pleasure of doing it?

quoted for emphasis.

and i'd like to add that this concept is at the center of what i to believe is the most healthy, rational and productive philosophy on life and living.

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by Sven G:
For example, why should we need money (and especially useless intermediate levels such as finance, etc.), when we could produce and exchange the same things only - or almost only - for the pleasure of doing it?

Because resourses, like people, are not created equally.

Every system ever created by man has some degree of exploitation. However, capitalism is the only one which gives the individual as much potential power as a corporation.

If I have a resource you need and it's in short supply then whether you give me lots of money for it or lots of your own product or lots of your own time for it then there's no difference at all in what's being exchanged. You seem to think that just because it's money that's being exchanged that it's somehow evil.

Don't forget, somewhere along the way, you exchanged your time for money. By giving someone else money you are merely giving them a certain amount of your time but in a different more convenient form. That's all money is.