The Money Cycle

            There’s a very common saying that says, “You need to spend money to make money.” This statement is incredibly true, but the truth runs deeper than most people think. It is generally believed that this is a statement specifically about running a business, but it holds true for far, far more than that.

            For businesses, the saying is true in the largest and most literal sense. In order to have a location to do business, money is needed to pay for it. Before you can sell something (thus, making money), you first need to buy it. Further to that, a business needs to get noticed so people will actually know to come buy from it – so it must spend money on marketing.

            Yet, the average person needs to spend money to make money as well. It isn’t as noticeable because it’s so built in to our awareness that it just comes naturally. The first, and most obvious, is feeding ourselves. If we don’t buy food, we don’t eat and we become inefficient workers, losing our jobs. When seeking a job, we need resumes (money), transportation (money), and, most likely, some technological assistance (money). Then, when we get an interview, we are expected to look our best – which costs money. And if you want a job that requires a higher level of education? You guessed it: money.

            At any walk of life, you need money to make money, and it’s frustrating when people fail to understand that. This week I saw an article about a government refusing to provide homeless shelters because it was ‘enabling’ homeless people and not ‘motivating’ them. So, let’s pretend for a moment that it’s true that homeless people are homeless because they ‘aren’t trying hard enough’. Let’s pretend that there are no mental illnesses, no health problems, and no other factors contributing to homelessness other than how hard they try to get a job.

            So, how is this fictional, perfectly healthy homeless person to get a job? They need you job hunt – which takes money. They need to look presentable – which takes money. They likely need a bank account, which takes money, not to mention an address – which means a home and, once again, money. They may even need an education, a.k.a. money.

            It’s a circular paradox we’ve built into our system. It works only because we are introduced into the cycle – we have other people (usually parents or banks) front the money so we can start making money, and we just continue on from there. But what happens when we fall out of the cycle? What happens when you run out of money and have no way of making more?

            You fall on the ground and get dragged along, barely able to survive until someone generous comes along to pick you up. Someone who can give you enough money that jump-starts you back into the cycle again.

            Rather than standing over a pit someone has fallen into, yelling at them about how useless they are and telling them to climb out on their own, perhaps we should lower a ladder for them. For a government, it’s really as simple as going back to that saying: spend money to make money. If these people are really a ‘drain on the system’, spend more money on them so they can become able to earn their own money. Then you’re not paying for them anymore and they can start paying taxes to you. You spent money to make money, and now they can do it too.

Check out my YouTube channel where I tell the stories of my D&D campaigns.

Click here to find the charity anthology containing a couple of my short stories.

Also, make sure you check out my wife's blog and her website.


If there's any subject you'd like to see me ramble on about, feel free to leave a comment asking me to do so.

Hierarchical Flaws

            While pondering about society, as I am wont to do, I came across something I view as a critical flaw. The hierarchy of many of our systems works backwards.

            We’ll start by looking at the workforce. In order for society to function, people need to perform various jobs. To encourage people to do these jobs, they are paid money – which they require so they can go on eating and paying bills and such. This isn’t entirely bad, but the desperate need for money does.

            In ancient times, it was possible for people without a source of money to live off the land and, if they needed to, go out into the wilderness and build themselves a home. Now, at least in first world countries, they can’t do that. Not only have we lost the basic skill sets, but even if we wanted to go homesteading we’d still have to buy the land and pay taxes on it. We’d need a job.

            Having a job to make money has become such a desperate need that people destroy themselves and their mental health just to get and keep one. This is made worse by the shortage of jobs – employers have been given the leverage that if you don’t do the job exactly how they want you to, they can easily replace you. This adds to the pressure of a job and has the employees working under threat (rather than positive motivation) and creates a harmful relationship between employers and employees.

            In short, people are desperate for money, so they will do work they hate in harmful environments to keep their employers happy. But, what if that were reversed? What if, instead of people pushing themselves further and further to get and keep jobs, employers had to entice the best employees to come work for them? What if it became the employer’s responsibility to make people want to work or them?

            Some companies with enough money to throw around already do this, but in many of the biggest companies it has become just a gesture. There are “Benefits” given to the employees, but where is the effort to make the employees enjoy the work environment? Any given employer shouldn’t be driving their employees with a whip, but a member of the team working to make everything run smoothly. They should be as accountable to their employees as the employees are to them.

            The same theory can be applied to governments. There is a great divide between governments and their people, because we have this idea the government members are in charge of the rest of us. They wield the power, after all. People talk about the government as if they are an alien race.

            Yet, if everything functioned as it should, people could bring problems to the government to get them resolved. Yes, that is partially available through the court system, but that doesn’t work for everything. How much faster would potholes get fixed if the government was more approachable?

            Our world is divided into hierarchies, with the idea that the person below has to do whatever the person above says. This structure is needed because there needs to be someone observing what is happening – someone who is not directly involved who can see the whole picture and direct the flow to ensure productivity and efficiency. However, if that person is “better than” their underlings, they become more of a problem than a help. It’s all very well telling people something has to be done, but if you don’t know if it’s possible or if the manpower exists for it, you’re just causing problems. When there is a view of equality, the underlings can express their concerns and the problems with instructions and, together, the team can find a solution.

            Being at the top of a hierarchy is a responsibility, but it has become a goal and a perk – which is the inherent problem with a hierarchical structure. Once someone has been given the power, why should they bother with more than they have to? Why should they listen to the people below them?

            It keep things running smoothly and properly, that’s why.

Click here to find the charity anthology containing a couple of my short stories.

Also, make sure you check out my wife's blog and her website.


If there's any subject you'd like to see me ramble on about, feel free to leave a comment asking me to do so.

Fixing the Global Economy

            I've often looked at the economy and wondered what could be done to make it work better. There’s a complete lack of balance in the wealth, there are far too many people unemployed and – at least in first world countries – there is far too much waste.

            So, here’s my thought of what we need to do. First, we cut the average work shift from 8 hours to 4 hours – this doubles the number of shifts available and entirely eliminates unemployment, while allowing people to either spend more time doing what they actually want to do or to work a second job without killing themselves.

            Second, because there are so many more jobs available, we’ll then be able to cut back on the surplus of products we are currently creating. Between the lower number of products being created and the subsequent less materials required, jobs and employment should balance out perfectly – there will even be a bit of flex room available, allowing jobs to be made available as people need employment.

            Third, we eliminate built-in obsolescence. Because there will be more people working shorter hours (less stress, more relaxation time) and creating fewer products, we’ll be able to afford the time and materials to make things properly and to last. They will be a little more expensive, but we won’t have to buy a new one every couple of years.

            Fourth, balance the money flow. Pay people what they deserve and what they need to survive. There’s enough money out there – it just isn't in the right places.

            The end result is that we’ll be paying more people (shorter hours) to make less things (albeit higher quality) and we’ll have so much less waste that we’ll be able to use our resources to help less fortunate countries. Wouldn't that be nice?

Click here to find the charity anthology containing a couple of my short stories.

If there's any subject you'd like to see me ramble on about, feel free to leave a comment asking me to do so.