Mehr!

What is it about money that turns people into greedy, antisocial maniacs? Ever since the concept of trade was invented in antediluvian times everyone has been slowly developing the obsession of getting maximum value for minimal effort, often at the expense of those who are too meek or decent to rise against exploitation.

Sadly, money is happiness, usually only for those who consider they don't have enough of it (and to a neutral third party, this belief rarely turns out to be realistic). A homeless man may believe he doesn't have enough money, but so would a middle class Londoner sharing a shoe box apartment in Brixton with his significant other, and so would a Wall Street businessman with a high set of personal standards.

There were times when I had a lot of money, and there were times when I barely had any. Adapting to the latter was horrifying, and so was becoming aware of the cruel social differences between "rich" (I prefer the term "wealthy"), "middle class" and "poor". Of all places I've lived in, London reflects it best, which is the reason I would never live there again. Well, unless something very bad happened and I would become indecently wealthy AND ignorant at the same time.

Everyone's value is measured around their possessions and labelled accordingly. In the utopia that we will never be fit to occupy, the most hardworking are always the richest, which fits the original purpose of economy, initially based on the moral precept of trading your own goods or tokens in exchange for other goods - in other words, earning a living.

We compromise our health to earn a living, and spend our fortune to earn it back when we fall ill in the attempt to move poverty out of our way to happiness. The luckiest and most corrupt are often, but not always the richest; however, they always claim the place of the most hardworking.

Would poverty and homelessness exist as a well-deserved punishment for laziness in a perfect society where people would be rewarded fairly for their work? Would the talented be wealthier than the hardworking? Would the privilege of being born in wealth motivate the wealthy to be hardworking in turn, even if their parents' and grandparents' fair earnings will have provided for generations to come? Would charity be then regarded as immoral?

Is money a token of our honest work, or is it a result of the arbitrary works of the universe society perceives as "luck"? Or is it a measure of how utterly ruthless and immoral one can become in their pursuit of happiness - but personal happiness at the expense of others is just a means to an end in the eyes of the machiavellian.

I have more money than any human being on the planet could dare to dream of. I've seen every bit of the world, tasted every sin there is to taste, gave my fortune to others in repentance, and have plenty more left to give. What is left for me to do, if I have done everything I thought would make me happy? I will make peace with myself and continue living a life that is left without purpose, now that I have fulfilled all of my wishes. Or I will let my mind replace them with more ambitious aims, like fame, appreciation and love.

I am never myself. I am never complete. I can never settle. I will never stop looking, don't know what for, but I won't. I am never truly fulfilled.

Human nature makes us forever dissatisfied with who we are and what we've achieved. We will always want more. And more. And more. Until we die of old age, helpless and miserable, or drive our race to extinction, fueled by our own selfish, idealistic ignorance.

Our current economic system will fail in any kind of past, present, future or parallel universe you place our people in. Money is not the problem. It's people.