Becoming Free from NetWorth Individualism and moving on to TimeWorth Individualism
I have heard it said many times: "time is money" and "money makes the world go round". What I think is generally (loosely) meant by these utterings, is that production of goods and services happens over time and the more goods that can be produced and the better (more) services rendered in as short a span of time as possible, the more "money" will have been "earned". [Please note at this point that I introduce my own concepts expressed with my own words to convey the meaning that I intend and that (meaning) I feel is not adequately portrayed in traditional "well established" words, like "money" for instance, having been stripped of its original intention (in my opinion). For this reason I use double quotation marks to try and isolate these corrupted terms and open up space for new possible interpretation with new intended fresh meaning being aimed at as end result of my thought process. These new concept type words are often in
italics].
With 'money makes the world go round' I think in general is meant that we have to accept the perceived "fact" that economics dictate the affairs of humans - it steers all activity, again, of the flow of goods and services between entities (entities being individuals to corporations (businesses consisting also of individuals) to nations (consisting also of individuals)).
I guess high networth individuals have brilliantly amassed lots of "money" in little time, or less time, and as a result, now have, for themselves, lots of time at hand, to do as they please.
This particular established way of thinking about "money", time, individuals and the world is however, not accurate in my opinion. I think of these things more like this:
people are time and
people make the world go round. You will notice I have omitted the word "money" in my descriptions. Why have I deliberately omitted the word "money"? It is because I don't believe in the concepts of high networth, low networth, medium networth, semi-medium networth or any other such description of individuals. A low networth individual would be someone with little "money" whilst a high networth individual would be someone with a lot of "money". Because I don't recognize low-, medium- or high networth individuals, I cannot look and see "money" as well. Whom I recognize and
see are only
persons (individuals) with time at hand. That is it. No more.
Don't be utterly ridiculous, some (or lots) might say - it is all about "money" and don't even try to not think in these well established monetary terms. Hahaha, you are in for a surprise because this is exactly what I am up to do - to no longer think in these old, well established monetary terms. 'Why this madness?', someone screams. The reasons are quite simple and straight forward (staight ahead), as it always should be, as nicely expressed through the German phrase '
immer gerade aus'. It is based on the premise that words and the meaning they represent , shapes the realities that people experience (live in). If the meaning that a word represents has become corrupted, the word should be discarded and replaced with another word that once again fulfill the original intended meaning it did convey. In other words, when original meaning is somehow lost, or when intended meaning is misrepresented by the expression of a word, like "money" for instance, replace the word "money" so that the true meaning of what "money" should refer to (represent), are regained and restored. Now I can just see many frowned faces at this moment and the question popping into mind is this: "Is this even remotely possible?"
My contention is that it is possible. You only have to believe it and enact your belief. Believing in myself to experience authentic reality, is foremost in my mind. What is
authentic reality? Authentic reality is a reality in which words and their meanings adequately convey your lived experience as an authentic human person. My authentic lived experience as an authentic human person is that
my time is worth a lot, and to be utilized in relation and in conjunction with other human beings. All human beings have the most precious utility already in possession and at hand -
TIME. Time becomes fruitful when expressed in conjunction and coordination between persons and groups of people, a
network so to speak. Of course there are different kinds of networks, each with its own particular purpose(s), but all of them are important, as they are fundamentally grounded by humans, all having the most precious
time-utility at hand.
When it becomes possible for you to think of your
time-utility at hand, you will also inevitably start to think how much
your time is worth to you. The worth of people's time-utility should, in my opinion, be fairly coordinated in terms of the contributory value it adds to the networks in which it is deployed. Contributory value could be thought of as that which adds stability and ease of operation-ability of networks. It is beyond the scope of this update to go into detail of what
fair means, generally speaking.
What
fair could possibly mean in each individual case is also difficult to get a grip on for me, but I can espouse what I think is
unfair, to illustrate the point I am making of time-utility and each person having this utility ready at hand. Let's look at the case of Ben Bernanke, a former head of the U.S. Federal Reserve and how he utilized his time by delivering a speech in Abu Dhabi that took him about 40 minutes. Bernanke was rewarded more than $250 000 for utilizing his time-utility in speaking to an audience for those 40 minutes. Now in comparison to this example let's look at how a particular Malawian Man utilized his
time-utility in a completely different scenario and circumstance, but non the less did deploy his time-utility at hand, and this is the important part - to
deploy the time-utility in your possession and to do it such a manner, as to further the cause of a successful harmonious humanity. The Centre for Social Concern in Malawi conveyed this message, and I am quoting from
mywage :
CfSC, which is recognised by government, also revealed in a report the story of a man who has worked for 12 years as a shop attendant and still gets less than 5,000 Malawi Kwacha per month. At his workplace employees are not allowed to take a day off to attend a funeral, even it is that of their mother. If they do so, their wages will be deducted for each day they are away. When the centre queried how he managed to support his family with such low pay, the shop assistant reported that he helps customers (privately) to carry such things as iron roofs or cement from the shop to their car/bus in exchange for a little cash.
In this story of the Malawian shop attendant, I am asking myself why is his time-utility treated with disrespect, reflected in the wage he earns, when compared to Bernanke and how his time-utility is spoiled rotten in the "wage" her earned for speaking for those 40 minutes he did in Abu Dhabi? Something tells me the time-utility balance is way off in this illustration. I mean the Malawian Man's value contribution to his attributed implied networks of which he forms a part is worth $6.87 (5000 Malawian Kwacha) for the entire month, delivering his contribution, whilst Bernanke's value contribution was esteemed to be worth in excess of $ 250 000 for the 40 minutes he spoke. Wait a minute, I am curious to rework the numbers to do fair comparison:
Assuming a 5-day work week and 8 hours per day of work being done, it is calculated that 22 days of the calendar month work is being done. Boiled down to an hour the Malawian Man's wage is
4 cent, American. Let's be generous to Bernanke's time spent and round his time spent off to 1 hour in stead of only the 40 minutes, then Bernanke's contribution value is outrageously disproportionate to the Malawian Man's contribution value. Both tapped into their time-utility at hand and made the most of what they could muster. The thing about this example I can't get my head around is why the
time-utility of each is valued so extremely far apart from one another? It must be economics that dictate this tremendous gap right? How much less value did the Malawian Man contribute to the seamless functioning of society in general, than Bernanke, when he delivered his speech to his audience in Abu Dhabi? While realizing the difference of circumstance and background etc. of each, I have deliberately chosen this extreme example to more clearly illustrate my line of thought to my readers. Bernanke's time-utility for the 1 hour speech delivered, in USD terms is valued 6,250,000 times (six million two hundred and fifty thousand times) more than Malawian Man and his 1 hour time-utility, to be taken out of any given work day as a shop attendant.
This humongous gap in perceived
time-utility value of each, could be thought of in this way: you will need six million two hundred and fifty thousand Bernanke's to do the work of one Malawian shop attendant! It seems ridiculous, and it is indeed. This example shows how perceived, well established "money" systems are out of touch with actual lived realities of real societies, and the value contributions that makes societies function well.
In light of what I have espoused here, and to appropriately end this festive update on FREEDOM asset, please read
UNLOCKING GOLD’S TRUE VALUE: The Economic Code – Finally Revealed by SRSrocco carefully, mindfully, and then ask yourself the following question:
Is it not true, that any (and all) relevant-to-humanity energy, spent in the production of goods and services, are in fact Person[al]-Energy - the energy that individuals utilize when they value {and ought to value above all else}, the worth of the time they have at hand.