"What important truth do very few people agree with you on?": I believe that nobody is running the show. The systems we have created are more complex than we understand. I think a few people individually understand a few aspects of the different systems (we are not at the complete mercy to these systems).
I also believe that we have a psycological need to know our social heirachies therefore we create stories about who we think is in control. That need creates conspiracy theories! That need creates narratives that certain people are running the world (but when you look closy at those people they are not running things - they don't understand how everything works even though they put much effort into trying to).
Are you trying to argue that money is more important than banking? But that banking was the most important thing? Your logic elludes me.
Or maybe you have a manipulative world view? What is more important - money or power? If you have power do you need money? Is power equivalent to money?
"Money" is a means of exchange, and in some contexts it is a status signal.
Money is a measure, not an ends in itself. People want the money to do something with: the something is faaaar more important than money. Find me a person with money, and I will easily find ten things they would prefer.
Anecdotally:
My friends don't value money above other things. Other friends could easily take nearly all my money if they chose to (I put myself into very submissive situations). I don't work because I don't need more money.
Perhaps I live in a different world than you.
The people I know all have complex desires, and few of my friends are concentrating on making money (and the smartest friends I know don't make money their central goal). I do have a couple of friends who try to make money and they seem to do it quite well without too much difficulty.
Have you tried to offer money to people? If it is so critical then people would take it. My experience is that a few do but many don't. I've offered large amounts to acquaintances that haven't taken it (perhaps with or without hooks).
Yes, rodger that, wealth is irrelevant to money - a concept plenty of people grok with time.
Your logic appears poor to me: perhaps that is why you employ logicians - money is your solution? Money doesn't write software, people do. People's motivations are crazy complex: which causes good or bad software to be created.
> Nobody
Somebody: My guest today was working for $0 on two systems (one maintenance, one he is developing). Both were difficult and annoying computer systems with a complex userbase. He didn't seem to really want to do the job: yet he was doing it for free (well, actually it was costing him)! Why does he need money if he gets his needs met by friends and acquantances. His only payment appears to be friendship and good company and his internal satisfaction (for varied reasons). I don't understand his motivations but yesterday he had said that offering him money would strongly demotivate him. Illogical?
Perhaps your philosophical world view has little overlap with mine. I have retired early so that is a signal that my world view is different from most people's. I haven't recently needed to buy development time so maybe my opinions are stale.
I agree with this. I this misunderstanding is the root cause of, well a lot of shit, but particularly the increase in belief in conspiracy theories by members of the public. Most people lack a conceptual understanding of emergent behavior in complex systems, and instead rely on linear narrativization to understand the world (which by the way is not an insult to the public's intelligence, it's just the way our brains work unless you make a concerted effort to step outside of that default). And if you aren't considering multivariate, emergent behavior as a possible explanation for unpredictable and inscrutable world events, the next and really only reasonable explanation is intricate conspiracies by powerful agents.
I mean, a monarchy is also a system, but I also recognize that's not what you're talking about.
I'm inclined to agree, though I do think there's a disproportionate amount of influence in some groups. I also worry that the true danger of an artificial super-intelligence is not in a SkyNet-like scenario, but a more subtle and slower influence over global societies via trade and economics. It already more or less runs the world in abstract, so a thing that can understand all the complexities and manipulate them with capital has the potential to be very dangerous.
