<Money is not the measure of a man, some earn it through hard work, some earn it with proper investment, some inherit it, some win the lottery, and some steal it.>
Of course if people steal money, that doesn't mean they are worth anything. Money is intended to be exactly the measure of human value. People get paid more if they do better things. People who aren't worth so much get paid less.
Which isn't to say there aren't other ways of measuring human value too. For example, a mother who is raising a supersonic turbocharged registered genius has extremely high value, yet is usually unpaid other than via a share of her husband's income, which might be trivial, or he might even be dead and providing no more income.
The purpose of money is to assign value to people and what they do. There isn't another reason for money. It's an abstract measuring stick for human value, in the same way metres and kilograms are ways of measuring physical entities. One doesn't need to use kilograms to measure a physical entity, but it helps to be accurate and reduce argument over how much is enough for a particular agreement.
<Some very valuable people have no money yet have much worth, an example would be Mother Teresa and the life she lived.> I disagree with your example, but your principle is right. Of course somebody who invents a Theory of Relativity is supremely valuable, yet might have little money and get nothing for it. But that doesn't mean money isn't what's used as the main measure of value.
Mqurice |
