Category: Money

When we hear about money, we ask ourselves many questions like, what is money? Was it very old? What did the old people use without it? What are its uses? How can it be harmful or its disadvantages?

So I chose this topic to speak about money, which represents the major source of force in the world. Money is the thing that people use to pay for goods, and services and to pay for other people. We see that money is an important part of our life.

I will start to speak about it, by answering the questions that are in our minds about money and, how it is a double-edged weapon!

We heard many times that money is a double-edged weapon and try a lot to understand these words. These words mean that money has to face one is harmful and hurts us and another face is very useful for us.

I understand that money is very important for our joy, which God has gifted us. It depends on people’s how they use money as some people think that that there is nothing is better than love and some other people think that money is everything, And to understand the useful of money we must try to imagine a world without money, how would people treat with each other? And what would be the shape of the world? In the old world, they were a barter system: it was trading one good or serving another so it was inefficient in the modern advanced economy, so when someone wants to buy something like shoes, he first searches for someone who makes or has the wanted shoes wanted size. So the trade was very difficult, another problem, was it doesn’t allow people to enter into contracts. So money solves the problem made by the barter system, it is considered to be the intermediary between the seller and buyer. Money is considered as a measure of value instead of a batter system. So it helps both trader and seller to know the real value.

Money has many uses; the simplest one is that is used to provide the basic needs of daily life, it uses to buy food, and clothes, to get a high level of education, so you have to save a lot of money(pay for books and fee).he can by money do anything, and buy anything. He can enjoy all means of comfort (house, air-conditioning cars … etc..). He can be a busy servant to keep your house.

Money has a great effect on individual life as it improves living standards helps man to have a comfortable life for him and his family, provides him with a good chance to achieve his aims in life, becomes able to travel anywhere, and visit other countries and learn about different culture and peoples. It manages to help his family and other people. it preserves human dignity and provides requirements. it helps in providing good health care to all family members. Money is a blessing to a man if he uses good and strengthens human relations in society such as giving alms to poor people and strengthening social relations with relatives and friends. When money is used for charity, it increases and doesn’t diminish.

It solves the problem of storing wealth.

Many of the poems we have read in class discuss the struggle to find true happiness. Though they explore different elements of it, they all return to two common themes – that happiness is subjective and that it is often hard to achieve. Lyrical poems are a great medium for themes like these since they can express many emotions through purposeful phrasing. A major difficulty in finding happiness is the obstacles presented by our often grim world, which are especially relevant today, as Covid-19 changes our lives. Furthermore, there is a certain perspective of happiness in American society that is imposed on us, even though happiness is in the eye of the beholder. This clouded view contributes to unhappiness that is often expressed and questioned through poetry like what we have read in class. Since the concept of happiness is so vague, it is easily forgotten, especially with all of the complexities in daily life.

In a seemingly nonstop world, it is easy to get distracted from what truly matters – finding happiness. Many people will claim or imply that money is happiness or conversely, that it means nothing at all. Neither side is right or wrong since happiness is a subjective feeling that can mean a lot of different things. One underlying struggle in many people’s lives is deciding what makes them happy. The poem A Center by Ha Jin claims the proper way to find happiness is to be yourself, regardless of what the world tells you. He argues “As long as you stay put year after year, / eventually you will find a world / beginning to revolve around you.” (12-14) In this, he asserts that if you do what makes you happy, the world will begin to grow around you and stop holding you back. However, this perspective is sometimes too optimistic. One drawback of Jin’s ideas is his disregard for opposing views. He encourages, “If others call you a maniac or a fool, just let them wag their tongues. / If some praise your perseverance, / don’t feel too happy about it—” (3-6). Ignoring all outside opinions is certainly not the way to achieve happiness. Besides, often the problem arises that the world does seem to hold you back.

Another major problem in the search for happiness is that sometimes, the world or one’s culture prevents them from living their happiest life. In American society, for example, there is a certain set of values that are almost assumed for those living here. For instance, there are clear stigmas against those who don’t go to traditional colleges or hold traditional jobs, regardless of whether it makes them happy or not. The poem Try to Praise the Mutilated World by Adam Zagajewski confronts our misplaced values. One striking passage opposes them, “You watched the stylish yachts and ships; / one of them had a long trip ahead of it, / while salty oblivion awaited others.” (7-9) These lines patronize American society for focusing on money and fame rather than helping those without it. The poem continues, “You’ve seen the refugees going nowhere, / you’ve heard the executioners sing joyfully. / You should praise the mutilated world.” (10-12) These powerful lines expose horrific truths of how we avert our eyes to injustices to people all over the world and how we nonetheless “should praise the mutilated world.” Our unjust attitudes create an inflexible system without regard for outliers, which causes them to become alienated.

Another poem, Self-Help by Charles Bernstein analyzes the misplaced optimism and ignorance present in our culture, which contribute to alienation within our society. Often, American culture pushes us to look on the bright side rather than focusing on the negatives. This mindset can be good in moderation, but often we are implored to ignore significant problems. Self-Help examines the numerous examples of misplaced idealism in our culture by contradicting several negative situations with ridiculous (and sadly familiar) solutions. For example, one line says, “Quadruple bypass. –Hold the bacon on that next cheeseburger.” (2) This quote exemplifies American culture because it not only touches on a horrifyingly real stereotype of unhealthiness but also demonstrates the ridiculousness and stubbornness of our culture. Most everyone knows that cheeseburgers are unhealthy, especially if you have underlying heart conditions, so the idea that omitting the bacon will somehow negate the unhealthiness shows the irony of our unwarranted optimism. This misplaced optimism can be especially damaging to the most vulnerable among us.

Sadly, many people struggle to find happiness in their lives due to mental illness, which is furthered by a general American insensitivity toward those difficult issues. The poem Preface to a Twenty-Volume Suicide Note by Amiri Baraka explores relevant topics surrounding depression through his use of in-depth imagery. A few lines that stood out to me describe the struggle to function, “Lately, I’ve become accustomed to the way / The ground opens up and envelopes me / Each time I go out to walk the dog.” (1-3) Baraka uses the powerful metaphor of the ground swallowing him to describe how depression affects him. He continues to reflect saying, “And now, each night I count the stars, / And each night I get the same number. / And when they will not come to be counted, / I count the holes they leave.” (7-10) He counts the people that bring brightness to his life and he remembers those who leave. It is common for patients with depression to feel alone and sad and remembering those who bring joy is a great way to dispel unwanted thoughts. Especially now, it is important to remember those closest to us, even if they are physically distant.

Amid a worldwide pandemic and quarantine, it is easy to feel lost and lose a sense of happiness. Since we have a seemingly endless amount of time to reflect, emotional expression is important; one great tool for this is poetry. Although it is easy to feel alone and sad, we must remember that we are alone together. Everybody is staying home so that we can soon return to the real world. Many of the themes of these poems explore the idea of perseverance, even in dark times which are crucial now, more than ever. Even though none of these poems were written during the Covid-19 outbreak, they contain many relevant themes about achieving happiness. Many of the poems explore ideas of imprisonment within one’s own culture, while others describe imprisonment within one’s mind, but they all establish happiness as an elusive ideal that is impossible to completely achieve.

Though absolute happiness is unachievable, it might not even be necessary or desirable. One story that we read in class this year, “The Happy Man” by Naguib Mahfouz exemplifies this idea. The main character wakes up one day, unable to feel any emotion besides manic happiness. Through this, the story explores happiness without hardship. In the end, the main character describes his unconditional happiness as debilitating since he begins to lose touch with reality and eventually becomes unable to function. This story helps remind us to value our lives as they are, happiness is more than feeling good; a more apt word for what we desire is contentment. This idea of contentment is constant in many poems, they often acknowledge the struggles in finding life satisfaction, whether they be distractions, divergence from the norm, or mental health issues. Many poems establish the idea that throughout all of life’s difficulties, happiness can be achieved despite almost anything if you have the right outlook.

The seemingly limitless number of struggles in finding happiness contribute to richer contentment once it is achieved. Without a taste of defeat, there is no joy in victory; Life’s obstacles flesh out our perspectives of happiness and give it meaning. Through poetry, we can express these struggles to find contentment in today’s world or to figure out where to go next. Many poems have a call to action and bring awareness to problems within our culture so that one day we can move forward and be truly content. One who is stagnant, without goals, simply accepting defeat cannot be content. Whereas those who even try can be satisfied with what they achieved, even if they were unsuccessful in their goals, their effort represents something more. Happiness is a confusing and ambiguous concept, but luckily, it can take many forms so contentment is achievable to anyone through a driven and flexible mindset.  

Money for your organs

What would it take for you to donate an organ to a stranger? Would you if money was involved? These questions have come to mind when thinking about changing the altruistic nature of the organ donation system to one that could benefit both donors and recipients even more. If there was a system that could pay donors for their organs, perhaps more people would be more inclined to give a part of them away to save a life. There would, of course, be some drawbacks that would arise from putting a completely new system to donating but there are compromises and other countries whose example we can follow. One thing for sure is that there are too many patients waitlisted in the system compared to the number of available donors.

There has been a significant increase in the amount of donors compared to 1991, but despite the increase, it is still not enough due to the immense gap between donors and those being waitlisted. In 2017, Organ Donation Statistics, reports that there were 115,000 people on the waitlist while only 16,473 donors were available and that gap is only getting bigger with every year. Amy L Friedman even voiced this issue to the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health by stating “The demand for life-saving organ transplantation has so outpaced supply that waiting patients and transplant teams are desperate.” Not only is the current system failing, it is being outpaced and there is a need for a new system to be put in place.

Pros:

• It can save lives – Having an increased number of people waiting for organ donations, one organ donor can save many lives as these organs can match those who are in need.
• Extending the family’s grievance – For a donation to be successful, the donor may need to extend their life support, which could prolong the grieving stage.
• You give someone a second chance – Because of transplantation, this treatment helps them extend and live a longer life.
• Restriction of being an eligible donor – Not everybody is eligible to donate specific organs, sometimes are age restrictions.
• Contribution to medical research opportunities – Sometimes donated organs cannot be helpful to someone in an instance. It can also be used for research to understand disease or illness.

Cons:

• Organ donation may lead to health issues – After surgery, it will change the lifestyle of the donor and if not followed it can cause health problems.
• A family consolation – When someone dies in a tragedy and becomes a donor it could be a closure to the family that if they donate a part of them to someone else there is a memory that their life was not wasted. This also connects them to the new person who has been saved because of their lost family members.
• There are limited organs that could be accepted – The body can also reject organs.
• Helping someone right now – Being an exact match for somebody on the list can help them straight away. If you are alive you can donate kidneys, pancreas, portions of lungs, and intestine tissue.
• Companies do not always have donor policies – If you consider donating organs discretion of paid and unpaid leaves will be challenging since being a donor is expensive. There are no rules for organ donors.

One would think donors would not spend money when spending time at the hospital for donating. However, what about their travels? People who donate have to spend money on transportation, stay in a hotel, and just stay on standby ready for the transplant. Susan Kreimer said to Leafmag, “Meanwhile, from a financial standpoint, estimates have found it costs a kidney donor in the United States an average of $3,000 to navigate through the entire transplant process, which may include time off from work, travels to and from the hospital, accommodations, food, and childcare expenses.” Even kind people just wanting to help another stranger may put themselves into a bit of debt when just trying to make the visits and check-ups. If they could get paid in compensation for donating their organs, this may also encourage people since it would cover most of the unseen expenses. Some people would consider this to be morally wrong when considering using this system which we would have to take into account.

We wouldn’t know how our society would react to the new system if it were to be implemented but what will come up are the moral issues behind it. The National Kidney Foundation said, “Offering direct or indirect economic benefits in exchange for organ donation is inconsistent with our values as a society. Any attempt to assign a monetary value to the human body, or body parts, either arbitrarily, or through market forces, diminishes human dignity.” Just knowing there is a price for our organs looks morally wrong and just makes it look like there is a price to human life. Even though putting a price on organs will look wrong it will be protecting people from the underground market of illegally selling and buying organs. Also, comments made by Anya Adair and Stephen J Wigmore in the National Center for Biotechnology Information said “Such systems are proposed to attempt to remove the need for an underground and illegal black market in organs. We would argue that however a paid donation is dressed up, the buying and selling of human organs and tissues can never be made ethical because it will always penalize the weakest.” What we learn from this is that people will be taken advantage of through this system but there could be compromises that can happen for these people not to suffer or even fall into more debt.

There are several benefits to implementing a system that compensates donors, such as gradually removing the sales of organs in the black market and increasing the number of donors. Increasing the number of donors could save the lives of those in desperate need. Jonel Aleccia from NBC News commented, “In the U.S., for instance, more than 98,000 people are waiting for kidneys, according to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, or OPTN. Last year, more than 4,500 people in the U.S. died waiting for kidneys.” It is hard to predict how fast an organ will become available, but patients can wait up to five years before finding a match. The sad reality is that thousands of people die waiting on the list for a donor to become a match.

Donate Life Midwest, an organization that helps register donors, wrote a story about a fourteen-year-old girl, Alexa, from North Dakota who unfortunately died waiting for a lung transplant. They stated how brave, courageous, and hopeful she was about her situation and how “She talked about all the things she was going to do when she received her transplant; dancing, earn her black belt in tae kwon do, learn to drive.” The possibility of her being alive could have increased if the system we have in place would have been different in a way that would increase the number of donors registering to save a life.

Losing people when it can be prevented with the possibility to benefit both sides it wouldn’t hurt to give this new system a chance. There are a few ways we could try to copy or at least evolve other versions of this system from current ideas to other countries that are doing it like the United Kingdom.

There are many ways our government can approach this system that have the potential to increase the number of donors by increasing their incentive with the offer of money. Friedman mentions, “To protect potential donors, regulation and payment must be governed by a balanced, objective, and multidisciplinary body. Organ donation should be limited to the country’s legal residents, but family members should not necessarily be excluded from donations solely because of a lack of residency. The exclusion of other non-resident donors will limit the exploitation of people from low-income countries.” This type of system would keep people from also taking advantage of those that could also benefit but cause a greater loss to them. There is more information in her journal but even with this, there can always be an adjustment the idea of at least changing the system is better than a system that we know is already starting to fail more than 100,000 recipients. Now put yourself in these people’s position would YOU want to be on a waiting list that could end your life if just one person was nice enough to have been a donor? You wouldn’t care if they did it for free or if they got paid as long as you got to stay out of the hospital. People are not getting more heartless but as a matter, they fact getting more generous and donors are increasing but not at a rate that can change some of these people’s lives for them to leave these hospitals.

In conclusion, the change in the current system of strangers shelling out a couple thousand just to be able to give you one of their organs is still currently not working. Yes some good people do this and we could educate the public more and how and the journey of giving your organs away for free but there are more benefits to trying out a new system that would potentially change the way people want to donate their organs. Any person can donate eight of their organs upon death and even with just one organ from a live patient is enough to get people on this registry to help others. Just doing one small little thing for someone can finally help you too if this system were to be put in place. Finally, if you were to put yourself in these people’s situations and struggles you would want a donor to show up quickly, so do you want the system to change or stay the same? 

Motivation has been defined as an internal drive that leads individuals to achieve their goals or organizational objectives (Certo, 2000). Several organizations these days attempt to find the best way to motivate and increase their workers’ efforts and performances as when workers are motivated, it contributes to the actual productivity of the organization. There are several factors which influence employee motivation and one of the most significant factors is money. Since money can be used to fulfill their basic needs such as food, water, and clothes many companies might still motivate their employees by using money or financial incentives. However, much theoretical literature does not use this financial reward as being the thing that leads to motivation.

Everyone seems to have different motivators in working. Money therefore can be viewed differently depending on each individual’s perspectives. Some workers might see it as an important thing in their working lives, while others might value other things such as power, achievement, or relationships at the workplace. Thus, motivation can be described in two ways which are extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation relates to external things because workers will be motivated by money, bonus, or other kind of rewards. On the other hand, extrinsic motivation contrasts with intrinsic motivation which workers will focus on the actual motivation, passion, and interest in the work itself. They will be happy and enjoy doing the actual tasks without any concern about getting money or rewards. As a result, it seems that workers are not only motivated by money but also motivated by other different factors. Money is only one of the various motivators and some workers may see it as less attractive for them as there are theories that represent other factors regarding intrinsic motivation. Therefore, this essay will illustrate the reasons why money could not be used to motivate any workers in the workplace with relevant theories and examples.

According to, Frederick Winslow Taylor’s theory, Scientific Management (SM), this theory places money as a primary motivation for employees. They have to work hard to earn as much money as they can. If they work less, they will be paid less. Relationship in the workplace is also eroded due to high competition to produce and complete their tasks. A worker will focus only on their work without helping or caring for each other. They will be paid through their performances or piece rates to ensure that the economic rewards of work are tied to actual productivity (Knights, 2017; Willmott, 2017). Thus, money seems to be the main motivation for workers to work harder. They will not be concerned that they are happy or enjoy the work. They will ignore their interest and passions since they focus merely on money. Workers’ motivation tends to change from being autonomous or driven by internal factors to being controlled and driven by external factors like financial incentives (Krug & Braver, 2014; Ryan & Deci, 2000). It could be linked to what is known as the overjustification effect. When workers receive lots of rewards for doing something, they will finally lose interest in what they are doing and are just interested in getting a reward for it. The work will gradually become meaningless for them. Consequently, this monetary rewards or money could eventually decrease worker’s motivation. They might be finally tired and bored with the work since they have lost their interest or their internal drive to work.

In addition, Herzberg’s two-factor theory, his idea is involved in motivation at work which can be determined by two separated factors: job satisfaction which is considered as motivation factor, and job dissatisfaction which is a hygiene factor. These are associated with satisfaction with the job and dissatisfaction when something is annoying the workers. Motivators or satisfaction primarily consist of achievement, advancement, personal growth, recognition, responsibility, and work itself. Whereas dissatisfaction or hygiene includes company policy, relationship with boss, relationship with colleagues, salary, supervision, and working conditions. It is noticeable that salary or money is considered dissatisfier. “In the theory, the salary was mentioned more often as a hygiene factor than a motivator, that is, Herzberg claimed that money adds little to job satisfaction” (Weisberg &Dent, 2016) It might be low pay or low salary that makes employees feel dissatisfied. Nonetheless, money alone could not motivate or satisfy workers. It seems that money could not satisfy any worker in the workplace as someone might prefer their work achievement, opportunity for advancement and growth, recognition from others, and the meaningful, interesting, and challenging work itself. Workers may value these motivators instead of money. Therefore, both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is seen as an important key to job satisfaction (Auerbach et al, 2010), only money or extrinsic motivation can motivate all employees.

In conclusion, although money is one of the main factors to motivate workers, it cannot motivate and encourage everybody in the workplace in the long run. Workers also need to have intrinsic motivation to know their actual interest and passion in work. They will always be happy and enjoy working which will result in more productivity or effective work performance. Accordingly, using money or any kind of financial reward could not be an efficient method to motivate any worker. If organizations need to motivate their workers by using money, they should come along with some intrinsic motivation to ensure that everybody is motivated and happy.

Bibliography

1. Conrad, D., Ghosh, Amit., & Isaacson, M. (2015). Employee motivation factors. International Journal of Public Leadership; Bingley Volume. 11, Issue. 2, 92-106. 
2. Damij, N., Levnajić, Zoran, R., & Suklan, J. (2015). What Motivates Us for Work? Intricate Web of Factors beyond Money and Prestige. PLoS One; San Francisco Vol. 10, Issue. 7.
3. David, K & Hugh, W. (2017). Introducing Organizational Behaviour and Management. Third Edition. 41-42.
4. Melinda, W., & Eric, D. (2016). Meaning or money? Non-profit employee satisfaction. Voluntary Sector Review; Manchester Volume. 7, Issue. 3, 293-313.
5. Thibault, A., Gagné, M., Forest, J., Guerrero, S., Séguin, M., & Papachristopoulos, K. (2016). The Relation Between Financial Incentives, Motivation, and Performance: An Integrative SDT-Based Investigation. Journal of Personnel Psychology. Issue, Volume 16(2), 61–76.

 ‘A Practical Way to Help The Homeless Find Work and Safety’ TED Talk Analysis ‘A Practical Way to Help The Homeless Find Work and Safety’ is a TED talk by Mayor Richard J. Perry, who decided to make a change in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Perry created an inspiring speech for his TED talk that can catch the audience’s attention in a heartbeat. Mr. Berry begins by questioning if the homeless meant what the sign had written on it. He shares with the audience that there is a better way than panhandling. Also, shares facts about how helping the homeless find jobs can help them become successful. The point he is trying to come across is that helping panhandlers look for jobs can make a change instead of handing money. Especially when people see the homeless asking for money and giving it to them at no cost.

His way of helping is by approaching homelessness, as Ellie Anzilotti states in her article, ‘Since it launched, “There is A Better Way” it has provided 932 day-long shifts to 302 homeless individuals.’ That is 302 homeless individuals who did not have a home or food to eat, but now they do. Since then, that has given him the motivation to keep going with his foundation to be able to help more individuals. To begin with, people tend to see the homeless and ask why is it that they do not have a job, or how they got there. In reality, no one is helping them to get a job or trying to help. When Perry talks about how the foundation all began, he explains in detail how he saw a man holding a sign. He begins his TED talk by holding a sign and asking the audience if they have seen someone hold one. This illustrates how Perry came up with the idea to help the panhandlers. It shows what type of person Perry is, such as caring, loving, and helpful.

This TED talk is credible because it shows how there are good people in this world, just like Mayor Richard J. Perry’s story. Perry builds a strong argument by talking about a real issue of panhandlers and what they go through in their lives; he chose people that he encountered and a plot that the audience could relate to. As a final point in the TED talk ‘A Practical Way to Help The Homeless Find Work and Safety,’ Perry gives motivation to others to end homelessness. When Perry begins his TED talk, he shares a story on how there is a better way to help others. The mayor explains how he had thirty signs up in thirty intersections with these words, ‘If help or shelter needed call 311’ and how a man was holding a sign below his sign with the words, ‘Will work for food.’ This led him to do something rare for his community and to create a better solution. He explained how he took into consideration what the words said on the sign and took the man’s word.

Perry gave that man a job and helped him get shelter, and the homeless man became successful. Ever since Perry wanted to prove that there is a solution to help the homeless by not just giving money but by helping them get jobs. The hotline of his foundation rang every day for people who needed jobs and were living on the streets. It all began because he considered the man’s words and used material he did not use. For example, Perry’s old van was not being used and picked up homeless people who had called the hotline. This proves that taking someone’s word or trying to help can become a successful plan. Giving these points, Perry made sure that in his Ted Talk, he could engage the audience to at least consider what he was trying to come across. It is easy to judge someone from the streets and not ask for help. When giving panhandlers money at no cost, is not helping that is feeding their addiction. The argument of Richard J. Perry’s TED talk is to inform people that a change can happen. A great example is Mayor Perry’s foundation which all started because he cared for his community. He believed that the homeless to put effort into working to have a better life. It became successful and now fewer homeless are seen in Albuquerque, New Mexico.  

Introduction

Organ donation can be described as the act of giving away an organ to save or improve the life of someone who needs a transplant. Organs like the kidney and part of the liver can be donated while you are alive, but most tissue or organ donations will come from people who are dead. Although this is a nice concept, the reality is that, due to a shortage of organ donors, there are hundreds of thousands of people on waiting lists worldwide (with the U.S. alone amounting to 107,000 people ). This issue is not helped by the fact that in most jurisdictions (e.g., and USA ), the outright buying and selling of human organs remains a criminal offence. A commonly suggested solution is to simply provide a legalized market for organs so that more potential donors can be encouraged by financial rewards. However, due to the nature of where the organs will come from (human bodies), this area of applied ethics is particularly polarising. This essay seeks to first analyze common ethical arguments against compensated organ donation (commodification and exploitation) before analyzing common arguments in favor of compensated organ donation (organ trafficking and assistance of the poor) while providing input on why I lean more towards the side of legalization of organ sales.

Commodification and Human Dignity

This is one of the more noteworthy arguments against giving compensation to organ donors which is based on the first principle of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. This states that human dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms should be fully respected. It refers to the Kantian idea that every human has an inherent value that makes us intrinsically valuable. Therefore, humans should be treated as valuable individuals, and never just as a means towards some other end. Challengers of compensated donations then argue that the simple act of collecting monetary compensation for donating an organ means that you are being treated merely as a means, a collection of useful parts, and not a valuable individual that should be wholly respected, therefore making it an unethical action. Also, it is argued that the process of compensated donation turns humans into ‘things’ by objectifying their parts as commodities, i.e., goods that can be sold on the market. Furthermore, Sandel argues that this process of commodification is a corruption of the human person since it promotes an objectifying and degrading view of the human person. He claims that this is corruption because of the act of adding market value to a non-market product, so placing a human body in the market is akin to corrupting the very integrity of the human person.

On the other hand, it can be argued that receiving monetary compensation for an organ does not deny the dignity and worth of human beings because there are other situations whereby money is given to others without the narrative that the monetary exchange causes a loss of dignity (e.g., when you give a friend money as a birthday gift or when you give money as a baptismal gift). Also, de Castro claims that the argument is not grounded in reality, since the ‘commodification’ of human organs is something that already happens in the world, drawing attention to the black market for human organs which already exists. I agree with him, and it is clear that donors and recipients have always negotiated organ transfer terms, with or without legal sanction.

Exploitation and Consent

The argument for exploitation is based on the global ethical principles of consent and respect for human vulnerability. It requires consent to be gathered from patients of any medical intervention while taking into account, human vulnerability, especially when dealing with traditionally vulnerable populations of society. Throughout history, a particularly vulnerable population that has consistently been taken advantage of is the poor, and they are the focus of the exploitation argument. This argument is usually also broken into two parts, which are exploiting the poor and doubting the voluntariness of organ sales.

About the exploitation of the poor, it is argued that if there is a compensated donation, the relationship between the recipient and the donor will pit the rich against the poor, thereby making it unethical. This is because the donors would most likely be vulnerable (poor) people who are more in need of money than an organ, which leads to a situation whereby the rich recipients exploit them. Therefore, for challengers of compensated donation, inequality would be a defining part of the organ market, and a market based on that concept cannot be ethically justifiable.

About consent, it is argued that compensated donation would force poor individuals into an almost impossible situation i.e., either they keep an integral part of their body, or they sell it to pay bills. Therefore, informed consent cannot be achieved since the voluntariness of the decision (the third step in the process of informed consent) is missing. According to Sandel, ‘market exchanges are not always as voluntary as market enthusiasts suggest. A peasant may agree to sell his kidney or cornea to feed his starving family, but his agreement may not be voluntary. He may be unfairly coerced, in effect, by the necessities of his situation. This act of coercion therefore makes compensated donation unethical and unjustifiable.

However, while I do agree that compensated donation could lead to the exploitation of the poor, the disadvantages do not outweigh the benefits and these disadvantages can be minimized by implementing safeguards. Some of these safeguards can be seen in jurisdictions where compensated donation is legal, like in Iran. In Iran, recipients are first put on a waiting list with the hopes of receiving an organ from a dead donor and if the organ does not become available, a team of doctors screen potential donors to find the right candidate. Lastly, as de Castro argues, the prevailing system of uncompensated donation fosters even greater exploitation of the donors and I agree with him. This is because the prevailing system rewards everybody but the donor; ‘the surgeons and medical team are paid, the transplant coordinator does not go unremunerated, and the recipient receives an important benefit in kind. Only the unfortunate and heroic donor is supposed to put up with the insult of no reward, to add to the insult of the operation’.

Organ Trafficking

While a global shortage of organs is usually used as the main argument for supporters of compensated donation, the existence of an organ black market and its organ trafficking system should be considered a close second. According to the Declaration of Istanbul, Organ trafficking is defined as the use of force, abuse, deception, or coercion to recruit, harbor, and transfer humans or their organs. This means that it either takes the form of trafficking humans so their organs can be transplanted or trafficking the already removed organ. It is estimated that illegal organ trade generates around 1.5 billion dollars annually from roughly 12,000 illegal transplants and the fact that this number grows yearly means that organ trafficking is a real problem that must be addressed. Organ trafficking thrives in jurisdictions where organ trade is illegal because provides incentives for a black market of organs to be created. This has led to supporters of compensated donation arguing that the best way to remove these incentives is to decriminalize compensated donation.

It could be argued that this will be achieved once a highly regulated, globally agreed upon, and nationally run system of compensated donation is created to enact regulations and penalties so that hospitals and transplant centers are restricted from receiving organs outside of regulated trade. Therefore, if organs are only accepted from approved agencies, the practice of organ trafficking could be greatly decreased. Lastly, regulations and processes can be enacted to ensure patients can provide informed consent. This could include steps of disclosure of information, assurance of adequate understanding, and the attainment of express, formal consent since these are all essential in the process of informed consent.

However, some common arguments against legalization are that organ trafficking will still exist and regulations wouldn’t necessarily tackle the problem of exploitation. Firstly, while I do agree that organ trafficking will still exist, it should be noted that proponents of compensated donation do not claim that legalization would completely stop all cases of organ trafficking because, frankly, wherever there are laws, there will always be people who break those laws. Therefore, a legally regulated system would, at the very least, reduce the amount of organ trafficking cases. Also, I agree that issues of exploitation will persist, however, vulnerable populations are even more at risk of exploitation and abuse in jurisdictions where there are no regulations. Lastly, in a regulated system, issues of exploitation can be officially addressed, and there can be attempts made to lessen the problem.

Assistance of the Poor

The potential financial benefits compensated donation offers to the poor cannot be understated. Proponents of compensated donation argue that every individual should be able to exercise their autonomy and situation in life by selling their organs for economic relief. Also, while objections to the idea of poor members of society receiving monetary rewards for donated organs are usually focused on factors like protecting them from evil practices and exploitation, supporters of compensated donation argue that these objections limit the poorer populations’ ability to better their situations unnecessarily. This ultimately leads to them getting harmed in an unjustifiable way, which then ties in with the principle of non-maleficence. According to the principle of non-maleficence, humans should avoid harm when possible and only the least amount of harm should be performed when necessary. This principle can be broken up into two parts to be used when arguing in favor of compensated donation. Firstly, similar to the pro-compensation argument of human trafficking, the principle of non-maleficence obligates that we act in ways that produce the least amount of harm when possible, and since it has been shown that organ trafficking thrives where organ trading is prohibited, the principle obligates us to legalize and regulate the organ market to produce the least amount of harm possible. Therefore, according to the principle of non-maleficence, a compensated donation system can be forged ethically to reduce the harm from organ trafficking and the black market.

The second way this principle can be used to justify compensated donation is by claiming that the prohibition of compensated donation harms the poorer population because it takes away an option for them to better themselves financially. Lastly, according to Veatch, it is unethical for the state to prohibit poor people from receiving compensation for donated organs while simultaneously refusing to provide the goods of life to those same poor members of society. I agree with him, and this further backs the argument that a prohibition on compensated donation is a violation of principles of autonomy and non-maleficence due to the harm it causes.

Conclusion

To conclude, it is unclear if it will ever be legal to receive compensation for organ donations globally. What is apparent is that a model for compensated organ donation may never be perfect because both sides will continue to raise issues with one another. However, while issues of commodification, exploitation, and lack of informed consent may persist, I believe that these are not enough to constitute a global ban on organ trade due to the potential benefits of reducing global organ waiting lists, reducing organ trafficking, promoting principles of beneficence and non-maleficence, and providing financial assistance to those who need it most. Moving forward, a revised version of the Iranian model of compensated donation may be the best way to go. This version should, of course, have more sufficient safeguards put in place to better protect the vulnerable members of society.

Fitzgerald’s ability to effectively implement contrasting settings in a novel is fundamental in symbolizing the organization of social strata, establishing major conflicts, and creating a social environment reflecting that of America in the 1920s. The construction of both location and time settings play a pivotal role in endorsing belief and value systems in The Great Gatsby. The 1920s setting contextualizes the tension between the social classes, attributing this to the laws introduced and recent economic prosperity. The juxtaposition of Manhattan and Long Island demonstrates the concern the elite have about their reputation, but only within their social circle. The physically and socially separated towns of East and West Egg promote the belief that old aristocrats are superior to the newly wealthy. The absence of such a setting would result in an ineffective portrayal of these core ideologies that wouldn’t successfully magnify the disparity in the hierarchal class system.

The 1920s setting contextualizes the discrepancy between social classes in The Great Gatsby, introducing certain socioeconomic ideologies that reinforce upper-class supremacy. In 1920, America outlawed the production and sale of alcohol, known as “Prohibition”. Instead of deterring people, a vast underground criminal empire was created to serve this demand, which is how Gatsby makes his fortune – through “bootlegging” and other criminal activities. As their wealth grew, many Americans of the 1920s broke down the traditional class barriers of society as some lower class attempted to overcome these barriers. In The Great Gatsby, Prohibition finances Gatsby’s rise to a new social status, which provokes anxiety among old aristocrats like Tom Buchanan. The historical context of prohibition in The Great Gatsby enables class tension between the old and new money. The 1920s was a decade of economic boom and prosperity for America; with a steady rise in income levels, business growth, construction, and trading on the stock market. Ultimately, the Great Gatsby foregrounds the darker side of this economic prosperity by emphasizing the immorality and corruption beneath all of this. The 1920s period sets the scene for The Great Gatsby to address popular ways of thinking about class by referencing the political and economic position of America in this decade.

In The Great Gatsby, the contrasting settings of Long Island and Manhattan demonstrate the upper class’s disregard for the opinions of the lower class and showcase the immense value put on reputation in elite society. When Manhattan is introduced, Nick notes “a dead man passed us in a hearse heaped with blooms” and “a limousine passed us, driven by a white chauffeur, in which sat three modish Negroes, two bucks and a girl”. Nick later concludes from these observations that in Manhattan “anything can happen now that we’ve slid over this bridge … anything at all”. This depiction of Manhattan as a miscellaneous city, where even the strangest events come as a little surprise, proves to be the perfect environment for Tom Buchanan’s affair with Myrtle. Tom is unashamed of his affair in Manhattan as he is unconcerned about the opinions of those who aren’t upper class seeing his misconduct. However, he is worried about his reputation with the upper class, so much so that he hides Myrtle on the train until they reach the city. He “deferred that much to the sensibilities of those East Eggers who might be on the train” and concealed Myrtle to maintain his respectability and credibility in his old aristocratic social circle. Moreover, Tom’s affair benefits from being in Manhattan as he feels free to cheat on his wife in public, as ‘he turned up in popular restaurants with her and, leaving her at a table, sauntered about, chatting with whomsoever he knew’. Meanwhile, Daisy and Gatsby’s affair in Long Island results in Gatsby having to dismiss all of his household staff as he’s worried that they will tell other East and West Egg residents about it. When Nick inquires ‘I hear you fired all your servants’ – Gatsby simply replies, ‘I wanted somebody who wouldn’t gossip”. Long Island is depicted as a setting where reputation and credibility are highly valued, especially among the elite while Manhattan is symbolic of immorality and carelessness, where actions are considered without any consideration of the consequences.

The segregated settings of West and East Egg in The Great Gatsby demonstrate the high-class society division between the “new” and “old” money, depicting the latter as superior and more prestigious. The geography of the Eggs is the first indicator of this division as they are separated by “a courtesy bay”. However, the eggs are noted to be dissimilar in “every particular except shape and size”. When Nick announces that he lives at West Egg, he notes ‘I lived at West Egg, the – well, the less fashionable of the two’ and contrasts this by noting that “across the courtesy Bay the white palaces of fashionable East Egg glittered along the water”. This illuminates the difference between the nouveau riche of West Egg who lack an established social position, and the East Egg people, whose wealth is inherited, and who have been the upper crust of society for generations. The both physical and social separation of the West and East Eggs highlight the social divide between those inheritably rich and those who have worked for their riches.

The setting of the Valley of Ashes portrays the lives of the working class as oppressed, circumscribed, and desolate as well as depicting the moral and social decay that results from the uninhibited pursuit of wealth. The Valley of Ashes is a dumping ground for industrial waste where “ashes grow like wheat into ridges and hills and grotesque gardens” and where “ashes take the forms of houses and chimneys”. To reach Manhattan, affluent Long Island residents must travel through the filth and degradation associated with this location, acting as a stark contrast to the charmed and extravagant lives of the East and West Eggers. This setting is a scathing criticism of the moral decay taking place in society at the time as the rich indulge themselves with regard for nothing but their pleasure. It also illustrates the harrowing effects of consumerism and industrialism in America, promoting the idea that America has lost its morality in the rush to embrace the consumerism and materialism culture. Moreover, the fact that the climatic action of the car crash causing Myrtle’s death is set in the Valley of Ashes reinforces the notion of how the working class is underprivileged and unimportant in the eyes of the rich. In the aftermath of the crash, when speaking with police, Gatsby “spoke as if Daisy’s reaction was the only thing that mattered”, appearing more invested in his standing with Daisy than the loss of Myrtle’s life. This reaction to Myrtle’s passing highlights how the working class who inhabit the Valley of Ashes are disposable and unimportant to the upper class. This relates right back to the theme of immorality and inequality in the Valley of Ashes as this highlights the rich’s attitudes toward the poor, that they are expendable and undeserving of any real sorrow. The setting of the Valley of Ashes provides the perfect environment for this occurrence as the oppressed atmosphere of such a place reinforces how neglectful the rich are, both in their belittling attitudes and economic greed.   

Time is money, just as money is time – but is one really worth more than the other? You spend at the bare minimum twelve years of your precious time preparing to waste the next forty at some menial job just to make money and retire to live out the next fifteen years of your life at some lake in the middle of Michigan. Time is free, and everyone has the same amount of it, unlike money. Time isn’t just something that can be taken away as readily either, but money can through the cost of living, taxes, etc. Even the richest men and women in the world, although they may have a seemingly infinite amount of money, never have an infinite amount of time. Yes, they may live longer due to better healthcare, diet, and other factors- but eventually, their time runs out just as it does for the poorest man on earth. The vast majority of the free world is separated by economic class, rather than race or religion, but is an unemployed poverty-stricken Somalian really happier than an elite upper-class American who works an eighty-hour workweek? One has only wealth, and the other has only time, but which one is happier? So, the question is, can time make you happier than money? According to Robert Roy Britt in ‘Time can make you happier than money’, it can.

Britt stated that “People who value time over money tend to be happier” (Britt), which he found out through several studies conducted by various organizations. One such study done on graduating college students by Science Advances found that indeed, time can make you happier than money by surveying 1,000 students on how satisfied they were with their life. The survey included questions related to their positive and negative emotions that they had felt over the past month. The graduates were given the same survey a year later. The study found out that nearly sixty-two percent of the graduates valued time more than money, and from this, they found out that those who valued time more than money were almost twice as happy as those who valued money over time. According to Ashley Whillians, “People who value time make decisions based on meaning versus money. They choose things because they want to, not because they have to” (Britt). Britt, in quoting this, strengthens his thesis statement by arguing that people who make decisions based on meaning rather than money are happier than those who put money first. I agree with Britt. Would you rather spend forty years on a job where you hate every minute of it but it has a high salary, or spend those same forty years on a job that you love and are passionate about but with a much smaller salary? To me, the answer is simple: I would rather have a job that I absolutely love rather than one I despise because I would look forward to going to it every day, thus making me a happier person overall. Another similar study conducted to 4,000 United States adults also reinforced Britt’s thesis. This time instead of using college students, middle-aged adults were asked to rank activities based on importance. To no surprise, activities such as spending time with family, friends, and outdoors were chosen as the most important while career was ranked 8th. According to this study done by the Pew Research Center, those surveyed who ranked time spending activities were happier than those who hadn’t.

Aside from this, money can buy some happiness. The perfect balance between happiness and money is 95,000. Of those surveyed who made this salary, the vast majority reported that they were happier than individuals making more or less. “Once the threshold is reached, further increases in income tend to be associated with reduced life satisfaction and a lower level of well-being”, – according to Natural Human Behavior (Britt). This is saying that the more money you have, then the more money you can spend but only to a certain degree. Now, rather than be on materialistic goods or even time-oriented activities and experiences, you typically need money to spend on leisurely activities. Sure, the best things in life are free – such as spending time with family and friends, but money makes that precious time more enjoyable. Would you rather spend your personal time with friends and family by taking walks or by going to a leisurely activity such as bowling or a trip to an amusement park? Both are nice, but a trip to an amusement park will be more memorable and enjoyable. Another point brought up by Britt was that the older someone gets, then the more time they want to spend with friends and family rather than at a job. I also agree with this as it is especially true with parents with aging kids. As parents find their kids growing up, they want to spend those last few precious moments with them before they’re thrown out of their lives. Now, rather this be through college, work, or starting their own family, the chances are they’re going to be too busy to be spending time with their parents which just emphasizes this point even further.

Overall, I agree entirely with Britt that time can make you happier than money. Through the multiple studies done on young adults, middle-aged adults, and the fifty-plus crowd, they all yielded the same results. These studies were somewhat biased, though. They were biased because each one was done in a first world country. To fix this, I would suggest conducting similar studies in third world countries to see if you get the same results. I once again personally value money over time. Rather than getting a job, I chose to spend my high school career devoting my time to meaningful activities, such as spending time on friends and hobbies rather than on a minimum wage job, because face it- you’re only a kid once. You’re going to be working for the better part of your life after high school, so it only makes sense to kick back and relax before adulthood settles in. I could never see myself ten years ago as a senior in high school, but here I am. It seems as if each year is faster than the next, and the years don’t stop coming, and they never will until it’s your last. I already wish that I had more time to be a kid, and I would pay anything to have my childhood back, but once it’s gone it’s gone forever. The most famous last request for those on their deathbed is to have more time. To have more time to spend with family, to have more time to spend with friends, and lastly to have more time to do things that they always wanted to do but never could because they were too focused on a meaningless career. So yes, time does make you happier than money.

Money brings out the good and the bad in society. One of the perks of cash flow in this society is it brings us together. Money is the foundation of almost all our interactions. Half the interactions I have in public come from people who recognize me from work. Money can cause us to be drawn towards certain individuals and sometimes it causes hatred towards another. Money can make us envy people with no money, and be jealous of those who have an abundance. If you didn’t go to work to make money, you wouldn’t interact with your co-workers or customers. If you didn’t travel for work, you wouldn’t see Hawaii. There are a lot of interactions, and we take them or granted. Society has taken how much we interact for granted.

You go through at your day to life and come in contact with around 20 people. If you were to change one life a day, whether it be a smile or a 5-dollar lunch, then by the time you retire you would have helped 14,560 people. That’s 14,560 who now can help others. Imagine all the stories you would hear and the beautiful people you would know. The newfound relationships you could build. There would be a wave of goodness that wouldn’t crash without society. Cash flow has not only created interactions, but it has also created harder work individuals.

A society with cash flow contains harder working people, because money sparks self-discipline and drives us to push and pull. Studies have found money activates the same part of your brain that sex does. It gives some individuals the motivation to get out of bed every morning and slave a 9-5. This is not without a cost though. Money will motivate you so much that you will give up the most valuable gift of all, time.

Take a pencil and draw a timeline with nine notches. Label the notches 0,10,20,30 until you reach 80. Then draw a dot at 18 and one at 60. Now connect these dots with a line. This is how much of life you work 9-5.

That is all time that you wished retirement would come faster, or that you could go back to the golden days. That is 40 years of your life, wasted on a 9-5. For 40 years money has motivated you to waste time. It gives others the desire and motivation to chase financial freedom. Cash flow creates entrepreneurs and businesses owners to offer more for the society. 67% of wealthy people surveyed said that were not chasing the car, the trips, or the vacations, but financial freedom.

Money has also created classes. A society without money has no upper-class, middle-class or lower-class. Without money we’re just people with talent and our personalities to get us through life. There’s no more hiding behind expensive suits, nice cars, or your Kate spade purse. It’s just you and life and that scares the crap out of a lot of people. It makes me wonder what some of these people would do without money, who would you be? Are you just another jerk who’s self-entitled or are you the compassion that we lack in this world? Many people would be nothing without money. If you rely so much on something to make you, then you don’t deserve it.

If you take away money, a lot of people will lose their identity. They have no love, no compassion, no religion, they have only their drive to get rich.

Along with some good, money has also cause embezzlement, drug trafficking, sex trafficking, slavery and more. The desire of wealth has led us to invade other nations such as Africa (during the colonial times). When they learned Africa had a lot of natural resources, we had the equipment to access them, they marched over there and took over. They create slaves and stole lives. They stole virginity, they stole their home. They did it for power and money. This society is still the same. Nothing has changed, except now we do it secretly. People are still stealing lives for money, robbing homes, kidnapping girls. Money has created this delusion of power, and people will do whatever it takes to achieve this ‘power’. Without money there would be no point in crime, there would be nothing to gain or apprehend. There would be less gang violence, fewer deaths, less mothers crying over daughters or fathers who have no son. Money has revolutionized the way we examine at things.

The changing of our view on things has caused frustrations. For instance, when a wise man drives through the countryside, he views the peacefulness of the land and the grass puppies (cows) that graze. This man thinks all is complete and worthy. If a fool drives through the county side with animals grazing, he doesn’t think of the beauty. The fool thinks of the mall he could build to replace the ‘empty’ land. He sacrifices nature to work at becoming rich. Society wants to be rich, not contempt. The owner or farmer may not want to part ways with their land, but the fool convinces them with money. The fool then goes on to replace grass with road and trees with concrete structures. Not only did he purge the land of beauty, he causes frustration to the farmer. After a while the settlement will dissipate into food and rent because they now live in an urban area, forcing him to find a job at the mall. The once happy farmer is now signing his life away into slavery. Who do we put some much faith in money and not happiness? Will you just say its life and the society were in, there’s nothing we can change? Or can we?

Money power is defined as, “Money is one of the primary collective powers developed by humanity for social accomplishment. Like language, money is an instrument to promote productive, cooperative human social relationships. Money is one of the greatest inventions of all time”.

How Could Money Change Your Lifestyle and Your Way of Living?

Simple if you have a lot of money the word hard work is not be found in your dictionary. Only us commoners need hard work to keep on living, we’re not wealthy to spend our time leisurely because for us commoners every second, minute, and hours count for us to do a living. Those people who are rich are more focus on becoming richer and be a billionaire because of their goal to become the richest in the world and to spend less time with their own families. I’m not saying that all wealthy people are arrogant, but there are some that treat people as trash not in the society, but in their eyes, especially those sons and daughters of a millionaire or billionaire acted so high and mighty to the people who are in slaves of being poor. They spend a lot of money and have a lot to spend their time leisurely, just like they didn’t feel or experience some hardships in life. And if you have money, you wouldn’t experience how hard to live as beggar in the street, how hard to sleep in the railroads, how hard to face hardships alone, how hard to face a crisis on the street without any help from the people around you, but if you have money, you could be a king or a queen in this small world. If you’re a commoner you are treated as an outcast in the society especially those people who acted as a noble. In society nowadays, is that money is the measurement of how powerful you could become.

How Money Could Change Your Life?

There’s a story of a young girl that join in a singing competition on TV. Her family is a commoner, their family way of living is by picking up plastic bottles, cans, and metal and sell it to the junk shop near their house, she’s good at singing and also, she had a mature mindset, you can tell by her looks. She successfully participates in the singing competition and passes the preliminary match, and now she will perform at the next level in the singing competition, and now she will perform in the quarterfinals and also pass. And the next stage is the semi-final, which she also goes to, and in the final she had a wonderful coach, who tells her what to do right, and now she will perform in the final with a large house in front of her. And later on, the champion was mention, and the champion was the little girl and won a 1 million cash prize, house and lot, and a car from Mitsubishi. It’s amazing how her family become rich if you have followed her story. And now the little girl that had a face of a beggar yesterday is now living like an angel today. You will be amazed how much her life changes a lot and also she’s beautiful right now compared to her past self. It’s so amazing how money changes your looks so much even though you’re not that pretty but because of the power of the money, you could change your looks the way you like it. You have now the confidence to face the crowd and being envy by the other people.

Why People Become Slaves for Money?

People are slowing becoming slaves because of money they tend to listen to that person who had a lot of money and become their servants for exchange for some penny. They follow the order of their superior either the command is something bad nor good, simply by following them, they could earn money a real quick. How much dignified you are as a person you will bend if you face money, you will surrender to the money, not to the person who had the money. By doing bad things like selling drugs, weed, ecstasy, inhalers, syringe drugs, cocaine, and etc. could make a lot of money in just a second. Also, many teenagers pursue prostitution even though it’s illegal, they enter this kind of job not just for them to have fun but for them to able to support their families. We can’t deny that life is so hard, hard that you wanted to give but you can’t for the reason that you will leave someone behind. And also, we can’t deny that many parents push their daughters to enter the world of prostitution for the reason that the money is easy way to gain, in this kind of work. Many teenagers are forcefully to stop going to school because of the humor of them going spread like a wildfire. People are doing such things like selling drugs prostitution and etc. just to keep living and to support their families, it’s one of the reasons why people become slaves for money is that they need money to keep them alive.

How Money Change the Government?

The government is not a permanent power if you don’t have money power. And also, before you run for a certain position in the government you should first have money or enough resources to compete with the other politicians because for running as a government official you need a lot of money to make up your agenda. In politics the more money you have, the greater power you can achieve. If the ‘human is the king then the money is the God’ because money makes the world go around and in politics, you are nothing if you don’t enough money to back you up. Money could change the government either it’s a good or bad modification. Some of the politicians are serving their fellow men as human and serve them with a good intention to improve the society and we can’t deny that they are some politicians that are playing ‘two-goodies shoes’, they are playing innocently in front of the media just to look themselves clean but deep inside or outside of the camera the things happened like corruption. No matter how much they acquire, it’s never enough. This approach also aligns with greed. A greedy person never has enough, no matter how much he or she gets. This kind of politician sees their fellow men as a source of income for their corruption and starting to play a good person if they were accused of corrupting people’s money, they starting to blamed other people just to look innocent in the eyes of the media. Also, the government has the power to silence the truth if you just have money to pay them because here in our country the justice system sucks, suck because even justice could be bought by money. The power of money in government is much stronger than in any other power.

How Will be a Commoner Like Me Become Successful and Rich in Life?

By simply not giving up, perseverance, and also hard work. We can’t deny that we’re still young and we will face a lot of problems and hardships in life. We’re still a student that wants to achieve our dreams. But it’s not as easy as we think because there’s always be an obstacle in every path to hinder us and a problem that we wish not to imagined. But if we don’t face those challenges then how could we achieve our dreams? We just need to be optimistic and not be a pessimistic person. If we just failed once we could try again and again, and never give up on our dreams. It’s not time to think that we are a failure because we need to prove to those people that look down on us, and not only those people we need also to prove them that also we commoners that you think like a failure in the society could achieve our dreams and be able to stand on the top, with power of our perseverance, our hard work, and the power to not give up.

Conclusion

In conclusion, many people say that we controlled the money but the truth is that we are being controlled by money. We do bad things like killing other people, selling drugs, prostitution and etc. just for exchange for some money because money could change into a power. If you have a lot of money, you could change your position in the society, lifestyle, your looks, your perspective in life, personality. And also, if you have a lot of money, you seek for more because money is power, the more money you have, the powerful you became. In society, the more money you have the more popular and powerful you became because money is a measurement of popularity and power nowadays.