© Author(s) 2025. Re-use permitted under CC By-NC. 

No commercial re-use. 

See rights and permissions. Published by IJYLR.

Youth Research Vox, 

Los Angeles, CA, U.S.

Money Has Two Ends:  One End is People's Livelihood, the Other is a Game of Plutocrats

​​​​

          Money is the universal medium of exchange, the tool by which societies measure value, allocate resources, and enable progress. Yet, despite its seemingly neutral nature, money functions very differently depending on who possesses it. For the majority, money is the foundation of survival. It pays for food, shelter, healthcare, and education. For the wealthy few, however, money transcends survival and becomes a means of influence, speculation, and power. Thus, while money is indispensable for human well-being, systemic inequality and financialization have turned it into a game played by the affluent, with rules written by those already winning.​

         

The Livelihood End: Money as a Necessity of Survival

      For the average person, money represents security and dignity. It is the mechanism through which people gain access to basic human needs. Economically, this end of money aligns with the subsistence function of income. According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, physiological and safety needs come before all others. Without sufficient income, individuals cannot meet these fundamental needs, which limits their ability to pursue education, personal development, or civic participation. The struggle for livelihood forces millions to live paycheck to paycheck, with little margin for saving or investment. Money at this end is not a tool for wealth creation but a shield against precarity.​

          Moreover, the unequal distribution of money exacerbates social inequality. When wages stagnate while living costs rise, the majority find themselves caught in a cycle of economic stress. Governments often claim that economic growth “lifts all boats,” but in practice, the benefits of growth frequently concentrate among those who already possess wealth. Thus, for the working class, money is rarely about choice or play; it is about survival in a system designed to keep them striving but seldom thriving.

​

The Game End: Money as Power and Play

      On the other end of the spectrum, money functions as an instrument of power and speculation. For the wealthy, the purpose of money shifts from meeting needs to expanding influence. In this context, money becomes a game. The ultra-rich treat financial markets, art auctions, and political lobbying as arenas in which they can accumulate more wealth and status. Hedge fund managers gamble with billions, venture capitalists take risks that can make or break industries, and corporate executives manipulate markets through buybacks and mergers. These activities are often detached from the real economy of goods and services. They are forms of speculation that serve primarily to consolidate wealth among those already at the top.

         This “game of the plutocrats” is not without consequences. Financial speculation can destabilize economies, as seen in the 2008 global financial crisis, where the pursuit of profit led to the collapse of housing markets and widespread unemployment. Yet, even after such crises, the rich tend to recover faster, protected by their assets and influence, while ordinary people bear the brunt of the fallout. Thus, money’s game end perpetuates not only inequality but also moral distance: those playing the game are insulated from the suffering it causes.

​

Bridging the Divide: The Role of Ethics and Policy

        The dual nature of money raises an urgent question: can societies bridge the gap between money as livelihood and money as a game? The answer lies in reforming systems that allow wealth to accumulate without accountability. Progressive taxation, wealth taxes, and stronger social safety nets can redistribute resources toward those who rely on money for survival. Additionally, policies promoting financial literacy and access to affordable credit can empower individuals to use money more effectively.

          Ethically, societies must reexamine the moral obligations attached to wealth. Philosopher John Rawls argued that inequalities are justifiable only if they benefit the least advantaged members of society. By this standard, the current global financial system fails. When billionaires increase their wealth during economic downturns while millions lose jobs, money ceases to serve as a tool of progress and becomes instead an instrument of exclusion.

       Furthermore, the democratization of finance through cooperative banking, community investment, and transparent governance can mitigate the exploitative aspects of the monetary game. Money should circulate in a way that sustains communities rather than destabilizes them. The goal is not to eliminate wealth but to ensure that wealth creation contributes to shared prosperity.

 

Conclusion: Two Ends, One Moral Question

        The saying “money has two ends” is not merely a critique of inequality; it is a moral observation about how societies assign value. At one end, money sustains life and dignity; at the other, it becomes a measure of status and control. These ends coexist within the same economic system, yet they reflect fundamentally different relationships to human need and purpose. If money continues to function primarily as the game of the plutocrats, it will erode the social foundations upon which economies depend. But if it can be reclaimed as a tool for collective well-being, then both ends may finally meet, not in conflict, but in balance.