5.4. Money as a measure of relations between people and countries - The Psychology of Money

Money is not a comprehensive fetish, not all relationships between people determine. It is revealed that there is no cross-cultural differences in the factor of contempt for money. Observations of those who come into direct contact are interesting: Americans, who, in our opinion, attach too much importance to money, often help a neighbor or even a stranger completely free of charge - take them home, open the door if the neighbor has lost the key, etc. Opposite , it was the Russian man who came to help wrap the leaking faucet, most often requires "Magarych". This is described by Western authors with humor, for whom the word “magarych” itself is an incomprehensible exotic, which has no equivalents in their languages.

At levels above the neighborhood money plays the role of an indicator of a person’s position among other people. The economic situation of the individual and the citizen of which country he is determines the attitude of the partner towards him in terms of his monetary expenses - reception, gifts, transport services, and labor compensation. A poor partner (individual or a representative of a poor country) can be served in a lower category, giving him less valuable gifts. Equal - by the standards of his country, the rich - by the increased category. This ranking also applies to scientists from our country.

In many countries, money acts as a means of bribing in the form of gifts to a functionary, on whom promotion depends, receiving any benefits, speeding up the progress of affairs. Instead of money that is condemned all over the world as a bribe, expensive gifts are presented. In the West, a veiled type of bribe - “a gift to your wife from our company” - is more common, in the East - a more open type of gift, which is explained as “tradition”.

In the business world should demonstrate personal success. This happens on many levels, for example, on the verbal level ("O'key" is a wonderful confirmation of this). It is not customary to lend, let alone borrow, which demonstrates unreliability.

In our country, in front of our eyes, there was a division between the rich and the poor. The issue of becoming rich is rather slippery: after all, according to French economist, sociologist and politician P. J. Proudhon (1809-1865), “property is theft”. In societies with a stable economy, with centuries-old traditions of the existence of financial stratification, the coexistence of the rich and the poor is taken for granted. Over the last decade of the century, enormous fortunes have been made with the catastrophic impoverishment of the population. Therefore, a negative attitude towards the non-rich is determined by the consciousness that wealth is acquired by unrighteousness. In addition, the psyche of people does not have time to adapt to the changes that have occurred. Perhaps only the new generations of people who have found the already divided world, treat the rich calmly and neutrally.

It must be said that in stable societies the attitude towards skorobogachs is traditionally negative. So, in old Russia, they could, because of their distrust, not be accepted into the merchant assembly. The masters of making money out of thin air - the money lenders, bankers used the least confidence. They trusted the merchants more, but the industrialists were the most respected. The latter, by the way, spent a lot of money on arranging the workers, creating almshouses, training and treating their children and even taking them to the cottage, creating an image of a respected person, whose money was also treated with respect.