Money and Rain

Someone wrote recently:

If the understanding was that R & H would raise their own funds from the benefactors of their efforts but did not, doesn't that mean that the market, if you will, did not receive or place much value on those efforts? If so, why should the SCC then be asked to subsidize that failure of R & H to raise their own funds?

The thought occurred to me that if people have no money to give, that does not mean the service was not valued and if they had the money they would have given it. But since they do not control the making or distributing of money, they are at the mercy of those who do. So, it is not a failure of the "market" to pay volunteers for their efforts. Rather it is the failure of the economic system.

In other words, farmers and gardeners are at the mercy of nature to provide rain for their crops and plants. But if there is a drought then the plants will die and there will be no crop unless you are able to irrigate from a secondary source such as a river or aquifer. However, using a river or aquifer is no different than using savings that unless it is replenished will eventually be used up.

This is what has happened to the economy. Money is like rain. Unless there is enough money reaching the people on the ground, the movement of money will come to a halt.

This isn't about the "market" because the "market" presupposes that people have enough money to live and enough extra to spread around. But since the market is controlled very tightly by other people, the current condition is severe drought and people aren't getting the basics let alone having anything to spare for the "market."