I know of no one who has been tricked by the wealthy into believing they should sacrifice the most basic necessities of life for the sake of some greater ideal. If you know of someone, I will be happy to stand corrected on this point.
But I think we are confusing the idea between those who have no money at all, and those who have no disposable income after the necessities of survival. Both might sound similarly oppressive, but there is a huge difference between them. The former has one obvious form of wealth that they are coveting, and would be the same for everyone in that position; and for the latter there is much more latitude regarding what they consider wealth. They are no longer focused on mere survival, but instead on fulfillment. When people say to me they have no money, they are usually referring to the latter situation. It is probably why it seems like we are arguing past one another.
I think the way I would phrase what you said is "Money matters to the degree that what you want/need can be obtained by the exchange of money." This I would agree with. The way you phrased it, though, it seemed as though you were arguing for the earning of money as a means to fight against the wealthy class's desire to hold you down. As soon as obtaining it becomes a tool to flaunt those who say that obtaining it is crass and shallow, then I see the whole thing become somewhat pointless.
"Money matters to the degree that what you want/need can be obtained by the exchange of money."
Well said. It depends on what somebody's basic necessities are. For me, necessities includes books and music and the occasional trip to the city and a good meal. I could live on less, but I'd be miserable if I didn't get to enjoy those things frequently. If I had to use a worse computer than the one I have, I'd be less happy. So for me, making money is a means to more effortlessly obtaining the things that I want. I think that's healthy so long as the things that I want have value.
But I think we are confusing the idea between those who have no money at all, and those who have no disposable income after the necessities of survival. Both might sound similarly oppressive, but there is a huge difference between them. The former has one obvious form of wealth that they are coveting, and would be the same for everyone in that position; and for the latter there is much more latitude regarding what they consider wealth. They are no longer focused on mere survival, but instead on fulfillment. When people say to me they have no money, they are usually referring to the latter situation. It is probably why it seems like we are arguing past one another.
I think the way I would phrase what you said is "Money matters to the degree that what you want/need can be obtained by the exchange of money." This I would agree with. The way you phrased it, though, it seemed as though you were arguing for the earning of money as a means to fight against the wealthy class's desire to hold you down. As soon as obtaining it becomes a tool to flaunt those who say that obtaining it is crass and shallow, then I see the whole thing become somewhat pointless.
I hope this makes some sense.