If you ask a hundred people the question, "What makes the world go 'round?" you're bound to get a slew of different answers.

Some say it's humanity, some say it's nature, some say it's gravity. I say there are two forces known to human beings that rule over all other forces: love and money.

That is, of course, physics not-with-standing. If you're in an airplane and the wings fall off, no amount of either of those things will do much good to save you.

But think about it. Isn't it true that everything a person does is motivated by the desire for either love or money?

Why do people have hobbies? Because they love what it is they do, or maybe just like it. Why do people go to college? So they can earn a degree which gets them a good job which pays money. Why do serial rapists do what they do? Probably because they harbor some kind of hate, which is the anti-love.

Next time you're walking down the street, try to figure out what people are doing and whether they're motivated by love or money. I dare you to find something that isn't.

It seems like a lot of people do things for money. That is, after all, the way our society functions. Capitalism works because people want money; they work for it and once they get it, they show their love for it by either spending or investing it. Hence the cycle repeats.

This is a great system, economically speaking. It's made our country into the hunk of a nation it is today. But sometimes it doesn't make for a perfect system.

Take politics for example. I'm sure the American oil companies are probably happy to see President Bush's plan to abandon immediate research into fuel-efficient cars in lieu of developing fuel-cell technology which is years off, leaving the auto industry dependent on crude for at least the next 20 years (check out www.climateark.org for more info).

On a bigger level, in order to get ahead in politics, senators and representatives don't listen to constituents first. Unless said legislator is from Oakland County, his or her citizens aren't the ones with the money: lobbyists are.

They represent corporations and organizations who have a political agenda. And there's no problem with that; petitioning the government is a freedom guaranteed in the First Amendment. But when members of congress put their careers over their beliefs and their constituents, I see a problem. That's probably why I don't have a future as a politician, among other reasons.

A lot of people say the president unfairly favored the rich when he made sweeping tax cuts a couple months ago (coupled with the claims that these cuts are a major contributor to the ballooning national debt for this fiscal year). Unfair, sure, but why wouldn't he want to give more money to people who already have a lot of money (the vast majority of whom are Republicans) so they can support his re-election bid in 2004? Politically, it makes perfect sense. Ethically, not so much.

I guess what I'm trying to say is this: Maybe we, as a nation, would be better off if more people did things for the love, rather than for the money.

I'm not saying the United States should abandon capitalism or our system of government or both. But let's take a moment to think about the implications of what is probably an overly idyllic world.

The days of the barter system are gone, and good riddance. Capitalism is here to stay, and that's a good thing. People need money to buy life's necessities: food, clothing, shelter, etc.

But why should a company, say an automotive supplier, want to build a product it knows will wear out in 10 years when it has the technology to make something that will last for 20 years?

Sure, the first product costs less and people will have to replace it more frequently, but with a more dependable product, the company is more likely to get customers and, more importantly, referrals. Word of mouth is a highly underrated economic tool.

And then there's politics. It's true that just about the only thing you need to get elected to an official post in this country is enough money. You don't necessarily have to author any bills or even really vote a certain way.

But it doesn't have to be that way. The fact of the matter is everyone can do something to make the world better. Instead of letting a bill slide through Congress that relaxes restrictions on emissions (that's just a example, I don't know if such a bill exists), vote against it. Everyone wants clean air, right?

One object of love I don't condone is the love of power, which is another large gear in the machine of the United States. It's sad to say, but some people are just in it to make puppets of us all and put their agenda on a pedestal of gold.

As former State News columnist (and someone I wish I'd met) Rishi Kundi wisely said, "Any man or woman who chooses as his or her life's work the achievement and exercise of power over another person is not worth trusting."

Why is it that the United States needed to spend $276.7 billion on defense last year? Was the current military superiority that we've enjoyed for the past 150 years or so not quite enough? Does the fact that we sell old military equipment to other countries once we've developed new weapons to target the known weaknesses in said equipment make us insecure?

Of course, military might ultimately determines economic strength. The dollar can fluctuate until it's blue in the face, but in 2001 the U.S. gross domestic product was about $6 billion more than its next leading competitor, Japan.

Sending troops to die for something no one understands is not good policy. But with power should come a certain responsibility: If you have the power to help someone with a noble cause he or she can't complete on their own, shouldn't you help? Even if it will cost you some money?

In this day and age, the answer is no. Especially if it means American soldiers might die. Also, I admit the international community is a bit hypocritical; in the case of a disaster, America is the first place a country looks for aid, but you don't see any nation jumping to our help when 19 tornadoes rip through the Great Plains. (A column written by Tony Parsons of England's Daily Mirror, published on the anniversary of Sept. 11, does an eloquent job of explaining this.)

But that doesn't excuse us from giving America's rich a better life while impoverished citizens around the world suffer.

So the next time you talk to your lawmaker, tell him or her to do it for the love, not the money.

Joseph Clark is the State News opinion writer. He can be reached at clarkjo6@msu.edu.