What is Money?

[elohiym]

...you putting the government in charge of the monetary system is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house.

And having the banks in charge of the monetary system is not? :squint:

How is having the People actually in charge of their currency like putting the fox in charge of the hen house? Seems more like allowing the chickens to be in charge of the hen house.

 

[elohiym]

...you even think that congress should have the power to regulate the value of our money... Yikes.

"Yikes" is not an explanation why that might be a bad idea, Bob.

Why is the Federal Reserve Bank regulating the value of money not a "yikes" in your opinion?

 

[elohiym]

Monetary policy is either just or unjust based on the how it fares against God's principles...

The principles you outlined in the show require we serve one another and that we be free. I agree. However, neither of those principles are foundational to Fractional Reserve Banking. Deposit expansion results in a two class system, where those who hold the monopoly on issuing "legal" tender by illegal and immoral means enslave everyone else.

 

[Bob Enyart]

e4e, when you argue that our government has the right to define our monetary system because the Constitution gives it that right, e4e do you realize that you are making a circular argument?

To help me understand your points here, does your second to the last statement in this post contradict your first statement, which say:

The only money permitted by the Constitution of the United States is gold and silver coin.
...
The federal government may not be on a gold and/or silver standard but the states are, constitutionally.

As to your next comment, the framers couldn't benefit from the Austrian school of economics which was still future, but they did have access to Scripture and common sense, and so they should have realized that no earthly government cannot set the economic value of anything, and that value lies in the eye of the beholder, so that if 10,000 kings told you that their coin was valuable, and you and all your neighbors thought it was worthless, it would be worthless, constitution or no constitution... [Update: Venezuela's bolívar fuerte is a good example.]

Powers of Congress... To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof... That,coined money shall have a value set by congress that will be common in all states and the value of foreign coin will also have a common value in all the several states set by congress.

e4e, with centuries of prosperity since 1789, the world has been able to study economics, and it should be obvious to everyone by now that congress has no ability to set the economic value of anything, let alone currency and foreign coin. That whole concept today is widely recognized as meaningless. If Congress were to say that a peso is worth a dollar, the only people who would believe them would be people with pesos, and what would it matter if Congress said that a euro or a pound was worth a dollar?

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States
No State shall... coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts...​

...no state shall make any thing but gold or silver a tender of a payment of debt. If congress makes any thing other than gold or silver legal tender for all debt, it is unlawful for the state to use what ever that thing is as a payment for debt. The federal government may not be on a gold and/or silver standard but the states are, constitutionally.

e4e, do you use only gold and silver coins when you make payments to your state? do you advocate that you should only make your payments to your state in gold and silver coin?
Thanks for the thoughts e4e.

-Bob Enyart, KGOV.com

 

[Bob Enyart]

"Yikes" is not an explanation why that might be a bad idea, Bob.

You're correct elohiym, but what came before Yikes explained why I believe that the government regulating money is a bad idea. To reiterate:
- that empowers the government in a way that God has not
- it is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house.

Why is the Federal Reserve Bank regulating the value of money not a "yikes" in your opinion?

elohiym, great question. The Federal Reserve doesn't regulate the value of money. Billions of consumers do, as do the currency
exchanges all over the world. The Fed issues notes, and you and I decide their value. Don't you agree with this?

Thanks,
-Bob Enyart, KGOV.com

 

[elohiym]

You're correct elohiym, but what came before Yikes explained why I believe that the government regulating money is a bad idea. To reiterate:
- that empowers the government in a way that God has not
- it is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house.

I believe that putting banks in charge of regulating money is putting the fox in charge of the hen house, but actually leaving the power to regulate money in the hands of the People is putting the hens in charge of the hen house.

You will need to elaborate on how God does not empower government to regulate the value or money, and why He would alternatively empower banks to do it, if you believe He does.

elohiym, great question. The Federal Reserve doesn't regulate the value of money. Billions of consumers do, as do the currency
exchanges all over the world. The Fed issues notes, and you and I decide their value. Don't you agree with this?

No. I do not agree. The Federal Reserve Bank and its member banks regulate the value of money through interest rates and by expanding and contracting the money supply. This allows a class of people to control and essentially enslave everyone else.

 

[drbrumley]

elohiym, great question. The Federal Reserve doesn't regulate the value of money. Billions of consumers do, as do the currency
exchanges all over the world. The Fed issues notes, and you and I decide their value. Don't you agree with this?

Thanks,
-Bob Enyart, KGOV.com

Huh? The Federal Reserve does indeed regulate money. It does so by increasing or decreasing the Federal Funds rate and/or interest rates. So i cannot agree to that statement.

 

[Stripe]

Illegal contracts are void. Nobody, I hope, is disputing that. My question assumed the contract is legal. Again: if you and I make a legal agreement, and I don't honor that agreement, is it immoral?

No.

You seem to be forgetting that men can call legal that which is immoral.

 

[elected4ever]

First off, Bob, I wont to thank you for inviting me to join you in discussion on you radio program. I feel honored that you would ask. But I know myself to well to think that I would be an asset to you. I would be like a fish out of water. I do however enjoy our little discussions here. So thank you for your time. I know you are quite busy.

e4e, how many people do you know who know when their opinions are wrong? And how many people do you know who don't defend their opinion? I'm just curious about what you're saying about me here, that you wouldn't also say about yourself.

That's just it, Bob. I think you do know. I think you are in denial of the truth. It does not matter what money has been in the past, whether sea shells or gold. It is what the the supreme law of the land says it is and you know that. Trying to justify our present Monterey system over that system envisioned by the founders is no excuse for continuing a fraudulent system.

Thank you e4e, that's exactly what I try to do, just like the saying goes.

I got that encourging statement from you and I hope you do not abandon it on this issue.

e43, by your own writing, you are the one who supports a monetary system that is run by the government. I don't. You policy seems to directly empower the government in a way that God has not, and also, you putting the government in charge of the monetary system is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. Wow, you even think that congress should have the power to regulate the value of our money as you admitted in Post 29. Yikes.

Sense in that post I quoted from the constitution. The supreme law of the land. That law that binds us together as a nation. It is not my opinion that makes the government responsible for the monetary system and forbids the congress from delegating that responsibility. If you do not like that part of the constitution that is fine with me but there is a prescribed method of changing it and it cannot be done legally by statute.

e4e, a first-century description of Nimrod's Babylon indicates that he ran a socialist state, and as far as we know, he used neither fractional banking nor fiat currency. A socialist state is not founded on a particular money system. Monetary policy is either just or unjust based on the how it fares against God's principles, not based upon what socialists or the Constitution's framers might think about it.

Nimrod has absolutely no bearing on the discussion at hand. This much I know. God said,"Thou shall not steal." Sense our present system has at its core the theft of privet wealth then I know that on its face it is not of God's design.

e4e, it's extremely common for people to confusion political and economic systems (as I think you've done e4e in the post we're talking about here, in Post 2, etc.), and to speak as though they are the same thing. Whether it's ever helpful to do so, it's certainly not helpful when having an important discussion about economic and political principles. Most any political system can implement an economic socialist policy, so that democracies can adopt socialism, as can monarchies, and oligarchies, and dictatorships, and even Republican governments can gradually amend their constitutions to adopt socialist policies (as for sure, our Republican politicians increasingly implement socialist programs). Likewise, various political systems can adopt various economic systems, so that a dictator can implement capitalism, or communism, or socialism, as can a monarchy, a democracy, a dictator, etc. So e4e, if you're trying to help people understand right and wrong regarding public policy matters, you'll find that it's very helpful to not mix political and social systems as though they were synonyms.

Failure to think on and consider economics and policy together would be catastrophic. One depends on the other. I firmly believe you do not consider your churches policy with out the consideration of the economic implications of theses polices. I though you were smarter than that. Even Jesus said that a king does not go to war without considering the cost. The two cannot be separated. The present monetary policy is the enabler of our present progressive , socialist political agenda. Your statement is total nonsense and I am not falling for it.

 

[elohiym]

You seem to be forgetting that men can call legal that which is immoral.

Fine. If you and I make a legal and moral agreement and I don't honor the agreement is it immoral? :sibbie:

 

[elohiym]

This much I know. God said,"Thou shall not steal." Sense our present system has at its core the theft of privet wealth then I know that on its face it is not of God's design.

I agree. And I think I have presented enough evidence on this thread so far that, after it is reviewed and digested, a reasonable person can conclude that deposit expansion is theft of the "borrower's" wealth. Will the reader's conclude that? Maybe not tonight. It took me years of research to finally be convinced.

Failure to think on and consider economics and policy together would be catastrophic. One depends on the other.

I agree with this if you mean that we should consider privately controlled national monetary policy and the national political structure together because the former is used to control the latter, making the power that controls national monetary policy the power that truly rules the country. This seems self-evident.

The present monetary policy is the enabler of our present progressive , socialist political agenda.

And it is the enabler of abortion, both directly and indirectly.

 

[Stripe]

Fine. If you and I make a legal and moral agreement and I don't honor the agreement is it immoral? :sibbie:

Not necessarily.

 

[Granite]

Huh? The Federal Reserve does indeed regulate money. It does so by increasing or decreasing the Federal Funds rate and/or interest rates. So i cannot agree to that statement.

Absolutely. Since when did, say, American consumers have anything to do with the devaluation of our own currency?

 

[Stripe]

Absolutely. Since when did, say, American consumers have anything to do with the devaluation of our own currency?

Every time they decide en-masse to alter their spending habits the value of the dollar changes.

Was it not just Christmas?

 

[elohiym]

Not necessarily.

Is it immoral if you do not repay your debts?

 

[elohiym]

Every time they decide en-masse to alter their spending habits the value of the dollar changes.

Does the value of money change when the bank adjusts interest rates? Yes or no.

Does the value of money change when the banks expand deposits (inflate the currency)? Yes or no.

If you answer yes to either of those questions, you imply that that Bob's claim that "the Federal Reserve doesn't regulate the value of money" is not true.

 

[Stripe]

Is it immoral if you do not repay your debts?

Not necessarily.

Does the value of money change when the bank adjusts interest rates? Yes or no.

Sure.

Does the value of money change when the banks expand deposits (inflate the currency)? Yes or no.

Sure.

If you answer yes to either of those questions, you imply that that Bob's claim that "the Federal Reserve doesn't regulate the value of money" is not true.

OK.

When you say "regulate" you mean to do exactly as the people have the power to do, right?

 

[GuySmiley]

To claim that a bank can increase a transaction account balance without first depositing money is to claim that a bank can create a liability on its books without having a matching asset. It is claiming that only the bank liability increases without an offsetting asset increasing. That defies logic, Bob. Consider the substance of the bank "loan":

They increase the liability by giving you money to buy a new car (out of thin air). The matching asset is your promise to pay it back. I don't understand what's wrong with that. The money created out of thin air is exponged when you actually pay it back. What's wrong?

 

[Paulos]

Here are a few relevant quotes from Thomas Jefferson on this subject:

"Paper is poverty...it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself." (Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1788.)

"Bank paper must be suppressed, and the circulating medium must be restored to the nation to whom it belongs." (Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813.)

"The banks...have the regulation of the safety-valves of our fortunes, and...condense and explode them at their will [through manipulated cycles of inflation and recession]." (Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1819.)

"I sincerely believe...that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale." (Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816.)​

Regarding that last quote, the consequence of the FED printing paper money at will is the national debt, which currently stands at almost $14 trillion, according to one estimate. That works out to a debt of over $125,000 for every taxpayer in the country. The USA is the most indebted nation in the world.

 

[elohiym]

They increase the liability by giving you money to buy a new car (out of thin air).

Why would they have a liability if they give you their money?

Define liability.

If you gave me $100 that you could create "out of thin air" would you have a liability of $100? Yes or no.

The matching asset is your promise to pay it back.

If you have an asset on your books matched to a liability, does it mean that you owe someone the value of that asset? Yes or no.

I don't understand what's wrong with that.

Not yet.

The money created out of thin air is exponged when you actually pay it back.

You're making two assumptions there. Let's stick to whether or not money is really "created out of thin air." In post #42 I provided a Federal Reserve Bank publication that claims banks lend depositor's money to borrowers. Are you saying that is not true?

So far, nobody has proved that banks create money out of thin air. However, I have provided a Fed publication implying that they don't, and I have quoted another Fed publication that show the bookkeeping entries proving that they don't. What you got for proof?

What's wrong?

You don't understand the problem yet.