What is Money?

[elohiym]

You [Bob] ...do not support the Constitution of your own nation. End of story.

I have to admit that, after listening to the show, I came away with a similar impression. But I would like to see Bob admit or deny that before I judge his position.

It could be that Bob does not see how the Constitution prohibits the emissions of bills of credit and implicitly reserves that right to individuals (and cooperatives of individuals), and that he does not realize that congress cannot delegate certain powers (see delegation law).

I find it hard to believe that he would flagrantly oppose the principles of 1Pe 2:13 and Rom 13:1-2. That he would want a new Constitution is one thing, but for him to defend acts contrary to our existing Constitution as moral would be another. I don't think he would do the latter consciously.

 

[elohiym]

Bob,

If you go to the Federal Reserve Bank's educational website you can download the publication Banking Basics. Please download it now; you will need to have it to confirm what I'm about to tell you, and to do what I am going to ask you to do.

Banking Basics is a propaganda piece designed to intentionally deceive children and adults into believing that banks lend depositor's money rather than what you claim banks do when they lend money. You claim that "lenders bring money into existence when making loans..." In contradiction to that claim, Banking Basics states on page 6:

"Where do banks get the money to lend? They get it from people who open accounts. Banks act as go-betweens for people who save and people who want to borrow. If savers didn’t put their money in banks, the banks would have little or no money to lend. Your savings are combined with the savings of others to form a big pool of money, and the bank uses that money to make loans. The money doesn’t belong to the bank’s president, board of directors, or stockholders. It belongs to you and the other depositors. That’s why bankers have a special obligation not to take big risks when they make loans."

Now ask yourself, what is the most obvious reason for the enormous discrepancy between what you claim and what the Federal Reserve Bank claims and is using to "educate" the masses? The simplest explanation is more likely to be the correct one, and that is the explanation that I provided you via posts #18 and #33--it's a massive scam, which I explained the substance of.

What I would like you to please do is to call any major credit card company. Tell the representative that you are interested in getting their credit card but have some questions. Record the conversation. Ask the person where the money comes from they will use to advance to merchants on your behalf. Ask them where the money comes from, if it's created out of thin air? I suspect you will be told, as I have been, the same thing you read on page 6 of Banking Basics, which is a lie.

At this point, I believe you should correct your claim that "lenders bring money into existence when making loans..." based on what the Federal Reserve Bank claims in Banking Basics, or concede that banks do not bring money into existence but apparently steal people's wealth by illegally making them depositors (receive money from the "borrower" first without legally owning the note) and then "loan" them back their own money. Conceding the whole transaction is evil and immoral would be in order, too, in my opinion.

 

[drbrumley]

p.s. drb, do you think it would have been better for me to stick with theology because I was in over my head on this economics show also: Bob Debates Neal Boortz on a Nat'l Sales Tax ? Neal is one of the national spokesmen for the Fair Tax movement, and I'm just a fundamentalist pastor. Any thoughts on this?

Now the more I think about this show, it was you arguing scripturally against Boortz against the fair tax......I didn't get this from your What is Money show.....

 

[elohiym]

Bob,

Starting @ 26:33 in the show you mention the gold dealers that advertise on talk radio, and claim they are engaged in "a bit of a scam" because they want your federal reserve notes for their gold and are essentially hyping gold and trashing fed notes to accomplish the scam. Anyway, that's how I read the essence of your claim; it's something along those lines, but I don't want to misrepresent you, so please correct me if I am mistaken.

The problem with your argument there is that these same gold dealers also buy gold with their federal reserve notes. So using your logic, you would have to conclude that they want your gold instead of their federal reserve notes when they sell gold to buyers.

You ask: "why do they want your federal reserve notes?" The answer is that it is the medium of exchange. What else would they buy them with?

Gold dealers buy and sell gold charging a premium over the spot price. They earn their profit from the premium, not the spot price. Of course they want the price of gold to move, preferably upward, because then there are more people buying and selling gold and the dealer earns more profit from increased transactions. More transactions mean more premiums. The actual price of gold means little to their business aside from how it stimulates gold trading.

 

[Bob Enyart]

e4e: Am I just difficult, or is it you who makes things so unnecessarily difficult?

e4e: Am I just difficult, or is it you who makes things so unnecessarily difficult?

Even dictators have a Constitution

e4e, then what's the sense of being a dictator?
Just google: define:dictator. In the relevant senses, you'll see:
dictator: "a ruler who is unconstrained by law"
dictatorship: a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution)

Perhaps you should call in if you'd like to discuss this. You're all over the map and perhaps we could stay focused if you called in. For example, you seem to think that to show that a monetary system is justified, it has to be consistent with our constitution. Why would that be? Before our constitution, were there no principles that could identify a just monetary system? Is it consistency with our constitution that makes something just, or is it consistency with God's principles? Do you assume that something is valid or invalid if it agrees or disagrees with our Constitution? If so, doesn't that put the constitution in the place of God?

Would you like to call the show. That might help.

-Bob Enyart, KGOV.com

 

[chatmaggot]

I have to admit that, after listening to the show, I came away with a similar impression. But I would like to see Bob admit or deny that before I judge his position.

It could be that Bob does not see how the Constitution prohibits the emissions of bills of credit and implicitly reserves that right to individuals (and cooperatives of individuals), and that he does not realize that congress cannot delegate certain powers (see delegation law).

I find it hard to believe that he would flagrantly oppose the principles of 1Pe 2:13 and Rom 13:1-2. That he would want a new Constitution is one thing, but for him to defend acts contrary to our existing Constitution as moral would be another. I don't think he would do the latter consciously.

People speak about our Constitution as if it is the final authority, infallible, and incapable of being in the wrong. I just don't get that.

Is it possible that the fallible men who created our Constitution put things in there that are morally wrong and it is morally right to commit and defend acts contrary to it?

 

[elohiym]

People speak about our Constitution as if it is the final authority, infallible, and incapable of being in the wrong. I just don't get that.

Who is doing that and what does it have to do with what I posted? I was alluding to the Constitutional enumerations and prohibitions of what the government can and cannot do, specifically the power of Congress to coin and regulate money (moral), and the prohibition of the emissions of bills of credit (moral).

Is it possible that the fallible men who created our Constitution put things in there that are morally wrong and it is morally right to commit and defend acts contrary to it?

What is morally wrong about the U.S. Constitution? Start a thread on that and I'll check it out.

 

[The Graphite]

e4e, then what's the sense of being a dictator?
Just google: define:dictator. In the relevant senses, you'll see:
dictator: "a ruler who is unconstrained by law"
dictatorship: a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution)

Perhaps you should call in if you'd like to discuss this. You're all over the map and perhaps we could stay focused if you called in. For example, you seem to think that to show that a monetary system is justified, it has to be consistent with our constitution. Why would that be? Before our constitution, were there no principles that could identify a just monetary system? Is it consistency with our constitution that makes something just, or is it consistency with God's principles? Do you assume that something is valid or invalid if it agrees or disagrees with our Constitution? If so, doesn't that put the constitution in the place of God?

Would you like to call the show. That might help.

-Bob Enyart, KGOV.com

If I had to, I'd pay to hear that show. (Or shows! I think it could easily take up two 30-minute shows, easily!) :thumb:

 

[elohiym]

...you seem to think that to show that a monetary system is justified, it has to be consistent with our constitution. Why would that be?

The monetary system should not violate the Constitution. For God's principles regarding how we should related to the Constitution see 1Pe 2:13 and Rom 13:1-2. If the monetary system does violate the Constitution, whatever law it is based on (still haven't seen that "license to print money law") is void. See Marbury v. Madison.

 

[chatmaggot]

Who is doing that and what does it have to do with what I posted? I was alluding to the Constitutional enumerations and prohibitions of what the government can and cannot do, specifically the power of Congress to coin and regulate money (moral), and the prohibition of the emissions of bills of credit (moral).

You seemed to imply that it was immoral to do something contrary to the US Constitution.

You do not, and do not support the Constitution of your own nation. End of story.

I have to admit that, after listening to the show, I came away with a similar impression. But I would like to see Bob admit or deny that before I judge his position.

...but for him to defend acts contrary to our existing Constitution as moral would be another. I don't think he would do the latter consciously.

 

[elohiym]

You seemed to imply that it was immoral to do something contrary to the US Constitution.

It is immoral to do something contrary to the constitution. That's not a debatable point, as I see it.

Answer this: if you and I make an agreement, and I don't honor that agreement, is it immoral?

 

[drbrumley]

What is Money?

This is the show from Monday December 27th, 2010.

SUMMARY:

Definition of Money: In the 1990s here at Bob Enyart Live, I wrongly believed that justice required a return to the gold standard, whereby currency was formerly backed by reserves of precious metals. So years ago, you could bring a $10 gold certificate into a bank and receive a certain amount of gold. After studying and thinking about money for years, reading economic texts and reflecting on the Bible, asking questions of internationally renowned economists, I now know that money is not gold or silver. [Update: For clarification, the definition of money is not gold or silver (although they can be used as money). But rather...] money is more like a transferable IOU. Most accurately, money is the accounting of a transferable incomplete transaction. That is what money actually is.

I bet most of those internationally renowned economists are of the Keynesian variety. But I digress. Your right, money is not gold or silver. But it can be, just as if glass can be or anything else of value. So your correct there as well. The dollar as it is termed, The Federal Reserve Note, is just that....a note. A loan is a note. What's in your wallet is a note. Now back in the day, the "gold standard" if you will, all notes were backed by gold. Meaning that when you presented your "dollar," it was like giving them some gold. The free market economy at work. The point is it was backed by something of value. UNLIKE today, it is backed by NOTHING!!!!! Would you agree with me thus far? Now you may say, I'm not sure, that the dollar is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Exactly what is that if you do say that? Certainly not a tangible asset.

Metal, Paper, Web: Back when technology did not exist to support a more effective and lower-cost accounting system, Bible cultures reasonably implemented metal-based money. Since no one can create gold, no one could "counterfeit" gold coins, and silver coins. Later, the printing press enabled the convenience of paper currency, and initially, gold was used to back the paper bills that people used to transact business. Eventually, we kept the paper, but dropped the gold backing. Today, many people live without spending much paper currency at all, and they use digital bank accounts and online transactions over the Internet that provide tremendous convenience which helps to grow the economy. The extraordinary benefit to the lives of millions of people from these conveniences outweigh the risks of counterfeits and deception. And finally, there's the phenomenon of cyber cash on the web which is used similarly but not backed by the federal reserve or any national bank, and it's value changes daily based on real-world market pressures expressed in cyberspace.

You mention cyber cash. What is that? Can you link us a place on the web to see it? Is it backed by something?

Here's What Makes the Economy Function: God commands men to "serve one another" (Galatians 5:13). Men shipwrecked onto a deserted island would gradually build an economy as they served one another. And that economy would grow most quickly if these men were free, for the Bible says that, "liberty" provides the "opportunity... [to] serve one another." If they started to keep to themselves, and did not trade goods and services, their economy would sputter and die. So an economy thrives when men serve one another.

100% in agreement. I believe this is also called the Free Market.

Money Is Properly Created By Fiat: If these shipwrecked men washed ashore on a deserted island that had no gold, still, they actually would create money, "by fiat," as they entered into agreements that created something like transferable IOUs. Thus in any nation, every time someone buys a car or a home, etc., on credit, they thereby commit themselves to years of hard work (or at least, to the obligation to pay off the loan), which commitment actually brings more money into existence.

Here is where I am having a hard time. So I want this answer in a separate post.

Fractional Banking Is Justifiable: Understanding how money actually functions justifies the modern world's fractional banking system, whereby lenders bring money into existence when making loans, and expunge the principal as it is repaid. God regulated Israel's system of debt, showing that debt is not inherently immoral, but can be good or bad, like fire. As to the particulars of America's Federal Reserve System, the Fed should be audited (it never is), and other methods of implementing money may surpass the benefit of America's current system. The proper way to judge a monetary standard is to evaluate it's effectiveness (accountability) and efficiency (low cost).

Same as above.

Gold is Not the Gold Standard in Money: Requiring a gold standard inflates the value of gold by fiat. As a result there is an unnecessary redistribution of wealth by which various governments transfer wealth to other countries that happen to find gold on their land. This is how America ciphered manufactured goods from Europe in return for inflated gold, and then we demineralized our money, devaluing England's vaults.

In contrast to this Bob, just let me say that the Gold Standard hit home to people because it was the best commodity to restrain government's ability to spend itself into oblivion.

Gold Does Not Have Intrinsic Value: Gold does not have intrinsic value but as with all valued items, its worth lies in the eye of the beholder. A wealthy nation dying of thirst would trade its gold for water.

I would agree with this.

Gold Is Not For Hiding: Basing a nation's currency on gold results in building Fort Knox-like fortresses, hidden from view, and filling them up with gold to back the certificates that are issued. But God did not create gold to be dug up and then forever buried again, stored away from sight in underground vaults, which is an inefficient and extremely expensive way of implementing an accounting system, robbing that gold from its practical uses for technology and beauty.

Agreed here too

 

[chatmaggot]

It is immoral to do something contrary to the constitution. That's not a debatable point, as I see it.

Answer this: if you and I make an agreement, and I don't honor that agreement, is it immoral?

No.

 

[drbrumley]

No.

No???? Your word means nothing then?????

 

[chatmaggot]

No???? Your word means nothing then?????

Did you even THINK to consider that our "agreement" could have been immoral?

If two people make an agreement where one is to kill the spouse of the other, yet the person who was contracted to do the killing has a "change of heart" and instead goes to the police...would you condemn them for not holding up to the agreement or praise them for doing the right thing?

 

[elohiym]

Moral means conforming to a standard of right behavior. We ought to obey God, not man. What does God say: obey the laws of the land. Always? Of course not! If the laws of the land are against the standard of right behavior that God has given, it is righteous to disobey them.

Is the standard of right behavior that God has given us contrary the governments charge to coin and regulate the value of money? No. Is the standard that God has given us contrary to the prohibition of emissions of bills of credit? No.

Therefore, if the fractional reserve banking system is contrary to the Constitution's enumeration of Congress' power to coin and regulate money, or if it is contrary to the prohibition of emitting bills of credit, then it is immoral.

If Bob supports the fractional reserve banking system knowing that it is immoral, then he supports immorality. If he supports the system under the false impression that it is moral, then he is simply mistaken for the time being.

 

[Bob Enyart]

elohiym, I think I do so, even in my sleep...

elohiym, I think I do so, even in my sleep...

...for him to defend acts contrary to our existing Constitution as moral would be another. I don't think he would do the latter consciously.

elohiym, Yes, I would do so consciously. You speak of the Constitution the way those who love God speak of His Word, as though contradicting it is inherently wrong. In the normal course of human events, it's awfully easy to switch loyalty from God's principles to man's rules.

When the "existing Constitution" regulated the taxation of imported slaves, all Christians had a moral duty to oppose the Constitution in it's complicity with what God said was a capital crime: kidnapping. And because the Constitution regulated the selling of kidnapped human beings (among other ungodly practices), Harriet Tubman and the Christians in the Underground Railroad rejected the Constitution's regulation of slavery as corrupt and they boldly violated those parts of the Constitution. That's why they are viewed as heroic Christians today.

elohiym, what would you do if you realized that our U.S. Constitution was itself unconstitutional. I'm wondering. What would you do?

-Bob Enyart, KGOV.com

Update 2020: See kgov.com/constitution for Bob's proposed CoA

 

[drbrumley]

It is immoral to do something contrary to the constitution. That's not a debatable point, as I see it.

Answer this: if you and I make an agreement, and I don't honor that agreement, is it immoral?

Well Elo, in all fairness...I didn't sign the US Constitution and if presented as is for vote today, I would reject it. Like the states should have done instead of being duped by Hamilton and company..

 

[elohiym]

Did you even THINK to consider that our "agreement" could have been immoral?

If two people make an agreement where one is to kill the spouse of the other, yet the person who was contracted to do the killing has a "change of heart" and instead goes to the police...would you condemn them for not holding up to the agreement or praise them for doing the right thing?

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?

 

[elohiym]

Well Elo, in all fairness...I didn't sign the US Constitution and if presented as is for vote today, I would reject it. Like the states should have done instead of being duped by Hamilton and company..

I have no problem with your position. But the law is presently valid, is it not?