On 11/2/11, Thomas Lee Abshier, ND <drthomas@naturedox.com wrote:

John, how would you put real wealth, real money, money not based on debt, into circulation?
T.

John F: Real wealth is already in circulation. But the question is, “How to resurrect honesty in QMS?” I think it has to start with ethics taught by the Church. They will need to start teaching this principle again.

Thomas Watson* (From the book: "The Ten Commandments" on 8th commandment) (The last sort of theft is, the receiver of stolen goods. The receiver, if he be not the principal, yet is accessory to the theft, and the law makes him guilty. The thief steals the money, and the receiver holds the sack to put it in. The root would die if it were not watered, and thieving would cease if it were not encouraged by the receiver. I am apt to think that he who does not scruple to take stolen goods into his house, would as little scruple to have stolen them.)

This could apply to welfare benefits and subsidies, generally, but also to this whole area of central banker's exclusive privilege to "counterfeit" (though it is not really counterfeiting). In the Federal Reserve Act we have law enforcement turning and offering special immunity and protection for perjurers and thieves. The proper response from "good men and true" would be to have nothing to do with such businesses that are legalized theft. IF banks are lying and stealing by using Deposits as their excuse to multiply money -- we should quit giving them our deposits. If new dollars only arrive in the universe through loans to willing borrowers, the borrowers should stop being willing.

Thomas A: John, thanks for sending that.

It appears that you believe that the primary issue is that we are not being honest about money having QMS. This implies that you do not believe fiat money has QMS. It seems like this is the heart of your objection to fiat money, that it is a lie, and that because it has no substance, is imaginary.

I totally disagree.

 My argument against your position is to show that fiat money does in fact have Quantity, Measure, and Substance:

Fiat money has substance on two counts:
1) Money has symbolic value, in that is symbolizes a unit of generic goods and services, which clearly have quantity, measure, and substance.
2) Money can be any carefully regulated token, e.g. coins, paper promissory notes, electronic ledgers, etc. all have quantity, measure, and substance.

Obviously, coins made out of gold/silver have a quantity, measure, and substance, because such coins are made of valuable substance, and can be redeemed for valuable substance regardless of the value of the currency. Thus, there are two aspects to coinage:
1) The value that coin money can be traded for because the metal itself has value.
2) The value that the coin symbolizes in trade as recognized by the market, a function that does not require a valuable substance.

For coinage, at least initially, the symbolic value of the coin and the market trade value of the metal are probably close to equal. But as we have seen, over time in the USA, the symbolic value of the coin, and the market based trade value of the silver in the coin, diverged over time.

For fiat money, the trade value of the dollar symbol is associated with a unit of generic goods&services. Whereas, the trade value of the material/substance is very small/negligible/insignificant in comparison to the symbolic value of the fiat dollar.

Both the coin and fiat money have QMS. There is a disparity between the symbolic value and the market trade value of the substance used in each case. The argument cannot be made that their fiat money is "nothing", "imaginary", or "a lie". On every count it has substance, quantity, and measure.

And, the next arguments you then usually bring up are, “Who is to evaluate the value of the goods and services?”, “How can it be that dollars are equal to value and value is equal to dollars?” And, “Fiat money started its life cycle spoken out of nothing, therefore it is still nothing, and eventually when it is paid off it will return to being nothing.”

All these arguments are examples of facts taken out of frame, out of context.
1) The value of the dollar is initialized, and converted into value equivalence over time by the market, given the amount of money in circulation.
2) Fiat money was spoken out of nothing, but it becomes associated with something when someone commits themselves to creating something (by putting themselves in debt to receive it). Money acquires value by the commitment to produce value.
3) When the debt is paid off, the dollar goes out of circulation.  The dollar has a life cycle, just like people, animals, and plants.  To imagine that money is eternal is unrealistic.  The money has enabled men to create value for consumption.  It is likewise unrealistic to assume that at some point in the reasonably near future (e.g. a lifetime, within about 4 generations) there will be no debt, and therefore no money, and therefore no ability to consume.  Thus, while money does not live forever, the retired debt will enable more borrowing, which will put money into circulation.  The goal is to keep the production and consumption level in equilibrium, and steadily increase the production level, which will enable an increase in production.  Loans to produce are the lifeblood of the capitalistic system.  The central transaction of this system is debt, which corresponds to a commitment to produce value.  The loaning of money into the system to enable production, puts more dollars into circulation to enable trade.  Keeping the ratio of the money supply to value constant is the key to keeping the value of the dollar constant.  At steady state, the rate of increase of the money supply is parallels the available consumable value.

T.