Philosophy Now Forum

bobevenson wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:What is the Fed stealing?

Money is a repository of value, and when the government that issues that money reduces its value by inflation, it is in fact committing the criminal act of grand larceny against everybody in the world holding that money.

Wrong. Money is not a repository of value. It is a measure of value.

PhilX

FlashDangerpants wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Since money is a medium of exchange, the question is, the exchange of what?

Services, time, skills and labor.

When you go to work and exchange your labor for money, you probably aren't selling property.

Almost none of the money you receive is for property you have sold unless you own a shop, which most of us do not.

Money is a medium of exchange of property, which includes labor that is incorporated into property or labor such as a concert that is property with a shelf life of zero.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Wrong. Money is not a repository of value. It is a measure of value.

That would be like a ruler whose dimensions become increasingly smaller.

bobevenson wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Wrong. Money is not a repository of value. It is a measure of value.

That would be like a ruler whose dimensions become increasingly smaller.

I don't see the analogy.

PhilX

bobevenson wrote:Money is a repository of value, and when the government that issues that money reduces its value by inflation, it is in fact committing the criminal act of grand larceny against everybody in the world holding that money.

So if your taxation idea of printing money equal to property was to be implemented you would be the number one grand larcenist then?

bobevenson wrote:Since government-issued money is a medium of exchange of property, It is the government's responsibility to see that the money supply stays in balance with the property it represents. Aren't you glad there is one prophetic voice speaking out for mankind?

Not how the Fed works. You need more divine guidance.

PhilX

bobevenson wrote:

FlashDangerpants wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Since money is a medium of exchange, the question is, the exchange of what?

Services, time, skills and labor.

When you go to work and exchange your labor for money, you probably aren't selling property.

Almost none of the money you receive is for property you have sold unless you own a shop, which most of us do not.

Money is a medium of exchange of property, which includes labor that is incorporated into property or labor such as a concert that is property with a shelf life of zero.

So you need enough money to represent the full market value of every object
Even though that value changes when the object is made more valuable through work, or it just becomes more valuable through demand.

And now you are accounting for services as objects of value which is immediately consumed and destroyed.

So those service objects require you to print new money too, as they cannot be paid for using the money you printed to cover the value of real objects.

You are describing an impossible project that fails to meet its basic obligation to control prices. If you want inflation to stop, you have to make it illegal for workers to get pay rises and for producers to increase their prices. A house has to be sold for exactly the price it was bought at, and improving objects to make them more valuable must be illegal too.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Wrong. Money is not a repository of value. It is a measure of value.

That would be like a ruler whose dimensions become increasingly smaller.

I don't see the analogy.

No, you don't see anything.

Arising_uk wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Money is a repository of value, and when the government that issues that money reduces its value by inflation, it is in fact committing the criminal act of grand larceny against everybody in the world holding that money.

So if your taxation idea of printing money equal to property was to be implemented you would be the number one grand larcenist then?

Take a course in economics, dum-dum.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Since government-issued money is a medium of exchange of property, It is the government's responsibility to see that the money supply stays in balance with the property it represents. Aren't you glad there is one prophetic voice speaking out for mankind?

Not how the Fed works. You need more divine guidance.

You obviously know nothing about the Fed or economics in general.

FlashDangerpants wrote: So you need enough money to represent the full market value of every object. Even though that value changes when the object is made more valuable through work, or it just becomes more valuable through demand. And now you are accounting for services as objects of value which is immediately consumed and destroyed. So those service objects require you to print new money too, as they cannot be paid for using the money you printed to cover the value of real objects. You are describing an impossible project that fails to meet its basic obligation to control prices. If you want inflation to stop, you have to make it illegal for workers to get pay rises and for producers to increase their prices. A house has to be sold for exactly the price it was bought at, and improving objects to make them more valuable must be illegal too.

Please, no more gobbledegook.

bobevenson wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Since government-issued money is a medium of exchange of property, It is the government's responsibility to see that the money supply stays in balance with the property it represents. Aren't you glad there is one prophetic voice speaking out for mankind?

Not how the Fed works. You need more divine guidance.

You obviously know nothing about the Fed or economics in general.

As if you're one to judge. Better get yourself Divine guidance.

PhilX

bobevenson wrote:I'm already divinely inspired, my friend.

So far you've shown no proof, just your worthless opinions.

PhilX