Comments on: The Meaning of Money http://barrycreamer.com/2008/09/29/the-meaning-of-money/ Ministry. Education. Philosophy. Apologetics. Ethics. Culture. Theology. Tue, 09 Mar 2010 20:02:38 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Toby http://barrycreamer.com/2008/09/29/the-meaning-of-money/comment-page-1/#comment-304 Toby Thu, 16 Oct 2008 04:25:14 +0000 http://barrycreamer.com/?p=302#comment-304 Unfortunately this is the precise problem that has bled into our monetary system. Historically, at many points in time, money had an actual intrinsic worth. In theory, one would exchange the value of his labor for something with real value, which could actually serve as a way to "store up" wealth, or labor, in order to save yourself labor in the future. So it has been extremely important in the past that the form of exchange be something which the market would naturally give value. Of course, the most historically reliable currency has been precious metals, although a variety of valuable things have been used. Liquor has been used, as well as dried Codd, Salt, Oxen, etc. However, with a paper currency the dynamics of exchange have degraded considerably. Becoming indebted is encouraged over saving. There is no real way to store up wealth because there is no real market value for paper. So now instead of Joe coming to the market with valuables, he comes to the market saying "See, you owe me one!" which caries considerably less weight. You can see how this has made it impossible to store up real wealth. With the simple guarantee of the government that "We'll pay you back," your wealth is not in something you actually have, but in something your supposed to get in the future. Unfortunately this is the precise problem that has bled into our monetary system. Historically, at many points in time, money had an actual intrinsic worth. In theory, one would exchange the value of his labor for something with real value, which could actually serve as a way to “store up” wealth, or labor, in order to save yourself labor in the future. So it has been extremely important in the past that the form of exchange be something which the market would naturally give value.

Of course, the most historically reliable currency has been precious metals, although a variety of valuable things have been used. Liquor has been used, as well as dried Codd, Salt, Oxen, etc.

However, with a paper currency the dynamics of exchange have degraded considerably. Becoming indebted is encouraged over saving. There is no real way to store up wealth because there is no real market value for paper. So now instead of Joe coming to the market with valuables, he comes to the market saying “See, you owe me one!” which caries considerably less weight. You can see how this has made it impossible to store up real wealth. With the simple guarantee of the government that “We’ll pay you back,” your wealth is not in something you actually have, but in something your supposed to get in the future.

]]> By: Chuck E. Cheese & A Free Market « bLOGOS http://barrycreamer.com/2008/09/29/the-meaning-of-money/comment-page-1/#comment-299 Chuck E. Cheese & A Free Market « bLOGOS Tue, 07 Oct 2008 13:40:55 +0000 http://barrycreamer.com/?p=302#comment-299 [...] Published October 7, 2008 Uncategorized Dr. Barry Creamer recently wrote a post The Meaning of Money. I don’t have anything to contribute to his content, but would like to restate it in my own [...] [...] Published October 7, 2008 Uncategorized Dr. Barry Creamer recently wrote a post The Meaning of Money. I don’t have anything to contribute to his content, but would like to restate it in my own [...]

]]> By: Joel http://barrycreamer.com/2008/09/29/the-meaning-of-money/comment-page-1/#comment-294 Joel Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:23:05 +0000 http://barrycreamer.com/?p=302#comment-294 What a great post. I think looking at money this way really shows, not only how socialism of any kind messes things up (as you point out), but why forcing a redistribution of funds is a moral atrocity. Doing so is literally taking from those whom society already owes! As the lender-analogy above goes, it's like borrowing from the lender and then punishing him for it by taking more. What a great post. I think looking at money this way really shows, not only how socialism of any kind messes things up (as you point out), but why forcing a redistribution of funds is a moral atrocity. Doing so is literally taking from those whom society already owes! As the lender-analogy above goes, it’s like borrowing from the lender and then punishing him for it by taking more.

]]>