Friday, January 20, 2017

Poor on the Velocity of Money

Poor on the Velocity of Money
Thomas Allen

    Henry Varnum Poor (1812-1905) was a financial analyst and founder of a company that evolved into Standard & Poor’s. He was a proponent of the real bills doctrine. Like Anton Fekete, he saw the Quantity Theory of Money as a highly flawed theory. (In Money and Its Laws, he discusses flaws in the Quantity Theory of Money.)
    The velocity of money is the rate at which a given amount of money changes hand during a specific time. It measures how fast people are spending.
    Poor contends that the velocity of money, which was gold when he wrote, has no effect on its value. Even when representative money (bank notes) is included, velocity has no effect on money’s value. Thus, the number of times that money changes hands during a day, a week, or a month neither increases nor decreases its value.
    Money only changes hands when goods and services are being sold. As the selling of goods and services increases, the velocity of money increases. Poor wrote, “The relationship of one to the other, both in quantity and activity, must be uniform.”
    Poor considers money to be capital and the representation of capital. If it were not capital or its representation, it is a scale of valuation — “an instrument of commerce like a set of weights.”
    The Bullion Committee,[1] which was a proponent of the Quantity Theory of Money, contended that “the effective currency of a country depends upon the quickness of circulation and the number of exchanges performed in a given time, as well as upon its numerical amount.” Poor strongly objects to this assertion. He illustrates the absurdity of the Bullion Committee’s statement with a barrel of flour. If the Bullion Committee’s conclusion were true, then “one barrel of flour, by the rapidity of its circulation, may serve the purpose of three barrels.” Poor concluded, “The quantity of money must always be in ratio to the exchanges that are made.”

Endnote
1. The Bullion Committee was set up after the Napoleonic Wars to provide recommendations for stabilizing British finances and returning Great Britain to the gold standard.

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on money.

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

Black Privilege

Black Privilege
Thomas Allen

    Whites are accused of having “White Privilege,” which supposedly gives them all sorts of advantages over and at the expense of Blacks. “White Privilege” is the unearned assets, advantages, and benefits that White people have merely because they are White. Whites have had some advantage by custom. However, as shown below, Black Privilege really does give Blacks material and legal advantages over Whites today.
    In “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack,” Peggy McIntosh identifies 50 things that she considers “White Privilege.” Some of them are absurd, irrelevant, and insignificant. A few insult Blacks. Some result from the desire of Blacks to be thought highly of by other Blacks. Even a few are wrong: The opposite is true. However, a few are correct, but not because of discrimination per se, but because statistically Blacks are more likely to commit crimes than Whites.  Several are problems created by integration: As Blacks want to integrate into White society, they should be expected to adapt to White norms. (This is like a person seeking to become a citizen of another country. He needs to adapt to the norms of his new country instead of expecting everyone in his new country to adapt to his old norms.)
    Some so-called “White Privilege” result from Whites on average being more intelligent than Blacks on average and differences in behavior. (Genetics influences both behavior and intelligence.)
    Of the few who seem to define “White Privilege,” most seem to define it as some sort of Marxism with class exportation being replaced with race exportation. Whites have not earned what they have; they have stolen it from Blacks and other people of color. Their ingenuity, intelligence, initiative, relatively high moral and ethical standards, etc. account for nothing. Whites have what they have solely because of their skin color.
    The following is a short, but incomplete, list of Black Privilege.
    1.    Congress has established federal agencies whose primary purpose is to promote and protect special rights, privileges, and immunities for Blacks while denying them to Whites.
    2.    The federal government has spent billions of dollars to increase the intellectual development of Blacks.
    3.    Blacks have Black caucuses. However, Whites do not and cannot have White caucuses.
    4.    Blacks have enslaved Whites to support them. Whites support about a fifth to a third of the Black families. Whites are forced to pay for Blacks desiring not to work and for their sexual promiscuity, i.e., Whites are forced to support the offspring of Black sexual promiscuity. Thus, Blacks have enslaved Whites for the benefit of Blacks.
    5.    Blacks receive a standard of living given to them by Whites that far exceed what they would have if their ancestors had not been forcibly brought to America. Yet most seem ungrateful for the standard of living that Whites have given them. Whites have built their standard of living themselves. No other race gave it to them.
    6.    Blacks, who are genetically less endowed than Whites, claim and often do receive the production of Whites, who are genetically more endowed than Blacks. Thus, Blacks are entitled to receive more than they deserve based on their efforts, intelligence, and talents. They are entitled to receive more than they deserve because of their race.
    7.    A White landlord can refuse to rent to a White without fear of penalties. However, if a White landlord refuses to rent to a Black, he risks civil rights violations. Therefore, refusing to rent to a White is easier for a White landlord than refusing to rent to a Black.
    8.    Blacks receive preference in the allotment of public housing.
    9.    Blacks receive preferential treatment for college entry. Colleges and universities admit less academically qualified Blacks over more academically qualified Whites. When compared with Whites, on average Blacks with much lower Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT) scores are admitted to universities.
    10.    Colleges and universities hold Whites to a much higher standard than they hold Blacks. That is, they practice “affirmative grading” to ensure that many more Blacks graduate than would occur if they had to meet the same standards as Whites.
    11.    Colleges and universities admit Blacks at a much higher rate than they admit Whites.
    12.    Some universities pay Blacks to meet normal standards, but they do not pay Whites to meet these standards.
    13.    Blacks have Black colleges and universities. However, Whites do not and cannot have White colleges and universities.
    14.    Blacks can easily find institutions (Black colleges and universities) and academic courses (Black studies, etc.) that give attention only to Blacks. No such institutions or academic courses exist for Whites.
    15.    Blacks can have Black dormitories where only Blacks are allowed to reside. However, Whites cannot have White dormitories.
    16.    Poor Blacks are more likely to receive more educational money than gifted Whites.
    17.    Blacks receive special scholarships to elite private schools and preparatory schools.
    18.    Scholarships, fellowships, internships, and training programs are reserved for Blacks. None are reserved for Whites.
    19.    Instead of raising Blacks to the academic level of the average White in public schools (perhaps because they cannot be raised to the level of Whites on average), the academic level of public schools has been lowered to the average level of Blacks.
    20.    The SAT has been recentered so that Blacks score higher. Recentering gives the appearance that the Black-White gap is being closed.
    21.    In predominately White schools, Blacks can associate with each other. However, in predominately Black schools, Whites cannot remain together.
    22.    A whole month, “Black History Month,” is set aside each year specifically to study Blacks. No month is set aside specifically to study Whites. The other eleven months are integrated with a bias toward studying non-Whites.
    23.    The only American to have his own federal holiday is a Black man, No White American has his own federal holiday.
    24.    Blacks dominate basketball. Moreover, Blacks have a genetic advantage over Whites as boxers.
    25.    Blacks receive preferential treatment in employment. Most companies and especially governments and large corporations often hire and promote lesser qualified Blacks instead of more qualified Whites.
    26.    For many jobs requiring applicants to pass a test, the score required for a Black to pass is lower than the score required for a White to pass.
    27.    Whites need a higher intelligence than Blacks for many job categories. Thus, Blacks are more numerous in these job categories than they would be if hiring were based solely on intelligence.
    28.    Blacks are much more likely be employed in professional and technical occupations than Whites with the same level of intelligence.
    29.    When competing for a broadcast license, Blacks are given preference to Whites.
    30.    Banks and insurance companies are required to subsidize loans and policies for Blacks. However, they are not required to subsidize loans and policies for Whites.
    31.    Some Blacks have become rich extorting money from corporations with the threat of a racial boycott, often with the support of mainstream media. If a White attempted such extortion, he would risk criminal charges and would be condemned by the mainstream media.
    32.    The inclination is to treat Blacks as some kind of amoral natural beings. Institutions are the blame for Black crimes and not Blacks themselves. Therefore, Blacks are not moral agents. Thus, Black criminals are not responsible for their crimes because they are victims of White racism and injustice. However, Whites are held fully responsible and accountable for their crimes.
    33.    In high profile cases where a Black accuses a White of a crime, most Blacks and Whites with authority or influence side with the Black accuser even if the evidence proves the accuser wrong and the White innocent. Moreover, the White remains guilty even if he proves his innocence. The only evidence needed to prove the White person guilty is his race. (An example is the Duke University lacrosse rape incident.)
    34.    A Black is less likely to be arrested for a crime than a White who commits the same crime.
    35.    Police are less likely to shoot Black suspects than White suspects in the same situation.
    36.    Black jurors often find a Black defendant innocent even when the evidence overwhelmingly proves his quilt and even when the victim is Black. They do so because of the defendant’s race.
    37.    Blacks loot stores with little or no penalty during riots, which may explain why staged protests led by Blacks often end in looting riots.
    38.    If a Black person is killed by a policeman, rightly or wrongly, the mainstream media and politicians elevate it to the highest level of importance for weeks, months, or even years. If a White person is killed by a policeman, except perhaps a short article in the local news, nothing much is heard about it. Politicians ignore it.
    39.    When a Black attacks a White, the race of the attacker is seldom mentioned. However, when a White attacks a Black, the races of the attacker and the victim are emphasized. Thus, Black-on-White crime does not show anti-White feelings while White-on-Black crime proves White racism.
    40.    The mainstream media fail to report crimes of Blacks against Whites.
    41.    The average White is much less likely to assault a Black while the average Black is much more likely to assault a White.
    42.    Blacks kill and rape many times more Whites than Whites kill and rape Blacks.
    43.    Blacks are rewarded for bad behavior, whereas Whites are punished for it.
    44.    Whites are condemned for exercising their freedom of association when they decline to live or deal with Blacks. Blacks are not condemned for declining to associate with Whites. Contrariwise, they are often supported in their decision not to associate with Whites.
    45.    Blacks can forcibly associate with Whites regardless of how Whites feel about the association. Moreover, Whites cannot refuse to associate with Blacks if Blacks want to associate with them. Yet Blacks are free to refuse to associate with Whites. (William Polk writes, “If the Negro is entitled to lift himself up by enforced association with the white man, why should not the white man be entitled to prevent himself from being pulled down by enforced association with the Negro?”[1])
    46.    Most Whites feel compelled to claim that they have Black friends and neighbors even when they do not. Blacks have no such compulsion to claim White friends or neighbors. To the contrary, they often feel compelled to deny that they have any White friends or neighbors.
    47.    Black churches can have politicians deliver political speeches and request funds without risking an IRS investigation or losing their tax exemption status. White churches risk an IRS investigation and loss of their tax exemption if their pastors include something in their sermons that the federal government considers political — and what is not political today?
    48.    Blacks who have made minor contributions to civilization are exhorted as making contributions so great that civilization would not exist without them.  On the other hand, Whites, who have made contributions so great that civilization as we know it would not exist without them, are barely mentioned or ignored.
    49.    Blacks can cower 200,000,000 Whites with a single word: “racist.”
    50.    Most Whites feel compelled to deny that they are racists though by definition they are racists merely because they are White. Blacks have no need to deny that they are racists because by definition Blacks cannot be racists.
    51.    Blacks can talk frankly about race; Whites cannot.
    52.    Blacks can overtly discriminate against Whites without penalties. However, if Whites discriminate, or even appear to discriminate, against Blacks, they risk heavy finds and ostracism. Thus, Blacks can legally discriminate against Whites, but Whites cannot legally discriminate against Blacks.
    53.    Blacks are taught to love their race and, to some extent, hate the White race. They are taught to be proud of themselves. On the other hand, Whites are taught to hate their race and to love the Black race and to be ashamed of themselves. Thus, Blacks can be proud of their race while Whites must be ashamed of theirs.
    54.    Blacks can embrace being Black and will be supported and complemented by both Whites and Blacks. If Whites embrace being White, they will be condemned and accused of being racists by both Whites and Blacks.
    55,    On racial issues, Blacks are more likely to be supported by other Blacks than Whites are by other Whites. Many Whites will side with the Blacks.
    56.    While Whites are publicly degraded and ridiculed because of their race, Blacks are esteemed and venerated — especially in schools and universities.
    57.    Blacks have Black beauty contests. However, Whites do not and cannot have White beauty contests. All beauty contests that admit Whites must also admit Blacks.
    58.    Black is beautiful whereas White is ugly or at least irrelevant.
    59.    As the old Black man said, “I am glad that I am not White because Blacks know how to enjoy themselves and have fun; Whites do not.”
    60.    Blacks can say the word “nigger” with immunity. Whites are condemned and can lose their jobs or worse if they say or write “nigger”; they must use the phrase “the N word” in place of “nigger” even in a direct quotation. Moreover, Blacks can use derogatory slang terms like “honky” and “cracker” without penalties.
    61.    Blacks can tolerate heat and humidity better than Whites. Moreover, Blacks have a genetic advantage over Whites at reproducing in the lower latitudes.
    62.    Blacks have higher self-esteem than Whites.
    63.    Black lives matter with the inference being that White lives do not. Some even argue that White life is evil and wrong.
    64.    The feelings and desires of Blacks nearly always trump the feelings and desires of Whites when the two clash.
    65.    Whites are always required to change to accommodate Blacks. However, Blacks are almost never required to change. Thus, Whites are expected to adapt to or at least to accept Black norms. However, Blacks are not expected to adapt to or accept White norms.
    66.    A Black is more likely to have his voice heard in a group of Whites than a White, in a group of Blacks.
    67.    If a Black has a dispute or altercation with a White person, mainstream media and much of the alternative media will side with the Black even if the evidence is overwhelming in favor of the White. However, if a White has a dispute or altercation with a Black person, mainstream media and much of the alternative media will side with the Black even if the evidence is overwhelming in favor of the White.
    68.    Racial classifications beneficial to Blacks are acceptable while those that are not are suspect and are usually rejected. The reverse is true for Whites.
    69.    Blacks and Whites can speak and write about the virtues of Blacks without repercussions. However, if a White speaks or writes about the virtues of Whites, he is condemned as a racist.
    70.    Blacks get to blame Whites for all their shortcomings, problems, and failures. Many self-hating Whites joined them in placing the blame on Whites. Nevertheless, Whites commonly blame themselves for their shortcomings, problems, and failures.
    71.    Blacks are not responsible for their misdeeds, nor are they the blame for their misdeeds. Whites are the blame for the misdeeds of Blacks. Moreover, Whites are responsible for the failures of Blacks; Blacks have no responsibility at all.
    72.    Victimhood has great value in America today. Blacks are automatically victims, and Whites, regardless of economic or social status, are automatically oppressors.
    73.    If Dr. Everett Ramsey is correct, God holds Whites to a much higher standard than He holds Blacks.
    74.    A Black man has been deified in the United States. No white American has ever been deified.
    75.    Blacks have been elevated to a deity while Whites have become the cancer of the universe.
    The great North Carolinian, Chub Seawell summarized the whole Black privilege movement when he said, “The Ku Klux Klan comes marching down the street with a big banner saying ‘white power,’ and the media have a sort of running fit and yells ‘racism.’ Then the NAACP comes marching down the street with a big banner saying ‘black power,’ and the media call it ‘human rights.’” John Galt expressed the same sentiment, “If White people go out and march for black rights, they are hailed as having ‘social conscience’. . . . yet let three White people get together and proclaim their pride in being White men and Katy bar the damn door. They’ll be called KKK radicals, skinheads, racists, redneck and every other foul name that some minority scum can think up.”[2]
    As shown above, Blacks have many rights, privileges, and immunities that Whites do not and cannot have. Blacks receive all sorts of preferential treatment, such as quotas, set-asides, lower standards, efforts to recruit Blacks, and race-norming tests. They receive cash payments for which Whites are not eligible. In short, American society values Blacks more highly than it values Whites. Being Black means receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash, benefits, and privileges denied Whites. Thus, being Black is popular and beneficial while being White is verboten.

Endnotes
1.  Carleton Putnam, Race and Reason: A Yankee View (Public Affairs Press, 1960; Cape Canaveral, Florida: Howard Allen Enterprises, second printing 1980), p. 28.

2. John Galt, Rise! (1989), p. 9.

More articles on social issues.

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Friday, December 30, 2016

Is the Gold Standard Is Antiquated?

Is the Gold Standard Is Antiquated?
Thomas Allen

    Opponents of the gold standard use the events of the 1920s when the leading countries of the world returned to a pseudo gold standard. They use these events to prove that the gold standard is antiquated, a barbaric relic, and unworkable and needs to be abandoned for a managed currency, i.e., fiat money.
    Like most major wars, World War I was fought with credit money. Withdrawal of this credit money led to the depression of 1920-21. Again, banks expanded credit money during the 1920s, which caused the Roaring Twenties. When they withdrew the credit money, the Great Depression followed. However, the gold standard received the blame.
    By 1928 most countries had returned to the gold standard or more correctly, a bastardized gold-exchange standard. (The United States had maintained their gold-coin gold standard except about two years at the end of World War I when exportation of gold was prohibited. Domestically, paper money remained redeemable in gold until 1933.) Beginning in 1931, countries began abandoning the gold standard. By the end of the year, most countries were off the gold standard. In 1933, the United Stats finally left it.
    Many things contributed to the failure to maintain the gold standard after World War I. They include:
    1.    interference with or not facilitating the movement of gold;
    2.    war debts and reparations and how they were paid (large payments had to be paid at specified times to specific countries despite exchange rates among other problems);
    3.    interference with the natural movement of goods, such as tariffs;
    4.    imprudent foreign lending, which allowed foreign countries, especially Germany, to buy goods on credit and enable Germany to pay its reparations;
    5,    inflexibility in prices caused by international cartels and governmental price fixing and inflexibility in the system of wages (strong resistance by workers to a reduction in pay);
    6.    abandonment of the real bills doctrine so that international trade could be controlled; and
    7.    a lack of confidence that caused large sums of money to be transferred from place to place based on emotions rather than economic factors.
The problems that lead to the fall of the gold standard had nothing to do with the gold standard itself. Defects in the gold standard did not cause it to fall. Defects in the political situation did.
    The gold standard only functions under proper conditions. As the above list illustrates, the belligerent powers refused to allow the conditions under which the gold standard flourishes that exist before the War to return. About the demise of the gold standard, Frederick Bradford comments, “The gold standard itself is no more a failure than an automobile which refuses to run smoothly because there is dirt in the carburetor and the front wheels have been detached from the steering gear. The really surprising thing is that the gold standard was able to function at all under the circumstances.”
    A real problem with the gold standard is that paper money and other credit money promising to pay in specie soon accompanies it. Before long the government becomes involved in the name of protecting the people from counterfeiting and failure to redeem notes. Such protection is a legitimate function. However, the government does not stop here unless the people remain vigilant. The next step is to require bank notes to be secured by government debt — thus, ending their issuance for economic needs. At this point, if the government has not usurped the authority to issue notes or granted a bank such a monopoly, it soon will. Fiat money adherents like this attribute because they can now get the government to end convertibility and change the paper money into a fiat currency.
    After governments, i.e., the elite who really controls the governments, had tasted the power and wealth that fiat paper money brought them, they were reluctant to relinquish such a monetary system. Being unable to bend the gold standard to their will, they abandoned it. To them it was an antiquated system.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Tuesday, December 20, 2016

Santa Claus

Santa Claus
Josephine Allen

Who is this man called Santa Claus?
That jolly old fellow that makes everybody stop and pause,
Who has something for you and me;
When we see him we shout with glee.
Now Santa is sitting in his little red and green house on Fayetteville Street,
Listening to the patter of big and little feet.

Now Old Santa had better make the best of it all,
For all I can say that at least by next fall,
His little house in Raleigh will be taken over by the City Mall.

Saturday, December 10, 2016

Geology Disproves a Global Flood 5200 Years Ago and a Young Earth -- Part 2

Geology Disproves a Global Flood 5200 Years Ago and a Young Earth -- Part 2
Thomas Allen

    Strata.[10] Moreover, the orderliness of the sedimentary strata testifies against a violent global flood. The strata are not homogeneous. They consist of successive layers that differ widely in their contents and character. They are not a jumbled confusion. Land animals are not found in the same strata with fishes. Neither are extinct species found with present species. They lie methodically, each in its own successive sedimentary deposition. If the fossil record was caused by a global flood, one would expect to encounter a jumble of animals: Land animals mixed with fishes; freshwater creatures mixed with saltwater creatures. The orderliness of the fossil record does not support a global flood.
    The thickness of the sedimentary strata ranges up to 10 miles or more. They give the appearance of gradual accumulation over a long time. Each stratum contains organic remains that different from the previous strata.
    Grand Canyon.[11] The Grand Canyon argues against the young-earth-global-flood theory. According to this theory all the layers above the crystalline basement, the Vishnu Schist, formed as a result of the Flood. This theory also contends that each layer formed rapidly and was followed rapidly by another layer. By explaining the formation of a single layer, many young earth creationists assume that they have explained the deposit of all the layers.
    According to the young-earth-global-flood theory, the Tapeats Sandstone is the  first layer of the Grand Canyon deposited by the Flood. This sandstone shows ripple marks. Thus, the water causing the ripples must have been less than 5.5 feet per second (3.75 miles per hour). According to the young-earth-global-flood theory, the minimum velocity of the flood waters was 131 feet per second (89 miles per hour). Therefore, the Noachian Flood could not have formed the Tapeats Sandstone.
    Just above the Tapeats Sandstone is the Bright Angel Shale. This layer consists of alternating layers of sandstone and sandy limestone. According to conventional geology, a fluctuating dispositional environment with changing current speeds is needed for this type of formation. It results from the low water currents of a changing shoreline. According to the young-earth-global-flood theory, flood waters grew deeper at the beginning of the Flood; therefore, at this point of the Flood, fluctuating shorelines would not have occurred. Thus, the Noachian Flood could not have formed the Bright Angel Shale.
    The Temple Butte Limestone also presents a problem for the young-earth-global-flood theory. The eastern part of the limestone is composed of freshwater limestone. It contains fossil remains that belong only to freshwater fish. If the young-earth-global-flood theory is correct, freshwater should not have existed at this point of the Flood.
    Moreover, the young-earth-global-flooding theory cannot account for the Redwall Limestone. Limestone needs calm waters to form. The global-flood theory calls for turbulent flood waters. Also, this layer is up to 535 feet thick, which suggests an extremely long period of calm water.
    The Hermit Shale resulted from a swampy environment. It is soft and easily eroded. The young-earth-global-flood theory fails to predict a swamp on top of 2000 feet of sediment in the middle of the Flood. Above the Hermit Shale is another 2000 plus feet of sediment.
    Most of the other formations in the Grand Canyon also present problems for the young-earth-global-flood theory. Many of these formations suggest a shoreline environment of advancing and retreating water. They do not suggest steadily increasing water depths as the young-earth-global-flooding theory predicts.
    Moreover, the fossil record in some of these formations contradicts the global-flood theory. Fossils of land animals are found in layers where they should not occur if the young-earth-global-flood theory is correct. (The Coconino Sandstone, Toroweap Formation, and Kaibab Limestone are discussed above.)
    If a single flood event had formed the Grand Canyon, one would expect to find the upper layers made of fine material, and the lower layers made of coarse material. Yet layers of coarse material lie on top of layers of fine material.
    Also, the Grand Canyon contains layers of limestone. Limestone strata have never been found in flood deposits of any magnitude.
    Moreover, as the first deposited laid by the Flood, fossils of mammals and dinosaurs would be expected to be found in this sandstone. They are not. If the young-earth-global-flood theory is correct, then fossils of dinosaurs, mammals, and other land animals and plants should occur near the beginning of the Flood and be found in the lower layers. They are not. They occur above 2000 feet. Furthermore, fossils of dinosaurs and mammals have not been found in the Grand Canyon, although fossils of reptiles and plants have.
    Igneous Petrology.[12] Igneous petrology also argues against a global flood. Igneous petrology is the branch of geology that deals with the development, emplacement, and crystallization of molten rock material, magma, within or on the surface of the Earth.
    Many examples of magma intruding between layers of fossil-bearing sedimentary rock and crystallizing into igneous rock can be cited. According to the young-earth-global-flood theory, all or nearly all fossil-bearing sedimentary rock was formed during the Flood. Thus, these intrusions occurred during or after the Flood. The massive granitic batholiths of California, Idaho, and British Columbia illustrate the fallacy of the young-earth-global-flood theory. These magma intrusions were so massive that they required hundreds of thousands or even a million years to cool. Such rocks rule out a global flood of a few thousand years of age. They also argue against a young earth of no more than 12,000 years old.
    Volcanoes.[13] The remains of many volcanoes argue against a global flood several thousand years ago. Volcanoes exist that are older than the Flood. They show no evidence of being subjected to a highly erosive flood a few thousand years ago.
    In Southern France, cones of ancient volcanoes remain. These cones are composed of loose, light material. They show no signs of ever being exposed to rushing or even moderate flood waters.
    Fossilized Record.[14] Dinosaur tracks have been found in lacustrine deposits. If the Flood accounts for the fossil-bearing sedimentary rock, how could dinosaurs have left their footprints? Were they walking around in water so torrent that it could move blocks of material weighing thousands of tons? Why were not these tracks washed away by the highly turbulent flood waters?
    For example, dinosaur tracks have been found in the Kayenta Formation in Zion National Park, Utah. They were left in sand and silt deposited in slow moving, intermittent stream beds. These tracks were left by dinosaurs in the middle of the Noachian Flood.
    Likewise, fossil tracks of scorpions, millipedes, isopods, and spiders have been found in the sedimentary rock of the Grand Canyon. Young-earth-global-flood proponents claim that the Noachian Flood made all or nearly all fossil-bearing sedimentary sandstone deposits. However, studies have shown that many of these footprints could only have been made on dry sand.
    Furthermore, fossilized flowering plants argue against the young-earth-global-flood theory. The Cedar Mountain Formation in Utah contains fossilized flowering plants. This formation rests on top of more than 10,000 feet of sediment laid down by the Flood according to the young-earth-global-flood theory. How could such plants have survived so long in a turbulent global flood? How could they survive so much sediment? Why do fossils of flowering plants not appear in the Grand Canyon, where deposits predate the Cedar Mountain Formation? This formation also contains fossils of dinosaurs. According to the young-earth-global-flood theory, the Cedar Mountain Formation formed toward the end of the Flood.
    Moreover, the young-earth-global-flood theory predicts that both plant spores and pollen should be dispersed throughout the geological strata. They are not. They are found in distinct layers in succession. Pollen only appears in the upper, younger, layers of rock. Pollen from nonflowering plants, like pines, appears before pollen from flowering plants, like oaks. Only spores of ferns, mosses, and similar plants appear in the lower, older, layers of rock. Thus, the lower strata contain only spores. The higher strata contain spores and pollen from both flowering and nonflowering (gymnosperm) plants. In between, the strata contain spores and gymnosperm pollen. Furthermore, spores of many extinct plants appear only in the lower layers of the fossil record. If the young-earth-global-flood theory is correct, they should also be found in the higher levels. Spores of similar size and shapes as those of these extinct species are found in the upper layers.
    Young earth creationists claim that the Noachian Flood created most, if not all, of the fossil record. The  Karoo Supergroup in South Africa is estimated to contain the remains of 800 billion vertebrates. The fossilized animals range in size from a small lizard to a cow with an average size being about the size of a fox. If all these animals were alive at once, an average of 21 of them would inhabit every acre of land on earth. If the Karoo Supergroup contains 1 percent of the fossilized land vertebrates, then at least 2100 living vertebrates must have inhabited each acre on earth on the eve of the Flood.
    Moreover, the quantity of shellfish on earth just before the Flood would have conservatively cover the earth to a depth of at least one to five feet. Chalk is mostly made of fossilized shellfish. High quantities of shellfish fossils are also found in many limestones. Chalk, limestone, and similar rock account for about 20 percent of the sedimentary rock.
    Also, fossils arrange themselves in well-defined zones. They are sorted by type instead of size and density as the global flood theory predicts. That is, trilobites, both small and large, are found in one layer. Nautiloids and ammonoids are found in another layer. Their shells have buoyancy chambers, which makes them very light. However, they are never found in the upper layers of the strata as the global-flood theory would predict. Conversely, turtles, which are large and dense, are found only in the middle and upper layers; they are never found in the lower layers as the global-flood theory predicts.
    Another argument against the young-earth-global-flood theory is fossilized charcoal or fusain. They could not have been formed during the Flood because fire cannot burn under water.
    Yellowstone Fossil Forests.[15] A stratum in Yellowstone Park disproves the global flood theory. The stratum at Specimen Ridge contains 27 successive forests destroyed by lava and ash. Enough time was needed for each forest to mature and then be covered by lava and ash. Time was needed for the lava and ash to weather into soil before the next forest could grow. Moreover, the deposit containing these trees is 3400 feet thick. At least 20,000 years are needed for these events to occur. At most only one of these forests could have been destroyed during the Flood. Even this is doubtful. Trees uprooted by a flood are usually stripped of their roots and buried on their sides. The trees in these fossilized forests stand upright and have complete root systems. Furthermore, these forests set on top of several thousand feet of fossil-bearing rock.
    Ice Core.[16] Ice cores argue against the young-earth-global-flood theory. By counting annual layers, scientists have dated ice cores from Greenland to be more than 40,000 years old. If a global flood occurred a few thousand years ago, one would expect to find signs of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, and other evidence of a catastrophic global flood. Such evidence is not found.
    The young-earth-global-flood theory fails to provide a satisfactory answer for fossil coral reefs, evaporite deposits, lacustrine deposits, fossilized eolian deserts, chalk beds, conglomerates, ancient volcanoes, igneous intrusions, and the fossil record. These geological facts are difficult for the advocates of a global flood to explain away. Other geological facts are impossible to explain away. These geological facts also argue against a young earth, and many of them could not have taken place within the time allocated by the young earth theory.
    The above discussion is not intended to preclude catastrophic events that have global effects. Ample evidence exists that shows the occurrence of such catastrophic events. Many, perhaps most, large fossil deposits may have resulted from such catastrophes. Catastrophes may also explain many geological anomalies. Such an event probably occurred around 3200 B.C. although it was not a global flood like the one described by the young earth creationists. The geological record shows that such a flood could not have occurred so recently. Moreover, much of this evidence shows that the earth must be much older than 12,000 years.
    A major problem that many young earth creationists seem to have is difficulty in distinguishing geology from biology. They seem to believe that if the earth is more than 10,000 or 12,000 years old, evolution is proven. (Ironically, when describing the origin of human races, many creationists resort to Darwinism. Also, many young earth creationists support the “created-kind” theory. That is, for example, God created a cat kind from which all members of the cat family, Felidae, evolved. Unlike conventional evolutionists, who believe that many generations are required for one kind to become another kind, these creationists believe that only a few generations are needed. Thus the primary disagreement between the two is not one of basic principles so much as it is about starting point and the time required for a new species to evolve.) Evolution can be disproved biologically independent of geology.
    If the reader wants more detailed discussions of the above geological evidence against a young earth and a global flood a few thousand years ago, he should consult the references in the endnotes.

Endnotes
10. Smith, pp. 211-212.

11. Greg Neyman, “Creation Science Exposed – Stratigraphy and the Young Earth Global Flood Model – Part 2,” Jan. 2003, Feb. 2006, http://www.oldearth.org/stratigraphy2.htm, Dec. 18, 2015. Senter.

12. Hayward. Isaak. David A. Young, Creation and the Flood: An Alternative to Flood Geology and Theistic Evolution (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1977), pp. 177-185.

 13. Smith, p. 265.

14. Burky. Hayward. Greg Neyman, “Creation Science Exposed – Stratigraphy and the Young Earth Global Flood Model – Part 1,” Jan. 2003, Feb. 2006, http://www.oldearth.org/stratigraphy.htm, Dec. 18, 2015. Greg Neyman, “Creation Science Rebuttals – Creation Magazine, The Coconino Sands (Startling Evidence for Noah’s Flood),” Jan. 24, 2003, http://www.oldearth.org/coconino.htm, Dec. 18, 2014. Senter. Smith, pp. 211-212. Weber. Young, Christianity, p. 88.

15. Hayward. Weber. Greg Neyman, “Yellowstone Petrified Forests,” March 6, 2003, www.answersincreation.org/yellowstone.htm.

16. Isaak.

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 1.

More religious articles.

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Geology Disproves a Global Flood 5200 Years Ago and a Young Earth -- Part 1

Geology Disproves a Global Flood 5200 Years Ago and a Young Earth -- Part 1
Thomas Allen

    The most popular creationist theory maintains that God created the earth and universe about 6000 to 12000 years ago. This theory is commonly called the young-earth or young-earth-global-flood theory. Also, this theory claims that a global flood, the Noachian Flood, occurred about 2100 to 8000 B.C.[1] with an average of about 3200 B.C. According to this theory, all, or at least most, fossil-bearing sedimentary rock resulted from this Flood.
    Below some geological evidence is examined to see if it is compatible with the young-earth-global-flood theory.
    Coral Reefs.[2] Coral reefs argue against a global flood. Coral reefs are structures that are built up slowly. Slow growth rates would be incompatible with reef formation during a brief period of the Flood year. Reefs generally grow only a few centimeters per year under ideal conditions.
    Advocates of a global flood claim that the fossil reefs were antediluvian reefs that were eroded and redeposited during the Flood. They claim that enough time has elapsed since the Flood to allow the formation of the currently existing reefs. However, this position is untenable.
    Could a reef that is almost 1000 feet thick and several miles in diameter be a redeposited antediluvian reef? Could any kind of flood dislodge and transport such a large structure without smashing it to pieces? Hardly. Yet the cataclysmic global-flood theory demands such action, for all ancient fossil-containing rock is, according to this theory, the result of a global flood.
    Furthermore, in the Midwest these gigantic reefs lie on top of other carbonate rocks, which in turn lie on top of sandstone that is 300 feet thick. These reefs would have had either to remain suspended while the carbonate rocks and sandstone were deposited, or else to be transported to and deposited on top of these rocks by a force powerful enough to move these gigantic reefs, but gentle enough not to disturb the sediment, which would not have had enough time to solidify within a few weeks or months of continuous violent rushing water. A flood powerful enough to move these reefs would certainly have disturbed the sediment. Moreover, could a flood violent enough to keep such a gigantic reef suspended allow material that was of a much finer grain and of a lower density to be deposited under it? Floods generally deposit larger objects before they deposit smaller ones. Smaller objects tend to remain suspended longer.
    Another piece of evidence that these reefs were not redeposited is that none are upside down. If a violent flood had transported these reefs, surely at least one of them would have been deposited upside down. All the evidence shows that these reefs grew in place over an already deposited carbonate sediment.
    Reefs grow only in lightly agitated warm water. They do not grow under turbulent conditions such as floods. Violent conditions, such as hurricanes, destroy them. The flood described by advocates of a cataclysmic global flood would have been much more violent than any hurricane and would have utterly destroyed these reefs.
    Furthermore, cemented coral reefs grow only a few millimeters per year. Coral atolls, e.g., Eniwetok atoll, and barrier reefs, e.g., the fossil Rainbow Lake reef in western Canada, formed from cemented coral and require tens of thousands of years to reach their present size. Conventional geologists estimate that the Rainbow Lake reef required 160,000 years to grow to its present size.
    Evaporite Deposits.[3] Evaporite deposits argue against a global flood that occurred a few thousand years ago. Evaporite deposits contain minerals that are soluble in water, such as halite (sodium chloride or table salt), sylvite (potassium chloride), calcite (calcium carbonate), limestone (calcium carbonate), gypsum (hydrated calcium sulfate), potash (potassium carbonate), borax (sodium tetracarbonate) and Epsom salt (magnesium sulfate). According to the generally accepted theory, these deposits are formed slowly by gradual and repeated evaporation of salt water. Such deposits can occur when an arm of a sea is cut off from the ocean.  The water evaporates, and then the depression refills with water from the ocean. This cycle is repeated several times.  The typical deposit of evaporites requires the evaporation of thousands cubic miles of sea water.
    Some examples of evaporite deposits that required thousands of years to form are the Castilian evaporites (8000 sq. mi.) in Texas, the Zectstein evaporites in Schleswig-Holstein, Germany, and the Gulf of Mexico evaporites. According to conventional geology, the Castilian and Zectstein required hundreds of thousands of years to form. For the Castilian evaporites to form during the year of the Flood would have required the varves of calcite and anhydride to be deposited 260.000 times in one year. Most likely, about 260,000 years were needed to form the Castilian evaporates.
    Another example of a large evaporite is the Mediterranean basin. In the distant past (six to eight million years ago, according to conventional geology), the Mediterranean dried up several times. As it dried, it formed evaporites — calcite at the rim and rock salt at the deepest points. Successive drying produced evaporite deposits a thousand feet or more thick. Sediment now covers much of the evaporites. However, the weight of the sediment has forced the evaporites up in places to form salt domes. Some of these domes are a few miles across and thousands of feet deep. A global flood a few thousand years ago cannot account for this phenomenon.    
    If a violent global flood happened, it most likely would have dissolved these most soluble salts. A turbulent flood should have mixed these soluble minerals with clastic sediments. Unfortunately for the young-earth-global-flood theory, clastic minerals are usually not found in evaporites. Further, pieces of evaporites are not found in clastic sedimentary deposits above or below evaporite deposits. If the global-flood theory were valid, evaporite fragments should be found in these sedimentary layers.
    Moreover, evaporite deposits could not have been formed as a result of the flood waters evaporating and leaving behind a precipitate of salts. Evaporites are found buried under thick clastic sediments not on the surface. Evaporites simply cannot be accounted for by a rapid, one-year process. The great thicknesses involved suggest slow deposition over considerable time.
    Sedimentary Rock.[4] The sedimentary rock record argues against a global flood. Although many examples of sedimentary rock formations show evidence of having been formed by moving water, many examples of deposits also show that they could not have formed at all in surging flood waters.  These include sedimentary deposits that were evidently formed in lacustrine (lake) and desert environments.
    Moreover, the volume of fossil-bearing sedimentary rock argues against a recent global flood. According to the young-earth-global-flood theory, all or nearly all fossil-bearing rock resulted from the Noachian Flood. The volume of fossil-bearing rock is 157 cubic miles as compared with 336 cubic miles of water on earth. Such a mixture would result in a thick, creamy mixture of mud in which no fish could survive.
    An example of a sedimentary rock formation that could not have formed during the Noachian Flood is the Raymond Formation. It is less than a mile thick, but it contains more than 30,000 alternating layers of sandstone and shale. (Shale is formed from clay, and sandstone, from sand.) Turbulent flood waters keep clay suspended, yet it had to deposit clay during the Flood to form this formation. (Clay only settles in very calm water.) During the Flood, alternating layers of sand and clay had to be deposited within minutes. This process had to be repeated 15,000 times. Such action is an impossibility under the conditions of the Noachian Flood.
    Limestone.[5] Limestone argues against a young earth and a recent global flood. Limestone is made of the skeletons of microscopic sea animals. About 1.5 pentagrams (1.7 billion tons) of limestone are deposited annually in the oceans. If ten times this amount were deposited for 5000 years, it would account for less than 0.02 percent of the limestone deposits.
    Chalk Beds.[6] Chalk beds like the 1329 feet of chalk at the cliffs of Dover, England, argue against the young-earth-global-flood theory. Chalk is a calcium carbonate formed from residues of amorphous shell deposited from ocean oozes. It is a soft powdery limestone consisting mostly of fossil shells of Foraminifera.
    Conventional geologists claim that millions of years are needed for the formation of deep chalk beds like the one at Dover. However, according to some geologists, chalk deposits generally form at a rate of one to ten centimeters per year. Thus, at least 4050 to 40,500 years are needed to form the Dover chalk bed. Even at this rate, much more time than the 371 days of the Noachian Flood is needed. Using the most rapid formation calculations and assumptions, young earth creationists have lowered this time to 75 years — still more than 371 days.
    Whatever the time required for chalk beds to form, they could not form during the Noachian Flood. According to the young earth creationists, the flood current ranged between 89 and 179 miles per hour. Chalk forms in calm, shallow water. It cannot form under flood conditions. The particles are too small to settle at the speeds estimated for the Noachian Flood and would remain suspended and would eventually dissolve. Thus, if the young-earth-global-flood theory is correct, chalk beds should not exist.
    For example the Niobrara Chalk of North America contains more than 100 bentonite beds. Thus, 100 periods of deposition during calm periods are needed to form these beds. Such calm periods could not have occurred under the catastrophic conditions of the Noachian Flood.
    Conglomerates.[7] Conglomerates argue against a global flood a few thousand years ago. Conglomerate is a sedimentary rock containing rounded pebbles of various sizes up to the size of boulders cemented with fine-grain rocks like sand.
    Large deposits of conglomerate are found on top of sandstone and other fine-grain sedimentary rock of thicknesses up to several miles. An example of such a conglomerate is the sea cliffs near Marseilles, which contain boulders more than a foot in diameter. Under flood conditions, conglomerates are deposited before sand and other fine-grain material.
    Moreover, a sharp boundary is often found between a conglomerate and the underlying sandstone. Thus, the sand must have hardened into sandstone before the conglomerate deposited on top of it. How could a flood deposit both layers in quick succession?
    Lacustrine Deposits.[8] Supporters of a global flood claim that lacustrine deposits occurred during the waning stage of the Flood. Gradual upheaval of the surrounding terrain formed vast sedimentary basins. Shallow turbidity currents carried soft sediment and organic slime into basins to form the laminated sediments. This explanation may explain some lacustrine deposits, but not all. Some lacustrine deposits are covered by thick unconsolidated sediments, which would suggest that the Flood was still active in these areas long after it ceased to be active in others.
    An example of a lacustrine deposit is the Green River Formation at Flaming Gorge, Utah. A million thin layers of varves make up this formation. Deposits from several different contemporary lakes make up the Green River Formation. If the varves at Green River formed at the same rate as that of the Swiss lake example used by young earth creationists, 1.2 million years are needed to form the Green River Formation.
    Fossilized Eolian Deserts.[9] Fossilized eolian deserts argue against a recent global flood. Eolian deserts are the sand dune deserts. They are composed predominately of quartz sand. The sand is well rounded with a frosted surface. Clay and mica are usually absent. A good deal of time is required to erode bedrock to sand and to blow it into dunes. Moreover, desert deposits require dry land to form. Thus, the Flood could not have formed them.
    Examples of ancient fossilized deserts are the Old Red Sandstone that stretches from the British Isle to White Sea in Russia and parts of the Grand Canyon (the Coconino Sandstone, see below). These sandy deserts could not have formed during a global flood. Also, some of these sites contain evaporites.
    A fossil desert in southern Utah, the Navajo Sandstone, which is between 1600 and 2000 feet thick, was formed from windblown sand. It is not mixed with the mud that lies beneath it. Thus, the Flood could not have formed it; a desert could not have formed in the middle of a global flood.
    Furthermore, the Navajo Sandstone and the strata above it contain fossils. According to young earth creationists, the Navajo Sandstone formed during the middle of the Noachian Flood. Unfortunately for them, dinosaur footprints have been found in the sandstone — at a time when all dinosaurs and all other land animals that were not on the ark should have been drowned.
    Also, above the Navajo Sandstone are the Entrada Sandstone, which contains desert dune sandstone, and the Dewey Bridge Member, which is a marine deposit about 200 feet deep. Next comes the thin Summerville Formation, a siltstone formed in a lake or lagoon environment. Then comes the Morrison Formation followed by the Dakota Sandstone, which resulted from a beach environment, and the Mancoa, which formed from a shallow marine environment. As all these deposits are above the Navajo Sandstone, they were deposited after the Navajo. Moreover, the Navajo Sandstone is above all the layers of the Grand Canyon.
    The Morrison Formation is known for its dinosaur fossils and footprints. This formation sits above 11,000 feet of sediment laid down by the Flood according to the young-earth-global-flood theory. That is, it is 11,000 feet above the first horizontal layer of the Grand Canyon, which according to the young earth creationists, was the first layer laid down by the Flood. At the time that this formation was formed, no dinosaurs should have been alive according to young earth creationists.
    Another desert-created sandstone is the Coconino Sandstone of the Grand Canyon. The Coconino is 315 feet thick and was created in a desert environment from wind-blown sand dunes. This sandstone contains fossils. According to the young earth theory, the Noachian Flood formed the Coconino Sandstone. Above the Coconino Sandstone are two fossil-bearing rock layers, the Toroweap Limestone and Kaibab Limestone.
    For these three strata to occur according to the young-earth-global-flood theory, the waters would have had to recede to form the sandstone. Then it would have had to return to form the layers of limestone. However, according to the Biblical account, the waters rose and then receded. The account does not suggest cycles of water rising and then receding. The desert formation of the Coconino Sandstone argues against its formation during a flood and against a young earth.
    In Mongolia, dinosaur fossils are found in eolian sandstone. Thus, those dinosaurs died in a sandstorm instead of drowning in a flood. The young-earth-global-flood theory would predict them to have died of drowning.

Endnotes
1. Thomas Coley Allen, Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man (Franlinton, N.C.: TC Allen Co., 1988), pp. 171-174.

2. Christopher Gregory Weber, “The Fatal Flaws of Rood Geology," Creation Evolution Journal, 1, no. 1 (1980) http://ncse.eom/cej/l/l/fatal-flaws-flood-geology, Dec. 18, 2015. Davis A. Young, Christianity & the Age of the Earth (Thousand Oaks, California: Artisan Sales, 1988), pp. 84-86.

3. Richard Burky, “Are Geologic Strata the Result of the Biblical Flood?” Grace Communion International, 1990, https://www.gci.org/science/burkyl, Dec. 18, 2016. Mark Isaak, “Problems with a Global Flood” (2nd ed., 1998), http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#georecord, Dec. 18, 2015. Weber. Young, Christianity, pp. 86-87.

4. Alan Hayward, “Flood Geology and Related Fallacies,” https://www.gci.org/science/hayward8, Dec. 18, 2015. Isaak. John Pye Smith, The Relation Between the Holy Scriptures and Some Parts of Geological Science (London: Henry G. Bolin, 1854), p. 77. Young, Christianity, pp. 87.

5.  Isaak.

6. Isaac. Greg Neyman “Creation Science Rebuttals – Can Noah’s Flood Make Any Chalk Beds?,” Jan. 28, 2003, http://www.oldearth.org/nochalk.htm. Dec. 18, 2015. Phil Senter, “The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology: The Ironic Demonstration That There Is No Trace of the Genesis Flood in the Geologic Record,” Reports of the National Center for Science Education, 31.3 (May-June 2011), 1.1-1.14.

7. Hayward.

8.  Greg Neyman, “Creation Science Exposed – Stratigraphy and the Young Earth Global Flood Model – Part 5,” Jan. 2003, Feb. 2006, http://www.oldearth.org/stratigraphy5.htm, Dec. 18, 2015. Senter. Young, Christianity, p. 88-89.

9. Burky. Greg Neyman, “Creation Science Exposed – The Desert Problem,” Feb. 2, 2003  http://www.oldearth.org/desertproblem.htm, Dec. 18, 2015. Greg Neyman, “Creation Science Rebuttals Technical Journal (TJ) – The Navajo Sandstone,” Dec. 29, 2005,    http://www.oldearth.org/rebuttal/magazines/TJ/vl8/TJ18_navajo_san..., Dec. 18, 2015. Greg Neyman, “Creation Science Exposed – Stratigraphy and the Young Earth Global Flood Model – Part 3,” Jan. 2003, Feb. 2006, http://www.oldearth.org/stratigraphy3.htm, Dec. 18, 2015. Greg Neyman, “Creation Science Exposed – Stratigraphy and the Young Earth Global Flood Model – Part 4,” Jan. 2003, Feb. 2006, http://www.oldearth.org/stratigraphy4.htm, Dec. 18, 2015. Senter. Weber. Young, Christianity, p. 91.

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2

More religious articles

Sunday, November 20, 2016

You Cannot Eat Gold

You Cannot Eat Gold
Thomas Allen

    Perhaps the most absurd and stupidest argument offered by the antigold crowd against using gold as money is that gold has no value because one cannot eat it, wear it, or live in it. This claim can be made of paper money and especially electronic money, which is most of today’s money. It can be said of most things that people use.
    Gold is eatable. When consumed, gold has anticancer properties, aids in repairing damaged arthritic joints, reduces various emotional problems, and helps blood circulation. It is used in medicines and alternative remedies. It is used to decorate expensive high-society cakes.
    Gold can be used to make clothes. Traditionally, crowns of monarchs have been made of gold alloy. Ancient, and not so ancient, priests wore gold laden garments. Most wedding rings are gold alloy. A large quantity of gold is used for jewelry.
    Gold can be used to build structures. A house can be built using gold bricks. Such a house would be extremely expensive and highly energy inefficient. Gold foil or sheet can be used to veneer siding or to cover roofs of buildings.
    One can use the same argument about paper money: it cannot be eaten or worn or used as a building material. Like gold, it can be eaten and worn. Nevertheless, paper money has little or no nutritional value. Depending on the composition of the paper and ink, it could be hazardous if eaten. Also, like gold one can build a house with it. When paper money becomes worthless, it has been used as wallpaper.
    However, how does one eat, wear, or build with electronic money, which make up the bulk of today’s money, flowing through some unknown computer at some unknown location? If one wants to use the cannot-be-eaten-or-worn argument against a type of money, they should hurled it against today’s electronic money and not against gold.
    The argument that one cannot eat, wear, or build with gold is often used as an attempt to show that gold has no value in-and-of itself. The antigold crowd often claims that if it were not for gold’s monetary use, which it has not had since 1971, at least not formally, gold would be useless with little or no value. What is left unmentioned is its growing use in a growing electronic device market. If gold has no value beyond its monetary use, why did it not become cheaper than gravel when its monetary use ended? This argument against gold is stupid and is intended to deceive.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More money articles.