Sunday, October 18, 2015

Differences Between Real Money and Fiat Money

Differences Between Real Money and Fiat Money
Thomas Allen

    Attributes generally ascribed to monetary material are that it is portable (relatively high value per unit of weight), homogeneous or uniform, durable, divisible, recognizable, highly marketable (highly liquid, universally acceptable), and stable in value. These attributes are true for real money, such as full weighted gold and silver coins. For the most part, they are true for today’s paper fiat money, such as the US dollar, euro, and British pound. However, real money has characteristics that are lacking in fiat paper money.
    Real money has quantity, measurement, and substance. Fiat paper money has only quantity.
    An early illustration of these three attributes in real money is recorded in Genesis 23:16. Abraham bought a burial plot. He paid 400 (quantity) shekels (measurement of weight) of silver (substance). In pre-1933 money, if a person bought something with a $20 gold coin, he paid with money that had quantity (20), measurement (dollar, a unit of weight equal to 23.22 grains), and substance (gold).
    Fiat paper money lacks two of these three characteristics. For example a $20 federal reserve note has quantity: 20. The dollar appears to be its measurement. However, it is not. It is an abstraction. It measures nothing of substance. A unit of measurement has to be something concrete and definable like the meter, ounce, minute, or horsepower so that things can be compared to it. It has to be something that instruments can determine. Also, it lacks substance as its monetary value exceeds the value of the material of which it is made and it does not promise to deliver anything concrete.
    With pre-1933 gold money, a $20 gold coin weighed twice as much as $10 gold coin. Even if the disk had no inscription on it, a disk containing 464.4 grains of gold had twice the purchasing power of a disk containing 232.2 grains of gold. It was twice as large and weighed twice as much.
    Federal reserve notes, which are fiat paper money, cannot be measured. If all the inscriptions are removed from them, a $20 federal reserve note would look like a $10 federal reserve note. They would both have the same value: nothing.
    Another important distinction between real money and fiat paper money is that real money can transport value through space and time, which makes it an excellent store of value, medium of exchange, and standard of value (unit of accounts). Fiat paper money cannot, which makes it a poor store of value, medium of exchange, and standard of value. Real money retains its value when it moves from one place to another and from one time to another. Fiat paper money does not.
    In the United States since 1933, when President Roosevelt stole the people’s gold, the dollar had lost 94 percent of its purchasing power by 2010. Since its complete divorce from gold in 1971, it had lost 81 percent of its purchasing power by 2010.
    On the other hand, gold has retained its value through the millennia. The ancient Babylonian and Hebrew gold shekel contained about 252 grains of gold or about as much gold as an American $10 gold coin.[1] Those 252 grains of gold are still worth 252 grains today.
    If a time traveler carried a $10 gold coin back two thousand years, he would have the buying power equivalent to about 58 days of wages of a common laborer. A common laborer’s wage at that time was about 17¢ per day[2] (this estimate was made in the late 1930s when the federal reserve dollar was worth almost as much as a gold dollar). Moreover, because a $20 gold coin contains twice the gold of $10 gold coin, it would have twice the buying power. If he carried a $100 and a $1 federal reserve note with him, he would get only what he could trade his notes for as a curiosity. He might find the $1 note worth more than the $100 note if the person with whom he was trading liked Washington’s picture more than Franklin’s. Possibly, the person with whom he was trading found that the occult symbols on the back of a $1 note had great value whereas a picture of Independence Hall on the back a $100 note had none. Unlike real money, fiat paper money fails to maintain its value through time.
    Also, unlike real money, most fiat paper money has little value beyond the borders of the issuing country. Fiat paper money that does retain value beyond its borders does so because it is considered a reserve currency or the fiat money of a country is losing value so quickly that it makes other fiat money desirable. This limited ability of fiat paper money to transport value, albeit decreasing value, through space is short-lived.
    Thus, real money can transport value through space and time. Fiat paper money can only transport value for short distances and for a highly limited time. Real money is vastly superior to fiat paper money as a medium of exchange because of its superiority at transporting value through space. It is vastly superior as a standard of value and store of value because of its superiority at transporting value through time.
    As shown above, real money has quantity, measurement, and substance. Fiat paper money has only quantity. Real money can transport value over vast space and time. Fiat money cannot.


1. Madeleine Miller and J. Lane Miller, Harper’s Bible Dictionary, pp. 454-455.

2. John D. Davis, The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, p. 630.

Copyright © 2014 by Thomas Coley Allen. 

More articles on money. 

Saturday, October 3, 2015

A Review of The South and Christian Ethics -- Part 2

A Review of The South and Christian Ethics -- Part 2
Thomas Allen

    Throughout Chapter 3, Sellers preaches, “We are to love our neighbor.” One of the highest forms of love, if not the highest, is integration. As integration leads to the death of the races, how can this be love? As integration destroys the uniqueness of the races and racial identity, how can this be love?
    In Chapter 4, Sellers claims that the Bible supports integration and condemns segregation. As noted above and in Integration Is Genocide, False Biblical Teachings on the Races and Interracial Marriages, and People of the Flood, the opposite is true: The Bible supports segregation and condemns integration. To support his claim, Sellers makes a few broad statements, but offers no Biblical proof.
    Based on Sellers comments about White preachers in the South at the time that he wrote (p. 118), most preachers then are like most preachers now. They were not going to oppose the Marxist Communist agenda.
    Sellers describes segregation as a system of belief (p. 118ff). If true, then integration, its opposite, also has to be a system of belief. The major difference between the two beliefs is that segregation has much more Biblical support than integration. (V. “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation.”)
    If segregation is the theology of “the unrepentant Southern kingdom of God” as Sellers asserts (p. 119), then integration is the theology of the unrepentant Yankee kingdom of Lucifer. If segregation is a comforting temptation as Sellers purports, then integration must also be a comforting temptation.
    He states that segregationists use the same Bible verses to justify segregation as slaveholders used to justify slavery (p. 120). That may be true to a limited degree. However, one could point to a host of Biblical passages in both the Old Testament and New Testament on slavery. None condemn slavery with the possible exception of the Israelite slaves in Moses’ day. These slavery verses had little relevance for segregationists. Because the Bible is void of antislavery and antisegregation verses, integrationists, like abolitionists, have to abandon the Bible to justify their position. If they do refer to the Bible at all, it is with vague broad abstractions. Sellers is guilty of this broad vagueness when talks about “neighborliness,” “brotherhood of man,” etc.
    Sellers contends that the Bible does not support slavery and that slavery and segregation are rebellion against God (p. 120). He must not have read the Bible. If his claim is true, why does the Bible not clearly condemn slavery as a sin and forbid it? On the contrary, both the Old Testament and New Testament present slavery as an acceptable institution. Both set forth a code on how masters are to treat their slaves and how slaves are to act. The South probably came closer than any other slaveholding society in following the Scriptural rules on slavery.
    If Southerners sinned by being slave owners, then Northerners must have sinned by dealing in slaves. They bought the slaves from African chiefs and sold them to Southern slave owners. Surely, buying and selling slaves is as sinful as owning them. Sellers does not mention the sins of the Northern slavers. Nor does he mention the sins of the African chiefs, who grew rich by African standards, in capturing and selling their fellow Africans. If God punished the South because a small percentage owned slaves, why did He not also punish the North for its Northern slavers?
    According to Sellers, Southerners see segregation as the road to salvation (pp. 120-121). If true, then Yankees and quisling Southerners must see integration as the road to salvation. If Sellers believes what he writes about segregationist theology and salvation, then he should believe in the integrationist theology and salvation. (As discussed below, he does equate integration to salvation.)
    Sellers maintains that the reason that White segregationists object to their daughters marrying Blacks is pride (p. 121). It never occurs to him that the basic reason could be obedience to God’s word. Numerous passages condemn interracial marriages, even to the point of not allowing mixed breeds in God’s assembly (Deuteronomy 23:2). (V. “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation.”)
    Sellers appears to believe that God cannot be the Father of all unless the races are integrated (p. 122) and eventually produce motley mongrel man. He ignores the last part of Acts 17:26. This verse states that God created the races (“and hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth”) and assigned them their habitat (“hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation”). Thus, God did not intend for the races to commingle. To the extent that he recognizes this verse, Sellers like most integrationists only recognizes the first part and ignores the second part.
    Sellers suggests that Christ has nothing to say in support of segregation (pp. 122-123). To the contrary, Christ reiterates five of the Ten Commandments that condemn the fruit of integration, miscegenation. (V. “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation.”)
    To him, Christ teaches a love that precludes segregation and requires, if not forces, one to be an integrationist (pp. 122-124). Why he believes Christ would support, even advocate, situations that encourage men to destroy the races that God created by breeding them out of existence, he does not explain.
    In Chapter 4, Sellers questions the Christianity of segregationists. He has difficulty in believing that segregationists can be a Christian. To him segregation and Christianity are incompatible.
    Sellers seems to have little use for the Old Testament (p. 124, passim). Perhaps he degrades the Old Testament because it supports segregation far more than it supports integration.
    Sellers accuses segregationists of selecting passages from the Bible that support their argument (p. 124). He does the same thing. Well, not exactly. Sellers does not cite specific passages to support integration, perhaps because none exists. He just makes vague references to Jesus’ teachings on love and neighborliness.
    Sellers finds segregationists guilty of racial pride — pride in the White race (p. 116). Throughout his book, he condemns segregationists of the sin of pride. Yet Sellers is proud of being an integrationist, but he does not perceive himself guilty of the sin of pride. A proud segregationist is a sinner; a proud integrationist is never a sinner.
    An objective of integration has been to instill Blacks with pride in the Black race. Yet Sellers finds no fault with Black racial pride.
    Sellers has nothing but praise for the Communist front-man Martin Luther King (v. “Appendix: Martin Luther King” in “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement.”) and the Communist-run Southern Christian Leadership Council (v.  “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement”). He also praises the highly violent Student Non-Violent Coordination Committee and the Congress of Racial Equality, (v. “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement”) both closely allied with Communists (pp. 128-129).
    He implies that all violence that has occurred during the civil rights movement is the fault of Southerners. They are guilty of not surrendering to Blacks fast enough (p. 129).
    Sellers castigates the orthodox Southern liberal and all others who did not want to surrender to the Negro unconditionally and immediately. He even chastises what he calls the unrealistic Negroes, such as middle-class businessmen (they were the ones whom the Communists wanted to destroy), for not giving complete, unhesitating, unquestionable support to Black radicals (pp. 130-132). (V. “Black Nationalism.”)
    Sellers seems to believe that once full integration is achieved, the United States would be a color-blind democracy (p. 142). The United States have had full integration for more than forty years. Yet race consciousness is greater than ever, especially among non-Whites. The predominant race consciousness that Whites have is hatred of the White race, a feeling in common with the other races. We have come a long way in race relations under integration, have not we! Sellers should be proud.
    He has no problem with sacrificing principle for appearance in the name of moderation, if the principle sacrificed is one with which he disagrees.
    Sellers blames Whites, especially Southerners, for most of the problems encountered with the civil-rights-integration movement. They are the blame because they had not elevated Blacks to “full-fledge human beings” (p. 153). Most likely, Sellers would be blaming Southerners today for the race problems, although Blacks had reached godlike status by the 1980s. Today the self-esteem of Whites  is far lower than the self-esteem of Blacks ever was during segregation or slavery. If Sellers is correct, Whites need to be raised to “full-fledge human beings,” and Blacks, lowered to “full-fledge human beings.”
    Sellers quotes Roger Mehl: “The primary condition for communicating is respect for the otherness of the other” (p. 153). How can a self-respecting Negro respect cowardly, debasing, self-hating, self-destructive Whites?
    Sellers writes, “White men have tended to regard benevolence as their sole obligation to the Negro. But between adults there is another obligation: neither love nor mercy nor benevolence, however well-meant, can stand in lieu of recognizing the recipient as possessing independent, mature selfhood” (p. 153). Knowingly or not, he has chastised the White liberal, who has been the primary promoter of this benevolence. The welfare state that has accompanied the civil rights movement has stripped many Blacks of their independent, mature selfhood by making them wards of the State. As he is a good liberal, I would be surprised if Sellers would or did oppose the growing welfare state.
    Sellers asserts that the Negro “is not going to accepts the white man’s benevolence in preference to asserting his manhood” (p. 154). If true, why are so many Blacks on welfare of one sort or another?  If they valued manhood over benevolence, they would reject all welfare even if they qualified for it.
    Sellers writes a good deal about justice (p. 156ff). Where is the justice of taking the property of another and holding it hostage?
    He seems to place much more importance on justice than love. Justice should always trump love. According to him, justice builds manhood; love destroys it. Justice should always have priority over love. Furthermore, integration is justice. If he is correct, justice has prevailed. However, it has done nothing to improve race relations, which would surprise Sellers. If anything, race relations are just as bad today, probably worse, than in 1962. The hostility is just better concealed. (V. “The Dirty War: America’s Race War.”).
    Sellers also presents the civil rights movement, especially the part led by King, as nonviolent (p. 157). If King were nonviolent, why did he leave a trail of blood everywhere he went? Why would a nonviolent man coordinate his activities with violent men as King did? The civil rights movement has been extremely violent. What else would one expect from a movement led by Communists? (V. “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement.”) Blacks have been warring against Whites since the movement began. However, this war has been concealed and is revealed in crime statistics. Whites are far more often the victims of Blacks than Blacks are of Whites. (V. “The Dirty War: America’s Race War.”)
    Sellers firmly believes that morality and ethics can be legislated (pp. 161-163).
    He presents the integration of the armed forces as good and as a good example of improving racial relation (p. 162). The primary reason for integrating the armed forces had nothing to do with justice, elevating Blacks to full manhood, or improving race relations. To the contrary, it degraded the Negro. The armed forces integrated because Black in segregated units often broke and ran instead of holding their ground when the enemy attacked them during the Korean War. (Perhaps, Blacks displayed more intelligence than Whites in this insistence. Why should they die for some foreign territory that meant nothing to them?) Dispersing them among the White troops gave them the fortitude to stand firm in the face of the enemy. (A friend of mine once told me about an experience that he had in basic training years after the armed forces were integrated. In his integrated unit was a Northerner from a place that had few Blacks. After being around Blacks for a while, the Northerner, who had had his fill of Blacks, asked my friend, who was a Southerner, “Why have you let them [Blacks] live?” Obviously, integration has not created all the neighborliness that Sellers prophesied.)
    Sellers sees himself as a witness for God pushing integration. However, he does caution against identifying legal decisions and governmental directives with the word of God (p. 165).
    To dampen his earlier discussion on justice, he brings love into his argument. He notes that justice is not enough. After justice is achieved, the races must be made to love each other (pp. 166ff). However, he maintains that no one can demand the right of fellowship (p.169). Yet the ostensible purpose of civil rights laws, which Sellers surely supports, is to force fellowship. (The real purpose of civil rights laws is to give those who really control the government more power over the people.) Then he contradicts himself with “the Church has a duty to preach the commandment of love itself as a fulfillment of all external, compulsory commandments which deal in forced togetherness” (p. 168). Thus, once the government corals with force various groups, the job of the Church is to brainwash the people forced together to love one another and their overlords who forced them together. After all, these despotic overlords are only executing God’s justice.
    Sellers condemns the concept of “voluntary association” when it results in segregation (pp. 169-170). Presumably, he has no problem with voluntary association if it results in integration. According to him, governmental coercion should trump freedom of association.
    Sellers does offers some excellent advice to Northerners: Clean up your own house before telling Southerners what to do beyond desegregation (p. 171). He has no fault with Northerners forcing integration on the South. An irony to come out of the civil rights movement has been that the worst race riots have been outside the South. I doubt that Sellers expected this. I am sure that few Northerners foresaw this outcome. (V. “The Cold War.”) Most likely, they expected integration would keep the Negro where he belonged: down South. It would even encourage Blacks in the North to migrate to the South. The civil rights law was written to desegregate areas where segregation was enforced by statute, that is in the South. It did not apply where segregation was by custom, that is in the North. However, some renegade judges soon changed that and brought integration to the North. Most likely, Sellers approved of that.
    Sellers seems to have found a new road to salvation: integration (pp. 171-172). Apparently faith in Jesus is not enough. Whites must also integrate with Blacks. Not only must they integrate, they must also love the Negro to achieve salvation.
    Sellers seems to follow the blueprint of the radicals of the French Revolution for rebuilding society. (V. “The French Revolution – Part II: The Revolution.”) First, tear it down completely, then rebuilt it anew in the radical image. He despises the love that Southerners had for Blacks during segregation because Blacks were subordinate. So, he tears the South asunder with forced integration imposed from outside. Next he rebuilds the South on integration and elevates the Negro with special privileges above Whites. By now he has destroyed the love. Then he wants to bring back the love that has been destroyed. All he has achieved is arrogant demanding Blacks and self-hating, fearful, and cowardly Whites. The love that was may never return.
    Sellers has no use for segregated churches — at least White segregated churches. He has no use for White churches that oppose integration. The only honorable churches are those that preach the virtue and holiness of integration (p. 172ff). As God is a segregationist and an anti-integrationist, (v. “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” and “Is Integration a Moral Law?”) Sellers has no use for churches that preach these biblically revealed aspects of God. People are to love and accept indiscriminately. Apparently, they are to love even those whom God hates. Seemingly, only churches that preach breeding out of existence the races that God created are preaching the love of man and the love of God. How willingly destroying what God created is love is not explained.
    Unlike many integrationists, at least Sellers realizes that fellowship cannot be imposed by force. To attempt to do so makes matters worse (p. 176).
    Throughout his book, Sellers preaches the virtues of neighborliness by the White race. However, the only neighborliness that he will tolerate is the one that he wants created. He despises the neighborliness that existed under segregation. He and his fellow integrationists succeeded in destroying that neighborliness in the name of what he calls “justice.” Then he complains about the lack of neighborliness!
    Sellers condemns racial pride as a great sin. It is rebellion against God — especially racial pride by Whites (p. 180). At least Whites are no longer guilty of this sin. Whatever racial pride that they may have had has been replaced by hatred of their race. If Whites have any racial pride, it is pride in the colored races.
    Sun Moon seems to have achieved the church driven neighborliness that Sellers espouses. (V. “New Age Religions.”) Moon’s congregations are highly integrated. Many marriages of his church are interracial. What would one expect from a church led by the Messiah, as Moon claims to be?
    At least motley mongrel man ends racial pride as he is of no race. How soon would it take motley mongrel man to discover that some mongrels have darker skin than others and take pride in that? Thus, skin pride replaces racial pride.
    Sellers believes that churches should teach the truth (p. 180). If they did, they would oppose much of what he advocates.
    Like most integrationists, Sellers condemns prejudice. Throughout his book he condemns it. Yet he displays prejudice against Southerners, segregationists, white supremacists, Christian fundamentalists, and others throughout his book.
    Although Sellers did not believe that integration would bring about utopia, he did expect it to cause a significantly higher level of morals and ethics. Furthermore, he expected a higher level of justice. However, the opposite has happened. Since integration replaced segregation, morals and ethics have been declining. Abortion is commonplace. Homosexuals are now considered normal and acceptable, even to the point being able to marry each other. Miscegenation (adultery) is accelerating. Divorce is rampant. With Waco, Oklahoma City, and 9-11, the United States government has declared war on the American people. Furthermore, America is no longer a Christian country. Church membership has been declining (perhaps justifiably so as many churches have abandoned the Bible). Children are no longer educated, but are taught to be slaves. America is the greatest debtor country in history. Decadence, moral decay, crime, gambling, pornography, and drug abuse are growing. Self-reliance, freedom, security, and prosperity are fading. The law has ceased to protect the races and individuals, but it grants special privileges to the politically powerful at the expense of everyone else, White or Black. Scoundrels with sufficient political power are now more than ever above the law — so much for justice.
    Out of the integration-civil-rights movement has grown political correctness and the death of freedom of speech. White people, especially those in the public, have to watch every word that they say for fear of being called a racist, which is now the most feared smear word in the language, having surpassed “fascist” and “anti-Semitic.”
    Because of integration, the great bastions of free discussion, free thought, and free expressions — universities — have gone as far as to suppress discussion, thought, and expression with speech codes. Anyone found guilty of violating the speech code is expelled. University administrators, most of whom are White, condemn Whites upon the mere accusation of a Black without any proof. Even after the White person proves his innocence (the burden of proof is always on the White victim), he is still guilty as far as the university is concerned. Would Sellers be politically correct and mold himself into political correctness?
    Thus, censorship has become the norm. Only the extremely politically incorrect utters any condemnation of integration, Martin Luther King, and miscegenation. Anyone who says or writes anything that the powers-that-be considers “racist” (a seldom defined ambiguous term) becomes persona non grata until he sufficiently grovels before the proper parties — and even then he is never fully forgiven.
    One wonders what Sellers would think of America’s maturing police state. Most likely, he would approve as it grows from the same mentality that spewed forth integration and the civil rights movement.
    I don’t know if Sellers is still alive. If he is and if he retains his consistency, he would be arguing for “homosexual rights” and being neighborly with homosexuals. He would support the coming pedophile agenda, which will be the next group to be granted special privileges in the name of “equal rights.” Most likely, he would be using the same arguments of justice tempered with a little bit of love. He would contend that Jesus would have accepted both. In the eyes of Jesus and the Bible, neither homosexual sex nor pedophilia is a sin, but White racism is (racism by Blacks and other races is not a sin).
    The battle against the homosexual agenda and the pedophile agenda was lost by 1965. All the opponents of these agendas are doing now is fighting a rear guard action. They are like the German army in 1945. They have already lost the war. The war against the homosexual and pedophile agendas cannot be won unless the communist civil rights movement is abandoned. That cannot happen unless Whites abandon their false guilt and self-hatred and once again love their race and what their forefathers gave them.
    The solution to the race problem is not what Sellers promotes and argues. It is not a return to segregation of yesteryear either. The solution is along the proposals that Marcus Garvey, Mittie Maud Gordon, Roy Innis, and a few other brave, forward thinking Blacks have put forth: separation. That is the solution in keeping with God’s original plan: “determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.” For that reason, it will be the last solution considered.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 1

More articles on social issues.