Can you be liberal and Christian at the same time?

Ehhh.. I don't think that completely true.. Look at the Eisenhower Republicans.. They weren't like Trump or the neocons.

 

I am talking the 3rd millennium. The Republican party used to have respect for republicanism. Since the religious right took over - as Goldwater Predicted - this respect has been lost.

 

The KKK churchstate democide will learn ya that one has to vote the way they dictate according to their national religion democracy of Islam Christiananality pedophile mentality communism; where if they should steal absentee voting ballots as an education tuition & make a joke out of it with superegos of WW II Nazi war criminals; it's only federal sin to a supreme swastika up Uranus court with lynching enforcement star bellied sneeches with stars upon thars collecting paychecks economically under color of law.

 

One has to define Christian, for the OP to be considered in any meaningful way.

Do we hold onto Christian mythology, such as The Incarnation, Virgin Birth, Physical Resurrection, and the Trinity? - this last concept is not even described in the Bible, but was created in the following four centuries, in an attempt to deal with disputes over Christ's 'nature', eg, was he created by God, or co-eternal with God, and so on.

Or do we consider Christ's teachings "to love God and love one-another" as paramount?

 

I won't disagree with any of this, except to say that orthodoxy places too much significance on inflation (leaving aside hyper-inflation which I have already discussed); or to put it another way, orthodoxy is limited in ways which reduces the ability of economics to solve real world problems.

For example, to go straight to your final question; common sense would tell us that if nature blesses us with a particularly bountiful fruit harvest (as an example) in a given year, then the 'value' of that harvest has increased - since there is now more fruit available for consumption by the community, but orthodoxy insists that the price of the fruit must fall, thereby destroying the livelihoods of the growers. (Suicides among indebted farmers, as a result of bountiful harvests, are legion, eg, in India).

My (unorthodox) view is that both the growers and the consumers should be rewarded/advantaged, by creating the money to pay the former, while allowing the price to fall as low as necessary to ensure consumption of the entire harvest, in this especially bountiful year.

Hence my example re education: every year might be bountiful, if we optimize the number of teachers and students in the community, by creating the money to pay the teachers. (Note: there is no increased demand on scarce physical resources, in this scenario).

We know the nominal value of money decreases over time, in the observed normal inflationary environment, but if science and technology are continually reducing the prices of necessities, while assets (eg houses) maintain their real value, then such devaluation need not concern us.

 

1. Economics, as you wish to apply it, is NOT the solution to most any of our problems, it is used/misused more often than not simply to eliminate/reduce the effects of problems emotionally rather than rationally.

2. A bountiful harvest in no way increases its value. Common sense would prove that true by viewing the decaying fruit left on the ground under the tree.

3. Creating earned income NOT simply creating money and giving it away would be a solution.

The primary problem is, in most simple terms, one of supply and demand. Not of money or products, but of people. Educating people costs money and if that education can not be put to productive use earning income the money spent has been wasted and only contributes to our growing debt which must be offset by inflation.

The prices of 'some' necessities, not all, is reduced as a result of our ability to produce with less human labour, but not many other things we call necessities which are more finite in existence, houses/apartments/land for example and health care which is improved as a result of much costly human labour and regulations.

 

I want to introduce the concept of 'intrinsic' value, as opposed to value assigned by markets, into our economic system.

Two apples are self-evidently "worth" more than one, regardless of what price is set by a free-market supply and demand mechanism.

Another more egregious example: recently a high-end British clothing manufacturer admitted to destroying millions of dollars worth of unsold clothing, in order to "maintain the value of the brand's image". Obviously that clothing could have been sold at a lower price, but the interests of the company and its shareholders required operating under an artificial supply and demand scenario. (Class snobbery is obviously at play, in this example).

I agree entirely!

If the number of teachers is not limited by the resources freely available to the community - the resources in this case being time and mental effort/labour expended by teachers and students - then the 'cost' of education is not subject to orthodox supply and demand theory as described by classical economics, because there is no scarcity of resource that would restrict supply. The knowledge is there, waiting to be propagated throughout the community, unlike a car or a home which will consume scarce (not freely available) physical resources, in their creation.

 

The intrinsic value of an apple, unlike gold/silver/land and many other things is time based.
While I might agree that two apples are worth twice as much as one apple, if one apple is worth $0.25 then you might say two apples are worth $0.50, but suppose the orchard produced 10 million apples today, would you likely be able to sell them all for $2.5 million before they spoiled?

As I said before, education while it may not consume any natural resources, does consume money and if the education can not be put to use in a way that recovers the cost the money spent has been wasted.

 

Since the nation formerly known as the USA is now an Islamidiotocracy of Economic Pluribus Unum according to this Christian Nation supreme swastika up Uranus court demagoguery in democide rules for a definition of following a Bicentennial immaculate drug conception giving thieving US Constitution-old glory arsonists rite to federal sin along with a national religion of lynching enforcement for that more perfect union marriage of Islam & Christianity's second coming thru 9/11 thereby continuing that 2000 + years old fabricated misnomer of an immaculate conception in banking on deaths as an Islam opioid crisis to follow up so this master race survival of the fittest fascists master plan in being liberal & Christian suicidal homicidal sociopsychopathics of human farming megalomaniacal pyramid schemes.

 

But the clothing example? Two clothing suits are 'worth' more than one, except if (as in this case) the unsold clothing is regarded as subject to change of fashion, and therefor must be destroyed, rather than selling it a lower price (and even so the company wished to avoid selling the unsold 'high-end/up-market' clothing, for the reason explained in my post).

This example, based on irrational and wasteful arbitrary concepts, shows the limitations of orthodox views on the value of money, as well as supply and demand theory, and might be related to the persistence of poverty in a world of plenty.

Obviously I'm attempting to demonstrate that money can be created in two different, but complimentary ways.

1. Money that enters the economy when (as you say) it is spent. This type of money is related to measurement of value created when processing scarce natural resources for consumption. (All private sector activity, by definition, is based on this type of money valuation)

2. Public sector money that can (or, the community could so decide to allow for it to) enter the economy when non-natural resource consuming but intrinsically valuable activity such as education is directed to occur by govt., without relying on taxation of the private sector.

This type of money can be created by govt. 'ex nihilo', without implications for inflation (or more exactly, no different implications for inflation than when it created in the private sector - which you have already traversed), because inflation occurs, inter alia, when there is excess demand for scarce resources, and (as you have agreed) education does not consume scarce natural resources.

 

Without full knowledge of ALL the details of the clothing example, I could only offer opinions of what reasons the clothing was destroyed rather than sold at a lower price. I'm sure the company had good reasons, have you tried contacting them and asked that question?
Do you not recognize as fact that the value of everything is not the price being asked but only the amount consumers are willing to pay?

You begin by claiming "money can be created in two different, but complimentary ways".
Can you elaborate in clear and concise words the two different ways money 'can' be created?

 

While it's supreme for the court to have some nerve to tax in order for Islam Christiananality pedophile mentalities to collect & profit hits a point.​

 

It's obviously all about maintaining the perceived 'value' of the company's postulated/invented 'exclusivity'.

The intrinsic 'value' of a packet of breakfast oats (for example) is identifiable (cost of production etc), yet a company can advertise a brand name (eg, eat our oats and be as happy and attractive as our models in the TV ad), and sell the same product at double the price as the high volume, un-branded (in-house) supermarket product.

Money is a measure of the value/desirability of goods and services. The total 'value' of this productive economic activity can best be realised either competitively in the private sector, for the profit-driven development of scarce natural resources; and co-operatively in the public sector, for the optimal community exploitation of non-scarce resources, such as public-domain knowledge.

Hence money can be created separately ( 'ex nihilo') in each sector, in order to realise the 'value' of the different economic activity in each sector.

 

Sooner or later you need to tie this back into the OP concerning whether you can be a Christian and a Republican at the same time - a highly questionable idea for sure, but the OP nevertheless.

 

That could very well be one of many reasons.

The total cost of producing something sets a baseline above which a sales price must exceed and be found acceptable by consumers, but I don't find the term "intrinsic value" to be synonymous.
Simply consumer demand can result in increasing the profit margin of a product, regardless of the costs of production.

A lot of words, but fatuous none the less.

Once again, you claimed that "money can be created in two different, but complimentary ways" yet seem incapable of providing a clear and concise answer to what those two ways are.
Opening a savings account provides a bank money which it can then lend a portion of to another, which also is a debt responsibility upon the bank who has to pay interest to the depositor, hence no money is created.
Taking out a loan provides the borrower with money which is a debt responsibility upon the borrower who has to repay the loan over time with interest, hence no money is created.
This should be obvious as the bank, if fully efficient in making loans, is forever incapable of
providing the savers with their deposits and accrued interest, unless the one way money is created 'ex nihilo' is put to use.

 

Of course you don't, because you don't accept the concept of intrinsic value (eg, of the oats, a necessity of life).

Of course you would claim this, again because you don't accept the concept of intrinsic value.

(But I agree, I have to work on my presentation).

But to explain your antipathy to the concept of intrinsic value:

Imagine (for the moment) a world not based on predation, competition for resources, and the very necessary (evolved) instinct for self-preservation, but rather a world without predation, based on an instinct for sharing, and consequently characterised by the development of available resources via co-operation

In this world;

wealth = resources + shared know-how (via education) + labour.

Notice that money is redundant, since in this world (with a sharing instinct) the wealth would be shared as required. (BTW, the biblical Isaiah describes such a non-predatory world, in Isaiah 11, 6.). However, despite the absence of money, the wealth is very real indeed.

So I suspect we have to agree on definitions of wealth and intrinsic value, before we can proceed further.

(For WillReadmore: can you now see why this debate is relevant for the OP?)

 

Correct, I do NOT accept your conception of intrinsic value.
And FOOD, not oats, would be a more reasonable claim to be a necessity of life.

Try staying with the raw materials provided by nature.

Antipathy? I simply disagree with what you've presented as your concept of intrinsic value.

I'm missing how you feel a quote from the Bible makes any of this relevant to the OP.
Is it your opinion that one can or cannot be liberal and Christian at the same time, and why?

 

As it has been conveyed over & over there is only intrinsic economic value with a raw Islam Christiananality pedophile mentality national religion of being liberal and Christian at the same time while schizoid as relevant.

 

Money doesn't become "redundant". Money is just a way to count and store.

You underline the word cooperation, but I think we cooperate today.

It sounds like you're describing a commune.

 

Sounds as point-counterpoint has been cooperating all along as the communism of liberal Christianity is little more than monetary tabulations, or the bottom line is what the legal death count produces while all else is irrelevant .

 

I used oats as an example, because that is one of the few unprocessed cereals commonly used for breakfast. The rest are mostly processed garbage produced solely to create a monetary profit, regardless of the actual intrinsic [eg healthy] value.

As for 'intrinsic value', I notice you did not take a moment to consider the expression:

wealth = resources + shared knowhow (via education) + labour

all of which items self-evidently have intrinsic non-monetary value.

Now I can answer your previous question with the following statement, given the present world with virtually unlimited productive capacity:

Money can (it's our choice) be created ('ex nihilo') in both the public and private sectors, without differing implications for inflation in either case.

Full-stop....there you have it (not too many words there, though undoubtably still "fatuous" in your view, despite the irrefutable simplicity and truth of the relation between the various relevant items, as shown in my equation.
Note: the private sector is only necessary at all, of course, because predation, competition for resources and the very necessary instinct for self-preservation are the basic drivers of economic activity, in our world.

I cited Isaiah 11,6 only for its image of a non-predatory world (which I asked you to contemplate for a moment).

(I obviously made the mistake of assuming that WillReadmore would see the significance of this debate for the OP, so I will reply to him in another post)

I have already noted, in order to answer that question sensibly, we have to separate Christian mythology from what Christ actually said, as far as we can even know it, from the gospel accounts.

For example, the Trinity dogma (non-biblical) is simply unacceptable in our modern world, in which there is a pressing need to progress interfaith dialogue and understanding.

 

All explained in my post #1196. I used the concept of a non-predatory world impelled by a sharing instinct, merely to illustrate the concept of intrinsic value.
Indeed, as you say "Money is just a way to count and store". ….and therefore we can create money outside of the private sector (while recognising certain limitations such as finite resources and the need for sustainable development).

.

I am surprised by this remark coming from you. Dems co-operate with repubs to eradicate poverty, or homelessness?
Trump ("America First") is co-operating with China or the EU or Canada?

(I actually agree with Trump: we should eliminate all tariffs, but that would need a cooperative global central oversight mechanism to avoid even more disadvantage ravaging whole populations, as is the case today.

See above. Communism failed, but we are certainly discovering that neoliberal competitive 'free' markets by themselves don't reduce poverty, much less eliminate it. In fact inequality is again approaching 19th century levels, a situation inconsistent with equality of opportunity.

Yet poverty is obsolete in our time, when most of the necessities of life can increasingly be produced by robots and automation.

 

When you use the word 'intrinsic' and apply it to a single food item 'oats' it makes the rest of your words incongruous. Oats are produced by farmers, each of whom may have differing costs relative to the productive yields, and processed or not there are additional costs added before they appear in the market.

Your expression "wealth = resources + shared knowhow (via education) + labour" is meaningless unless the resources, knowhow, and/or labour can be put to use in exchange with another/others to acquire needs/wants. Their value is simply what another/others are willing to exchange for them.

You continue to make an unsubstantiated claim. Money IS created 'ex nihilo' by the BEP.
Banks DO NOT create money, they create debts which are repaid by the money in existence. Ten people who owe each other $100 with a 10% interest or a total of $110 owed. One of them, person "A" has just earned $150 and decides to repay his debt, leaving him with $40. In turn each of the others decides to repay their debts with the last one to be repaid being person "A". How much new money has been created? All debts have been repaid without creating any new money at all. The money that exists, in good times, is constantly changing hands paying for consumption and debts owed. In bad times, some become unable to pay their debts and may have to start living on their savings, withdrawing from the banks who would quickly run out of money as they have produced no "new money" at all.

Yes, fatuous and overly simplistic.

My question was "Is it your opinion that one can or cannot be liberal and Christian at the same time, and why?"

 

Sugar-coated lard, or whatever garbage the processed food industry cares to produce for a profit, has no intrinsic value, whereas natural oats (for example) do have intrinsic value, regardless of different production costs, yields, soil types etc. That consumers are prepared to pay hard-earned money for garbage just shows how effective advertising can be.

Absolute nonsense (...my turn..).

We all need food; self evidently this necessity has nothing to do with "willing exchange". Your formulation is simply an assertion that competition in a market place is the ultimate arbiter of survival. Ethically indefensible.

But we the people ought to be able to determine that our govt. can also create money 'ex nihilo', subject only to limits on resource availability and sustainable development, not subject to your survival of the fittest mentality (dressed up as "willing exchange".....ie, until it is deemed necessary to go to war...) that is merely a reflection of the predatory natural world.

The "money in existence" is not some unchanging God-given natural resource.

So.….? How does this prove that public sector money creation (as described), which involves no debts, loans, or interest payments, is impermissible?

My opinion? On whether Donald Trump is more Christian than Bernie Sanders?.... or whatever question it is that the OP is asking...

I'm much more interested in truth: there is One Creator God, or one reality. [And as someone said: the Fatherhood of God implies the Brotherhood of Man, (despite the instinctive predation of the natural world)].

Meantime your assertion that 'value' is determined by "willing exchange" requires much more urgent examination, for the sake of the lives that are being lost, attributable to poverty:

"More than 1.3 billion live in extreme poverty — less than $1.25 a day. 1 billion children worldwide are living in poverty. According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty. 805 million people worldwide do not have enough food to eat".

 

Apparently they can & cannot as subconsciously, in that SCOTUS Rehnquist supreme immaculate drug trafficking conception democide for one who had not been born yet, much less even conceived; this national religion of being cross conditioned way beyond therapy for an Islam slavery pedophilia trade as Christ existed before God for an ethnic cleansing diatribe tautology is about as normal as one nation under God with equal justice under law federal perjury gets.