In 1944 an agreement was reached at Bretton Woods that established the US Dollar as the reserve currency for the world. The dollar was used to back the other currencies of the world. The value of other currencies throughout the world were pegged to a certain dollar value, and the value of the dollar was defined as equal to 1/35th of an ounce of gold. In this way the world was on a gold standard and money throughout the world had true value (not fiat value) in that it was convertible to gold (by foreign governments – US citizens were not allowed to own gold).
The US government failed to meet it’s obligations and continued to print more money than it had gold to back it. If you say the dollar is exchangeable for a set amount of gold then you can’t print more unless you have more gold (otherwise you are lying – being immoral in your economics). The government was inflating the money supply and stealing from the American public in the form of deceptive taxes as I pointed out in my last post. But the rest of the world did not yet have the same problem as the American public. Those foreign governments could easily exchange every $35 for an ounce of gold from the US treasury.
Nixon ended this in 1971 when he took the dollar off the gold standard (watch the video at the end of this post). One day the US government said the dollar was equal to and exchangeable for 1/35th of an ounce of gold and the next day that promise was no longer made. That change of contract is an example of the worthlessness of the word of any government and part of the reason why the dollar is so removed from any real value today.
In 2006 Ron Paul spoke before the House of Representatives on the end of the dollar. He explained in a much more complete way the whole process of the changes in the value of the dollar from WW2 until today. He ends his talk with a statement that is slowly coming true today:
The economic law that honest exchange demands only things of real value as currency cannot be repealed. The chaos that one day will ensue from our 35-year experiment with worldwide fiat money will require a return to money of real value. We will know that day is approaching when oil-producing countries demand gold, or its equivalent, for their oil rather than dollars or Euros. The sooner the better.
Our hope doesn’t have to be in government in order to see what government is doing each day to increase its power and continually put the public into greater dependence on it. We cannot stand idly by and allow those in Washington to continue to ruin this nation. A vote for those who continue these policies is a vote for those who would destroy our nation. I will not stand by and let it happen. The path we continue to be on may be judgement for a wholesale rejection of righteousness in every area of life. We must seek to act righteously in every are of life and repent of our lack thereof.
Inflation is a hidden and intentionally deceptive form of taxation. Governments love to be off the gold standard and use fiat currencies that allow them to inflate without controls (especially when all the other governments are also on fiat currencies).
Inflation of the money supply is what the Fed does. When the government needs more money it sells assets to the Fed (usually government securities). The Fed “invents” the money to pay for these. It doesn’t need to print new money because the transaction just increases the amount of money the government has in the bank (and it can use to pay people with).
Because of this new money in the system, all of your money is worth less – increased supply of money raises prices (that’s why housing prices have risen so high after cash was pushed into the housing market through easy loans).
You have now been taxed twice. The government takes a high percentage of your money out of your paycheck. It may give a little back on April 15. It has also taken more of your income by making what you have left worth less. This is a hidden, deceptive tax. The Fed does not protect from inflation, it causes it.
In this election as in past elections many people of principle get into disagreements about whether it is right to vote for the “lesser of two evil” choices for an office like the President. Many Christians will say things like “Pray as if everything depends on God, but act as if everything depends on you.” This gets interpreted as pray that God will bring the best outcome from my point of view and act to get that same desired end. The problem with this reasoning relates to “my point of view” and the acts that follow.
The outcome is always in God’s hands. This is clear to anyone with even the most limited view of God’s providence. God has also given us His Word which tells us how to act and which speaks to all of life. We are to do the right thing always and I don’t see where this includes “doing whatever it takes to get the desired end.” Even if the end were right (assuming that eliminating one evil at the expense of many others can ever be right), that doesn’t mean that you can throw out the rest of your principles.
Just because a candidate is pro-life doesn’t mean he is the right choice (is he moral in other areas?). There should be other factors in consideration. Anyone can win that God wants to win and the candidates God doesn’t want to win won’t no matter how many Christians vote for him “because he can win.” I am going to vote for Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. I admit that he probably won’t win which many will be too quick to point out (it won’t be my vote causing him not to win). Too many will say that I am wasting my vote. It may not seem unprofitable to many, but I cannot give my approval to either Barack Obama or John McCain – neither of these are good candidates.
The important fact to remember when considering the current economic crisis is to remember that people like Ron Paul, who hold to austrian economics, predicted it. They pointed out years ago that what Greenspan was doing would cause such a crisis eventually.
I just finished reading Douglas Wilson’s new book, A Primer on Worship and Reformation: Recovering the High Church Puritan. It is an excellent little book touching on some of the many errors of the Church today. He seeks to promote a Christianity that is not confined by the bounds of modernity or postmodernity but that seeks to be fully inline with scripture. While the book does a good job in showing the flaws of Christian retailing, rampant individualism, petty worship, weak preaching, lack of psalm singing and other problems I especially appreciated an illustration he gives concerning the “future” of worship:
A young child comes to his father and says that he wants to believe in Jesus. The father, trained in the tenets of pietism, does not believe that this could possibly be sincere or genuine. In a Baptist home, the child is kept away from baptism, and in a Presbyterian home, he is kept away from the Lord’s Table. But he is young and pliable. He knows that he does not know a lot – he trusts his father on this, and more’s the pity. The father says in effect, by keeping him at arm’s length from any covenant blessings, that his profession of faith and trust is more worthy of doubt than credence, and this is the first (twisted) covenantal lesson the child learns. Christian parents are commanded to teach their children to believe, and instead, in the name of high conversion standards, we teach them to doubt. Then, when they grow up and mature in the doubting that we have taught them, we point to that doubt as clear evidence that we did the right thing in keeping them away in the first place. (p. 73)
He goes on to get fully to the heart of the issue when he says that, “The (covenantal) death of the child is then, in all seriousness, treated, after the fact, as a good reason for not having fed him.” I think he is making an excellent point which seems to be most in keeping with the plain teaching of scripture. We seem to forget that Jesus in Matthew 19:14 says, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” What else could this text mean that would contradict what Wilson is saying?
In Acts 5:29 Peter says, “We must obey God rather than men.” This specific instance occurs when the high priest and the “senate of the people of Israel” arrested the apostles after they had been commanded not to teach in the name of Jesus (Acts 5:17-42). Christians today tend to believe that if the government suppresses the Gospel then we are charged to disobey the government and do it anyway.
This seems obvious and the New Testament text is clear. I want to ask if that is all we are called to do? What if the government breaks God’s law in other areas like murder, theft, idolatry or Sabbath breaking? Does it matter?
In 1 Kings 21:19 the LORD condemns Ahab the King of Israel because he “killed and also [took] possession” of the property of Naboth. The reason Naboth would not give it up was because of Old Testament inheritance laws (1 Kings 21:4). The reason Ahab is condemned is because he killed the owner and stole the property. Elijah condemned Ahab’s action.
Does the Christian of today have a responsibility to condemn immoral actions of the government or powers that be? Is that only an Old Testament principle? If it is only an Old Testament principle, then why do we vote? Or to be more specific, why do we consider any moral principles (like abortion) when we vote if that is only an Old Testament issue?
Lew Rockwell has written a new article, Joe the Outlaw. He points out that in the current presidential campaign:
one interesting point has emerged: the archetype chosen to represent mainstream America turns out to be a thorough-going outlaw in the best sense of that term. In this, he is a symbol of the age. We can look forward to the creation and emergence of ever more people like this in the coming years, as the state tightens its grip over every aspect of American life. We will all soon be outlaws.
Joe the Plumber according to recent news report is not a licensed plumber in a state that requires a license for anyone to be a plumber. Lew Rockwell makes the excellent point that:
The real goal of licensing is to create a professional cartel. Fewer providers means higher wages for those with licenses. It is all about boosting income by restricting competition. This is of course a violation of human rights because it impinges on the fundamental freedom of association.
Having such guilds or unions by themselves wouldn’t be such a problem if the government didn’t get involved. The lack of competition is created and the free market abolished when the state gets involved to enforce such restrictions. Lew Rockwell points out that:
There was a time when entry into these fields was governed by the free market, and the system worked fine (contrary to legend). But the big players in these industries sought and obtained state privileges to officially license service providers. It was an income-boosting tactic and it worked. (emphasis added)
The article goes on to discuss the taxes that Joe the Plumber still owes and how this demonstrates an attack by the state on private property. I highly recommend that you read the whole article.
He concludes by saying that Joe
is an outlaw in the same sense that our founders were outlaws. He lives outside the regulations of the state because these regulations attack his freedom and property. It was to end systems such as this that the American revolution came to be. And yet we find ourselves back in exactly the same system, and one incredibly worse in every way.