A medium of exchange can be almost anything which people use in trade. Where does a cabinet maker get the cabinet he trades to a farmer for the farmer’s produce?
What is important is not where money should come from. That which is traded can come from almost anywhere. What is important is that which is used as a general medium of exchange, and more importantly, what, in general, ought to be made a “legal tender” for all debts, public and private?
“Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring class of mankind, none have been more effectual than that which deludes them with paper money. This is the most effectual of inventions to fertilize the rich man’s field by the sweat of the poor man’s brow.”_____ Daniel Webster.
A medium of exchange, as I have demonstrated, can come from anywhere. Why is it important “where” it [money] comes from as you assert? And, what is money other than something used to trade?
All the perplexities, confusions, and distresses in America arise, not from defects in the Constitution or confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, as much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation. John Adams
So if I want to pay a plumber in chickens and he doesn’t want chickens… you see where this is going.
For an economy to operate well there has to be a universal agreed upon method of exchange. To say otherwise is lunacy. Where this method of exchange orginates from and how it operates will effect the economy overall.
Pretty sure she doesn’t advocate for a command economy. Nonetheless, I would distinguish “capitalism” insofar as it is a specific analysis and deconstruction of the phenomenon, starting from the very basics of values, exchange, fetishism etc. If it had a negative connotation, that has clearly been lost by time as it has been adopted by everyone on the economic spectrum. I see little benefit from the attempt to resurrect 200 year old antipathy unless it is to obfuscate from its issues by adopting the loaded language, “free”.
Also, I would rather not make any assumptions about your thoughts on the LGBTQ community, which is why I asked you to clarify. You clearly have some opinions, which is why you felt the need to bring sexuality in the discussion.
Yes! In order for a society such as ours to operate there ought to be a universal medium of exchange. The question is, what ought to be that universal medium? Where it comes from is of secondary importance. One thing is certain, our founders rejected making promissory notes of any kind a legal tender. Paper money was also viewed during our Constitution’s framing “as alarming as the mark of the Beast in Revelations.”
On August 16th of the Federal Convention the delegates took up a number of powers proposed to be granted to Congress, one such power being: ”To borrow money, and emit bills on the credit of the United States…” The following reaction takes place:
Mr. GOVr. MORRIS moved to strike out "and emit bills on the credit of the U. States" — If the United States had credit such bills would be unnecessary: if they had not, unjust & useless.
Mr. BUTLER, 2ds. the motion.
Mr. MADISON, will it not be sufficient to prohibit the making them a tender? This will remove the temptation to emit them with unjust views. And promissory notes in that shape may in some emergencies be best.
Mr. Govr. MORRIS. striking out the words will leave room still for notes of a responsible minister which will do all the good without the mischief. The Monied interest will oppose the plan of Government, if paper emissions be not prohibited.
Mr. GHORUM was for striking out, without inserting any prohibition. if the words stand they may suggest and lead to the measure.
Col. MASON had doubts on the subject. Congs. he thought would not have the power unless it were expressed. Though he had a mortal hatred to paper money, yet as he could not foresee all emergences, he was unwilling to tie the hands of the Legislature. He observed that the late war could not have been carried on, had such a prohibition existed.
Mr. GHORUM. The power as far as it will be necessary or safe, is involved in that of borrowing.
Mr. MERCER was a friend to paper money, though in the present state & temper of America, he should neither propose nor approve of such a measure. He was consequently opposed to a prohibition of it altogether. It will stamp suspicion on the Government to deny it a discretion on this point. It was impolitic also to excite the opposition of all those who were friends to paper money. The people of property would be sure to be on the side of the plan, and it was impolitic to purchase their further attachment with the loss of the opposite class of Citizens
Mr. ELSEWORTH thought this a favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money. The mischiefs of the various experiments which had been made, were now fresh in the public mind and had excited the disgust of all the respectable part of America. By witholding the power from the new Governt. more friends of influence would be gained to it than by almost any thing else. Paper money can in no case be necessary. Give the Government credit, and other resources will offer. The power may do harm, never good.
Mr. RANDOLPH, notwithstanding his antipathy to paper money, could not agree to strike out the words, as he could not foresee all the occasions which might arise.
Mr. WILSON. It will have a most salutary influence on the credit of the U. States to remove the possibility of paper money. This expedient can never succeed whilst its mischiefs are remembered, and as long as it can be resorted to, it will be a bar to other resources.
Mr. BUTLER. remarked that paper was a legal tender in no Country in Europe. He was urgent for disarming the Government of such a power.
Mr. MASON was still averse to tying the hands of the Legislature altogether. If there was no example in Europe as just remarked, it might be observed on the other side, that there was none in which the Government was restrained on this head.
Mr. READ, thought the words, if not struck out, would be as alarming as the mark of the Beast in Revelations.
Mr. LANGDON had rather reject the whole plan than retain the three words "(and emit bills")
On the motion for striking out
N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. no. Va. ay. (*23) N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.
*23. This vote in the affirmative by Virga. was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the Govt. from the use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper; & would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts.
When the US government gave land west of the Mississippi away for free to settlers, was that “free enterprise?” When the US government gave enormous swaths of land away to railroad companies, was that “free enterprise?” Was it a free engagement in contracts between private parties?
Same questions for the US government giving away 100’s of thousands of square miles of timber to logging companies: “free enterprise?”
When we adopt the narrative of leftists things do get confusing and I agree too many conservatives and conservative pundits, radio & TV hosts etc., fall into the trap of using liberal language and for the record Capitalism on its own is “free enterprise”, crony Capitalism is not, they are two separate things.
I have no idea what you mean by “come from”. Money comes in many forms. I have no idea what your definition of “money” is. Aside from all the smoke you have created and refusal to answer my original question, again I ask, why is it important “where” it [money] comes from as you assert?
The money… that you use to buy things. Where does it come from? If you don’t like where it currently comes from … as I suspect that you don’t… where do you think it should comes from? How should it enter the economy?
I cannot answer your question with any certainty. Where do you think "money’ should come from? And why? And, in your judgement, ought to be a “legal tender”?
History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance. James Madison