Why Does the Dollar Change in Value?
October 18, 2007
Food, water, clothing, shelter, the basics — why do these seem to vary in value over time? Scarcity (demand) surely would cause some of that. Greed undoubtedly causes some (although market forces should help keep that in check, except where there’s a monopoly). When the dollar itself changes in value (i.e. x dollars to buy item z later costs y dollars where x is not equal to y, and generally y>x) this implies that either the actual value of the item is greater or less (that is, individuals value it more), or that the value of the dollar has changed. Food and water become more precious when supply is stressed. But why have the changes in the apparent value of necessities been so great in recent years?
I would suggest that since the Federal Reserve has begun to coin our currency and consequently “lend” the currency to the banks rather than simply minting money for legitimate exchange (as was the duty and mission of the Treasury), that money has become a “debt instrument” and thus, over time, due to the interest that must perpetually be charged upon the instrument while it is in use, and the fact that more and more of the money that’s in circulation (in part due to the irrational push for “growth”), is actually money that’s been lent (debt-based), our currency becomes less and less valuable. To counter this problem, they mint more money (which has debt associated with it), creating a vicious cycle. Anyone have any thoughts?
It would, I believe, be useful and enlightening to use energy or calories to rate the value of essentials. In other words, we need energy to live and we get it from the environment in many forms. We also need nutrients in order to utilize energy (i.e. to keep the energy-using machine of the body in tact). If we valued items based upon the amount of energy required to secure and utilize them and the amount of usable energy they give to one I believe we could establish a fundamental system of valuation that would apply in normal circumstances (it wouldn’t apply when supply is stressed). This might be very useful. Gold doesn’t have intrinsic value (you can’t eat gold and it doesn’t give you any energy). Food does. Water does. Air does. Security and shelter do. Even love and peace have a value that can be determined based upon the energy usage of the individual — in unrest much more energy is required to accomplish the same goals as can be accomplished in peace using less energy. Anyone have any thoughts on this? It’s pretty rough, but I think it’s a useful idea.
Geometry Determines Events in Space-Time
October 15, 2007
I read a ScienceDaily article this morning about creating an invisible tunnel in space-time using nano-scale materials geometries. This, with other things going on in nano-scale science, is more evidence for something that has seemed true to me for some time: geometry determines the course of events in space-time. I believe this was the real basis for “sacred geometry,” as well as explaining the impact of various geometries, like the positions of planets and constellations and the bending of space-time by a massive body. Shapes have resonance, thus channeling existing energies and events in specific ways. John Wheeler also once said, pg. 130 in Gravitation, published by Freeman in 1973, “geometry tells matter how to move, matter tells geometry how to curve” (not in connection with so-called metaphysical phenomena, as far as I know). I’ve read elsewhere that by “geometry” he may have meant “space.” And in that context, he was talking about curved space telling matter how to move, and matter telling space how to curve. Anyone have any thoughts on this? I think it’s a profound and potentially powerful topic.
