And who decided that? Interest rates are always changing, yet the liquidity of money remains the same. There are interest rates even on money that isn't very liquid (like bonds).

@@benakinjo interest rates change with supply and demand of money. Bonds are a debt for the issuer, who pays back the capital (nominal value) making periodical payments of coupons. The one who bought the bond, bought the right to get back the nominal plus a profit at a known future time. As the bond owner may need liquidity today (bond supply) or someone else may want to sacrifice liquidity today (liquidity supply) and make an investment (bond demand), he may sell the bond and get money, but the re-selling price of this bond to a third one differs from the previous buying price. The difference in prices is the market return on the bond. This is the rate that one thinks of when hearing that interest on bonds changed.

@@JGAstaiza Bonds are still you giving up liquidity in exchange for interest down the line. You're profiting off of losing liquidity. This goes against the idea that greater liquidity means greater Interest which your original comment seems to imply ("Interest is the price of liquidity"). Conversely, when you borrow or lend money, you still suffer/profit from variable interest rates despite the fact that your liquidity has stayed the same. Why is there interest without a change in liquidity? And then there's still stuff like selling stocks, where you become more liquid while avoiding the issue of interest entirely. No Interest, yet more liquidity. Interest can't be the price of liquidity when you pay interest moving up, down, or horizontally across various mediums of exchange. Likewise, it can't be the price of liquidity when it's possible to bypass all together. Interest is just a tool used by creditors to extort more value on existing money from debtors. Interest therefore has nothing to do with moving between the different kinds liquidity. It is usually added post hoc to incentivize the exchange of different or similar forms of money.

@@benakinjo Bonds are not a means of exchange, and to make a profit on them you must convert them into cash. Cash is the most liquid asset.

@@JGAstaiza "Cash is the most liquid asset". Yes, obviously. I'm not sure if we're on the same page. Are bonds not an asset as well? And the whole point of "liquidity" is the degree to which money in its various forms (including precious metals and bonds) can be used as a means of exchange. Money that is less liquid, such as bonds and precious metals, are, by definition, money that is less likely to be accepted as a medium of exchange... Like bonds, for example. Furthermore, you actually profit on things like bonds and precious metals before you "realize" (ie convert) those profits back to cash. But realization is not a requirement for profits because it's still possible to buy things with illiquid money without having to convert back to cash first (like buying Artwork, Tools, or Company A with stock from Company B). All in all, your reply actually PROVES my point, not disproves it. You either don't seem to fully understand one or both of: - (A) what is meant by the concept of Money (a medium of exchange); - (B) the Liquidity of Money (how well one medium of exchange translates to a more or less universally accepted one); Going back to the original matter of interest (no pun intended), interest is not a prerequisite or inevitable "cost" of liquidity. It's something that gets stamped on at the end by creditors (read, "banks") in our for-profit society. I would take less issue with your original comment if it read amongst the lines of "fees are the price of liquidity" or since there can be a cost of labor associated with going from one form of money to another. But to imply that interest in itself is something needed or otherwise inevitable in financial markets is to completely miss the mark. The fact that rates can doubled or be halved at the stroke of a pen when nothing else has changed should tell you that it is just another man-made financial instrument for artificial manipulation of markets. To put this more succinctly, Interest rates only matter in terms of Creditors and Borrowers. Whether or not the liquidity of money is changing between these two groups is completely irrelevant to those rates.

When a man fails to uphold virtue, he becomes less. He withers until there is almost nothing left, because virtue is the source of all natural power, and vice is inherently disempowering. God will also send suffering to try and get you back on track, but the primary punishment of vice, at least in this life, is vice. The thing is it's own punishment.

We are still bound for other reasons, but it's a law we should work to change. You and I not paying unreasonable taxes is one thing, but the greater good here would be *nobody* in our nations paying unreasonable taxes

It's possible what he meant was that liberals often have compassion to a disordered excess that is not virtuous and that he's comparing one sin to another. In this case, it sounds like he's claiming avarice on the side of the politician.

So there is liberalism in reference to justice. This is being generous with things that belong to you. Liberal theology is not an aspect of this, because deciding what God is saying belongs to God. Being liberal with theology is "being generous" with something that doesn't belong to you. Likewise, liberal politicians hand out the nations money, not their own. So both of these are "not real liberality" because they are not being generous with their own things, but with things they have been entrusted with.

Well, he talked about tattoos under the topic of mutation, so let's use our reason here. Do you think a temporary tattoo mutilates your body?

Okay, so suppose what you say is true. That means that for every one bank that only keeps ten percent on hand, there is one bank which has 100% of what they are lending on hand, plus the 90% to make up for the first bank. But we both know this is not true. The banks are "borrowing" the 90% from banks which also only have ten percent of what they are loaning out. Which means that they are "borrowing" from themselves, and it is themselves, because all banks in the nation are owned in whole or in part by a hand full of groups, who are made of largely the same people. If fractional reserve was based on reality, than when people ran the bank, it would mean only a few rough days. Bank runs are only devastating, when banks are cheating. And we both know they are cheating now. You just want to believe we can keep the scam going forever. But everything we have "bought" on imagined money is racking up a dept that *will* get paid.

There is no "suppose", it is true. I could lend you $100 and borrow $90 from someone else and you would still owe me the $100 and I would still owe the other person $90. It's not magic. Nothing is created. There are plenty of problems with our banking system but banks transferring debt to investors isn't one of them, or at least not for the reason Fr Ripperger says here.

Also, the person who has 100% of what the borrower is borrowing is the borrower until they pay it back. When you take out a loan the bank gives you the actual money. They didn't create it out of nowhere, it came from somewhere. It's really not as complicated as you're making it.

It's a scam and unjust, he's going easy on the banks

I'm so relieved to realize this is satire. lol.