Reddit Economics Network

let's debate

debate me on the austrian theory of the business cycle, suckas.

I don’t know if this is allowed here but it is about the economics.

• Financial prosperity: Mega-churches and religious organizations that accumulate significant wealth and assets over time raise questions about the necessity of their tax-exempt status. For example, certain televangelists have been associated with extravagant lifestyles and personal wealth, which leads to debates about the fairness of tax exemptions for such organizations.

• Commercial ventures: Some large churches engage in commercial activities, such as running businesses, bookstores, educational institutions, or broadcasting networks. These ventures generate substantial revenue and may compete with taxable entities in the commercial sector. If churches are operating as commercial enterprises, the argument can be made that they should be subject to the same tax obligations as other businesses to ensure a level playing field.

• Inequality and social impact: When mega-churches accumulate significant wealth while enjoying tax-exempt status, it can contribute to wealth inequality within society. Critics argue that the tax revenue foregone by exempting these churches could be used to fund public services and programs that benefit the wider community. This perspective questions whether the tax benefits provided to large churches align with the principles of fairness and social responsibility.

• Transparency and accountability: Removing tax exemptions for large churches can help ensure greater transparency and accountability regarding their financial practices. By subjecting them to taxation, churches would be required to disclose their financial information, similar to other taxable entities. This increased transparency can help address concerns about potential misuse of funds or unethical practices within religious organizations.

• Joel Osteen: As the senior pastor of Lakewood Church in Houston, Texas, Joel Osteen has amassed significant wealth through his books, television ministry, and speaking engagements. His net worth is estimated to be $100 million to $60 million.

• Kenneth Copeland: Kenneth Copeland is a prominent televangelist and the founder of Kenneth Copeland Ministries. He owns a private jet, multiple mansions, and a fleet of luxury cars. His ministry's wealth is estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. His estimated net worth is reported to be around $300 million.

• Creflo Dollar: Creflo Dollar is the founder and senior pastor of World Changers Church International, based in Georgia, USA. He has acquired substantial wealth through his ministry, owning expensive properties, luxury cars, and a private jet. His estimated net worth is believed to be around $27 million.

• Benny Hinn: Benny Hinn is a well-known televangelist and speaker who gained fame through his faith-healing crusades. He has been associated with a lavish lifestyle, owning multiple properties, luxury cars, and traveling in private jets. His estimated net worth is reportedly between $40 million and $60 million.

• Joyce Meyer: Joyce Meyer is a popular author and speaker who leads Joyce Meyer Ministries. She has written numerous best-selling books and hosts a television show. Her ministry's revenue is substantial, and she enjoys personal wealth from book sales, speaking fees, and merchandise. Her estimated net worth is around $8 million.

Hello 6 members. If you've got an opinion of these questions, then let's spill the tea.

This post was removed from askeconomics because of Rule V, it's askecononics not debateeconomics. So here I am, debateecononics.

What factors truly affect the value of currency? And to what severity?

I'm asking from those far more intelligent and knowledgeable in the field of economics for assistance.

I have been attempting for over a year, in varying degrees of effort, to understand how we determine the value of currency.

Right now, it seems like no one knows. It feels arbitrarily based upon international assumptions. The strength of a country's "economic power and capacity" appears, to me, to be what drives the value of currency more than any other factor. The value of a US dollar is stronger than say Mexicos peso not because the US has less money in circulation, less backed by actual dollar bills or some precious metal, but because US businesses are stronger. The people's work sees greater levels of output in terms of either quality or quantity that is then consumed by the rest of the world. Whether this work be in the form of physical production (such as food, machines, ores, plastics, medicines, telephone poles, energy, etc.) or entertainment (books, shows, movies, music, clubs, sports, video games, etc.) or non-physical (such as sciences, engineering, computer programs, etc.) These products are consumed within and without at a higher rate than those produced by Mexico. Further, I know the "production" of currency on a yearly basis is done by either the federal reserve through physical notes, at a rare determined by more of a shwag guess than a mathematical formula, and also by central banks granted the power to do so. I vaguely understand that these banks are entrusted to ensure that money produced roughly matches some form of balancing, compensatory measures (like bonds, loans, notes, checks, credit, etc.) At the end of it all, it appears to me that the amount of money placed in circulation is based upon the perception of its worth, as determined by the perceived strength of the nations economic capacity and force. Sort of like if Henry Ford had Fordinars, and Elon Musk had Muskies, and Musk sold more cars next year and made more businesses with money loaned to him by banks that make money out of thin air than Ford, then in our hypothetical economy a Fordinar would be worth less than a Muskie because "well, look at Musk melons, hes doing pretty swell, hes more good for it in the future than ol hordy Fordy." And that's as far as my knowledge seems to go in this realm.

I'm sure I am missing something in this equation. I want to identify the factors that some human being, some decision maker on this planet earth, uses to determine the amount of currency produced, and why it is so. I would like to truly believe that the world economy is based on more solid ground than some qualitative argument than "well, it seems like the US is doing well this year, and it hasn't produced that much money, so it's probably on par with the Euro, I'll trade yah 1.1 dollars to the Euro please." And that the value of a sandwich is more than, "well, if I try to charge 3.45 people don't buy it. So I should charge 2.50, or find some cheaper produce." And that a farmers produce isn't "well, I tried to sell my beats for .50 a pound, but they wouldn't sell. So dagnabbit I'll do .48 and ask the bank for a loan to cover my expenses this last year."

So, to assist me on my quest, I'm not going to ask the internet to explain the value of a dollar this time around (been there, didn't help). I'm instead going to ask for thought experiments. If they're backed up by hard evidence, hey, all the better.

I want to tackle this like a physics problem. Instead of trying to understand the black hole in terms of 100s of factors all at once, I'd like to take it factor by factor. If you can, please work with me by freezing all factors in consideration except for the one we're trying to work with. I want NO other factors considered to be in change except for the ones I identify. I understand this is difficult, as I'm sure one invariably affects the other, and they are dependent on all the rest, but please try as best you can to only alter the one variable at a time.

At last, here are my questions. What would happen to the value of a US dollar if this, and nothing else, were changed in the economy:

1. If we produce half as much money next year at the federal reserve, and forbid central banks from producing money.

2. If everyone decided to withdraw their money from their banks, right now. (Could we recover? How quickly?)

2.5. If America collectively decided to trade every dollar we have for the currency of another country.

2.75. If America bought every bond in another country, say, Switzerland.

2.8. If all Americans placed their money into one bank.

2.9. If the US government were refused any additional loans to assist the governance of its nation. As in, it must pay what it can in taxes, and would gain no outside funds from any financial or governmental institution.

3. If from now until forever, the US said its dollar was worth 2 euros.

4. If we would return, tomorrow, to the gold standard.

5. If a bank gave me a loan of 1 trillion dollars.

6. If every US citizen decided a gallon of gas was worth 2 dollars, now until forever. Disregarding inflation.

7. If the GDP of America fell by half.

8. There was 0% inflation from one year to the next.

8.5 There was negative inflation (deflation?) from one year to the next.

9. Interest rates on loans were held constant from one year to the next.

9.5 Interest rates were 0, from one year to the next.

10. If the US ceased to exist. Would its dollar still hold value in someone's bank?

11. If the countries borrowing money from the US decided to all pay off their loans at once.

11.5. If any country or bank lending money to the US demanded it immediately.

The last question I'll ask is separate, and far more out there than the rest.

12. If the world were all one country, one nation, with the same currency, how would its value be determined? Does the value of currency truly depend solely upon competition with another currency? I suppose not, since money existed in nations prior to a world economy. Value was probably merely arbitrarily determined depending upon the value someone thought a goat or a dozen eggs was worth compared to a painting or a new pair of shoes. What, then, if a single nation existed, would we do to determine how much money should truly be in circulation in said one world nation, if it were not backed by available precious metals or the like?