Tag Archives: usury

Retired Banker Blows Whistle On “The Greatest Scam On Earth”

27 Sep

Yes, the context is America-centric. But the scam is global.

With a few notable exceptions. Those notable exceptions just happen to be countries that typically get labelled as “evil” “terrorist” “dictatorships”. Did you know that the first big change in Libya, even before the “civil war” ended and Gaddafi was overthrown, was the establishment of a new central bank?

The key part of this exposé — what the ex-banker calls the “3rd part of the scam” — begins at 3:22sec –

Advertisements

It’s The Usury, Stupid

25 Sep

Privacy2_610x426

 

From AAP, via nine.msn.com.au:

Debt costs outweigh WA future fund returns

A future fund designed to quarantine some of Western Australia’s mining royalties for future generations isn’t making enough cash to offset the state’s increased cost of borrowing, the premier says.

The fund was the centrepiece of the 2012/13 budget and is being established with more than $1 billion in seed capital over four years, mainly using money from the Royalties for Regions fund.

While it’s forecast to grow to $4.7 billion within 20 years, opposition treasury spokesman Ben Wyatt has cast doubt on whether it will even make a return.

Mr Wyatt says it is actually being funded by borrowings, which are used for investments, and then placed in a marginally interest-bearing account.

But the cost of debt had gone up with the state losing its AAA credit rating, so the fund was losing money, he said.

Liberal leader Colin Barnett conceded the fund wasn’t making enough to counter higher borrowing costs, but said the loans were for capital works projects.

We pay a little bit more on what we borrow compared to what we receive from the future fund,” Mr Barnett told Fairfax radio.

The problem is not debt.

The Problem is Usury.

Humanity will never escape ongoing financial crises, or the din of “debate” about money and debt, until we turn the clock back 500 years, and ban usury in all forms once again.

5 Years After The Financial Crisis, The Big Banks Are Still Committing Massive Crimes

22 Sep

usury

Cross-posted from Zero Hedge:

Preface: Not all banks are criminal enterprises. The wrongdoing of a particular bank cannot be attributed to other banks without proof. But – as documented below – many of the biggest banks have engaged in unimaginably bad behavior.

You Won’t Believe What They’ve Done …

Here are just some of the improprieties by big banks over the last century (you’ll see that many shenanigans are continuing today):

  • Engaging in mafia-style big-rigging fraud against local governments. See this, this and this
  • Shaving money off of virtually every pension transaction they handled over the course of decades, stealing collectively billions of dollars from pensions worldwide. Details here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here
  • Pledging the same mortgage multiple times to different buyers. See this, this, this, this and this. This would be like selling your car, and collecting money from 10 different buyers for the same car
  • Committing massive fraud in an $800 trillion dollar market which effects everything from mortgages, student loans, small business loans and city financing
  • Pushing investments which they knew were terrible, and then betting against the same investments to make money for themselves. See this, this, this, this and this
  • Engaging in unlawful “Wash Trades” to manipulate asset prices. See this, this and this
  • Participating in various Ponzi schemes. See this, this and this
  • Bribing and bullying ratings agencies to inflate ratings on their risky investments

The executives of the big banks invariably pretend that the hanky-panky was only committed by a couple of low-level rogue employees. But studies show that most of the fraud is committed by management.

Indeed, one of the world’s top fraud experts – professor of law and economics, and former senior S&L regulator Bill Black – says that most financial fraud is “control fraud”, where the people who own the banks are the ones who implement systemic fraud. See this, this and this.

Even the bank with the reputation as being the “best managed bank” in the U.S., JP Morgan, has engaged in massive fraud. For example, the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released a report today quoting an examiner at the Office of Comptroller of the Currency – JPMorgan’s regulator – saying he felt the bank had “lied to” and “deceived” the agency over the question of whether the bank had mismarked its books to hide the extent of losses. And Joshua Rosner – noted bond analyst, and Managing Director at independent research consultancy Graham Fisher & Co – notes that JP Morgan had many similar anti money laundering laws violations as HSBC, failed to segregate accounts a la MF Global, and paid almost 12% of its 2009-12 net income on regulatory and legal settlements.

But at least the big banks do good things for society, like loaning money to Main Street, right?

Actually:

  • The big banks have slashed lending since they were bailed out by taxpayers … while smaller banks have increased lending. See this, this and this

Indeed, top experts say that fraud caused the Great Depression and the 2008 crisis, and that failing to rein in fraud is dooming our economy.

We can almost understand why Thomas Jefferson warned:

And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies ….

John Adams said:

Banks have done more injury to religion, morality, tranquillity, prosperity, and even wealth of the nation than they have done or ever will do good.

And Lord Acton argued:

The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks.

No wonder a stunning list of prominent economists, financial experts and bankers say we need to break up the big banks.

Hitler’s Finances And The Myth Of Nazi Anti-Usury Activism

17 Sep

Cross-posted from Anthony Migchels’ Real Currencies:

There is the widespread notion that Hitler was fighting the Money Power and that he was a problem for the Bankers because he created a Usury free economy. But there was no Usury free Third Reich economy. The German taxpayer continued to pay interest over the substantial national debt and commercial banking received interest for its fractional reserve banking based loans, which to a large extent financed the war.

“Our greatest social task is the abolition of interest slavery. This responsibility to abolish interest slavery towers above all other issues of the day. It is the only solution to the greatest problem of our time. The breaking of interest slavery is the most important moral imperative in social terms, it rises in its general significance far beyond all questions of the day, it is the solution of social questions, it is the only way out of the terrible confusion of the time. The abolition of interest slavery will deliver us from ultra-capitalist domination while avoiding both Communist destruction of the human spirit and Capitalist degradation of labour. The abolition of interest slavery opens the way to a truly social economy, by liberating us from the overwhelming domination of money. It opens the way to a state based on creative work and genuine accomplishment.” – Gottfried Feder 1919

By Anthony Migchels

Where does Hitler’s reputation for anti-Usury activism come from? It was more Nazi propaganda to get him to power than his actual policies after he did. It was not Hitler, but Gottfried Feder who was the anti-Usury man of the Nazi. Hitler in Mein Kampf:

“For the first time in my life I heard (through Feder, AM) a discussion which dealt with the principles of stock exchange capital and capital which was used for loan activities. After hearing the first lecture delivered by Feder, the idea immediately came into my head that I had found a way to one of the most essential prerequisites for the founding of a new party.

To my mind, Feder’s merit consisted in the ruthless and trenchant way in which he described the double character of the capital engaged in stock exchange and loan transactions, laying bare the fact that this capital is ever and always dependent on the payment of interest.”

And:

“The struggle against international finance capital and loan capital has become one of the most important points in the program on which the German nation has based its fight for economic freedom and independence.”

Point 11 of the NSDAP 25 point program, a manifesto that officially (but not in practice) expressed Nazi policy:

“Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.”

Hitler put it this way:

“Our financial principle: Finance shall exist for the benefit of the state; the financial magnates shall not form a state within the state. Hence our aim to break the thralldom of interest.

Relief of the state, and hence of the nation, from its indebtedness to the great financial houses, which lend on interest.

Nationalization of the Reichsbank and the issuing houses, which lend on interest.”

But as we shall see, Hitler did not implement any serious monetary reform after he came to power. He did make finance completely subservient to the State and, more specifically, rearmament. But he did not nationalize any banks and the Reichsbank was already nationalized by the Weimar Republic by the time he came to power. He did not end interest payments to ‘the issuing houses’, who must have made an uncanny fortune throughout the war. He did nothing to decouple the Stock Exchange from the economy.

Feder was made Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, but was from day one sabotaged by Reichsbank President Hjalmar Schacht and replaced by him in August 1934. It was Schacht who was to manage the Nazi economy, not Feder.

Schacht’s and Hitler’s policies allowed full control of the economy, which was used to maximize production for the sake of war. But it did absolutely nothing to limit in any way massive war profiteering by the financial and industrial classes that brought him to power.

The Reichsmark

The Reichsmark was created 1924 after its predecessor, the Papiermark, had been inflated into oblivion. 1 Reichsmark was 1 Trillion Papiermark. The Reichsmark lasted until 1948, when it was replaced by the Deutsche Mark. So Hitler simply used the monetary system that he inherited from the Weimar Republic. The Reichsmark, like any other banking unit, was lent into circulation. It was a Gold backed unit until 1931, when the depression forced the Reichsbank (the Central Bank) to implement exchange controls, which effectively took Germany off the Gold Standard. A Gold peg remained in place. There were 1, 2 and 5 Reichsmark silver coins.

Hitler inherited the official Weimar 4,5% maximum interest rate. He ruled by decree, but never changed this. In fact, after the Nazi economy began to boom due to heavy spending on rearmament, it seems interest rates were raised to combat inflation. I’ve been unable to find any data on real interest rates during the Nazi era.

Who was Hjalmar Schacht?

Schacht was born in 1877 as the son of an aristocratic family. He joined Dresdner Bank in 1903 and already in 1905 was meeting people like JP Morgan and Theodore Roosevelt. He studied Hebrew to advance his career. In 1908 he joined Freemasonry. He oversaw the financing of Belgian/German trade during WW1 and used his former employer Dresdner Bank for this. This blatant conflict of interest led to his dismissal, but the revolving door was not invented recently and he was taken back by Dresdner Bank after this.

In 1923 he joined the Reichsbank and played a key role in ending the hyperinflation of the day. A little later he was made President of the Reichsbank and remained in this post until 1930. Since at least 1923 he was actively resisting the war reparations that were destroying the German economy and called for resurrection of German power. In 1926 he became involved with the NSDAP and supported their rise to power, although he never became a member.

He oversaw the formation of I.G. Farben in the twenties.

Schacht was a member of the Keppler Circle, a small group of businessmen that were at the heart of the Nazi movement and which financed Hitler’s rise to power. Wall Street was very influential in this group and contrary to what many Hitler apologists claim, played a heavy role in both financing him and war profiteering.

Shortly after Hitler came to power he was reinstated as President of the Reichsbank and when he replaced Feder as Reichscommissar for the Economy, he basically gained full control over the economy. This lasted until he was fired in 1939, when the German economy was overheating and Schacht wanted to limit spending on rearmament and was accused of ‘mutiny’ by Hitler.

Banking in Nazi Germany before the war

After becoming President of the Reichsbank, Schacht immediately started implementing policies aiming at giving the State full control of financial markets. This was known as ‘the New Plan’:

“(1) restriction of the demand for such foreign exchange as would be used for purposes unrelated to the conspirators’ rearmament program; (2) increase of the supply of foreign exchange, as a means of paying for essential imports which could not otherwise be acquired; and (3) clearing agreements and other devices obviating the need for foreign exchange. Under the “New Plan”, economic transactions between Germany and the outside world were no longer governed by the autonomous price mechanism; they were determined by a number of Government agencies whose primary aim was to satisfy the needs of the Nazi’s military economy.”

Foreign exchange controls were implemented to manage shortages in foreign currencies. Rules for credit creation by the Reichsbank were cancelled, aimed at potentially limitless credit creation to provide the economy with the liquidity it needed to get back at full employment.

All policies were aimed at 1) making sure the Government was basically the only borrower at domestic capital markets and 2) to make sure there was always enough credit available.

Price and wage controls and indeed rising interest rates were used to combat rising prices that would have resulted from these inflating policies.

Between 31 December and 30 June 1938, the national debt of the Reich rose from 10.4 billion Marks to 19 billion Marks.

There was no nationalization of banks. In fact: some banks that the Weimar republic had nationalized during the early days of the depression, were again privatized. Private banks played a crucial role in financing the rearmament effort. They were put under close Reichsbank control to make sure their lending was what the State wanted, but nothing was done to limit their profitability.

The Stock Exchange

While railing against this typical exploitative instrument of finance during his rise to power, Hitler did nothing to limit the stock exchange’s scope and operations once he had the chance. The stock exchange system in the Reich was superficially reformed: a number of its outlets were merged and the number of exchanges declined from 25 to 9 as a result. But volume of trading was never threatened and during the early Hitler years it saw annual double digit rises until 1937, when the Reich’s economy started faltering and the stock exchange lost about 10% of its capitalization between 1937 and 1939. After the war broke out the stock market saw a massive boom, rising 50% between the falls 1939 and 1941.

In 1934 heavy taxes were levied on dividend payments higher than 6%, but the aim of this was not to limit profiteering, but to enhance self-financing of publicly traded corporations. They were expected to recycle more of their profits into their own operations, to make them independent of capital markets, which the State intended and managed to completely dominate for its own financing needs. There were loopholes to evade this measure and shareholders were not damaged, as it implied deferment of dividend payments and not real limitations.

The Reich’s policies also made sure the common man did not enter the stock market, as they were expected to lend to the Government and not to speculate. But still, the amount of funds being diverted to the stock market were not invested in the war and “It was then (1942, AM) that the government stepped in and destroyed the last relatively free market in the economy. Loans for the purchase of stocks were prohibited. Shareholders had to file a declaration with the government of all shares purchased since the outbreak of war if their market value exceeded 100,000 Reichsmark. The government could, at any time, request that any of these shares be delivered to it for cash and that the proceeds be invested in securities to be specified by the government. (Nathan)”

MEFO

While every effort was made to assure the State’s domination of capital markets, there was simply not enough liquidity in the economy to create full employment and unlock the German Folk’s full productive capacity for rearmament. This could have been solved by having the State go massively into debt, in typical Keynesian fashion. But this would have created both political and economic problems and, equally important, would have shown the full extent of rearmament to the Reich’s enemies.

Instead, Hitler, right after coming to power, fired Reichsbank President Hans Luther and reinstated Hjalmar Schacht, who was willing to build on Luther’s Oeffa’s: Government promissory notes aimed at creating employment that would create the extra liquidity needed to finance Hitler’s plans.

Schacht created a special purpose vehicle (SPV, a dummy corporation) called MEtallurgische FOrschungsgesellschaft (MEFO), which was used to accept bills of exchange drawn by German weapons manufacturers and received by all German banks for possible re-discounting by the Reichsbank. The bills were guaranteed by the Reich for five years and were thus (indirectly) convertible to Reichsmark.

MEFO bills of exchange were a pure bookkeeping operation and there were no actual paper certificates. They circulated between MEFO, the Reichsbank, commercial banks and manufacturers, not in the wider economy. At its peak there were about 12 billion worth in circulation. Key was that they were kept off the Reich’s books as all transactions were logged at the MEFO SPV. Because of this, nobody really knew the extent of spending on weaponry.

While they solved the depression and allowed for the Nazi war machine, they also created fairly serious inflationary pressures. And while this kind of construct may sound ‘innovative’ to the uninitiated, they would have been a no brainer for an experienced banker like Schacht. As said, they were based on certificates (called Oeffa) that the Weimar Republic was already circulating and national treasuries had been circulating their own certificates routinely, when pressing political issues forced them to increase their financial clout. The US Treasury had its Treasury notes before the Civil War. The UK printed ‘Bradbury Pounds’ (debt free notes) to finance WW1. The Canadian Treasury printed its own debt free money as of 1935 and during the twenties and thirties advanced monetary reform programs were widely discussed throughout the West.

Conclusion

Hitler was heavily indebted to Feder’s anti-Usury stance in coming to power. But early on during his reign he got rid of Feder and relied on Schacht for the financing of his war plans. Unlike Schacht, Feder was not heavily involved with the top bankers and industrialists of the age. The German economy was directed completely to rearmament. Consumption levels were kept low through taxation and wage controls. Imports and production of luxuries were severely restricted.

Schacht made sure the financial industry was focused solely on war preparation and in effect allowed only the State to borrow on the domestic capital markets. International trade was primarily reliant on (scarce) foreign currencies and while there was some international bartering, it was far from dominant. The Reich’s financial industry did not decouple entirely from international finance, although foreign exchange controls were strict. For instance: the Bank of International Settlements continued dealings with the Reich.

There was no usury free economy. The common man or small business actually would have next to no access to credit at all. Even manufacturers were forced to become self financing, so the State could monopolize borrowing on the capital markets. The stock market boomed like never before.

Instead, all policies were directed at securing sufficient funds for rearmament, not at minimizing financial exploitation by the parasitical class that Hitler so vehemently attacked with his rhetoric. Finance was a matter of volume, not cost. Schacht’s MEFO bills have been wrongly jumped upon to claim Hitler was an anti banker man, while Schacht himself has the typical bio of a high level Money Power operative. He was a life long friend of BoE chief Montague Norman and was acquitted at Neurenberg, where the Soviets wanted a conviction while the British made sure he was released.

The myth of Nazi anti-Usury activism is damaging, not only because of its mythological character, but because it allows the Money Power to defame anti-Usury activism through ‘guilt by association’. In fact, many Austrians and Mainstreamers, call usury-free monetary reform programs ‘fascist’. Fascism itself is being rehabilitated because of its supposed stance against finance capitalism. But as we have learned from Bolton’s ‘The Banking Swindle’, the twenties and thirties saw many monetary reform programs throughout the West, far from all associated with fascism. After the war they were relegated to a memory hole because of this false association with fascism.

War profiteering by the industrial and financial class was in no way restricted. As a result, they profited immensely from the war. This was indeed the main reason for them to enable Hitler’s rise to power and their loyal support of his policies during the rearmament and the war. Even today, the main culprits like the Thyssen family, Krupp and the Goebbels step-children owning BMW are among the richest people in Germany. The same banks that financed the Reich’s war are now among the biggest in the world.

(with special thanks to Niels Verduijn and Ad Broere)

Afterthought 1
Let me be the first to admit I, until recently, believed much of what was said about Hitler’s ‘usury-free’ economy and have inadvertently contributed to the harnessing of this meme.

Afterthought 2
I agree with much of revisionist history. Post war historiography is just wartime propaganda. The Holocaust needs serious revaluation. Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill were psychopaths who committed horrible crimes, against the Japanese, their own people, the people the colonized and against the Germans.

I do feel that at this point many in the Alternative Media go overboard, making Hitler a hero. This is unwarranted. The current article shows, in spite of what many believe, he was far from a renegade in a financial sense. There is also the Hunger Plan: Hitler and the Wehrmacht High Command intended to have the Wehrmacht live of the Russian land they were to occupy by robbing the farmers of their harvests. They cynically calculated this would starve 30 million Russians. Thankfully they never had the chance to fully implement this, but still millions of Russians starved because of the Wehrmacht taking their supplies.

The fact is that Hitler always wanted to invade Russia and his explanation that it was to save the world of Marxism, which he well analyzed to be a Jewish front, is irreconcilable with his take that Britain was a nation of Aryan brothers and the British Empire ‘necessary’ and a great civilizing force in the world: even at that time it was well known that the British Aristocracy had merged with Jewish Money and that the City of London was the Money Power’s capital.

Hitler was an imperialist who wanted to conquer Russia for the third Reich and intended to kill untold millions of Russians to take their land. His rise and fall gave the Money Power everything it wanted, including the war itself, the Zionist Entity in Palestine, the EU, Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, the destruction of the British Empire, the UN and the Cold War.

We will probably never know whether he was a useful idiot or willing stooge, but while he may have been no worse than his antagonists, he certainly also was no better.

Sources:
Hitler and the Banksters, by Ingrid Rimland
Nazi War Financing and Banking, by Otto Nathan
Ziopedia on MEFO’s
Jewish Virtual Library on Schacht
Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, by Antony Sutton

IMF Admits Usury Is The Root Problem Of The Global Financial System

6 Sep

usury

There is much of interest in the IMF’s Financial System Stability Assessment of Australia, published in November 2012.  The following line in particular caught my eye, and is worthy of comment. The context is the IMF’s consideration of what are the “key risks” to our banking system (page 10-11):

Pressure on the net interest margin, which accounts for almost two-thirds of operating income, has the potential to encourage more risk-taking by banks in order to preserve profitability.

Thoughtful readers will observe that this statement unintentionally lends direct support to a fundamental argument your humble blogger has made — that usury is the root problem of the global monetary system, and that fractional reserve banking (or endogenous money creation) is only a secondary problem.

Consider again the conclusion to my recent post, IMF Economist Says Banks’ Key Function Is To CREATE Money:

As we have oft-repeated here at barnabyisright.com, while this power to “create money” ex nihilo (out of nothing) is a key problem, it is not THE root problem.

The power to create “money” (in the form of debt) out of nothing, simply gives banks leverage.

What they leverage, is Usury.

The “net interest income” — that is, the difference (or “spread” or “margin”) between the interest % they give on deposits, and the interest % they take on loans — is the heart of the banks’ profit (and power) business model.

The power to create more and more money (“credit”), simply allows them to magnify (or leverage) their “returns” (profits) on that difference between usury paid, and usury taken.

It deeply saddens your humble blogger that there are so many highly intelligent (far moreso than I), sincere, well-meaning, altruistic men and women in the world who are keenly interested in reforming the financial system for the betterment of humanity … and yet, almost none have yet recognised that usury is the root problem.

The IMF has directly admitted that the root of banks’ profit-making model is net interest income, and that pressure on the “margin” between what they charge in interest for loans, and must offer in interest on deposits, “has the potential to encourage more risk-taking by banks in order to preserve profitability”.

What exactly is meant by “more risk-taking”?

In the footnote (3) to the IMF’s comment, we are told that:

“Riskier activities could include, for example, loosening underwriting standards or expanding too quickly into new business or geographic regions.”

In other words, making it easier for more people to borrow more debt.

Using the leverage of increased fractional reserve / endogenous money creation.

Barnaby Is Right … is right.

See also:

Looking For A Root

A Tale Of Usury, Explosions, And A Used Car Salesman

A History Of The Legal Case Against Usury

An Historical Warning For Proponents Of A Modern Debt Jubilee

Bankers Crucified On Live TV

5 Sep

WARNING: Do not watch if bad language offends.

IMF Economist Says Banks’ Key Function Is To CREATE Money

9 Aug

Cross-posted from neweconomics.net.nz (my bold added) –

Today I made the mistake of going to a Georgist website where there was a sentence which made me mad. It said that in New Zealand, banks like finance companies can only lend out deposits made with them. Well I rarely get mad these days but I don’t like untruths being perpetrated. So I thought the best way to recover would go and transcribe the first seven minutes of a talk Michael Kumhof, economist from the IMF made to a seminar in January 2013.  It is on youtube here and here is my transcript, give or take the odd aside I left out.

“Virtually all money is bank deposits.

The key function of banks is money creation not intermediation. The entire economics literature that you see out there today is that it is intermediation, taking the money from granny, storing it up and then when someone comes and needs it I can lend it out to them. That is complete nonsense. Intermediation of course exists, but it is incidental and secondary and it comes after the actual money creation. Banks do not have to attract deposits before they create money. I’m a former bank manager. I worked for Barclays for five years. I’ve created those book entries. That is how it works. And if a leading light economist like Paul Krugman tries to tell you otherwise, he does not know what he is talking about.

When you approve a loan, as a bank manager you enter on the asset side of your balance sheet the loan, which is your claim against this guy and at the exact same time you create a new deposit on the liability side. You have created new money because this gives this guy purchasing power to go out and buy something with it. Banks have created money at that point. No intermediation, because the asset and liability are in the same name at that moment. What happens afterwards is that that guy can spend it somewhere else later but it is still in the banking system. I care about the aggregate banking system. Looking at the microeconomy and transferring the logic to the macroeconomy is really wrong. Someone will accept that payment.

money

What that means is that it becomes very, very easy for banks to start or lead a lending boom even though policy makers might not, because if they feel that the time is right, they simply expand the money supply. There is no third party involved, just the bank and the customer and I make the loan. The only thing that is required is that someone else will accept that deposit, say as payment for a machine, and he knows that is acceptable because it is legal fiat.

There is an important corollary to this story. A lot of loans are not for investment purposes, in physical capital. Loans that are for investment purposes are a small fraction. The story that is often told in development economics is that first you need to have savings, then once you have the savings, you can have investment. So a country needs to have sufficient savings in order to have enough investment. Nonsense too – at least for the part of investment that is financed through banks because when a bank makes a new loan it creates new purchasing power for the investment to go ahead. The investment goes ahead. Then the investor takes his new bank deposit and gives it to someone else In the end someone is going to leave that new deposit in the bank. That is saving.  The saving is created along with the investment. It’s not that saving has to come before investment. Saving comes after investment, not before. This is important for development economics.

The deposit multiplier that is taught in economics textbooks is a fairytale. I could use less polite terms. The story goes that central bank creates narrow money and there is a multiplier because banks can lend out a fraction. It is actually exactly the opposite. Broad monetary aggregates lead the cycle and narrow monetary aggregates lag the cycle.”

***********

As we have oft-repeated here at barnabyisright.com, while this power to “create money” ex nihilo (out of nothing) is a key problem, it is not THE root problem.

The power to create “money” (in the form of debt) out of nothing, simply gives banks leverage.

What they leverage, is Usury.

The “net interest income” — that is, the difference (or “spread” or “margin”) between the interest % they give on deposits, and the interest % they take on loans — is the heart of the banks’ profit (and power) business model.

The power to create more and more money (“credit”), simply allows them to magnify (or leverage) their “returns” (profits) on that difference between usury paid, and usury taken.

It deeply saddens your humble blogger that there are so many highly intelligent (far moreso than I), sincere, well-meaning, altruistic men and women in the world who are keenly interested in reforming the financial system for the betterment of humanity … and yet, almost none have yet recognised that usury is the root problem.

One that must be dug up entirely, and killed off, else all other “reforms” are a waste of time.

The evil tree will simply regrow.

%d bloggers like this: