RESPONSE TO ANTHONY MIGCHELS ARTICLE ON USURY – Roger M.

RESPONSE TO ANTHONY MIGCHELS ARTICLE ON USURY
Once again Anthony has written a superbly well articulated article and I highlight a couple of sentences: ‘’Yes, the volume must be managed, but that is unavoidable. No monetary system can exist without managing volume. The problem is not management; it is allowing vultures to do it.
The reason we have a boom-bust cycle is because we allowed private parties, banks, to manage the volume in their own interest. They set up Central Banks to create the illusion of ‘officialdom’.’’
As he expresses, and I paraphrase with a couple of ideas that I assume he would include: The problem is that we allow vultures to manage the creation and circulation of money.
The banks employ a system of allotting loans dependent on two types of collateral: value of the borrowers’ assets and/or the potential value of their labour. Nearly all of us can be entrepreneurs but many are, understandably, discouraged at the risk of losing their homes, which banks wish them to hypothecate in return for a loan. Therefore, this type of collateral should not be required by the banks as it discourages enterprise, which is the life blood of an economy
The second kind of collateral required is entirely justifiable, but interest free, however, there must be a limit imposed on the amount which an individual can borrow; without this, you could not put a value on anything—there would be no incentive for suppliers of goods and services to increase productivity, as they, themselves would simply obtain more loans from the bank rather than work harder to supply the demand. In fact: who would work at all?
So; it is obvious that there must be a limit on the amount an individual can borrow—interest free. Mary Croft postulates that everyone with an official birth certificate already has an amount allocated to them at the treasury but people have been kept in ignorance of this. I cannot imagine that this is true but I reserve my judgment on this until proof, either way, emerges. There is, however, the admonishment of Michael Tellinger, who says you can, under the aegis of the South African Bills of Exchange Act, issue a self-signed promissory note in response to a demand for a mortgage payment; I’m monitoring his case.
 
 
 
Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to RESPONSE TO ANTHONY MIGCHELS ARTICLE ON USURY – Roger M.

  1. name says:

    Lincoln, the horse of trojan infiltrators, with a quote which only book-peddlers can find among Lincoln’s papers; historians and archivists cannot:
    http://www.illinoishistory.gov/facsimiles.htm

    Lincoln who did more for enthroning corporations than all the other presidents before him combined; Lincoln who was the best friend the money power could have asked for; Lincoln who seriously hated the concept of republic; Lincoln who gave 200 million acres to robber barons (oh how much he must have hated combinations); yes, it is very appropriate that you put his picture and a fabricated quote at the front of your piece

    only trojan infiltrators like Ellen Brown and Bill Still could declare such enemy of the United States a hero towards whom people should look for their salvation (only new-conservatives hold H.A. Lincoln in higher regard than the book-peddlers and their groupies)

    The times are sadly out of joint. Ruin and destruction lie immediately in our pathway. The passions, not the judgment of men, control their action. The fondest hopes of the patriot may in a moment be forever blasted. Whether even now it is possible to escape final and irretrievable shipwreck is a problem which the wisest are unable to solve. It is time, high time, that the representatives of the States and of the people should cry aloud and spare not. It is time that the American people should arouse themselves from the lethargy that enervates and the false security that deludes them. Born to an inheritance of freedom, they should not passively submit to be slaves. Unless they mean to shame a noble ancestry, and bequeath a name of infamy to their posterity, they should at once awake to the dangers of the present, and provide against the foreshadowed calamities of the future. Arbitrary and despotic power, not satisfied with trampling upon every constitutional right of the citizen, has profanely dared to invade the temple of justice, and dragged her minister from her altar. He who invades the sanctuary of justice and interrupts the due course of its administration proves himself a tyrant capable of any assaults upon the liberties of the people. That people are madly blind who, vitnessing such acts of usurpation, fail to demand with more than baron-like firmness the reaffirmance of the Magna Charta of their liberties.

    Under the pretense of suppressing terror, the executive and legislative departments of this Government are daily engaged in the grossest violations of the fundamental law. If in times of peace the Constitution is the surest protection of the citizen, in time of war it is his only hope of safety. When skies are clear, when seas are calm, and winds are lulled, the mariner treads with unconcern the deck of his ocean home. It is only when waves run high and skies are dark and tempests howl, that with unfaltering grasp he trusts the helm to guide him safely through the storm. Darkness and night have set in around us as a nation. Would that “the night were far spent and that day was at hand.” But alas! the watchmen can give no signs of promise. The hope of the most hopeful besins to fail him, and a nation is solemnly inquiring whether it must not cease to be.

    Who are they that have murdered constitutional liberty and destroyed our Federal Union ? Day after day, false teachers utter their sayings, and false prophets prophesy to the people. Making wide their political phylacteries, they stand in the chief places of the political synagogue that they may be seen and heard of men. Having deliberately chosen, by the rejection of every honorable and peaceful mode of adjustment, the arbitrament of the sword, they have plunged the country into all the horrors of war, and now that the work of their hands is upon them, they shout aloud their devotion to the Union, and evidence their sincerity by attempting the destruction of the liberties of the people. They even assume to sit in judgment upon the motives and action of those who have independence enough to condemn, and love of country enough to resist, the consummation of their schemes for the destruction of the Federal Union. With pharisaical coolness they stand in the public places and impiously thank God that they are not as other persons are, or even as those who will not join them in their ruthless war upon the constitution of the country. Measures grossly and palpably unconstitutional are deliberately presented for adoption, and he who questions their propriety, or refuses his support of them, is, according to their standard of judgment, either indifferent to the country’s interests or traitorous in design against them.

  2. Pingback: “RESPONSE TO ANTHONY MIGCHELS ARTICLE ON USURY – Roger M.” – by Yamaguchy |

  3. Pingback: Securitisation of bank loans – Roger M. |

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

3 × 3 =

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>