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.