Below copied dialectic w. schizoid (not me, ho ho ho), "Anthony," first and amazingly published (before being censored, as usual, ho ho ho) at comments, http://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2014/08/27/the-plane-truth-usury-and-the-rise-of-the-bankster-dictatorship/#comment-27336
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
[Comrades, below is brief dialectic w. myself and "Anthony" at above-noted site. This "Anthony" character is PERFECT EXAMPLE of "schizoid" as I note for people--ck "Reference Expos" on top right-hand column for this blog. Immediate following essay by me is actually the second entry for this dialectic, recorded at above-noted site.]
"Usury" Couldn't Merely Mean Charging-Of-Interest, Interest Mere Red-Herring Diversion
(Apollonian, 16 Sep 14)
Anthony: because the issue is what the word, "usury," meant way back when it originated--it COULD NOT have meant mere charging of interest as that by itself causes no systemic problem for economy.
For if u INCREASE the money-supply w. ur "fiat" (legalized COUNTERFEITING) system, u do 2 conflicting things: (a) it increases the amount of loans contracted (debt), and (b) it causes price inflation.
Inevitable problem arises when the steady increases of money MUST be curtailed to halt the obligatory price-inflation ("DEFLATION").
BUT then, this "deflation" then causes obvious problems for the paying of the loans which were contracted during the previous period of steady money-injections, allowing the banks now to foreclose on all the collateralized prop.
Charging of interest has NOTHING to do w. this break-down and inevitable collapse of ur funny-money schemes. Yet the banks and Jews ALWAYS blame things on this false issue of charging-of-interest.
Commodity-money prevents these above-noted problems and keeps criminal bankers fm profiting fm ur legalized COUNTERFEITIING schemes--it also PRESERVES the rights of individuals to freely contract for loaning of money at interest.
-------------------above by ap in reply to below----------------------
[Note in below, "Anthony," the schizoid moron can't figure out I was asking the ORIGINAL meaning/definition--which first appears in ancient sources, which did not have explicit definition attached, only described.]
Why not just look it up in Webster Apollonian?
1
archaic : interest
2
: the lending of money with an interest charge for its use; especially : the lending of money at exorbitant interest rates
3
: an unconscionable or exorbitant rate or amount of interest; specifically : interest in excess of a legal rate charged to a borrower for the use of money
archaic : interest
2
: the lending of money with an interest charge for its use; especially : the lending of money at exorbitant interest rates
3
: an unconscionable or exorbitant rate or amount of interest; specifically : interest in excess of a legal rate charged to a borrower for the use of money
------------------------------above in response to below by ap--------------------
[Here below is my original, opening question/statement for this dialectic, ho ho ho ho]
Got a simple question for u: what’s ur source for “usury” having to do w. charging-of-interest?–where does it originate? Thanks for ur info. A.
---------------------------Migchels responded to very top, above by ap, below---------------------------
Usury does affect the business cycle, but in general I agree.
Austrianism (like all other orthodox schools of ‘modern economics’) mind controls people into thinking volume is the only issue with money.
Our main one, besides the crunch and its deflation, is that the World is now so awash in debt, that 40% of the disposable income of the common man is going to interest charges.
That’s why the debt bubble simply can’t grow anymore: debt service has become unbearable.
Usury, Volume and the fact that the Banks (instead of the community) decides who gets credit, these are the main problems of our money and they must be analyzed separately.
---------------------------above was answered by ap, below-copied-------------------------
Well, why can't u just admit commodity-money--per Austrians--is easiest, simplest solution?
---------------------------------above by ap was answered below--------------------------
Anthony Migchels permalink
Because it solves ZERO of our problems: the Banks own all commodities, it is impossible to have interest-free credit with it, asset bubbles and deflations are a no brainer with commodity money (and the norm under all the Gold Standards of the past) and the banks would still decide who would be financed or not.
That’s why they invested billions upon billions over decades to subvert the Truth Movement with it.
But, Apollonian, we’ve been through all this.
-------------------------ap responded, below---------------------------
"Deflations" under gold standard were never a problem: during post Civil-war period, US economy avg'd 3-4 percent real growth, despite the "deflation."
As usual, u overlook, deflation merely raises the value of the commodity-money, increasing buying-power, and there's no problem. As value/buying-power goes up, it increases incentive to spend the money back into economy.
----------------------------above by ap was answered by---------------------------
No Appollonian, as usual you overlook that deflation makes money worth more
. Wages, among other things. It also makes debts worth more.
In short: deflation is very pleasant for creditors (the ultra rich) and those holding money (the ultra rich). It is VERY bad for those in debt (the entire world) and those not holding money (by far most of us). It’s also very bad for labor (everybody but the very rich).
As value/buying power goes up, incentives to spend the money remains low. Only when money starts to depreciate (‘inflation’), will incentive to spend rise again.
You see: that’s why I despise Austrianism so much: for putting ‘deflation is good’ in your head with such silly nonsense as ‘money is worth more’.
But like I said, we’ve been through all this and I’m not looking for a repetition of known moves.
-------------------------ap responded to above w. below---------------------------
Then explain why GDP rose at such astounding rate, as I noted, now mere matter of hist.
U make no sense--if money increases in value, it means there's more commodities available for purchase. Wages increase for their buying power as do incomes generally, and debt isn't affected adversely as less money is needed for things other than debt.
Further, debt is only contracted w. eye to either steady or deflationary trends w. commodity standard, and the deflation is gradual, so there's no terrible problem w. debt.
And as the economy thrives, productivity increasing, there's always jobs, hence way to pay any reasonable debts.
It isn't nonsense that money is worth more [he already admitted money buying-power was raised, above--see note]--it's strict mathematical relation: as quantity goes down relatively, the value MUST go up, ipso facto--and this indeed is what reality & history demonstrates. Ur problem is now w. logic itself.
------------------------below was answer to ap's above-----------------------
[Ho ho ho--here the little psycho schizoid loses his cool and resorts to abuse; mighty apster has WON the debate, eh? Ho ho ho ho]
If money becomes worht more, wages go down in real terms [totally contradicting himself fm his above note] and debts grow in real terms Apollonian.
Get your Austrian head out of your Libertarian behind and start doing some independent thinking, you can’t expect me to keep correcting such no brainers. [Ho ho ho ho]
That’s it for now, you’ve already got me exasperated again and that’s the reason why you’re the only banned person on this blog
--------------------------below submitted, but perhaps not to be posted, eh? ho ho ho-----------
[Below was NOT, in fact, published, ho ho ho ho]
No--U'RE ONE WHO NEEDS TO THINK--if money buying-power is worth more, real value of wages goes UP--necessarily, in accord w. simplest logic and common sense. Debt remains manageable, as I noted. My being banned is ur problem, not mine.
No comments:
Post a Comment