Skip to content

Rationalizing Usury: the Time Value Hoax

December 11, 2013
Uncle Scrooge, a famous Usurer

 (Left: a famous Usurer)

So I’ll get down upon my knees and bless the Working Man,
Who offers me a life of ease through all my mortal span;
Whose loins are lean to make me fat, who slaves to keep me free,
Who dies before his prime to get me round the century.
Whose wife and children toil in turn until their strength is spent,
That I may live in idleness upon my ten percent.
And if at times they curse me, why should I feel any blame,
For in my place, I know that they would do the very same.

(John Turmel, Thoughts of a Rich Man on Usury)

The idea that ‘the lender can’t use the money when he lends’ is the classical argument to rationalize Usury. But the bank doesn’t lend anything. It’s all credit by bookkeeping.

The ‘time value of money’ is the notion that holding money today is worth more than tomorrow. Between today and tomorrow there will be inflation and the missed opportunity of investing it.

It is at the core of modern theory of finance. It is the rationale for Usury, it can be heard each and every time when people defend it. It is the defining belief that creates acceptance for interest on loans of money.

Because Usury is supposed to be the compensation for the ‘lost’ ‘time value’ to the lender.

People will also point at risk, but there is no risk, there is collateral. Only bogus credit card debt and consumer loans are without collateral and the interest on these kinds of loans can be quite astonishing. But for serious credit, business loans, mortgages, there is collateral and there is no risk to the lender.

The fact that the time value idea still holds so much sway is quite astonishing, after 12 years of Truth Movement and mass exposure of fractional reserve banking.

Because the fact is: nowadays the creditors are usually banks and banks don’t lend anything. They create credit, by bookkeeping. That is what fractional reserve banking is: double-entry bookkeeping, in which debit and credit are implicit and automatic.

It is one thing with simply uninformed people, including most economists who are remarkable mainly for their ignorance in monetary matters. It is borderline bizarre with the Austrians, who are famous for their analysis of fractional reserve banking. But how can one on the one hand defend the ‘time value’ hoax and on the other hand explain that the banks create money and don’t have reserves for what they purportedly lend? It creates quite a cognitive dissonance.

The banks don’t lend and that’s why the ‘time value’ ‘argument’ is a total hoax. Utterly irrelevant. The bank wins nothing by creating money (other than the opportunity to extort the ‘borrower’, who doesn’t realize he isn’t borrowing anything real) and it gains nothing when the money is repaid: the bank takes it out of circulation and the money just ceases to exist as a concept. There is nothing in the books anymore.

The Austrians, and indeed also many paper money reformers, then go on to claim the problem is that the bank creates money! And that we will all feel much relieved when these are indeed savings when we borrow from the bank. Then our sense of ‘justice’ is satisfied.

This hoax is known as ‘full reserve banking‘ and nowadays there is a growing and unisono choir for ‘reform’ of banking based on this idea. The Financial Times’ Martin Wolf wants it. The Frankfurter Algemeine splashes a front page with this great idea. Dutch television is soon airing a major program defaming fractional reserve banking and hallowing our right to pay interest to ‘savers’ (the rich), instead of bookkeepers. The IMF is writing positively about it.

We don’t realize that this means that we will continue paying the same amount of money. Why aren’t we asking ourselves the question ‘but if the bank creates the money by bookkeeping, why am I paying interest?’

That is of course the rational response to the awareness that money is created at close to zero cost.

But even if money was printed debt-free or if we use Gold to back all the money, usury would still be both wrong and unnecessary. Because why do people save? To use it later! They don’t want to use it now, otherwise they would not save! So they lose absolutely zero by not being able to use it now if they lend it out. Not using it now but later is the essence of saving! And if we are not going to use it now, why not let somebody else use it in the mean time??

And even when we think of inflation we are wrong: most ‘inflation’ in the sense of rising prices since the war was caused by ever higher interest charges passed on through prices. It was not caused by money printing, the extra money was printed to pay off the usury. Interest bearing money cannot exist without eternally rising prices (or eternal deflation when the money supply cannot grow, as is the case with Gold). Interest-free money, on the other hand, will see stable prices if managed correctly.

So there is no ‘time value of money’. The rich are just insanely addicted to money and they want more. So they have spin doctors and useful idiots (‘economists’) think up excuses to explain it’s all so necessary and pay them a few hundred grand per year to have it look good.

Inconvenienced millionaires
Why do people have difficulty to see the iniquity of Usury? Someone recently said it is because people don’t see themselves as poor, but as ‘temporarily inconvenienced millionaires’. We are all raised to work hard and expect ‘success’. And ‘success’ is making a bundle and then retiring, having other inconvenienced millionaires sweat away to service the loans we will be giving them through our mutual funds.

But: working hard has little to do with it. There would be many millionaires if working hard was leading to wealth. It’s true that genius expresses itself through a combination of talent and hard work, but most of us are just beta males and the opulent want us to lick their boots, not to join their ranks.

We are raised to be ‘responsible’ adults and are told frugality and saving are a real part of that. We are learned the magic of compound interest at school. Nobody is telling us some other guys have picked up this trick a few centuries ago and have a bit of a head start, ripping society apart with the trillions that compound interest is now making them yearly. We are not told that paying compound interest to the rich is what is keeping us poor. No, morons like Peter Schiff now say we need to save more and we need incentives for that: higher interest rates. Peter Schiff is not explaining how people, who already lose more than half of their income to usury (partly passed on in prices and taxes), are going to save more when they have to pay even more interest to the rich, while they are already living from pay check to pay check, as most Americans are today. Even a good man like Paul Craig Roberts falls for this. It’s our economic illiteracy, not understanding money and Usury.

Because the simple fact is: by saying ‘I wouldn’t lend without interest’, we relegate ourselves and our brethren to interest slavery. Because we don’t lend, we borrow. By not lending to our brethren, they will not lend to us. We will have to go to the rich and to the banks. Why was the middle class sending their children to the bank for a mortgage when they had the assets to set them up with a good start in life with an interest-free mortgage? Why are people worrying about their savings today, while at the same time their children face foreclosure? Why are these savings not sunk into paying off the banks to save the wider family from the losses to usury?

We talk about ‘corruption’ in finance but we don’t see that finance itself is corrupt.

By saying: I want interest, we say it’s alright that we pay 300k interest over a 200k mortgage over 30 years. We say: it’s grand that I lose up to 40% of my income to usury passed on in prices even if I have zero debts. We say: how splendid the Government is losing up to 450 billion per year on servicing the National Debt. How great that there is income tax to pay off this money to the ueber-wealthy. We say: how magnificent that the ultra poor nations lose up to ten times more to usury on their foreign debts than they receive in development aid. We say: ah, just don’t get into debt, even when there would be no money if there was no debt. We say: yes, let’s destroy all economies with insane austerity, because the interest on this freshly printed money must be paid off.

Because, hey, I wouldn’t lend without interest!

There is no ‘time value’ of money. It is all created by bookkeeping and the bank loses nothing. It creates the money when lending and retires it when repaid. But even when we talk about savings, there is no real ‘time value’.

Meanwhile, when we say ‘I wouldn’t lend without interest’ we are just parroting the line of the rich. We don’t realize that we are the ones paying and that we should be saying: “hey, I’m an interest-slave, how do we bust this ‘time value’ hoax, I need interest-free credit, I don’t want to be a slave.”

But for that we have to rid ourselves of the slaver in our selves. We must abandon the American Dream. That nightmare of striking it rich and putting our own boot on the face of our brother.

Credit can be interest-free if it’s mutual. I give you credit, if you give me some. We don’t even have to give up any real money: we can have a credit facility keep the books at cost price. Credit and Debit are just two sides of the same coin in double-entry bookkeeping.

Yes, it requires a little new thinking, a little shedding of wrong beliefs. But the poorest 80% (us) are paying up to 10 trillion in usury per year globally to the richest 10% and most of this money actually ends up with the 1%. That 1% now owns 43% of all assets in the world and the poorest 80% (us) own only maybe 10% if we’re lucky. Usury is what is causing this. Even if we have zero debts, 40% of our disposable income is lost to usury passed on in prices, so it has nothing to do with ‘personal responsibility’. It is the System that we prop up that is keeping us down.

It is when we start to see this, when we start to see what exactly is making these ghouls in London and Wall Street so incredibly wealthy, that we can begin to mend the destruction that the Money Power has been wreaking for many centuries now.

Babylon = Usury! We want Interest-Free Money!
Ten Atrocities that would not exist without Usury
The Problem is not Debt, it’s Interest (with Video)
Forget about Full Reserve Banking
Full Reserve Banking Revisited
Gary North’s Bluff: the Lie he’s been sitting on for 50 years

  1. Greenbacker84 permalink

    The quickest and easiest way to rid ourselves of these ghouls is issue the promissory notes OURSELVES via common monetary platform, retiring principal alone.

    The ‘loan’ itself is an outright lie. Without the obligors promissory note, his blood sweat and tears the bank has nothing. Its just a publishing house stealing what the people create and owe to EACH OTHER. Plus interest of course.

    Our debts are to EACH OTHER not any pretend ‘lender’. By insisting on full reserve BANKING and denying us the ability to issue our own unexploited promissory obligations you will literally SHACKLE us to the banks. Its the same thing Positive (Lets keep the banks and usury) Money are advocating to save us.

    There is no lending, there is no need for it and the debtor will always be slave to the ‘lender’. The bankers know this

  2. Greenbacker84 permalink

    I do of course agree on the time/value hoax. Its what kept me parroting dogma in the Ron Paul camp for a while. When you tell the Austrians there is no lending, its an illusion and the borrower in fact issued it; the silence is deafening

    • It’s really weird, they were the ones that did most to expose fractional reserve banking but if you point at the simple conclusion, they’re just dumbfounded and murmur: ‘but I wouldn’t lend without interest’, hahahahaha.
      It’s a phase……some grow over it.

      • Dark Dirk permalink

        They will, if you put a demurrage tax on their money. And I want to remind you something. Interest have components.
        You can get rid of basic interest with demurrage tax, but you cannot erase risk premium. Hausse-premium may be will disappear if you manage the total quantity of money carefully and have stable prices. So basically there is no interest free credit. You always have to account risks, and maintenance cost of the system. If we use demurage currency, interest will be the much lower than today, because we will get rid of basic interest and that should be the goal of money reform.

    • Dark Dirk permalink

      There is no lending if we are allowing the people to make payments with cheques, and vitrual banking money. BUT If you forbid people to pay with cheques they will have to actually go to the bank, take out money, and hang them to you. If bank do not have them, you cannot make that transaction. Instead of paper in 21’s century we can use crypto money like bitcoins, because bank cannot make bitcoins at the time of lending, and the bank will have to lend them actually.

      • Dark Dirk permalink

        “hang” have to be “give”. My mistake.

  3. Greenbacker84 permalink

    >>>The bank wins nothing by creating money (other than the opportunity to extort the ‘borrower’, who doesn’t realize he isn’t borrowing anything real)<<<

    The obligor doesn't realise his promissory note is being laundered and republished by a faux creditor. The conclusion is not just that he borrowed nothing, but he himself created the source of the money via his promissory note backed by his labour and production. This is happening in every laon/mortgage on this planet. The true creditor is the person giving up/selling their property (in exchange for the money of course).

    The banks are imposters intervening on the publication of the contract

  4. lateef akanbi adeyemi permalink


  5. The time value theory of money held by Austrians contradicts their inviolable laissez faire notion of market risk taking. By charging interest the lender forces the borrower to provide a profit on his money without risk. It’s interesting how they always complain about government taxation being a form of coercion but not usury. Austrians claim that this interest compensates for one’s potential uses of the money. Yet, what potential use can compare with gains achieved without risk, loss or work ?

  6. Moneylender permalink

    ”None is more ENSLAVED than those who hopelessley believe that they are free”Coethe
    The moment one is conceived one is enslaved, perhaps a piece of rubber would prevent this accident

    • Nixon Scraypes permalink

      You quote someone called Coethe,judging by your following remark may I venture that you,sir are uncoethe.

      • Johann Wolfgang von Goethe would know how to spell uncouth.

  7. There is also the justification (for interest) that the debtor gets to enjoy his/her purchase sooner. If I get a mortgage loan, I can live in my new house sooner and paying interest replaces paying rent. Of course, that justification doesn’t undo the damage done to the economy by odious debt.

    On an unrelated note, I’m glad you criticized the 100% reserve ratio movement (which has existed since at least the 17th century in England according to historian J.K. Horsefield). The 100% reserve ratio movement is entirely reactionary – its goal is to dominate banks to prevent them from inflating the economy with bank credit. However, a 100% reserve ratio would cause banks to raise interest rates and give out less loans, so if such a move is not accompanied by mass charity or interest-free credit, then it will harm the social mobility of the middle-class along with bank profits.

    • There is also the difficulty of enforcing a 100% reserve ratio, since it requires all bank books to be transparent to authorities at all times. In my opinion, the best way to enforce a 100% reserve ratio is to remove FDIC insurance and ensure that bank credit is always exchangeable for gold or silver, since then people will be more inclined to remove their gold/silver from the bank (compared to intrinsically worthless paper dollars). When people are more inclined to remove their gold/silver deposits from the banks (and the government doesn’t insure bank deposits), then banks must maintain a higher reserve ratio (not necessarily 100% though) because if they run out of exchangeable funds, then their depositors will panic and no longer trust them to safeguard their gold/silver (bank runs would probably eventually cause untrustworthy banks to collapse, unless those banks manage to quell the bank run by promising future payments plus interest on deposits, but it is still important that governments don’t rescue those banks). Of course, some sort of complementary money system would still be necessary, otherwise people couldn’t opt-out of bank credit money without experiencing deflation.

      • The problem of Gold is it’s all in the hands of the same people that run the current printing presses. So it would be up to them to either flood or deflate the market with their gold holdings.

        • apollonian permalink

          Anthony: u forget gold isn’t the only commodity, it’s just preferable as most practical, most widely accepted, that’s all. U want freedom and prosperity?–then u MUST have commodity money, gold being best, but not the only thing. Remove commodity money and u get dictatorship and eventually genocide–it’s what’s going on now w. AGENDA-21 “de-population.” Commodity money is a veritable WEAPON of freedom–get a clue.

          • Dark Dirk permalink

            Have you actually seen gold coin in your life ?

    • Well, Usury is the foundation of rents, and all rent seeking should be combated in my view. So sparing land rents is certainly not a good excuse in my book!

      It’s not for nothing that Full Reserve Banking is so prevalent amongst ‘reform’ proposals. Undoubtedly a lot of energy was put into spreading this idea as ‘opposition’.

      • I agree with the criticism that gold is a tool of the elite, although if the elite actually put their gold into circulation via exchangeable notes, then they would probably be very restrictive with their credit. If they actually put gold into circulation too liberally, then they could lose it, so I doubt they would. I also doubt that a 100% reserve ratio will ever be enforced, but it too would restrict credit. In my opinion, both a return to gold and enforcement of a 100% reserve ratio are deflationary via restricting the credit behind booms, but that having bank credit/notes be exchangeable for physical gold/silver is the best mechanism for restricting bank credit. Of course, restricting bank credit is only desirable IF there is a trustworthy alternative that works to end poverty and reduce the demand for bank credit (loans plus interest). Hence the push for alternatives (MPE, social credit, social credit plus demurrage, government greenbacks, local currencies) by those who see the flaws of the monetary position of Austrian Economics/commodity money advocates. Of course, there is a very strong logic behind Austrian Economics/commodity money advocates, and that is that nature controls quantity of money (inflation possible), instead of having an arbitrary man-made fiat currency (tends to inflate). Even if you disagree with commodity money advocates, they are neither irrational nor illogical, although they might be dogmatic, short-sighted, or close-minded at times.

        On another note, I don’t quite agree with your criticism of land rents. Obviously it sucks to have to pay land rents (especially to a bank at interest or to a lazy landlord) and so it’s easy to get sucked onto the anti-land rent bandwagon, but I think that one particular land rent, property tax, is absolutely essential. Property tax is the most easily enforced tax because if someone tries to evade it, then the whereabouts of the tax evader’s property (and probably the evader himself) is known. (All other taxes – income, sales, etc. – are more easily evaded.) Since it is so easily enforced, I doubt that it will ever be abolished because governments and their creditors love money. What’s more, the rich can benefit from property taxes if cash-strapped landowners are forced to sell or take out a loan, so some elites will probably always support the property tax. I would go on to argue that the property tax is essential because it guarantees that land will be held by productive members of society (productivity measured by ability to pay low property taxes). Those inadequately productive members of society who own land would have to either become adequately productive or sell/mortgage their land. It is essential that those who own land (the bourgeois, since land = essential component of the means of production), are productive. Whichever monetary instrument (silver, gold, greenbacks, bank credit, etc.) is used by the government to measure and collect property taxes, it will be necessary for land-owners (the bourgeois) to obtain that instrument (silver, gold, greenbacks, credit, etc.) in order to pay their property taxes. However, if a monetary instrument is used for property tax, it can still be mistrusted and treated as worthless (thereby depreciating) by the bourgeois, since as the owners of production, they can raise prices.

        Property taxes cease to be a problem if they are kept low and if there is a money system that eliminates poverty, because then property taxes would be affordable for anyone productive enough to buy a house. Getting rid of the property tax is a tax cut for the rich/bourgeois and removes an incentive for selling land (thus making forced land redistribution look dangerously attractive – bad news for stability). Yet excessive property taxes are also bad because they ultimately raise prices and make land ownership more difficult to attain.

  8. Kevin Moore permalink

    As all “money” is issued as an interest bearing debt, can a debt be called money?

    Can a debt be paid with the presentation of another debt?

    What is real money?

    • Kevin Moore permalink

      I suppose in answer to my last question – “what is real money” I could ask, what is it that parasites need to enable them to survive?

      • usury and money scarcity and the boom/bust cycle are the main issues, I guess……

        Credit is a good basis for money, it’s the usury that is the problem. Interest-free credit is one of the ways forward.

        • Kevin Moore permalink

          In my opinion,

          Non usury taking tokens [money] representing wealth as an outcome of productive work should only be obtainable as credit via the use of promissory notes/negotiable instruments or via a straight exchange value for value for ones productive effort.

        • Dark Dirk permalink

          What are the causes of usury, money scarcity and the boom/bust cycle ?
          What is the “cost price” of mutual credit facility ? Do I have to pay it monthly ?

    • apollonian permalink

      Note money is necessarily commodity–why?–because how otherwise could/would the transition be made fm the straight barter economy?

      Anthony suffers as he hasn’t even basic idea of what money is–a money economy is not essentially diff. fm simple, primitive barter–exchange of straight-forward value for value.

      Thus best commodity money is gold/silver (either-or, or even both)–but ANY commodity could theoretically serve. Gold/silver are best and most used for practical purposes.

      Thus when a good, productive business-person accumulates lots of this real, commodity money, he stores it in a ware-house, which money ware-house is called, “bank.” The bank then issues a receipt, which receipt can be used and exchanged long as the parties have confidence in the bank.

      Unscrupulous banks/bankers (as humans are sinners) thus begin to issue receipts which aren’t backed by the real thing–note this is COUNTERFEITING, and it’s what Anthony is all about, trying to get away fm the free-market, freedom, and real money–commodity-based.

      Interest charged upon the illegitimately proliferated (COUNTERFEITED) receipts is obviously a problem, BUT note it’s mere side-issue to the fraudulent, COUNTERFEITED receipt-money.

      Otherwise, charging of interest is mere matter of free contract. If u want to borrow money in competitive economy, payment of interest is simply incentive for lender to lend–obviously.

      Fascists and dictators LOVE Anthony as he provides pretext for COUNTERFEITING–which is what we have now in US Federal Reserve Bank (“Fed”)–as Anthony just babbles incessantly without defining terms, like “money” and “usury” which usury is more than just charging interest, as noted.

      • apollonian permalink

        Oh–and the other thing is commodity money, like gold/silver, is always perfectly sufficient for quantity, as if some begin to hoard, the remaining specie gains in buying-power (value)–obviously. Anthony just isn’t going to accept any reality which doesn’t conform to his wishful thinking and endless babbling.

      • Listen Apollonian, I’m going to let this comment up, but next time, please show some basic courtesy and skip the adolescent insults: this is my page and I don’t want to deal with people who can’t behave, ok?

        Money is anything that is agreed upon as a means of exchange.
        Usury is interest on loans of money.

        It is not that I haven’t defined them untold times, it is that you assume you don’t have to read anything on this blog before you open your big mouth. You don’t know my positions, not because I haven’t shared them, but because you haven’t read them. That is your good right, but it does imply forfeiting the privilege of partaking in the ongoing dialogue on these pages.

        Austrianism was invented by the Trillionaires to have guys like you proudly proclaim COUNTERFEITING.

        Here’s how they did it and the rational response to it:

        • apollonian permalink

          I read ur stuff cited regarding G. North–it’s just more of ur incessant psycho-babble.

          I’ll agree money is a COMMODITY, necessarily, which people agree to use as medium of exchange, unit of account, etc. And gold/silver are best, most widely used, commodities for this money–this is the ONLY thing, commodity money, which people have ever significantly (on large scale) VOLUNTARILY agreed upon–NOTHING ELSE, because anything else was ALWAYS forced upon people–which u refuse to face.

          Commodity money cannot be COUNTERFEITED; it has intrinsic value, a necessity for medium of exchange, obviously. This legalized COUNTERFEITING (by the Fed), leading to inflation, is what’s happening now, the very problem.

          Usury is NOT mere charging of interest, and u cannot prove, demonstrate, or substantiate this claim of urs–u just mindlessly repeat it over and over. Charging of interest (or not) is the right of parties to contract in a free society–which freedom is ur big problem, all truth be told.

          And so it comes down to ur mindless insistence there’s some other kind of money aside fm commodity-money–which the fascists love to hear, BECAUSE it’s the pretext for their COUNTERFEIT schemes–charging interest is mere side-issue.

          And the reason fascists/statists want to get away fm commodity money is so they can spend without limit, the issuing of evermore replicated, proliferated receipt-money a way of taxing the people without their consent. Fascists/statists love people like u, Anthony–have u ever wondered why?

          The only way to replace commodity money is by means of dictatorship–this is what u always, so conveniently overlook, what ur continuous psycho-babble is meant to obfuscate. And u don’t demonstrate u actually KNOW anything about the Austrian school, u merely asserting and babbling, as usual. U have a lot of gall complaining about me.

          • well apollonian, if you prefer to continue paying 300k on a 200k mortgage, lose 40% of your income to usury even if you have zero debts, want to be willfully blind to Bankers writing Austrianism and play insulted just because you got fooled once more, than who am I to stop you?

          • apollonian permalink

            It’s not a matter of “preferring” to paying . . . , etc.–it’s matter of acting within a free market, within a free society of rule-of-law, and then simply doing the best one can do, choosing among alternatives, etc.–such are conditions of freedom and free-market. Economics is founded upon jurisprudence–u want to “game” the system, the reason for ur voluminous babbling.

            In a free market people use commodity money for the obvious reasons, and only dictatorship can prevent this–which difficult and stubborn fact u want to slough over.

            And Anthony, we notice u cannot support ur insistence upon usury being mere same thing as charging-of-interest. Also, we see, as usual, u don’t support ur statements on “Austrianism.” I don’t say I’m insulted, really. I just compare ur complaints to ur own actions and statements, that’s all.

          • If we are forced to use gold (or any other specific commodity), that is still fiat (fiat = a formal authorization or proposition; a decree). Whichever monetary instrument the government uses to measure and collect taxes (especially property taxes) will be de facto fiat money, even if it is not officially legal tender The only way to completely avoid “fiat” money is if the government accepts all commodities (and even services) for taxes, which would be incredibly inconvenient. Unless all commodities and services are accepted in payment for taxes, then the desire to return to commodity money is the desire to switch to a different fiat money system, but a fiat money system nonetheless.

          • apollonian permalink

            TM: “fiat” money is defined, I’m pretty sure, as what we have now–notes that cannot be exchanged for the real money, gold or silver. But as long as legal tender laws hold, u can buy real stuff, though inflation reduces the value. And that’s the problem w. any fiat (hence non-commodity) money: the people are defrauded and taxed without their consent.

            Gold/silver don’t need legal-tender laws, and all the gov. properly does is define the “dollar” according to whatever weight/mass of the real thing.

          • apollonian permalink

            I meant “TR,” sorry.

          • Greenbacker84 permalink

            As soon as the bankers/state declare gold to be money its every bit as ‘fiat’ as paper.
            Any legal tender is fiat including gold.
            Yes the people are defrauded and taxed; the price inflation you speak of is constant interest multiplying the cost of commerce and who have to raise prices to stay afloat.

            There is no ‘freedom to choose’ so long as banks are intervening on the issuance of our promissory contracts, laundering them, falsifying debt to themselves and charging interest. All private banks do this, the Central Bank is just the head of the snake.

          • Greenbacker84 permalink

            Long story short, so long as banks have the authority to steal our promissory contracts (gold/paper, makes no difference) falsify a debt to themselves and impose interest (in every pretended loan/mortgage), there is no ‘free market’.

          • apollonian permalink

            “Greenbacker”: u are sooooooo confused w. buzz-words, prop. and babble, it’s hard to make any sense out of ur text.

            But what the rational person wants is a free society, hence we must begin w. rule-of-law–economics is based upon the legal system. And in this basic free society (theoretical as it is, one admits) u have commodity money, period. U don’t need gov. to pass “legal tender”–gov. should do nothing, basically, but protect the society and individuals, and uphold contracts.

            Hence, again, in nature there’s only commodity money, and no gov. institutes this–only enforces the contracts based thereupon. Commodity-money is the natural default mode of economics, though it is possible that people will try other methods–such is the way of a free society and -market.

            U must understand though, that there’s always going to be sin among humans, and unscrupulous bankers will sometimes & inevitably issue supposed receipt-money which isn’t backed–it’s the condition of free societies.

            The more a fraudulent bank does this (fraudulent issuing of un-backed receipts), the closer it gets to inevitable bankruptcy. And when the holders of such criminal bank’s receipts find out they’re no good (when the bank goes bust), they find they’re out for whatever wealth they imagined they had–so they’re “depressed,” get it?

            But the only way such depression can overtake the large society is if a bank, private or not, now a “central” bank, CONTROLS (monopolizes) the issuance of money in general, this typically by means of “legal-tender” laws–this is not a free society, as it’s now in thrall to a criminal enterprise like legalized COUNTERFEITING of such a “central bank,” private or not–like our present Fed.

            So in the truly free society (which is mostly theoretical), whence individual criminals inevitably arise, u can have bankruptcies, but not entire economy-wide depressions. Only in a dictatorship do u have non-commodity money forced upon the citizenry–why?–because the criminals in charge want to practice COUNTERFEITING, thus the phenomenon known as “inflation” whence the people are taxed without consent, and the gov. is allowed to spend without limit–until of course, the entire system goes bust.

            So, in conclusion “fiat money” depends upon legal tender laws, but REAL money (commodity) doesn’t need such legal tender status as in the free society and market. Commodity money is the default mode, so to speak. It’s idiotic to say gold or silver (commodity money) is “fiat,” as that would obviously be superfluous and un-necessary.

          • Greenbacker84 permalink

            “Greenbacker”: u are sooooooo confused w. buzz-words, prop. and babble, it’s hard to make any sense out of ur text.

            “But what the rational person wants is a free society, hence we must begin w. rule-of-law–economics is based upon the legal system. And in this basic free society (theoretical as it is, one admits) u have commodity money, period. U don’t need gov. to pass “legal tender”–gov. should do nothing, basically, but protect the society and individuals, and uphold contracts.”

            Orly? Please point out to me a monetary system in nature. Last I checked bonobos don’t use money only humans. Secondly most societies do NOT use gold its not even found in most places on earth. Governments and contracts are also not found in nature but we are where we are.
            Besides there cannot be a free society where BANKS STEAL OUR promissory notes. When the issuing power is taken from the people and handed to money changers you have SLAVERY.

            “Hence, again, in nature there’s only commodity money, and no gov. institutes this–only enforces the contracts based thereupon. Commodity-money is the natural default mode of economics, though it is possible that people will try other methods–such is the way of a free society and -market.”

            Again in nature there is no money. Money is a product of society and mankind trading between each other please stop embarrassing yourself. We have examples of promissory notes going all the way back to babylon.

            “U must understand though, that there’s always going to be sin among humans, and unscrupulous bankers will sometimes & inevitably issue supposed receipt-money which isn’t backed–it’s the condition of free societies.”

            No ones denying ‘sin’. You yourself worship the golden calf. Th problem is THEFT is BAKED INTO the system via the theft of our promissory contracts.
            In a ‘free society’ people would NOT be FORCED to hand over their promissory notes to banks for publication. They would issue it THEMSELVES without interest.

            “The more a fraudulent bank does this (fraudulent issuing of un-backed receipts), the closer it gets to inevitable bankruptcy. And when the holders of such criminal bank’s receipts find out they’re no good (when the bank goes bust), they find they’re out for whatever wealth they imagined they had–so they’re “depressed,” get it?”

            All banks are fraudulent. All banks are laundering our promissory notes, falsifying debt to themselves and compounding our debts with interest. They are fake, pretend lenders. WE the people create money.

            “But the only way such depression can overtake the large society is if a bank, private or not, now a “central” bank, CONTROLS (monopolizes) the issuance of money in general, this typically by means of “legal-tender” laws–this is not a free society, as it’s now in thrall to a criminal enterprise like legalized COUNTERFEITING of such a “central bank,” private or not–like our present Fed.”

            Yes they have taken the power to issue our money, the solution is to RESTORE the issuing power to the people. Trying to impose a gold standard which the VERY SAME banks/central banks/plutocrats own would be a complete waste of time. We don’t need their rocks to trade among each other its a parasitical way of siphoning wealth from our trade, restricting and controlling it as THEY see fit.

            “So in the truly free society (which is mostly theoretical), whence individual criminals inevitably arise, u can have bankruptcies, but not entire economy-wide depressions. Only in a dictatorship do u have non-commodity money forced upon the citizenry–why?–because the criminals in charge want to practice COUNTERFEITING, thus the phenomenon known as “inflation” whence the people are taxed without consent, and the gov. is allowed to spend without limit–until of course, the entire system goes bust.”

            Again in free society the issuing power would be restored to the people. We would not NEED to borrow anything from any bank, faux creditor money changer. They ‘counter fitting’ is the laundering of our very own promissory notes backed by our labour and production.
            IN a free society the banker debts would be CANCELLED as they are based upon contract fraud (the obligor created the money; the bank is just a publisher of the evidence)

            You talk of inflation…Which? Volumetric or price?
            Price inflation is CAUSED by interest. Interest is an artificial COST imposed our money supply by the banking system. If volumetric we can only have DEFLATION as only principal is issued but we are paying compound interest on a supply consisting only of interest. Its this constant deflation that leads to artificial inflation via QE (for the bankers alone).

            “So, in conclusion “fiat money” depends upon legal tender laws, but REAL money (commodity) doesn’t need such legal tender status as in the free society and market. Commodity money is the default mode, so to speak. It’s idiotic to say gold or silver (commodity money) is “fiat,” as that would obviously be superfluous and un-necessary.”

            As has been pointed out to you neither I, nor millions of people, nor corporations, nor suppliers have any use whatsoever for shiny yellow rocks to conduct trade. If you want to SPECULATE on commodities that is your right in a ‘free’ society.

            To claim society ‘needs’ gold to function is a sign you’ve lost the plot completely. Id stop buying into the PAY-TRIOT movement spiel and wake up. They evade the issuance of our promissory notes and condone (greater!) levels of usury.
            These people are SALESMEN trying take your ‘useless fiat’ for their ‘precious gold’ 🙂

          • Dark Dirk permalink

            Gold and Silver also was forced over people. They tried to use copper and nickel in time of gold and silver shortage, remeber ? Money are a means of exchange. Actually money is whatever government declares is money.

          • apollonian permalink

            “Dirk”: this is false–commodity money (gold/silver being the best) doesn’t need such “forcing” in a free market. And there is no such thing as “shortage” of such commodity money, for if quantity of gold in circulation goes down, the buying power (value) of what remains goes up, NECESSARILY. So if too much commodity-money goes out of circulation, the price of what remains gets so high it’s now incentive for the hoarders to spend their gold back into circulation.

            Note gov. in free society has and should have NOTHING whatever to do w. money; it should simply enforce contracts the citizens freely make w. one another, that’s all. Whenever gov. declares what’s money, as by “legal tender” laws–THAT’S DICTATORSHIP, the very hallmark thereto.

          • Dark Dirk permalink

            No, raising prices are not “incentive for the hoarders to spend their gold back into circulation”. It is incentive for other participants to go to hoarders and get loans at interest, because they expect to make big profit. Clever hoarders always lend, because if loan is not returned they will collect the collateral. The risk is lower when you lend, and higher when you invest, because you can lost your investment, but laws protects yours loan.

            Of course government declares what is money. And that is NOT dictatorship. Government provide services like army, roads, heath-care, order laws and police to inforce them. That services have to be payed in some way. The easiest way is to declare a legal tender and you have to pay your taxes in that legal tender. Free market of currencies means chaos. I do not want to live in such country.


          • apollonian permalink

            Ok Dirk: we’ve both made our cases–and u supplied a source, BUT can u briefly summarize what the source says, in ur own words?

          • Dark Dirk permalink

            In one sentence “government declares what to be used as money”. If government declares that money is paper, so paper is money, if it declares gold, gold is money, if it declares shells, shells is money. It is important what is written in laws, and what currency government collects as taxes. Gold was used as money, because it is rare and do not rust, but nobody uses it today, because it is heavy and inconvenient. Do you imagine yourself caring a bag of gold to the supermarket ? Gold is just a metal, it does not have intrinsic value. Value is imaginary thing.

            Of course there is bitcoin, but it is attractive, because you can mine it. When the desired amount is reached, and bitcoins become concentrated in a few people, it will lost his value, because nobody forces you to use it. If government forces you to pay taxes in bitcoins, well it will become real currency, not temporary one.

          • apollonian permalink

            Dirk: if this is what ur source says, then it’s just nonsense. When u say “government declares what to be used as money,” u should have said DICTATORSHIP, rather than gov. Money is properly what the people/market choose–proper gov. then merely protects that choice–anything else is dictatorship. Gold is still money, but criminal gov.s don’t “use” it becaue they want to (legally) COUNTERFEIT the paper notes, spend endlessly, and tax the people without their consent, as I noted. Gold has no intrinsic value?–this is nonsense and u’re just nuts. If u don’t want ur gold, pls give it to me. Ho ho ho ho

          • Dark Dirk permalink

            Gold is just a metal. It’s value fluctuates a lot. It depends of how many idiots think at certain moment that it has intrinsic value. The same is happening with bitcoin. It’s just digits. Of course profits goes to those who know how to manipulate market and play the game. The others, like you, are just sheep who follows them.

          • apollonian permalink

            Dirk: gold is a commodity–if u think of it a THE money standard, u see it doesn’t fluctuate–EVERYTHING else “fluctuates” according to it. Gold only “fluctuates” according to something else which is used as standard. If u take fiat currencies, ho ho ho–gold ALWAYS goes up up up in value as these fiat standards are ALWAYS inflated–that’s the purpose of fiat currencies: so that the “powers” spend, spend, spend, the people taxed by inflation without their consent.

            So u see: this is why fascists/statists LOVE ur propaganda (and ignorance) against commodity standard–they want to move to fiat standard, and use ur and Anthony’s psycho-babble for excuse and prop.

            And Dirk: u urself are for dictatorship if u want to prevent lenders charging interest–that’s what u don’t want to admit. U only fool weak minds, like ur own.

          • Dark Dirk permalink

            Santa, do you imagine yourself to go to the supermarket and carry a bag of gold to pay ? Or you want me to use gold “backed” counterfeit papers ? I you are for gold standard you have to be ready to carry gold coins around with you, because I will NOT accept your COUNTERFEIT papers witch “represens” your gold. And actually I will NOT accept any payment in gold, because I have to pay my taxes with the official county currency. You can take your gold and put it in your black hole. I will do NOT do business with gold. And I doubt that you have any gold, you are just ready to give your ass to those who have.I do not have any, and I do NOT agree ti use gold as money. How you are going to make me take it ? You will declare gold standard ? That is DICTATORSHIP of gold owners.

          • apollonian permalink

            Dirk of murk: u’re just babbling. And In a free society u don’t have to accept receipt-money if u don’t want to. Legal-tender laws are for fiat-money to be FORCED on an un-willing people.

            Don’t u get it?–commodity money is the default mode of economics–it doesn’t need dictatorship to force the people. Anything other than commodity money requires dictatorship–what I’ve been trying to get across to Anthony. Get a clue.

          • Value is subjective.

      • That definition of fiat (paper money) is very common, but very very narrow. Fiat is from the Latin “let it be done,” and it means an arbitrary order or decree. If we switched back to gold tomorrow, it would be a result of an arbitrary decree – fiat. If your concern is government tyranny, then you should consider how fiat gold systems can also be harmful – and they can be, hence William Jennings Bryan’s “cross of gold” speech.

        A return to gold would hurt the millions of people who do not have gold, since a return to gold would destroy the purchasing power of the money that is currently in everyone’s pockets, while benefiting only those that have gold. I’m not optimistic about bimetallism (gold and silver), since economists of the 19th century built up an intellectual canon that decreed that gold monometallism is superior to bimetallism (for an example, see historian W.A. Shaw’s “History of Currency, 1252-1896”

        I agree with many of your criticisms against paper/digital fiat money, such as the tendency of banks/governments to arbitrarily emit new money, as well as the inflationary tendency (hidden tax) of arbitrary paper/digital fiat money. I think those criticisms are rational, logical and valid. However, it is possible for gold/silver money systems to inflate (Mansa Musa single-handedly inflated gold in the 14th century – (Or in the Spanish Empire –, even though the tendency of gold is to deflation. Inflation and deflation of prices can happen with any money system, which is just something important to note. I don’t think it’s wise to put any monetary system on a pedestal because they can all be destabilized under certain conditions. For example, if we returned to gold and started mining space rocks for gold, the mining companies (and the mint) would still have some arbitrary control over the money supply.

        As for deflation, which is typically seen during bank credit restriction/economic busts, Austrian Economists tend to pretend that this is not a real problem because technically/theoretically, prices can always go lower, thus bringing more money into circulation – the ideal situation. Unfortunately, deflation is also accompanied by an increased psychological desire to save and by sticky prices (, which undermines the ideal situation described above. Moreover, falling prices means less revenue by face value (even if revenue as measured by purchasing power remains the same or grows) and lower wages. This is a huge problem for debtors, including the government (the biggest debtor of them all) and most businesses, since the face value of debts does not change during deflation. The real value of debts (by purchasing power) actually grows during deflation. (Perhaps this explains the sticky prices and increased desire to save during economic busts.) Thus deflation makes repaying debts immensely more difficult, which in turn leads to defaulting debtors, foreclosure and restriction of bank credit. You might not care if you are not a debtor, but mass defaults can do major damage to the economy. For example, there will be less jobs if indebted businesses close. If there were no debtors in the economy, then the deflationary tendency of gold would not be nearly as much of a problem. Unfortunately, there are millions of debtors, plus the government, so when deflation hits, inflationary government policies tend to become very popular and very difficult to suppress.

        It is my opinion that the real problem in gold monetary systems is not gold itself, but the bank credit system (“usury”) that historically piggy-backs off of precious metal monetary systems. It is bank credit that creates the millions of debtors that undermine the aforementioned ideal resolution of deflation under a gold money system. The only way to reduce the power of bank credit/usury is to reduce the demand for loans, but gold alone does not do that. (Gold plus widespread charity could though.) What’s more, gold is ultimately controlled by the small number of people who own gold. If those people don’t spend more during deflation, then deflation continues – and it is ultimately their choice to spend, since market factors aren’t forcing them to spend (just encouraging them to spend). The holders of gold are also the ones that must be the most charitable, since they have the greatest capacity to give. (Explaining Jesus’ hyperbolic pressure on the rich to be charitable.)

        One last note: even if we have paper/digital fiat money, you can still own precious metals. You can even still trade commodity for commodity in the private market, since I doubt governments will ever be able to enforce a “no bartering” law. Paper/digital fiat money even has a perk: you don’t have to give any of your precious metals to the government when the tax man comes knocking.

        I think the assumption of most paper/digital fiat advocates is that if the majority of us agree to use something as money, then it’s fair, commodity or not. You might not agree, but you’ll grow your mind if you truly try to understand alternate monetary positions, rather than brushing them off as babble.

        • apollonian permalink

          TR: u’re simply missing the pt.–without commodity money the society is subject to criminals legalistically COUNTERFEITING the so-called “alternative,” as u put it–this legalized COUNTERFEITING is what’s going on right now.

          Get a clue: there is no “alternative” to commodity money, PERIOD–u’re just dreaming in cloud-cuckoo land, rendering urself subject to fraud by con-artists. U’re the one who needs to “grow” ur mind–and getting real.

          • You’re manipulating the definition of counterfeiting.

            Right now we have an imperfect yet functioning paper/digital money system, so to claim that there is “no ‘alternative’ to commodity money, PERIOD” is undeniably false. (Unless you consider that paper is technically a commodity.)

          • apollonian permalink

            TR: u speak falsely–I’m NOT “manipulating”–it’s literally what’s going on–the Fed is simply, literally, legalized COUNTERFEITING, PERIOD. Get a clue. If u or I did what the Fed does, we’d be prosecuted–for COUNTERFEITING.

            Sure, the “alternative” to justice, honesty, and truth is criminality–and suckers go for it. So what’s happening now is ever-greater inflation, the people being robbed–as u know perfectly well by the otherwise well-informed text u’ve already written. The criminal scam known as the Fed has now been in operation for 100 yrs, but it’s coming to a head.

            There’s no healthy, honest alternative to commodity money, for sure. The people over at and tell u what’s going on for all the juicy details. Even is good for pertinent details.

          • Dark Dirk permalink

            How many times are you going to repeat your mantra “COUNTERFEITING”, Santa ? May be you are going to go to the super market and buy good with GOLD COINS ? I just cannot picture that, I doubt that you will do this. If you think that you live in dictaitorship, may be you have to leave your country and go to a free one.

          • Just answer this one question for me, Apollonian:

            Do you believe that it is *impossible* for paper/digital money to benefit humanity as a whole? (Keep in mind that there are many different ways that paper/digital money can be put into circulation and managed.)

          • apollonian permalink

            TR: receipt-money, which can be in form of paper notes, is perfectly legitimate, and this can also be digitalized. BUT, u gotta remember it must be backed w. the REAL thing–the commodity.

            Further, u must remember that it’s inevitable that criminals will arise–as humans are sinners–who will issue phony receipts, and this will cause problems, though they won’t be fatal to the whole system.

            Otherwise, the only money is commodity money, necessarily, by definition.

            Finally TR: remember Greek TRAGEDY and the basic nature of human life–it sucks–and there’s always going to be hardship, sinfulness, and criminals who arise and try to sucker the poor people.

            And these criminals always begin by telling folks, “hey, didja hear the latest?–I’ve found a short-cut to prosperity and happiness….” It’s like the politician advocating passing a law to institute mandatory prosperity and happiness; anyone who refuses to be happy will be jailed. It’s like the comedian Gallagher who wanted to stamp-out stupidity.

            There’s no getting away fm commodity money as the basic, necessary thing, PERIOD. And u can’t do away w. this commodity money without dictatorship which will end in perdition and tragedy, regardless. Such is life.

          • I agree with you regarding the problems with human nature, although I don’t think any sane person would try to “do away with commodity money” and I don’t think that any insane dictator who tries could ever succeed.

          • apollonian permalink

            Well, look at things now: u’re absolutely right–they’re not “succeeding” (in a certain way)–though, if u consider, they don’t really care about that. For what they’re really after is POWER–and they have quite enough of that to do what they REALLY want–EXTERMINATE a good part of humanity–which is their avowed program, AGENDA-21 “de-population.”

            And observe they’re quite successful in this genocide–by slow-kill, soft-kill methods–by means of poison fluoride in the water supplies (in many places still), toxic vaccines, poison GMO foods and poison additives, like aspartame and MSG, poison “chem-trails,” drugging of the population, including 20% of the school-kids, and lately micro-wave and nuclear contamination (Fukushima, among other problems).

            Their object is POWER, the pretext is “prosperity and happiness,” but their real object–at least, the object of the real satanic powers behind things–is death and destruction, and it looks like they may well succeed to a great extent.

          • Let’s say those things are true (though I’m no scientist or insider so I cannot know). Isn’t the philosophy of Adam Smith and commodity money advocates also concerned with “prosperity and happiness?” (Adam Smith was concerned with the “nature and causes of the wealth of nations” after all.)

            If humanity is facing near-extermination, wouldn’t a money system that empowers the poor/middle-class majority be very useful for preventing such a near-extermination?

            Those conspiracy theories are terrorizing and if they are true, then ignoring them is a fatal error. However, if those conspiracies are not true, it is important that our reactions to them don’t create new/different problems. When driven by fear, people are easily manipulated by tyrants. Inflation and deflation are both fears to consider.

            Be critical of digital/paper money advocates (as you are already doing), for they might be tyrants in wait. Yet understand that the fear of digital/paper money advocates is deflation, which is a real danger if we return to gold without helping the poor and forgiving debts.

            But be equally critical of the gold standard, for gold advocacy is also driven by fear… fear of inflation (also a real danger). I think it would be naïve to deny that there are gold bugs who have likewise established power as their object.

            Tell me, which commodity(s) do you wish were money and accepted in payment for taxes?

          • Also, Jesus Christ is the Light and the Way (IMO). When considering how to react to those conspiracies, I have found that the philosophy of Christ has been the most enlightening and necessary world view.

          • apollonian permalink

            Agreed about Christ. We MUST get back to commodity-money standard ASAP; of course we need other things too, like huge cuts in spending, esp. military-ind. complex spending, huge, major removal of the various regulations and regulatory complex which causes needless waste–just like Ron Paul advocates–see

            For info on all the items I listed for how ZOG is mass-murdering people, just ck the info at and Use the search engine there (at Jones’ sites) to ck out all the massive documentation he has for all the items I detailed–we’re being murdered–by slow-kill methods, even as we speak.

          • Didn’t Christ cast the silver bugs out of the temple?

          • But which commodity(s)?

          • apollonian permalink

            TR: ANY commodities–all u’re looking for is PRACTICALITY. As I note above, in another entry, gold is traditional, best known, and widely accepted, but there’s also silver too. Metals are good as they’re DURABLE for changing hands. Scarcity, hence the precious quality, makes for easy portability. This isn’t rocket-science–u can ck lots of good expositions on money at and–or even

          • Our country went into receivership to the private banks because they couldn’t pay the interest on a GOLD standard in the FDR administration. The private banks demanded payment of the debt en toto in Gold. This is why our money today is a lien hypothecated instrument. Anything we buy with it actually belongs to the private banks. It is also why our property can be taxed when pay in full.

          • But then what do those countries without gold/silver use for money?

            My study of history has led me to conclude that commodity money systems (such as cowrie shells in Africa or the silver standard in Medieval Europe) tend to be replaced by the gold standard over time (due to idolization of gold by the ruling class). When gold becomes the only commodity decreed to be money (and accepted in payment for taxes) by the government, then any other commodity (e.g. silver) that had previously served as money, will necessarily be demonetized. This is robbery and the Free Silver Movement of 19th century America is a perfect example of the anger that such a move to gold monometallism would provoke.

            This is the ultimate problem of commodity money: which commodity shall be money? Which commodity(s) will be accepted by the government for taxes? This is a huge point of conflict between commodity money advocates that you are not addressing. If you do not vehemently defend the monetized status of silver, then holders of silver will be back-stabbed by gold monometallists. “Commodity money” is not a cohesive movement; it will turn on itself once it has to address this point of conflict. Gold monometallists are not friends of commodity money advocates in general, because gold monometallists do not want other commodities (silver, crops, goods, etc.) to be money.

            Finally, I don’t see the connection between scarcity and portability. Portability is concerned with total weight and bulk of your money, not its scarcity. I get that if something is scarce, then less of it will buy more, but that doesn’t automatically make it portable.

          • apollonian permalink

            I’d say u’re just mis-reading history. Gold is merely the best commodity for money, that’s all, as I note. But any other commodity could work–it’s just matter of practicality. So if a nation doesn’t have gold, it merely exchanges whatever other commodity it can produce. U’re just contriving problems within ur own mind, I’d say.

            Note also, economics is necessarily founded upon ur legal system–u want prosperity?–institute a free society and -market–regardless of any question/issue of economics or currency. Reason and freedom bring prosperity–that’s the great lesson of history, I’d say.

          • apollonian permalink

            pm permalink

            “Didn’t Christ cast the silver bugs out of the temple?”

            PM: u bring up an excellent pt. According to the gospels, I believe, this incident w. the “money-changers” was specific reason the Pharisees and Sadducees decided Christ had to die–interfering w. bankers being huge no-no, eh?

          • apollonian permalink

            pm permalink

            “Our country went into receivership to the private banks because they couldn’t pay the interest on a GOLD standard in the FDR administration. The private banks demanded payment of the debt en toto in Gold….”

            PM: u must understand, it wasn’t full “gold standard”–only partially. Note the US Federal Reserve Bank (“Fed”), legalized COUNTERFEIT scam was already in place by 1913, and the plan was to transition to a fully fiat currency (as now). The Fed notes were legal tender, but the balance-of-payments btwn nations was done in gold–all the way up to 1971. Best expo on this is Griffin’s “The Creature From Jekyll Island.”

          • Before the receivership the dollar was redeemable fully in gold. Griffin is not a reliable source for monetary history. He does not give an honest account of interest free fiat and that is because he is a libertarian goldbug.

          • Reason and a free society are essential, but I still think you have a dogmatic Panglossian optimism regarding gold. You say your concern is practicality, but you refuse to see how gold can be and has been impractical in various historical circumstances. At times, gold monometallism has even been antithetical to freedom (Free Silver Movement). Your refusal to see the flaws of gold is your right (that’s freedom), but its not an example of reason.

          • apollonian permalink

            “…[B]ut you refuse to see how gold can be and has been impractical in various historical circumstances. At times, gold monometallism has even been antithetical to freedom (Free Silver Movement).” -TR

            TR: u just don’t know what u’re talking about (again): gold is PROVEN most practical commodity money.

            What “historical circumstances” are u talking about?–ho ho ho. Specify and substantiate ur otherwise empty and groundless assertion.

            “Free silver”?–are u referring to the turn of 19th to 20th cent in USA, championed by W.J. Bryan? ho ho ho–this is all nonsense and prop., as pushed by Bill Still ( This “free silver” nonsense was the claim at time when USA was averaging about 3-4% annual rise in productivity per year–an INCREDIBLE achievement, w. living standards rising dramatically.

            As I recall, “free silver” was the demand of the western farmers who were very powerful interest group at the time, and they imagined they’d be helped. But fact was then that other countries were becoming quite productive too, esp. Argentina at the time, and American farmers’ prices were going down–silver wasn’t going to help them.

            So that’s all political prop. by Bill Still which u’re here repeating like a parrot to push a false thesis, that’s all.

            Quit looking for contrivances and stick w. principle of freedom and free-market–that’s ur best course. Economics is dependent upon the legal system, never forget. A free society is best guarantee of prosperity.

          • Your dogmatism is sickening.

            “gold is PROVEN most practical commodity money.” – yet you offer no proof.

            “This “free silver” nonsense was the claim at time when USA was averaging about 3-4% annual rise in productivity per year–an INCREDIBLE achievement, w. living standards rising dramatically.” – ever hear the phrase “Guilded Age?” You clearly don’t understand that a rise in GDP (how productivity is measured) does not automatically increase living standards for everybody.

            You do know that the Free Silver movement had a very strong internal logic and happened long before Bill Still was born, right? Just because someone explains the logic of the Free Silver Movement, does not mean that they are parroting Bill Still. Bill did not invent the Free Silver Movement a century after it happened.

            ““free silver” was the demand of the western farmers who were very powerful interest group at the time, and they imagined they’d be helped. But fact was then that other countries were becoming quite productive too, esp. Argentina at the time, and American farmers’ prices were going down–silver wasn’t going to help them.” – Those farmers weren’t powerful enough to undo the gold monometallists demonetization of silver. The gold monometallists that you defend were a much more powerful interest group than the poor farmers out west and their democratic organization. As for the issue of rising prices, most farm produce is locally consumed. To assert (as you do) that prices were declining because of increased production in Argentina is absolutely absurd! This was a time of slow moving railroads and steam ships, as well as rising populations. Increased farm production in Argentina would be consumed in Argentina, whereas US farm production would be consumed in the US. Demand for farm produce was increasing locally due to increasing populations, thus offsetting the price impact of increased production. The deflated prices during the late 19th century were a result of deflationary monetary policies conducted by gold monometallists, and to some extent, stagnant wages. To say that inflating the money supply by re-monetizing silver would not have helped farmers with falling prices is dogmatic and willful ignorance.

            “What “historical circumstances” are u talking about?–ho ho ho. Specify and substantiate ur otherwise empty and groundless assertion.” I have given many circumstances (like the Free Silver Movement), you just refuse to listen to anything that does not fit into your very narrow economic prejudices. What’s more, you don’t care about democracy or alleviating poverty, as revealed by your refusal to understand the Free Silver Movement and by your refusal to even consider how the short-sighted plan you support to return the modern world to the gold standard would be disastrous.

          • apollonian permalink

            TR: this latest fm u is just a mass of babbling on ur part. Gold is proven most practical commodity standard money as it works so well, and is so readily adopted. Only dictatorship prevents commodity money. I didn’t say anything about GDP. I said farming production was increasing in lots of places, not only Argentina. U can call my expo and commentary “dogmatism” if u want, but that’s ur prejudicial characterization. And what alleviates poverty, I say, is free markets based on free society, as I’ve noted. “Narrow economic prejudices”?–ho ho ho–yes freedom is narrow, I guess. And when the present fiat currencies collapse, people will necessarily, by default, revert to the natural commodity standard as so often happens. I’m sorry u’re “sickened”–try taking some aspirin.

          • Dark Dirk permalink

            No, money do not need to be “backed”. Actually “backing” means managing total quantity of money. Gold standard just put a limit to the total quantity of printed money. But if you think deeper, you will realize that you do not need gold to restrain the quantity of printed money.

          • That’s exactly right. Why leave a peg to our currency in the predatory control of hostile market forces when we can determine this ourselves , based upon our nation’s need, by adjusting the volume of our fiat.

          • apollonian permalink

            Ho ho ho–“hostile market forces”?–so they work in favor of their interests and disagree w. ur un-realistic pretensions, and this is “hostile”? Ho ho ho. “Predatory”?–so they just act in way not conforming to ur un-realistic wishes? Ho ho ho. Commodity money (like gold/silver) is objective, and u can’t stand that, eh? Ho ho ho.

          • The market cares only for maximizing profits and it cares not a wit who suffers or dies as result. Why should be entrust the worth of our nation’s currency and economic well being to these wolves? Maybe you think it’s our government’s mandate to enrich speculators domestic and foreign with gold trading, but I can assure you the constitution does not.

          • apollonian permalink

            On the contrary, US Constitution is perfectly consistent w. commodity money and, if I’m not mistaken, actually specifies gold/silver as the only Constitutional money. Further, the Const. prohibits the emission of “bills of credit”–non-commodity money.

            “Economic well-being” depends upon the market, by definition. “Wolves”?–no, the people are human beings, those who are concerned in the market. The market is the buying and selling transactions of the people, by definition. And note avoiding dying and suffering is part of the market purpose in seeking “profit.”

            U just seem to have an irrationalist, anti-human view of the market upon which u want to inflict dictatorship. Freedom means free markets and commodity money–get a clue.

          • Article 1, section 10 has to do with the prohibition of states not counterfeiting money, by issuing their own different currency.

            Article 1 section 8 permits the govt to issue it own currency.

            The preamble states that the mandate of the U.S. government is to ” … promote the general Welfare..” not the free market determined welfare of speculators. Our currency thus, needs to serve the interests of our economy. Gold does not do this as a speculated commodity. Interest free fiat serves this purpose completely without compromise or market manipulation.

          • apollonian permalink

            “[S]peculators”–ho ho ho–everyone is a “speculator,” comrade–get a clue. An honest currency is only appropriate one for a free society, hence commodity money–which is common to all generally free and prosperous societies observed throughout hist. Then u say, “speculated commodity”–ho ho ho–every commodity is speculated–get a clue. Non-commodity money is what fascists and dictators want (like present Fed system) so they can (legally) COUNTERFEIT and issue proliferated notes, to spend (nearly) endlessly, and tax the citizens without consent by such proliferation which devalues the currency. Making the central bank public and removing the debt nature doesn’t essentially change things, merely setting it up for the oligarchs to pretend making it private is an improvement. Freedom requires commodity money.

          • yes every commodity is subject to speculation and manipulation. Glad you finally admit the price of gold and our money is subject to speculation.

            Fiat cannot be traded on the markets like gold. The only thing the determines its value is the labor goods and services of the country of its issuance. Without interest the people get to keep the full worth of their labors and goods. Their money is not subject to artificial, extrinsic increases, taxation without consent, from market fluctuations in trades.

            Hence, you favor the interests of greed over the needs and welfare of the public by supporting gold backed money. You also are willing to cede control of a nation’s economy to the highest bidders in a marketplace. Libertarians and Austrians are simply dupes for the 1%.. Others must be conscious agents.

          • apollonian permalink

            Fm the Const., article 1, sec. 8

            To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

            To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

            It DOES NOT say Congress can issue money–it can only COIN gold and silver and define what a “dollar” is, for example, in terms of weight, mass.

          • It’s commonly recognized that “coin” is a verb and not to be taken as a noun or endorsement of metallic currency.

          • apollonian permalink

            Ho ho oho–when gold is the standard, then prices are in terms of it, the money, whatever commodity serving as standard–this was always understood–u’re the one who’s late to understanding, evidently. Ur second paragraph is just babble and nonsense. Gold or any commodity money is HONEST money, comrade–and that’s most appropriate for honest people and free societies, PERIOD. “Greed” is just more of ur babble and twaddle, ho ho ho. U’re the dupe who knows nothing about the Austrians or economics.

          • apollonian permalink

            Section. 10.

            No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.


          • Volume of money is only one factor determining the value of money.

          • Volume is the only factor outside the value of real goods, service and labor that should have an affect on it in terms of maintaining equilibrium and avoiding inflation and deflation. My point is that Speculation in the market of the currency itself should never be one, and it is impossible with interest free credit/fiat.

          • I agree that volume and the value of goods/services (related to supply/demand) are major factors, but there is at least one other factor. I’m talking about people’s faith in money as a store of value. If (for some reason) we believe that the money in our pockets/accounts will be worth less tomorrow, people could panic and spend/dump their money in exchange for commodities today, before it loses its purchasing power. Ironically, by rapidly dumping the currency into the commodity market, commodity prices will continue to rise. This is speculation (and ideally, it should never be done), but it can happen with interest free credit/fiat. The credit/fiat money that is already in circulation can still be used for speculative purposes.

            Imagine all of the billions of US dollars that are overseas right now. If they all came back to the US today and started chasing commodities, while China simultaneously stopped selling its goods in the US, then prices in the US could jump and cause a panic.

    • A standard error is to say money is debt, money is not a debt money is a unit measure of value that can be accounted for in positive and negative entries. A kilo of flour is +1 when you are owed the kilo and -1 when you owe the kilo. Or in terms of your stock it is +1 when you have the
      kilo and -1 when you no longer have the kilo.

      • The Money PSYOP has completely confused terminology, leaving its critics running in circles because they sense (rightly) that something is wrong but because of the ambiguous pseudo technical and pseudo scientific terminology, coherent arguments are not forthcoming. It is the mother of al PSYOPs.

        • Greenbacker84 permalink

          Our labour and production is not a PSYOP
          The work I put in to earn money and pay down my debts (promissory notes) is not a PSYOP

          The banks claim to have ‘leant’ us our own money certainly is

          • I said that the current false paradigm of money is a PSYOP not the real value that is lost to it

          • Greenbacker84 permalink

            Ok fair enough. The root of this enormous PSYOP is the laundering of the promissory note.
            Once the banks intervene between buyers/sellers on the issuance of promissory contracts (eg. mortgages) falsify debt to themselves and charge compound interest it’s nothing but a downward spiral.

            By separating us from our debts and obligations, and selling them on to third parties as collateral we are effectively denied monetary representation and shackled.
            The psyop is that banks loan us money |(we the people create it) and once that’s recognized we’ll be free of them.

      • That is why only math really works.

  9. Nice work Anthony – you nailed this crazy notion that someone is borrowing what belongs to others. Banks create new money tokens that did not exist prior to the loan.

    You mentioned “fractional reserve banking” and I wanted to offer a different take on the term. I think that fractional reserve banking is a myth or misnomer as there is nothing fractional about it.

    In the current system; 100% of the money is created in new bank loans. Nothing fractional about it.

    Some people suggest that a 100% reserve system (e.g. the Chicago plan, Kucinich bill and Bill Still platform) would be better. Under such a system, only existing money would be lent – 0% would be created in the loan. Needy borrowers would hope to attract willing lenders and banks would act as intermediaries.

    If people/businesses are expected to lend their money to others, they should be compensated. And as you said in your article, the time and risk elements are the fundamental argument for usury. This looks like a step in the wrong direction.

    I prefer that 100% of the money provided through bank loans continue to be created on the spot. The change that we need to make is to have 0% interest loans available with banks profiting through fees and services. This is a practical way in which to end usury.

    • HI Larry,

      As you know I agree with 0% loans. But if money is a scarce object of value, how are you going to prevent people renting out their savings? It is their property so it is their right, correct?

      If money is not a scarce object but just a mere measure of value, then borrowing and lending would be meaningless.

      People say that money is scarce because interest is charged, but in reality people charge interest because money is believed to be a scarce object of value.

      However, science proves that that idea is nonsense a much with a much less prickly argument than to ban interest when money is believed to be a circulating object of value.

      Money is not its support it is the logical symbol of value on the support, both have different defining properties both logically and physically, it is confusing these two sets of properties that creates The Money PSYOP.

      • Interest is not charged on money due to its scarcity. It is charged for the same reason people steal: the desire to make a profit without work, risk or loss and at someone else’s expense. Scarcity just gives the thief an incentive to steal more (e.g., raise interest rates, maximize their profits, whatever euphemism suits their fancy, ect.)

        • My point is that if money is an a scarce object of value, then people can legitimately rent it out, because they are foregoing use of that object to the benefit of others. But money is not an object of value it is an abstract logical entity, which is why it makes no sense to lend.

          Another way of looking at it, is if money can be lent then it is:

          1) An object.
          2) Has intrinsic value.

          But if these are true then no one can prevent owners of these objects to negotiate whatever they will with or without interest.

          But if the above points are not true, then lending money at all makes with or without interest is nonsense. The correct way of thinking is when you owe value you don’t owe money you owe the value that money represents.

          If I sell goods and services to you on credit and record the value in units, you don’t owe the units you owe goods and services of equivalent value to the units. The fallacy is that money a mere measure of value can also be an asset or commercial commodity. When your balance is positive it is proof that you are out of goods and services and that others owe you, it is not an asset.

          By arbitrarily limiting access i.e. controlling access to the unit, the unit becomes the object of transactions rather than the goods and services. By observing the Stable Currency Unit Theorem ( ) money is instantaneously accessible to all and any transaction and remains stable, there is no “supply” nor need to control creation or circulation. The question of credit or who has the right or not to participate in one or other transaction and why, is an entirely separate issue to be determined by social governance NOT by money management.

      • Hello Marc,

        You asked “As you know I agree with 0% loans. But if money is a scarce object of value, how are you going to prevent people renting out their savings? It is their property so it is their right, correct?”

        I don’t think that loan sharking can be completely prevented but if 0% loans are made available, then people with adequate credit ability and collateral would take that route.

        Scarcity can be a problem with any all debt money system, even one with 0% loans available. After all, debt money systems produce temporarily money. I would solve that problem by adding a good mix of debt free, permanent (not self extinguishing) money so that there is an adequate amount to conduct trade and commerce.

        • Larry,

          If you believe that money must behave entirely according to the laws of science and reason, then you cannot talk about debt free money. Because debt free money becomes an arbitrary factor devoid of any objective link. I think the problem once again is in loose standard language. Let me explain:

          1) Money is a measure, this is indisputable stable or unstable money is a measure of value.
          2) Debt is measured in monetary units just as positive current account entries are.

          Therefore, it is incorrect to affirm money = debt, what is more precise is to say money implies both debt and positive current account entries. But we must also not lose sight of the fact that current accounts and debt are only extinguished upon the debt being satisfied IN GOODS & SERVICES of equivalent value.

          Thus, there is no need for so called “debt free” money because money as a measure, can only exist in the event something has been measured i.e. a transaction has taken place, which by definition implies implies the creation of both a positive AND a negative entry.

          If you want to say that the State may give goods and services to individuals in need to generate transactions in their favour, that is another story, but that has a whole bunch of issues associated that would provide endless discussions.

          • A correction: stable money is a measure unstable money is a failed measure.

          • Marc,

            A sovereign may issue its own money. In fact, it may be said that the definition of a “sovereign” should include a nation state that creates its own money. If a sovereign becomes financially subordinate to a private bank or another sovereign, then it is no longer sovereign – by definition.

            From a GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Practices) perspective; an entity cannot be both a creditor and debtor to the same loan since it’s a wash.

            Local government and the private sector may need to borrow money and in that case, hopefully it is available at 0%. I’m not sure how these transactions affect your methodology but from an accounting perspective, I think it is sound.

            While I have your attention, let me ask a question regarding BIBO. If a nation adopted the BIBO standard, would they be able to exchange money with a nation that did not adopt BIBO?

          • I just posted a longer response but it seems to have been lost. So here is the summary:

            The notion of money as a circulating object of value is both unnecessary as well as logically untenable see this:


            and this:


            Nations do not need need to exchange money they only need to record the value of transacted goods and services. No entity public or private, need lose its sovereignty because it maintains a record of balance of trade in units.

            Accounting practices appear sound because they simply take as a given that money is an asset, however neither accounting nor economic theory has any rational argument to sustain money as an asset.

            Finally the concept “store” and “record” are taken to be equivalent but they are not. For a complete treatment of this crucial confusion see:


          • Marc wrote: “Nations do not need need to exchange money they only need to record the value of transacted goods and services.”

            Maybe nations don’t need to exchange money but individuals and companies routinely need to convert currency. International travelers exchange currencies and international companies do as well. Does that work within BIBO if only one trading partner adapts the standard?

          • Anyone can open and operate a Passive BIBO account anywhere and setting them up is technically trivial given today’s technology, the question is if anyone will have the incentive to do so. Once enough people learn and desire such a currency, the conventional pseudo “commodity” currencies will become objects of reluctant purchase reserved only for satisfying the requirements of a decreasing number of intellectual and moral laggards that still retain coercive power.

            Anyway this is putting the cart before the horse. We have no hope for any future worth living, unless the world learns to understand the current money paradigm PSYOP, why it is logically untenable and what all stand to gain by instituting new technical and rational standards for the stable representation of value in transactions.

            The importance now, is not what we can sell in order to enrich ourselves, it has now become that if we don’t liberate our full potential we simply won’t be able to overcome the legacy of the massive logistic and environmental blunders committed under the spell of the current false paradigm.

            Before anyone else, I wrote this article ( ) about financing the most appropriate financial response to Fukushima, a predicament entirely due to the false money paradigm as is the whole nuclear energy proposal as well a large number of other common practices that harbour massive consequences that are soon to make their burden evident to all of us. Accumulatively these will make life the current sprawling mayhem a living hell that no one will escape from not even the deluded so called “elite”. The false sages that are running the world have accepted a series of false pretexts to stifle human potential at the very moment when it is most needed at all levels.

            We also need to raise the bar in the alternative currency debate, move away from seemingly correct group think criteria into the mathematically provable as pointed out in this article:


          • Marc,

            You still aren’t answering my question. Can BIBO currency holders exchnge money with people and comapnies that don’t use BIBO? Can currency transfers occur between BIBO and non-BIBO systems?

            You say that one may open a BIBO account but maybe people have no interest in doing so; e.g. their chosen currency may be legal tender in their host nation.

            Who determines the credit ability and appraises the value of collateral in a BIBO system? What standards are applied and who applies them?

          • I did reply,

            Once enough people learn and desire such a currency, the conventional pseudo “commodity” currencies will become objects of reluctant purchase reserved only for satisfying the requirements of a decreasing number of intellectual and moral laggards that still retain coercive power.

            That is people buy conventional currency in transactions just like you buy any commodity, but with the knowledge and repugnance that comes with knowing that they do so because of the coercion of intellectual moral laggards.

            Your other question of creditability we can take up later, suffice it to say that the current colossal failure in this regard, is due to confusing creditability re money units misrepresented as circulating objects of value with access to goods and services and the social needs and requirements.

            This colossal and embarrassing mess created by such confusion at the very least can be bettered by many social options. but whatever they are they do not determine the stability of the unit, they only determine the values and principles the majority of constructive and productive members of society share.

          • Please read this:

            It might help you understand how to separate money management from social governance, the bias you have is that they are one and the same but they are not.

            For example, someone can be prevented from building an edifice by not having access to units or by not having the required credentials and socially acceptable circumstances and corresponding permits. The latter is a rational management of access to resources and transactions and does not even need control over units, while affecting the means by which balances are created or changed.

  10. End the private ownership of central banks worldwide. Everything else necessary for empowering average citizens will then fall into place.

    • dubious claim

    • apollonian permalink

      Jerry: end all “central” banking whatsoever, private or not–removing the “private” doesn’t change the basic CRIMINAL nature of such “central” bank (legalized) COUNTERFEITING and issuing of notes which are un-backed, un-exchangeable w. ready commodity value.

  11. Kevin Moore wrote: “What is real money?”

    Kevin; I think that the function of money should be to act as tokens for exchange. It is, and should be, quickly transferable and readily accepted in exchange for goods and services.

    Money takes many forms including cash, coins, checks, credit cards, etc. If money were made from a commodity; e.g. gold, we would still use physical and digital tokens to represent the gold and we would “trust” that the physical gold gold existed somewhere.

    History has clearly shown that there has never been enough gold. Countries didn’t just decide that they no longer wanted on the gold standard; they were forced off it in default and suffered terrible depressions.

    Gold money would be very scarce as in the case of the U.S.; we don’t have any gold – at least none that we are sure of (never audited and evidence shows its probably all gone). Gold money advocates are suffering from cognitive dissonance as they want to back our money with something that we don’t have.

    • apollonian permalink

      Larry: don’t u understand u need to back-up ur assertions w. citations?–rather than just blithely asserting.

      Regarding gold: u just don’t know what u’re talking about, obviously–there’s plenty of gold, perfectly sufficient. Further there’s other commodities too which could be used–like silver.

      U just repeat nonsense and propaganda: the gold standard is responsible for tremendous productivity and rise of living standard in USA, which all hist. attests.

      Again: if quantity of gold (or any other commodity standard) in circulation falls/reduces, the consequent buying-power (value) goes up–this is an absolute, mathematical relation. Thus as quantity in circ. reduces, the value goes up up up–until at some pt. the hoarders/holders of it are COMPELLED to spend at least some of it back into circulation.

      “Real money” can be understood fm the transition fm the old barter economy–it was just another commodity used as a medium of exchange. The commodity had to be durable–able to remain un-damaged as it passed fm hand to hand–thus a METAL. It had to be precious/scarce so as to be practical for carrying–iron or lead wouldn’t do as u’d have to have such huge quantity/bulk of it just to exchange for small values.

      Note money economy is NOT diff. fm basic, essential barter as it still involves “trade”–of value for value.

      Banking (ware-housing) is where/how the real complications begin, but I covered that in another entry.

      • apollonian wrote: “Regarding gold: u just don’t know what u’re talking about, obviously–there’s plenty of gold, perfectly sufficient.”

        How much gold do you think the U.S. has? Ever look into it – can you cite a source? When was the last audit?

        Are you trolling or do you have some substance?

        • apollonian permalink

          “Sources”?–ho ho ho–ever hrd of the Austrians?–ck,,–even Ron Paul could school u ( Also there’s Peter Schiff who’s got loads of instructional vids on YouTube–just type in his name, also Mark Weber, Max Keiser, Jim Rogers, Greg Mannarino, Greg Hunter, Mike Maloney is also tremendous.

          Gold is just the best, most widely accepted commodity u can use–there’s also silver, etc.

          Do I have substance?–just ck my sources–ask any question, and I’ll give u honest answer w. as many sources as u pls. Ho ho ho ho

          • You avoided the big question – how much gold does the U.S. have? How many tonnes?

            And please cite a source and the tonnage. Your beliefs are not adequate.

          • It’s all gold plated tungsten from what I’ve heard.

          • Keiser hates the free market fundamentalists and, and are all down massively the last two years.

            Their time is up.

      • The Bretton-Woods monetary system (summarized as “the dollar is as good as gold”) was birthed in 1944 because after WWII, most European countries did not have adequate amounts of gold to support a currency based on gold. So they backed their currencies with the dollar instead, since the US had an abundance of gold backing the dollar.

        • The Bretton-Woods system failed during the Vietnam War when foreign nations (mostly Europeans) tried to exchange their massive dollar holdings for gold. Nixon took the US off of the gold standard because if he didn’t, then the US would have been obliged to fork over tons of gold to foreign nations. Arguably the US gold standard was screwed either way, since if a country does not have gold, it cannot have a gold standard – that’s just common sense.

      • Apollonian, in all my studies of history, I have never found evidence to support this claim: “the gold standard is responsible for tremendous productivity and rise of living standard in USA, which all hist. attests.” Correlation does not imply causation, and I’m pretty sure this claim is just gold-bug propaganda.

        Can you explain why the gold standard was “responsible for tremendous productivity and rise of living standard in USA?” I’m pretty sure that it was the people working in factories and on farms who were ultimately responsible for the increased real wealth that raised Americans’ living standards.

        • apollonian permalink

          U never found evidence?–that’s pathetic admission, and I’d say u’re very poor student in that case, in all honesty.

          Newsflash: correlation is NECESSARY indicator of causation. If there’s causation, correlation MUST be there.

          TR: gold standard indicates honest money–do u think honest people go along w. such standard? Ho ho ho

          • It is you who babbles.

          • apollonian permalink

            Like what?–what’s the babbling? Ho ho ho ho

        • “Correlation does not imply causation”
          Quite right: the US economy grew immensely during the 19th century, not because of, but notwithstanding scarce and expensive Gold.

          The reason was quite clear: mass immigration, industrial revolution and a ‘greenfield’ (we’ll forget about the natives) of massive land and resources.

          Meanwhile, more developed Europe languished with long term depressions, under the same Gold standard.

          It’s not for nothing that the second half of the century in the US was dominated by the Greenback wars and populism clamoring for more abundant money.

          • apollonian permalink

            “Scarce and expensive” go together necessarily as money must (or should) be portable–as opposed to large mass of lead or iron to exchange for just a small value in barter.

            Regarding land and resources, these could be found elsewhere too–and why the immigration?–was it because of a free society? Hence note a free society, honest money, and commodity/gold standard go together.

            Note also a commodity/gold standard always ultimately underlies all/any economies, like the present US economy or any other economy–the money is convertible to commodity/gold. When the present corrupt currency system collapses, it will revert, once again, to the basic thing, commodity standard, gold/silver.

            “Abundant” money is easily had by inflation of the debauched receipts–as French assignats, Confederate dollars, Weimar marks, or Revolutionary “continentals”–that’s not proper pt. to money which is store-of-value, not (legalistically) COUNTERFEITED and inflated whence immense “abundance” is easily achieved.

            Surely the most poignant thing to emphasize about money is that it doesn’t change the basic BARTER nature of trade, commerce, and buiness–money is thus a commodity which u’re trading, just as in barter.

      • Kevin Moore permalink


        You say –

        “…..the gold standard is responsible for tremendous productivity and rise of living standard in USA, which all hist. attests.

        Again: if quantity of gold (or any other commodity standard) in circulation falls/reduces, the consequent buying-power (value) goes up–this is an absolute, mathematical relation….”

        – then why therefore at the present gold price is there not enough gold in the world to alone pay “God Blessed” USA’s national debt?

        “In God We Trust”. Is that Lucifer?

        • apollonian permalink

          Kevin: u forget that gold can & will be easily and instantly re-valued at any time–there’s plenty of gold, all anyone needs.

          Consider if China decides to dump US treasuries, securities, and bonds–ho ho ho–think anyone will buy them?–ho ho ho–maybe, but at MUCH-reduced price–meaning dollar will be HEAVILY de-valued.

          USA debt is because the other moron countries/nations (gov.s) are dumb enough to trade/sell real stuff for evermore worthless US dollars, ho ho ho ho. The plan is simply to devalue US dollar at any given time to then satisfy all/any debt. Of course this means HUGE inflation, in fact, HYPER-inflation.

          Ron Paul ( and Pete Schiff have the best plans–cut spending drastically, cut taxes, and especially, cut the idiot regulations–then u’ll see dollar strengthen quick. Also, repudiate the derivatives banks and their fraudulent debt instruments, and prosecute and execute traitor bankers and their politico henchmen who caused all this mess.

          • Someone who loves Christ and his philosophy should not be talking about executing anybody. Such rhetoric is exactly what provokes bankers and the elite to oppress.

          • apollonian permalink

            Perhaps that’s why u need to understand what Christianity is: worship of TRUTH TRUTH TRUTH above all/any, truth the ONLY way to Godly happiness (Gosp. JOHN 14:6). Traitors should be executed, and that’s just honest truth and justice. Sad thing if u think Christianity is all about cowardly passivity in face of horrific criminality–BUT I must admit there’s lots of people terribly mis-guided as to the real Christianity.

          • You don’t understand Christianity or economics.

            Matthew 5:43-44:
            43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

            There is nothing more courageous than facing your enemies without the cowardly recourse to violence. When you love your enemies, you show them the Way of Christ. By that Way, they are no longer your enemy.

            Your misinterpretation is the same banal perversion of Christianity that has undermined faith in the Christian conception of God (Christ’s philosophy). You have no faith in Christ. Your faith is in gold, as you have repeated over and over again like a broken record.

            Now because you choose to reject Christ’s wisdom and instead wish to resort to violence, here’s a quote for you: “Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.” – Isaac Asimov

          • apollonian permalink

            “Think not I came to bring peace; rather, I come to bring a sword” (MATT 10:34) Ho ho ho ho.

            Christ is TRUTH TRUTH TRUTH (Gosp. JOHN 14:6), above all/any, including “love,” peace, “faith,” or “good.” And truth is the ONLY way to Godly happiness.

            In case u haven’t noticed, self-defense is utterly justified, and the dreaded Knights Templar were much feared fighters against the Saracens, known and celebrated as the finest soldiers in the Christian Crusader army led by Richard the Lionheart.

            TR: are u sure u’re Christian?–or do u think u’re more Pharisaic–given ur gross self-righteousness and demand that people act irrationally and against life, truth, and justice.

          • Citing self-identifying Christians who disobeyed Christ does not change Christ’s message. Are you going to cite the Inquisition in order to justify torture?

          • apollonian permalink

            Ho ho ho–TR: we’ve gone WAY off proper topic–and I don’t want to tax Anthony’s patience any more than I already have, I’m afraid. But to go back to proper subject-matter, if u say there’s something I’m not right on regarding economics, tell us, by all means, all about it–what’s wrong w. my idea, how is it wrong, and what’s the right way–tell us, do.

          • Agreed. Read my other posts. I have said all I wanted.

          • Ron Paul , Peter Schiff & co have no intention of reforming the banks. They intend maintain the status quo and pay the fraudulent debts to the private FEd cartel by making genocidal cuts into social security, entitlements, healthcare and unemployment benefits. The Ryan-murray budget deal is an example of their “reform”: austerity for the middle and working classes, tax exemptions to banks/corps/rich, and no cuts to the defense budget. Contrary to your ridiculous statement, they don’t have a problem with usury, rigged markets and predatory speculation. If they did they wouldn’t being pushing for more deregulation (no regulations and oversight), wherein these criminal activities can flourish.


          • apollonian permalink

            Well PM: that just shows what u know–like about Schiff and Paul, eh?–I laugh, ho ho ho

        • The god being trusted is Moloch, god perpetual debt, money at interest and stock echange swindle finance.

    • Hi Larry,

      Sounds great but how exactly do you define tokens of exchange? What are their physical and logical properties and the relationship between both? Describe the function in detail, i.e. the cardinality between tokens and units of measure of value and units of goods and services. Describe exactly their creation, what process is undertaken to create/generate units, explain the logical dependencies between the logical entity and the temporary physical support.

      I think that if you do all that, your model of what money is will expand and at the same time become much more scientific. For example, you will see how agreements to allot goods and services in terms of records of value do not require at all the notion of tokens being a “store of value”, which is very misleading. You will see how money is not a “medium” of exchange and how that notion is another loose allegory taken as technically significant.

      This article might help:

  12. Anthony,

    There is no time value of money because money has no value, it represents things the value attributed to things that do have value.

    Credit Card debt is collateral based in that the contract allows the credit card company to foreclose on your property. The reason they don’t often bother, is because of interest paid in general and the ability to foreclose on those that have significant patrimony, first. That is why interest rates for consumer lending are so high.

    All credit is against real value and legally set up in that fashion.

    The fallacy of the money system is not usury, it is the ontological absurdity of confusing a mere record of a value with the value it represents. If you believe that money IS value then you cannot argue against the time value of money, because everyone will officially or unofficially, legally or illegally do commerce with what is theirs.

    The key is to scientifically debunk the false money paradigm as in “The Money PSYOP”:

    • I agree that in a way money doesn’t have value, because the goods you purchase with it are what truly has value and money is not a good. In another sense i would say money does have value because you can use it and exchange it for goods (which gives it value). Money has value because people accept and use it to trade for the goods that have true value.

  13. REN permalink

    Arthur Kitson (1861-1937) was a clear thinker on usury, gold, and money. Even though he exposed “capital” and the time value hoax nearly 90 years ago, we still haven’t learned: Surplus wealth, in the form of money, is unwanted by the saver. There is no time value.

    “In short, a loan transaction may be represented thus : A = (A+ ΔA) t, where A = the sum loaned = present goods : t = time of maturity of loan. ΔA = increment of A = interest.”

    ‘In spite of the elaborate defence of interest by the great Austrian Economist, I do not think the last word has been said on this subject, nor do I believe its apologists have yet rendered the system invulnerable to attack. The main contention they make as shewing the justice of interest, is that capital assists in production, rendering labor more productive, and hence capital is clearly entitled to a return for its use. And since in the hands of the owner it is likewise productive, and he is enabled to get a return (called natural interest) by using it himself, he is naturally justified in demanding a return equivalent to this. At first sight this seems plausible enough ; but loans are not made from capital which its owners can themselves use profitably. It is surplus wealth that is usually put out at interest.”

    Huber shows that in a sovereign currency system (which has flows and behavior similar to Mutual Credit), then savers would likely pay a fee to the banker for warehousing saver’s money. If somebody wants money (including the banker) they are free to offer interest to attract it.

    “In a plain sovereign-money system today’s current accounts will be actual money accounts. The money will no longer be a deposit in a bank, but a customer’s property, managed by a bank or specialised service bank on behalf of the customers, or, with the spread of online banking, in fact by the customers themselves. Payments onto or from money accounts are no longer part of a system of clearing of bank liabilities and final settlement in reserves. Instead, there will be a direct point-to-point flow of liquid money. Customer money accounts are no longer part of the banks’ balance sheets. Money can of course be lent and borrowed, but, in contrast to bank money, sovereign money in itself will in no way exist as a liability, i.e. as a debt.”

    • REN permalink

      See Kitson select “interest.”

      The question arises, what did the bank give in exchange for the £100 ? It made no sacrifice, nor underwent any risk, since it held the power to convert the amount covered by the mortgage into currency. The wealth of the bank was not decreased by one penny in making the loan. What justification was there in asking a sum for the loan of the money ? This is the real interest problem under modern industrial conditions.

      Economists would say that the bank was deprived of the use of the money during the six months which it might have profitably invested to bring a return. It is customary in giving illustrations and examples on this subject for writers to say that the borrower gained considerably by the use of the loan, and then to add that the bank might have placed the money in the same investment, and made all the profit, and that the payment of interest is only fair, since without the loan the borrower could not have made the profit. But the instances of such investments being unprofitable are by no means uncommon—in fact, it is questionable whether fully one-half are not so, and, if the bankers undertook to direct the investment, it is doubtful whether they would be any more successful than the average merchant and manufacturer.
      The correct answer as to why interest is chargeable and obtainable on loans of the nature similar to the example given, is because the demand for money is practically always in excess of the supply—a condition existing by virtue of special legislation. The purchase of commodities and the payment of debts are effected in the legalised medium of exchanges, and mortgages are not legalised means of payment, whilst bank notes and coin are, and so the holder of mortgages and every other form of wealth except gold and government or bank money, is unable to pay his debts unless he can exchange his wealth for money by means either of a sale or the loan. The loan is really an exchange of stationary for circulating credit, of special for general purchasing power, and interest is a tax for the privilege of converting the one into the other. All the bank has done was to enable the manufacturer to fluidize his wealth. Governments having conferred this privilege upon one form of wealth, gold, has thus given the power of those controlling this metal to exact a tax upon all other wealth. Interest is therefore the price of a legally created monopoly.

      The money loan is not “an exchange of present goods for future goods,” but merely an exchange of one form of purchasing power for another.

    • Kitson writes:

      “Since money is created simply to fulfil a special function, it can have no independent commodity existence. The values which it expresses do not reside in money, nor are they a part of it. They are the attributes of the wealth that is behind it as guarantee of its redemption, and which cause it to circulate. Money is not itself wealth, but merely its representative or symbol. Like the denominator of a fraction, money expresses the value of the numerator, and disappears with it ; or, like the sign of equality, it expresses the relation of two things, but is, apart from those things, meaningless.

      The question of the supply of money may, therefore, be thus summed up. There should be an abundance, in order to meet all the requirements of business, and the supply should be governed by these demands instead of allowing business to adjust itself to a fixed supply. Money, when issued on a scientific basis, obeys but one law. In order to do this, it must be, per se, neutral. The substance chosen should be most plentiful, so that it could not possibly be monopolized. Value arises only where scarcity exists—where the supply is limited ; hence gold is the worst possible material of all for monetary purposes.”

      Exactly, it is nothing more than measure with no value whatsoever. It is absurd to borrow and lend it or possess it. You missed the whole point.

      But thanks for the link it is wonderful to find company in right reasoning!

      • REN permalink

        Money is an abstract accounting identity, like numbers in math. Borrowing and Lending of real money is analogous to Debt and Credit relations in a gift economy. Real money stands in as a good at the moment of transaction, and is latent demand when it is floating in the supply. The abstraction then takes on on an identity when it is in flight. It becomes a bearer instrument, that says pay to the bearer upon demand.

        Even in mutual credit, the unit flows, and is in flight as it goes from transaction to transaction. Mutual Creditors also save their units, which represents stored up latent demand, until the time they are ready to transact for goods/services. Therefore, some saving is inherent in any system, even if only due to time lags.

        The problem here is that everybody has differing ideas of the unit, which morphs depending on the system it is in, and where it is.

        Maybe in the future, we might have a unit that can measure with no value whatsover, and that value relation is probably to the pricing of a market. Do we also get rid of markets? We are a long way from some fantasy system where the unit is available only at the moment of transaction. Creditors often think they have some magic answer, but then they find out their credit takes on aspects of money (pay to the bearer) once it is in flight, and has entered the market place.

        But, until that nebulous future, our best reality is borrowing and lending from each other – exactly as our civilization evolved before money. I’ve not seen a superior system to Sovereign money yet. Mutual Credit is good for its network and has some of the magic features, but it also will run into volume problems once it starts jumping from transaction to transaction as money in a marketplace.

        Assuming some value measure that must pop into existence at the moment of transaction, makes it a personal IOU, and that IOU must then be that person’s credit taking on the social credit function – a mismatch of types.

        • No doubt there exist the widespread illusion that money is a flowing/circulating object but it is just that an illusion and a very important part of The Money PSYOP that afflicts so today and that has no logical foundation whatsoever……

          See this link for the rest of the argument

          • Dark Dirk permalink

            Money are indeed circulating object. Gold, paper, bits in computer. They are physical object. They are a means of exchange. Only the value is illusions, not money. They are real. You can touch them, you can see them, but the value ? How much cost a object ? As much as you are ready to pay. You give money in exchange of object. But money are object, so you give object in exchange of object. That’s barter. But money are object that is easy to carry or transfer electronically, and hardly can be used to do anything else besides exchange.

          • Explain what physical object is required to circulate in order to annotate these transactions:


            Then we can talk about how measures of value work

          • Dark Dirk permalink

            Those are number. They are physical records in that book, but you just don’t get it, do you ?
            You can value the work ONLY if you have maximum limit of that numbers.

          • “Those are number. They are physical records in that book, but you just don’t get it, do you ?
            You can value the work ONLY if you have maximum limit of that numbers.”

            Sorry, I don’t understand what your are saying. My question was, what circulating object is required to annotate those values? I don’t see an answer to that question in your response

          • Dark Dirk permalink

            The number in your example are the circulating objects. They are so physical as physical is a gold coin. What are you trying to picture ?

          • No, the numbers are registered in a record without any previously circulating object other than the goods and services. Read the link better also read:


  14. These problems were all worked out by Alexander Hamilton, perhaps the greatest economist who ever lived. There used to be such a Credit Facility whereby we as a nation were able to give ourselves interest -free loans. It was called the First and Second Bank of the United States. American System economics was built into our constitution by Alexander Hamilton, but destroyed by agents of the British Empire such as Aaron Burr and Andrew Jackson. We must seize the Fed and convert it to a public bank offering zero credit for economic development.

    • Ross N. permalink

      The first and second banks were privately owned banks, based on the Bank of England model. Jefferson refused to buy the Louisiana purchase with loaned into existence money, and hence did not get into debt to the first bank. The bank’s incorporation charter was then allowed to die. The War of 1812 broke out soon after that – Rothschild warned that there would be consequences.

      The Second Bank was also private and the person who tried to assassinate Jackson was just back from England.

      In both cases, the stock holders of these private bank corporations, were found to be foreigners – mostly British.

      Hamilton, curiously held views similar to Adam Smith, who in turn was a paid for shill from the Bank of England.

      The greatest economists of that day were Jefferson, Franklin, and Thomas Payne. Hamilton did get us through the rough times of war, but after the war he and his Federalists bought up war bonds on the cheap with sneaky tactics. Ironically, it was treasury money – Continentals, that got us through the war, not loaned into existence bank money. Hamilton was a BOE agent and against Sovereign Treasury money.

      Hamilton and Federalists used the bonds bought off of broken patriots for cheap, as the former soldiers thought they were worthless. Little did they know that Congress had just authorized redeeming the bonds. Hamilton and his mercantile cronies then quickly spread out and bought up the bonds for cheap. They then instituted the private first bank with the FACE value of the bonds.

  15. Kevin Moore permalink

    Marc Gauvin in his website article says –

    “So, we can be assured that the term “record of value” is accurate in its association with the value of the goods and services it represents and presents no conflict or confusion, while the use of the term “store of value” in its literal sense supports connotations that are not only impossible but are unnecessary i.e. record of value is sufficient to justly allocate equivalent value over time.”

    In nature everything naturally deteriorates at various rates so a record of value in time would have to be adjusted downward accordingly. Banks by charging interest on the deception called loans are actually compensating for deterioration by making the borrowers work harder and longer. Gold and silver are barren and cannot in nature have changing values
    Could it be said that the taking of profit on anything is usury?

    • Kevin, physical goods and services indeed deteriorate but the value they provide in any given transaction does not deteriorate. The price of the object will deteriorate (sometimes appreciate) over time as the object and its circumstances change, but the measure of value is not subject to physical deterioration. If you buy a seat for a concert, the music deteriorates immediately after being heard, but the value of having heard it persists, you are not buying the notes you are buying the values they give, of course the duration of goods and services are a component in determining the value.

    • In the case the payment is over time the debt is consumed as the product depreciates. But if the debt is not paid, the value consumed doesn’t deteriorate it is constant. Interest is not paid for the use of the goods and services but rather for the use of the money, which is absurd considering that money is a logical entity, there is no physical supply the unit value should be referenced automatically just as we do with any other measure.


      • Kevin Moore permalink

        In Australia they recite “The Lords Prayer” before every session of Parliament – “… but if you do not forgive men their debts, neither will your Father forgive your debts.” Hypocrites!!

        Isaiah 52:3
        “For thus saith the LORD, Ye have sold yourselves for nought; and ye shall be redeemed without money.”

  16. Andrew Dawson permalink

    You can borrow things from a library, but they need public funding.

    • Credit facilities can finance themselves on a not-for-profit basis through service charges and handling fees that represent real costs.
      A mortgage should cost about 10% of the principal, not 150% as is the case with usury.

      • Paul Craig Roberts is controlled opposition. He claims on tape (see Greg Hunter videos) that the Federal Reserve policies are the result of insanity and stupidity and that they are just plain stupid? The average IQ of an economics Ph.D. is 135 or so. They are not stupid. They are doing the bidding of their masters, the Rothschild banksters.

  17. blackbook2014 permalink

    Money cannot be the issue, if a known value, is valid at the time of the loan offer from the bank. The fallacy must be the power of flat currency to instantly gain value.
    Banks never loan money it is only flat worthless currency. that serves as transfer from one to another. It is the deceit of the banks to sell their currency as money with a known value that causes all the problems.
    Usury is an abomination for slick parasites to feed. Stop feeding the them !

  18. If we had an economy without scarce money and our standard of living was 5-10 times higher, not as many people would need loans.

    • That very true, if we look at our history the banking system becomes exposed.
      “The year of 1750 Benjamin Franklin directly experienced the British colony of North America I quote:- “Nowhere on Earth does one find a
      happier and more well-being people.” He explained that this was due to that “we in the colonies make our currency,” called “colonial scrip.” He further explained: “By issuing our currency we can control its buying
      power, and we are not obliged to pay interest to anyone.”

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Rationalizing Usury: the Time Value Hoax | – Taking the CON out of Conspiracy – Kindle – Android – iPhone – iPad – Samsung Compatible website
  2. Rationalizing Usury: the Time Value Hoax | The ...
  3. Rationalizing Usury: The Time Value Hoax | Blog
  4. Rationalizing #Usury: the Time Value Hoax #riba #interest | Islamic Finance
  5. Rationalizing Usury: the Time Value Hoax |
  6. 12-13-13 Market Commentary « Sand 2 Pirls Market Commentary
  7. Rationalizing Usury: The Time Value Hoax | Alternative News Alert!
  8. 99th Monkey News December 16, 2013 | Pearls of Liberty
  9. Let’s forget about Ron Paul. It’s time to move on. | Real Currencies
  10. How Ignoring Usury Makes Us All Look Like Fools | Real Currencies
  11. Hate the State! (But the Banks even more!) | Real Currencies
  12. Usury | *Orbis non sufficit*
  13. Capitalism Is Jewish Usury | Real Currencies
  14. Banking Is Institutionalized Murder! | Real Currencies
  15. The Silly Pseudo Science That Is ‘Modern Economics’ | Real Currencies
  16. Banking Is Institutionalized Murder! by Anthony Migchels | B'Man's Revolt
  17. Two Brilliant Films: ‘Renaissance 2.0 – Financial Empire’ & ‘Princes Of The Yen’ | Real Currencies
  18. More On Social Credit And A Letter By Dick Eastman | Real Currencies
  20. Rationalizing Usury: the Time Value Hoax | angelodandreablog
  21. CryptoMashup » libertarian Usury is Anti-Liberty Slavery, Morally Wrong

Leave a Reply

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