>Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 00:47:10 +0000
>From: tom@... ("Tommy-Usury: Free")
>Subject: [usuryfreecreatives] Response from Verne

>From: "Verne Warwick" <warpeau@...>
>Date: Fri Aug 12, 2005 0:41pm
>Subject: RE: [usuryfreecreatives] SANE Views - The Scourge
>of Interest Rates ...

Tom; Thanks for this article. However, he misses these
points:

(1) Money, in the present UMS (Usury Monetary System) is
definitely backed -- by the most important backing of all:
the worthy REAL asset of the "borrower" (eg. his house).

JCT: Good point. People keep calling it "fiat" money like
it's issued on the basis of nothing, "by fiat," when almost
all loans are over-collateralized by poorer borrowers so
richer ones can get under-collateralized loans. But there's
always lots of backing behind all loans.

Because it is not "backed" by gold does not mean it is not
backed.

JCT: It's funny how the world "gold" causes mental dystrophy
among its believers.

Actually "backing" by gold has always been an illusion --
the same people who control the issuance of money out of
nothing also control the gold/silver supplies and their
pricing.

JCT: And have for the past 10,000 years. See David Astle's
great history of banking at
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/babyl00.htm

(2) Banks don't lend depositors' money -- they don't even
lend money at all!

JCT: Verne left out that "they lend out new chips."

They monetize REAL assets.

JCT: With new chips, just like a casino bank.

Therefore, if the real asset belongs to the "borrower" so
does the monetization, under the terms of the contract into
which he entered with the bank, as long as the "borrower"
meets the obligations of that contract.

JCT: Because the real asset held in the casino cage belongs
to me, do the casino's chips belong to me? They sure do if
they're holding my real asset as its collateral.

To be charged interest/usury on one's own property is theft,
and therefore a criminal act.

JCT: Nice argument. If I can issue my own chips based on my
own collateral, is it theft to let someone do it for me?
Actually, since that choice has been hidden from view, I'd
have to agree. Grandad Adelard Turmel's Axiom #2 is
"Interest is theft." Yet, I'll always prefer the argument
that you can't pay 11 when the bank only printed 10, an
unconscionable transaction, an impossibility.

(3) The Interest is never created. How can he have missed
such salient fundamentals being a lecturer at the School of
Economics, University of Cape Town? The best to you Verne

JCT: Who is this supposed expert in banking systems
engineering and who is pushing him as some kind of expert?



--
Abolitionist Slave Leader John C."The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
for UNILETS interest-free time-based currency in U.N. resolution C6
to Governments in the http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel 519-753-0645 USENET: can.politics