Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The UK banking system

Azrael23 said:
. . . Don`t make lots of noise about a small issue then just ignore the big questions and real issues . . .

The issue is that zArk made a statement that was wrong ("just the one" I hear you cry . . . ).

He suggested that the new IOB would trade in EUR and that would precipatate a global collapse.

The trivial issue that no-one can find any information at all to proove that the IOB will be set up kinda demolishes his argument don't you think?
 
ADB - You failed.

20th March, BTW.

http://www.newropeans-magazine.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3463&Itemid=85

http://republic-news.org/archive/120-repub/120_crawford.htm

Wiki entry - lots of references - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Oil_Bourse

From Iran Daily:
Kish Oil Exchange Planned
TEHRAN, Jan. 24--The much-publicized oil exchange will be established on the Persian Gulf island of Kish, declared the managing director of Kish Free Trade Zone Organization (KFTZO).
According to a report faxed to Iran Daily by the KFTZO Public Relations Office, Hossein Qassemi told reporters that a consortium comprising of the KFTZO, the Oil Ministry and the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Finance would be in charge of setting up the exchange.
He hoped that the island would turn into the oil trade hub in the Persian Gulf region. "We have prepared the ground for transferring foreign companies from the Asalouyeh area to Kish Island by creating the necessary infrastructure," he said, adding that the island possesses great potentials in the key tourism, trade and banking sectors.
Petrochemicals, crude oil and oil and gas products will be traded at the petroleum exchange.
The oil exchange would strive to make Iran the main hub for oil deals in the region.
Iran had announced in September its petroleum exchange will become operational by March 2006.
Experts from International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) and the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) have reportedly confirmed the feasibility of the project.
Mohammad Javad Assemipour, who is in charge of implementing the oil exchange project, said the petroleum exchange could help create further transparency in the Oil Ministry's performance and help attract more foreign investments in national energy industries.
The proposal was first put forward in the beginning of the Third Development Plan (2000-2005) and became a national project only in 2003.

Still think you know better than anyone else?
 
Oh for fucks sake

"On March 20th, 2006, Iran is planning to open an International Oil Bourse (market) for the express purpose of trading oil priced exclusively in Euros."

From your Vancouver link

"The Iranian Oil Bourse has been reported in the media to have a planned opening date of March 20, 2006 [1]. The geographical location is expected to be the island of Kish [2]."

From your Wiki

"- on the one hand there is the Iranian decision of opening the first oil bourse priced in Euros on March 20th, 2006 in Teheran, available to all oil producers of the region ;"

From newropeans (whatever that is)

Funny that this new bourse that's going to provoke a world economic collapse doesn't have a web site don't you think?

Next . . . :rolleyes:
 
Actually, ADB - before I dismiss you completely, perhaps you could turn your towering intellect towards a burning question:

Why, in your opinion, are the US Federal Reserve about to (23rd March) stop publishing the M3 figures?

Before you accuse me of making this up, check my source:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/discm3.htm

On March 23, 2006, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System will cease publication of the M3 monetary aggregate. The Board will also cease publishing the following components: large-denomination time deposits, repurchase agreements (RPs), and Eurodollars.

Some coincidence, huh?
 
Backatcha Bandit said:
Actually, ADB - before I dismiss you completely, perhaps you could turn your towering intellect . . .

I'm simply asking you lizard people to come up with some verifiable facts.

And yes, the Fed is going to stop publishing M3, (this is not exactly new news) and yes one has to take a cynical view on their rationale. But, your saying a coincidence with the start of the Iranian Oil Bourse on March 23 which you have not proved will happen
 
Um, I'm pretty sure BB isn't one of the lizard people. He's usually being yelled at by one of them when he's here (see Petroleum Geologist thread)
 
Apols BB
Please accept etc, confusion in ADB's head after too many Becks.
Will re-visit when sober

(note to self . . . Doh!)
 
Zark - if you say that capital is autonomous from... labour etc (I guess this is what you mean) can it not also be said that capital is autonomous from loans and interest? If M>M>M is sutonomus despite M>C>M still occuring, then surely the reverse applies?
 
118118 said:
Zark - if you say that capital is autonomous from... labour etc (I guess this is what you mean) can it not also be said that capital is autonomous from loans and interest? If M>M>M is sutonomus despite M>C>M still occuring, then surely the reverse applies?

Well, if you apply that logic to 'capital' then yes, you are correct as far as i figure.

I am not saying Capital, just like i dont use the term Capitalist or communist, or any of the other definitions that emerge out of Marx's writing to explain my position.

I suppose i could engage the word 'capital' and attempt to inflect it but really the word is deeply seeped in Marxist theory and its extensions. Not to say that the word is lost and is pwned by Marx but rather that it would take an incredible amount of time to map thought through all the theories that rely upon the commonly understood meaning of 'Capital'. therefore i dont, cause i aint got time to write 100,000 words concisely upon that point.

Instead i am using the terms 'simulacra' and 'debt based economics', which dont have problematics that you point out.
 
"Oh, just that capitalism is the earthly manifestation of a metaphysical evil power which is attempting to destroy all human souls and is succeeding in destroying the world. Nothing *important,* you know..."
 
what personally interests me is;

"The science of co-incidence: a sociological analysis of chance"

key points;
9/11 New York
simulated drills of hijacked planes flying into the twin towers at exactly the same time as it actually happened

7/7 London
simulation exercise drill being conducted of simultaneous bombs going off in exactly the same locations and times as they actually did

its all just a co-incidence

so i am going to scientifically analyse co-incidence

AZRAEL23
They did work out the odds of having terror drills on the same days as actual attacks and at the same targets. The number has 48 0`s.
Of course the drills are needed because that way anyone caught doing something they shouldn`t be or radion chatter picked up can be blamed on the drill.



Yeah, the odds worked out were astronomical.

My take on it is that the simulacra externally acting is co-inciding with the simulacra internally acting.

It is re-producing the real through us.

Deleuze wrote about 'lines of flight' and traced lines, i am saying that the point of convergence is 'co-incidence'.

The simulacra is internalised to such a point that human agency is subsumed. These top brass officials are completely taken over by the simulacra and its line of flight and traced line are converging.

Usually co-incidence occurs with small effects, meeting someone you know when on holiday or picking the phone up at the same time as it begins to ring. Unfortunately the simulacra has become internalised to such an extent that beaurocracy [derived through the simulacra] and human action [simulacra subsumed] are interlinking with devasting effects.

The exercise drills were mimicked exactly and at the same time as human action. At this point it is assumed, using thinking processes that developed out of the Marxist school of thought, that someone was controlling these events. Someone, a group with their own agency. Yet my explanation is that it is more horrific.
As phil dwyer indicated pages ago, it is actually the Devil. When you hear researchers going on about 'satanists', 'devil worshippers' they are talking about the economic system, the simulacra, being worshipped and beign allowed to act through them. The God position has been replaced by money [the fear of the iconoclasts and the fear that Baudrillard expands upon writing about simulacra].

Politicians and world leaders have no idea how the fuck these two events happened, but they do know that the vast governmental structure with multiple departments are completely out of control and are determined to reign them in. With all this new legislation, the plan [by these nutters] is to create a totalitarian system in which the few at the top of government have total control over all human action.. and thus in their thinking prevent these events happening again. --- they are fucking crazy, they have lost their minds.

a fascist dictatorship is their only option.

So you see, i do not follow the trains of thought that 'That group' there is doing all this, that the government committed 911 and that the government committed 7/7. [CAPITAL -ex-planation---Marx, sociology, modernist thought, post-modernist thought, foucault, haraway (rather be a cyborg than a goddess), Chomsky]
Listen to Alex Jones, Paul Watson, David Icke, Michael Ruppert, Peter Dale Scott they all agree that 'government funded terrorism is being carried out'. They are quiet clear not to say 'the government did it', just that ' the government was complicit'.
 
Bernie Gunther said:
I refer the honorable gentleman to my earlier remarks on that topic.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=152684&page=11&pp=25


Well obviously, this was what I was reading earlier, which was why I ended quoting phil, though honestly, I'm wasn't even sure if that was relevant at this mo, but, to tell the truth, I must admit that I didn't see anything among your replies that I though dealt adequately with the severity of the issue, which was why I quoted it again.
 
PLEASE NOTE;

I understand how Dashing Blade is attempting to frame my Iran-Economy statements and so i must state;

I am reading reports that this Bourse is happening this month, i am also reading that the UN will be deciding upon Iran action [to do with the lies surrounding a non-existant weapons program] and i am saying that trading oil in euros will create a major problem to the US and UK economy which would cause economic collapse.

I am not saying "it is definately happening this month" as that would be stupid Nostradamus shit --- i am reading the reports and commenting upon the 'if it happens, look its being reported" the US and Uk economy is in deep shit.

ok.
 
ZWord said:
Well obviously, this was what I was reading earlier, which was why I ended quoting phil, though honestly, I'm wasn't even sure if that was relevant at this mo, but, to tell the truth, I must admit that I didn't see anything among your replies that I though dealt adequately with the severity of the issue, which was why I quoted it again.
What would you like me to do?

Start running around screaming 'it's satan and he's come to get us all!' or disappearing off into a postmodern fog of gibberish in search of THE TRUTH?

No thanks ...

I'll settle for figuring out a few practical steps that look like they're probably going to do more good than harm, and leave revealing THE TRUTH to others.
 
Bernie Gunther said:
What would you like me to do?

Start running around screaming 'it's satan and he's come to get us all!' or disappearing off into a postmodern fog of gibberish in search of THE TRUTH?

No thanks ...

I'll settle for figuring out and doing a few things that look like they're probably going to do more good than harm, and leave revealing THE TRUTH to others.

*chuckles*

Fair enough..
 
zArk said:
what personally interests me is;

"The science of co-incidence: a sociological analysis of chance"

key points;
9/11 New York
simulated drills of hijacked planes flying into the twin towers at exactly the same time as it actually happened

7/7 London
simulation exercise drill being conducted of simultaneous bombs going off in exactly the same locations and times as they actually did

its all just a co-incidence

so i am going to scientifically analyse co-incidence

If I study what is going on in terms of the global climate and come to a conclusion that a likely/probable outcome could be rising sea levels, and then go and build an Ark and the sea levels rise: does this mean that my Ark building is part of some sort of conspiracy, or is it more to do with 'intelligent' deduction?
 
ZWord said:
This is trotted out again and again, but frankly it's more or less untrue.. The problem in the Weimar republic, (not nazi germany- your grasp of history is poor for a cambridge economist, ) was not only that the government printed a lot of money, but also that there was a massive shortage of essential commodities, like bread..

If there is no shortage of a commodity, then it doesn't really matter if the money supply is infinite, the price of the commodity doesn't need to go up..
Yes, but the vast, vast majority of all commodities are scarce relative to demand. So printing money and shortages of goods are responsible for inflation. Both were true in the Weimar Republic, but saying that printing vast quantities of money wasn't a causal factor is not true.
 
FruitandNut said:
If I study what is going on in terms of the global climate and come to a conclusion that a likely/probable outcome could be rising sea levels, and then go and build an Ark and the sea levels rise: does this mean that my Ark building is part of some sort of conspiracy, or is it more to do with 'intelligent' deduction?

so you, FRUITANDNUT, are saying that it was a Biblical event?
 
slaar said:
Yes, but the vast, vast majority of all commodities are scarce relative to demand. So printing money and shortages of goods are responsible for inflation. Both were true in the Weimar Republic, but saying that printing vast quantities of money wasn't a causal factor is not true.

yeah but with reference to the world today, we are actually in a position where it is quite easy for us to grow enough food to completely outstrip global demand.

so it would be quite possible for money to be manufactured to buy food to ensure that all were fed, without causing massive inflation in food prices.

So I wonder why this isn't done, and the only reason i can come up with is sheer bloody-mindedness.
 
Well for a start there isn't one 'global food market', there are interconnected webs. As soon as the amount of money in one location was increased the price of scarce food in that location would go up. In Africa, typically, not enough food is produced to feed everyone, so where would it be bought from? If your sole aim was to feed people adequately, with no thought about knock-on consequences, wouldn't a direct transfer of food from major producers to major areas of need be warranted instead?
 
zArk said:
Well, if you apply that logic to 'capital' then yes, you are correct as far as i figure.

Instead i am using the terms 'simulacra' and 'debt based economics', which dont have problematics that you point out.
In the case of interest free banks, the economics are not just bebt based, money could still be made in different ways. So we have all the poblems we had before!
 
slaar said:
In Africa, typically, not enough food is produced to feed everyone...

IMO, more symptomatic of a systemic fault in 'debt based economics' than any physical or geographical limitations.

http://www.christianaid.org.uk/indepth/0205list/1425trad.pdf

It's the inevitable consequence of the systemic defects in 'money', as identified by zArk... and Gesell. There is no 'conspiracy' amongst evil stuffed suits in Wall Street and the Square Mile to starve Africa - no 'sheer bloody mindedness'.
 
FruitandNut said:
does this mean that my Ark building is part of some sort of conspiracy, or is it more to do with 'intelligent' deduction?
If, because you have/are building an Ark, you then decide you need do nothing to mitigate against the cause of the climate change..?

Would your Ark building activities conform to 'sustainable (Ark)building' practices? ;)
 
I know this is flouting the rules regarding C&P's, but I feel it is too good to miss.

Gesell's 'Robinson Crusoe and a Stranger'.

To introduce the theory of interest here expounded, and to facilitate the removal of old prejudices, which are nowhere stronger than in connection with the subject of interest, I shall begin with a story of Robinson Crusoe.1

Robinson Crusoe, as is well known, built his house, from motives of health on the south side of the mountain, whereas his crops grew on the damp but fruitful northern slopes. He was therefore obliged to carry his harvests over the mountain. To eliminate this labour he decided to construct a canal around the mountain. The time required for this enterprise which, to avoid silting, would have to be continued without interruption, he estimated at three years. He had therefore to lay in provisions for three years.

He slaughtered some pigs and cured their flesh with salt; he filled a deep trench with wheat, covering it carefully with earth. He tanned a dozen buckskins for suits and nailed them up in a chest, enclosing also the stink-glands of a skunk as a precaution against moths. In short, he provided amply and, as he thought, wisely, for the coming three years.

As he sat calculating for the last time whether his "capital" was sufficient for the projected undertaking, he was startled by the approach of a stranger, obviously the survivor of a shipwreck.

"Hallo, Crusoe!" shouted the stranger as he approached, "my ship has gone down but I like your island and intend to settle here. Will you help me with some provisions until I have brought a field into cultivation and harvested my first crops?"

At these words Crusoe's thoughts flew from his provisions to the possibility of interest and the attractions of life as a gentleman of independent means. He hastened to answer "yes."

"That's splendid!" replied the stranger, "but I must say at once that I shall pay no interest. I would prefer to keep myself alive by hunting and fishing, for my religion forbids me to pay, or to receive, interest."

Robinson Crusoe: An admirable religion! But from what motive do you expect me to advance you provisions from my stores if you pay me no interest?

Stranger: From pure egoism, my dear fellow, from your self-interest rightly understood. Because you gain, and gain enormously.

R.C. That, stranger, you have yet to prove. I confess that I can see no advantage in lending you my provisions free of interest.

S. I shall prove it in black and white, and if you can follow my proof, you will agree to a loan without interest, and thank me into the bargain. I need, first of all, clothes, for, as you see, I am naked. Have you a supply of clothes?

R.C. That chest is packed with buckskin suits.

S. My dear Crusoe! I had more respect for your intelligence. Just fancy nailing up clothes for three years in a chest - bucksins, the favourite diet of moths! And buckskins must be kept aired and rubbed with grease, otherwise they become hard and brittle.

R.C. That is true, but I have no choice in the matter. They would be no safer in my clothes-cupboard - less safe, indeed, for it is infested by rats and mice as well as by moths.

S. The rats and mice will get them in any case. Look how they have already started to gnaw their way in!

R.C. Confound the brutes! I am helpless against them.

S. What! A human being helpless against mice! I will show you how to protect yourself against rats and mice and moths, against thieves and brittleness, dust and mildew. Lend me these clothes for one, two or three years and I agree to make you new clothes as soon as you require them. You will receve as many suits as you have lent me, and the new suits will be far superior to those you would have taken from this chest. Nor will you regret the absence of the particular perfume you have employed! Do you agree?

R.C. Yes, stranger, I agree to lend you the chest of clothes; I see that in this case, the loan, even without interest, is to my advantage.2

S. Now show me your wheat; I need some for bread and seed.

R.C. It is buried in this mound!

S. Wheat buried for three years! What about mildew and beetles?

R.C. I have thought of them and considered every other possibility but this is the best I can do.

S. Just bend down a moment. Observe this beetle crawling on the surface of the mound. Note the garbage and the spreading patch of mildew. It is high time to take out the wheat and air it.

R.C. This capital will be my ruin! If only I could find some method of protecting myself against the thousand destructive forces of nature!

S. Let me tell you, Crusoe, how we manage at home. We build a dry and airy shed and shake out the wheat on the boarded floor. Every three weeks the whole mass is turned over with wooden shovels. We also keep a number of cats; we set mouse-traps and insure against fire. In this way we keep the annual depreciation down to 10%.

R.C. But the labour and expense!

S. Exactly! You shrink from the labour and expense. In that case you have another course. Lend me your wheat and I shall replace it, pound for pound, sack for sack, with fresh wheat from my harvest. You thus save the labour of building a shed and turning over the wheat; you need feed no cats, you avoid the loss of weight, and instead of mouldy rubbish you will have fresh, nutritious bread.

R.C. With all my heart I accept your proposal.

S. That is, you will lend me your wheat free of interest?

R.C. Certainly: without interest and with my best thanks.

S. But I can use only part of the wheat, I do not need it all.

R.C. Suppose I give you the whole store with the understanding that for every ten sacks lent you give me back nine sacks?

S. I must decline your offer, for it would mean interest - not indeed positive, but negative interest. The receiver, not the giver of the loan, would be a capitalist, and my religion does not permit usury; even negative interest is forbidden. I propose therefore the following agreement. Entrust me with the supervision of your wheat, the construction of the shed, and whatever else is necessary. In return you can pay me, annually, from every ten sacks two sacks as wages.

R.C. It makes no difference to me whether your service comes under the heading of usury or labour. The agreement is, then, that I give you ten sacks and that you give me back eight sacks?

S. But I need other articles, a plough, a cart and tools. Do you consent to lend them, also, without interest? I promise to return everything in perfect order, a new spade for a new spade, a new, unrusted, chain for a new chain, and so forth.

R.C. Of course I consent. All I have at present from my stores is work. Lately the river overflowed and flooded the shed, covering everything with mud. Then a storm blew off the roof and everything was damaged by rain. Now we have drought, and the wind is blowing in sand and dust. Rust, decay, breakage, drought, light, darkness, dry-rot, ants, keep up a never-ending attack. We can congratulate ourselves here upon having, at least, no thieves and incendiaries. I am delighted that, by means of a loan, I can now store my belongings without expense, labour, loss or vexation, until I need them later.

S. That is, you now see the advantage you gain by lending me your provisions free of interest?3

R.C. Of course I do. But the question now occurs to me, why do similar stores of provisions at home bring their possessors interest?

S. The explanation lies in money which is there the medium of such transactions.

R.C. What? The cause of interest lies in money? That is impossible, for listen to what Marx says of money and interest: "The change of value of money that converts it into capital cannot be derived from the money itself, since money in its function of medium of payment does no more than pay the price of the commodity it purchases, and, as hard cash it is value petrified, never varying. Just as little can the change occur in the second act of circulation, the re-sale of the commodity. [For in both cases] equivalents are exchanged, and the commodity is paid for at its full value We are therefore forced to the conclusion that the change originates in the use-value of the commodity, after its purchase and before its sale." (Capital I, VI.)

S. How long have you been on this island?

R.C. Thirty years.

/cont..
 
S. I thought so! You still appeal to the theory of value. My dear sir, that theory is dead and buried. At the present day it has no defenders.

R.C. What? Marx's theory of interest dead and buried. Even if no one else defends it - I defend it!

S. Well then, defend it not only with words but also in practice - if you wish, in relation to me! I hereby break off the bargain we have just made. From their nature and destination your goods are the purest form of what is usually called capital. But I challenge you to take up the position of a capitalist towards me. I need your stuff. No worker ever appeared before a capitalist so naked as I stand before you. Never has there been so clear an illustration of the relation between the owner of capital and the individual in need of capital. And now make the attempt to exact interest! Shall we begin our bargaining again from the beginning?

R.C. I surrender! Rats, moths and rust have broken my power as a capitalist. But tell me, what is your explanation of interest?

S. The explanation is simple enough. If there were a monetary system on this island and I, as a shipwrecked traveller, needed a loan, I should have to apply to a money-lender for money to buy the things which you have just lent me without interest. But a money-lender has not to worry about rats, moths, rust and roof-repairing, so I could not have taken up the position towards him that I have taken up towards you. The loss inseparable from the ownership of goods (there is the dog running off with one of your - or rather my - buckskins!) is borne, not by money-lenders, but by those who have to store the goods. The money-lender is free from such cares and is unmoved by the ingenious arguments that found the joints in your armour. You did not nail up your chest of buckskins when I refused to pay interest; the nature of your capital made you willing to continue the negotiations. Not so the money-capitalist; he would bang the door of his strongroom before my face if I announced that I would pay no interest. Yet I do not need the money itself, I need it only to buy buckskins. The buckskins you lend me without interest; but on the money to buy buckskins I must pay interest!

R.C. Then the cause of interest is to be sought in money? And Marx was mistaken?

S. Of course Marx was mistaken, and as he was mistaken about money, the nervous system of economic life, he was mistaken about everything. He and his disciples excluded money from the scope of their enquiry; he was fascinated by the shining metal disks, otherwise he could never have written: "Gold and silver are not by nature money, but money is by nature gold and silver, witness the coincidence of their natural properties and its functions."

R.C. Practice certainly doesn't confirm Marx's theory - that has been clearly shown by our negotiations. For Marx money is simply a medium of exchange, but money does more, it seems, than "merely pay the price of the commodities it purchases," as Marx asserts. When the borrower refuses to pay interest, the banker can close the door of his safe without experiencing any of the cares which beset the owner of goods - that is the root of the matter.

S. Rats, moths and rust are powerful logicians! A single hour of economic practice has taught you more than years of study of the text books.


----

1 To save space I have not subjected the loan-contract here described to the regulating effect of competition. If the conditions of the loan were determined by competition in the form of several loan-givers (Crusoes) to one loan-taker (the Stranger) the contract would be still more favourable to the loan-taker. It is also assumed that both parties are guided by the principles of Free-Land, for otherwise the outcome would be, not a loan contract, but a fight.

2 This obvious fact has been overlooked by every writer upon interest up to the present day, even by Proudhon.

3 Knut Wicksell, Wert, Kapital und Rente, p. 83, "Boehm-Bawerk asserts that present goods are at least equal to future goods, since, if need be, they can simply be 'stored for use in the future.' This is certainly a great exaggeration. Boehm-Bawerk does, indeed, mention that perishable goods, such as ice, fruit, etc., are an exception. But this exception applies more or less to all foodstuffs. Perhaps, indeed, all goods except precious stones and precious metals, if kept for future consumption, require special labour and attention - to which must be added the danger of loss through accidents such as fire."
(Banks now provide, for private use, special store-rooms for gold, precious stones and securities. For the use of these rooms, however, rent must be paid. The "present gods" [sic] are here inferior to the "future goods," by at least the amount of this rent).


/

(so shoot me! :p )
 
118118 said:
If capital still exists as before then wouldn't it be the case the iterest free banks would not end wage labour/unequal distrubution of product. The economics are not just bebt based.

if you are so concerned and obsessed by the idea of Capital, why dont you go and start a thread about the usurers, weed them out through discussion. Go and petition against the Rothschilds, the Morgans, the Gothas all of them.

capital exists specifically because of the interest based monetary system.

I have explained time after time that this economic system is designed to expand and subsume. Value - ethics and morals within this system are tainted. To say that wage labour/unequal distrubution of product would still exist is to re-apply Marxist theories that are based upon myth.

The industrial revolution emerged out of the debt based monetary system with morals and ethics emerging out of this very system.
True ethics and morals are conpletely subsumed and incompatible with this system. They are dominated and eventually obliterated.

An interrest-free monetary system would re-establish ethics and morals of the human being as dominant and the simulacra would be neutralised.

There are no evil human beings, yes, even J P Morgan has human ethics and morals but the simulacra dominates. The point at which the human is lost completely is when a cashless society is standard.

Economics are just debt based, the economy is fake-- the economy and economics exists due to the debt based monetary system. They are inseparable.
 
Back
Top Bottom