Adam said (May 2, 2013):

Anthony Migchels' statement that "without banks we would not have money" is not correct. There are two examples of National Governments issuing their own interest free currency without the involvement of interest grabbing Banks.

The first example is that of the United States during the Civil War when President Lincoln authorized the issue of the Greenback Dollar - 450 million of them.

The second example is that of Great Britain as it was then known during the First World War with the issue of the Bradbury Pound. It was actually issued to the Banks for distribution.

These are two examples of a solution to the problem of privately issued interest-based currency which could be abolished and is completely unnecessary.

More information is available in a free e-book called The Bradbury Pound obtainable at http://www.ukcolumn.org

Robert said (May 1, 2013):

This article is very misleading as an explanation for our basic economic problems. Issuing money interest-free does nothing to address the more important question of how to ensure that it gets into the hands of the right people--which in a Christian society means everyone, just as 'the gentle rain falls alike on the just and the unjust'.
In his analysis Migchels is barking up the wrong tree.

V said (May 1, 2013):

Hallelujah !

One of the biggest problems in the past few thousands of years, usury and Anthony does a good job in pointing this out. A very evil system.

J.F.K got his head blown away for creating 'Treasury Notes' in competition with private, usury 'Federal Reserve Notes'. No way London was going to allow that.

I hear that Michael Hoffman has a great book on usury titled "Usury in Christendom: The Moral Sin that Was and Now is Not."

Dick said (May 1, 2013):

A very strong article by Anthony Migchels.

I think it would be fair to ask, however, how without charging interest any lender can assess the risk of lending money. Or if this is to be a "social credit" scheme how such credit is to be
apportioned and for what? Not all economic activity – and therefore not all creditworthiness – is equal. Would you sooner lend your
money for the construction of a new road, or for someone to dig holes and fill them back up, as Keynes considered? Your debt is not
the same as national debt, but the implications are similar.

I would recommend to your readers the United Front Against Austerity at http://againstausterity.org

We're working on a number of different areas, one of which is reform of the US Federal Reserve System. UFAA's proposal, and this strikes at the heart of this issue, is to issue long-term, interest-
free credit (starting with $3.6 trillion for current infrastructure needs) from the Fed (with formal nationalization of the Fed to
follow). This credit would be limited strictly for the physical production of infrastructure, manufactured goods and commodities (food, lumber, ores, etc.)

Where anti-usury doctrine usually leads is to social credit, to which I believe Mr. Migchels is more or less partial. This scheme
would essentially give interest-free money to consumers, in an attempt to make purchasing power keep pace with production. This is
something like the "helicopter money" described favorably by Milton Friedman.

The obvious problem is that things don't make themselves – unless you want an absolute command (all production controlled by the state) economy, you need a profit motive for people to wake up in
the morning and build bridges, run power plants, make iPads, etc.

Usury is not exactly the root cause of the problem, but an effect of insufficient credit flowing to where it will employ people in
these profit-making activities. Rather than aiming to do away with all usury, wouldn't it be more practical to start by controlling
national credit? A national government absolutely should not pay interest to "borrow" – it can lend its own credit, add the IOU to the national debt, and recirculate the nation's money through
taxation and re-lending. The big question that needs to be answered, however, is who gets these loans?

UFAA says "give credit where credit is due." Public money should be lent for production. Start with infrastructure, move to industry
and commodities, and let the "free market" within the confines of the nation work out the rest. Here's an article that goes into this issue in more detail:

http://www.againstausterity.org/article/rebuild-americas-
infrastructure-stop-spending-and-start-lending

Dick said (May 1, 2013):

A very strong article by Anthony Migchels.

I think it would be fair to ask, however, how without charging interest any lender can assess the risk of lending money. Or if this is to be a "social credit" scheme how such credit is to be
apportioned and for what? Not all economic activity – and therefore not all creditworthiness – is equal. Would you sooner lend your
money for the construction of a new road, or for someone to dig holes and fill them back up, as Keynes considered? Your debt is not
the same as national debt, but the implications are similar.

I would recommend to your readers the United Front Against Austerity at http://againstausterity.org

We're working on a number of different areas, one of which is reform of the US Federal Reserve System. UFAA's proposal, and this strikes at the heart of this issue, is to issue long-term, interest-
free credit (starting with $3.6 trillion for current infrastructure needs) from the Fed (with formal nationalization of the Fed to
follow). This credit would be limited strictly for the physical production of infrastructure, manufactured goods and commodities (food, lumber, ores, etc.)

Where anti-usury doctrine usually leads is to social credit, to which I believe Mr. Migchels is more or less partial. This scheme
would essentially give interest-free money to consumers, in an attempt to make purchasing power keep pace with production. This is
something like the "helicopter money" described favorably by Milton Friedman.

The obvious problem is that things don't make themselves – unless you want an absolute command (all production controlled by the state) economy, you need a profit motive for people to wake up in
the morning and build bridges, run power plants, make iPads, etc.

Usury is not exactly the root cause of the problem, but an effect of insufficient credit flowing to where it will employ people in
these profit-making activities. Rather than aiming to do away with all usury, wouldn't it be more practical to start by controlling
national credit? A national government absolutely should not pay interest to "borrow" – it can lend its own credit, add the IOU to the national debt, and recirculate the nation's money through
taxation and re-lending. The big question that needs to be answered, however, is who gets these loans?

UFAA says "give credit where credit is due." Public money should be lent for production. Start with infrastructure, move to industry
and commodities, and let the "free market" within the confines of the nation work out the rest. Here's an article that goes into this issue in more detail:

http://www.againstausterity.org/article/rebuild-americas-
infrastructure-stop-spending-and-start-lending

Hans said (May 1, 2013):

Reply to Dennis below-

"My bible tells me that the Lord (through Moses) did NOT prohibit usury. While He prohibited it within one people group (the Israelites), He actually authorized it for use against certain other people (their enemies). Simplifying the matter then to it's lowest common denominator His instruction is best seen as "Usury consolidates wealth, thus power. It enslaves, so only use it against your enemies".

Not true. Psalm 15 clearly excludes anyone who lends money for interest from being with God.
Deuteronomy 15:1-11 refers to a time when Gods people were without land and in direct conflict with strangers.

However, when they were finally assembled in their own land, the Porphet Nehemiah commanded to release even strangers from their debt: Nehemiah 5:7-10.

Al Thompson said (May 1, 2013):

Anthony did a great job with this article. I'm not sure if people realize that in the "United States" the income tax is essentially a forced payment of usury. In Ronald Reagan's administration, the Grace Commission made the statement that not one dime of the income tax goes to pay for the government, but rather it goes to pay the interest on the debt. In addition, usury/interest is forbidden by more of the major religions as being evil. If Jews were so smart and are the chosen people of God, then why do many of them partake in charging people interest? But it isn't just Jews, I doubt that any Christian pastor would preach against interest; he might loose his 501 C 3 from the Internal Revenue Service. http://verydumbgovernment.blogspot.com/2010/02/scourge-of-usury.html

The cause of most of the economic problems we have in the world is due to usury. Get rid of usury, most of the problems go away.

Richard said (May 1, 2013):

The only thing that makes sense to me is a money supply that is based on the availability of labor and the output of goods and services. A fee can be charged for a loan, but not interest. Because there is never enough money on hand to pay off the principle and interest in the economy itself. It is doomed to fail at the beginning. Business loans would involve some form of risk and would be more in the nature of investing in the enterprise itself, rather than being a bloodsucker like a vampire with no risk to the lender.

One other point I would like to make is Dante's observation that Sodomites and Usurers both reside in the Ninth Circle of Hell. The reason is quite simple. Sodomy is the taking of the sexual act, which is supposed to be fruitful and rendering it sterile. Money is supposed to be a sterile medium of exchange and store of value, and they have rendered it fruitful. Both are unnatural. E. Michael Jones made this observation and jokingly referred to them as Wankers and Bankers. That would include all kinds of sexual sin that has been given the status of license in this world and has equally put is in chains. Yet many think they are free because they have this license. It is indeed all connected. With the love of money being the root of all evil.

Henrique said (April 30, 2013):

This is brilliant. Usury, Shylock's pound of flesh is the core of this system of slavery plaguing humanity for millennia.There is no rationalization for it and it is absolutely inhuman and barbaric, even though it has many apologists, specially among Jews, for various reasons; one being that the old testament itself romanticizes and supplies it with a raison d'etre.

Gold and silver were introduced mainly as religious symbols, the Sun and the Moon ( they're portrayed in every masonic temple's hall ), and their value is completely controlled, obviously. It's the oldest scam in the world, and impressive that at this age, many people are still overwhelmed and in awe of the wonderful investment opportunity they represent, rocks resembling the sun and the moon. I guess it is an appeal to a very primitive irrational impulse of some sort; and very profitable for all the metal/numismatic mafias out there haunting the patriot movement.

Dan said (April 30, 2013):

Anthony Migchels is correct about the precious metals racket. Under a gold standard, the tiny clique with controlling shares of the gold supply RULE.
Gold is heavily promoted to the little guy - just like stock market investment is. But any government can simply confiscate your gold precisely when you need it. Roosevelt's government did exactly that in 1933.

The facts about usury and how it works hand in glove with the metals racket have been censored out of public consciousness since the bankers took over the education system after 1913. To learn how it works one has to read very old books before the censorship.

Here's one, 'Money Manipulation and Social Order', Belfast, Ireland 1944.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Money_manipulation_and_social_order_000000317.pdf&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Dennis said (April 30, 2013):

The key issue is to differentiate the difference between the weapon and the user of the weapon. Saying that usury is the problem, is like saying that guns are a problem. No, guns can never be a problem. It is the person who points a gun at an innocent person and who pulls the trigger who is the problem.

My bible tells me that the Lord (through Moses) did NOT prohibit usury. While He prohibited it within one people group (the Israelites), He actually authorized it for use against certain other people (their enemies). Simplifying the matter then to it's lowest common denominator His instruction is best seen as "Usury consolidates wealth, thus power. It enslaves, so only use it against your enemies".

When I look around me, I see usury being used by one group of people (the privileged) to enslave others (the rest of us) through the use of the "tool" of usury. The system is actually working very well (for the advantage of the privileged few of course). It is my opinion that if the Lord focused on the 'usage' not the 'tool' perhaps those in the Alternative Currency advocacy movement like Anthony should do the same.

Anthony does address the motive and consequences of usury well but usury, just like a gun, is not a sin. Both a gun and usury are essentially both systems, a technique, a method, a tool if you like. Use of a tool in an evil way is the key issue - not the tool itself.

Flowing from this base understanding, the result is of course similar - we can choose to issue our own interest/debt-free currencies and avoid debt enslavery as much as we can but our attitude towards those who issue debt-based money (whom he calls the Money Power) changes. We then see them as smart business people who know how to use systems for their own benefit, rather than attack usury.

Rich said (April 30, 2013):

The only thing that makes sense to me is a money supply that is based on the availability of labor and the output of goods and services. A fee can be charged for a loan, but not interest. Because there is never enough money on hand to pay off the principle and interest in the economy itself. It is doomed to fail at the beginning. Business loans would involve some form of risk and would be more in the nature of investing in the enterprise itself, rather than being a bloodsucker like a vampire with no risk to the lender.

One other point I would like to make is Dante's observation that Sodomites and Usurers both reside in the Ninth Circle of Hell. The reason is quite simple. Sodomy is the taking of the sexual act, which is supposed to be fruitful and rendering it sterile. Money is supposed to be a sterile medium of exchange and store of value, and they have rendered it fruitful. Both are unnatural. E. Michael Jones made this observation and jokingly referred to them as Wankers and Bankers. That would include all kinds of sexual sin that has been given the status of license in this world and has equally put is in chains. Yet many think they are free because they have this license. It is indeed all connected. With the love of money being the root of all evil.

Tony B said (April 30, 2013):

Steven is the one who is foolish. His knowledge of money is nonexistent. There is no commodity on earth easier to manipulate (in various ways, not just that of amount in circulation) than precious metals, any of them. Steven has no clue as to the number and denominated amounts of exchanges which take place every day. His gold and silver, all of it known to man, could not handle a half hour's worth of one day's exchanges in one country.

You would think everyone in the world would have by now noted that those who sell these precious metals to the gullible demand bank credit of one kind or another in exchange. Why would they not keep the metal if it is so "precious?" The answer is simple. Because the bank credit has been declared by government fiat (by law) to be the money of the realm. Money is a creation of LAW even when it is, as our coin is, of some particular commodity. Note too that a MONETARY VALUE is placed on the metal for exchange purposes regardless of its commodity value. A silver quarter may be worth six or seven dollars today as a commodity but it will still buy a quarter's worth of any other commodity at any store, just the same as a copper clad quarter.

Moreover, actual in-the-hand money, all of it worldwide combined, is still almost nothing compared to the amount of exchanges, most of which are done by other paper, the huge majority by "checks," the technical composition of which I doubt if one in ten million has bothered to understand.

Note that Anthony mentioned - only once, but mentioned - that interest is always COMPOUNDED by the lenders. Even if you believe that those who loan should be allowed interest THERE IS NOT A SINGLE REASON ON EARTH FOR THAT INTEREST TO BE COMPOUNDED, which multiplies the damage it does to civilization exponentially by hundreds of times as it progresses through time.

Steven said (April 30, 2013):

The idea that gold and silver solves nothing is not true. If you have all of the money as coin and have no banks, no lending and no paper or electronic currency then you have no monetary fraud and you have a cash and carry economy. When you buy you pay some thing real and when you are paid you get paid some thing real. Since gold and silver is rare such money would have high buying power. If rich people have gold or silver that is a tribute to their wisdom. It is not an excuse to perpetuate a monetary fraud because the government, banks and 98%+/- of the people have no gold or silver because they are foolish.