the truth about libertarianism, "classical liberalism" and Murray Rothbard

[Dachsie]

The Church and The Libertarian
6,422 views
•Nov 16, 2019
452
23
Share
Save
Sensus Fidelium
127K subscribers
The fall of man…from a utopian paradise we fell into a dystopian society filled with love of mammon. From the innocent Adam detached from the things of this earth to the likes of Ebenezer Scrooge abusing and defrauding various Bob Cratchits. The Scrooge mentality of denying a just wage to the worker…setting unjust prices for items or price gouging…gaining usurious profits from lending to those in need of borrowing money…pursuing the profit motive instead of seeking justice and the common good…putting capital above the notion of human labor…promoting the gospel of the free market and a laissez faire economic system where an invisible hand makes all things right and the market can do no wrong as if it were an unquestionable dogma…the adoration of the concept of free trade though it may well dismantle the manufacturing base of the nation turning machinists and tool makers into service workers that flip hamburgers and earn less…demanding an absolute right to property no matter the circumstances and needs of others…defending child labor and exploiting workers in sweat shops (are there no workhouses?)…claiming that no worker is underpaid, nor any CEO overpaid…and so many other Scrooge-like concepts that have created the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few while the common man is often shut out from the free enterprise system. And yet Scrooge would have his defenders today, even amongst so called “conservative” Catholics. Libertarianism has become fashionable amongst many a traditionalist, but it is nothing more than another form of liberalism condemned by the Church. Any form of the ideology of liberalism is opposed to Christ the King and His Kingdom (2X). Liberalism in philosophy is condemned for it leads to rationalism. Liberalism is politics is irreconcilable with Christ and the Church for it leads to laicism and secular humanism. Liberalism in religion leads to religious indifferentism which clashes with the rightful claims of Christ and the Catholic Church of having a monopoly on all saving truth and saving grace. And yes, liberalism in economics, including libertarianism, often leads to the promotion of greed. Classic liberalism is still the plain old error of liberalism and the Church is anti-liberal in her very nature. Last Sunday at the early Mass, we learned how when God first created the woman from Adam’s side, before the fall, Adam named her “Virago.” “Adam said: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman [Virago], because she was taken out of man” (Genesis 2:23). Adam changed her name to Eve after they fell. But the name Virago is quite interesting and helpful in understanding what the Blessed Virgin Mary is all about. Amazingly, throughout the entire Holy Bible, this name only appears in this one place before the Fall. All the dictionaries I consulted, three in all, agree on its meaning: “a man-like, vigorous, heroic maiden; a female warrior, heroine.” The woman made from Adam’s side failed to live up to her name because she failed to be dependent … she did her own thing without any authority… seeking to become a god. As the Church along with all her fathers and doctors teach, Our Lady, the Blessed Virgin Mary, is indeed the Woman of Genesis 3:15. She is the Woman who restored all that it meant to be the Virago of man… the Virago of God. Since today, Sept 15th, is normally the feast of Our Lady of Sorrows, let us, then, focus on the necessity of her sufferings to make this possible. The heroic Virago’s sacrifice was needed to change Eva to an Ave so that the original Virago might come back and be completely dependent on God. It worked! The Ave of the Angel Gabriel did just that… made Blessed Virgin completely dependent and open to the necessary sacrifices such that the fall of Eva was reversed by this Ave. For more please visit http://reginaprophetarum.org & remember to say 3 Hail Marys for the priest

[PatColo]

this recent KBarrett show discussed some DDuke, & Murray Rothbard having a civil conversation, where MR revealed he didn't fully believe the hollowhoax.

Asking Good Questions About Totally Taboo Topics! David Duke & the Holocaust (With Martin Hill and Ian Greenhalgh)
TRUTH JIHAD / KEVIN BARRETT • NOVEMBER 14, 2019 • 4 COMMENTS

[Dachsie]

way back in the mid to late 1990s I became fooled for a while that libertarianism was the best way to preserve the Constitution and the rule of law and save the republic. How wrong I was.

Greenhalgh used to be good commentator and often on Dr. Fetzer's radio shows, but he seems to have gone the way of Kevin Barratt and others associated with Veterans Today and a twisted take on false events on U.S. soil, especially regarding 9-11 and Sandy Hook.

I used to communicate with some of the main local libertarian activists and the ones I remember all seemed to take 9-11 official narrative as true and acceptable. That is when I knew they were not about truth.

As I have posted here probably more than once, libertarianism is born in the philosophy of atheist Jews from a couple of centuries ago and modern day Catholics who have gone astray in their Catholic social teaching, as E. Michael Jones has so often written about.

I remember having a conversation with a person I admire very much for exposing the no planes part of 9-11 and subtly coming to the realization that he was an atheist libertarian retired economics professor. He asked me what I thought of Andrew Carnegie and I replied that I thought he was a robber baron of the first order. He seemed a little upset with my reply and said " you do not believe in capitalism" and I replied "no, I do not believe in capitalism. Capitalism is state sponsored usury." That is when I began to understand better Dr. Reynold's odd close association with the Dr. Judy Wood brand of 9-11 truth.

I know how "capitalist philanthropist Sottsman Carnegie" housed and took care of his steel workers in his housing slums in Pittsburgh. The workers worked 6 days a week, 14 hours a day, had several children in their substandard housing with no indoor plumbing. One week each month they worked all seven days in a row with no day off. Feel the capitalist philanthropic love!




https://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-in...price-gouging/

Here is an article by Ron Paul that first appeared on his own congressional website

titled

IN PRAISE OF PRICE GOUGING

Ron Paul and other libertarians praise price gouging. Taking advantage of any old situation that comes along.

There is another article somewhere on the web by Ron Paul that said the people fleeing New York City on 9-11-01 should have been charged inflated, price gouging hotel room rates on their exodus path away from NYC.

Ron Paul
Infowars.com
November 12, 2012
Photo by Infrogmation of New Orleans, via Wikimedia Commons
As the northeastern United States continues to recover from Hurricane Sandy, we hear the usual outcry against individuals and companies who dare to charge market prices for goods such as gasoline. The normal market response of rising prices in the wake of a natural disaster and resulting supply disruptions is redefined as “price gouging.” The government claims that price gouging is the charging of ruinous or exploitative prices for goods in short supply in the wake of a disaster and is a heinous crime. But does this reflect economic reality, or merely political posturing to capitalize on raw emotions?
In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, the supply of gasoline was greatly disrupted. Many gas stations were unable to pump gas due to a lack of electricity, thus greatly reducing the supply. At the same time demand for gasoline spiked due to the widespread use of generators. Because gas stations were forbidden from raising their prices to meet the increased demand, miles-long lines developed and stations were forced to start limiting the amount of gasoline that individuals could purchase. New Jersey gas stations began to look like Soviet grocery stores.
Had gas stations been allowed to raise their prices to reflect the increased demand for gasoline, only those most in need of gasoline would have purchased gas, while everyone would have economized on their existing supply. But because prices remained lower than they should have been, no one sought to conserve gas. Low prices signaled that gas was in abundant supply, while reality was exactly the opposite, and only those fortunate enough to be at the front of gas lines were able to purchase gas before it sold out. Not surprisingly, a thriving black market developed, with gas offered for up to $20 per gallon.
With price controls in effect, supply shortages were exacerbated. If prices had been allowed to increase to market levels, the profit opportunity would have brought in new supplies from outside the region. As supplies increased, prices gradually would have decreased as supply and demand returned to equilibrium. But with price controls in effect, what company would want to deal with the hassle of shipping gas to a disaster-stricken area with downed power lines and flooded highways when the same profit could be made elsewhere? So instead of gas shipments flooding into the disaster zones, what little gas supply is left is rapidly sold and consumed.
Governments fail to understand that prices are not just random numbers. Prices perform an important role in providing information, coordinating supply and demand, and enabling economic calculation. When government interferes with the price mechanism, economic calamity ensues. Price controls on gasoline led to the infamous gas lines of the 1970s, yet politicians today repeat those same failed mistakes. Instituting price caps at a below-market price will always lead to shortages. No act of any legislature can reverse the laws of supply and demand.
History shows us that the quickest path to economic recovery is to abolish all price controls. If governments really want to aid recovery, they would abolish their “price-gouging” legislation and allow the free market to function.
This article first appeared on Congressman Paul’s house site Paul.house.gov.

[jimswift]

Here is an article by Ron Paul that first appeared on his own congressional website

titled

IN PRAISE OF PRICE GOUGING

Ron Paul and other libertarians praise price gouging. Taking advantage of any old situation that comes along.

There is another article somewhere on the web by Ron Paul that said the people fleeing New York City on 9-11-01 should have been charged inflated, price gouging hotel room rates on their exodus path away from NYC.

Ron Paul
Infowars.com
November 12, 2012
Photo by Infrogmation of New Orleans, via Wikimedia Commons
As the northeastern United States continues to recover from Hurricane Sandy, we hear the usual outcry against individuals and companies who dare to charge market prices for goods such as gasoline. The normal market response of rising prices in the wake of a natural disaster and resulting supply disruptions is redefined as “price gouging.” The government claims that price gouging is the charging of ruinous or exploitative prices for goods in short supply in the wake of a disaster and is a heinous crime. But does this reflect economic reality, or merely political posturing to capitalize on raw emotions?
In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, the supply of gasoline was greatly disrupted. Many gas stations were unable to pump gas due to a lack of electricity, thus greatly reducing the supply. At the same time demand for gasoline spiked due to the widespread use of generators. Because gas stations were forbidden from raising their prices to meet the increased demand, miles-long lines developed and stations were forced to start limiting the amount of gasoline that individuals could purchase. New Jersey gas stations began to look like Soviet grocery stores.
Had gas stations been allowed to raise their prices to reflect the increased demand for gasoline, only those most in need of gasoline would have purchased gas, while everyone would have economized on their existing supply. But because prices remained lower than they should have been, no one sought to conserve gas. Low prices signaled that gas was in abundant supply, while reality was exactly the opposite, and only those fortunate enough to be at the front of gas lines were able to purchase gas before it sold out. Not surprisingly, a thriving black market developed, with gas offered for up to $20 per gallon.
With price controls in effect, supply shortages were exacerbated. If prices had been allowed to increase to market levels, the profit opportunity would have brought in new supplies from outside the region. As supplies increased, prices gradually would have decreased as supply and demand returned to equilibrium. But with price controls in effect, what company would want to deal with the hassle of shipping gas to a disaster-stricken area with downed power lines and flooded highways when the same profit could be made elsewhere? So instead of gas shipments flooding into the disaster zones, what little gas supply is left is rapidly sold and consumed.
Governments fail to understand that prices are not just random numbers. Prices perform an important role in providing information, coordinating supply and demand, and enabling economic calculation. When government interferes with the price mechanism, economic calamity ensues. Price controls on gasoline led to the infamous gas lines of the 1970s, yet politicians today repeat those same failed mistakes. Instituting price caps at a below-market price will always lead to shortages. No act of any legislature can reverse the laws of supply and demand.
History shows us that the quickest path to economic recovery is to abolish all price controls. If governments really want to aid recovery, they would abolish their “price-gouging” legislation and allow the free market to function.
This article first appeared on Congressman Paul’s house site Paul.house.gov.

Trying to find fault in anything Ron Paul said there?

You on the other hand are implying he's advocating something bad by suggesting real market pricing works even in a crisis.

So your in favor of violent action against willing participants so you can either steal, or force a price against the sellers will?

Property rights be damned, lemme guess, because an entrepreneur business owner didn't build that business, right?

[Dachsie]

Trying to find fault in anything Ron Paul said there?

You on the other hand are implying he's advocating something bad by suggesting real market pricing works even in a crisis.

So your in favor of violent action against willing participants so you can either steal, or force a price against the sellers will?

Property rights be damned, lemme guess, because an entrepreneur business owner didn't build that business, right?

Nonsense. I said or implied or advocated no such thing.

The text and the audio explains, from a Christian standpoint, why libertarian economic philosophy has never worked in the real world and to the extent that this false immoral economic philosophy has been practiced, it is largely responsible for what is called the "income gap" or how the top 2 percent owns like 90 percent of the economy. Workers and their labor are not valued. It is the money that the money men are able to extract from the average working man, preventing him from being able to have and support a family.

I could always see that there was something just not morally right about all the glowing words of the libertarians in their make believe world.

The bible has made it clear, Old Testament and New Testament, that usury is mortally sinful. The simple math of compound interest shows that it is debt that can never be paid.

I also believe that the industrialists and capitalists in USA history did not care at all about USA sovereignty and wanted to trade with other countries without considering using our own country's production of goods and services FIRST to build up our own country and our own citizens. So national sovereignty is not a value of the libertarians.

Our whole corrupt money system was falsely sold to our "representatives" under false ideas that bore no resemblance to the raping and usurious pillaging of our country and its workers.

I note that libertarianism was once very popular in my locale and now it has faded into nothing.

It is failed immoral proposition and always has been.

I have always admired Ron Paul because I just personally judge him as a moral man but not because of his libertarian ideas which have never worked and never will.

Doubt you will read this but here is a good article that explains how economics involves morality and ethics and I think, needs the Christian perspective.

http://www.culturewars.com/2005/Ederer.html

ECONOMICS FOR DUMMIES
Thomas E. Woods Jr., The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy (Lexington Books, 2005) 280 pp., $21.95, Paperback, ISBN-13: 978-0739110362

Reviewed Rupert J. Ederer


Knowledge of theology and philosophy is a forgone conclusion in a work intended to expose the Catholic Church’s supposedly flawed venture into moral teachings about the economic order.

As a matter of fact the name of that arch-dissenter against the Magisterium (Humanae Vitae, papal social teachings, and the justice of the disastrous war in Iraq)

first of all, is the objective dissent from moral teachings by the Catholic Church. The author is in effect opening a whole new line for what as come to be known as “cafeteria Catholicism.” Catholic social teachings from Leo XIII until John Paul II are reduced to the status of a dubious option!

“disobedience to Church teaching” ( p. 3), up to the last chapter with its somewhat nervous defense against any charge of “dissent from Catholic doctrine” (213). Given that the last chapter is entitled, In Omnibus, Caritas. I decided to take on this task because the first obligation in charity is truth!

party-line among economists that theirs is a positive (speculative!) science not unlike chemistry or astronomy.
*


The inference is clear, and all of the intervening chapters in effect do purport to demonstrate that popes from Leo XIII onward to John Paul II have been trying to make two + two = five!


What we are offered in place of their folly is what Woods calls the “brilliant edifice of truth to be found in the Austrian School of economics” (216). It is nowhere allowed that its members too could have tried to make two + two = something other than four. In fact their infallibility is proclaimed early in the book by William Luckey, who teaches such things at Christendom College. Luckey laments the fact that Catholics are expected to deal with teachings which “do not square with what Austrian (that is, free market) economists know to be true ...”(p. 6).
*
The early founders of that School, Carl Menger and Eugen von Böhm Bawerk

They are Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) and his understudy, the ex- socialist Friedrich von Hayek (1900-1992).

A host of American disciples are also mentioned: including Murray N. Rothbard, whom the author especially admires, along with such luminaries (unknown to most) as George Reisman and Israel Kirzner.

One may safely assume that the three Americans were also agnostics since Jewish intellectuals, especially academic types like Mises and Hayek, are almost without exception agnostics or atheists as, incidentally, were also their socialist Jewish counterparts, Karl Marx and Ferdinand Lassalle.

it appears the author is more impressed with the “late Scholastics” than with the ultimate Scholastic and Doctor of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas.

For example, we are asked to accept that poor Thomas didn’t get it quite right with regard to usury and about the “absolute” nature of the private property right (cf. p. 111,194).
*


Woods and the surviving Anhänger of the Austrian School would no doubt show little interest in the many positive by-products of that beautiful little country. Take, for example, the monumental work on Social Ethics (1949) by the great scholar Msgr. Johannes Messner. They would never buy his explication of the Scholastics’ acceptance of the Aristotelian natural law principle—that the state in its subsidiary role as the promoter and protector of the common good is the perfect human society (p. 542ff).

the Austrian Chancellor Engelbert Dolfuss who had hoped to establish his country as a “Quadragesimo Anno state” before the Nazis assassinated him. Those were authentic Catholic Christian Austrians, like their recently beatified last Emperor Charles.

Nor are they ideologically neutral, as if that were even possible in social sciences dealing predominantly with human acts—contrary to what Woods appears to be suggesting throughout is work.

Ludwig von Mises, the Jewish agnostic, indicating his awareness of Peschian solidarism and its “similarity” to Catholic social teaching, wrote In his work on Socialism, that it (solidarism) is “but a simple step from Socialism,” because “it places above the owner an authority—indifferent whether Law and its creator the State (!), or conscience and its counselor, the Church—which is to see that the owner uses its property correctly.” (p. 83).
*


As for solidarism, he claims that “primitive cultures burdened mankind with

‘solidarism,’ a concern for the welfare of the community,
and
‘altruism,’ a charitable and self-sacrificing attitude toward one’s neighbors” (Cf. David Peterson, “Revoking the Moral Order: The Ideology of Positivism and the Vienna Circle,” Culture Wars, October1999). For Hayek “primitive cultures” presumably include the last vestiges of the medieval Christian social order that was overwhelmed by the incursion of capitalist individualism.


What the Austrians are about, so far as their economic methodology is concerned, is pure positivism. That reaffirms what the Jesuit economist Heinrich Pesch (1854-1926) had to say about so-called “neutral” economics. Pesch was the master architect who set about not only to develop a social philosophy (solidarism) in harmony with the teachings of his Church, but also to provide direction for the reconstruction of the economic science by that time sorely in need of it. After being accused of “theologizing” economics in the earlier editions of his Lehrbuch, he responded with words that young students who get involved in the economic science should place at the top of their notebooks:


Let us not deceive ourselves: economics has always been under the sway of one or another Weltanschauung. For a long time this was the materialistic-Enlightenment point of view which had a decisive influence on bourgeois and socialistic economics. Very few scholars were not influenced by it. And those too in our own time, who do not want to hear about a normative science are for the most part under the influence of a positivistic, naturalistic world-view” (Lehrbuch/Teaching Guide to Economics, Pesch/Ederer, Vol.II, Bk. 1. p. iii).

http://www.catholicculture.org/cultu...x.cfm?id=35663
POSITIVISM
email print
*0*0Google +0Delicious0
The view that only the sensibly perceptible is real, that only what is personally experienced is true. Thus nothing but facts can be affirmed with certitude. According to Auguste Comte (1798-1857), who coined the term "positivism," the history of humanity should be described in three stages: the first when people's minds were dominated by theology and superstition; the second when reason prevailed; and the third or final stage when dogmas and philosophies are being replaced by factual knowledge. Hence the supremacy of the physical, psychological, and social sciences in the modern age.

Pesch stated that “Mises is regarded as the main exponent of this trend....” He added: “Mises is on the wrong track when he attributes the terrible conditions in the English factory regions where neo-Manchesterism prevailed, not to that phenomenon, but to other circumstances.” Pesch concluded that “the historical development of industry among the various nations, and also a proper understanding of human nature, pass judgment on individualistic freedom” (Vol. V, Bk. 1, p. v). The Jesuit did his theological studies (1885-1889) in England close to Liverpool where he had the opportunity to observe first-hand the conditions of the working class. Woods, on the other hand, perhaps abandoned his field, history, too soon, so as to venture into economic theory.

Presumably it also involves the model of perfect competition on which economists like the late Joan Robinson (Economics of Imperfect Competition, 1933) and Edwin Chamberlin (Theory of Monopolistic Competition, 1933) built illustrious careers showing that it had little to do with economic reality.

[Economics is a practical science, a social science, involving human acts and therefore involving, or under, the moral order.]
Value-neutral economics is a myth because it is a practical science unlike value neutral-astronomy or arithmetic (the 2 + 2 = 4 thing). Therefore, why is the Catholic Church excluded from presenting also a Catholic Christian Weltanschauung as appertaining to human, (i.e., free) actions which transpire in economic life? The problem lies in the positivist ignorance and/or rejection of, among other things, the very ancient and classical Scholastic distinction between the actus humanus and the actus hominis. The former has to do with voluntary or free acts, specific to human beings. The latter involves involuntary non-deliberate ones (respiration, heartbeat, etc.) which man, the rational animal, shares with the non-rational ones, and which are the proper objects of physical sciences. Economic actions, on the other hand, relate to human endeavors by people in cooperation with other people striving for their survival and upkeep. They are subject to moral laws, natural and Divine. Free human beings can ignore those at their own peril, in the same way that Catholics are able to ignore the teachings of their Church with regard to economic actions and all of their attendant problems.

Perhaps because I was of an earlier generation, it never occurred to me to question whether the popes were beyond their capacity in teaching about justice and charity and their opposites, like theft and avarice.

Start again at

Therefore, it came as no surprise or shock when Blessed John XXIII stated



Revoking the Moral Order: The Ideology of Positivism and the Vienna Circle,” Culture Wars, October1999

Johnson, M. Raphael, Ph.D.
“Will and the Ideology of Science”. Book review of: revoking the Moral Order: The Ideology of Positivism and the Vienna Circle. February, 2001. Pgs. 44-46.

[Jewboo]

way back in the mid to late 1990s I became fooled for a while that libertarianism was the best way to preserve the Constitution and the rule of law and save the republic. How wrong I was. ...As I have posted here probably more than once, libertarianism is born in the philosophy of atheist Jews from a couple of centuries ago...

Same here. I actually read Atlas Shrugged before finding GIM1 and for a short while was a gullible goy Randroid. In the end, we must recognize that "Israel" is her real-world Galt's Gulch now protected by an invisible "Iron Dome" anti-missile system. Intel and many other jew-controlled high-tech corporations hide there. Hitler actually warned us that this would become a soverign criminal nation from where thieving jews operate...

Ron Paul and his son are both goy fools. Neither ever "audited" their (((Federal Reserve Bank))).

[Bigjon]

Nonsense. I said or implied or advocated no such thing.

The text and the audio explains, from a Christian standpoint, why libertarian economic philosophy has never worked in the real world and to the extent that this false immoral economic philosophy has been practiced, it is largely responsible for what is called the "income gap" or how the top 2 percent owns like 90 percent of the economy. Workers and their labor are not valued. It is the money that the money men are able to extract from the average working man, preventing him from being able to have and support a family.

I could always see that there was something just not morally right about all the glowing words of the libertarians in their make believe world.

The bible has made it clear, Old Testament and New Testament, that usury is mortally sinful. The simple math of compound interest shows that it is debt that can never be paid.

.

Well, I stopped reading right here.

We have been down this road many times and it appears that simple math needs to take into account all the parameters.

I am not in favor of compound interest, but the math clearly shows it can be paid by structuring the loan repayment schedule in proper installment's.

All the examples that show that it can't work conveniently forget that bankers spend the money paid to pay the interest.

When that money is returned to the economy it becomes money that is spent more than once. Over the course of the loan the banker will spend the same money multiple times and each time you will be able to earn it again to make your next payment.

Or in other words 1 penny can do the work of 1000 dollars if the penny is spent 100,000 times.

This is where we get the term velocity of money or how many times has the money exchanged hands.

All these examples seem to think that once the payment is sent to the banker he is a black hole and nothing comes out. Which is just total bullshit.

[woodman]

Well, I stopped reading right here.

We have been down this road many times and it appears that simple math needs to take into account all the parameters.

I am not in favor of compound interest, but the math clearly shows it can be paid by structuring the loan repayment schedule in proper installment's.

All the examples that show that it can't work conveniently forget that bankers spend the money paid to pay the interest.

When that money is returned to the economy it becomes money that is spent more than once. Over the course of the loan the banker will spend the same money multiple times and each time you will be able to earn it again to make your next payment.

Or in other words 1 penny can do the work of 1000 dollars if the penny is spent 100,000 times.

This is where we get the term velocity of money or how many times has the money exchanged hands.

All these examples seem to think that once the payment is sent to the banker he is a black hole and nothing comes out. Which is just total bullshit.

You are correct, to a point. Although the money gets re-loaned time and again, the interest, in every instance depends wholly upon the new loans coming through, since the money to pay the interest on each loan is not created along with the loan. So it is a pyramid scheme at best and designed to fail and drown people in debt, thereby handing to the bankers, for pennies on the dollar, their life's work; their blood, sweat, tears and anything meaningful that they worked for.

The madness of our society can be wholly traced to this pernicious form of slavery, (and slavery it is, in it's meanest, lowest form) which is destroying our world and is responsible for the destruction we are witnessing.

[Bigjon]

You are correct, to a point. Although the money gets re-loaned time and again, the interest, in every instance depends wholly upon the new loans coming through, since the money to pay the interest on each loan is not created along with the loan. So it is a pyramid scheme at best and designed to fail and drown people in debt, thereby handing to the bankers, for pennies on the dollar, their life's work; their blood, sweat, tears and anything meaningful that they worked for.

The madness of our society can be wholly traced to this pernicious form of slavery, (and slavery it is, in it's meanest, lowest form) which is destroying our world and is responsible for the destruction we are witnessing.

You are wrong.

The amount of money created for the loan exceeds the amount needed to pay the loan.

You are confusing amount of money created as opposed to amount of money spent. Two different things. If one dollar is spent ten times it is the same as one ten dollar bill spent once.

What you are claiming would mean that the more money spent the less money there would be which is absurd.

The money to pay the interest comes from the banker spending it back into the economy. Your explanation ignores that spending.

[woodman]

You are wrong.

The amount of money created for the loan exceeds the amount needed to pay the loan.

You are confusing amount of money created as opposed to amount of money spent. Two different things. If one dollar is spent ten times it is the same as one ten dollar bill spent once.

What you are claiming would mean that the more money spent the less money there would be which is absurd.

The money to pay the interest comes from the banker spending it back into the economy. Your explanation ignores that spending.

I believe you misinterpreted what I said. Every time a loan is made, the interest is not created. This leads to a backlog of unpayable debt to the bankers. It is that simple. If every loan were paid back, there would be no money in existence. It is that simple. The interest would still be outstanding debt to the bankers, meaning that default is inevitable. It is that simple.