However, those obsessions made most of the population mad, and the INDIVIDUAL dependence of a private entrepreneur on the dictate of administrative bodies, a slaveholder, a feudal or another type of the superior was replaced by not any less violent mass dependence on the monetary ‘spontaneity’. The corporation of usurers and moneychangers ‘pretended’ to be ordinary private entrepreneurs, who are not perceived by the muzzy audience as the slaveholders and the lords of the monetary ‘spontaneity’, which enslaved even its ‘charmers’, that is usurers and moneychangers.

Finance and credit system should intrinsically be the means of assembling of a variety of MICROECONOMIES (which produce goods and services of real consumer values) into a single, unified macroeconomics (i.e. a multi-sector system of production and consumption). Irrespective of the way it copes with macro-economic tasks, it has one more function, being a tool of distribution autoregulation in the society, when the goods supply spectrum[2] goes lower than the needs spectrum of the society, and the needs are not limited by the purchasing capacity.

The following two functions of the credit and financial system are significant for management. They can be:

the means of macro-economy assembling from a number of micro-economies.

the tool of distribution autoregulation, when the goods supply spectrum is not sufficient comparing to the free needs of the society.

As a mean of macro-economy assembling from a number of micro-economies[3] and a tool of MANAGEBLE distribution autoregulation, it must provide the disappearance of the deficiency of goods and services all over the demographically-defined needs spectrum and maintain the exchange of commodities in accordance with it.

The rest is either collateral (to the two above functions) consumer’s effects, or various distorted applications of credit-and-finance system accompanied by sponging on the human labour and on the biosphere.

The historical evidence: if a credit-and-finance system is unable to support production and distribution at a macrolevel in accordance with the destination, that means it is maliciously adjusted in a way allowing the degradation-parasite spectrum to suppress the demographically determined one. In that case a great number of small and big businesspeople, clerks, their economic advisors and journalists are the actuating mechanisms pushing the society to suicide, whereas the degraded rest will be enslaved to follow instructions of the behind-the-scenes managers of the Biblical-Talmudic project of enslaving the humankind.

That kind of behaviour of lots of people is mainly a consequence of their blind acceptance (with no reflection) of all the aspects of public theology (in the past) and social sciences, that is economics for ‘clerks’ and for the crowd (including Marxism) nowadays.

2.3. What is what in credit-and-finance system. Credit-and-finance system as the means of production and distribution management.

Not only does the public economic science ‘for clerks’ lack managerially significant notions to do with the real production and consumption (i.e. demographically defined and degradation-parasite spectrum), but it also lacks a number of managerially significant notions that describe the credit-and-finance system itself and its links with the exchange of commodities as such. Actually, that is just what makes the economic theories ‘for clerks’ inconsistent and, therefore, inapplicable to solving the macrolevel economic problems to receive the predetermined, ‘pre-ordered’, promised and guaranteed results.

The basic notion that makes the economic theories for masters to be consistent in metrological terms is the ‘price-list invariant’.

The ‘price-list invariant’ has always been defined in such a way, that in a barter trade system, where the goods are exchanged using a two-stage scheme «G₁ЮMЮG₂», there is such a commodity belonging to the money commodity group that possesses the following features:

firstly, it is a sovereign participant of the natural exchange of goods in the barter trade process because it has some additional valuable features apart from the fact that it constantly acts as commodity money in two-stage schemes «G₁ЮMЮG₂»;

secondly, the market prices of other goods for every single commodity-exchange deal are given in an equivalent amount of that commodity by common consent (as a result, the price of a standard unit of the invariant commodity calculated in the invariant amount is always equal to 1, which is behind the term ‘price-list invariant’. In other words, we always exchange an invariant to an invariant pro ratia ¹/₁.)

In the days of ancient barter trade, according to the laws enacted by Hammurapi, the King of Babylon, the society considered the payments in grain and gold to be equal, there fore, they established them as the two equal price-list invariants. Later, in the crowd-and-‘elite’ society, the ruling elite on the basis of its degradation-parasite needs deprived grain from the right to function as a price-list invariant, and the civilization used the gold invariant for a long time.

In economic studies and calculations we can use any commodity type as the price-list invariant, including the commodities that do not belong to the established money group.

Economics does not need the notion ‘price-list invariant’ only in case if researchers do not know how to select it in a way that will let them use the invariant for solving the macrolevel management problems. They do not now about it because they serve the ‘elite’ wants and needs, which belong to the degradation-parasite spectrum.

Gold as an invariant was used as the stuff for means of payment production – coins and standard bullion. Due to that fact, the whole йpoque of circulation of gold and other precious monetary metals as means of payment (up to the beginning of the XX^th century) represented the йpoque of natural barter using the scheme «G₁ЮMЮG₂».

The only difference between that йpoque and the йpoque of traditional barter trade was the fact that ‘packing’ of the invariant into a shape of standard coin was transferred from the marketplace stalls to the Board of Treasury. However, that difference is not bigger than the one between buying tomatoes by weight from the stall at the market or buying nicely pre-packed tomatoes from the supermarket.

The difference between means of payment and the price-list invariant is that whereas the mean of payment, being the measure of prices fro all commodities (like the price-list invariant), can possess no other commonly recognizable values except playing the intermediate part of commodity money in a two-step scheme of exchange «G₁ЮMЮG₂», or be used in a single-stage scheme «GЮMЮ», when it plays a role of means of accumulation of nominal paying capacity.

Any means of payment that does not have any value outside the sphere of money circulation, accompanying and supporting the exchange of commodities for production and consumer purposes and accepted in certain transactions, may be rejected in other transactions. However, despite the means of payment may have no other value except being the means of payment or means of accumulation of nominal paying capacity, it can still be recognized having such qualities by the majority of population for a long time.

Economic theories ‘for clerks’ thoughtlessly inherited the notional system from the йpoque of circulation of ‘precious-metal’ coins and the gold standard. The functions of price-list invariant and those of means of payment are considered as if they were just different functions of the same money.