* * *

Digression 1 :

On System-Forming Delusions

In this connection it would be a sin not to recall the system-forming nature of science[44] and higher education.

Do state officials including A. Livshits, politicians, businessmen, economic reporters of mass media, economists and lecturers of finance and economics faculties at universities and colleges turn a blind eye on the fact that loan interest and speculations with «stocks» paralyze the society’s economy because they are truly mistaken due to their weakness of mind, ignorance and amateurism? Or is this an evil design accomplished in a perfectly professional way by venal rascals and hypocrites whose objective is enslaving the rest of society while it is drugged by ignorance and stifled financially by the oligarchy of usurious bankers, stock exchange speculators and their backstage masters? Let everyone answer this question on one’s own and act accordingly.

We should also point out the fact that financial and economic «blindness» of politicians, academicians, and scholars, is of a selective nature. Those very «blind» people show an amazing acuteness of sight and act very actively in finding faults with the government for its policy on taxes and subsidies. All the years of reforms mass media supported by academic authorities have been wailing about high taxes which are strangling production, making capital seek cover abroad, provoking double-entry book-keeping and hiding income to escape taxation by physical and juridical persons etc. Therefore the issue of taxation in its connection with usury must also be elucidated correctly.

The fundamental difference between the «pressure of taxation» b e longing to true statehood and the usurious vampirism of the anti-national mafia consists in that after money circulation has emerged:

Taxes take away from the producer a certain fraction of his actual production calculated in terms of value. After that if this fraction is not looted it is used to the benefit of the state. If the state represents the interests of the vast majority of conscientious laborers all that has been exempted from them in the form of taxes returns to the society in the form of social security provided by the state. In other words in such a state the «pressure of taxation» does not suppress anyone because everything exempted as taxes returns to the society this or that way.

Usury sucks out of the society a pre-set fraction of produced items in value terms. This fraction historically really is almost always larger than the efficiency of taking the loan as shown by bookkeeping records. Consequently the society finds itself a slave of supra-national corporation of bloodsuckers — racist usurers.

Such blindness to the effect loan interest and tax rates have on production and consumption which cannot be neutralized by taxing the bank sector proves the fact that economic science and conventional sociology in Russia are of anti-national and anti-state nature because they act in the interests of the supra-national mafia of usurers and justify financial, investment and political strategies desirable for it in a believable «scientific» way.

At the same time there is an opinion widely spread in the society, which is essentially inconsistent: that loan interest is supposedly vital as the source to finance bank activities that are really necessary to the society[45].

Consequently those who adhere to this view think that the fundamental requirement of prohibiting loan interest (including interest on bank deposits[46]) by law is an anti-systemic demand by «extremist laymen» that can supposedly ruin the institution of credit and the whole of macroeconomy. In their view the annual interest of 240 % in Russia of the Chernomyrdin and Livshits era are one extreme and a 0 % annual interest as a system-forming requirement of organizing the credit and finance system in the future economy of the entire mankind and not only Russia are another extreme.

From their point of view «normal» macroeconomy should have some «moderate» loan interest rates. Those rates on the one hand should allow banks to finance their essential activities and to pay out interest on bank deposits in order to encourage people towards using their savings for financing the development of enterprises that constitute the macroeconomic system of the society. On the other hand they should enable the majority of enterprises to make profit in all branches of industry and should not impair the population’s solvent demand.

When specific figures are named for the highest possible loan interest rates they are usually within the bounds of 5 to 7 % per year.[47]

Actually the advocates of this point of view confuse two fundamentally different questions. They are:

The question of financing the society’s infrastructure that among others includes bank infrastructure that serves for making payments and bank transfers. It also keeps books of the multiindustrial production and consumption system on the macro-level.

The question about anyone having a right to claim income that is essentially unearned. This income therefore has nothing to do with remuneration for past and future contribution to the society’s welfare and with social security provided regardless of participation in labor.

Work is done by people, not by money. People make products and services that when consumed are paid for with money.

If one bears this in mind, one finds the confusion of the two above-mentioned questions done by supporters of the “moderate loan interest rates”. Such confusion is unacceptable in social life, in state policy, in social science. Because it substitutes the question of slavery brought about by «moderate» loan interest rates with the question about the necessity of financing bank infrastructure. And this slavery is historically really executed by means of systemic bank usury. This is the way by which this fundamental issue of organizing the society’s life is excluded from discussion by confusing the two questions.[48]

Systemic bank usury is a means of executing mafia financial slavery. And the institution of credit is a game in which only one team scores. Since usurious creditors always gain financially while the whole of the society loses out. But besides that the «moderate» loan interest is detrimental to the society for several other reasons.

In a society where the bank system uses loan interest the statistic of bank deposits made by citizens makes the statistic on the amount of those deposits rise due to loan interest added to them. Interest on deposits for some of the depositors turns out to be comparable to their earned income. And for some other depositors they exceed income figures needed for consumption by the highest life standards. And this happens even when «moderate» loan interest rates are used that pose no threat to the macroeconomic stability and integrity. Besides, descendants of the original depositors inherit bank deposits. And notwithstanding the fact that they have not contributed to accumulating the original savings they have a legal right to enjoy this unearned income.[49]

Therefore, having agreed to the introduction of «moderate» loan interest rates (including interest on bank deposits) and having legalized it, the society encourages the richest from among depositors to become parasites instead of cultivating respect towards conscientious labor and encouraging it. The society does so by acknowledging their right to enjoy unearned income and by re-distributing to their benefit products manufactured by those who have no bank deposits or bank only small savings that produce interest of no importance for their personal or family budget.