[44] «The Institute of the transition period economy» which has been headed by E. Gaidar for several years takes up a special place within this system. If given a name corresponding to the nature of his activity the institute would be called: «The Institute of CREATING ECONOMIC PROBLEMS» which it cannot provide solutions for due to feeble-mindedness».

[45] The bank system on the whole performs the following tasks on the macro level of the economy:

is engaged in accounting of the macro level (keeps counts and transfers monies, accompanying purchase and sale deals of the majority of microeconomic subjects, at least it does so in the so-called «economically developed» countries);

provides short-term loans to production sphere damping the failures in the rhythmic alternations in the economic subjects’ paying capacity thereby speeding up products exchange and increasing running speed, stability and output capacity of the multiindustrial production and consumption system of the society;

provides long-term loans to the sphere of production enabling enterprises to overcome investment peaks in their expenditure and thereby ensuring that old productive capacities are renewed, new capacities are introduced and the inter-industry proportions of productive capacities (i.e. the so-called mutual compliance between productive capacities of different industries) are maintained;

provides loans to families enabling them to satisfy their consumer wants which provides for adaptation of nominal solvent demand to existing market prices. This increases sales of manufactured products and speeds up the delivery of certain services to the population (under an economic policy directed towards the satisfaction of morally healthy needs of population this option gives a chance of a rapid advance in the society’s welfare).

The bank system is indispensable in solving the above-mentioned tasks, yet their solving is not an end in itself for which banks solely exist. This is a means to assemble the number of microeconomy into the systemic integrity of the macroeconomy, that microeconomy solving the majority of productive tasks emerging in the life of society and its members with the help of their technological activities.

[46] In fact a bank deposit is a loan lent by the depositor to the bank. Therefore interest on deposit is a kind of loan interest. Most banks pay interest on deposits out of income where the share of usurious income received from the credit services lent by the bank is quite substantial. In other words every depositor takes part in the usurers’ robbing the society. The only difference between depositors is that the majority lose more by higher prices of purchased goods and services than they gain from income on deposits; and the minority gain more from income on deposits than they lose by prices on purchased goods and services which the money required to return loans with interest is included into.

[47] In order to understand why these numbers are named as the top limit for loan interest rates one must know the following. The average annual growth of the technosphere’s energy potential measured against coal production during the 150 years preceding the beginning of the 21st century was 5 %.As the volume of production is limited by the volume of energy which is put into the manufacturing processes then a loan interest rate which poses no threat to the stability of financial system and of technical renovation of the macroeconomy cannot exceed the growth rate of energy potential within the production sphere (on this issue please refer to the theory of similarity of multiindustrial production and consumption systems in “The Brief Course…” and “Dead Water” in post-1998 editions by the Internal Predictor of the USSR).

In conformity with such energy potential growth rate within the production sphere the limit of loan interest rate at 5 % per year during the whole of the mentioned century and a half lay within the bounds of safety for the macroeconomy of most countries. A 7 % rate was safe for the macroeconomy of usurious countries (crediting countries) whose income contained profits from loans lent to other countries and allowed to compensate for the discrepancy between the energy potential growth rate calculated in constant basic prices and the usurious demands expressed in loan interest rates by means of import. It is exactly this kind of income that devastated the economies of «third world» countries (most of them former colonies), which were ruined by usurious countries. This prevented their cultural transformation and made the people of those countries hate the usurers.

But the point is that besides the factors of a purely financial and economic nature there are other factors significant for the society’s life and the advocates of a «moderate» loan interest rate avoid discussing them. These very factors result in the ways nations react non-financially, as well as in the ways some people react personally when they see that entire regions of the Earth and their population are enslaved often by means of legalized system-forming usury which results initially from acknowledging the rightfulness of «moderate» loan interest rates.

[48] But it might be so that excluding the issue of slavery exercised by financial means from discussion is exactly what this policy is aimed at. We lay the blame for it on the economic science, which is the legacy of the era when Western-type capitalism was being implemented. And we lay the blame on the social and economic publicists who rely heavily on its authority.

[49] Though it is beyond any doubt that every family should have a right of having property passed on from generation to generation, such as a certain amount of money savings, housing, etc., as it provides for stability of family «infrastructure» and of the family itself in succession of generations.

Current Russian legislature violates this natural family right (the mob of lawyers in the Duma know only about individual rights yet they have no idea about protecting collective rights: rights of family, labor collectives, peoples, the mankind) by stipulating what is in fact a tax on the death of parents collected from their children and grandchildren after they take possession of the parents’ apartment if they lived separately.

This is just another example of how foul Russian bourgeois reformers act: being incapable to organize the social production and distribution which provides their citizens with normal life conditions and ensures that the budget is funded the state of bourgeois reformers shamelessly grabs at anything it can.

[50] Substituting the average laborer with the «average tax-payer», which became a custom in the mass media is also a substitution of one matter with another. Are Russian lawyers so hopelessly dumb that they cannot understand this point? — And if they are not dumb why do they refrain from discussing this issue both in Russia and in the «international community»?

[51] This can be proven by rigid accounting means on the basis of the theory of similarity of multiindustrial production and consumption system described in the works by Internal Predictor of the USSR “The Brief Course…” and “Dead Water” in post-1998 editions.

[52] There is two words in English meaning two similar things: concept and conception. They are:

Concept – n. general notion; abstract idea.

Conception – n. 1 conceiving or being conceived. 2 idea, plan. 3 understanding (has no conception).