🤔 Economics and interest are two contradictions that strain against each other

ℹ️ I would like to spice up my present post with some 📜 historical essence of economics.

📣 To understanding my topic, why interest of money is at odds with the essence of economics, I would like to describe the definition of economics very briefly. 👇

Economics is a social science that deals with the economic system, i.e. the production, distribution, evaluation and consumption of goods. In other words, economics is the science of choices and decisions between conditions of scarcity; social science dealing with the decision-making alternatives of groups of people in the economic process, i.e. in production, distribution, exchange and consumption.

I think it is clearly visible that I underlined the word of production and this is no accident❗In noble simplicity, interest does not create any value in the economy. I believe that one of the biggest problems in our world is the enormous difference in the multiplier factor between the poor and the rich. However, the oligarchy that controls the world also makes up only 1% of the Earth's population, and even within that, 1% of this 1% is the most decisive. If we talk about interest, then the system generates more money for someone, without covering the surplus generated. After all, it is quite obvious that there is no product behind it. However, this empty, unproductive void must be filled with value in some form, and this is done by the numerically largest group, the poor. 

In the life of nation states, interest is a huge burden

Interest is also public money, not just tax. It is worth addressing the much-expressed demand that the state account for its actions and justify what it spends the public money taken from citizens in the form of taxes. However, it is not said that the wealthy class, the creditor financial oligarchy, for what
transfers the public funds, also taken from the citizens - appropriated in the form of interest. Interest is also public money, because it is extracted from income generated by citizens performing value-producing work in the real economy. The public authority, the state, benefits from this value through taxation. And the organized private power of the wealthy benefits from it in the form of interest. In other words, not only the public money taken from the work of citizens, but also the interest taken by the private money system of the financial oligarchy is public money, since it is also the source of the work of the citizens. Therefore, society has the right to claim that the owners of financial assets also account for the abstract with the help of the privately controlled monetary system with billions in interest.

✅ Interest is therefore public money and it does not matter what the financial oligarchy and its machinery spend this legally permitted but economically unnecessary and socially unjust private tax on.

Legally permitted but economically unnecessary : this is precisely the criterion when we can recognize that we cannot speak of nation-states, but only of "nation-states", a kind of state within the state. It is unfortunate, but understandable, that the market economy, since the end of the Second World War, it has been very intensively oriented towards the nation-states.

The fact that the market economy began takeover the politics, moving from the west to the east, as time passed since the Second World War, began to make its influence felt more and more intensively. In fact, we humans have learned throughout history that neither version is safe. Neither when the real nation-state exerts its influence, nor when a super-state artificially serving only oligarchic interests shapes the state's destiny.

I just want to note that although my topic is not the world of cryptocurrencies, I sympathize with the possibilities of P2P (Peer to Peer) systems. Somewhere, the world of cryptocurrencies could create a vision of the future where neither politics, within the framework of real nation-states, nor the game-like "nation-states" of the oligarchy of our time could have an impact.

I promised that I would grab a slice of the history of economics

In fact, I would like to highlight to you that when I say that there is a contradiction between economics and interest of money, it is not at all a new thing on my part. A much smarter person than me realized this, so from this point of view, I am only giving you a chance to think about a conscious approach. Well, yes, please, who I would like to give as an example, in this topic, it is none other than Johann August Gustav Ruhland, who can also be seen in the picture. Incidentally, I would like to point out that between 1893 and 1895 he was a private teacher of economics at the University of Zurich, and between 1898 and 1901 he was a full professor at the University of Freiburg in Switzerland.

The German-born but rather Swiss economy specialist was fully aware of the fundamental problems caused by the interest rate mechanism. Since he drew his views from the study of history, it is understandable that he quotes a lot from both the Greeks and the Romans.

✅ Regarding Greek history, for example, he makes this comment:

“ Despite all their differences in details, the most important Greek thinkers agree that capitalism, which destroys peoples, can only be destroyed in society if interest disappears from the monetary system.”

💡Let's play with the idea of interest-free local money

Many fear that if interest-free money were to be introduced in a country, it would be pushed out of use by interest-bearing foreign currency. It can be proven that this is the other way around, because in practice what happens is that interest-bearing money is displaced by interest-free money. If, for example, interest-free money were to be introduced in a country, then the interest-bearing dollars also in circulation there would not be used to conduct money circulation, but to accumulate money, since interest can be received on dollars. Thus, the dollar would be forced out of circulation in these areas precisely because it is still interest-bearing money. In contrast, interest-free money would increasingly take over the mediation of commodity exchange.

How valuable can this interest of money based on the dying FIAT system be?

Let's open our 👀 eyes just for a moment and see what China is doing❓

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I have a political conviction that if the East takes power over the West, especially in the field of financial technologies, then the value system of China's communist system should be followed. Here, I am approaching the topic purely in terms of the relevance of economics. In the eastern region, China is a big cuckoo's egg thanks to its communist leadership, and it is no coincidence that it is the most enthusiastic supporter of the CBDC 😭(Maybe later I will write about this in an article when I draw attention to the dangers of CBDC, where China is the leader.) 

Now I would like to ✍️ write briefly about why China considers FIAT money and its interest to be completely meaningless and worthless in its own ecosystem❓ And what kind of action does this manifest itself in❓ 

• China, of course, provides FIAT money-based loans to start-up businesses in its country, but it is observed that they do not allow businesses to repay the loan in FIAT money, but what they expect is the PRODUCT, which actually represents the economic advantage .
• What else does China use the FIAT money system? It is also possible to observe the phenomenon that it is trying to expand its economic dominance globally by accurately assessing the cancerous growth of the interest phenomenon on the world and using the weapon of the credit trap projected on other countries. That is, FIAT money it is only good for acquiring territories outside of its country without war. (Of course, only in the interpretation of economic supremacy, I am not referring to physical area attachments.)

👋 I hope that I managed to arouse thoughts in as many people as possible, and that as many valuable thoughts as possible will see the light of day on the subject. It's not at all certain that I see things correctly in everything, I don't think that this would be my function as a person who tells. Rather, my duty is to assess what is the topic that a society or societies must deal with for valuable thoughts should surface.