“Debt-money” problem

If we say that X is indebting (negative balance sheet) to credit Y, who can then pays Z, who finally pays X, their is a partial solution that creates a fundamental problem of symmetry.

a) Spacial symmetry is not respected

If it is “X” that owns the right to get in debt in the first place, according to “Y” and “Z” there is a huge equity problem. We can say otherwise that the production of every of these values have not to wait for a specific point of monetary emission to circulate. Value exchanges can and must start independently of any specific point, under the risk of blocking a part of the economy (here the exchange between Y and Z).

b) Temporal symmetry is not respected

Even when imagining that X, Y and Z are initially all credited at the same time of a fixed quantity of money, what is the situation for A, B or C that will come after them in the economic system? Their respective exchanges of values being totally different from those of X, Y and Z, have not to suffer neither from a unique emission done in the past, and which repartition would be excessively concentrated here or there (or even could have fled out of the local economic zone), thus blocking their exchanges without sensible reasons from their point of view.

c) Enslavement by the missing interest

One algorithmic demonstration enlightens the fact that a debt-money with asymmetric emission is sufficient, if we respect it’s principle to the letter, to ensure the enslavement without end of some by the other people.

B = Banking system
H = Humans

Interests of H owe to B are 5% / year. In (1) is done the emission of a new “debt” by B, constituting then the “money” credited to H. In (2) the 5% are reimbursed, then eventually spent in (3), and then it’s a infinite loop.

(1) B : -100 | +100 => H +100 | -100
(2) B : -100 | +105 => H +95 | - 100
(3) B buys for 5 to H 1 hour of work
(4) B : -100 | +100 => H +100 | - 100
(5) Go to (2)

Choice 1: infinite loop. H is infinitely enslaved by B that wins 5% per year without work, when H has to work for B to get them back. The problem here is not so the missing interest than H working eternally for B. B has then no interest (pun intended!) in H reimbursing really that debt. He will call it “reimbursing” the only fact to pay him that eternal annuity.

Choice 2: if in the contrary B does not spend the 5% per year but stores it skipping the step (3) (or only spend a small fraction of it to store the most of it), then there is a real missing interest in the economy. H sees himself more and more in debt, and after 20 loops we find the following situation:

B : -100 | + 200 => H +000 | -100

At that moment (H) will not be able to reimburse the next cycle. He is bankrupt, in default, or a negotiation takes place. B has then a huge stock of money, he profits from a purchasing power multiplied by an economy in deflation (as in all that time the economy will have suffered by the progressive rarefaction of the circulating money). He buys then all he estimates as being the economic base of the next cycle at the best price.

Then the cycle will restart on the base of a new generation of humans. B recreates enough money for his own benefit, that he will lend, at a level of creation high enough to make the old monetary mass negligible. Indeed one never starts from 0 to (1), but on the basis of a pre-existing monetary supply, that will for example be 1 on 100 created unilaterally on false premisses, a pseudo-contract whose terms are not given.

All of this is only possible because H ignores the mechanism that no-one tells him. If on top of that that mechanism is going for the time span or more, a new human H recently born, to which no-one would explain that mechanism, would eventually be able to see that subtle phenomenon only late in his own life.

And more, and it’s not the least essential points of the phenomenon, we have to signal that we see in 2012 a confusion between the common “dept-money”, issued by the political collectivities supposed to represent the citizens, and the private “dept-money”. Both wear the same name. But if we distinguish the issued money exclusively under that “debt” form by the political community and the one issued by a private group, without giving them the same name, the mechanism would be not only be more respectful of the logic it pretends to apply, but the rise of individual consciousness of the phenomenon would accelerate.

So it is then staggering that when it is about protecting trademarks the law would be non-negotiable while being about counterfeiting the universal exchange tool we accept the fact that a group of private enterprises call with the same monetary sign what is only it’s own “debt” emission, as if they shared the same mark, and that we use the same mark, with the same acronym, for the debt emission from the political community. Imagine once that a beverage would be called “Coca-Cola” while being produced indifferently by General Motors or Pepsi Cola and that the State itself would use that acronym to emit another beverage and would use it as reference to ensure the economical exchanges compatibility. Which political community would accept that? But it’s well exactly what this confusion concerning the common money has produced. One cannot then be surprised of the final chaos which that false logic, that unacceptable principle, can bring to humans.


That “solution” is thus not one. It have to be banned, because it doesn’t respect the symmetry and the equity of the reference frames in front of the proposed solution.

And more: it just profits from the confusion that tends to generalize “debt” notion to a same and single acronym, making sharing the loss to the whole political community that is ignorant of the emission mechanism of issued debts by diverse actors and nevertheless pretending to be called by the same accounting sign.

In conclusion, “dept-money” is a system instituting a profound asymmetry in money creation, that is not contractually acceptable inside a democracy respecting human rights. Logically the recognition of the equality of judgment of all economical value imply the symmetry in front of the creation rules of a money that would be really common (which does not signify the equality in front of possessed goods or accumulated money following exchanges).

We must understand here the distinction between the money creation by a “debt” against an arbitrary center, meaning the fact that certain actors situated spatially or temporally have got the exclusive privilege to issue money, creating an asymmetry toward the other actors of the present and future economy and the debt we contract with one possessing pre-existing money. It is well the point denounced here.