100% free, varbūt nē. Bēt sistema lauj bankas prasīt procentus gandrīz pilnīgi no aizņēmēja solījumu dot viņam to summu.

Absurds

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

it would be useful to draw a distinction between retail & investment banks. is it really true that the former are extremely profitable? if it's within bounds of reason, i'd say it's, more or less, a fair "service" fee.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I disagree that it is fair. Firstly, because they say they are charging interest on the loan, not enabling us to enter into a promise that we will pay off the sum (that never existed) as interest - which, after all, is supposed to be payment to compensate them for no longer having access to the money which they lent us (which as we know they didn't have).

Also, it enables banks to create massive bubbles and inflate the cost of what is an essential human need - namely, a roof over your head (I'm talking about myself, not a fly by night speculator), thereby inflating the 'interest' owed to them.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

should read "... not enabling us to enter into a promise that we will pay off the sum (that never existed) and ASKING A SERVICE CHARGE TO FACILITATE THIS PROCESS. INSTEAD THEY ARE CLAIMING IT IS INTEREST - which as we know etc etc.."

(Reply to this) (Parent)

i agree, to an extent. the question then is: how do you overcome the under-supply of money in the economy? deflation has its own problems, and if you leave it to one central, would it be that much better?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

good question - I have to head off now, but quickly before I do so: how about a central authority that can issue debt free money into the system when there is an under supply (something like the group Positive Money are advocating in the UK)?

(Reply to this) (Parent)