Crime Against Humanity: Fractional Reserve, Namely Legalized Counterfeiting, 10

It’s hard to find more complete an overturning between seabed and surface than the one put in place on fractional reserve. And it’s definitely worthwhile to underline now that, in order to sift the subject more carefully, we have not asked here the consequential question: what about the source of the first money which later on gets embezzled and on which further purchasing power out of nothing is created? Let us set aside for the moment that that first money too gets created out of nothing by someone which pockets its purchasing power created out of nothing, and let’s remain focused on this facet called fractional reserve or money multiplier. Behind the curtains of shifted accents, fractional reserve is legalised crime on a global scale: it is not only the legalised practical implementation of counterfeiting on a global scale, but it is also the legalising of the very concept of counterfeiting, and furthermore as a privilege. It bestows to the banker alone the incredible privileges of embezzling and counterfeiting money legally, even hiding them behind the paradoxical fig leaf of its provision that the banker shall not embezzle and counterfeit beyond the limit – self−imposed, by the way – of, say, 90 percent each ride on the merry−go−round. At which point you and your friends look at each other wondering who did bestow it, and why.

Specious argumentations, better known as fake pretexts:
By means of the fig leaf of an hypocrisy that I leave it to you to judge how ironic, fractional reserve banking defines the creation of purchasing power out of nothing in the banker’s pocket, in the form of money at the same time counterfeit and non existent, not only as the right of the banker to guarantee the availabilty of the same money simultaneously to its real owner and to its borrower, but also as his or her duty to do so. Not only are the privileges of embezzlement and of counterfeiting legal for the banker alone, but they are also his or her duty. The argument that committing a crime would be a duty, and in fact at this point a social and thus a civic duty of the privileged, is undoubtedly interesting, but it is as much undeniable who has a vested interest in promoting such argument.