La Fed veut réduire son bilan !

Bilan de la BNS à fin février 2017, qui se rapproche de mille milliards de francs !

MBS: mortgage-backed securities ( rachat d’hypothèques )


Bilan de la FED à  près de 4′ 500 milliards de dollars, donc de francs…



La Fed veut réduire son bilan. Voilà l’information, sortie de la Fed, qui a fait trembler Wall Street depuis hier, et les marchés européens ce matin.

La Banque centrale américaine a acheté de nombreux actifs pourris depuis 2008 et la crise des subprimes. 


Actifs pourris détenus par les banques, bons du Trésor, fonds de pension, AVS suisse, Blackrock,  etc.
https://monnaies-pleines.blogspot.com/2018/12/banques-perversion-comptable.html
A 4 500 milliards de dollars, son bilan est aujourd’hui cinq fois plus élevé qu’en 2007.

Quid du bilan de la BNS à fin février 2017, qui se rapproche de mille milliards de francs !





La force du sourire d’un bébé !

La force du sourire d’un bébé !

Les curés de paroisse sont un peu comme les médecins généralistes : ils voient toutes sortes de gens ! Un curé se souvient :

Quand ce soir-là, j’ai ouvert ma porte, je n’ai d’abord vu qu’un grand gaillard d’environ 1m 85, genre pilier de rugby, avec des yeux noirs et un beau collier de barbe. Puis sa femme, toute menue, avec un profil de madone et des yeux d’un bleu sombre.
Entrez tous les deux, leur dis-je
Tous les trois, rectifîa-t-il en riant. Et j’aperçus au bout de son bras, un de ces paniers berceaux qu’il déposa doucement à ses pieds. Il entrouvrit le sac et dit en confidence à son épouse :
Elle dort. Il posa ses grandes mains carrées sur ses genoux et murmura :
Alors, Marie-Pierre, tu racontes ?
Ah non ! André, tu avais accepté de le raconter toi-même ; c’est ton histoire après tout !

Il se mit à parler. Au début, il cherchait un peu ses mots et puis il parla comme une source qui jaillit. Il était orphelin, élevé par la DASS. II avait cravaché dur pour devenir ingénieur ; maintenant, il était chef de chantier sur autoroute. Il avait rencontré sa Marie-Pierre et il lui avait dit :
Pas de curé, pas de maire, et pour un bout de temps, pas d’enfant. Vu ? Elle avait accepté à regret. Quand elle lui annonça, un an plus tard, qu’elle était enceinte, ce fut le drame. D’une voix dure, il lui dit :
Bon, tu connais l’I.V.G., le plus tôt sera le mieux. C’est même remboursé par la Sécu. En la voyant hésitante, il ajouta :
De toute façon, c’est lui ou moi. Elle avait longtemps hésité. Mais un matin, elle lui avait dit :
Fais ce que tu veux, moi je le garde. Il était resté. Les mois suivants avaient été terribles. Elle redoutait, et lui désirait une fausse couche. Il avait voulu assister à l’accouchement qui l’avait bouleversé, moins par l’arrivée en ce monde de cette petite chose fripée et criarde, que par le mystère de ce que vivait celle qu’il aimait. Peu à peu, malgré tout, son coeur changeait.

C’est six mois plus tard que tout s’était joué. Ma femme m’a dit : Va voir si elle dort. Elle a toujours peur qu’elle s’arrête de respirer, ça arrive aux bébés. Nous laissons toujours une veilleuse près de son berceau. Je me suis assis et je l’ai regardée, et ça s’est mis à gamberger dans mon crâne. Je me disais : II y a un an, elle n’existait pas, et maintenant elle est là, si belle. D’où viens-tu, petite Claire ? Je me croyais athée mais je sais que ce n’est pas le hasard qui peut faire de tels miracles ! Et moi, maintenant, je t’ai sur les bras, qu’est-ce que je vais faire de toi ? Je sais construire des ponts et creuser des tunnels, mais élever un enfant ! Je m’aperçus soudain qu’elle avait ouvert les yeux. Elle me regardait avec des yeux immenses, un regard pénétrant. Il n’était pas sévère ce regard, mais sérieux ; il me traversait, me jugeait. Et je me suis dit : Si Marie-Pierre avait fait ce que je voulais, tu ne serais plus là, petite Claire ; comme si je t’avais étranglée avec mes mains. J’ai eu honte. Elle a alors bougé, tendu les bras vers moi. Je lui ai donné mon doigt qu’elle a attrapé de sa main minuscule. Elle serrait si fort que ses petits ongles étaient tout blancs. Elle me souriait. Et quelque chose a craqué en moi, comme un barrage qui cède. Elle venait de refermer les yeux. J’ai pleuré comme un môme, comme je n’avais pas pleuré depuis longtemps, de douleur, mais aussi de joie. Je me suis senti pardonné. Et j’ai dit le “Notre Père” une prière pour moi difficile, car mon père, je ne l’ai pas connu. Ma femme est arrivée à ce moment-là ; les femmes comprennent certaines choses sans qu’on leur explique. Je lui ai dit : Dis donc, chérie, j’ai une idée. Je me demande si ça serait bien qu’on la fasse baptiser cette môme ? Elle fut tout de suite d’accord. Dans la foulée j’ai ajouté :
Et j’ai une autre idée : puisqu’on aura un curé sous la main, je ne sais pas si tu serais d’accord, on pourrait peut-être lui demander de nous bricoler un petit mariage en même temps. Alors, elle m’a sauté au cou en me traitant de grand fou, et c’est pour ça qu’on est là.

Ils ont fait, quelque temps plus tard, un beau mariage et un beau baptême. Au moment des consentements, Claire s’est mise à gigoter entre les bras de sa marraine. Elle voulait être avec papa et maman, ce qui fût fait. Elle était donc entre eux quand ils se promirent fidélité et regarda, avec beaucoup de curiosité, sa maman passer l’anneau brillant dans le gros doigt de son papa, le même qu’elle avait tenu durant la fameuse nuit. Au fond, c’est elle qui lui avait mis la bague au doigt… Le sourire d’un bébé est le plus fort !

Source : www.labonnenouvelle.fr


Valais, comment prouver les fraudes ?

Images intégrées 1


Vu le trop grand nombre d’abstentions dans certaines communes, notamment à Sion ( 7833 ), Monthey ( 4902 ) et Martigny (  4359 ), Zermatt…, ont ils probablement simplement changé, retiré et détruit le contenu de centaines d’ enveloppes ou changé plusieurs enveloppes des votants favorables à Oskar Freysinger ou compté comme non votants des personnes ayant voté ?


Ont-ils utilisé le matériel de vote de votants n’ayant pas voté dans d’autres communes du bas Valais, comme en Haut Valais ?

Il faut simplement établir par exemple par sondage à Sion et Martigny combien de bulletins, d’enveloppes internes et externes n’ont aucune empreinte ou toujours les mêmes ?


Abstentions


Sion 7833
Monthey 4902
Martigny
4359





Commune Freysinger % Participation (%) Oskar FREYSINGER Frédéric Favre Autres Abstentions Electeurs inscrits Votants
Sion 27,74566474 61,72 3504 4771 4354 7833 20462 12629
Monthey 30,22569078 49,17 1433 1649 1659 4902 9643 4741
Martigny 24,02312949 56,7 1371 2663 1673 4359 10066 5707
Brig-Glis 43,94108874 58,51 2357 1338 1669 3804 9168 5364
Sierre 29,84741985 61,31 1741 2195 1897 3681 9514 5833
Collombey-Muraz 34,61374306 45,8 811 675 857 2773 5116 2343
Naters 46,87068569 61,38 2037 808 1501 2735 7081 4346
Visp 43,20681093 55,76 1218 661 940 2237 5056 2819
Bagnes 26,39068564 52,02 612 1038 669 2139 4458 2319
Crans-Montana 32,82397884 62,09 1117 1220 1066 2078 5481 3403
Fully 27,17023675 64,65 964 1588 996 1940 5488 3548
Conthey 30,17463498 64,69 1054 1365 1074 1907 5400 3493
Zermatt 47,85894207 40,46 570 229 392 1753 2944 1191
Nendaz 20,48032021 66,36 614 1049 1335 1520 4518 2998
Savièse 36,02290474 72,42 1384 1477 981 1463 5305 3842
Troistorrents 38,38672769 55,39 671 564 513 1408 3156 1748
Saxon 34,51327434 56,31 585 593 517 1315 3010 1695
Vouvry 30,70942663 44,3 316 410 303 1294 2323 1029
Vétroz 27,36796159 64,86 627 950 714 1241 3532 2291
Port-Valais 38,96620278 45,69 392 344 270 1196 2202 1006
St-Maurice 23,34682861 57,2 346 522 614 1109 2591 1482
Ayent 24,97354497 66,97 472 625 793 932 2822 1890
Chalais 29,24462924 62,33 422 515 506 872 2315 1443
Vionnaz 32,37063779 49 269 258 304 865 1696 831
Chamoson 29,06036092 65,67 467 640 500 840 2447 1607
Lens 31,2992126 65,02 477 639 408 820 2344 1524
Leuk 32,71867612 73,69 692 496 927 755 2870 2115
Leytron 26,93649686 67,18 386 598 449 700 2133 1433
Grimisuat 27,54966887 70,1 416 578 516 644 2154 1510
St. Niklaus 54,58089669 61,99 560 156 310 629 1655 1026
Anniviers 27,65246449 66,54 331 525 341 602 1799 1197
Ardon 27,94846383 62,71 282 386 341 600 1609 1009
Riddes 31,59752868 65,64 358 521 254 593 1726 1133
Saillon 33,26612903 62,71 330 383 279 590 1582 992
Grône 29,87012987 63,88 299 395 307 566 1567 1001
Massongex 27,22852512 52,96 168 216 233 548 1165 617
Val-d’Illiez 47,51009421 58,23 353 209 181 533 1276 743
Martigny-Combe 21,75141243 67 231 496 335 523 1585 1062
Orsières 24,04674047 75,66 391 856 379 523 2149 1626
Raron 36,40718563 62,59 304 191 340 499 1334 835
Ried-Brig 38,514174 67,21 394 265 364 499 1522 1023
Grächen 50,66666667 52,66 266 62 197 472 997 525
Vollèges 18,41794569 65,41 156 328 363 448 1295 847
Vernayaz 23,60703812 60,41 161 270 251 447 1129 682
Vex 26,53316646 64,64 212 343 244 437 1236 799
Goms 38,0952381 54,86 200 110 215 432 957 525
Salvan 16,77115987 61,05 107 258 273 407 1045 638
St-Léonard 30,21582734 73,94 336 463 313 392 1504 1112
Veyras 26,39053254 68,59 223 350 272 387 1232 845
Saas-Fee 23,36283186 59,79 132 124 309 380 945 565
Gampel-Bratsch 45,39653601 74,93 498 178 421 367 1464 1097
Baltschieder 49,28571429 60,61 276 120 164 364 924 560
Leukerbad 47,11538462 53,47 196 94 126 362 778 416
Charrat 23,92026578 62,51 144 289 169 361 963 602
Evionnaz 24,94623656 57,69 116 152 197 341 806 465
St-Gingolph 32,05128205 40,7 75 70 89 341 575 234
Steg-Hohtenn 41,85185185 70,62 339 133 338 337 1147 810
Visperterminen 30,57065217 68,72 225 178 333 335 1071 736
Champéry 33,92857143 60,94 171 189 144 323 827 504
Fiesch 37,53424658 53,44 137 83 145 318 683 365
Hérémence 40,33613445 72,56 336 247 250 315 1148 833
Stalden 45,73913043 64,97 263 123 189 310 885 575
Mont-Noble 26,32575758 65,19 139 177 212 282 810 528
Arbaz 27,52902156 68,14 166 242 195 282 885 603
Bitsch 42,55319149 60,52 180 66 177 276 699 423
Miège 28,73376623 69,53 177 279 160 270 886 616
Evolène 26,84365782 79,39 273 352 392 264 1281 1017
Venthône 26,49434572 70,18 164 261 194 263 882 619
Salgesch 44,86692015 75,43 354 195 240 257 1046 789
Saas-Grund 45,35104364 67,65 239 78 210 252 779 527
Sembrancher 28,71046229 62,27 118 178 115 249 660 411
Chippis 24,34607646 67,9 121 149 227 235 732 497
Collonges 25,99277978 55,73 72 147 58 220 497 277
Täsch 49,01185771 53,49 124 34 95 220 473 253
Bovernier 26,14213198 65,02 103 182 109 212 606 394
Termen 39,02439024 68,23 176 107 168 210 661 451
Bürchen 40,40920716 66,27 158 75 158 199 590 391
Turtmann-Unterems 41,32492114 76,29 262 141 231 197 831 634
Obergoms 46,55172414 60,67 135 46 109 188 478 290
Bettmeralp 25,87412587 43,6 37 21 85 185 328 143
Isérables 31,98380567 72,86 158 222 114 184 678 494
Niedergesteln 32,57790368 65,98 115 71 167 182 535 353
Ernen 42,10526316 55,88 96 47 85 180 408 228
St-Martin 24,18032787 73,49 118 206 164 176 664 488
Vérossaz 19,75683891 65,41 65 117 147 174 503 329
Liddes 21,93877551 69,26 86 172 134 174 566 392
Dorénaz 26,78571429 72,61 120 255 73 169 617 448
Veysonnaz 22,52964427 61,41 57 70 126 159 412 253
Mörel-Filet 32,72171254 67,56 107 63 157 157 484 327
Icogne 28,89908257 58,76 63 67 88 153 371 218
Bellwald 37,06293706 48,97 53 38 52 149 292 143
Grengiols 44,04145078 56,76 85 47 61 147 340 193
Wiler 40,61302682 64,13 106 53 102 146 407 261
Agarn 35,68075117 74,87 152 74 200 143 569 426
Lalden 44,13407821 71,89 158 72 128 140 498 358
Unterbäch 27,31958763 58,97 53 27 114 135 329 194
Varen 32,23140496 73,78 117 102 144 129 492 363
Riederalp 32,42009132 64,41 71 56 92 121 340 219
Ausserberg 35,57951482 77,13 132 80 159 110 481 371
Guttet-Feschel 43,66812227 68,77 100 36 93 104 333 229
Eischoll 44,64944649 72,46 121 33 117 103 374 271
Törbel 53,97923875 74,1 156 39 94 101 390 289
Kippel 20,43010753 65,49 38 41 107 98 284 186
Finhaut 30,57324841 61,81 48 76 33 97 254 157
Simplon 42,04545455 64,47 74 45 57 97 273 176
Staldenried 31,30193906 79,17 113 53 195 95 456 361
Fieschertal 44,89795918 62,03 66 43 38 90 237 147
Lax 25,58139535 60,28 33 28 68 85 214 129
Ferden 37,40458015 62,09 49 24 58 80 211 131
Eggerberg 46,11650485 72,03 95 32 79 80 286 206
Embd 66,26506024 67,48 110 13 43 80 246 166
Blatten 39,13043478 67,93 63 22 76 76 237 161
Randa 43,31550802 71,37 81 28 78 75 262 187
Zeneggen 28,26086957 66,35 39 45 54 70 208 138
Albinen 42,85714286 65,28 54 16 56 67 193 126
Saas-Balen 36,81818182 78,29 81 50 89 61 281 220
Saas-Almagell 42,55319149 81,88 100 56 79 52 287 235
Eisten 45,16129032 70,86 56 29 39 51 175 124
Binn 45 58,25 27 14 19 43 103 60
Trient 33,78378378 63,79 25 28 21 42 116 74
Oberems 50 60,19 31 11 20 41 103 62
Bourg-St-Pierre 26,31578947 72,52 25 45 25 36 131 95
Inden 30,43478261 62,16 14 15 17 28 74 46
Ergisch 51,42857143 86,42 72 29 39 22 162 140
Zwischbergen 81,57894737 66,67 31 2 5 19 57 38
Bister 65 74,07 13 1 6 7 27 20

Pourcentages par ordre croissants
Commune Freysinger % Participation (%) Oskar FREYSINGER Frédéric Favre Autres Abstentions Electeurs inscrits Votants
Salvan 16,77115987 61,05 107 258 273 407 1045 638
Vollèges 18,41794569 65,41 156 328 363 448 1295 847
Vérossaz 19,75683891 65,41 65 117 147 174 503 329
Kippel 20,43010753 65,49 38 41 107 98 284 186
Nendaz 20,48032021 66,36 614 1049 1335 1520 4518 2998
Martigny-Combe 21,75141243 67 231 496 335 523 1585 1062
Liddes 21,93877551 69,26 86 172 134 174 566 392
Veysonnaz 22,52964427 61,41 57 70 126 159 412 253
St-Maurice 23,34682861 57,2 346 522 614 1109 2591 1482
Saas-Fee 23,36283186 59,79 132 124 309 380 945 565
Vernayaz 23,60703812 60,41 161 270 251 447 1129 682
Charrat 23,92026578 62,51 144 289 169 361 963 602
Martigny 24,02312949 56,7 1371 2663 1673 4359 10066 5707
Orsières 24,04674047 75,66 391 856 379 523 2149 1626
St-Martin 24,18032787 73,49 118 206 164 176 664 488
Chippis 24,34607646 67,9 121 149 227 235 732 497
Evionnaz 24,94623656 57,69 116 152 197 341 806 465
Ayent 24,97354497 66,97 472 625 793 932 2822 1890
Lax 25,58139535 60,28 33 28 68 85 214 129
Bettmeralp 25,87412587 43,6 37 21 85 185 328 143
Collonges 25,99277978 55,73 72 147 58 220 497 277
Bovernier 26,14213198 65,02 103 182 109 212 606 394
Bourg-St-Pierre 26,31578947 72,52 25 45 25 36 131 95
Mont-Noble 26,32575758 65,19 139 177 212 282 810 528
Veyras 26,39053254 68,59 223 350 272 387 1232 845
Bagnes 26,39068564 52,02 612 1038 669 2139 4458 2319
Venthône 26,49434572 70,18 164 261 194 263 882 619
Vex 26,53316646 64,64 212 343 244 437 1236 799
Dorénaz 26,78571429 72,61 120 255 73 169 617 448
Evolène 26,84365782 79,39 273 352 392 264 1281 1017
Leytron 26,93649686 67,18 386 598 449 700 2133 1433
Fully 27,17023675 64,65 964 1588 996 1940 5488 3548
Massongex 27,22852512 52,96 168 216 233 548 1165 617
Unterbäch 27,31958763 58,97 53 27 114 135 329 194
Vétroz 27,36796159 64,86 627 950 714 1241 3532 2291
Arbaz 27,52902156 68,14 166 242 195 282 885 603
Grimisuat 27,54966887 70,1 416 578 516 644 2154 1510
Anniviers 27,65246449 66,54 331 525 341 602 1799 1197
Sion 27,74566474 61,72 3504 4771 4354 7833 20462 12629
Ardon 27,94846383 62,71 282 386 341 600 1609 1009
Zeneggen 28,26086957 66,35 39 45 54 70 208 138
Sembrancher 28,71046229 62,27 118 178 115 249 660 411
Miège 28,73376623 69,53 177 279 160 270 886 616
Icogne 28,89908257 58,76 63 67 88 153 371 218
Chamoson 29,06036092 65,67 467 640 500 840 2447 1607
Chalais 29,24462924 62,33 422 515 506 872 2315 1443
Sierre 29,84741985 61,31 1741 2195 1897 3681 9514 5833
Grône 29,87012987 63,88 299 395 307 566 1567 1001
Conthey 30,17463498 64,69 1054 1365 1074 1907 5400 3493
St-Léonard 30,21582734 73,94 336 463 313 392 1504 1112
Monthey 30,22569078 49,17 1433 1649 1659 4902 9643 4741
Inden 30,43478261 62,16 14 15 17 28 74 46
Visperterminen 30,57065217 68,72 225 178 333 335 1071 736
Finhaut 30,57324841 61,81 48 76 33 97 254 157
Vouvry 30,70942663 44,3 316 410 303 1294 2323 1029
Lens 31,2992126 65,02 477 639 408 820 2344 1524
Staldenried 31,30193906 79,17 113 53 195 95 456 361
Riddes 31,59752868 65,64 358 521 254 593 1726 1133
Isérables 31,98380567 72,86 158 222 114 184 678 494
St-Gingolph 32,05128205 40,7 75 70 89 341 575 234
Varen 32,23140496 73,78 117 102 144 129 492 363
Vionnaz 32,37063779 49 269 258 304 865 1696 831
Riederalp 32,42009132 64,41 71 56 92 121 340 219
Niedergesteln 32,57790368 65,98 115 71 167 182 535 353
Leuk 32,71867612 73,69 692 496 927 755 2870 2115
Mörel-Filet 32,72171254 67,56 107 63 157 157 484 327
Crans-Montana 32,82397884 62,09 1117 1220 1066 2078 5481 3403
Saillon 33,26612903 62,71 330 383 279 590 1582 992
Trient 33,78378378 63,79 25 28 21 42 116 74
Champéry 33,92857143 60,94 171 189 144 323 827 504
Saxon 34,51327434 56,31 585 593 517 1315 3010 1695
Collombey-Muraz 34,61374306 45,8 811 675 857 2773 5116 2343
Ausserberg 35,57951482 77,13 132 80 159 110 481 371
Agarn 35,68075117 74,87 152 74 200 143 569 426
Savièse 36,02290474 72,42 1384 1477 981 1463 5305 3842
Raron 36,40718563 62,59 304 191 340 499 1334 835
Saas-Balen 36,81818182 78,29 81 50 89 61 281 220
Bellwald 37,06293706 48,97 53 38 52 149 292 143
Ferden 37,40458015 62,09 49 24 58 80 211 131
Fiesch 37,53424658 53,44 137 83 145 318 683 365
Goms 38,0952381 54,86 200 110 215 432 957 525
Troistorrents 38,38672769 55,39 671 564 513 1408 3156 1748
Ried-Brig 38,514174 67,21 394 265 364 499 1522 1023
Port-Valais 38,96620278 45,69 392 344 270 1196 2202 1006
Termen 39,02439024 68,23 176 107 168 210 661 451
Blatten 39,13043478 67,93 63 22 76 76 237 161
Hérémence 40,33613445 72,56 336 247 250 315 1148 833
Bürchen 40,40920716 66,27 158 75 158 199 590 391
Wiler 40,61302682 64,13 106 53 102 146 407 261
Turtmann-Unterems 41,32492114 76,29 262 141 231 197 831 634
Steg-Hohtenn 41,85185185 70,62 339 133 338 337 1147 810
Simplon 42,04545455 64,47 74 45 57 97 273 176
Ernen 42,10526316 55,88 96 47 85 180 408 228
Saas-Almagell 42,55319149 81,88 100 56 79 52 287 235
Bitsch 42,55319149 60,52 180 66 177 276 699 423
Albinen 42,85714286 65,28 54 16 56 67 193 126
Visp 43,20681093 55,76 1218 661 940 2237 5056 2819
Randa 43,31550802 71,37 81 28 78 75 262 187
Guttet-Feschel 43,66812227 68,77 100 36 93 104 333 229
Brig-Glis 43,94108874 58,51 2357 1338 1669 3804 9168 5364
Grengiols 44,04145078 56,76 85 47 61 147 340 193
Lalden 44,13407821 71,89 158 72 128 140 498 358
Eischoll 44,64944649 72,46 121 33 117 103 374 271
Salgesch 44,86692015 75,43 354 195 240 257 1046 789
Fieschertal 44,89795918 62,03 66 43 38 90 237 147
Binn 45 58,25 27 14 19 43 103 60
Eisten 45,16129032 70,86 56 29 39 51 175 124
Saas-Grund 45,35104364 67,65 239 78 210 252 779 527
Gampel-Bratsch 45,39653601 74,93 498 178 421 367 1464 1097
Stalden 45,73913043 64,97 263 123 189 310 885 575
Eggerberg 46,11650485 72,03 95 32 79 80 286 206
Obergoms 46,55172414 60,67 135 46 109 188 478 290
Naters 46,87068569 61,38 2037 808 1501 2735 7081 4346
Leukerbad 47,11538462 53,47 196 94 126 362 778 416
Val-d’Illiez 47,51009421 58,23 353 209 181 533 1276 743
Zermatt 47,85894207 40,46 570 229 392 1753 2944 1191
Täsch 49,01185771 53,49 124 34 95 220 473 253
Baltschieder 49,28571429 60,61 276 120 164 364 924 560
Oberems 50 60,19 31 11 20 41 103 62
Grächen 50,66666667 52,66 266 62 197 472 997 525
Ergisch 51,42857143 86,42 72 29 39 22 162 140
Törbel 53,97923875 74,1 156 39 94 101 390 289
St. Niklaus 54,58089669 61,99 560 156 310 629 1655 1026
Bister 65 74,07 13 1 6 7 27 20
Embd 66,26506024 67,48 110 13 43 80 246 166
Zwischbergen 81,57894737 66,67 31 2 5 19 57 38

Taux de participation
Pourcentages par ordre décroissants

2ème tour 

Commune Freysinger % Participation (%) Oskar FREYSINGER Frédéric Favre Autres Abstentions Electeurs inscrits Votants
2017 Ergisch 51,42857143 86,42 72 29 39 22 162 140
2017 Saas-Almagell 42,55319149 81,88 100 56 79 52 287 235
2017 Evolène 26,84365782 79,39 273 352 392 264 1281 1017
2017 Staldenried 31,30193906 79,17 113 53 195 95 456 361
2017 Saas-Balen 36,81818182 78,29 81 50 89 61 281 220
2017 Ausserberg 35,57951482 77,13 132 80 159 110 481 371
2017 Turtmann-Unterems 41,32492114 76,29 262 141 231 197 831 634
2017 Orsières 24,04674047 75,66 391 856 379 523 2149 1626
2017 Salgesch 44,86692015 75,43 354 195 240 257 1046 789
2017 Gampel-Bratsch 45,39653601 74,93 498 178 421 367 1464 1097
2017 Agarn 35,68075117 74,87 152 74 200 143 569 426
2017 Törbel 53,97923875 74,1 156 39 94 101 390 289
2017 Bister 65 74,07 13 1 6 7 27 20
2017 St-Léonard 30,21582734 73,94 336 463 313 392 1504 1112
2017 Varen 32,23140496 73,78 117 102 144 129 492 363
2017 Leuk 32,71867612 73,69 692 496 927 755 2870 2115
2017 St-Martin 24,18032787 73,49 118 206 164 176 664 488
2017 Isérables 31,98380567 72,86 158 222 114 184 678 494
2017 Dorénaz 26,78571429 72,61 120 255 73 169 617 448
2017 Hérémence 40,33613445 72,56 336 247 250 315 1148 833
2017 Bourg-St-Pierre 26,31578947 72,52 25 45 25 36 131 95
2017 Eischoll 44,64944649 72,46 121 33 117 103 374 271
2017 Savièse 36,02290474 72,42 1384 1477 981 1463 5305 3842
2017 Eggerberg 46,11650485 72,03 95 32 79 80 286 206
2017 Lalden 44,13407821 71,89 158 72 128 140 498 358
2017 Randa 43,31550802 71,37 81 28 78 75 262 187
2017 Eisten 45,16129032 70,86 56 29 39 51 175 124
2017 Steg-Hohtenn 41,85185185 70,62 339 133 338 337 1147 810
2017 Venthône 26,49434572 70,18 164 261 194 263 882 619
2017 Grimisuat 27,54966887 70,1 416 578 516 644 2154 1510
2017 Miège 28,73376623 69,53 177 279 160 270 886 616
2017 Liddes 21,93877551 69,26 86 172 134 174 566 392
2017 Guttet-Feschel 43,66812227 68,77 100 36 93 104 333 229
2017 Visperterminen 30,57065217 68,72 225 178 333 335 1071 736
2017 Veyras 26,39053254 68,59 223 350 272 387 1232 845
2017 Termen 39,02439024 68,23 176 107 168 210 661 451
2017 Arbaz 27,52902156 68,14 166 242 195 282 885 603
2017 Blatten 39,13043478 67,93 63 22 76 76 237 161
2017 Chippis 24,34607646 67,9 121 149 227 235 732 497
2017 Saas-Grund 45,35104364 67,65 239 78 210 252 779 527
2017 Mörel-Filet 32,72171254 67,56 107 63 157 157 484 327
2017 Embd 66,26506024 67,48 110 13 43 80 246 166
2017 Ried-Brig 38,514174 67,21 394 265 364 499 1522 1023
2017 Leytron 26,93649686 67,18 386 598 449 700 2133 1433
2017 Martigny-Combe 21,75141243 67 231 496 335 523 1585 1062
2017 Ayent 24,97354497 66,97 472 625 793 932 2822 1890
2017 Zwischbergen 81,57894737 66,67 31 2 5 19 57 38
2017 Anniviers 27,65246449 66,54 331 525 341 602 1799 1197
2017 Nendaz 20,48032021 66,36 614 1049 1335 1520 4518 2998
2017 Zeneggen 28,26086957 66,35 39 45 54 70 208 138
2017 Bürchen 40,40920716 66,27 158 75 158 199 590 391
2017 Niedergesteln 32,57790368 65,98 115 71 167 182 535 353
2017 Chamoson 29,06036092 65,67 467 640 500 840 2447 1607
2017 Riddes 31,59752868 65,64 358 521 254 593 1726 1133
2017 Kippel 20,43010753 65,49 38 41 107 98 284 186
2017 Vérossaz 19,75683891 65,41 65 117 147 174 503 329
2017 Vollèges 18,41794569 65,41 156 328 363 448 1295 847
2017 Albinen 42,85714286 65,28 54 16 56 67 193 126
2017 Mont-Noble 26,32575758 65,19 139 177 212 282 810 528
2017 Bovernier 26,14213198 65,02 103 182 109 212 606 394
2017 Lens 31,2992126 65,02 477 639 408 820 2344 1524
2017 Stalden 45,73913043 64,97 263 123 189 310 885 575
2017 Vétroz 27,36796159 64,86 627 950 714 1241 3532 2291
2017 Conthey 30,17463498 64,69 1054 1365 1074 1907 5400 3493
2017 Fully 27,17023675 64,65 964 1588 996 1940 5488 3548
2017 Vex 26,53316646 64,64 212 343 244 437 1236 799
2017 Simplon 42,04545455 64,47 74 45 57 97 273 176
2017 Riederalp 32,42009132 64,41 71 56 92 121 340 219
2017 Wiler 40,61302682 64,13 106 53 102 146 407 261
2017 Grône 29,87012987 63,88 299 395 307 566 1567 1001
2017 Trient 33,78378378 63,79 25 28 21 42 116 74
2017 Ardon 27,94846383 62,71 282 386 341 600 1609 1009
2017 Saillon 33,26612903 62,71 330 383 279 590 1582 992
2017 Raron 36,40718563 62,59 304 191 340 499 1334 835
2017 Charrat 23,92026578 62,51 144 289 169 361 963 602
2017 Chalais 29,24462924 62,33 422 515 506 872 2315 1443
2017 Sembrancher 28,71046229 62,27 118 178 115 249 660 411
2017 Inden 30,43478261 62,16 14 15 17 28 74 46
2017 Crans-Montana 32,82397884 62,09 1117 1220 1066 2078 5481 3403
2017 Ferden 37,40458015 62,09 49 24 58 80 211 131
2017 Fieschertal 44,89795918 62,03 66 43 38 90 237 147
2017 St. Niklaus 54,58089669 61,99 560 156 310 629 1655 1026
2017 Finhaut 30,57324841 61,81 48 76 33 97 254 157
2017 Sion 27,74566474 61,72 3504 4771 4354 7833 20462 12629
2017 Veysonnaz 22,52964427 61,41 57 70 126 159 412 253
2017 Naters 46,87068569 61,38 2037 808 1501 2735 7081 4346
2017 Sierre 29,84741985 61,31 1741 2195 1897 3681 9514 5833
2017 Salvan 16,77115987 61,05 107 258 273 407 1045 638
2017 Champéry 33,92857143 60,94 171 189 144 323 827 504
2017 Obergoms 46,55172414 60,67 135 46 109 188 478 290
2017 Baltschieder 49,28571429 60,61 276 120 164 364 924 560
2017 Bitsch 42,55319149 60,52 180 66 177 276 699 423
2017 Vernayaz 23,60703812 60,41 161 270 251 447 1129 682
2017 Lax 25,58139535 60,28 33 28 68 85 214 129
2017 Oberems 50 60,19 31 11 20 41 103 62
2017 Saas-Fee 23,36283186 59,79 132 124 309 380 945 565
2017 Unterbäch 27,31958763 58,97 53 27 114 135 329 194
2017 Icogne 28,89908257 58,76 63 67 88 153 371 218
2017 Brig-Glis 43,94108874 58,51 2357 1338 1669 3804 9168 5364
2017 Binn 45 58,25 27 14 19 43 103 60
2017 Val-d’Illiez 47,51009421 58,23 353 209 181 533 1276 743
2017 Evionnaz 24,94623656 57,69 116 152 197 341 806 465
2017 St-Maurice 23,34682861 57,2 346 522 614 1109 2591 1482
2017 Grengiols 44,04145078 56,76 85 47 61 147 340 193
2017 Martigny 24,02312949 56,7 1371 2663 1673 4359 10066 5707
2017 Saxon 34,51327434 56,31 585 593 517 1315 3010 1695
2017 Ernen 42,10526316 55,88 96 47 85 180 408 228
2017 Visp 43,20681093 55,76 1218 661 940 2237 5056 2819
2017 Collonges 25,99277978 55,73 72 147 58 220 497 277
2017 Troistorrents 38,38672769 55,39 671 564 513 1408 3156 1748
2017 Goms 38,0952381 54,86 200 110 215 432 957 525
2017 Täsch 49,01185771 53,49 124 34 95 220 473 253
2017 Leukerbad 47,11538462 53,47 196 94 126 362 778 416
2017 Fiesch 37,53424658 53,44 137 83 145 318 683 365
2017 Massongex 27,22852512 52,96 168 216 233 548 1165 617
2017 Grächen 50,66666667 52,66 266 62 197 472 997 525
2017 Bagnes 26,39068564 52,02 612 1038 669 2139 4458 2319
2017 Monthey 30,22569078 49,17 1433 1649 1659 4902 9643 4741
2017 Vionnaz 32,37063779 49 269 258 304 865 1696 831
2017 Bellwald 37,06293706 48,97 53 38 52 149 292 143
2017 Collombey-Muraz 34,61374306 45,8 811 675 857 2773 5116 2343
2017 Port-Valais 38,96620278 45,69 392 344 270 1196 2202 1006
2017 Vouvry 30,70942663 44,3 316 410 303 1294 2323 1029
2017 Bettmeralp 25,87412587 43,6 37 21 85 185 328 143
2017 St-Gingolph 32,05128205 40,7 75 70 89 341 575 234
2017 Zermatt 47,85894207 40,46 570 229 392 1753 2944 1191

Définition du FRANC SUISSE, ALIAS CHF




Article à propos de la définition du CHF sur le site du collectif AAA+:
http://aaapositifs.ch/quelle-est-la-d…

Interpellation 12.3305:
https://www.parlament.ch/fr/ratsbetri…

Loi sur l’Unité Monétaire et les Moyens de Paiements:
https://www.admin.ch/opc/fr/classifie…

Les réserves obligatoires par pays :
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9…

Initiative populaire fédérale “monnaie pleine”:
http://monnaiepleine.ch

Pour me suivre:
Mon site: https://martouf.ch
FB:
https://www.facebook.com/martouflesyn…
Twitter:
https://twitter.com/martouf_vert


https://www.admin.ch/opc/fr/federal-gazette/2014/3589.pdf

Les visiteurs peuvent désormais consulter mon blog via une connexion chiffrée en se rendant sur https://desiebenthal.blogspot.com.

Invitations 2017
In English

en français:

Avec mes meilleures salutations
Distinti saluti
Kind regards, yours sincerely

Nouvelle adresse: 23, Av. Edouard Dapples, CH 1006 LAUSANNE. SUISSE

Tél: international ++ 41 21 616 88 88

Mobilisation générale: épargnes, retraites…  volées légalement ! 

http://desiebenthal.blogspot.ch/2015/12/projet-de-loi-dapplication-de-monnaie.html

http://desiebenthal.blogspot.ch/2015/12/swiss-positive-money-social-credit.html

Donner à chacun ce qui lui est dû par un dividende social à tous!
à faire circuler largement, merci, le monde est déjà meilleur grâce à ce simple geste de solidarité.

DIALOGUE SUR LES MONNAIES

Questions à mes amis “économistes”: les taux négatifs s’appliquent-ils aussi aux dettes? C’est à dire voit-on diminuer nos dettes à la BNS de la même manière que nos capitaux?

J’aime

Commenter

19 commentaires
Commentaires
Blaise Rossellat En créant plus de 600 milliards de francs suisses depuis 2012, la BNS a imposé un taux négatif “caché” de 85% par la dilution de la valeur de l’unité monétaire. Et tout le monde regarde les -0,75% annuel visible… Cela s’appelle un détournement de l’attention dans un tour de magie!
Je n’aime plusRépondre49 hModifié

Blaise Rossellat La création monétaire scripturale ex-nihilo des banques commerciales et le blanchiment de cette création monétaire secondaire par la banque centrale via le rachat de titres pourris dilue le pouvoir d’achat de tous les citoyens suisses.

Réponse confuse à propos de la dilution du franc par la création monétaire d’Andrea Maeschler, vice-présidente du directoire de la BNS suite à l’excellente remarque de Bernard.

https://youtu.be/OaR8eitq7U8

Loïc Journet Si je comprend bien, la suisse est une méga bulle spéculative ?

Blaise Rossellat Elle alimente la bulle financière en sauvant les banques de la faillite au détriment du pouvoir d’achat de tous les suisses.

Michel Tardy Le taux de la BNS est celui qui s’applique aux banques. Donc en ce moment les banques ‘sponsorisent’ les petits épargnants en ne répercutant le taux négatif que pour les très gros clients. 
Elles se rattrapent un peu en prenant des marges sur les crédi
ts relativement plus grandes en rapport au taux de la BNS 
Le plus gros problème à long terme est le revenu que les futurs retraités accumulent sur leur 2ème pillier est en ce moment plus bas qu’il devrait être.
D’un autre côté la BNS se gave de plusieurs centaines de millions par an sur le dos des spéculateurs étrangers qui jouent avec le franc Suisse 🇨🇭

Michel Tardy Nos dettes ne diminueraient que si elles avaient un taux négatif. Mais je doute que ce ne soit le cas des particuliers.
J’aimeRépondre113 h

David Dräyer Bon, pas vraiment de réponse à ma question: Lorsque les banques déposent des fonds à la BNS, ils subissent un taux négatif qui les encourage à réinvestir cet argent (de quelle façon n’est pas le propos). Si au contraire ils empruntent de l’argent à la BNS, le taux négatif s’applique-t-il aussi, ou est-ce une mesure asymétrique? BlaiseMichel?
J’aimeRépondre17 h

Blaise Rossellat Les banques n’empruntent pas d’argent à la BNS! Elles le créée à partir de rien.

David Dräyer Avec le système des réserves fractionnaires, ne doivent-elles pas en emprunter une part? Sinon, comment la BNS influe-t-elle la création monétaire?
J’aimeRépondre16 h

Blaise Rossellat Elles revendent à la BNS les actifs qu’elles ont financés avec de la fausse monnaie scripturale bancaire en échange de monnaie centrale créée par la BNS sur leurs comptes de virement à vue auprès de cette dernière. Elles doivent respecter un ratio de 2,5% de monnaie centrale. C’est l’unique condition. Donc il n’y a pas de limite de la BNS à l’expansion du schéma de Ponzi qu’est le système bancaire international. Si les banques centrales arrêtent le soutien massif de rachat d’actifs pourris aux banques too big to fail, tout le système s’écroule comme un château de cartes. Les banques sont donc en position de chantage et de force tant que l’on ne leur interdit pas de créer de la fausse monnaie de manière illimitée.
J’aimeRépondre26 h

David Dräyer Pas étonnant que les gens s’accrochent au modèle simple de “la banque prête l’argent qu’elle a” : Même après toutes ces années, personne ne semble en mesure d’expliquer clairement comment ça marche. Ca ressemble toujours à un gros truc conspirationniste, et même moi qui me suis bouffé des kilomètres de vidéo sur le sujet je comprends pas tes réponses.
Ce que je comprends de ça, c’est que la BNS ne sert à rien, du coup je comprends pas pourquoi on subit les taux négatifs si les banques ont le pouvoir de ne pas traiter avec la BNS. Soit la BNS a un rôle prépondérant et elle peut imposer un taux négatif, soit les banques font ce qu’elles veulent et du coup c’est elles qui dictent ces conditions.

David Dräyer En fait la base de ma question avait pour source l’envie de parler du crédit mutualisé et de monnaie fondante, qui a pour effet de diminuer simultanément dettes et capitaux. Dans un système asymétrique où l’on détruirait du capital sans détruire des dettes, il y aurait déséquilibre qui amènerait à la situation catastrophique d’avoir de plus en plus de difficulté à rembourser la dette, vue que le manque de monnaie serait de plus en plus grand.
J’aimeRépondre26 h

Blaise Rossellat Démonstration logique : 
Proposition: Pour qu’un système monétaire de type bancaire (à balance mutuelle avec axe de stockage positif à origine zéro) puisse fonctionner, il faut nécessairement qu’un agent émette un premier crédit initial. Autre
ment dit : il est mathématiquement impossible qu’un système bancaire fonctionne sans que quelqu’un, quelque part, se “fasse un crédit à lui-même”, i.e. “crée de la monnaie ex nihilo”. Le principe est simple: si personne ne crée de la monnaie au départ, le système ne peut pas démarrer. Démonstration: Si un compte ne peut pas être en négatif (aller en-dessous de la valeur minimale, qui est 0 dans le système bancaire), et que les comptes commencent avec un solde de 0, alors les titulaires des comptes ne peuvent rien acheter: ils peuvent seulement vendre leurs biens ou leur travail, et ils ne peuvent guère négocier les prix. Si tous les comptes sont également soumis à ces règles, personne ne peut commencer à acheter, le système est bloqué. Si on refuse tout déséquilibre en entrée de biens et de services pour tous les comptes, le système monétaire ne peut pas fonctionner. Il est donc nécessaire, pour initialiser le système, que quelqu’un puisse recevoir sans produire. D’où la nécessité mathématique que quelqu’un crée son propre crédit, i.e. sa propre monnaie ex nihilo. 
CQFD.
Je n’aime plusRépondre26 hModifié

David Dräyer Oui, c’est la définition du crédit mutualisé, utilisé dans les SELs ou par le eLéman.
J’aimeRépondre16 h

Blaise Rossellat En fait chaque banque est organisée comme une monnaie complémentaire mais elle fait croire aux gens que ses propres “bons d’achats” émis par elle-même sont de la monnaie légale alors qu’ils ont autant de valeur qu’un Farinet ou qu’un Léman! 

David Dräyer Mais une fois que tu as compris que toute monnaie est basée sur la confiance, qu’importe? Tu ne peux que questionner les règles de la gestion et de la création. Dans un SEL, le pouvoir de création est distribué, et c’est ok. Pour le e-léman aussi, et c’est juste marqué noir sur blanc.

Blaise Rossellat C’est pour cela que chaque humain devrait pouvoir être sa propre banque centrale. La décentralisation ultime de la monnaie est la solution. Wir et e-leman sont transparent mais ils sont toujours un système monétaire centralisé.

David Dräyer le e-leman est en blockchain et en open-source, c’est pas ce qu’il y a de plus centralisé….

Blaise Rossellat Le “principe de la blockchain ” c’est l’exemple du piège tendu par la NSA, pas de hasard si Goldman Sachs veut le reprendre à son compte!

C’est la loi du plus fort appliquée à un stockage d’un graphe unique, le comble de la centralisation… Car celui qui a la puissance de calcul prend le pouvoir quand il veut… Êtes vous prêts à parier que par exemple la NSA ou un autre État, n’a pas la puissance de calcul suffisante pour prendre le pouvoir sur la blockchain?

Le “principe de la blockchain” c’est exactement l’opposé de la toile de confiance à la PGP, qui elle est basée sur les humains et la preuve contradictoire… Il faut viser la décentralisation totale!

David Dräyer Est-ce que la toile de confiance à la PGP est moins consommatrice de ressources que le blockchain qui requiert de très grosses capacités de calcul?
J’aimeRépondre15 h

Gérard Foucher Le “système des réserves fractionnaires” est une illusion. Les banques émettent des crédits tant que la demande de crédit existe, et se retournent ensuite vers la BC, qui est tenue de leur accorder un découvert (c’est-à-dire un crédit en monnaie centrale).
Cet article de Steve Keen explique bien le processus. 
Il précise même une explication expérimentale très logique : si la BC refusait de créer le découvert a posteriori, les paiements entre Agents Non-Bancaires ne pourraient pas être effectués faute de réserves pour les compensations interbancaires… ce qui poserait un petit problème… 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/…/14f31261e897bb9e84934…

J’aimeRépondre32 hModifié

Blaise Rossellat En réalité, ce que nous appelons la “monnaie” des banques est seulement la dette des banques envers les Agents Non-Bancaires (particuliers, employés, entreprises, associations, collectivités, États… tout sauf les banques). 
Le total de la “monnaie” d
es banques est en réalité le total de tout ce que le secteur bancaire a prélevé sur l’économie réelle.
Explication : 
Les banques inscrivent simplement dans leur passif comptable la valeur de tout ce qu’elle ont acquis à nos dépens (biens, services, travail direct ou indirect, titres, actions, contrats de crédit…). Ce passif ne pourra mathématiquement jamais être payé réellement, c’est-à-dire avec un transfert d’actif réel. C’est seulement un avoir, une promesse de la banque envers nous. Et nous acceptons d’utiliser ces dettes comme “bons d’achat” pour effectuer nos propres transactions réelles !

Une banque est donc seulement une entreprise qui enregistre par des “dettes fournisseurs” tout ce qu’elle prélève dans l’économie réelle (immeubles, fournitures, travail, parts d’entreprises, titres de crédit, de propriété…).

Le métier de banque, c’est D’ÊTRE en faillite.

Blaise Rossellat À lire aussi l’excellent article de Mathieu Despont sur la volonté de suppression du cash par les banques.

http://aaapositifs.ch/pourquoi-les-banques-veulent…/

Blaise Rossellat Une autre alternative possible à la centralisation de la monnaie est l’établissement d’un protocole monétaire entre banques individuelles humaines.

L’initiative citoyenne d’intérêt public baptisée Système Monétaire Équilibré (SME), initie l’idée selon laquelle la notion de monnaie deviendrait obsolète au profit de celle de protocole. Elle est complémentaire d’autres idées que l’ont trouve entre autres ici et là dans le monde académique.

Le SME propose de créer une coopérative de banques individuelles. Il s’agit d’une organisation non centralisée, mettant en place un protocole comptable générique, permettant à chaque citoyen de se créer un compte de paiement électronique. Ce compte libérerait régulièrement une avance monétaire personnelle mathématiquement équivalente pour tous, quels que soient les choix libres et indépendants que chacun fait pour les paramètres de sa propre comptabilité individuelle. Une part de cette avance individuelle serait renouvelée naturellement pour permettre à chacun de disposer du minimum de biens et de services nécessaires pour vivre — c’est la fonction revenu de base. Une autre part serait consacrée au financement participatif selon les désirs des individus afin de faire exister des projets communs. Cette organisation ne serait donc pas une banque, mais une coopérative organisant l’émergence de banques individuelles. Chacun, équipé d’un logiciel ad-hoc, deviendrait son propre banquier, teneur de son propre compte de paiement, créateur de sa propre part d’unités de compte monétaires, part identique à celle mise en oeuvre par tout autre citoyen.

L’avancée conceptuelle du SME est qu’il s’agit d’un système distribué d’enregistrement des flux économiques, dans lequel les unités de mesure n’ont pas plus de valeur que les degrés Celsius ou les centimètres. Ainsi disparaîtraient l’illusion de la monnaie-bien qui laisse croire que des unités de mesure puissent être crées ou prêtées, et donc l’escroquerie de l’achat de devises (on ne paie pas en degrés Celsius pour obtenir des centimètres).

En application du travail théorique réalisé, une démonstration pratique du SME est en développement. Les personnes qui souhaiteront la tester seront bientôt invités à se manifester. Des liens et documents seront prochainement communiqués.

http://revenudebase.info/…/revenu-de-base-protocole…/

J’aimeRépondre16 h

David Dräyer Bon, ça c’est l’autre soucis lorsqu’on pose une question monétaire, c’est qu’on se ramasse 15’000 articles qui parlent de tout, mais trop.
C’est comme demander à un témoin de Jehova si tu dois mettre de l’eau ou du vin dans ton verre, et recevoir comme toute réponse l’ancien et le nouveau testament…. en 12 exemplaires pour être sûr que ça rentre.
J’aimeRépondre26 h

Blaise Rossellat Le SME est je pense, la solution la plus aboutie au problème de l’iniquité de la monnaie-dette.
J’aimeRépondre16 h

David Dräyer Je sais, et j’en suis convaincu. Comme je suis convaincu qu’être assis tout nu en pleine nature à caresser un lion et un agneau paisiblement couché dans l’herbe comme le proposent les témoins de Jéhova serait vraiment formidable, et qu’un jour l’humain aura la capacité de vivre ça.
Mais quand ça t’est présenté sans les étapes intermédiaires pour y arriver, ça s’appelle du prosélytisme et tu risques de mettre en place un système qui ne convient pas au niveau de conscience des gens. C’est tout le but de la pédagogie: amener à faire le premier pas dans la bonne direction.
J’aimeRépondre26 h

Blaise Rossellat D’où l’étape de l’initiative Monnaie-Pleine qui applique une transition en douceur… 
J’aimeRépondre25 h

Gérard Foucher “l’autre soucis lorsqu’on pose une question monétaire, c’est qu’on se ramasse 15’000 articles qui parlent de tout, mais trop.”
Non, le souci, c’est que la création monétaire est un outil colossal de contrôle, d’enrichissement et de pouvoir absolu, que 
cet outil, depuis plusieurs siècles, est l’objet de luttes sans merci entre toutes les mafias étatiques, politiques et bancaires de la planète, et qu’avec le temps il est devenu tellement complexe, solide et verrouillé que la plupart de ses esclaves, même les plus intelligents, ne font même plus l’effort de le comprendre.
J’aimeRépondre22 h

Blaise Rossellat Le but d’une banque commerciale est de devenir la plus grosse du marché afin d’imposer le monopole de ses propres billets de Monopoly à tout le monde.
J’aimeRépondre16 h

David Dräyer Bon, je reprend ma question de base: à la BNS, on peut avoir des comptes. Pas les citoyens, mais les banques au moins. L’initiative monnaie pleine demande que tout le monde puisse y avoir un compte, non?
Donc s’il y a des comptes, il y a potentiellemen
t des comptes en positif, et d’autres en négatif. Ceci en monnaie centrale.
Le taux négatif s’applique aux comptes en positif.
S’applique-t-il également aux comptes en négatif?
J’aimeRépondre16 h

Blaise Rossellat D’abord le taux négatif a une franchise. Une banque ne paie pas dès le premier franc mais à partir de 20x ses fonds propres. Cette information n’est pas connue de tous… Cela permet encore aux banques d’arnaquer les gens!
J’aimeRépondre26 hModifié

Blaise Rossellat Il n’y a pas de compte en négatif. C’est impossible.
J’aimeRépondre25 h

David Dräyer Ok, du coup c’est pas claire pour moi, mon modèle mental ne correspond pas à ça, il va falloir que je retravaille dessus. Mais ça répond à ma question.

Merci!

J’aimeRépondre25 h

Blaise Rossellat Par définition, les banques commerciales doivent détenir 2,5% de monnaie centrale au passif de la BNS. Si leur compte est à zéro ou negatif, elles sont donc forcément en faillite.
J’aimeRépondre15 h

David Dräyer Mais où trouvent-elles cette monnaie centrale, si personne ne s’est jamais endetté pour la créer?
J’aimeRépondre15 h

Blaise Rossellat Elles vendent les actifs qu’elles ont acheté aux agents non bancaire en échange de monnaie scripturale secondaire au passif de leur propre bilan à la BNS en échange cette fois-ci de monnaie centrale créditée par la BNS sur leur compte à vue auprès de cette dernière. D’où le blanchiment de fausse monnaie scripturale.

Blaise Rossellat La BNS (donc par extension tous les citoyen) a une dette vis à vis des banques commerciales par la création monétaire légale. Depuis 2012, la BNS a crédité 600 milliards en monnaie scripturale légale sur les comptes courants des banques commerciales.
Je n’aime plusRépondre25 hModifié

David Dräyer Ouah…. là je comprends! C’est comme si moi j’achète une maison avec mon stock de Farinets, et qu’ensuite je vends ma maison à une banque, ce qui me donne le droit légal de mettre en circulation 40x le prix de cette maison avec des Farinets, y compris le droit de me prêter ces Farinets à moi-même pour répéter l’opération plein de fois.
C’est juste?
J’aimeRépondre25 h

Blaise Rossellat Ouiiiii! Tu as compris!!!! Eurêka! 😀
J’aimeRépondre15 h

David Dräyer Ben alors, pourquoi vous avez pas encore fait une vidéo pour expliquer ça clairement 
J’aimeRépondre25 h

Blaise Rossellat Gérard Foucher l’a fait me semble-t-il. François de Siebenthal aussi.
J’aimeRépondre15 h

David Dräyer Bon, c’est pas encore bon…. je suis tenace. Quel intérêt y a-t-il pour la BNS d’appliquer un taux négatif à ses comptes en monnaie centrale? En faisant ça, ils ne font que diminuer la capacité de création monétaire des banques, puisque c’est cette part de 2,5% qui fond.
J’aimeRépondre15 h

Blaise Rossellat Aucun intérêt si ce n’est de l’enfumage afin de détourner l’attention des gens de la véritable arnaque…
J’aimeRépondre15 hModifié

David Dräyer Mauvais exemple de vidéo… ça permet d’envisager qu’il y a un problème, mais ça n’explique rien et ça ne contient pas les éléments nécessaires à la compréhension des mécanismes en cours.
Par rapport à l’enfumage, est-ce à dire que de jouer sur les taux, comme on nous a toujours expliqué que faisait la BNS, n’a en réalité aucune incidence sur l’économie?
J’aimeRépondre25 h

Blaise Rossellat Ça n’a aucune incidence sur l’économie. Par contre, multiplier par 7 depuis 2012 la masse monétaire légale en passant de 100 milliards à plus de 700 milliards détruit à coup sûr l’économie suisse. Car tous les actifs côtés en francs suisses peuvent être acheté par nos concurrents étrangers à prix cassés (85% de rabais)!

Blaise Rossellat Est-ce que cette explication de Bernard lors de l’AG de la BNS en 2016 te parles plus?

https://youtu.be/ucUo1cxQmhQ

J’aimeRépondre15 h

David Dräyer Tu connais ça : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s8-GtFt6f4? Il faudrait leur demander de faire un truc sur la création monétaire 

J’aimeRépondre25 h

Blaise Rossellat Oui, je l’ai vue. 
J’aimeRépondre15 h

Blaise Rossellat Hallucinant! Mathieu Despont vient de mettre en ligne une vidéo sur le sujet! Quelle syncronicité! 

“Quelle est la vraie définition du franc Suisse ?Voir plus

J’aimeRépondre25 h

Walter Wartenweiler Tu as regardé un film qui s’appelle hypernormalisation? Le segment sur les banques de la city qui prennent le pouvoir est intéressant.

David Dräyer non, pas vu. On trouve ça sur internet?
J’aimeRépondre14 hModifié

Alain Besse Un taux de rendement négatif, doit on paie pour faire garder son argent. C’est déjà le cas avec les frais de comptes si on est pas trop riches! Donc si tu as des dettes ce serait logique que l’on te paie pour en avoir puisque toute logique est inversée de nos jours.
J’aimeRépondre44 h

Mathieu Despont Wouah… je viens de lire cette grande discussion ! une mine d’or 

David Dräyer il faut que tu viennes jouer au jeu de la monnaie à Sion:
https://www.facebook.com/events/575625895941127/

Et c’est vrai que l’on est encore loin d’avoir vraiment tout compris au système monétaire… mais plus on avance.. plus on remarque que même les banquiers ne comprennent pas.

Dernièrement il y a eu une vidéo hallucinante de Sergio Ermotti, le CEO qui découvre face au prof Sergio Rossi que les banques commerciales créent de la monnaie !! Il a l’air sincère !! il ne comprend pas !!

A la BNS, plus on creuse, plus on voit que les dirigeants ne comprennent pas. Ils pense contrôler… il pensent toujours que la BNS contrôle les banques commerciales via les réserves fractionnaires.
Mais en fait tout fonctionna à l’envers.
Heureusement qu’il y a la banque d’angleterre qui a écrit des rapports pour déconstruire les mythes écrit dans les bouquins d’économie. Sinon, sans la caution “banque d’angleterre” ça parait complètement conspirationniste !
Le Jeu de la monnaie permet aussi de comprendre beaucoup de chose. On voit vraiment ce qu’il se passe quand on démarre et quant on fini le jeu.
Ce que l’on ne fait jamais jamais jamais dans la réalité, sinon on finirait tous en prison ! … et tout le monde se rendrait compte de l’arnaque.

En fait, c’est bel et bien le système qui fonctionne à l’envers de ce qui est écrit dans les livres d’économie.
Ce sont les gens qui demandent des crédits qui créent la monnaie. Et c’est uniquement cette volonté demander un crédit qui va contrôler la masse monétaire. (après il y a plein de facteur d’influence externe.. la baisse des taux par un banque centrales est un facteur.. mais indirect !)
Donc une banque commerciale va créer la monnaie pour la personne qui veut un crédit. (si elle est solvable)
Puis la banque commerciale va adapter le volume de ses réserves obligatoire qui garantisse sa monnaie de singe pour être dan le cadre des 2.5 % de ratio… et la BNS… s’arrange pour avoir la monnaie banque centrale qui couvre les besoins des crédits des banques commerciales.. mais en rien ne contrôle vraiment. Elle contrôlent un contrat à un autre niveau. Libre aux autre d’avoir un autre contrat de crédit !

Une inconnue pour moi, c’est le mécanisme exact de création monétaire de la BNS. Pour les pièces et le billets c’est évident… mais pour la monnaie scripturale… pas clair !

Ainsi pour revenir à la question de base. Il est impossible qu’un compte à la BNS soit en dessous de 0 … ça voudrait dire que la banque qui le détient est en faillite… ou qu’elle n’a pas de crédit… vu qu’elle doit avoir 2.5% (en suisse). Dans l’UE, c’est 1% et dans les pays anglo saxon… UK, canada, australie… => 0% !!
https://fr.wikipedia.org/…/R%C3%A9serves_obligatoires…

Donc ça ne s’applique pas aux dettes.

MAI6

sam 14:30Sion, Canton du Valais
BlaiseMathieu et 7 amis

Lausanne et ses monnaies locales

MERCREDI, 5 AVRIL | 07:00
Est-ce bientôt «Demain» à Lausanne? Ce mardi soir, le Conseil communal a adopté deux postulats demandant une étude sur l’opportunité de créer de l’argent local ou de soutenir la monnaie léman pour encourager le commerce de proximité. Au vote, les deux textes ont été acceptés à 48 contre 27 avec 5 abstentions pour le premier qui était défendu par le PLR Henri Klunge et à 45 contre 28 avec 5 abstentions pour le second qui était porté par la Verte Léonore Porchet.
L’argent local n’est pas une nouveauté. Le léman, par exemple, circule à Lausanne depuis l’an dernier. Quelque 100’000 lémans se déplacent aujourd’hui dans l’économie locale. Des dizaines de petits commerces l’encaissent. Cet argent est valable sur l’arc lémanique, y compris en France. Pourtant beaucoup de questions se posent au moment d’entraîner les pouvoirs publics dans cette aventure.

Un Léman projeté au  pour Claude-Alain Voiblet,qui n’a jamais vu cette monnaie.
Malgré que le premier postulant est un PLR, le groupe libéral-radical ne voit pas l’idée d’un soutien municipal à l’argent local d’un bon oeil. Matthieu Carel évoque un “sous-produit parlementaire du film Demain. Il se soucie des garanties que peut offrir une monnaie comme le léman et objecte: «acheter local, ça peut se faire avec des francs». Son collègue Jean-Pascal Gendre dénonce «un retour en arrière», pas loin du «trumpisme», du «renfermement sur soi»: «On renforce le petit commerce en renforçant l’économie locale».
Le PLC et l’UDC sont quant à eux sceptiques. Pierre Oberson (PLC) apprécie l’idée d’un soutien au commerce local mais redoute que cet argent perde de sa valeur. L’UDC Anita Messere y voit «un retour au troc» et souligne que le ministre des finances Pascal Broulis a parlé de pertes fiscales.
La Verte Sara Gnoni rétorque que le léman est nanti par la Banque alternative suisse, ce qui lui assure une garantie. Elle glisse au passage que le Conseil d’Etat vaudois n’a pas beaucoup réfléchi avant de jeter aux orties une proposition de la Vert’libérale Claire Richard allant dans ce sens: «La réponse de Pascal Broulis comprend un copié-collé du site BankObserver qui met en garde contre d’éventuelles pertes fiscales. Or, la TVA sera payée de toute façon».

Pascal Broulis accusé,par les @VertsLausannois,de plagiat dans une réponse à une interpellation sur les monnaies complémentaires.
Les socialistes sont, eux aussi, partants. Arnaud Bouverat estime qu’il s’agit d’un moyen «pertinent» de «relocalisation» du commerce à l’heure où les achats en ligne augmentent. «C’est bon pour l’emploi et cela a des vertus écologiques», ajoute-t-il encore, en substance.
Après ce débat et son résultat, la Municipalité se chargera de présenter différentes variantes de soutien à la monnaie locale. A Nyon, une initiative similaire figure dans le pipe-line. (24 heures)
Créé: 04.04.2017, 22h38


CONSEIL COMMUNAL

La municipalité de Lausanne se penchera sur la monnaie locale

Par Lise Bourgeois Mis à jour le 04.04.2017 1 Commentaire

Deux postulats, l’un des Verts, l’autre d’un élu PLR, ont été renvoyés pour études à l’Exécutif. Ils demandent que la Ville s’intéresse au Léman ou crée son argent.

Il y plusieurs sels à Lausanne, une banque du temps, LEMANEX et notamment la banque www.wir.ch

Lausanne va aussi lancer un revenu de base inconditionnel


Autres projets vaudois et suisses plus bas…

Une monnaie locale pour le Gros-de-Vaud | Lausanne Cités

Résultats de recherche

Une monnaie locale pour le Gros-de-Vaud | Lausanne Cités

www.lausannecites.ch/lactualite/morges/une-monnaie-locale-pour-le-gros-de-vaud

30 juin 2016 – Alors que la monnaie Le Léman, utilisée à Genève et en France voisine, vient de faire son apparition à Lausanne, le Gros-de-Vaud pourrait lui …

Monnaie locale Gros-de-Vaud – Pied du Jura – pour un bassin de vie …

monnaie-locale-gros-de-vaud-pied-du-jura.ch/

La monnaie, telle que nous l’imaginons, sera locale, complémentaire et pleine, … de billets qui circuleront dans le bassin de vie Gros-de-Vaud et Pied du Jura.

Echallens: Nouvelle association pour une monnaie locale – Vaud …

www.24heures.ch/vaud-regions/nouvelle-association-monnaie-locale/story/21816477

3 févr. 2017 – EchallensLa structure qui devra mettre en place une monnaie locale pour le centre du canton est née mercredi à Echallens. L’association …

Monnaie locale Gros-de-Vaud Pied du Jura – Home | Facebook

https://www.facebook.com/Monnaie.locale.GrosdeVaud.PiedduJura/

Monnaie locale Gros-de-Vaud Pied du Jura. 152 likes · 10 talking about this. Une monnaie localecomplémentaire pour encourager le commerce local en…

Une monnaie locale peut-elle ré-humaniser le quotidien ? – Echallens …

www.dany-schaer.ch/reportages/2016/monnaie-locale.htm

Une soirée d’information organisée le 5 septembre dernier par le comité de pilotage «Monnaie locale Gros-de-Vaud» a rassemblé une cinquantaine de …

Proximité: Un imprimeur rollois veut lancer une monnaie locale pour …

www.tdg.ch/geneve/la-cote/imprimeur-rollois-veut…monnaie-locale-cote/…/27435737

4 mars 2017 – Après la monnaie transfrontalière le léman, le farinet en Valais et le projet en cours dans le Gros-de-Vaud, le Rollois Christophe Brésilley veut …

SEL Suisses: Accueil

sel-suisse.ch/

Un SEL, Système d’Echange Local, est une association à but non lucratif, qui … lieu peuvent être comptabilisés de diverses manières, par une monnaie locale, …

Monnaie du canton de Vaud — Wikipédia

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monnaie_du_canton_de_Vaud

La monnaie du canton de Vaud désigne l’ensemble des pièces de monnaies frappées par les …. Cet évêque fit frapper, en plus des deniers, des demi-gros (6 deniers) et des mailles (½ denier). …… La loi réglementant sévèrement la frappe des monnaies, les pièces émises par les autorités cantonales oulocales après 1850 …

Monnaies locales : un encouragement à l’activité économique du …

www.vertliberaux-vd.ch/…/monnaies-locales-un-encouragement-a-lactivite-economiq…

8 sept. 2016 – Monnaies locales : un encouragement à l’activité économique du Canton de Vaud ?Monnaies Locales. Parti Vert’libéral vaudois 8 septembre …

[PDF]NO 51 | 10/2016 – Bournens

https://www.bournens.ch/index.php/documents/category/13-2016?download=99…

24 nov. 2016 – Monnaie localeGros-de-Vaud. |- ~. La Communauté Catholique * *| :inie 9 de Cheseaux – Romanel– – – DANS LE CANTON sullens-Bournens …

Recherches associées à LAUSANNE revenu de base inconditionnel


Dilution monétaire du franc Suisse






Question à Andréa Maechler de la BNS à propos de la dilution monétaire du franc Suisse entraînée par la création monétaire massive de la BNS faite depuis 2011.

Depuis 2011, la BNS crée ~100 milliards de CHF par an. Ceci pour investir à l’étranger afin d’agir sur le marché des changes et de dévaluer le CHF.
Cette action est louable dans un but à court terme de sauver l’industrie d’exportation qui est importante en Suisse.

Mais ce genre d’instrument non conventionnel commence à devenir conventionnel. Or là on ne voit pas comment s’en sortir.

Le bilan de la BNS est maintenant plus grand que le PIB de suisse.

Si on regarde les choses sur le long terme sous une autre logique, on peut se dire que créer autant de monnaie a dilué l’unité de mesure CHF, et donc que le CHF vaut 6 fois moins qu’en 2011.

La politique actuelle tente de faire couler le CHF autant vite que l’euro et le $ … or ces zones économiques sont plus grandes et les Quantitative Easing encore plus massifs. Il va être dur pour la BNS de régater.
Par contre si on ne fait plus rien, le CHF va prendre de la valeur. Est-ce grave ? Pour l’exportation oui. Mais pour l’importation non. Tout serait 6 fois moins cher si l’on avait rien fait.

A propos du PIB, si l’unité de mesure CHF change chaque année, comment être certain de pouvoir avoir une mesure fiable ?
Si le CHF de 2016 est 6 fois plus petit que le CHF de 2011, alors le PIB n’a pas augmenté… mais diminué .. non ?


Blaise Rossellat et Bernard Dugas


BNS: Nous devons la faire auditer par des locaux loyaux avant la potentielle catastrophe ! Liliane Held-Khawam

bns-logo
Ils sont jeunes. Ils sont suisses. Leur parti s’appelle Up!Schweiz, en français le parti de l’indépendance. Ils ont compris les risques de la politique suicidaire de la BNS et nous offrent un visuel qui montre que la BNS commence à dépasser la Suisse en taille.
Silvan Amberg, fiscaliste chez Price Waterhouse, dénonce le comportement de la banque centrale et les conséquences potentiellement désastreuses de sa politique. Il dit ceci dans Die Zürcherin
  • « La Banque nationale joue un jeu dangereux »
  • « Personne ne sait ce qui se passera si la bulle de change éclate et que se décompose la valeur du franc. Il est peu probable que la BNS peut liquider ses investissements à temps et éponger la liquidité du marché dans un tel cas.Finalement, le contribuable ou les épargnants vont payer la facture de l’inflation lorsque, par exemple, nos épargne-retraite perdent leur valeur ».
Et voici le visuel que le parti nous offre:
PIB Suisse BNS.PNG
La BNS continue de bénéficier des divisions linguistiques du pays, combinées à la mansuétude des médias mainstream qui n’attirent pas l’attention du grand public sur le jeu explosif de la banque centrale, qui agit sous une influence combinée des intérêts privés globaux et de puissances étrangères.
Profitons pour rappeler ceci:
  1. Le plus gros actionnaire de la BNS après les établissements bancaires cantonaux est allemand
  2. Le trafic de paiement et le fameux compte de virements géant est géré par SIC, une entreprise filiale de SIX group, elle-même détenue en majorité par UBS et CS.
  3. Le président de UBS est allemand et ancien patron de la banque centrale allemande.
  4. SIC est géré par un citoyen allemand, patron du trafic de paiement de UBS.
  5. Le trafic de paiement en euros est totalement sous-traité à SECB, une banque ALLEMANDE, détenue par UBS, CS, Telekurs, Postfinance. Telekurs appartient à SIX et Postfinance est présidée par un administrateur d’une structure financière qui provient de UBS.
  6. Les excédents des virements ne sont plus comptabilisés dans les relevés de la BNS. Ceci est écrit en toutes lettres!!!
  7. Enfin, les actifs gigantesques et hautement politiques ne sont pas gérés par la BNS mais par des managers d’actifs. Les rumeurs insistantes émettent le nom de Blackrock (américain) en tant que gestionnaire de ce trésor. Blackrock dont le vice-président n’est autre que l’ancien patron de la BNS.
  8. Un des actionnaires significatifs de UBS est… Blackrock.
UBS Blackrock actionnaire.png
Un petit monde donc germano-américain est puissamment présent dans la gestion de la banque centrale suisse qui semble hors de contrôle de l’Etat et des citoyens qui en sont les garants. Car il faut rappeler que chaque franc affiché au compte de virement et autres passifs de la BNS est sous garantie du pays!!!
Sans être le moins du monde de gauche ou assimilé, nous ne pouvons imaginer à ce stade une autre solution que de nationaliser urgemment ce mastodonte qui fera passer l’épisode Swissair et autre UBS pour de minuscules amuse-bouches….
Il faut faire établir urgemment un audit par des locaux loyaux pour évaluer l’ampleur des engagements internationaux de cette banque qui peut couler le pays…
Liliane Held-Khawam
Egalement:

«La BNS met en danger la prospérité et l’avenir» (20 minutes)

Selon Oswald Grübel, ex-boss d’UBS et du Credit Suisse, les banques centrales disposent d’une «arme de destruction massive».

(…)
Un risque à 75’000.- par habitant
Oswald Grübel cite le bilan la Banque nationale suisse (BNS) comme exemple de risque pour l’Etat. Il s’élève à plus de 600 milliards de francs, soit 75’000 francs par habitant.
Il aurait préféré «laisser le pays traverser une brève récession, plutôt que de mettre en danger la prospérité et l’avenir». Oswald Grübel s’attend à ce que la politique monétaire actuelle se termine par un krach, si les banques centrales perdent leur crédibilité. Ce qui peut durer dix ans ou plus.
L’ex-patron d’UBS et de Credit Suisse critique également les banques commerciales. «Sans bénéfices, il ne peut pas y avoir de bonus», a-t-il souligné. Mais il y a des managers qui reçoivent dix millions de francs, alors que l’entreprise enregistre des pertes, glisse celui qui avait touché 13,1 millions de francs à titre de dédommagement à son arrivée à UBS en 2010.

http://www.20min.ch/ro/economie/news/story/26526813


Usury FAQ, or, money on the Pill

Some of my usury sources

Usury FAQ, or, money on the Pill

“Are we not ashamed to pay usury? Not contented within the limits of our own means, we do by giving pledges and entering into contracts, fabricate the yoke of our slavery.” – Plutarch
We exhort you not to listen to those who say that today the issue of usury is present in name only, since gain is almost always obtained from money given to another. How false is this opinion and how far removed from the truth! We can easily understand this if we consider that the nature of one contract differs from the nature of another. – Vix Pervenit
Understanding usury requires an understanding of how the nature of some contracts differs, fundamentally and categorically, from the nature of others. Usury is not a matter of the same kind of contract differing only by ‘excessive interest’. Usurious contracts constitute a kind of contract which is intrinsically immoral by its very nature.  This FAQ is intended to help people understand what usury is – and is not – and answer many of the questions which naturally arise.
[Note: this FAQ is also available in the form of a public domain ebook.]
  1. What is Usury?
  2. What is “lending”?
  3. Is usury always morally wrong?
  4. What if the interest rate is reasonable?
  5. What is the key difference between a mutuum and other contracts?
  6. What if the borrower is an institution like a government or corporation rather than an individual?
  7. I don’t get it. Why is charging interest on a loan always morally wrong?
  8. But economic value is relative, isn’t it? Isn’t value reducible to whatever people’s preferences happen to be?
  9. What if the loan is secured by collateral?
  10. Does collateral have to be physical?
  11. Aren’t lots of non-mutuum contracts unjust?
  12. Why would I ever lend someone money if I can’t charge interest?
  13. Didn’t the Church allow the Franciscans to collect “interest” above and beyond the principal on their mutuum loans to the poor? What about “extrinsic titles?”
  14. Hasn’t the Church approved charging interest to recover opportunity costs? What about the time value of money?
  15. Shouldn’t an investor be compensated for giving up the opportunity cost of investing his money in something else?
  16. Doesn’t the future labor of a worker constitute a ‘real asset’ against which a loan can be collateralized?
  17. Traditionalist scholastics claimed that you can’t sell time; progressive scholastics asserted that the worker’s wages are a counterexample. Weren’t the progressives right?
  18. Traditionalist scholastics claimed that you can’t sell risk; progressive scholastics asserted that an insurance bond is a counterexample. Weren’t the progressives right?
  19. Is a corporate bond usury?
  20. Is a car loan usury?
  21. Is a home loan usury?
  22. Are credit cards usury?
  23. Does this mean that I can’t take out a student loan without committing mortal sin?
  24. What is wrong with contracts between consenting adults?
  25. Aren’t all unproductive loans usury? Wasn’t Belloc right when he said that the distinction between usurious and non-usurious loans was that the latter are productive?
  26. Haven’t commerce and currency changed in such a way that usury is no longer much of a concern?
  27. Isn’t the government the biggest violator of them all?
  28. Who the heck are you to be lecturing us all on usury, anyway?
  29. I know that usury was traditionally considered an execrable mortal sin. But didn’t the Church change canon law and pastoral practice to remove the penalties and stigma associated with usury? Haven’t most Catholic theologians accepted that the world has moved on from the time when the prohibition of usury made sense?
  30. If the sovereign should decline to enforce usurious contracts, doesn’t it follow that the sovereign should decline to enforce any contract of exchange whatsoever which empowers one party to pursue a deficiency judgment against the other party personally, independent of any real assets posted as security?
  31. I really don’t get it. Why again do you say that fixed-income investments in (e.g.) corporations (corporate bonds) are not usury?
  32. In question 16 you say that the value of future labor is not a real asset which can be used as collateral on a for-profit loan. But wasn’t it relatively common before the modern era for people to be sold into slavery to pay off a debt?
  33. Doesn’t St. Paul tell slaves to obey their masters?
  34. Doesn’t the safe harbor of personal bankruptcy imply that modern loans are really non recourse?
  35. What if the mutuum loan is made in wheat, gold, or rental cars rather than fiat dollars?
  36. Wait, does this mean that if I lend out my car and the borrower destroys it, he doesn’t owe me anything?
  37. I see that the Magisterium and Aquinas have actually been clear that lack of explicit recourse to real assets is central to usury: that full-recourse lending for profit is what is defined as the moral problem. But why is that the case?
  38. But you’ve said that intangible or only partly tangible things like patents and operating businesses can be ‘objects’, and thus can be property. So how do I tell the difference between what can be ontologically real property and what can’t?
  39. But wait, can’t a full recourse creditor go after Bob’s estate when he dies?
  40. Doesn’t the Vatican Bank make full recourse loans?
  41. What about that Catholic Encyclopedia article, anyway?
  42. Why do you say that the 2008 financial crisis was founded in usury?
  43. Does this mean that ideally consumers should always pay cash for things like houses and cars?
  44. Suppose I am thinking about agreeing to a financial contract which will produce some interest or other profit for me – say by opening a bank account. How can I be sure that what I am about to do is not usury?
  45. Is it morally licit to charge interest on a full recourse loan just to cover inflation?
  46. What about futures contracts? Are they inherently usurious?
  47. What is the evidence against Aquinas and in favor of the modern view that a reasonable amount of profit on a simple mutuum loan is morally licit?
  48. What about the Fifth Lateran Council’s definition?
  49. Is it acceptable for a merchant to charge penalties for late payment?
  50. John Noonan and other scholars have stated that we can’t grasp the usury doctrine without getting into medieval just price theory. Yet you say that usury doctrine doesn’t depend upon any economic theory or theory of just pricing.  Why do some scholars say that there is a dependence between usury doctrine and medieval theory of just price?
  51. Isn’t it usury or something related to usury when banks ‘create money’ in a system of fractional reserve lending?
  52. I’m still struggling with the whole ‘loan for consumption’ thing.  Why is it that a personal guarantee of repayment is equivalent to a loan for consumption?
  53. Why doesn’t the mutuum borrower owe at least enough interest to compensate for inflation?
  54. Are you suggesting that simply preserving the economic buying power of some property is a kind of gain?
  55. If you make a mutuum loan to a friend in need, shouldn’t that friend try to keep you from losing any economic buying power in the process?
  56. Isn’t criticism of usury just veiled anti-semitism?

1) What is Usury?
Usury is lending money for profitable interest. The term “usury” often specifically refers to the interest itself – interest charged on a mutuum (personally guaranteed by the borrower) loan.
2) What is “lending”?
Lending is an agreement between a lender and a borrower, wherein the lender gives property to the borrower and the borrower pledges to “return it” later. The phrase “return it” might mean returning the actual property which was lent, or it might mean returning some different property – typically the same kind and in the same amount. It is the latter sort of lending which is the context for usury: borrowing money or sugar, not borrowing a lawn mower or hedge trimmer.
In this kind of lending, the loan is a contract wherein the borrower is personally obligated, by his own agreement, to return the principal amount of the loan to the lender at some future time: not a specific object lent, but a specific amount lent. This is traditionally called a “mutuum”.
St. Thomas Aquinas defines a loan as a contract in which “the borrower holds the money at his own risk and is bound to pay it all back”: that is, the lender has recourse to the borrower himself to recover the loaned amount.
Today this kind of loan is called a “full recourse loan”, as contrasted to a “non recourse loan”1.  So usury is charging interest on a full recourse loan.
A full recourse/personally guaranteed/mutuum loan is a loan in which the lender’s claim against the borrower remains even if the borrower ‘consumes’ the proceeds. ‘Consume’ is not meant in the sense that what is lent is literally destroyed (although it might be, if it is for example food); but merely that it can be alienated from the borrower without destroying the borrower’s obligation to the lender. The lender’s claim in the contract is against the personal IOU of the borrower and is not confined to some specified property which either the borrower or lender possesses or which is purchased with the proceeds.
The modern terms ‘loan’ and ‘debt’ can mean different things.  When reading old books and documents on usury it is important to keep in mind that the word ‘loan’ in English translations is almost always a translation of ‘mutuum’ or the like.  It refers specifically to loans secured by the personal guarantee of the borrower, sometimes called a ‘loan for consumption’. Not all modern ‘debt’ or ‘loans’ are secured by the personal guarantee of a borrower or borrowers.
3) Is usury always morally wrong?
Yes. Usury, profit from mutuum loans, is always morally wrong without exception.
4) What if the interest rate is reasonable?
Usury is always immoral no matter what interest rate is charged.  The idea that usury is only charging “unreasonable” interest is a modern fiction. Usury is not an “unreasonable” rate of interest: it is any interest whatsoever as a term of agreement in a particular kind of contract, the mutuum loan.
One cannot condone the sin of usury by arguing that the gain is not great or excessive, but rather moderate or small; neither can it be condoned by arguing that the borrower is rich; nor even by arguing that the money borrowed is not left idle, but is spent usefully, either to increase one’s fortune, to purchase new estates, or to engage in business transactions. – Vix Pervenit
[Note: in the English translation of Vix Pervenit, the term “loan” is a translation of (forms of) the word “mutuum”].
5) What is the key difference between a mutuum and other contracts?
With a mutuum the borrower is personally obligated under the contract to repay the full amount of the principal, no matter what is done with the proceeds or with other specific assets tied up in the contract.
6) What if the borrower is an institution like a government or corporation rather than an individual?
“Lending” to an institution is not a mutuum loan, as long as the lender cannot go after individuals for recovery of the principal.  An institution is not a person: it is a thing – a societas – an objective bundle of transferrable assets or property which can change hands and in which various parties can have various kinds of stake independent of any specific person or persons. So an institution can itself act as security on non recourse debt.
7) I don’t get it.  Why is charging interest on a loan always morally wrong?
St. Thomas Aquinas explains that usurious lending involves selling something which does not exist.  This is very counterintuitive to people indoctrinated in modernity, and yet obvious once you’ve set aside modern anti-realism about property and economic value. Aquinas compares it to attempting to sell wine and the consumption of the wine as two separate things.
Imagine that Bob lends Harry $100, Harry lends Fred $100, and Fred lends Bob $100. They each spend the money on beer, and charge 10% interest in the form of a deferred fee. The contracts attempt to entitle each of them to an additional $10 – for a total of $30. This $30 worth of new financial entitlements on the books is not connected to anything ontologically real. The 2008 financial crisis was the result of a usurious network of real estate loans and ultimately circular insurance-like schemes which created this kind of ‘fake’ wealth.  All usurious lending involves the creation of fake wealth.
Another way to see that what is bought-and-sold in a mutuum does not exist is to observe that, under the terms of the contract, it is possible for the lender to fail to recover everything he is entitled to recover under the contract.  Under what are (these days) called non recourse contracts the “lender” is always, by definition, able to recover everything that he is entitled to under the terms of the contract: once the underlying assets have been divvied up there is nowhere else to go to recover his investment, and that is precisely what the parties agreed would be the case.  If the borrower stops making payments on a non recourse home mortgage, for example, the lender forecloses on the house to recover his investment, and is not entitled to any claims extending beyond the house itself. The “lender’s” economic entitlements under the contract are bound to (and bounded by) something that actually exists: the house.
The reason a full recourse lender is sometimes unable to recover what he is owed under the terms of the contract is because what he is owed under the terms of the contract does not exist.
Licit investment – or even purchase for consumption – always involves the purchase or sale of a property interest in (that is, some sort of economic claim upon) some specific property which actually exists.  Usurious contracts pretend to be a property interest in something – in some thing – but the property over which they assert a claim doesn’t actually exist at the time it is “sold”.  If the property actually existed then the borrower would not have to take any action in order to produce or acquire it: if and when the borrower stopped making payments, the lender could simply claim his economic share in the actual property, because the actual property exists.  That is how non recourse “lending” works, as well as all sorts of other non-usurious investment contracts.
The Magisterium makes and clarifies this distinction forcefully (e.g. Question 31Question 36).
The difference between full recourse (mutuum) contracts and non recourse (societas) contracts is central to the subject of usury; so if it isn’t clear at this point, keep reading.
8) But economic value is relative, isn’t it?  Isn’t value reducible to whatever people’s preferences happen to be?
No.  For example, a bunch of arsonists getting together and agreeing that burning property is valuable, and acting on that determination by burning property, don’t create economic value: they destroy economic value.
9) What if the loan is secured by collateral?
Interest on a mutuum secured by collateral is still usury, because if the collateral is destroyed the lender can still pursue the borrower for return of the principal amount of the loan. If the lender’s recourse under the terms of the contract is only to the collateral and not to the person of the borrower, it is not a mutuum loan and is not usury.
The difference between a mutuum and other contracts comes strongly into play when the loan goes into default. If the lender can (under the terms of the contract) go after the person of the borrower to recover principal, it is a mutuum loan.  If the lender has recourse only to ontologically real assets to recover principal and any profits, the contract is not a mutuum and the prohibition of usury does not apply.
In non recourse (societas) loans a creditor can always collect precisely and entirely what he is entitled to under the contract, because what he is entitled to under the contract always actually exists — if it doesn’t exist as a real asset on the inventory of real assets which secure the loan, then by definition he is not entitled to it, since his recourse is only to those things.  That’s what he agreed to when making the loan — that is the definition of a non recourse loan.
That full recourse (mutuum) creditors are not always able to collect precisely and entirely what they are entitled to under the contract demonstrates Aquinas’ point that usury involves selling what does not exist.
10) Does collateral have to be physical?
No. There are all sorts of ontologically real financial assets or kinds of property which are not strictly or only physical in nature.  For example, the loyalty and goodwill of regular patients of a dentist is a real asset which, along with the work of the dentist, produces regular income. Said differently, a dentist’s practice is an ontologically real economic asset. Dentists commonly sell their practices when they retire, for example.
For a thing to be property it must be possible for that thing to be alienated from any particular owner or possessor, so that a different person can possess it at time B from the person who possessed it at time A. It must be possible for that thing to be possessed, repossessed, bought, sold, or transferred from one owner to another. If it cannot be alienated from some particular person or persons it cannot be ontologically real property in the pertinent sense.
A personal promise to repay cannot be alienated from the person making the promise. When a loan is secured by a personal promise to repay instead of or in addition to alienable property, it is a mutuum loan.
11) Aren’t lots of non-mutuum contracts unjust?
No doubt many are, but a contract is not usury strictly speaking unless it is a mutuum loan for profitable interest.
Nor is it denied that it is very often possible for someone, by means of contracts differing entirely from loans, to spend and invest money legitimately either to provide oneself with an annual income or to engage in legitimate trade and business. From these types of contracts honest gain may be made. … There are many different contracts of this kind. In these contracts, if equality is not maintained, whatever is received over and above what is fair is a real injustice. Even though it may not fall under the precise rubric of usury (since all reciprocity, both open and hidden, is absent), restitution is obligated. – Vix Pervenit
[Note: in the English translation of Vix Pervenit, the term “loan” is a translation of (forms of) the word “mutuum”. Interestingly, the word translated as “reciprocity” in the English version is also “mutuum” in the original, so the sentence with the parenthetical can be understood to say “Even though it may not fall under the precise rubric of usury (because these contracts are not, overtly or covertly, mutuum loans), restitution is obligated.”].
This is similar to the situation with contraception and natural family planning.  Just as it is possible to engage in otherwise-licit kinds of sex with a “contraceptive mentality”, it is also possible to enter into otherwise-licit kinds of contracts with a “usurious mentality”.   The kind (species) of contract or sexual act under consideration may not be intrinsically immoral; but the fact that it is not intrinsically immoral does not make it impossible to do moral wrong in the particulars: in intentions or circumstances.  The nature of a particular kind of contract may not be usurious; but it does not follow that the choice to agree to a particular contract of that kind therefore cannot be unjust.
This is exactly as we should expect it to be with a moral doctrine covering a particular species of sin. The moral prohibition of contraception, for example, is not in itself an all-encompassing theory of sexual immorality. Adultery and fornication are sexual sins distinct from contraception, and what is true in the sexual domain is also true in the domain of property: that theft and usury are distinct kinds of sins doesn’t make either particularly ambiguous. Neither the prohibition of theft nor the prohibition of usury constitute Theories of Everything about the moral use of property.
12) Why would I ever lend someone money if I can’t charge interest?
Mutuum contracts are only morally licit as charity.  Lending money to someone in need is a good deed.  If and when the borrower gets back on his feet and can afford to repay the loan, he owes the lender his money back as a matter of justice. In the middle ages, the Franciscans lent money to the poor as a way of keeping the poor out of the clutches of usury.
Furthermore, you can “lend” for profit under non-mutuum contracts.  Interest on non recourse debt is not usury.
13) Didn’t the Church allow the Franciscans to collect “interest” above and beyond the principal on their mutuum loans to the poor? What about “extrinsic titles?”
First, it isn’t clear that these loans to the poor were in fact mutuum loans at all (see Question 47).  To the extent the Magisterium has made any formal pronouncements on the matter, as far as I have been able to determine they apply to the non-recourse Mountains of Piety, and to titles which arise from matters entirely extrinsic to the contract such as negligence, theft, or fraud (see Question 49).
There was certainly much discussion of the subject among theologians.
Some medievals argued (with the wide ranging of opinion typical of the human experience) that certain actual costs incurred by lending (called “extrinsic titles”) could be recovered from borrowers who could afford to pay those costs, in addition to the principal amount of the loan, under certain circumstances.  Keep in mind that lending to the poor could range from simply handing a needy man money on the street and asking him to return it when he can, to something more institutional and even to agencies sponsored by the sovereign.
Borrowing money from the early Franciscan credit agencies was often a way for the down-and-out to get back on their feet, and borrowers would sometimes default anyway — even after getting back on their feet. In addition, various real costs of administering the loans were incurred by the Franciscans, although they themselves lived under vows of poverty. “Extrinsic titles” were allowed, it was argued, because it is unjust to the poor for those who have already benefited from charitable lending to deplete the supply of capital available to lend to those still in need.
In general the distinction between mutuum loans and other kinds of lending was not always clear in these disputations, and many different kinds of extrinsic titles were proposed and debated. The Franciscan credit agencies were precursors to modern pawn shops, making small non recourse loans with property as security rather than making mutuum loans. Also pertinent to understanding the various disputations is that the medievals were not concerned solely with usury strictly speaking, but with fair treatment in general. Modern commenters tend to introduce ambiguity into the understanding of usury specifically when reading medieval disputations, because of this more general concern with things like just pricing (see Question 50).
If Bob was on Skid Row and the Franciscans helped him get back on his feet – he now has the means to repay what he borrowed – then the kind of debt he owes is different in kind from a commercial, property based debt. He owes a debt of gratitude and a debt of justice: the former to those who helped him, and the latter to the poor who are still on Skid Row and now need his help.
If he is ungrateful and stingy and refuses to pay the loan back, even though he has the means to do so, he has committed an injustice. But it isn’t an injustice rooted in property: it is an injustice rooted in charity.
Whether legal action is or is not warranted in such a case was controversial.  The Dominicans thought not and accused the Franciscans of usury, even for attempting to recover the principal in the case of borrowers who could repay but refused, because they sometimes recovered more than just the principal from grateful borrowers. The Pope intervened on the side of the Franciscans with respect to the non-recourse Mountains of Piety, but this obviously does not resolve what kinds of extrinsic titles and licit legal actions might apply in the case of mutuum loans.
The Dominicans were arguing for their interpretation of Aquinas’ view on the involvement of the civil law; but note that all parties nevertheless agreed about the fundamentally different nature of the inherently gratuitous mutuum loan and the licit-for-profit societas or non recourse investment.  A licit mutuum loan does not involve the purchase of a property interest by an investor; it is only ever morally licit as a gratuitous act of friendship.  Here is Aquinas:
Repayment for a favor may be made in two ways. On one way, as a debt of justice; and to such a debt a man may be bound by a fixed contract; and its amount is measured according to the favor received. Wherefore the borrower of money or any such thing the use of which is its consumption [that is, anything which must be returned in kind as opposed to in particular: see Question 35 – Ed.] is not bound to repay more than he received in loan: and consequently it is against justice if he be obliged to pay back more. On another way a man’s obligation to repayment for favor received is based on a debt of friendship, and the nature of this debt depends more on the feeling with which the favor was conferred than on the greatness of the favor itself. This debt does not carry with it a civil obligation, involving a kind of necessity that would exclude the spontaneous nature of such a repayment.
In practice a duly grateful borrower who has become prosperous through the help of charitable loans himself would become a patron of those same efforts which helped him out of poverty.  But this “debt” of gratitude is not a property debt, and by its nature cannot be captured in a fixed rate of interest or other specific monetary amount.  The very act of attempting to convert a debt of gratitude or friendship – above and beyond simply what was actually borrowed – into some definite charge of a specific amount of money, puts the lie to attempts to disclaim usury.
Gratitude or friendship can be truly owed; but gratitude or friendship which can be bought and sold for a specific price is not true gratitude or friendship.
My own understanding of extrinsic titles is that if they involve an entitlement which would not arise anyway without being included in the contract, they cannot be extrinsic to the contract. Certainly titles which arise from theft, fraud, and negligence could arise independent of the contract. But if a particular title has to be included in the contract in order for it to be a legitimate title, it is by definition not an extrinsic title.
14) Hasn’t the Church approved charging interest to recover opportunity costs?  What about the time value of money?
No. One of the most controversial of the proposed “extrinsic titles” was lucrum cessans, which some interpret as a blanket license to recover opportunity costs (even though opportunity costs are not ontologically real: see Question 15) from mutuum loans. But although the Magisterium has approved the concept of extrinsic titles generally speaking for some kinds of “loans” to the poor (basically to defend the Franciscans, in their work helping the poor, from the charge of usury), there is no Magisterial proclamation giving a detailed account of which “extrinsic titles” are and are not valid and when they apply.
Furthermore, recovery of “opportunity cost” or the “time value of money” as something in itself has been explicitly condemned by the Magisterium:
[The following proposition is condemned as erroneous:] Since ready cash is more valuable than that to be paid, and since there is no one who does not consider ready cash of greater worth than future cash, a creditor can demand something beyond the principal from the borrower, and for this reason be excused from usury. – Various Errors on Moral Subjects (II), Pope Innocent XI by decree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679 (Denzinger)
It has also been established that Magisterial silence on a moral or doctrinal question does not constitute approval. Those who insist that the Magisterium has approved the title of lucrum cessans at all, let alone that the proposed title can be interpreted as a license to recover opportunity costs in for-profit mutuum loans as opposed to charitable loans to the poor where there is no intention of recovering even the principal from those who cannot afford it, are simply wrong.  The reason why these folks never produce a Magisterial proclamation to that effect is because it never happened.
15) Shouldn’t an investor be compensated for giving up the opportunity cost of investing his money in something else?
No. Opportunity costs are not ontologically real assets.  When a mutuum lender attempts to sell his “opportunity cost” to a borrower in exchange for interest payments on the loan, the thing that he has attempted to sell does not actually exist. If it actually existed then when the borrower defaults the lender would be able to foreclose and retrieve his property, or the property in which he has purchased a claim.  The fact that he cannot do so demonstrates St. Thomas Aquinas’ point that charging interest on a mutuum loan (usury) involves selling what does not exist.
16) Doesn’t the future labor of a worker constitute a ‘real asset’ against which a loan can be collateralized?
No.  The “future labor of a worker” is a potentiality, not an actuality.  This potentiality inheres in a person, not an asset.  It is morally licit to purchase assets (including assets with potentialities), but it is not morally licit to purchase persons.  The “future labor of a worker” is not an asset or piece of property: it is not something the ownership of which can be transferred from the worker to the lender when the transaction is made, because the future labor of the worker cannot be alienated from the worker himself.
17) Traditionalist scholastics claimed that you can’t sell time; progressive scholastics asserted that the worker’s wages are a counterexample. Weren’t the progressives right?
No. Time is just a convenient proxy for the worker’s actual productivity.  If time itself were a salable asset then the worker would be entitled to compensation even if he stayed home in bed and never came to work.
The worker is paid wages for what he, through his own powers, makes actual.
Actualities have their own distinct existence, whereas potentialities inhere in actual things from which they cannot be separated.  It is licit to purchase and sell actual things, whether for consumption or in order to acquire economic potentialities which inhere in actual things.  But it is not licit to purchase persons to acquire economic potentialities which inhere in persons. Attempting to purchase the potentialities of a person is an attempt to purchase an economic share in a person, as opposed to a thing: this is what makes usury fall into the same genus as slavery.
18) Traditionalist scholastics claimed that you can’t sell risk; progressive scholastics asserted that an insurance bond is a counterexample. Weren’t the progressives right?
No. If risk qua risk were a financially transferrable asset, gamblers would be entitled to a profit.  An insurance bond is just a pooling of financial assets in which one party benefits when things go according to plan, and the other party’s losses are mitigated by financial compensation if things don’t go according to plan.  As long as recourse is limited by the contract to the pool of real assets, however it is structured, the arrangement is not usury.
19) Is a corporate bond usury?
No. Investors who lend money to corporations cannot pursue individual shareholders for return of principal. The claims in a corporate bond are claims against property which actually exists in its own right: the corporation.  Corporations are themselves property: they can be bought and sold and their employees – the workers who “farm” the property – sometimes change completely from one set of people to another.  Like a farm, a butcher shop, a farrier business, a hunting ground, etc. a corporation is property which can be alienated from particular persons.
Sale of claims against property – claims bound to specific property and only that specific property – is a sale of something that actually exists. It is still possible for the prices of those claims to be unfair, etc: see Question 11.  But contracts like corporate debt are not usury strictly speaking, as long as they are bounded: as long as they are claims against specific property and do not assert any personal guarantees by specific persons.
See also Question 31.
20) Is a car loan usury?
Almost always.  It is usury unless it is a non recourse loan.
21) Is a home loan usury?
A non recourse home loan is not usury, because the lender has recourse to the house and the house alone for recovery of principal and interest.  In practice most mortgages allow for a deficiency judgment against the borrower, though, and those mortgages are usurious.
22) Are credit cards usury?
Yes.  All interest-bearing unsecured loans to individuals are usury. Even secured loans are usury if they provide for a deficiency judgment against the borrower in a case of default.
23) Does this mean that I can’t take out a student loan without committing mortal sin?
Here is Aquinas’ answer (ST II-II, Q78, A4):
Accordingly we must also answer to the question in point that it is by no means lawful to induce a man to lend under a condition of usury: yet it is lawful to borrow for usury from a man who is ready to do so and is a usurer by profession; provided the borrower have a good end in view, such as the relief of his own or another’s need. Thus too it is lawful for a man who has fallen among thieves to point out his property to them (which they sin in taking) in order to save his life, after the example of the ten men who said to Ismahel (Jeremiah 41:8): “Kill us not: for we have stores in the field.”
Since borrowing at usury is inherently scandalous, it probably depends on the extent of the need. But you’ve got pretty wide moral discretion to hand over your property to thieves, so you’ve probably got similar prudential latitude here.  As a matter of intrinsic morality, usury – insisting on interest when making a mutuum loan – is a sin on the part of the lender, not the borrower.
24) What is wrong with contracts between consenting adults?
That is a different but related subject. Contracts are always negotiated in the shadow of the law, which limits what kinds of contracts are enforceable and affects the negotiating positions of the parties. If the government should decline to enforce a contract wherein a person sells himself into slavery, the government should likewise decline to enforce a contract wherein a borrower enslaves himself through usury.
25) Aren’t all unproductive loans usury? Wasn’t Belloc right when he said that the distinction between usurious and non-usurious loans was that the latter are productive?
This is a common misunderstanding of well-intentioned people who would like usury to be taken more seriously as a moral wrong. Usury is actually more clear and straightforward than they propose: all mutuum loans for profitable interest are usury, and other kinds of contracts are not usury.  (That doesn’t mean that other kinds of contracts are morally licit by definition: just that they are not usury.)
This view is based on an erroneous understanding of what is meant by ‘loan for consumption’, assuming that the opposite of a loan for consumption must be a loan for production. This brings in all sorts of intellectual baggage and conflicting views from economic theory which are irrelevant to usury.
The idea that an interest-bearing mutuum loan is not usury when the money is spent productively was condemned in the encyclical Vix Pervenit.  An interest-bearing mutuum loan wherein the borrower invests the proceeds in some productive activity is just as usurious as an interest-bearing mutuum loan wherein the borrower spends the money on wine, women, and song. That the contract is usurious is established by the fact that it is a mutuum charging interest, independent of how the borrower happens to use the proceeds.
Beyond that, “unproductive” non recourse loans are not usury.  If I have equity in my home and I sell some of it to a non recourse “lender” to raise cash for a vacation, that is not usury: I have simply decided to spend some of the capital that I own on a vacation.  (Regimini Universalis: non recourse borrowers “encumber their goods, their houses, their fields, their farms, their possessions, and inheritances”).  The lender cannot come after me for recovery of his principal and interest: he can only go after the house that he and I now co-own; and the “interest” I pay is just a rental fee for the share of the house that he now owns after I sold it to him. The focus on “productive” versus “nonproductive” arrangements is a distraction from the straightforward nature of usurious contracts, introducing unnecessary complexity and ambiguity.
26) Haven’t commerce and currency changed in such a way that usury is no longer much of a concern?
No. Usury and the creation of faux-wealth through usurious contracts is a pervasive problem in modern economies, and the nature of currency has not changed. However, even if we postulate that the nature of currency has changed, that does not alter the prohibition of usurious lending, properly understood.
It turns out that the kind of currency used is irrelevant to the issue of usury (Question 35), so various opinions about fiat currency, so-called “hard” currency, and other trading tokens or fungible commodities are entirely distinct from the subject of usury per se. If a contract is usurious it is necessarily usurious in all of those different kinds of currencies. So even if you disagree with me about the nature of currency, our different views on currency do not have any effect on the condemnation of usurious loans denominated in those currencies.
We exhort you not to listen to those who say that today the issue of usury is present in name only, since gain is almost always obtained from money given to another. How false is this opinion and how far removed from the truth! We can easily understand this if we consider that the nature of one contract differs from the nature of another. – Vix Pervenit
27) Isn’t the government the biggest violator of them all?
No. A sovereign guarantee is not the same thing as a personal guarantee. Sovereign debt was treated as something different from full recourse loans by the medievals, and the sovereign differs from individuals in several important ways. Two of the most important are that the sovereign is not a person but, qua sovereign, is an institution; and the sovereign has the power to issue currency.  The sovereign may pay “interest” with tax receipts, but it is no part of the contract that he must do so; so even the notion that government debt intrinsically requires full recourse to taxpayers is wrong. The place to discuss this is in the linked post not here, because it is really off topic from the subject of usury. (Note: see also more recent discussion on related subjects herehere, and here).
It turns out that the kind of currency used is irrelevant to the issue of usury (Question 35), so various opinions about sovereign debt and fiat currency are entirely distinct from the subject of usury per se.
This doesn’t mean that the way our government is acting is wise, prudent, or even somewhere in the vicinity of sane.  It just means that sovereign debt is not usury: it is a categorically different subject.
Many government practices may be not only imprudent but intrinsically immoral, without being usury.  For example I’ve advanced a couple of arguments that property taxes are intrinsically unjust, and neither postulates that property taxes are usury strictly speaking, although the first draws on concepts related to usury.
This is exactly as we should expect it to be with a moral doctrine covering a particular species of sin. The moral prohibition of contraception is not in itself an all-encompassing theory of sexual immorality. Adultery and fornication are sexual sins distinct from contraception, and what is true in the sexual domain is also true in the domain of property: that theft and usury are distinct kinds of sins doesn’t make either particularly ambiguous. Neither the prohibition of theft nor the prohibition of usury constitute Theories of Everything about the moral use of property.  Folks who attempt to turn the moral doctrine on usury into an all-purpose sledgehammer for advancing their own broader economic theories do a disservice both to the doctrine and to their theories. That usury is a particular kind of sin and does not cover all sins in the domain of money and commerce was affirmed in Vix Pervenit (see Question 11).
The main point for present purposes is that issues of fiat currency, taxation, and sovereign debt are distinct from the subject of usury.  Usury by definition is profitable interest charged on a mutuum loan: a freely entered contract between a person (the borrower) and some lender (either a person or an institution), wherein the borrower personally commits to pay back the loan.
28) Who the heck are you to be lecturing us all on usury, anyway?
I’m just some guy. I have an MBA, I’ve started and run a few small companies, and I have quite a bit of experience as an investor.  I became interested in usury in 2008 during the financial crisis, and was surprised to find myself in perfect agreement (as best as I can tell) with St. Thomas Aquinas on the subject.  I’ve read every single Magisterial statement on the subject in Denzinger, everything I could find by Aquinas, a number of old books, some academic papers, and a bunch of stuff on the web.  I think I have it right, but I’m not some high-falutin authority.
Part of what made the usury doctrine clear to me when I first really began to grasp it (as opposed to – and I was as guilty of this as anyone – superficially dismissing caricatures rooted in anti-realist modernism) is that as an investor and entrepreneur, I see investment contracts involving peronal guarantees of repayment as inherently dysfunctional. If either the investor or the entrepreneur feels the need to throw personal guarantees into the mix in order to get the deal done, that is a major red flag that the proposed capital structure of the investment doesn’t make sense on its own terms. Usually this is because the property risks – the risks of partial or total loss of capital invested – in the investment are high enough to make a simple fixed-interest debt instrument inappropriate. Instead of personal guarantees the structure should be something like a convertible note, with equity upside, or it should be secured by a larger base of existing (though probably illiquid) capital. Basically, someone is trying to consume capital they don’t have and/or shift their own risks – the risks inherent in their own portfolios of property – onto third parties, personally.
Anyway, I haven’t really added anything new to the ancient understanding of usury here. I was just a guy who happened to be standing in the right spot to see what caused the train wreck, and I’m trying to explain what I saw in our common modern language as best I can. Like theft usury often does pay, at least in the short run, and it causes all sorts of damage that impacts different people differently and unfairly. Usury is inherently dysfunctional and morally evil, like theft. It may be mildly interesting sociologically that the Catholic Church was right for millennia about a simple core financial and moral truth that modern people, for all their putative economic and technical sophistication, have gotten completely wrong.
29) I know that usury was traditionally considered an execrable mortal sin. But didn’t the Church change canon law and pastoral practice to remove the penalties and stigma associated with usury?  Haven’t most Catholic theologians accepted that the world has moved on from the time when the prohibition of usury made sense?
Well, you asked, so I’ll editorialize and give you my personal take.
My answer is yes. The progressive tactic of divorcing doctrine from pastoral and juridical practice is not a new Vatican II innovation targeted specifically at matters of sex and marriage. Earlier progressives were “successful” in leaving the doctrine on usury formally intact, as a kind of decoration that makes no important demands on anyone, despite their attendance of the traditional Latin Mass. Humanae Vitae could easily become the new Vix Pervenit. Contraception apologists have learned from earlier usury apologists and are using the same tactics. Progressives think that money is inherently fecund and that sex isn’t inherently fecund.
Acceptance of usury and contraception are both products of denying that things have an objective nature independent of human preferences. Centuries of ‘pastoral’ acceptance and indoctrination of economic relativism paved the way for other expressions of moral relativism.
You might think of this as the “hermeneutic of continuity of Hell”.
It should be said though that getting rid of the ecclesiastical penalties for usury was a pastoral judgement call, and I don’t necessarily disagree with it.  For example prior to a declaration by the Holy Office ending the practice on August 31, 1831, it was frequently imposed that a usurer had to make an accounting of all the money he had made through usury and make restitution before he was given sacramental absolution.  This is completely disanalogous to the situation of a divorced and ‘remarried’ person who is objectively committing adultery on an ongoing basis.  The former may be totally repentant and fully committed to sinning no more without having the practical means to do the accounting and make restitution.  The latter by definition is not committed to sinning no more. Material restitution for past wrongs, in short, is an entirely different pastoral subject from the basic sacramental requirement for a firm purpose of amendment.
It was also the case that usury was frequently misunderstood, and many contracts which were not usury were condemned as such by overzealous but financially ignorant people. An analogous case in the context of the sexual revolution would be the ‘rigorists’ who condemn NFP as a form of contraception, and their ‘laxist’ counterparts who make the same claim but conclude from it that therefore contraception is morally licit. Aquinas and the Popes who addressed the issue in bulls and encyclicals may have understood the difference between non recourse (societas) investment and full recourse (mutuum) loans, but many priests at the parish level did not. The spectacle of a penitent, innocent of usury, hounded and denied absolution by an overzealous confessor who doesn’t properly understand the subject, may be a risible fiction now; but that was not always the case.
This was especially confounded by progressive scholastics’ use of a proposed distinction between putatively ‘productive’ interest bearing mutuum loans to businessmen (explicitly condemned in Vix Pervenit, see Question 25) and putatively ‘unproductive’ mutuaa. The argument over ‘productive’ vs ‘unproductive’ mutuum loans snookered the traditionalists by framing the debate in question begging terms, obscuring the essential distinction (the distinction, unlike ‘productive’/’non-productive’, actually found in Magisterial documents on usury such as Cum Onus and Regimini Universalis) between mutuum (full recourse) loans and legitimate non recourse (societas) business investment.
An especially pernicious false-flag argumentative tactic of present day usury apologists is to take the ‘rigorist’ approach as a way of discrediting the doctrine. These will contend for example that the traditional understanding of usury would disallow all census-type contracts involving regular payments of principal and interest (e.g. corporate bonds), not just those census contracts with claims that terminate in persons as opposed to or in addition to actual property.  (See question 31). This ‘false flag’ approach is aided and abetted by useful idiots on the traditionalist or reactionary side who cheer on their ‘rigorist’ arguments.
None of that has any bearing on the objective status of usury as an execrable mortal sin.
Usury would of course be intrinsically immoral even if that did, counterfactually, make industry and commerce impossible or if it were unhealthy in some sense for industry and commerce — just as contraception would remain intrinsically immoral even if the lack of it led inexorably to overpopulation and misery. But the moral prohibition of charging usury does no such thing. Like moral doctrine on contraception it merely prohibits actions which are objectively harmful both to the parties involved and to the common good – even though they do involve a short term ‘payoff’ of sorts, which is why they are tempting. This is why the arguments in favor of laxity on contraception and usury tend to mirror and cross-reference each other (myriad examples can be found simply by Googling various combinations of the terms “usury”, “Catholic”, and “contraception”).
Apologists for contraception have learned the playbook from the apologists for usury: give lip service to the doctrine as an important decorative piece of theology up in the sky; “pastorally” defang it so that in practice it can be ignored on the ground; continue to “dialogue” until the right “pastoral” result is achieved; paint any opposition into a corner as unmerciful, impractical, and disconnected from reality; and assert that this “pastoral” result was a development of doctrine, ignoring the dog that doesn’t bark — the nonexistent teaching documents from the Magisterium representing an actual doctrinal “development”. Do the latter enough times over a long enough period so that everyone starts to accept it as a given, including much of the clergy. Continue to point out various “defects” in the “simplistic” understanding articulated in Magisterial documents, and be sure to reiterate regularly that they are not infallible. Oh, and point out the sexual peccadillos, I mean economic practices, in clergy and the Vatican: because if the Vatican does something in its secular operations or practices that constitutes an infallible proclamation that the practices cannot be immoral, as long as they are the things we want to not be immoral, and anyway it isn’t really immoral but if the Church actually means what it says doctrinally in those defective non-infallible documents then it is being hypocritical. Shout down any alternative description of the situation on that front as excuse-making. Once all that is achieved all remaining objections must be marginalized and ridiculed. Pat the old celibate economically illiterate men in the Holy See on the head for their prior silly immaturity, congratulate the laity for its wisdom about the “facts of life” and the sensus fidelium, and move on.
But it turns out that the prohibition of charging usury is and has ever been a perfectly reasonable limitation on morally licit commerce; a limitation which merely disallows trafficking in human beings as if they were property and thereby creating fake wealth, vested in nonexistent property, which pollutes the real economy.
30) If the sovereign should decline to enforce usurious contracts, doesn’t it follow that the sovereign should decline to enforce any contract of exchange whatsoever which empowers one party to pursue a deficiency judgment against the other party personally, independent of any real assets posted as security?
Yes.  See questions 35 and 36.  An “exception” of sorts applies for cases of theft, fraud, and negligence.  But in these kinds of cases the content of the contract itself is irrelevant: any extrinsic title that the wronged party has to damages in the case of negligence or crime is a title he has no matter what the contract says (see Question 49).
31) I really don’t get it.  Why again do you say that fixed-income investments in (e.g.) corporations (corporate bonds) are not usury?
A (non-usurious) corporate bond is not secured by any personal guarantees: it is only secured by the corporation itself, which is an asset (something which can be owned and sold) not a person or persons.  A corporate bond is a kind of contract which used to be called a census. An example of a census is an investor paying for seed and supplies for a farmer in exchange for a fixed quota of the farm’s expected output, converted into a regular cash payment.  This is morally licit as long as it is secured by the farm as a bundle of assets or property, not by a personal guarantee from the farmer.
Pope Pius V declared in the bull Cum Onus (January 19, 1569) that the difference between a licit census and usury was that in a licit census, the income and principal were guaranteed by the assets – the farm – and not personally guaranteed by the farmer. Licit census contracts must be secured by a ‘fixed, immobile good’ – alienable property – not by a personal guarantee of repayment.
Modern economic theorists have misunderstood this by assuming that ‘money’ is not a ‘fixed, immobile good’, and therefore conclude that usury doctrine depends upon some particular theory of money which at best no longer applies. But in doing so they fail to make the distinction clearly made by Aquinas (see Question 52) and the Magisterium between actual money (or other alienable property) in the possession of the borrower and a mere personal promise, by the borrower, to repay.
It isn’t that ‘money’ (understood equivocally) fails to be a ‘fixed, immobile good’: it is that a personal IOU, a mere personal promise to repay, fails to be a ‘fixed, immobile good’. Actual money in possession (financial securities or other property conventionally used for exchange), or other property securing the loan, can be alienated from the borrower and repossessed if the borrower stops making census payments. Personal IOU’s cannot be alienated from the borrower and repossessed.
Personally guaranteed census contracts were declared to be illicit, as were census contracts where redemption of the principal could be forced by the buyer (“lender”) before the term of the census contract expired, as were census contracts which could not be redeemed at any time by the seller (“borrower”).
John de Lugo explains that the correct concept of the census is that:
… part of the usufruct of the field on which the census is constituted is bought.  Then, … by another contract, which is implicitly contained in the very constitution of a real census, it is agreed by the parties that, for the hope of the fruit which the buyer has from that usufruct, the seller binds himself to pay such an annual payment of money; — and in this way the prior contract is reduced to the obligation of paying only an annual sum, by which the seller redeems the partial usufruct of the field which he had sold; the field itself, however, remaining really obliged in the manner of a pledge for the payment of the promised money …
(Noonan, The Scholastic Analysis of Usury, Oxford University Press, 1957).
When you own a corporate bond, you own a property interest in the corporation – an objective thing. Corporations are things, generally aggregates of things, and can be owned and sold as property. (If they weren’t things – if they were persons – it would be immoral to own them, trade shares in them, and the like). That’s why it is always possible to foreclose on the corporation and claim your property: because the thing you own actually exists. (That its value may have been reduced to nothing by business misfortune is irrelevant: a house can burn down, but the fact that it can burn down doesn’t mean it is not a thing).
A personally guaranteed note looks, superficially, like the same sort of contract; but it isn’t. It – specifically the personal guarantee – isn’t a property interest in a thing. It attempts to assert a property interest in no thing: nothing. The fact that you cannot foreclose and collect your property demonstrates Aquinas’ point: the thing in which the contract asserts an ownership interest or other claim is no thing at all: nothing. The apples have been eaten, the wine has been drunk, and the borrower has to take action to acquire new, different apples or wine precisely because the thing to which the mutuum lender lays claim does not exist.
A mutuum for interest looks superficially like a census contract against a farmer’s field, as described by John de Lugo and affirmed as morally licit by Pius V. The difference is that there is no field: instead of representing a de-facto buy-leaseback of a claim against a field or other actual property, the personally guaranteed note represents a buy-leaseback of nothing at all.
32) In question 16 you say that the value of future labor is not a real asset which can be used as collateral on a for-profit loan.  But wasn’t it relatively common before the modern era for people to be sold into slavery to pay off a debt?
Yes. Both are true. It is possible that moral waffling on chattel slavery kept the door open for usury in many peoples’ minds. Other people might see prison jobs as a kind of ‘slave labor’ and propose that it is immoral to throw people into prison just to get work out of them, even if they are willing to agree to it. But that kind of speculation and casuistry aside, clearly a slave’s future labor cannot, as a matter of objective fact, be alienated from the slave himself.
33) Doesn’t St. Paul tell slaves to obey their masters?
Yes, though that probably doesn’t have the implications that modern people presume it to have.  The language may not mean what they think it means, the relation between master and slave is (like the relation between usurer and borrower) morally asymmetrical, moral doctrine actually does develop as we gain a deeper understanding of eternal truths and encounter new situations, modern people generally have a distorted concept of property, and we also tend to view any sort of subjection to authority as dehumanizing.
It is true though that, at least in my understanding of the moral theology, rejection of chattel slavery and of usury are closely connected.
34) Doesn’t the safe harbor of personal bankruptcy imply that modern loans are really non recourse?
No. Even with the safeguard of personal bankruptcy, a usurious contract is – by its full recourse nature – a purchase of the potentialities of a person. The potentialities of a person are not something which actually exist at the time of purchase. Recall that, in order to “own an economic share” in (or have economic access to) the potentialities of a thing, you must own a share in (or have some sort of property claim against) the actual thing; and it is not morally licit to buy and sell economic shares in persons as if they were property.
Continuing the comparison to slavery (since usury and slavery are in the same moral genus), that a slave might have certain legal remedies in the case of an abusive master, or might under certain conditions have an opportunity to escape his condition, doesn’t make him any less a slave.  He might be in better shape than other slaves who lack those remedies and opportunities; but he is still a slave.
Furthermore, that personal bankruptcy protection is available in cases of extreme financial duress does not change the fact that mutuum contracts require return of what is lent in kind as opposed to in particular (see Question 35): that what is loaned is, in Aquinas’ terms, consumed in its use by the borrower.  The mutuum loan for interest still charges rent for literally no thing, nothing, and is therefore intrinsically unjust. Personal bankruptcy protection therefore does not change the basic nature of a usurious contract.
35) What if the mutuum loan is made in wheat, gold, or rental cars rather than fiat dollars?
Notice that, in a mutuum loan, what is returned to the lender by the borrower- who personally guarantees this return under the contract terms – is not the actual, original things which were borrowed.  Instead what is returned is ‘in kind’ — a mutuum loan of a car would require the borrower to return a brand new car (or any old car) at the end of the contract, not the actual car which was borrowed.  The mutuum inherently treats the currency used as fungible: as a kind of thing where any one unit of currency is interchangeable with any other. Once the borrower has used what was lent under a mutuum loan, he no longer possesses it and cannot return it in particular to the lender. So it doesn’t really matter what was used as the exchange token or currency in the mutuum contract.  If the contract requires the borrower to personally pledge to return in kind rather than in particular it is a mutuum loan, and charging interest is usury.
A personal commitment to return ‘in kind’ is a commitment to return something which doesn’t actually exist as an actual thing: it is just abstractly a ‘thing’ of such and such a kind.  A commitment to return ‘in particular’ is a commitment to return something which does actually exist as an actual thing.  Formally, then, the distinction between currency and property in the context of an investment contract is that currency is returned in kind, while property is returned in particular. The former is the basis of a mutuum; the latter is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for the formation of a licit societas.
A licit societas can and frequently does create in-kind investment returns when things go according to plan (“From these [non-mutuum] contracts honest gain may be made.” – Vix Pervenit).  But all contractual claims of all parties must terminate in actually existing property, not in claims against persons, in order to avoid usury. That’s why asking the question “what if things don’t go according to plan?” is particularly helpful in distinguishing usurious contracts from non-usurious contracts.
St. Thomas Aquinas refers to objects pledged in kind as objects “consumed in their use”, as distinct from objects pledged in particular. This obviously doesn’t mean that the original gold coins are literally eaten or melted down and destroyed by the borrower (although that could be the case in a mutuum loan of, say, food).  It just means that the original gold coins are no longer in the possession of either the lender or the borrower once the borrower uses them. A mutuum is that kind of agreement: a pledge to return in kind as opposed to in particular.
It is true that the usurer might accidentally receive back some of the very same gold coins (say) that he loaned, as those coins circulate.  But that is purely accidental: what the mutuum contract requires is that the borrower personally guarantee return of the principal in kind, not preserve and return actual real rented or co-owned assets in particular.
36) Wait, does this mean that if I lend out my car and the borrower destroys it, he doesn’t owe me anything?
It depends on the particulars of the contract.  The guiding principle is that contracts with recourse to real, specified assets (and only those real, specified assets) are licit as profit-producing investments. Full recourse contracts are not licit as profit-producing investments.
First, it should be said that matters of theft, vandalism, fraud, negligence and the like are criminal matters and therefore fall outside of what is intrinsic to the contract itself. (See Question 49).
But accidents do happen, so suppose that one did happen and the car was destroyed. Maybe a meteor struck the car and destroyed it. Lets also suppose that this was a commercial rental for profit: the borrower was contracted to pay for the use of the car, it wasn’t just a friendly loan.
If the borrower posted security and/or the purchase of insurance coverage was part of the contract, the security and/or assets of the insurance company will cover the loss.
However, if the contract says that the borrower owes (say) $5000 if the car is destroyed, and that he is personally on the hook to pay interest on the $5000 if he can’t pay it all at once, then that is usury.
Unsecured contracts for profit are problematic in general when they (explicitly or implicitly) assert recourse to particular persons to recover losses. A licit contract should always cover the various contingencies, fully terminating in real, existent assets which secure the contract, in order to avoid usury. If the lender wants $5000 in security to cover the car in case of an accident he should get it as a deposit, a lien on home equity or other property, or as an insurance bond instead of trying to collect it after the fact.
Usury on the borrower’s side frequently involves attempting to spend money or risk other resources that you can’t actually afford based on the assets you actually own. If you can’t afford to post security or pay for an insurance bond, you probably can’t really afford the risk of renting the car.
Here is the Magisterium on the specific question (Pope Callistus III (1455-1458), Usury and Contract for Rent), describing a morally licit contract (full citation here):
But the [lender], on the other hand, even though the said goods, houses, lands, fields, possessions, and inheritances might by the passage of time be reduced to utter destruction and desolation, would not be empowered to recover even in respect of the price paid.
That is, a licit income-producing rental contract (which might or might not be labeled a ‘loan’ in modern language) is non recourse.
37) I see that the Magisterium and Aquinas have actually been clear that lack of explicit recourse to real assets is central to usury: that full-recourse lending for profit is what is defined as the moral problem.  But why is that the case?
Usury involves treating people (subjects) as things (objects), because it involves purchasing “Bob owes me principal and interest” as opposed to purchasing shares in that project there or that bundle of assets there, distinct from particular persons.  The most extreme form of treating persons as property is chattel slavery. (Some authors beg to differ, seeing usury as worse, and the argument has some merit). Usury is in the same moral genus as slavery.
Furthermore, “Bob owes me principal and interest” is not a thing which actually exists. Charging rent for literally nothing, no thing, is intrinsically unjust.
38) But you’ve said that intangible or only partly tangible things like patents and operating businesses can be ‘objects’, and thus can be property.  So how do I tell the difference between what can be ontologically real property and what can’t?
Ontologically real property consists of objects.  (Property in general refers to a relation between owners, subjects, and objects; but what we ordinarily call ‘property’ as a noun are the objects in this relation). Objects can be alienated from persons and possessed or controlled by different people at different times.
Modern economics is very anti-realist: it is under the delusion that economic value is purely subjective, that is, purely a function of human preferences whatever they happen to be.  But economic value is not purely subjective: it has an ineliminable objectivity.  (Modernity in general is characterized by anti-realist materialism).
Objects, very generally speaking, are things which have an existence that is independent of particular persons (subjects).  The contrary of object is subject, so objects are things that exist in their own right independent of persons: things which are not persons and which are capable of being exchanged independent of particular persons.
Non recourse loans represent ownership claims in objects: the specified assets to which the lender has recourse (under the terms of the contract) to recover principal and interest.  Full recourse loans attempt to assert an ownership interest in persons, as opposed to (or in addition to) objects.
Notice that when Bob dies, the ‘value’ of his full recourse debt (qua full recourse) dies with him. The value of any non recourse debt contracts does not die with any particular person, precisely because that value is tied up in the specific objects not in a particular subject (person).  Everything that a non recourse lender is entitled to under the contract can always by definition be recovered (absent theft, fraud, vandalism, or other criminal acts) from objective reality.  Even if the value of the collateral goes to zero, it was specified in the contract that that specific collateral is all the non recourse lender is entitled to recover. That is what the lender agreed to, by the definition of a non recourse contract.
Full recourse lenders frequently fail to fully recover their contractual entitlements precisely because those entitlements are to ‘things’ which are not real.
39) But wait, can’t a full recourse creditor go after Bob’s estate when he dies?
Recourse to particular persons – recourse to Bob – the part that makes the loan full recourse – dies with Bob. The person to whom the contract terms specified recourse (implicitly or explicitly) was Bob, and Bob is now gone from this world. It is (sometimes but not always) true that creditors can go after the deceased’s estate, but that is similar to a situation with a full recourse mortgage.  It isn’t lack of security that makes a loan full recourse: it is full financial recourse to the person independent of named assets that makes a loan full recourse.
In effect, when a person dies his full recourse debt (sometimes) converts to non recourse debt, with his estate as the assets.  But it no longer exists as full recourse debt: there is no longer any particular person that the creditor can pursue for recovery of principal and interest; only assets.
40) Doesn’t the Vatican Bank make full recourse loans?
I don’t think so, but I don’t really know the answer to that question and it isn’t really relevant.
Most institutional borrowing and lending is non recourse, so the point that the Catholic Encyclopedia article on usury makes about ecclesiastical properties is irrelevant to the question of usury. On the other hand I think there were ATM machines in Vatican City when I was there, so there is probably at least close business done with usurers. Almost everyone does close business with usurers in the modern first world.
Stipulating all that though wouldn’t have any bearing on the moral issue.  The Church has been quite explicit not just that silence on a question is not evidence of approval, but that the actual secular practices of the Church have been wrong at times.  See CCC 2298 for example.  The fact that the Church does something institutionally (stipulated, though in this case that is not established) does not constitute moral approval of it.
41) What about that Catholic Encyclopedia article, anyway?
The CE article fails to distinguish between full recourse (mutuum) loans and non recourse (societas) loans; a distinction central to some of the authoritative Magisterial pronouncements on usury (e.g. see Questions 36 and 31) and central to Aquinas’ understanding of a “loan”.  The point it makes about mortgaged ecclesial properties is irrelevant, for example, because the Church is an institution not a person and ecclesial mortgages are not financed via personal loans or loans secured by personal guarantees. The best that can be said is that failure to distinguish between mutuum loans and other kinds of contracts creates ambiguity in the article.
The fact that the CE article attempts to undermine the authority of a papal encyclical (Vix Pervenit), and considers undermining the authority of that encyclical central to its thesis, should also be considered.  Defenders of the article frequently assert without evidence that this article by a group of New York publishers reflects the mind of the Holy See at the time.  The most that can be said about that is that the CE passed the review of Catholic censors under the local ordinary; but that hardly makes the views expressed in it unambiguous, let alone magisterial.
42) Why do you say that the 2008 financial crisis was founded in usury?
The root cause of the 2008 financial crisis was full recourse real estate loans with shaky-to-ludicrous loan-to-value ratios. Without that inventory of bad loans at the bottom of the pyramid the whole ‘real estate bonds with ratings “enhanced” by a self-referential circular network of credit default swaps’ scheme would never have ‘worked’.
Usury was not the only kind of morally fraudulent financial activity involved, however. See this post for my gloss on the circular securitization which was layered on top of the pyramid of usurious loans.
Without enforcement of usurious (that is, full recourse) contracts, sane lenders interested in their own financial survival would not make (non recourse, which would be the only sort enforced by the government) loans with shaky-to-ludicrous loan-to-value ratios.  That wouldn’t solve all of the world’s problems, of course, but it would make it harder to engage in many of the Ponzi-like schemes which arise in highly abstracted financial markets.
The reason usury ‘works’ is because usurers can buy ‘slavery shares’ in individuals (as opposed to property shares in assets); and individuals of little means are tempted into it because selling a part of themselves into slavery makes them feel (and spend) as if they were wealthier than they really are.
43) Does this mean that ideally consumers should always pay cash for things like houses and cars?
Not necessarily. There are probably plenty of times when it makes perfect sense for a “lender” and “borrower” to, say, collaboratively purchase a house or a car together for the borrower to occupy or use.
What it means is that people who cannot come up with enough security (in the form of down payments, insurance bonds, liens on other real assets and the like) would not get a loan for something that they really cannot afford. It means that in general, market forces would keep loan-to-value ratios sane. Without the capacity to pursue borrowers qua persons independent of real assets, lenders and borrowers would have to operate within their own means and would not pollute the common good with fraudulent economic value which does not actually exist.
See this post at the Orthosphere for a more in depth discussion.
44) Suppose I am thinking about agreeing to a financial contract which will produce some interest or other profit for me – say by opening a bank account. How can I be sure that what I am about to do is not usury?
If you can identify specific individuals who are personally liable under the agreement to return your principal and pay you profitable interest, the contract is usury. If you cannot identify any such individuals, the contract is not usury.
Banks themselves do tend to make full recourse (that is, usurious) loans to individuals.  Opening an interest-bearing account is therefore remote material cooperation with evil when that is the case – and it is almost always the case in modern economies. However the interest bearing savings or checking account agreement you make with the bank is not full recourse to any particular person or persons, so it is not itself usurious.  You haven’t done anything intrinsically wrong by opening the account.
I talk more about what bank accounts are and are not in this post.
In fact even vacation loans or loans to buy groceries are not necessarily usurious. It depends on whether the ‘loan’ in question is a mutuum (full recourse) or a societas (non recourse).
45) Is it morally licit to charge interest on a full recourse loan just to cover inflation?
No. The answer is implicit in Question 35 — once you’ve grasped the difference between mutuum and societas it becomes clear that the price of the ‘currency’ most likely will fluctuate all over the place relative to other things, whatever is used as currency. The mutuum might be in wheat or oranges or even computers or cars as opposed to dollars; but that doesn’t change the nature of the contract.
So if it is an interest bearing mutuum it is usury, and the inflation rate (or price fluctuation between commodities or currencies generally) is irrelevant.
In effect what the “just-to-cover-inflation” usurer is attempting to do is enslave the borrower (as opposed to purchasing claims against some actually existing property) as an inflation hedge. All property is subject to entropy, decay, devaluation, theft, political unrest, changes in market conditi