# Usury, 0% Interest Rates, and Worthless Currencies

by Jeff Nielson, Sprott Money

A regular reader recently raised a subject (on our Forum) which should be a frequent topic of discussion in our ultra-corrupt societies, but isn’t: usury. Everyone knows the meaning of the word: lending money at “excessive” or “exorbitant” rates of interest. Yet few of us ever contemplate its *significance*.

How do we define “usury”, in a world where our Big Banks (and the billionaires who own them) receive $trillions upon $trillions – every year – and all at “0% interest” (i.e. literally free money)? The way we quantify differentials **in proportionate terms** is through the function of multiplication. What does multiplication tell us about 0% interest and usury?

For the Big Banks who get all their own money at 0% interest; charging even 1% interest on the money they lend isn’t merely a much higher rate of interest (in multiplicative terms), it is an *infinitely higher rate of interest*. This reflects the simple fact of arithmetic that multiplying anything by zero equals zero, thus the (multiplicative) differential between 0% interest and 1% interest is **infinity**.

Critics will argue that mathematical analysis of this nature (somehow) “distorts” this conclusion about the absurd differential between those who get their money at 0% (i.e. for free), and those who don’t. But such criticism would fail to acknowledge the *concept* (of logic and morality) which is illustrated by this ultra-extreme mathematical differential.

One tiny, privileged class (the Big Banks, and the billionaires who own them) gets all its money for free. Everyone else does not. For the Privileged Class; obtaining their money (for free) is always a privilege and never a burden. For everyone else; obtaining their money is *always* a burden, and *never* a privilege.

This represents not merely an “advantage”, or even a large advantage for the Privileged Class. Rather, it reflects **a fundamental act of discrimination**, in arguably its most (economically) heinous form. One class is given, for free, something for which everyone else is required to pay (in the form of a real, non-fraudulent, rate of interest).

Revealed by the function of multiplication; there can be only two, possible remedies for this fundamental, systemic, economic discrimination. Either *everyone* must receive their money for free, or *no one* can be granted such a privilege. The fairness of this point of logic (and usury) is not merely elementary, it’s tautological.

It is through simply contemplating the implications of these two options that the inherent fraud of (so-called) “0% interest” becomes painfully obvious. What would happen in a world where we woke-up one morning and discovered that everyone could “borrow money” at 0% interest?

Every “Average Joe” and “Average Jane” would immediately march to the nearest available bank, and start borrowing (who would need to show up for work?). Would they “borrow” a million dollars – at 0%? Of course not. Would they borrow a billion dollars? Why stop there?

If Average Joe and Average Jane could “borrow” *like the Big Banks* (i.e. get as much money as they wanted, for free, whenever they wanted), then that is exactly what they would do. The day after everyone was allowed to “borrow” for free, our money-supply would be a number which would look something like this (we don’t have a word for it):

$1,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

…and the day *after that*, our money-supply would look something like this:

$1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

…as everyone began “plans” for construction of their own Castle in the Sky. And by Day 3 (at the very, very latest); *no one would accept this funny-money* – as by then it would be crystal-clear to everyone that all this paper was totally worthless.

Conceptually, this (extreme) example will come as a shock to many readers, to the point where many will reject the obvious logic here as being contrived. It isn’t. It just illustrates a simple principle of arithmetic: anything available for free, and in infinite supply **must be worthless**.

Suppose that tomorrow one of our insane/corrupt governments decreed that it would start to use grains of sand as its “money” (instead of coloured scraps of paper). Some enterprising individual would immediately take a back-hoe to the nearest beach and start “harvesting money”, which he/she would then use to buy *everything*.

Obviously if grains of sand were “money”; it would be worthless money, because **no one would accept it for payment, in spite of that government’s “fiat”.** But if grains of sand would be an obviously/irredeemably worthless currency; then what about “dollars”? Most are now *fabricated electronically*, with nothing more than a mouse-click.

If even government decree would not/could not bestow “value” on grains of sand (because it was free, and available in near-infinite quantities), then how can it bestow any value on electronic currency – created for free, and in near-infinite quantities? The obvious answer is that it cannot.

The mere (fraudulent) act by which our corrupt central banks give $trillions and $trillions and $trillions to the Big Banks *for free* automatically renders these currencies economically/mathematically/logically worthless. Thus we see that the extreme, multiplicative differential with which we began our analysis is “revealing” in yet another respect.

When the Big Banks get all their own money at “0% interest” (for free), while everyone else pays (literally) infinitely higher rates of interest; this is not merely fundamentally unfair, it is fundamentally fraudulent. So-called “0% loans” are *prima facie* fraudulent transactions, since (as our analysis reveals), “borrowing” money for free is inherently illegitimate, from any and every perspective.