The Central Bank of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi | Stephen M. Goodson

From 1551 to 1911 Libya was ruled by the Ottoman Empire, by Italy from 1911 to 1943 and from 1943 to 1951 was under the military suzerainty of Britain and France. The Central Bank of Libya was founded in 1956 and was run as a typical central bank until the bloodless coup d’etat of 1 September 1969. 

 

Mu’ammar Qathafi - A strict disciple of the Holy Q’uran, who abolished all forms of usury
and used the Central Bank of Libya for the sole benefit of the Libyan people.

Oil of an exceptionally high quality was discovered in 1959. However, King Idris al Mahdi as-Sanusi failed to capitalise on this bonanza or use it for the benefit of his people, and the bulk of the oil profits were siphoned into the coffers of the oil companies. On assuming power in 1969 Mu’ammar Muhammad al-Qathafi took control of most of the economic activities in the country, including the central bank, which for all practical purposes was run as a state bank. It operated as a banker of the local bankers and foreign bankers were not permitted to operate. Financing of government infrastructure did not atract riba (interest) and Libya had no national debt and no foreign debt. Its foreign exchange reserves exceeded $54 billion, which may be compared to reserves of developed countries such as the United Kingdom and Canada, which in 2010 were $50 billion and $40 billion respectively. GDP growth during the period 2000-10 was 4.32% per annum and the official figure for inflation was -0.27%.

 

Mass manifestation in support of Muammar Gaddafi in Tripoli,  July 1, 2011.

Colonel Qathafi was described by the mainstream media as being a “terrible dictator and a blood-sucking monster”, but the reality was that with the exception of the city of Benghazi and its environs, he had the support of 90% of the population. The following benefits provided by Qathafi explain why he was so popular:

■   Free education. Free electricity. Free health care. Free housing (There were no mortgages).
■   Students were paid the average salary for which subject they were studying.
■   Students studying overseas were provided with accommodation, an automobile and €2,500 per annum.
■   Newly-wed couples received a gift of 60,000 dinar ($50,000) from government.
■   Automobiles were sold at factory cost free of interest.
■   Private loans were provided free of interest.
■   Bread cost 15 US cents per loaf. Gasoline cost 12 US cents per litre.
■   Portion of profits from sale of oil was paid directly into bank accounts of citizens.
■   Farmers received free land, seeds and animals.
■   Full employment with those temporarily unemployed paid a full salary as if employed.

Qathafi’s Jamahariya “state of the masses” ensured that the wealth of this country of 5.79 million inhabitants was fairly distributed to all of its people. Beggars and homeless vagrants did not exist, while life expectancy at 75 years was the highest in Africa and 10% above the world average. The literacy rate was 82%. Regarding human rights Libya stood at 61 in the International Incarceration Index. The lower the rating, the lower the standing. The no.1 spot is currently occupied by the United States. Another major achievement, which Qathafi initiated was the conversion of the Nubian Sandstone Fossil Aquifer System into the Great Man-Made River, which supplies 6,500,000m³ of fresh water daily to the cities of Tripoli, Sirte and Benghazi. The extracted water is ten times cheaper than desalinated water. The total cost of the project, estimated at $25 billion was financed without a single foreign loan.

 

 Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi's foreword to 

A History of Central Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind.

 

Although the central banks of Belarus, Burma, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, North Sudan and Syria do not fall under the direct control of the Rothschild banking syndicate, Libya had the only central bank run on genuine state banking lines, which exhibited the classic symptoms of full employment, zero inflation and a modern day workers’ paradise. The question arises as to why NATO intervened on the pretext of fabricated human rights abuses, the so called responsibility to protect. Since 1971 when the United States abandoned the gold exchange standard for the petrodollar with the connivance of Saudi Arabia, any attempt to displace the United States dollar as the premier reserve currency has been blocked and opposed with violence.

 

 Ezra Pound - 1943.

 

In November 2000 Saddam Hussein of Iraq decreed that all oil payments would in future be made in euros, as he did not wish to deal “in the currency of the enemy”. As has already been proven, the possession of weapons of mass destruction pretext was a deliberately concocted hoax and it was this currency decision, which cost Saddam Hussein his life and the destruction of his country. 

 

True, whether the quote is authentic or not.

In similar circumstances Qathafi announced in 2010 the creation of the gold dinar as a replacement for the settlement of all foreign transactions in a proposed region of over 200 million people. Libya at that time possessed 144 tons of gold. What was intended was not a return to the gold standard per se, but a new unit of account with oil exports and other resources being paid for in gold dinars. Qathafi crossed a red line and paid the ultimate price [he was assassinated by Western invasion forces in Sirte on October 20, 2011].

 The Truth About Libya - Stephen Mitford Goodson, 2011.

Since 2007 Iran has stipulated that payments be made in euro currency. On 17 February 2008 the Iranian Oil Bourse for trading in petroleum, petrochemicals and gas using primarily the euro, Iranian rial and a basket of non-US currencies was established. The first oil shipments under the new system were sold through this market in July 2011. This event must be deemed as one of the prime causes for the constant Israeli and American threats to annihilate Iran.

Quoted from:

Stephen Mitford Goodson (2017) - A History of Central Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind.

 

See also:

Imran N. Hosein (2023) - The Bretton Woods International Monetary System.
TPR (2023) - Ibrahim Traoré: Terminating French Neocolonialism & the CFA Zone in Africa.
Stephen Mitford Goodson (2022) - Who Ever Sets the Price of Gold and Silver.

Asatizah of Al-Munawwar (2013) - The Dazzling Proof for the Return of our pure Money. The Judgment on Fiat Currency. 

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (October 20, 2011) - Bragging about murdering Libya’s Leader Muammar Gaddafi. (video)

 Global Research (May 5, 2011) - The Gold Dinar: Saving the world economy from Gaddafi.

Stephen Mitford Goodson (April 1, 2011) - The Truth About Libya.

Muammar Gaddafi (2009) - "I am the leader of a revolution, not a country." (video) 

Muammar Gaddafi (1975) - The Green Book.

Welcome to the UNIT - The De-Dollarization Bombshell | Pepe Escobar

Welcome to the UNIT – a concept that has already been discussed by the financial services and investments working group set up by the BRICS+ Business Council and has a serious shot at becoming official BRICS+ policy as early as in 2025.

  » The UNIT is a new form of international currency that can be issued 

in a de-centralized way, and then recognized and regulated at national level.  «

[...] The Global Majority has had enough of the centrally controlled monetary framework put in place 80 years ago in Bretton Woods and its endemic flaws: chronic deficits fueling irresponsible military spending; speculative bubbles; politically motivated sanctions and secondary sanctions; abuse of settlement and payment infrastructure; protectionism; and the lack of fair arbitration. In contrast, the UNIT proposes a reliable, quick and economically efficient solution for cross-border payments. The - transactional - UNIT is a game-changer as a new form of international currency that can be issued in a de-centralized way, and then recognized and regulated at national level.

  » Decoupling money from politics will undoubtedly offer unique opportunities 

for fair trade and investments across the globe removing economic bypasses created by 

political power plays and irresponsible fiscal and monetary policies.  «

The strength of the UNIT, conceptually, is to remove direct dependency on the currency of other nations, and to offer especially to the Global Majority a new form of apolitical money - with huge potential for anchoring fair trade and investments. It is indeed a new concept in terms of an international currency - anchored in gold (40%) and BRICS+ currencies (60%). It is neither crypto nor stablecoin. [...] The endgame is that everyone, essentially, may use the UNIT for accounting, bookkeeping, pricing, settling, paying, saving and investing.

Quoted from:
Pepe Escobar (May 13, 2024) - De-Dollarization Bombshell: The Coming of BRICS+ Decentralized Monetary Ecosystem. 

 

See also:

The UNIT Foundation (May 9, 2023) - The UNIT White Paper.

Creditors And Debtors In The Real Sector Of The World

An interesting picture is emerging: China is a creditor to other countries in the world to the tune of more than 1,300 billion dollars. This is according to a report published by AidData: "With new data from more than 700 state-owned lenders and donors in China, we show that Beijing remains the largest source of international development finance in the world. It continues to surpass all other bilateral and multilateral sources of aid and credit to the developing world, including the US and the World Bank." Note that China, together with Hong Kong, is by a wide margin the world's largest lender. The top 8 largest debtor countries have not changed for many years (Ireland is to be overtaken by Italy early next year), but the amount of debt is growing: 1. US, 2. UK, 3. Japan, 4. Netherlands, 5. France, 6. Ireland, 7. Italy, 8. Germany. G8 total external debt ~ over $63 trillion. 

Quoted from:
Pravda (Nov 09, 2023) - An interesting picture is emerging.

Usury | Ezra Pound

The first thing for a man to think of when proposing an economic system is: WHAT IS IT FOR? And the answer is: to make sure that the whole people shall be able to eat (in a healthy manner), to be housed (decently) and be clothed (in a way adequate to the climate). 

 

 

 

Another form of that statement is Mussolini’s:

DISCIPLINE THE ECONOMIC FORCES AND EQUATE THEM TO THE NEEDS OF THE NATION.

The Left claim that private ownership has destroyed this true purpose of an economic system. Let us see how OWNERSHIP was defined, at the beginning of a capitalist era during the French Revolution.

OWNERSHIP is the right which every citizen has to enjoy and dispose of the portion of goods guaranteed him by the law. The right of ownership is limited, as are all other rights by the obligation to respect the rights of others. It cannot be prejudicial to the safety, nor to the liberty nor to the existence, nor to the ownership of other men like ourselves. Every possession, every traffic, which violates this principle is illicit and immoral.

Robespierre.

 

The perspective of the damned XIXth century shows little else than the violation of these principles by demoliberal usuriocracy. The doctrine of Capital, in short, has shown itself as little else than the idea that unprincipled thieves and antisocial groups should be allowed to gnaw into the rights of ownership. This tendency ‘to gnaw into’ has been recognised and stigmatised from the time of the laws of Moses and he called it neschek. And nothing differs more from this gnawing or corrosive than the right to share out the fruits of a common co-operative labour.

 

Indeed USURY has become the dominant force in the modern world.

 

Moreover, imperialism is an immense accumulation of money capital in a few countries, which, as we have seen, amounts to 4 or 5 thousand million pounds sterling in securities. Hence the extraordinary growth of a class, or rather a Stratum, of rentiers, i.e, persons who live by “clipping coupons” who take absolutely no part in any enterprise, and whose profession is idleness. The exportation of capital, one of the most essential economic bases of imperialism, still further isolates this rentier stratum from production, and sets the seal of parasitism on the whole country living on the exploitation of the labour of several overseas countries and colonies.

V. I. Lenin, quoting Hobson in ‘Imperialism, the highest stage of Capitalism’.

Very well! That is from Lenin. But you could quote the same substance from Hitler, who is a Nazi (note the paragraph from ‘Mein Kampf’ magnificently isolated by Wyndham Lewis in his ‘Hitler’) – ‘The struggle against international finance and loan capital has become the most important point in the National Socialist programme; the struggle of the German nation for its independence and freedom.’

You could quote it from Mussolini, a Fascist, or from C. H. Douglas, who calls himself a democrat and his followers the only true democrats. You could quote it from McNair Wilson who is a Christian Monarchy man. You could quote it from a dozen camps which have no suspicion they are quoting Lenin. The only people who do not seem to have read and digested this essay of his are the British Labour Party and various groups of professing communists throughout the Occident.

Milton Friedman — Lie for hire.

Thomas Piketty — Worse than Jewspapers.

Some facts are now known above parties, some perceptions are the common heritage of all men of good will, and only the Jewspapers and worse than Jewspapers try now to obscure them. Among the worse than Jewspapers we must list the hired professors who misteach new generations of young, who lie for hire and who continue to lie from sheer sloth and inertia and from dog-like contempt for the wellbeing of all mankind. At this point, and to prevent the dragging of red herrings, I wish to distinguish between prejudice against the Jew as such and the suggestion that the Jew should face his own problem.

DOES he in his individual case wish to observe the law of Moses? 

Does he propose to continue to rob other men by usury mechanism while wishing to be considered a ‘neighbour’?

Quoted from:
Ezra Pound (1939) - What is money for?

 

Fed Governors — Prevent the dragging of red herrings.

 

Larry Fink — Considered a ‘neighbour’?

See also:

Neema Parvini (2022) - The Liberal Political Theology.
Stephen Mitford Goodson (2019) - Who Ever Sets the Price of Gold and Silver.

TPR (2014) - Modern Money Mechanics — The Alchemy of Neo-Feudalism.

Asatizah of Al-Munawwar (2013) - The Dazzling Proof for the Return of our pure Money. The Judgment on Fiat Currency.

 Serhii Hrabovsky (2010) - Lenin. Money. Revolution.
Nikolai Starikov (2010) - The Conspiracy of the Counterfeiters.
Anthony C. Sutton (1974) - The Bankster's Paradise Conspiracy Theory.
Hjalmar Schacht (1967) - The Magic of Money.
Gaetano Mosca (1898) - The Rulers and the Ruled.

Modern Fractional Reserve Banking - A Ponzi Scheme | Murray N. Rothbard

The banker issues fake warehouse receipts and lends them out as if they were real warehouse receipts represented by cash. At the same time, the original depositor thinks that his warehouse receipts are represented by money available at any time he wishes to cash them in. Here we have the system of fractional reserve banking, in which more than one warehouse receipt is backed by the same amount of gold or other cash in the bank’s vaults.

 

It should be clear that modern fractional reserve banking is a shell game, a Ponzi scheme, a fraud in which fake warehouse receipts are issued and circulate as equivalent to the cash supposedly represented by the receipts.

Quoted from:
Murray N. Rothbard (1983) - The Mystery of Banking.

 

See also:

Anthony C. Sutton (1974) - The Bankster's Paradise Conspiracy Theory.

 Nikolai Starikov (2013) - The Conspiracy of the Counterfeiters.

On Fiscal Mismanagement | Martin A. Armstrong

Martin A. Armstrong (Sep 13, 2022) - Don’t mix the problem of the quantity of money with what is actually money. They are two separate issues. The theory that inflation is tied to the quantity of money truly extends back to when metal was the money supply. The sudden discovery of America led to a huge wave of inflation in Europe. The FISCAL MISMANAGEMENT of Spain led to its total collapse. They were borrowing against the next shipload of gold coming in from the New World. They would not wait even to get it in, and they were so excited to spend it before it arrived.

 

[...] The amazing Decline and Fall of Spain is perhaps the greatest lesson if someone wishes to write “How NOT to Manage Government For Dummies.” The Spanish became both the richest nation and the greatest debtor, not that dissimilar from the United States, and succeeded in ending up as the poorest. Spain became a serial defaulter beginning in 1557, followed by 1570, 1575, 1596, 1607, and 1647 ending in a 3rd world status without hyperinflation. Their economic model was one of conquest and plunder rather than developing domestic industry and a viable economy.

[...] The endless increase in the supply of dollars is not the problem [...] Our problem is NOT that money is paper. The problem is those in charge of the government [...] No matter what is money, it CAN NOT be fixed in value. It must be allowed to float, for there are always trends that shift back and forth. Therefore, the relentless creation of money is not because they are paper dollars. As I said, you are blaming the gun rather than the shooter. This is fiscal mismanagement created by Marxism, where the politicians no longer know how to run for office without bribing the people for their votes. This is the system that is completely doomed.

Quoted from:
Martin A. Armstrong (Sep 13, 2022) - Answering Questions

The Magic of Money | Hjalmar Schacht

Hjalmar Schacht (1967) - Man needs money and cannot exist without it. The diabolic magic of money is here clearly visible. It has helped mankind to make immense strides in economic development, and has at the same time enslaved him. Regression to a money-less condition, or the modern method of exchange by means of money any kind of money, but still money - these are the alternatives. Money plays the role of the sorcerer's apprentice - created to serve a master who cannot now rid himself of his indispensable sprite. It is the master now. 

Hjalmar Schacht (1877 – 1970), President of the Reichsbank.

[...] Modern paper money, the banknote, is backed by its creator, the State. It is true that John Law, the inventor of paper money, recommended a kind of cover based on landed property, but Law too saw that the principal security for paper money lay in confidence in the government, which has legal control over all kinds of things which would provide security. The failure which put an end to Law's measures was not so much caused by a paper money inflation, as by a collapse of speculative activity in the shares of the overseas enterprises he had founded. The value of his paper money was not based on these public companies, but only on their relationship with the state. Law rightly recognised that money, if it does not consist of tangible metal, is purely an internal affair of the national state. This remains true today.

For this reason there is no such thing as international currency. It is unlikely that it will ever come into being. International money would have to be granted the status of legal tender in all countries in which it circulates. In all these countries it would have to be possible to settle every state and private obligation in this currency. Any institution controlling this. currency irrespective of whether it is a bank or a government department would dominate the world an unthinkable situation. Currency is the most nationalistic factor in political life. Every central bank responsible for issuing it is dependent on the government of the country by whose laws it was instituted, and which makes its notes legal tender in the country's home territory.

The granting of credit is unthinkable without a central bank. No central bank can be allowed to act against the government of the country. The government is over the central bank, and influences its policies. It is thus also in a position to inflate the currency by taking up too much credit with the central bank. No international central bank could countenance such a situation. It cannot permit one of the governments with which it is associated to misuse its facilities unless every other government is in agreement. This however is a condition which cannot be reconciled with the fight of all against all in time of economic difficulty. No state will surrender so much of its sovereignty that its partners or competitors are given the power to prescribe its economic and financial policies. Standing over and above central bank and government, both of which are led and administered by changing personalities, there is a higher, impersonal, and substantially necessary law: the stability, the constancy of value, of money. This higher law has in the past granted the central banks an autonomous, independent position. Governments change, and can pursue good or bad currency and credit policies according to whether or not it is to the advantage of the party in power. 

 

Schacht in an Allied internment camp, 1945.
"Dr. Schacht, you should come to America. We’ve lots of money and that’s real banking".
Schacht replied, "You should come to Berlin. We don’t have money. That’s real banking".

[...] Even if common currency is regarded and desired as the crowning achievement of the European Common Market, it would be wrong to leave the relationship between the government and the central bank out of account. [...] The closer the economic ties between various countries, the easier will it become to reach agreement on currency policies. Whether these will ultimately lead to a unitary currency will always depend on the extent to which the participants are prepared to surrender their sovereignty. Here in fact is the Common Market's chief problem.

Quotes from:
Hjalmar Schacht (1967) - The Magic of Money

The Conspiracy of the Counterfeiters | Nikolai Starikov

Everything was going smoothly until 1965. Almost right after having been reelected to the post of President of France, Charles de Gaulle announced that his country would start to use real gold for international payments. According to the Bretton Woods Agreement he demanded that the USA exchange 1.5 billion dollars, kept by France, for real gold at a price of 35 dollars per ounce. It was the worst nightmare of a banker, when all creditors of his bank came to demand their ‘deposits’, as all FRS dollars were just obliging to pay the holders a certain amount of the precious metal. However, the required amount of gold had never existed, and consequently it was especially important to prevent the precedent. 

 

 Georges Pompidou, successor of President Charles de Gaulle, in 1969.
Guy de Rothschild's stooge in the Elysée.

The USA started to bias obstinate de Gaulle, who had already caused them trouble during his first presidential term, and even before that, when he was leading the Opposition in 1944-1945. Then during his second presidential term de Gaulle catastrophically endangered the mere fact of the ‘printing machine’s’ existence. Furthermore, the French President was determined, and when pressed, he withdrew from NATO and drove its formations out of his country. The USA had to exchange paper money for gold. In turn Germany, Canada and Japan made similar demands, though not in public like France, but secretly. Finally, the gap between the global amount of dollars and gold reserves in the USA was reduced even further. From 1960 until 1970 the dollar reserves kept in other countries tripled (and in 1970 came to 47 billion dollars, whereas the gold reserves of the USA came to 11.1 billion dollars at that time). It was necessary to urgently find a way out of this situation, but firstly the one who had entrenched the ‘printing machine’ must be punished. In 1967 de Gaulle returned the paper cash to the USA, and in May 1968 disturbances in France began. Demonstrations, the confrontation with the police, walkouts […] After almost a year of pressure Charles de Gaulle had to resign on 28 April, 1969. On 9 November, 1970 the ‘gravedigger’ of the dollar died due to heart failure.

The system established by the bankers was close to collapse. The gold default of the dollar concurred with the military defeat of the Americans in Vietnam. [...] Being aware that the capability of the USA to exchange dollars for gold at a fixed rate would be increasingly distrusted, they decided to get over this precipice in several steps. On 17 March, 1968 the Americans cancelled the dollar conversion into gold at a fixed rate for private traders. Central banks still could exchange dollars for gold at an official rate of 35 dollars per 1 troy ounce. At this, all ‘independent’ central banks in all countries were privately commanded to prevent such conversion by any means. On 15 August, 1971 the USA President Nixon, during his speech on the national (!) TV, incidentally announced the temporary taboo on the dollar conversion into gold at an official rate in central banks.

 Emmanuel Jean-Michel Frédéric Macron, the latest Rothschild stooge in the Elysée.
La république en marche. Allons enfants de la patrie.

That was a scandal indeed. However, it could become even greater, when it appeared that in the period up to the end of July 1971 the gold reserves of the USA descended to a threshold of less than 10 billion dollars. The affair proceeding any further could lead to complete catastrophe. On 17 December, 1971 the USA devalued the dollar by 7.89% in relation to gold. The official price of gold increased from 35 to 38 dollars per one troy ounce, but, curiously enough, the exchange of dollars for gold did not recommence. On 13 February, 1973 the dollar descended even lower in relation to gold, the rate became 42.2 dollars per 1 troy ounce. However, gold could not be acquired at this price, either. The American currency was not trusted anymore, and nobody hurried to sell their gold. The USA and Great Britain therefore had to share the benefits from the reserve currency emission with other countries.

 

The only way out of the dead end was to print more paper money, which the global financial community would agree to treat like absolute values. It must be assumed though that this money was not financially assured by anything. On 16 March, 1973 during the International Conference in Paris, a compromise was found. The gold content of the dollar was officially cancelled. It goes without saying that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) confirmed and approved this decision, which would cancel all the principles of the financial system of that time and the system of the IMF itself. The epoch of floating exchange rates began in the world.

Quoted from:

Nikolai Starikov (2013) - Rouble Nationalization – the Way to Russia’s Freedom.

See also:

Manlio Dinucci (2017) - Macron-Libya: the Rothschild Connection.

Alex Knyazev and Peter Koenig (2017) - Let’s never forget why Muammar Gaddafi was killed.
Nikolai Starikov (2016) - On Global Debt Slavery.

 

The Gold Price (U.S.Dollars / Troy Ounce) 1792 to date

The Gold Price (U.S.Dollars / Troy Ounce) 1257 to date

Who Ever Sets the Price of Gold and Silver | Stephen Mitford Goodson

There was an increase in trade and Rome became one of the most prosperous cities in the ancient world. [...] bronze coins represented national money and were paid into circulation by the state and each was only of value in as much as the symbols on which its numbers were recorded, were scarce or otherwise. This money was thus based on law rather than the metallic content. [...] This can be considered as an early example of the successful use of fiat money.

While fiat money is much criticised in some quarters, for example by the followers of Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, there is nothing wrong with it, as long as it is issued by government, not by private bankers, and is carefully protected against counterfeiters. Non-fiat money, in contrast, has the serious drawback that who ever sets the prices of gold and silver, i.e. private bankers, can control the nation’s economy.

[...] in September 45 BC, Caesar found the streets and cities crowded with homeless people, who had been forced off the land by usurers and land monopolists. 300,000 people had to be fed daily at the public granary. Usury was flourishing with disastrous consequences. [..] Caesar fully understood the evils of usury and how to counter them. He recognized the profound truth that money is a national agent, created by law for a national purpose, and that no classes of men should withhold it from circulation so as to cause panics, in order that speculators could advance the rates of interest, or could buy up property at ruinous prices after such panic.

Caesar introduced the following social reforms:

1. Restoration of property was done at the much lower valuations which held prior to the civil war (49-45 BC).
2. Several remissions of rents were granted.
3. Large numbers of poor citizens and discharged veterans were settled on allotments.
4. Free housing was provided to 80,000 impoverished families.
5. Soldiers’ pay was increased from 123 to 225 denarii.
6. The corn dole was regulated.
7. Provincial communities were enfranchised.
8. Confusion in the calendar was removed by fixing it at 365¼ days from 1 January 44 BC.

His monetary reforms were as follows:

1. State debt levels were immediately reduced by 25%.
2. Control of the mint was transferred from the patricians (usurers) to government.
3. Cheap metal coins were issued as the means of exchange.
4. It was ruled that interest could not be levied at more than 1% per month.
5. It was decreed that interest could not be charged on interest and that the total interest charged could never exceed the capital loaned (in duplum rule).
6. Slavery was abolished as a means of settling debt.
7. Aristocrats were forced to employ their capital and not hoard it. 

These measures enraged the aristocrats and plutocrats whose “livelihood” was now severely restricted. They therefore conspired to murder Caesar, the hero of the people. 

 

The 'Ides of March' Denarius (43/42 BC), a declaration of the Republic's 'liberation' from tyrannical Caesar.
Ironically, Brutus appears on the obverse professing he killed Julius Caesar on the Ides of March.
This is one of the most sought-after coins from the Roman world.

Quotes from:

Stephen Mitford Goodson (2019) - A History of Central Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind.

 

See also:

Stephen Mitford Goodson (2017) – How The Banking System Works.

 Alfred Deahl (2020) - Money Talks: A Very Short History of Roman Currency.

Stephen Mitford Goodson (1948 - 2018) was a South African economist, author, politician and former Director of the South African Reserve Bank. He was the leader of South Africa's Abolition of Income Tax and Usury Party, and stood as a candidate for the Ubuntu Party in the 2014 General Elections.

Who Owns Bitcoin

When Not To Put Money In The Bank - Negative Interest Rates in Europe

econfix (Jan 4, 2016) - It seems that in Europe negative interest rates are common place. Below are the current rates of some central banks:
 

European Central Bank -0.3%
Swiss National Bank -0.75%;
Danish Central bank -0.75%
Swedish Central Bank -1.1%

Why are they in negative territory? For all these countries it is the exchange rate against the Euro that is important. Negative interest rates weaken a country’s currency and make imports more expensive and exports cheaper. Furthermore central banks could be trying to prevent a slide into deflation, or a spiral of falling prices that could derail the recovery.

In theory, interest rates below zero should reduce borrowing costs for companies and households, driving demand for loans. In practice, there’s a risk that the policy might do more harm than good. If banks make more customers pay to hold their money, cash may go under the mattress instead. Janet Yellen, the U.S. Federal Reserve chair, said at her confirmation hearing in November 2013 that even a deposit rate that’s positive but close to zero could disrupt the money markets that help fund financial institutions. Two years later, she said that a change in economic circumstances could put negative rates “on the table” in the U.S., and Bank of England Governor Mark Carney said he could now cut the benchmark rate below the current 0.5 percent if necessary. Deutsche Bank economists note that negative rates haven’t sparked the bank runs or cash hoarding some had feared, in part because banks haven’t passed them on to their customers. But there’s still a worry that when banks absorb the cost themselves, it squeezes the profit margin between their lending and deposit rates, and might make them even less willing to lend. Ever-lower rates also fuel concern that countries are engaged in a currency war of competitive devaluations. Source: Bloomberg

The Cashless Society | A Totalitarian’s Dream Come True

Casey Research (Nov 19, 2015) - In 1661, Sweden became the first country in Europe to issue paper money. Now it’s probably going to be the first in the world to eliminate it. Sweden has already phased out most cash transactions. According to Credit Suisse, 80% of all purchases in Sweden are electronic and don’t involve cash. And that figure is rising. If the trend continues - and there is nothing to suggest it won’t - Sweden could soon be the world’s first cashless society. Sweden’s supply of physical currency has dropped over 50% in the last six years. A couple of major Swedish banks no longer carry cash. Virtually all Swedes pay for candy bars and coffee electronically. Even homeless street vendors use mobile card readers [...] Sweden, Denmark, and Switzerland all have negative interest rates. Negative interest rates mean the lender literally pays the borrower for the privilege of lending him money. It’s a bizarre, upside down concept. But negative rates are not some European anomaly. The Federal Reserve discussed the possibility of using negative interest rates in the U.S. at its last meeting. Negative rates could not exist in a free market. They destroy the impetus to save and build capital, which is the basis of prosperity.

Ranking Sovereign Debt - Three Ways To Look At Keynesian Insanity

Credits: Visual Capitalist

The Lowest Interest Rates in 5,000 Years

Sources: Bank of England, Global Financial Data, Homer and Sylla "A History of Interest Rates".