So our questions are as follows: (if there is only time for one question please ask question 4)
1) What lawful consideration do you claim the Central Banks gives up when they create money ?
2) How then does the bank (or does the bank) claim there is a debt
to the bank ?
3) What is the claim to interest then, when the bank can do no more
than absorb the costs of merely publishing evidence of our
promissory obligations *to each other* ?
4) How is it possible even to maintain a vital circulation without
accumulating inevitably terminal sums of debt ?
Please we do not require evasive in answering to *whether* money is
subject to interest in any regular conduit by which either the
government or the people can “borrow” “money” into circulation. Of
course currently we know well that there’s no way we can acquire
“money” from “the bank” but by “borrowing” it (even as in the
beginning or its creation, it never existed before), and that of
course, “the borrowing” is currently subject to “interest.”
Furthermore then, If Cristine Lagarde/IMF claims (without demonstrating *how*) that interest is charged to fight “inflation” (by which it means
*either* circulatory inflation, or [more likely,] *price
inflation*). But of course, if staving circulatory inflation were
the issue, it would just limit the amount of additional borrowing
(above what would only *maintain* the vital circulation).
On the other hand, if it were actually meaning to eradicate *the
additional costs* imposed upon “the economy” by *price
inflation*… then instead of imposing interest, they would
eradicate interest, because in multiplying the sum of
artificial/falsified indebtedness to the IMF, “interest” therefore
*is the cause* of price inflation, because in driving up the costs
of servicing debt, these costs, imposed upon industry, force
industry to raise its prices, merely to maintain vital margins of
Please if you could answer the above four  questions ONLY points
Marc of the Giles Family