I didn’t assume any heinous activity, simply suggested global parity in money creation. I even suggested the inequity may be unintentional oversight.
Well, now we’re having an entirely different discussion. The intent of a policy or policies cannot be judged by their outcomes.
You are claiming that the full faith and credit of some is intrinsically worth more than others, and that the interest collected on the credit furnished by each is reasonably kept by few who provide only bookkeeping.
Enough with the word salad.
You claimed that the economic policies of the West are racist. I asked for evidence of this. You have responded in two ways:
- To backtrack, and claim that “inequity may be unintentional oversight”. Which means that you’ve retracted the original allegation.
- To raise a load of global issues, essentially laying them out on the table, as if to claim that the only reasonable explanation is that the principles of global finance are racist.
It is a logical fallacy to claim that you know the intent of a policy from the result of a policy.
So, again, what evidence can you offer, evidence that has nothing to do with a RESULT, that policies of global finance are designed to keep non-whites down? It is a preposterous suggestion that demands backing, and the facts that you offer have nothing to do with answering that question.