Category Archives: Uncategorized

What exactly is inflation?

30 Friday Jun 2017

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Let us begin with the following quote from what mainstream economics teaches in schools & universities about inflation, where the consensus view is that a long sustained period of inflation is caused by money supply growing faster than the rate of economic demand or purported growth.

Quote;
“inflation occurs—that is, the purchasing power of the dollar shrinks—to the extent that the nominal supply of dollars grows faster than the real demand to hold dollars”
End quote:

Source

The question that begs to be asked is how can the supply of dollars grow faster than the demand to hold dollars if the real demand requires you to pay *principal + interest* out of a volume of circulation (nominal supply) only ever comprised of some remaining *principal* at most?

In other words, how can inflation rationally occur if that nominal supply of money never grows any further than to the extent of principal only & any demand to hold dollars requires you to pay *principal + interest* out of a supply of dollars only ever comprised of principal?

In this light the mere unqualified assumption that suggests any addition of new money in circulation evidences the occurrence of inflation is misleading — when all we have today is perpetual cycles of REFLATION that irreversibly multiplies today’s falsified debt into terminal debt with every new sum of debt — without ever-increasing the circulation above or beyond the sum of principal purportedly borrowed into circulation in private debt.

*Nominal* by definition is *very small* or *very least*, so nominal supply of money means very small or the least supply of money.

Its clear already the mainstream definition of any occurrence of inflation is an oxymoron & a contradiction in itself, simply because it suggests an already deficient money supply is growing faster than the demand, yet any possible growth of the money supply faster than demand is a rational impossibility, considering the demand to hold dollars requires you to pay *principal + interest* out of a remaining volume of circulation comprised of some remaining *principal* at most. This is logically DEFLATION & the very reason why the purchasing power or value of the dollar shrinks — where the overall money supply or circulation is devalued primarily due to an unsustainable terminal escalation of falsified debt caused by the volumetric impropriety of interest (perpetual deflation) in all our personal falsified debts.

Moreover, it’s just assumed by mainstream economics central banks create new money to purchase government bonds which purportedly increases the money supply in relation to any increase in federal debt or subsequent federal expenditure, however, this is clearly unfounded & simply not true. Firstly because like all other banks “central banks” neither risk nor give up consideration of value to otherwise justify its pretended creation of money, much less any purported loan, & secondly as a result the central bank is instead either directly or indirectly purchasing government bonds with already stolen money. Formerly created as every new sum of principal in our own personal falsified debts (private debt), only to be stolen in purported loans plus a further sum of principal again in unwarranted interest & subsequently laundered out of circulation, via what we are all led to believe is inter-bank lending & ultimately into the possession of a central bank, which can only then purchase government bonds, NOT with new money, but instead already stolen money.

WHAT HYPERINFLATION?
It shits me to tears that fools just assume inflation or hyperinflation is the only cause of price inflation when inflation (circulatory) is non-existent under any interest-based monetary system.

It is mass insanity when these bankers fools see prices go up & when the value of their money clearly goes down the primary school mathematics is thrown completely out the window, which otherwise proves mass deflation, due to the added cost of interest paid out of circulation above the sum of principal — that logically artificially inflates prices to steal all that much further from us just spending money.

It’s an oxymoron to just assume any price increase is due to inflation when circulatory inflation is not even existent under banking.

OXYMORON: Devaluation = Inflation.

Out of any nations entire money circulation, only 3-7% is cash & the rest is digits on a ledger or computer, so even if a nation printed 100% cash equal to all the ledger money LOGICALLY you still can’t rationally or ethically have what they call inflation either.

Its madness to even suggest inflation is even mathematically possible under the ruse of banking, because often in all these purported cases of hyperinflation the cash is subject to re-denomination in the end, which tells anyone with half a brain that you often have the same amount of notes circulating, but those notes are worth the same (BOTH DEVALUED) in regard to what those notes actually purchase.

For example, if the $1 note purchases a $1 loaf of bread before re-denomination that same note re-denominated to $100 still purchases a loaf of bread regardless if that loaf of bread is priced at $1 or $100. Keeping in mind if you were earning $1 a week before re-denomination you are earning $100 a week after re-denomination, however, what transpires up until re-denomination is an artificial increase in the price of that loaf of bread from $1 to $100, due to the added cost of interest. So re-denomination corrects the true value (devalued due to interest) of the monetary circulation to reflect the artificial increase in price.

What eludes the typical bankers fool, blinded by greed & desire, is the higher denomination on the re-denominated note itself does not mean inflation, much less hyperinflation, but instead the polar opposite — which is perpetual, monumental, deflation, or mass devaluation of all money & property, simply because the overall money supply or circulation in all that which it represents has been devalued, primarily due to an unsustainable terminal escalation of falsified debt caused by the volumetric impropriety of interest (perpetual deflation) in all our personal falsified debts.

The question begs to be asked when all this comes to fruition in Australia & it will, mathematically guaranteed under banking, where are you all going to run Aussie?

David Ardron.
Advocate/mentor, Co-founder, Co-director – Mathematically Perfected Economy™ (au)

(Published: June 30, 2017, last edit July 30, 2017)

Is interest free banking the solution?

30 Friday Jun 2017

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

To suggest banking can exist free from interest is failing to address the banks first crime of theft when a bank pretends to loan you a sum of principal in the first place.

This is where those promoting such nonsense are going critically wrong by denying the contract essentials regarding consideration of value in contract law, that otherwise proves we the people are the true creators of money, where there never was or ever will be any loan of borrowing, which of course those who promote banking (public or private) will never concede — only to preserve the crime of banking — particularly the banks first crime of theft, which allegedly loans you a sum of principal, that precipitates the further crime of theft by unwarranted interest as a result, only AS IF the bank is giving up consideration of value in the purported loan to begin with.

Logically you cant just eradicate the banks second crime of theft (interest) without eradicating the banks first crime of theft (loan), which is an *alleged loan* that does not ever transpire anyway, which is a crime of theft these pretenders want nothing more but to preserve by putting a public stamp on the exact same crime of theft & calling it a solution. All along evading the consideration question that proves banks do not ever create or even loan us money.

THE CONSIDERATION QUESTION.
The question of “Consideration of Value” is not only deadly to banks (public & private) but it acts much like a doubled edged sword. The forward swing proves banks do not ever loan us money, but the back swing ultimately proves we are the true creators of money, where there never was or ever is any loan or borrowing.

One might even conclude public banking a form of communism under the same old kleptocracy (rule by thieves).

Logically you have to eradicate the first crime of theft to eradicate by default the second crime of theft , by which a matter of consequence eradicates the criminal practice of banking altogether, therefore making any idea of “interest free banking / interest free loans ” or “debt free money” an oxymoron, regardless if the thieving bank is public or private.

Usury is not just the further imposition of interest or riba, simply because the imposition of interest precipitates from a former crime of theft in the form of a purported loan that neither ethically or rationally transpires, so if you are not addressing the fact banks do not ever loan us money in the first place how can you be rationally or ethically addressing the resulting crime of theft by unwarranted interest? Unless of course you want to preserve the banks very first crime of theft, which by default preserves the banks second crime of theft by interest, only AS IF the bank is legitimately loaning you the principal to you in the first place, which they clearly do not. Banks never have or ever will, because banks or mere publishers neither risk of give up consideration of commensurable value, not in the banks pretended creation of OUR money, not in any pretended loan, not even in any debt, trade, transaction or sale.

AGAIN : The business of banking (public or private) is not commerce, but PIRACY.

David Ardron.
Advocate / mentor, Co-founder, Co-director – Mathematically Perfected Economy™ (au)


(Published : June 30, 2017, last edit July 09, 2017)

 

Is Nationalizing Banks a Solution?

30 Friday Jun 2017

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Absolutely not, which begs to question if interest is sustainable. There are many today who believe the volumetric impropriety of interest (DEFLATION) is sustainable by simply nationalizing a central bank by proposing a government creates, spends & or lends the principal & the sum of interest into circulation so its physically possible for the people to pay principal + interest in all private debt, however where these proponents of banking go terribly wrong – which is a crime in itself – is FIRSTLY no bank or publisher on the face of this planet can ethically or rationally create money if they are neither risking  or giving up commensurable consideration of value equal to any debt, trade or transaction.

SECONDLY  the added cost of interest will still artificially inflate prices into oblivion regardless if you have circulatory inflation or deflation, which can only keep on stealing all that much further from us just spending money.

Price inflation is not caused by the resulting interest on today’s government debt, but instead the interest we formerly pay out of circulation in all private debt that perpetually deflates a forever deficient circulation by however much interest we all pay out of circulation above the sum of principal.  Predominantly in the form of purported loans, which are only alleged loans that do not ethically or even rationally transpire in the first place.

Furthermore it’s been long establish the people have been creating all new money regardless of the banks purposed misrepresentation of every debt to subsequently steal the value the people give to all money & property in purported loans & or subsequently when we spend money today — servicing someone else’s purported loan — stealing even further from us, simply because it is we the people who give up the only consideration of commensurable value in any debt, sale or transaction that in truth evidences a fact banks or mere publishers of money never have or ever will loan us money, much less even create money.

Moreover this confirms a further fact that we do not even loan or borrow money from each other either, simply because we create the sum of principal before any debt transpires, before the resulting deposit from any trade, transaction or sale.

The unadulterated debt we have to each other, HOWEVER, is nothing more than a promise or obligation to pay & retire the principal – free from such exploitation, where again there never was or ever is any loan or borrowing.

David Ardron.
Advocate / mentor, Co-founder, Co-director – Mathematically Perfected Economy™ (au)


(Published : June 30, 2017, last edit July 18, 2017)

 

Do banks create money from debt securities?

30 Tuesday May 2017

Posted by in DO BANKS CREATE MONEY FROM A DEBT SECURITY?, Uncategorized

≈ 9 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Before we begin we must identify what a debt security actually is . The debt security is often referred to as debt instruments. According to mainstream academia a debt instrument is a paper or electronic *obligation* that enables the issuing party to raise funds by *promising* to repay [allegedly repay] a lender [purported lender] in accordance with terms of a contract.

Now we have established a debt instrument is a *promissory obligation* which is a *contractual obligation* we can now ask ourselves do banks create or issue a debt security & or any further representation of a debt security such as a treasury bond by asking one simple question relating to the *Contract Essentials* (contract law), which can either validate or invalidate a debt precipitates to the bank or mere publisher of money (central bank) .

The question is what consideration of commensurable value does the bank risk or give up to otherwise evidence a bank (ANY BANK) is actually creating or issuing money from these debt securities ( ie: promissory obligations).

Of course one cant just irrationally assume the bank creates money from a debt security if the bank cant prove or even demonstrate what consideration of value the bank risks or gives up from its otherwise prior legitimate possession. Logically all banks can ever do is publish a further representation (misrepresentation) of the money the real issuer is creating. Evident by who is giving up consideration of commensurable value equal to the debt to determine who the real issuer of a debt security (promissory obligation) actually is.

I ask a simple question of logic to the reader. If the bank or mere publisher can not prove or even demonstrate what consideration they either risk or give up who else can prove they give up lawful consideration of value if not ourselves the real creators of money, because its already apparent the obligor  makes (creates) a promissory note by signing & therefore issuing that promissory obligation (ie: money)?

Is it not the obligor who owes an obligation to another, therefore the obligor is one who must pay on a promissory note or obligation that is legally or contractually obliged to provide a benefit or payment to another?

I ask again if a bank or mere publisher neither risks or gives up consideration of value & WE THE PEOPLE DO, predominantly the obligor & it is the obligor who actually signs the contractual obligation in a purported loan how is it even rationally or ethically possible for any bank to create money, much less loan us money if the bank neither risks or gives up consideration & does not even sign the contractual obligation?

As for security deeds, such as deed to a home is not what actually creates money & its a barefaced LIE to suggest it ever is. 

The deed is not a promissory obligation or debt security that creates new money, so just because this debt security or promissory obligation is collateralized by the property it purchases does not make that promissory obligation or money itself a deed to a home. Only a bankers fool would suggest something so moronic.

Therefore the deed of a home is the rightful possession of the real creditor who gives up prior ownership of *property itself*, which is property that has *consideration of value* representing what the seller is giving up in any sale such as a home itself. Until such time that home is sold to the debtor or obligor, thus transferring deed title to the debtor or obligor for paying the real creditor in full from the outset of creating the money or issuing a promissory obligation.

Regardless if the bank is taking unlawful possession of deed resulting from any purported loan this is not to just blindly assume the money representing the debtors or obligors own present & or future production is what value the seller is giving up, much less the non-existent value any bank is purportedly giving up — absolutely not — simply because although both CREDIT & MONEY have consideration of value that value  is logically separate each to their own in respect to what value the buyer & seller is giving up in that sale .

Property being the value the real creditor is giving up & the money being the value the debtor gives up. Either by actually earning money to pay the debt & or what value the obligor is formerly giving up by signing & issuing a promissory obligation that issues new money (principal only) into circulation by promising their own future production. Otherwise the thief (ie:bank) would not be even stealing the value we give to all money & property in phony loans, “X2″ due to unwarranted interest.

Moreover the security deed is not the banks rightful possession or title of ownership to begin with. If the bank cant even prove or demonstrate what consideration of value the bank is actually risking or giving up in any purported loan to otherwise evidence the banks rightful possession, repossession of title the deed is not the banks rightful possession.

Trading currencies or the practice of taking unearned gain (interest) on ” Bank Bill Swap Rates” (BBSR) isn’t creating money either, NOT EVEN CLOSE, & a barefaced LIE to ever suggest it is.

SOCIAL CONDITIONING
Society has become so conditioned people don’t think when they casually use the term “I have to go out to make some more money“,when it is really “I have to go out to earn some more money “ . Logically earning more money is not making any more new money.

This conditioning leads to a further misconception within industry & commerce with another common term “spending money makes money“ which is another false assumption, simply because its not the act of spending old money that makes new money, but instead when someone signs & issues a *promissory obligation* when a bank only ever pretends to loan that someone new money in private debt, BEFORE that new money is even spent or subsequently deposited resulting from any sale.

Often the proponents of banking will play on this common social conditioning that would have people irrationally believe when a bank spends or trades money (stolen money) the bank creates new money, which could not be any further from the truth but a barefaced lie instead, only to disguise the fact the practice of banking first steals & then launders money, either by purportedly lending, spending or trading money with the intent & means to steal even further from each & everyone of us.

CONCLUSION: Banks never have or ever will create or loan money. NOT from a security deed . NOT even from a debt security. Simply because WE DO by giving up commensurable consideration in the only debt security (promissory obligation/ contractual obligation) in private debt that actually creates all new money (principal only), regardless if the bank purposely misrepresents that debt or contract by falsifying the debt we have to each other instead to the bank itself — in a purported loan– that neither ethically or rationally transpires in the first place. Regardless if the bank  has possession of the security deed or deeds to your home, which if anything can only further prove the bank is a thief.

PS: I have no problem calling all the proponents of banking liars because they cant even substantiate their barefaced lies, which is the very thing that preserves a monumental crime of theft today because no one ever questions those lies. You sociopath proponents of banking think you are all so smug pushing the lies of economy only as if its fact, but the hard fact remains none of you can actually prove or demonstrate what you are actually talking about by not only evading the consideration question, but  throwing bullshit assumptions at the wall in the hope it sticks, only as if you are answering the consideration question.

David Ardron.
Advocate / mentor, Co-founder, Co-director – Mathematically Perfected Economy™ (au)


(Published : May 30, 2017, last edit July 09, 2017)

 

E.C. Riegel vs M. Montagne

21 Wednesday Oct 2015

Posted by in E.C. Riegel vs M. Montagne, Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I’m writing this post in response to those who might perceive MPE is a plagiarism of E.C. Riegels work, primarily due to a barrage of preposterous vindictive accusations posted, but not approved, on the home page comments.

Lets be clear before we begin Reigel like Montagne are not the first to identify interest is unjust, however I would like to emphasize the fact Mike Montagne was the first to prove & demonstrate exactly how interest irreversibly multiplies artificial debt into inherently terminal sums of artificial debt.

E.C. Riegels ” Valun Private Enterprise Money System ” is similar in one respect & only one respect alone to Mikes Common Monetary Infrastructure (CMI) where banking is eradicated.

Although money is nothing more than an accounting system Riegel irrationally conceived money had no intrinsic value, failing to even conclude what money represents has the only intrinsic value in our labour & production, but he didn’t even go near how money is actually created by the immutable representations of promissory obligations that indeed have consideration of value in our labour & production, nor did he invent MPEs 1.1.1 ratio, or even remotely identify money has to be retired equal to remaining debt & equal to remaining represented property value to solve inflation & deflation, where Riegel is assuming instead that every person is entitled to create as much money to trade without ever considering money has to be retired at the rate of consumption to solve the otherwise circulatory inflation.

Unlike Mike, Riegel didn’t even conclude its only through unexploited promissory obligations we are entitled to create money in respect to our issue worthiness & remaining consumption  value of the related property, anything else is a further representation of that promissory obligation, where we are not creating money on every trade as Riegel suggests, but instead in relation to MPE on new represented property when one otherwise does not have the money to purchase unrepresented property, moreover Riegel assumes money is created by cheque even in his Vulan system that he asserts has no nationality, inferring a one world currency is the solution, failing to even account that each nation has different production rates in relation to their population, skills, natural resources etc which have to be factored in relation to a nations imports & exports or national trade.

Anyone who thinks MPE is a plagiarism of another purported solution first has to prove how that purported solution identifies the inherent faults in today’s banking system in order to solve those faults, so there is no real comparison to Riegel s Vulan system with MPE, admittedly Riegel vaguely touches upon some symptoms of the banks obfuscation, but he hasn’t even come close to what MPE articulates & solves, far from it.

Logically if a solution is taken in part or as a whole its plagiarism, yet if its taken in its entirety its evidence of a theft of intellectual property which is a copyright violation in regards to MPE. Informally mike has been advocating his MPE solution since 1968 & formally since 1979 with the proposal of MPE to the Reagan administration including Gerald Ford .

So if anyone was to assume Mike is plagiarizing E. C. Riegel’s work you have to articulate how exactly, particularly if anyone was referring to the erroneous pamphlet ” Flight From Inflation “ published posthumously after Riegel’s  death by editors at the Heather Foundation in 1978 , purportedly taken from Riegel’s papers in a transcript found by the editors at the Heather Foundation, which clearly suggests this pamphlet is not entirely Riegel’s words or thoughts.

I might also add people were issuing their own money on clay tablets free from intervention as far back as 2000BC, so this concept of issuing our own money is nothing new considering we always have anyhow regardless of the banks pretended creation or issuance.

In regards to Riegel’s earlier work he neither articulates this in the true sense either, suggesting the creation of money is upon a book keeping entry, even in his Valun system he proposes the same LIE, which has never been the case at all & nor can it be the case, simply because the obligors signature upon the issuance of a promissory note or obligation logically comes before any book entry, contrary to Riegel’s assumption asserting without proof or qualification money is created upon the book entry & issued thereafter by a signature on a cheque, which is irrationally putting the cart before the horse, assuming the creation is the cheque itself, which nonetheless orders a payment of money from a bank account, or from his Valun exchange.

So where Mike has exactly plagiarized Riegel’s non-existent mathematics is yet to be proven, which begs us to question how on earth does Riegel’s *franchised Valun exchanges* even remotely resemble the nationalized CMI in MPE, & why would anyone irrationally even conceive a mere publisher can be franchised like a Mc Donald’s outlet, when the CMI in MPE is a non-profit nationalized central accounting system that replaces all banking in any nation. Why even franchise the publisher when the people are already paying its automated running costs, which would be less than a $1 per head a year, unless you wanted to add unnecessary costs in publishing further representations of our promissory obligations, which any franchise for profit can only do if we we’re stupid enough to decentralize the CMI into competing franchises by selling or leasing those franchises to private enterprise, so to irrationally suggest  competing CMIs within a nation is cost saving can only be a suggestion of a halfwit, because for each franchise your not only increasing the cost, but multiplying the overall cost by having many franchises for profit, when one centralized non- profit CMI can instead provide the exact same service for everyone for less, holding the one CMI accountable instead of opening up the door for exploitation with a chain of  CMI franchises in a nation, which is stupid as stupid gets considering the CMI in MPE is nothing more than a electronically automated centralized accounting system run at cost only, & if you wanted cash ATMs are at your disposal.

Concluding Riegel, nor any other money reformist for that matter has ever proven the inherent fault is the very interest we the people pay on our personal but falsified debts,  failing to not only prove interest irreversibly multiplies artificial debt to always service the former sum of artificial debt, yet can never ever pay down any subsequent new sum of artificial debt in perpetual cycles of reflation, but failing all along  to even identify the presumed inflation is instead always reflation, which reflation is not even inflationary in respects to any non-existent increase of circulation above the sum of principal the people initially create & purport to borrow in the first place, but likewise failing to even identify interest is  the primary cause of price inflation to steal all that much further from us in perpetual cycles of DEFLATION, that’s paid out of a forever deficient volume of circulation on our personal falsified debt’s.

Of course Riegel identifies interest is unjustified, so does the bible, but nowhere in Riegel’s papers did he ever prove or demonstrate how interest irreversibly multiplies artificial debt into terminal sums of artificial debt, so If the truth was ever told no one other than Mike Montagne has proven interest is the inherent  terminal fault, & to suggest otherwise can only prove one hasn’t the  intellectual capacity to study either Mikes or Riegel’s work to identify anything remotely substantial that suggests Mike has plagiarized Riegel’s Vulan proposal, except possibly the eradication of banking, however this is where any rational suggestion of plagiarism begins & ends, because the conflicting differences are so blatantly obvious to a point of almost polar opposites one would have to be a village idiot to even remotely suggest MPE is a plagiarism of Riegel’s work, when Riegels proposal like all other monetary reform proposals have clearly failed the second grade maths to even remotely prove interest is the terminal fault by irrationally suggesting non-existent inflation is instead inflation, yet all along its mathematically impossible to ever have inflation so long as your all paying *principal + interest* out of a volume of circulation only ever consisting of some remaining *principal* at most, & any interest you all pay above the sum of principal that artificially inflates prices can only ever be stealing all that much further out of a volume of circulation in a permanent state of persistent DEFLATION by interest, regardless of any reflation (not inflation) that irreversibly multiplies artificial debt.

Notes from Admin

16 Sunday Dec 2012

Posted by in Notes from Admin, Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on Notes from Admin

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

UPDATES
This post is to let you all know that this blog & its posts are constantly under my revision for refinement so its more comprehensible for the reader.

The changes of wording are slight if anything with the exception of some added paragraphs & sentences that may detail something that warrants further explanation. Unlike MPE I’m not perfected so please revisit the menu as you see fit to take note of any changes that may help you or others in comprehending MPE.

ETIQUETTE EXPECTED IN COMMENTS
Those who believe they can actually refute my posts by all means please do so in your own words & thoughts in the comments section.

I will however mark your comments as spam if you persistently attempt to use my blog as a platform to spam links to web pages of others or your own. Therefore I dont  accept links to other web pages as any formal disproof.

Anyone with the slightest integrity would use their own thoughts & words in the comments section providing me with some self-explanatory evidence of formal proof written in your own words.

So for example comments that just blindly insist banks loan us money without proving or demonstrating in your own words what consideration of commensurable value the bank or mere publisher otherwise risks or gives up — will be not approved.

If you are not prepared to validate every word you write as I have done in all my posts your comment will be rejected. If  you write for example “when a bank loans money” you have to first prove the bank loans money before you go any further, or if you write “banks create credit” you have to first prove how banks create credit.

Furthermore, I will not accept anything if its cheery picked from any of my posts, or purposely taken out of its original context as a means to digress or confuse others with contradiction, lies, or just something unqualified that the post itself or any other posts on this blog disproves.

If you genuinely think you can refute any one of my posts I suggest you read the entirety of what is in the menu before you attempt to do so, which I expect to be done with some formal, rational intelligent manner, apposed to brief rants of a raving lunatic who cant even prove or demonstrate what they pretend to know.

To be very clear I’m not about to allow, much less waste my time with charlatans, shills & pretenders who can only confuse the reader with preposterous claims of mere conjecture. I’m not here to entertain clowns with a brain the size of a pea.

GENUINE QUESTIONS
Of course any questions of genuine uncertainty are always welcome. I’m here to help those who want to be helped. No question is too stupid if you are truly sincere. I will bend over backwards to help those who want to help themselves.

Thank You

David Ardron
( Administrator )

Is Savings Deflationary in MPE ?

26 Sunday Aug 2012

Posted by in Is Savings Deflationary in MPE, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

#SHOW COMMENTS

 

 

Q : Is savings a promissory obligation that issues new money into circulation ?

A : No its not , savings or earned profit is the evidence of a unexploited  promissory obligation someone issues before publication , savings or earned profit in MPE™ is a further representation that always always always equals the issuance or representation of one of our very own UNEXPLOITED promissory  obligations   , OUR promissory obligations are the creation of money.

Savings however is the resulting evidence from the outset of an unexploited  promissory obligation.  You can give your savings away in MPE™ but you can’t issue a promissory obligation representing nothing in doing so , if you want to pay above consumption or above the remaining value of an item it has to come out of your own savings .

EXAMPLE : In the unlikely case you Issue a promissory obligation for a million dollars to buy a 100 thousand dollar house your stuck paying down a million dollars for receiving a 100 thousand dollar house aren’t you ? so it serves no purpose paying over & above what something is worth just like today? However if you skip town or die for example failing to fulfill the million dollar obligation we are left with a 100 thousand dollar house needing to retire a million dollars from circulation?, So how we insulate against these occurrences in MPE™, unfortunate or otherwise , is where all promissory obligations that issue new money into circulation are represented by remaining property value or remaining consumption left on property thus the remaining property value is fully redeemable if someone dies or skips town  , in other words the remaining property value can be sold & likewise the circulation that represents the remaining value of the property can be rightfully retired  by the new purchaser.

Q .What’s the difference between the money banks steal today  & our savings in a Mathematically Perfected Economy™?.

A . Our savings is spent directly into the economy & rightfully retired on someone else’s promissory obligation , savings is always a part of circulation & when its spent its circulates further until such time all property that was originally purchased that issued new money into circulation upon a promissory obligation looses value upon ones consumption thus the money representing what is consumed is paid down & rightfully retired from circulation at the rate of one’s consumption .

1) THE RATE OF DECREASING CIRCULATION IN MPE™? : A house may take 100 years or more to retire the circulation that represents that house . (note: In MPE™ you can pay down your house faster above consumption if you wish BUT the money you pay in advance is not retired straight away, it remains in your own account & it’s still retired as you consume the remainder of the house)

2) THE RATE INCREASING CIRCULATION  IN MPE™? : Building a new house however may take months to build so any NEW circulation that represents that NEW house or any NEW property on a whole perpetually increases circulation equal to the remaining property value & equal to remaining obligation .

So as long as people are issuing NEW promissory obligations we will always have a perpetual increase in circulation per NEW represented property value as opposed to our consumption that retires money generally at a slower rate ( not at a  lower rate ) ,consumption WE the people choose which at any rate is retiring principal equal to remaining obligation & equal to the remaining property value regardless .  So there simply is no circulatory deflation, likewise there is no deficiency in the remaining volume of circulation available to service remaining principal debt over the life time of any obligation.

Now If we use logic here folks, Saving vast sums of money cant short a circulation that’s perpetually increasing upon new representation , likewise spending vast sums of savings all at once will only result in someone else earning that money & likewise retiring that money, either now or in 100 years .

In actual fact not only we all would have the ability to own our own home in MPE™ ,we would have that much money we could also put away or save 40% or 50 % of our earned income to retire from working  , all of us will be self-funded retirees, the more you save the earlier you can retire from working if you want even at the age of 35 or 45 if you really want, its up to the individual really, you might want to work 3 days a week & retire at 55, the opportunities & freedom of choice is endless? Now if we look at this in another perspective if we pay down circulation at the rate of consumption or depreciation industry &  commerce in MPE™ would also have this extra money to expand business , employ more people , pay more to people , unemployment will be by choice NOT IMPOSED ,employment will flourish , likewise we won’t be wasting vast amounts of natural resources because business will be paying their principal debt down at the rate of depreciation or consumption so naturally things will be built to last longer resulting in lower rates of payment over the lifetime of what is purchased to retire money thus leaving more capital or earned profit to expand business , pay more money to employees , employ more employees, likewise competition  will also flourish keeping the price or cost of production competitive in what will be a true free enterprise market based on innovation rather than built in obsolescence & a throw away society   . Price inflation on a whole will be a thing of the past. Price inflation today is caused by interest that’s imposed on all our industry & commerce which is passed on to the consumer  , there is no interest imposed in MPE™.     Having written this folks ,anyone who denies MPE™ must have rocks in their head?

Whereas what the difference  between savings in MPE™ to what banks do today is the banks first steal the principal we create ,as a result or consequence of this theft often 2X OR 3X the principal in interest over the lifetime of an “ alleged loan “  is also stolen perpetually shorting circulation until such time the same money stolen & laundered out of circulation on all our own falsified debt to local banks is loaned back as irreversible sums of national debt , only then its spent back into circulation to re-inflate circulation by criminal politicians or government representatives merely attempting then to re-inflate a circulation that’s always perpetually depleting or being stolen at a greater rate than any prior rate of perpetual re-inflation that’s necessary so at least some of us ( not all of us mathematically impossible ) can physically earn that money to service the former debt or our falsified debts to banks thus keeping the banking cycles of dispossession or theft going . See Banks vs MPE Illustrations .

Q : What’s the difference between the interest I charge to a friend than a bank charging interest?

A : You will spend that interest further into circulation eventually so your NOT shorting circulation  & it’s more than likely earned profit your charging NOT INTEREST, realistically we don’t charge interest if we loan money to friends, You’re not a bank or publisher who steals & launders principal & interest out of circulation, shorting circulation so other people can’t spend that money further into the economy , the only way people can spend that money again today is if  a criminal government who works for the banks  ( NOT US ) periodically borrows that same money back again irreversibly multiplying debt then spends that money into the economy so you can then earn it ,then spend it or pay your falsified debt to a local bank which actually continues the cycles of dispossession public & private.

CONCLUSION:
If you practice banking in MPE™ you will be charged with treason it’s that simple folks.

Further Notes:
The meaning of  ” inflation ” is to increase but its an abnormal or distorted increase,  so there is no such thing as inflation & deflation in MPE™ because there is no distortion or abnormality ,even circulatory in nature neither a increase or decrease of circulation is abnormal or distorts the availability of the remaining volume of circulation that it was intended to represent in relation to remaining property value & remaining principal debt /obligation which are balanced or always equal at all times .

With the total eradication of interest In MPE™ we have no price inflation on whole because the interest imposed on all our business & commerce today that’s likewise passed onto the consumer is non existent in MPE™  .

Circulatory Inflation & deflation therefore just doesn’t happen from the get go in MPE™ even when an obligor issues a promissory obligation for new represented property that  issues new money into circulation simply because this increase of circulation is immediately equal to the remaining principal debt & remaining value of the property that the obligor purchased so long as the obligor retires principal at the rate of their consumption there is no inflation or deflation.

Deflation is  to reduce or a reduction in the availability of circulation resulting in a deficient circulation . so in MPE™ we don’t even have deflation or an insufficient volume of circulation simply because we will always have exactly the required amount of money per representation available  left in circulation to pay down & retire the remaining  principal  from circulation in servicing any outstanding obligation , balancing then circulation equal to the remaining obligation & equal to the remaining property value .

Circulatory Inflation & Circulatory deflation therefore means there is a volumetric impropriety that exists in the remaining availability or volume of circulation  for what it was intended to represent  which is a volume of circulation  that’s abnormally  above or  below its intended representation, therefore the remaining  volume of circulation is not balanced or  not equal to the remaining property value & not equal to the remaining obligation or debt.

comment full 2

What is Quantitative Easing

09 Saturday Jun 2012

Posted by in Uncategorized, What is Quantitative Easing

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

#SHOW COMMENTS

Reality Check: Is QE-3 Really About Forcing You to Invest In Risky Stocks.

http://k002.kiwi6.com/hotlink/727jpo0019/new_quantative_easing.mp3%20

The question we all should be asking here in this video folks is what is the reality of the process that allows the central bank to flood money to local bank A & B to Z, or where does the central bank really get their money from & where it actually goes ?

Well well the local banks A to Z uses the alleged borrowers credit worthiness or the only lawful consideration given up by the obligor which is the alleged borrowers promissory note to then borrow money from a central bank who in turn then publishes a secondary issuance , or for a better term, publishes a further representation, which is a purposed  misrepresentation of the former contractual obligation , or promissory note, so as to, then, allegedly loan a purposed misinterpretation, or  (bank money, credit ) to the alleged borrower.

Interest paid out of circulation on all our private but falsified debt to local banks not only perpetually depletes a general circulation that only ever consists of some remaining principal at most, but the interest the central bank actually charges to the local bank using the obligor’s consideration to publish the bank money is always lower than what the local bank charges on an alleged loan to the alleged borrower or obligor ,thus the difference in interest is the local banks unearned profit or unjust reward for stealing & laundering circulation (principal & interest) into the hands of the central banking system.

Both the central bank & the local banks risk nothing of their own really except the mere cost of publication that would amount to about $2 to publish $200,000 the obligor or alleged borrower actually creates thus the $2 the bank gives up is recovered in a fraction of the alleged borrower’s first payment?   , the local banks always use ” our consideration or our promissory note / promissory obligation ”  ( not the banks own consideration) to borrow money from a central bank that we the people always create upon conception , before any banking book entry .

No new money ever comes into existence, not until one of us issues a promissory obligation first, thus the bank money or further representation / misrepresentation today did not even exist until an alleged borrower walks into a local bank (money laundering office A to Z) & signs a promissory obligation, contrary to the LIE that merely assumes a central bank creates new money NOT even via the Quantitative Easing process .

There are no safe bets even in a share market that consequently takes further unearned profits from the pool of wealth particularly in the terminal cycles of dispossession public & private when the people totally loose their credit worthiness preventing them from issuing further promissory obligations ( money creation ) where our own falsified debt has multiplied into unsustainable but irreversible terminal sums of debt that simply can’t be serviced any further which then in turn prevents the local banks from stealing & laundering circulation servicing their own debts resulting in bailouts , likewise preventing or restricting our criminal government representatives servicing any further national debt by selling bonds as a consequence only attempting to re inflate circulation ( as they always have in the past ) by re-borrowing the principal & interest .( we the people paid out of circulation on our own falsified debts to all local banks A to Z over the years ), borrowing  back into circulation, all along multiplying falsified debt into terminal sums of irreversible falsified debt, attempting ,then, to flood STOLEN money ( NOT MONEY PRINTED OR  CREATED OUT OF THIN AIR OR NOTHING ), but borrowing it back into circulation therefore, either directly to the local banks as bailouts, or by spending all this dirty money,  back into the economy as perpetual re-inflation, on projects a nation doesn’t necessarily need nor can otherwise sustain regardless so long as the little Ole bank down the corner are purposefully obfuscating our very own promissory obligations along with all the other ground floor banks ( no exceptions ) who are all stealing & laundering circulation at a greater rate than any former rate of reflation which is clearly evident by increasing national debt upon further cycles of reflation that’s necessary today to maintain a circulation or pay any prior falsified debt paid stolen  out of circulation  which always leaves us with an adverse volumetric disposition or a lack of vital circulation to sustain industry & commerce thus only as a consequence  failing to sustain any share market / casino .

Unlike bailouts that irreversibly multiplies artificial debt paid to local banks to service their own debt   , Quantitative Easing therefore, bypass’s a multiplication of national debt where parcels of mortgage securities  or rather parcels of  ” alleged borrowers ” promissory obligations that have the only consideration of value ( consideration of commensurable value not given up by any bank)  are  not only used as collateral value to publish money, but fraudulently on sold  by local banks directly to the central banks & associates who actually purchase these mortgage securities / promissory obligations using the already stolen money received over the years ( stolen originally via the banks purposed obfuscation of the peoples promissory obligations & resulting taxes/ revenue scams etc,   ) only to then settle or rather offset inter-banking banking  debt much like a bailout would only with out multiplying national debt   , both of which ” bailouts & ( QE ) ” merely keeps the banks doors open by settling inter-banking debt which in most if not in all cases ends up back into the hands of the central banking system as apposed to being spent or even allegedly loaned back into circulation via the peoples very own personal but private falsified debts, which is purely as a result or a direct consequence where industry & commerce are losing an ever greater volume of credit worthiness or when increasing amounts of people ( people who create principal ) no longer have the ability to first earn ” principal & interest ” out of a circulation that’s only ever comprised of some remaining principal at the very most ,  however increasing sums of national debt, bailouts, ( QE ), even unnecessary  taxes, revenue scams, sales  of public infrastructure, sales of  land & natural resources is a further imposition not only imposed by banks but by the criminal politicians who work for banks ( not the people ) that’s all necessary today to keep  the banking cycles of dispossession going so its physically possible for those who are still credit worthy to actually continue servicing their falsified debts to local banks & likewise as a result its only then temporarily possible to sustain any share market / casino. see banks vs MPE  illustrations

comment full 2