• HOME (click header above)
  • ONE PROBLEM (NEW)
  • ONE TRUTH (NEW)
  • ONE SOLUTION (NEW)
  • MIKES MODEL
  • THE MATHEMATICS
  • 2013 MANDATE
  • GLOSSARY OF TERMS
  • POD CASTS
  • AUSTRALIAN DEBT CLOCK
  • DICTIONARY
  • (Android & iOS)

Australia for Mathematically Perfected Economy™

Australia for Mathematically Perfected Economy™

Tag Archives: deflation

Is Bitcoin the solution?

30 Friday Jun 2017

Posted by australia4mpe in bitcoin, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

911, Australian banks, bank of England, banks, Bill Still, central bank, coins, Constitution, contract, contractual obligation, credit, criminals, debt, deflation, Dennis Kucinich, G. Edward Griffin, kevin rudd, math’s, mathematically perfected economy, money, plagiarist, promissory note, recession, Ron Paul, Rothschild, silver, solution, tax, the great depression, The Secret of Oz, truth, usury, war

BITCOIN suggests to seek their wiki FAQ page for more information about   bitcoin where it defines “ stabilize ” to “ sticky economics ” which is based on what is a broad range of mere unqualified assumptions & LIES, which could not be any further away from being stable, so in other words bitCON has no means to solve inflation & deflation & nor will it.

To actually claim BitCONS have value as bitcoin suggests because they are useful & because they are scarce is  not  only admitting BitCON has unaccountable representation but likewise has a volumetric impropriety to begin with as any gold standard would or had in the past, * useful * does not qualify immutable representation nor does * scarcity *  qualify stable whatsoever.

Scarcity of money today by imposed interest on a falsified debt is the very reason why we have a irreversible multiplication of artificial debt, so be assured as soon as bitcoin starts lending, ( SEE HERE WHERE BITCON HAS BEEN GIVEN THE GO AHEAD TO OPERATE AS A BANK ) they have just stepped into the bankers shoes of terminal exploitation. Actually they already have one shoe on because they are complying with banking regulation, which is the very reason why there is an exchange of bank money to acquire Bitcoins in the first place, thus any bitcoin value is not only wholly artificial but is logically a further misrepresentation derived from a former misrepresentation — originating from the banks purposed obfuscation of our promissory obligations we have to each other.

Contrary to those advocating bitcoin merely assuming it has no connection to banking whatsoever — the connection is not only to initially purchase bitcoin with bank money, SEE HERE & HERE , but bitcoin has to likewise conform with the current banking regulation , SEE HERE .

The idea of microeconomics or competing currencies within a nation  fails at its core concept by not addressing the nation’s volume of circulation on a macro level first, & the very act of exchanging money & property with another currency subject to artificial manipulation such as today’s bank money opens up the door for one currency adversely affecting another – that may or may not otherwise have an adverse volumetric disposition.

Micro currencies competing within any nation is an epic fail of rudimentary logic & is stupid as stupid gets, simply because it fails to address how one currency & its represented property effects the volume of another currency & its represented property upon any exchange?.

In truth greed blinds most if not all people to the fact cryptocurencies are online gambling rackets much like online casinos. The only difference is you can spend your chips outside the casino at recommended retail outlets who likewise gamble at your choice of casino, & or alternatively you can simply cash your chips in at the casino & purchase whatever.

Now if the creators of bitCON think they have already addressed inflation & deflation using references from today’s LIE of economy “ sticky economics ”, more the fools who put their trust in these charlatans ignorantly believing bitCON is a economic or monetary solution.

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

(Published : June 30, 2017, last edit March 02, 2018)

Rate this:

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

Does taxation fund government expenditure?

30 Friday Jun 2017

Posted by australia4mpe in Does taxation fund government expenditure?

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

911, Australian banks, bank of England, Bill Still, central bank, coins, Constitution, contract, contractual obligation, credit, criminals, debt, deflation, Dennis Kucinich, freedom, G. Edward Griffin, illuminati, interest, intrinsic, liberty, mandate, math’s, mathematically perfected economy, money, plagiarist, promissory note, recession, Ron Paul, Rothschild, silver, solution, tax, taxation, the great depression, The Secret of Oz, usury, war

Lets be very clear all government expenditure is financed by the people in private debt, simply because it is the people who give up the only commensurable consideration of value.

Government expenditure has been always financed by the people, NOT BY TAXATION, but instead  by a process of reflation where purported representatives of the people whether its on federal, state or council levels are perpetually re-borrowing (alleged borrowing [LAUNDERING]) what has formerly been stolen & paid out of circulation in purported loans within the private sectors, only to have that same money come back again & again, over & over as an ever greater escalation in government debt, which is the very thing that finances government expenditure, apposed to the long time fallacy or barefaced lie that just keeps on telling everybody taxation otherwise does.

Taxation under banking is therefore not funding government expenditure. It never has but instead either directly or indirectly paid into the banks coffers via political extortion. Contrary AGAIN to the age old LIE that otherwise suggests taxation finances federal or government expenditure. We categorically know this is a LIE, simply because firstly logic alone should rightly tell any dummy government spending always comes before taxation, & secondly no one on the face of this planet can prove or demonstrate how the sum of interest is created or issued into circulation above the sum of principal.

Moreover & just as important nor can anyone prove or demonstrate what consideration of value the bank or mere publisher is risking or giving up to even justify their purported creation of principal, nor for that matter & just as equally important can anyone prove or demonstrate what consideration these thieves are risking or giving up in any purported loan to one of us in the private sector.

Therefore the primary school mathematics & rudimentary logic is telling anyone of sound mind that taxation has never ever funded federal expenditure under banking, when its instead entirely dedicated to service but never pay down government debt.

Its even debatable if taxation has ever worked at all financing government expenditure, other than working as a further crime of theft under the pretense of taxation funding government, which to be frank is a debate I could win with absolute certainty in the first round.

The fact alone taxation is not ever retired is the smoking gun that actually proves taxation is purposely misappropriated by political betrayers — as a means to steal & or extort even further money from the people to service a falsified debt that is mathematically impossible to pay down.

It comes as no surprise then that not one politician on the face of this planet has ever worked for or represented the people under the ruse of banking, simply because facts alone prove politicians work for & represent the very thieves who rob the people — via purported loans in all private sectors that politicians facilitate with criminal legislation, which are so called loans that neither ethically or rationally transpire in the first place. Subsequently imposing not only unjustified interest but unwarranted taxation as a further crime of theft yet again. Primarily due to the volumetric impropriety of interest (perpetual deflation) imposed an all private falsified debt.

Contrary to what you have all been led to believe since birth we the people have been the only true fiduciary issuers & creators of all new money which is only the sum of principal. Telling anyone using nothing more than primary school mathematics, logic & rudimentary deduction that taxation has never ever funded government expenditure, not ever & never will as a matter of fact.

Banks on the other hand or mere publishers of money cant even prove nor demonstrate they create the principal, much less the interest that unfortunately sets off these cycles of perpetual deflation & subsequent cycles of reflation, which is the very process that irreversibly multiplies all this falsified debt into terminal debt. Lets not forget all the other resulting crimes of injustice & theft that follow as a consequence & the very reason why I’m writing this post, such as unwarranted taxation that can only at best service but never ever pay down government debt.

At the end of the day banking is an inherent terminal process that no amount of regulation or taxation/extortion can ever solve. Without exception any or all regulation under banking can only at best temper or prolong ultimate monetary destruction so we all fall that much harder in the end.

The statement below further proves the Australian taxation department is purposely misleading the Australian tax payers. At the very top it tells you the government is allegedly spending income tax by presenting you with a graph outlining where its all spent, but just under that in all contradiction it likewise tells you the government debt has increased, only AS IF taxation for some unknown reason is not servicing that government debt.

Ask yourselves if it is true your taxation is spent on what is outlined in the graph below. The first logical question one might ask is where else is the government spending every increase in government debt if its not on what is outlined in the graph?

Secondly what is actually servicing the total government debt if income tax is otherwise spent on what is outlined in the graph. Is it just consumption/sales tax & all other public revenue servicing government debt or is income tax inclusive?

Thirdly how can the government logically spend what has not yet been collected in taxation?  Because blind Freddy can even see government spending always comes before taxation. This fact alone tells anyone of sound mind taxation can’t possibly be funding government expenditure.

In fact we have already proven so long as we are all paying *principal + interest* out of a forever deficient circulation comprised of only some remaining *principal* the funding of government by taxation is mathematically impossible.  Whereby as a matter of consequence dedicates all public revenue, including any or all taxation to service the former sum of government debt — but never actually pay down every new sum of government debt on each & every cycle of reflation in government expenditure. Evidencing a further fact politicians are instead spending every increase in government debt that is formerly stolen in private debt, apposed to just spending the resulting taxation, public revenues such as rates, vehicle registrations, license’s, traffic fines etc, which AGAIN can only at best service government debt but never ever pay it down due to interest.

In relation to the misleading document below the total government debt, including federal, state & local government (council) debt is currently at 739 billion & rising, apposed to this gross 427 figure.

Make no mistake my sorely divided countrymen the second biggest LIE next to the biggest LIE that suggests BANKS LOAN US MONEY is the further LIE that suggests TAXATION FUNDS GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE.

In short anything or anyone that preserves this monumental crime of theft & not just the lie that suggests taxation funds government expenditure, but likewise the biggest lie — that suggest we borrow or loan money from banks — is making it much, much, much worse for each & everyone of us.

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

(Published : June 30, 2017, last edit January 13, 2018)

 

Rate this:

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

Is gold a viable solution?

30 Friday Jun 2017

Posted by australia4mpe in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

911, Australian banks, bank of England, banks, Bill Still, central bank, coins, Constitution, contract, contractual obligation, credit, criminals, debt, deflation, Dennis Kucinich, freedom, G. Edward Griffin, gold, gold standard, interest, intrinsic, math’s, plagiarist, promissory note, recession, Ron Paul, Rothschild, silver, solution, sovereignty, the great depression, The Secret of Oz, truth, usury, war

Absolutely not, simply because there is not enough volume of gold out there to equal all our labour & production, much less equal any increase in our production.

The inherent volumetric impropriety (perpetual deflation) of any finite metal such as gold acts much the same as the volumetric impropriety of interest perpetually devaluing our production & the physical gold or money itself it further represents.

Having gold as an unnecessary further representation of our labour & production yet again is utter buffoonery, considering our labour & production already has the only intrinsic value & the added volumetric impropriety of interest can only escalate terminal monetary destruction all that much faster, which is the very reason why gold is no longer used to represent our production, primarily as a means to prolong monetary destruction even further so banks can keep on stealing the value of our labour & production & not devalue the gold they have already stolen.

Considering banks do not ever create money or ever give up consideration of value in any purported loan to one of us LOGICALLY all gold that once represented money in the past has already been physically stolen by banking in falsified debts that are mathematically impossible to pay down, if not due to the inherent volumetric impropriety of gold itself its by interest or both.

Therefore even if we eradicated the crime of banking & or interest returning a gold standard or even using physical gold coin as currency is stupid as stupid gets because you are still left with perpetual, monumental deflation.

All those who believe gold can somehow hold the solution only proves to me these deranged individuals not only failed primary school mathematics but do not even know what money is, how its really created & what it truly represents, which is not a gold coin or gold bar, but instead the value of our labour & production that has the only intrinsic value all money past, present & future records, evidences & represents.

What these fools fail to conclude is its only the volume of money, regardless if the tokens of representation are in the form of fiat/paper, gold/coin/bar, coffee beans, rum, or dog shit–money ultimately has to equal our labour & production in volume. So unless you want to carry around dog shit in your pocket fiat/paper money is the only viable rational alternative .

Of course you could carry around gold coins in your pocket, however as we increase our production those coins will be getting smaller & smaller in size/weight/volume to equal any increase in production, which is not only devaluing the physical gold itself, but devaluing what that gold is supposed represent— in our labour & production.

In other words the money itself is only numbers in volume that further represents the underpinning value of our labour & production, or our hard earned, blood sweat & tears we give up to each other, which is hardly nothing or thin air, otherwise banks would not be stealing the value of our labour & production in purported loans that do not ethically or even rationally transpire in the first place .

I have literally lost count how many times I have proven to the world gold is not a viable monetary solution, it never has as a matter of verifiable mathematical fact, but unfortunately there are those out there who still insist gold is the viable solution, without proving & even demonstrating it ever has been a viable solution or ever can be a viable solution.

So the question I ask these deranged individuals is where is your mathematics? Where is your logic? How do you account for deflation?

The simple answer is you cant, because you have thrown all rudimentary logic & mathematics out the window & instead solely relying on mere conjecture, unqualified assumptions & more often barefaced lies to sell non-solution only as if it was a solution.

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


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

 

Rate this:

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

Is banking regulation a solution?

30 Friday Jun 2017

Posted by australia4mpe in banking regulation

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

911, Australian banks, bank of England, banks, central bank, coins, Constitution, contract, contractual obligation, credit, criminals, debt, deflation, Dennis Kucinich, G. Edward Griffin, gold, gold standard, liberty, math’s, mathematically perfected economy, money, plagiarist, promissory note, recession, Ron Paul, Rothschild, silver, tax, the great depression, The Secret of Oz, truth, usury

No banking regulation has ever addressed the banks purposed obfuscation of our promissory obligations to each other, nor will any banking regulation do so, because if it did address the purposed obfuscation of our promissory obligations it would be a complete eradication of banking altogether, simply because banks could not even exist if they did not charge interest, which is the inherent fault that in turn always, always, always multiplies falsified debt into terminal sums of falsified debt.

The primary school mathematics tells anyone of sound mind the remaining volume of an already deficient circulation is dedicated to always service the former sum of artificial debt, escalating any or all new sums of falsified debt in further cycles of reflation to always service the former sum of artificial debt yet again, which is clearly mathematically impossible to pay down so long as we are all paying any sum of interest (perpetual deflation) out of circulation on all our personal falsified debts to banks.

Therefore anyone advocating any banking regulation which is not addressing the purposed obfuscation & terminal exploitation of our very own promissory obligations we have to each other is therefore advocating terminal exploitation by a preservation of the very banks who rob us all today, simply because banking regulation can only at best temper or prolong ultimate monetary destruction.

And here we have ” Stiglitz” from the world bank, one of the biggest perpetrators of the crimes against humanity , with his Nobel WAR prize essentially telling us we need to artificially sustain today’s lie of economy for as long as possible so the banks can steal the remainder of all our property wealth, & of all things selling this regulation BS to the audience as if its a good thing.

Any purported investment resulting from a purported loan can only be a monumental crime of THEFT & if you increased wages the banks can only increase interest rates, stealing even further from us, which will not only artificially inflate prices, but subsequently justify taxing your income even further to service federal debt ( perpetual reflation ) that’s mathematically impossible to pay down.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) today is the market value of all goods & services produced within a country in a given year, so the GDP is the percentage rate of the theft of ” otherwise growth ” in a given year.

Logic tells us GDP does not equate to any growth if its stolen in a pretend loan “X2 ” due to interest & purportedly loaned back as an irreversible multiplication of artificial debt giving one only the illusion of growth.

Therefore the lower GDP rate the closer we all come to ultimate destruction because we are producing less & less to service an irreversible multiplication artificial deb.  The higher the GDP rate simply means there is more room for more stealing — always dedicated to service the former sum of debt of course — yet never paying down any new sum of artificial debt regardless.

Lets not forget the further crime theft, where political betrayers extort money from the people in unwarranted taxation on behalf of banks. Exploiting all those who are lucky enough to remain credit worthy at the unjust expense of all those who have lost everything through no real fault of their own, such as homeless children, which is indeed a rate of dispossession growing exponentially every day in Australia & across the world.

You don’t & you never will get a mathematically perfected economy™ from snake oil salesmen rather you get division, fear, lies & deception every time, & when that day comes, under every rock you will find hiding pretenders , usurers, advocates of usury, phony “economists” ( Joseph Stiglitz ) … & all the seekers of unearned profit who knew not even how to limit their great crime against us.

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

(Published : June 30, 2017, last edit July 15, 2017)

Rate this:

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

What exactly is inflation?

30 Friday Jun 2017

Posted by australia4mpe in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

911, Australian banks, bank of England, central bank, Constitution, contract, contractual obligation, credit, debt, deflation, Dennis Kucinich, gold, gold standard, interest, intrinsic, mathematically perfected economy, Ron Paul, silver, tax, the great depression, The Secret of Oz, truth, usury, war

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 be 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)

Rate this:

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

Is interest free banking the solution?

30 Friday Jun 2017

Posted by australia4mpe in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

911, Australian banks, bank of England, banks, Bill Still, central bank, coins, Constitution, contract, contractual obligation, credit, criminals, debt, deflation, Dennis Kucinich, freedom, inflation, interest, INTEREST FREE BANKING, intrinsic, promissory note, recession, Ron Paul, Rothschild, silver, tax, the great depression, The Secret of Oz, truth, usury, war

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)

 

Rate this:

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

Is Nationalizing Banks a Solution?

30 Friday Jun 2017

Posted by australia4mpe in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

911, Australian banks, bank of England, banks, Bill Still, central bank, coins, Constitution, contract, contractual obligation, credit, criminals, debt, deflation, Dennis Kucinich, G. Edward Griffin, illuminati, interest, mathematically perfected economy, money, Nationalizing the Central Bank, plagiarist, recession, Ron Paul, Rothschild, silver, solution, tax, the great depression, The Secret of Oz, truth, usury, war

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)

 

Rate this:

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

Money vs Credit

30 Friday Jun 2017

Posted by australia4mpe in Money vs Credit

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

911, Australian banks, bank of England, Bill Still, central bank, coins, contract, contractual obligation, credit, criminals, debt, deflation, Dennis Kucinich, freedom, G. Edward Griffin, illuminati, interest, intrinsic, mandate, mathematically perfected economy, money, promissory note, recession, Ron Paul, Rothschild, sovereignty, tax, the great depression, The Secret of Oz, truth, usury, war

Before we begin its important to understand the words “credit ” &  “debit” are terms used in accounting. The credit entry is the amount added to an account. The debit entry is the amount subtracted from an account.

Where everyone goes terribly wrong concerning “money” & “credit”, however, is the assumption credit is money, when credit is instead value given up in exchange for money.

For example the value of a home in any sale is the credit value given up in return for monetary value.  So just because an account has been credited the money value & or “money & credit” has equal value is not to blindly assume money value is credit value.

Although it is true money & credit are representations of value — both have very different origins of value each to their own in one very important but often totally ignored respect.

MONEY:
1) Money or a promissory note / obligation represents the immediate or future value the buyer is giving up, however the issuer or creator of new money is the obligor (still the buyer) which is value that represents the obligor’s own immediate & or future production which has consideration of value.

CREDIT:
2) Credit is simply the value the seller is giving up such as a home which has consideration of value.

CONCLUSION:
Therefore the exchange of different entitlements of value or transaction of two different origins of value, such as for example money value the buyer gives up & credit value the seller gives up is what logically makes a debt when those values of entitlement to another’s production each to their own is exchanged in any debt, sale, trade or transaction & only then is there a transfer of entitlement of value between the buyer & seller.

Therefore money simply records, evidences & likewise represents the value of our labour & production we give up to each other, however it is important to understand money not only records, but likewise evidences the exchange of two representations of value “money & credit” that points to who is actually giving up consideration of value, which are in fact not one & the same that the ruse of banking would otherwise have you believe to the contrary for reasons I articulate in the next paragraph, when they are instead values each to their own exchanged in any debt, sale, trade or transaction.

THE RUSE OF BANKING:
The ruse of banking is of course quite simple & that is purported banks not only pretend to be the real creditor otherwise giving up a home in a transaction — whom I might add cant even rationally lend what has not yet been paid to them, but its clearly evident when banks repossess what the bank never possessed in the first place. Furthermore the bank likewise pretends they create money one & the same as the creditor only AS IF the creditor creates money, purportedly creating & issuing money when the bank is clearly neither the creditor much less even the creator of money (purported credit), simply because banks do not risk or give up commensurable consideration of value. Not in the banks pretended creation or mere publication of OUR money. Not in any purported loan to one of us. Not in any debt, sale, trade or transaction.

What essentially transpires under the ruse of banking is both the buyer & seller are still physically giving up value in the one & only true debt such as any sale, trade or transaction of money & credit, but not from any bank to you the buyer in any purported loan (falsified debt) preceding the sale.

The bank is only ever loaning (pretend loan) the value of your own production back to you & then charging you a further sum of principal again in unwarranted interest for the privilege of being robbed of the former sum of principal in a purported loan that never ever transpires in the first place, due to the banks unjust intervention on the true debt we have to each other, where the bank is neither risking or giving up consideration of value from the banks otherwise prior legitimate possession.

Logically there never was or ever is any loan or borrowing. Making the purported loan a monumental crime of theft instead, which is not only stealing the value of one home equal to the buyers immediate & or future production, but often due to interest the bank is stealing twice the value of the home that can & in fact does multiply the theft 1000 fold — over the decades — in subsequent sales of homes, which is not only artificially inflating the price of homes into oblivion but everything else due to the added cost of interest, only to steal all that much further from each & everyone of us when we simply spend money today.

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


(Published : June 30, 2017, last edit August 27, 2017)

 

Rate this:

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

Do banks create money from debt securities?

30 Tuesday May 2017

Posted by australia4mpe in DO BANKS CREATE MONEY FROM A DEBT SECURITY?, Uncategorized

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

911, Australian banks, bank of England, banks, Bill Still, central bank, coins, Constitution, contract, contractual obligation, credit, criminals, debt, deflation, Dennis Kucinich, freedom, gold, gold standard, illuminati, inflation, interest, mathematically perfected economy, plagiarist, recession, Rothschild, silver, tax, the great depression, The Secret of Oz, truth, usury, war

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)

 

Rate this:

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

E.C. Riegel vs M. Montagne

21 Wednesday Oct 2015

Posted by australia4mpe in E.C. Riegel vs M. Montagne, Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

Australian banks, banks, central bank, coins, Constitution, contractual obligation, credit, criminals, debt, deflation, E.C. Riegel, inflation, interest, mathematically perfected economy, Mike Montagne, plagiarist, promissory note, recession, Rothschild, the great depression, truth, usury, war

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.

Rate this:

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...
← Older posts
Newer posts →

MPE Categories

  • HOME (click header above)
  • ONE PROBLEM (NEW)
  • ONE TRUTH (NEW)
  • ONE SOLUTION (NEW)
  • MIKES MODEL
  • THE MATHEMATICS
  • 2013 MANDATE
  • GLOSSARY OF TERMS
  • POD CASTS
  • AUSTRALIAN DEBT CLOCK
  • DICTIONARY
  • (Android & iOS)

Related Posts (NEW)

FOI request Bank of England

Banks have no poof of claim

Gross Domestic Product

Debt Securities

Origin of money

Aussie Elections

True Debt vs Falsified Debt

Surplus vs Deficit

Money vs Credit

Promise vs IOU

Money vs Receipts

Good Debt vs Bad Debt

Referendum vs Plebiscite

Determine vs Predict

Trading EQUAL production

Money laundering

Pretended experts

Fractional Reserve Banking

Economic buffoonery

MPE Cult Propaganda

The cost of a home

Supply & Demand

The Ancient Ruse

Share Markets

Bankruptcy

Boom & Bust

Global Debt

Buying local

Super theft

Inflation

Taxation

Growth

WAR

NON-SOLUTIONS (NEW)

Debt free money

Nationalizing banks

Interest free banking

Moneyless trade

Banking regulation

Gold standard

Bitcoin/Cryptocurrency

Quantitative Easing & Bailouts

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 66 other followers

Contact Admin

David Ardron

Notes from Admin

Updates & Comment etiquette

ARCHIVE

Former Posts under revision

Blog Stats

  • 59,580 hits

  • Follow Following
    • Australia for Mathematically Perfected Economy™
    • Join 66 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Australia for Mathematically Perfected Economy™
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d bloggers like this: