Tag Archives: freedom

What is debt free money.

29 Thursday Oct 2020

Posted by in Uncategorized, What is debt free money

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

Debt free money is a rational impossibility simply because all money pays a debt.

(Debt free money = Oxymoron).

Loan free money however is rationally possible because the true creator of all new money is always the debtor, predominately the obligor who is a debtor nonetheless.

(Loan free money = Interest free money).

” Contrary to the common misconception that otherwise suggests banks create & or loan money they in fact don’t, never have, or ever will, simply because they have no proof of claim . To be very clear not one bank on the face of this planet can prove or even demonstrate what consideration of commensurable value they would either risk or give up from their otherwise prior legitimate possession.”

Often people will equate “debt free money” to “interest free money” which is false, omitting the evidential fact there never was or ever is any loan. They do this simply because they irrationally believe the solution is where the government can legitimately create & or legitimately loan the principal free from the imposition of interest — without taking into deliberation the government, much like all private banks are NOT the debtor (obligor), nor the true creditor (someone that is legitimately giving up property to the debtor in exchange for money) who are giving up commensurable value to each other from their otherwise prior legitimate possession.

Make no mistake. Under the ruse of banking (public or private) that pretends to create & loan money  “governments” are neither legitimate buyers (debtors) nor legitimate sellers (creditors), nor are they legitimate lenders if they give up no consideration of value from their otherwise prior legitimate possession.

Of course in a world without thieving banks or unjust intervention (public or private) the debtor simply “pays & retires” the principal without the imposition of unwarranted interest.

In other words under MPE nothing comes for free. It is the debtor who always pays the true creditor in full for whatever regardless, & only then it’s the “debtor’s obligation” that initially creates the principal (new money) to go out & earn that principal to therefore redeem that principal, so it can be rightfully retired or deleted from the monetary system.

The result is NO deflation, NO reflation, nor any inflation if the principal is rightfully retired equal to depreciation or consumption of the related property (see the mathematics).

Please note: One could argue “circulatory deflation” occurs under MPE when the principal is retired & “circulatory inflation/reflation”  likewise occurs when new money is created upon new represented property, however it’s important to understand so long as we are retiring the principal at the rate of depreciation or consumption of the related property these fluctuations are irrelevant comparative to the terminal cycles of deflation & reflation caused by interest today.

Within this whole process the only “True Debt” we have to each other always remains so long as we are “giving” up our production to each other, simply trading that production, & or as a matter of money being further spent within the monetary circulation until such time that principal is rightfully retired by the debtor (obligor), however it’s important to note here there are NO loans, NO borrowing, NO paying back anyone.

(Loan free money = Interest free money).

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

(Published : Oct 29, 2020, Edit:Jan27,2021)

Comment etiquette please

 

Is a moneyless society a solution?

02 Monday Oct 2017

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

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

To begin it’s important for the readers to comprehend since the very conception of money dating back as far as 2000BC — money has always been a record of entitlement to another’s production. In other words money in its simplest terms is “accounting” that records, evidences & represents the value of our labour & production we ordinarily give up to each other in any exchange or sale of goods & services.

Therefore by throwing the baby (money) out with the bath water (banking) is actually throwing away the accounting altogether, which is basically removing the very thing that can evidence if we are giving up equal representations of wealth to each other from the overall pool of wealth, but likewise throwing away what can otherwise prove if someone is taking more from the overall pool of wealth than what they themselves are actually contributing or giving back to that overall pool of wealth.

In short if wasn’t for money we couldn’t identity a thief, much less even prove they’re a thief such as today’s banking system who give up no consideration of value. The only reason why banks are getting away with a monumental crime of  theft is because most if not all people dont even know what money is, how its really created & what it truly represents.

Logically so long as there is just one man or women possessed by greed on this planet a moneyless society opens up the door for further exploitation, or theft of another’s production. Make no mistake only if or when mankind ever becomes perfect in every which way, bereft of all greed or desire is the day mankind might consider a moneyless system of exchange & not before. Until that day comes money is our only protection.

Sadly the proponents of a moneyless society fail to conclude it is not the money itself or debt that commits the crime against us, but purported banks that are not even banks by any definition of the word “bank” found in the dictionary.

Instead of identifying the thief (ie:bank) who is foreign to the contract or exchange of our production that subsequently steals the value of our production in a purported loan — the advocates of purported solutions such as “Zeitgeist” or “Ubuntu” are irrationally declaring all money & all debt is the problem, when the fact remains all money regardless of any misrepresentation of the debt or money itself still records, evidences & represents the value of our labour & production we GIVE UP TO EACH OTHER other in any sale, trade or transaction — where there never was or ever is any loan or borrowing.

The hidden truth that the proponents of moneyless trade are not telling you is banks or mere publishers of money do not ever create or loan us money. If they ever did they would already know what money is, how its really created & what it truly represents, which will in turn expose the flaw in their purported solution, leaving the door wide open for further exploitation, where thieves & criminals could run a muck knowing there is no method of accounting whatsoever that can otherwise prove their guilt.

Its bad enough having a method of accounting today that falsifies a debt to a thief who gives up squat — that I might add no one wants to ever address, but quite frankly throwing out the accounting (money) altogether is just asking to be robbed.

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


(Published : October 02, 2017, last edit October 02, 2017)

 

 

Is Australia Bankrupt?

04 Monday Sep 2017

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

You don’t have to be Albert Einstein to figure out every nation on the face of this planet is already bankrupt.

Its no secret bankruptcy is mathematically guaranteed — so long as we are all paying *principal + interest* out of a monetary circulation comprised of only some remaining *principal* at most.

Do the primary school mathematics yourselves folks. Its only a matter adding & subtracting, but these morons in finance, politics & usury media alike today cant even do that, which is clearly evident when they insistently blame one of the many symptoms as the cause of financial hardship instead.

Example : Principal = 10, Interest = 5.

10 − (10 + 5) = −5.

NOTE: The result is a negative 5, NOT a positive 5.

Anyone with half a brain should know if your sum debit (−) is greater than your sum credit (+) you are effectively BROKE.

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

(Published : September 04, 2017, last edit September 04, 2017)

 

Global Debt

18 Tuesday Jul 2017

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

According to a review by the Bank or International Settlements (BIS) global debts public & private reached 100 trillion in mid-2013, & estimates today mid-2017 are well over 200 trillion.

As a matter of pure observation if global debt doubles up (irreversibly multiplies due to interest) every two or three years the global debt by 2019-20 will be around 400 trillion.

By 2023 it should be somewhere in excess of 1 quadrillion, but lets be conservative & say 800 trillion.

Now If the world hasn’t already entered into a hell fire economic depression of no return by 2023 it most definitely will by 2026 where the debt would have multiplied to around 1.6 quadrillion.

Of course if you believe in the infinite milk & honey fairy tail of today’s lie economy by 2029-30 it should be somewhere around 3.2 quadrillion.

I ask a simple question to the reader can you imagine the cost of living in just 10-15 years, or won’t we be living?

Think about it.

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

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

 

The Ancient Ruse

16 Sunday Jul 2017

Posted by in The Ancient Ruse, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

Before we begin it is important to note the ancient ruse of the money changer dating back to 33AD was morphed into a pretend loan by today’s purported banking in 1150AD.

The money changers in 33AD were essentially exchanging 1 talent in one denominated currency for 2 talents of another denominated currency, both of which talents where nearly the same weight or measure by a matter of grams back then.

To actually purchase in the market an individual would first have to give a money changer 2 talents in coin & in return receive 1 talent in another coin, so one can at least trade in the market with that specific talent of coin (eg: bank money).

Basically the money changers were robbing an individual of 1 talent for risking nothing of their own by simply exchanging 1 for 2 — taking 100% unearned profit. This unjust intervention in all markets today is of course the banks first crime of theft — stealing a sum of principal.

Since 1150AD the ancient ruse of the money changer that steals 100% in principal has been disguised as a loan, which is in truth a purported loan that neither ethically or rationally transpires in the first place, only as a means to purposely hide an age old  theft that was otherwise so blatantly obvious.

Logically if an individual paid a money changer any more than 2 talents for only receiving 1 talent its therefore paying interest to a money changer for reasons I will explain in the following paragraphs.

Of course we can determine the only difference to ancient money changers exchanging 1 for 2  is  modern day money changers are exchanging 1 for 1 by merely publishing further representations of the money we create. In truth banks are only pretending to exchange 1 for 1, simply because there is only 1 talent of commensurable value representing what value you give up by promising your immediate & or future production before publication — before any sale or subsequent deposit — where its clearly evident the bank is only ever pretending to risk or give up 1 talent in value from the banks otherwise prior legitimate possession.

In essence the banks sleight of hand is basically handing the principal value you just created back to you in a pretend loan so you can trade in the market, & only then as a consequence thereafter charge you a further sum of principal in unwarranted interest for the privilege of being robbed of 1 talent in the first place.

We can likewise further determine the unjust  imposition of unwarranted interest is therefore the banks second crime of theft — resulting from the first crime of theft — stealing 2 talents in total or 2X the principal  for neither risking or giving up anything of value.

Considering the ancient money changers got away with stealing 100% for so long it only stands to reason why today’s modern day money changers, or what are commonly referred to as banks are getting away with stealing 200% plus — when you are all duped into actually believing the bank loans you money in the first place.

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

(Published : July 16, 2017, last edit August 15, 2017)

The GDP Paradox

07 Friday Jul 2017

Posted by in The GDP Paradox, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is said to be a estimate of a nations economic growth. How a country’s GDP is calculated is using the following formula:

GDP = C + G + I + NX.

“C” is equal to all private Consumption, or Consumer spending in a nation’s economy, “G” is the sum of Government spending,  “I” is the sum of all the country’s investment, including businesses capital expenditures & “NX” is the Nation’s total net exports, calculated as total exports minus total imports (NX = Exports – Imports).

Where this formula gets it totally wrong is it just assumes private consumption (C) is equal to consumer spending & the total business Investment (I) is an addition, which is failing to account for the sum of principal + interest payed out of a forever deficient volume of  circulation only ever comprised of some remaining principal.

As a result this is likewise failing to conclude that most if not all government expenditure (G) is not investing taxation into any nation, but instead perpetually reintroducing or laundering the principal & interest formerly stolen out of circulation in all private debt back into circulation again as an ever greater escalation of government debt. This is in fact what funds government expenditure, apposed to taxation that is likewise paid out of circulation — either directly or indirectly into the banks coffers to service the ever greater escalations of government debt.

Although GDP accounts for imports & exports (NX) this only accounts for just one variable of reflation & deflation under banking.

Therefore what makes GDP an insane contradictory paradox is firstly it is adding the sum of deflation instead of subtracting it which irrationally estimates growth based upon non-existent inflation, & secondly even if we did have inflation you can not just assume any existence of inflation is a true indicator of growth either.

“Real growth, however, can only be determined when any increase in circulation is always equal to remaining debt & always equal to represented property value, where there quite literally is no inflation or deflation.”

So too is Debt-to-GDP misleading not only because the GDP aggregate itself is failing to subtract what it is always adding, but the debt is only referencing government debt apposed to all debt including private debt. It is assumed a low Debt-to-GDP ratio indicates a country is producing enough to service its debt without incurring further debt, which is mathematically impossible regardless so long as we are all paying the added cost of interest in private debt. This is in effect what artificially inflates prices by however much interest we pay out of circulation above the sum of principal just spending money today, that is at any given point in time deflationary (circulatory deflation) in regards to the remaining volume of circulation always available to industry & commerce.

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

(Published : July 07, 2017, last edit Nov 11, 2017)

 

The cost of a home under the ruse of banking

05 Wednesday Jul 2017

Posted by in The cost of a home under the ruse of banking, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

This home more than likely cost around 20K when it was built brand new sometime in the 1960s.

Contrary to what we are irrationally led to believe that suggest homes can only ever go up in value – homes are in fact depreciating in value. Logic tells anyone a home will fall down in 100 years if left neglected.

Furthermore due to the added cost of interest a home is artificially inflated in price by however much interest you pay above the sum of principal, which is in effect devaluing the home far beyond its otherwise remaining consumption or deprecation value by simply a theft of value, because banks who purport to loan all new money into circulation in the first place neither risk or give up consideration of commensurable value from the banks otherwise prior legitimate possession, making the purported loan a monumental crime of theft &  the unwarranted imposition of interest a further crime of theft yet again, which is artificially sustained by further falsified debts that perpetually reflates a forever deficient circulation with irreversible sums of falsified indebtedness.

In this example you are paying the value of 37.5 homes to a thieving bank for only receiving one home with a true value of 20K minus consumption, & if you purportedly borrowed the 750K to purchase this home today you are basically paying another 37.5 homes again to a thieving bank in unwarranted interest tomorrow. Totaling 75 homes (750%) or 1.5 million for a home worth less than 20K ($20,000 X 75 = 1.5 million).

Essentially the true value of this home has depreciated 750% below or beyond  its otherwise remaining consumption value due to banks robbing everyone blind when they purchase homes, because any price inflation caused by the added cost of  interest — irreversibly multiplied by however much interest you pay out of circulation above the sum of principal — can only ever be stealing all that much further from us when we just spend money today.

Of course this artificial increase in price caused by the added cost of interest is giving most if not all people the illusion of increasing value when its instead the complete polar opposite due to a monumental crime of theft of that value (eg: $20,000 X 75) — that can only be irreversibly multiplied by unwarranted interest yet again — stealing all that much further from us again & again & again.

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

(Published : July 04, 2017, last edit July 09, 2017)

 

Is buying local beneficial to anyone under the ruse of banking

03 Monday Jul 2017

Posted by in Is buying local beneficial to anyone under the ruse of banking

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

Regardlesslocal buisnessss where you spend money the value of our production we give up to each other, that all money records, evidences & represents is stolen by banks in  private debt, predominantly in the form of  purported loans that dont ethically or even rationally transpire in the first place, simply because banks neither risk or give up consideration of commensurable value from the banks otherwise prior legitimate possession.

If anyone wants further evidence of this monumental crime of theft  look no further than the added cost of interest passed onto the consumer in the resulting price of goods & services, which steals all that much further from each & everyone of us in artificial price inflation just spending money today, whether its purchasing from a small business, big business, foreign or local. Either way industry & commerce is passing the added cost of interest above the cost of principal inclusive onto you the consumer.

Logically earned Profit for any business is what you the consumer pays above the principal & interest purchasing whatever which is servicing someone else’s purported loan. Therefore you the consumer are subsequently paying principal + interest out of circulation spending money, plus the earned profit of course when the business purchases whatever with that earned profit, only to service someone else’s purported loan once again.

So regardless who you are or where you spend money, whether its expanding business, purchasing a third holiday home or just putting food on the table & buying clothes for your children — its ALWAYS YOU the consumer who is servicing that falsified debt to a thieving bank just spending money today.

Of course the small business proprietor who wrote that message on the blackboard above is blinded by greed & desire to a point he cant even see he is passing  the added cost of a monumental crime of theft onto his customers, making him no different to the CEO thats buying his third holiday home.

If anything the CEO is paying more out of circulation, but this does not change the fact that all small business is doing the exact same thing, only to have any or all profit stolen when its further spent into circulation.

So the question remains is buying local beneficial for anyone?

Well,,, if you have read & understood what I have already written above you would have to be a village idiot to believe buying local ever could under the ruse of banking.

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

(Published : July 03, 2017, last edit July 09, 2017)

Can mathematics predict peoples actions?

02 Sunday Jul 2017

Posted by in Can mathematics predict peoples actions

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

Absolutely not, HOWEVER mathematics can be logically applied to determine certain outcomes from peoples actions.

DETERMINE : 1.cause (something) to occur in a particular way or to have a particular nature. 2.ascertain or establish exactly by research or calculation

PREDICT: say or *estimate* (roughly calculate) that a specified thing will happen in the future or will be a consequence of something.

DETERMINE EXAMPLE : If people are paying *principal + interest* out of a forever deficient circulation comprised of only *some remaining principal at most* in all all their personal falsified debts one can then logically determine (NOT PREDICT) by applying primary school mathematics & rudimentary logic that so long as people are paying the added cost of interest above the sum of principal its mathematically impossible to ever have inflation. Determining further that the added cost of unwarranted interest is in fact deflationary or a decrease in value by however much interest you pay above the sum of principal in artificial price inflation that steals even further from us when we spend money, merely artificially sustained by further borrowing (alleged) or purported loans that dont ethically or rationally transpire if the purported lender is neither risking or giving up commensurable consideration of value.

PREDICT EXAMPLE: Banks create & loan money regardless if they risk or give up commensurable consideration & regardless if the sum of interest is neither created or issued into circulation above the sum of principal the interest is nonetheless a surplus of value, therefore price inflation is just the result of printing too much money.

CONCLUSION
Therefore we are not predicting, estimating or roughly calculating anything in Mathematically Perfected Economy, much less are we basing any calculation on mere unsubstantiated assumptions bereft of any formal proof. We are instead logically applying rudimentary principles (IE: 1.1.1 ratio) in extending the mathematics from one point to another to determine, establish, or exactly ascertain a particular occurrence or event if those principles are strictly adhered to.

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

(Published : June 02, 2017, last edit October 20, 2017)

 

FOI request to the Bank of England

01 Saturday Jul 2017

Posted by in FOI request to the Bank of England

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

This is the Freedom Of Information request we put to the Bank of England back in 2011 at asking 4 simple questions

1) What lawful consideration do you claim the BoE gives up when it creates money ?
2) How then does the bank (or does the bank) claim there is a debt to the bank ?
3) What is the claim to interest then, when the bank can do no more than absorb the costs of merely publishing evidence of our promissory obligations *to each other* ?
4) How is it possible even to maintain a vital circulation without accumulating inevitably terminal sums of debt ?

Note: The end result was of course as usual “EVASION”.

You can put these questions to any bank, even peripheral banks . Try it & you will basically get the same response . They will evade answering these questions particularly the first knowing all too well if they do it will be self incriminating or admitting to theft.

Think about it — If they’re not stealing in the form of pretend loans they would simply answer the damn questions wouldn’t they? but their pathetic excuse for not answering them is that these questions are unintelligible. In the end the BoE claimed the expense they would have to forgo finding the answers to these simple questions would be too costly for them. Too costly for them alright because if they answered the questions it would end their crime of theft & they damn well know it.

All they have to do is answer the first question really, because if they can prove they give up consideration of commensurable value in the creation or any loan of money the following questions are made redundant, except question 4 of course, simply due the current escalations of debt, which they then have to explain how & why is not terminal, which we already know they cant answer, because no one on this planet can prove or demonstrate how the sum of interest is created & issued into circulation above the sum of principal that takes us back to question 1 again. In retrospect questions 2, 3 & 4 take you back to question 1, which is why its the first question, that’s hardly unintelligible.

Its really a YES or NO answer to the first question. Do you give up consideration of value in the creation of money? . Is your answer YES or NO?. If your answer is YES what consideration are you then giving up in the creation of money ? but they refuse to even do that. Unintelligible my arse — The question couldn’t be any more simpler.

We are only asking the bank the same question we would otherwise ask ourselves to identify who exactly is creating money, determining then if any loan transpires or not. So If anyone of us was asked if we give up consideration of value in the creation of money the answer would be logically YES, & if asked what consideration are we giving up — pure observation alone tells anyone with a half a brain that we are giving up our labour & production that has the only lawful consideration of commensurable value.

So if it is we who create all new money, which we have already proven to be the case for nearly 50 years already, predominately by the purchaser who issues a promissory obligation/note before publication, before any subsequent deposit — so how is it even ethically or rationally possible for the “obligor” (creator of money) to borrow what has not yet been paid & or deposited from the resulting sale?

The simple answer its not possible. To suggest we loan or borrow money from each other defies all logic & reason — putting the cart before the horse. Indicating further we are not even loaning or borrowing money from each other either, much less from a thieving bank. When the unadulterated debt is merely an obligation by the *obligor* to “pay & retire” the principal, free from exploitation or unjust intervention.

Make no mistake MPE is NOT claiming there is no debt,  simply because the only debt that transpires is the true debt we have  to each other. Therefore the argument is not to somehow get out of paying the debt altogether, but instead the intent to restore today’s falsified debts (phony loans) to their original unadulterated state where there never is any loan or borrowing.

For detailed correspondence regarding this FOI request please visit WhatDoTheyKnow. OR HERE.

Please note “whatdotheyknow” have since taken down the detailed correspondence which can only be perceived as further EVASION of the facts.

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

 

(Published : July 01, 2017, last edit January 19, 2019)