• 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: intrinsic

Pretended experts in economy

01 Saturday Jul 2017

Posted by australia4mpe in Pretended experts in economy

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

911, Australian banks, bank of England, banks, Bill Still, central bank, contract, contractual obligation, criminals, Dennis Kucinich, experts in economy, freedom, G. Edward Griffin, gold, gold standard, interest, intrinsic, mandate, math’s, mathematically perfected economy, plagiarist, promissory note, Ron Paul, Rothschild, solution, sovereignty, Stephen Zarlenga, tax, the great depression, The Secret of Oz, truth, usury, war

Some time ago I had a fellow with a doctorate in economics question why I use the word “volume”. He proceeded to then hold some authority over me because according to him today’s economics does not use volumes & because I do not have a degree like him in today’s lie of economy I have no authority on the subject, evidently because I’m using volumes apparently.

My reply was quite simple when I proceeded to ask him if today’s economics uses percentages to demonstrate rates of profit, margins of solubility or purported growth how is this not a measurement in respect to volume?

For example if you have a 25%  profit is this not telling you that 25% exceeds the volume of 100%  invested?

So if you invest $80 & get back $100 is this not a 25% gain or alternatively a $20 gain in proportion to the initial $80 investment. Therefore $80 is your 100% volume or overall outlay & $20 is your 25% gain.

Eg:  $80 = 100% ÷ 4 = $20 = 25% 

In short the percentage (%) is a scale used to measure something as a fraction comparative to associated volume.

So If you want to take down any phony economist in one question just ask them what is a volume of circulation that is neither above or below its intended representation? or in broad obscure terms otherwise taught in universities that might make some sense to these buffoons; What is a volume of circulation that is neither above or below the cost of goods & services (ie:representation).

Without giving away the answer here its simply a question of logic that extends the mathematics from one point to another.

Hint: if “C” is neither above “I” or below “D” what is “C” in proportion to “V”?

Of course its a Circulation always [_____] in Volume , or alternatively a circulation always [______] in Value in proportion to the Volume of Circulation relating to the dispositional impropriety of Inflation & Deflation in respect to represented property, which gives you the same answer of logic anyhow.

Those of you who cant immediately answer this question I suggest you read the home page or seek the answer in the menu.

I’m nonetheless still waiting for this pretended expert’s answer, which is an answer so simple it equates to the rudimentary logic of a kindergarten child putting a square peg through a square hole.

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

(Published : July 01, 2017, last edit July 09, 2017)

Rate this:

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Like Loading...

Promise vs IOU

01 Saturday Jul 2017

Posted by australia4mpe in Money vs IOU

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

911, Australian banks, bank of England, banks, Constitution, contract, contractual obligation, credit, deflation, Dennis Kucinich, freedom, G. Edward Griffin, inflation, intrinsic, IOU, liberty, mandate, mathematically perfected economy, money, plagiarist, tax, the great depression, The Secret of Oz, truth, usury, war

Neither is a promissory note a IOU, because a promissory note is often in most cases a unilateral promise, which is the “offer” (not owing) of a promise (money) to a true creditor who gives up property, or vice versa when the true creditor offers something in exchange for a promise (money) , & if the true creditor accepts that promise in the offer its paid then & there in full on the transaction (true debt). Think of this when you are simply purchasing an item in a shop.

However in case of an obligor (maker, creator & issuer of a promise / promissory note/ money) there may be an obligation by the obligor to do something else arising from their issuance of a promissory note in what is a “promissory obligation”before any book entry or deposit. Such as not only paying the true creditor in full thereafter from the outset, but giving up a like equal measure of the obligor’s own future production in return for anothers (true creditor) production to rightly retire that promise (money). As a matter of money (promise) becoming defunct in fulfilling the obligation, meaning the promise (money) no longer represents value, nor any remaining debt or consumption in fulfillment of an obligation.

The very concept of an IOU is therefore a rational impossibility if there is no loan, much less is there any loan from a bank, & we are instead GIVING up our production to each other, expecting no more than what we give up in return, which may include “earned profit ” by the way , ” cost plus labour “, hence we giving up our ” labour & production ” to each other, where there otherwise are no loans or borrowing.  So if it has not dawned on the reader already ” earned profit ” is what the proprietor takes above the principal & interest (unearned profit) in the resulting price of goods & services which is instead paid to a thieving bank who purports to loan us the sum of principal in the first place.

The illusion of a loan is of course born out of minds of men & women blinded by greed & desire. The very idea of purportedly borrowing more to merely service the former sum of falsified debt only to increase every new sum of falsified debt amounts to a heroin addict trying to kick the habit by upping their dose on every hit.

” Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
~Albert Einstein

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


(Published : July 01, 2017, last edit September 16, 2017)

 

Rate this:

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Like Loading...

The Growth Paradox under the ruse of banking

01 Saturday Jul 2017

Posted by australia4mpe in The Growth Paradox under the ruse of banking

≈ 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, Economic Growth, freedom, G. Edward Griffin, gold, gold standard, illuminati, inflation, interest, intrinsic, kevin rudd, liberty, mandate, math, math’s, mathematically perfected economy, money, plagiarist, promissory note, recession, Ron Paul, Rothschild, silver, tax, the great depression, The Secret of Oz, truth, usury, war

QLD finacial minister

Queensland Treasurer predicts the State will have the strongest growing economy in Australia.

How is it even rationally possible to have growth if any increase in production is entirely dedicated to service but never pay down an irreversible multiplication of artificial debt caused by the volumetric impropriety of interest?

I mean you would have to be a blithering idiot to even remotely suggest growth is attainable so long we are all paying interest.

Sure the QLD treasure (Curtis Pitt) is predicting otherwise growth because this sociopath knows all too well he is artificiality sustaining this lie of economy in Queensland by playing his part in laundering already stolen money (formerly stolen in private debt) back into circulation as an increase in state debt (public debt) to pay for the commonwealth games commencing in 2018.

Of course anyone with half a brain can see production is increasing in preparation for the commonwealth games, however what most people refuse to see including treasure Curtis Pitt who clearly failed primary school maths is nonetheless the consequential increase in state debt that is not only paying for this but its mathematically impossible to pay down regardless of any surplus , yet I ask how can this increase in production be any remote indication of growth if the value of all production including any increase in production is owed to a thief (bank) at further interest again?

Concluding you would have to village idiot to ever suggest growth is even remotely attainable under the ruse of banking. Its simply mathematically impossible so long as we are all paying the added cost of interest not only on all our personal falsified debts, but as a consequence when each & everyone of us spends money.

And where will this sociopath be in 2022-24 when this growth paradox or LIE of economy falls flat on its face in the coming second greater world wide depression when industry & commerce can no longer service the very thing he & every political betrayer omits in their unfounded preposterous assertions?

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

(Published : July 01, 2017, last edit July 09, 2017)

 

Rate this:

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
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
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
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
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
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 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
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
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
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Like Loading...

Money vs Credit

30 Friday Jun 2017

Posted by australia4mpe in Money vs Credit

≈ 4 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
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Like Loading...

The cost of a suit in relation to gold

28 Saturday Jun 2014

Posted by australia4mpe in The cost of a suit in gold

≈ 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, G. Edward Griffin, gold, gold standard, illuminati, inflation, interest, intrinsic, kevin rudd, liberty, mandate, math, math’s, mathematically perfected economy, money, plagiarist, promissory note, recession, Ron Paul, Rothschild, silver, solution, sovereignty, tax, the great depression, The Secret of Oz, truth, usury, war

#SHOW COMMENTS

I think this is important enough to publish a short post in relation to those who raise false assertions that gold consistently represents value over time using the purchase of a suit as an example , contrary to these unqualified assertions a suit cost nearly 6 ounces of gold back in 1864, where we could of  purchased almost 10 suits for 1 ounce of gold at its all-time high in 2011.

As you will see below, calculating for the 2011 all-time high (as well) demonstrates an even more pronounced mis-representation of historic prices by 57-fold.

10463842_10203081254726862_9023208744346911716_o

Click the image to enlarge

Original Source : mike montagne founder of PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™, original (1968) architect of mathematically perfected economy™, and principal author of the global amendment for mathematically perfected economy and absolute consensual representation™(C) Copyright 2014 by mike montagne and PFMPE™.

To be further informed about the adverse dispositions of a gold standard see my other blog post ”  Why a gold standard cant work “

Rate this:

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Like Loading...

Is money a debt?

14 Wednesday May 2014

Posted by australia4mpe in Is money a debt

≈ 6 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, illuminati, inflation, interest, intrinsic, liberty, mandate, math’s, money, Money as Debt, plagiarist, promissory note, recession, Ron Paul, Rothschild, silver, solution, sovereignty, Stephen Zarlenga, tax, the great depression, The Secret of Oz, truth, usury, war

#SHOW COMMENTS

The following  is a reply I left on a blog ” thereisnodebt ” who is not only advocating MPE, but the administrator of that blog appears to be that impressed with my words in relation to the very title of his blog ( which is the very reason why I wrote what I did )  he made a separate post relaying my reply to his readers , nevertheless I think its worth re-posting here once again on my blog & I thank the admin for his due diligence.

Gday

It is true there is no debt owed to any bank, however this is not to infer there is no debt we have between ourselves for this otherwise unexploited debt is merely an exchange of our labour & production, redeeming money for property, where there are no loans or borrowing.

The key to comprehending true debt is to know what money actually is, what it truly represents & how its truly created. Money is therefore a debt instrument, not a debt itself, simply because the exchange or the act of redeeming money for property & or services is the only true debt, money is therefore a record of entitlement that one may receive on the exchange or trans/action that merely evidences what value we have given up to each other, thereafter upon fulfillment of a debt or trans/action money is most certainly not a debt but a record of earned entitlement that can be spent elsewhere in the course of redeeming another’s production & finally money is created by our promissory obligations we have to each other, which is only a promise to pay an otherwise *unexploited obligation*, with one’s own *labour and production*, for what one consumes of another’s *labour and production*… where again, there are no loans, no borrowing, & only as a result, likewise is there no interest.

It is true there has never been any lending or borrowing since the conception of banking so why would you or I propose anything else but to rectify today’s falsified debt ( falsified debt = theft ) that merely pretends to loan money, into what a debt aught to rightly be?

Most people fail to even comprehend the only real intrinsic value is what money actually represents, evidences & records upon the exchange, promissory obligation ( money creation ) inclusive, that’s in short the value of the labour & production we give up to each other, which is logically a principal debt where there are no loans or borrowing.

However I must stress, ever since the conception of banking, all banks, no exceptions, have falsified this otherwise unexploited debt to themselves by unjust intervention on the exchange, contract / promissory obligation, pretending ,then, to risk or give up value of their own in the exchange, contract / promissory obligation. either in banks publication, purported creation of money, or any purported loan the bank may impose on one of us as a result.

So to conclude what I have written here is to not infer there is no debt because there actually is a debt between ourselves, & to deny this debt is to deny a theft due to the banks unjust intervention or purposed obfuscation of our promissory obligations we have to each other, which in turn allows banks / money changers to steal the true value of what is given up in the otherwise unexploited debt ” X2 ” because of unwarranted interest only as if the bank risked or gave up consideration of value of their own in the exchange, so it would be even incorrect to assume one is not paying interest if they haven’t a falsified debt or purported loan from a bank simply because all the principal & interest all industry & commerce pays to banks is logically passed on to the consumer in the resulting price of goods & services, thus the added cost of interest above the initial cost of principal is the very cause of most if not all price inflation today, artificial in nature, since the very conception of banking, giving one only the illusion rising prices means rising value when the true value of all money & property or the value of our labour & production we give up to each other in any exchange or trans/action is being stolen by banking only to be borrowed back as perpetual re-inflation or irreversible multiplications of artificial debt, federal /state debt, so its physically possible for at least some of us to earn principal & interest out of a circulation consisting of some remaining principal at most to actually service the former sum of artificial debt, until such time, upon terminal cycles of dispossession everyone will be dispossessed of all their property & wealth one by one in the very end, & believe it or not all this is simply done by a bank pretending to loan value it neither risks or gives up in any exchange or in an otherwise unexploited debt.

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

I hope after reading this some of you might want to read my other blog post ” Refuting , Paul Grignon author of Money as Debt ” where its clear Paul wants preserve the LIE we not only borrow money from ” faux creditors” EG: BANKS , but likewise proposing the same crime of theft or further obfuscation of our promissory obligations ( the banks first crime ) in his purported solution, which is nothing but a plagiarism & distortion of MPE in an attempt to preserve exploitation , or the LIE we borrow money from a purported creditor, apposed to any true creditor who most certainly does not lend money , but rather paid in full for giving up commensurable value resulting from the outset of an obligor’s promissory obligation ( money creation )

comment full 2

Rate this:

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
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 subscribers

Contact Admin

David Ardron

Notes from Admin

Updates & Comment etiquette

ARCHIVE

Former Posts under revision

Blog Stats

  • 67,486 hits

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

Loading Comments...
 

    %d