Tag Archives: promissory note

What is the purpose of War?

01 Saturday Jul 2017

Posted by in What is the purpose of War

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

All wars are bankers wars, simply because all politicians, no exceptions work for & represent banks (thieves).

“War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits [unearned] are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.”
~Smedley Butler

If the truth was to be ever told & it has for over 47 years already I might add,,War is one of many ways to perpetually reflate a forever volumetric deficiency in any nations monetary circulation, due the very interest we the people pay out of a volume of circulation only ever comprised of some remaining principal at most, paid out not just on our personal falsified debts to thieving banks, but every time we personally spend money (price inflation), only to be re-borrowed (allegedly borrowed [laundered]) back by political betrayers as an irreversible multiplication of federal debt & spent once again by these traitors on things such as unnecessary WAR, yet a necessity to perpetually reflate circulation that can only irreversibly multiply artificial debt into oblivion, until such time industry & commerce can no longer service this ever escalating artificial debt where all of you one by one will be dispossessed of all your property & wealth in the coming second greater depression & possibly plunged into WW3.

“Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.”
~ Henry Kissinger

The very idea of purportedly borrowing more to merely service the former sum of artificial debt only to increase every new sum of artificial debt amounts to a heroin addict trying 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

For example the primary means of reflation for the U.S is to spend the money banks formerly steal from the people in phony loans on invading other nations, via a process of perpetual reflation as every increase in government debt, even giving purported defense aid to other nations, financing terrorists groups across the globe, supplying extremists with tactical weapons, guns, & some with Biological & Nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

“Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America nor, for that matter, in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. … Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”
~Hermann Göring

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

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

Good Debt vs Bad Debt

01 Saturday Jul 2017

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

The following is the basic difference between Good debt & Bad debt, without the bullshit from some halfwit politician, pretend economist or news reporter who clearly failed primary school mathematics.

GOOD DEBT
Is when we logically eradicate the need for perpetual reflation by simply eradicating the unwarranted imposition of interest on falsified debts (phony loans) & therefore eradicating the ruse of banking altogether that neither ethically or rationally lends us money in the first place, where any increase in circulation can otherwise instead equal the remaining debt & equal the related property value by *rightfully retiring principal* (NOT STEALING & LAUNDERING) at the rate of depreciation or consumption of the related property.

BAD DEBT
Is when purported banks only ever pretend to loan us the sum of principal, where the bank is neither risking or giving up commensurable consideration of value from the banks otherwise prior legitimate possession that might justify any loan to one of us, which is nonetheless charging us 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 in truth never transpires, that subsequently as a result sets of these terminal cycles of deflation & reflation. Primarily due to the volumetric impropriety of interest (perpetual deflation) we all formerly pay out of circulation in all private debt, which not only irreversibly multiplies both government & private debt in perpetual cycles of reflation, but the very process reflation can only ever be artificially sustained with further falsified debt.

Therefore the process of perpetual deflation by interest & perpetual reflation with new debt that never increases the remaining circulation above the sum of principal can only ever at best service the former debt, BUT NEVER THE NEW due to the added cost of interest banks clearly steal above the sum of principal inclusive in purported loans, which is stealing all that much further from us in artificial price inflation when each & everyone of us just spends money today.

IN SHORT FOR THE DUMMIES.
Bad debt: Is a so called loan that in truth never transpires, making the purported loan a monumental crime of theft instead.

Good debt: Is merely an obligation by the debtor (obligor/creator of money/one of us) to *pay & retire* principal — free from unjust intervention or exploitation — where there never was or ever is any loan or borrowing.

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

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

 

Is Quantitative Easing another slight of hand of the thief?

30 Friday Jun 2017

Posted by in Quantitative Easing, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

To begin lets  study the bullshit in this article below that would have you irrationally believing the lie Quantitative easing (QE) creates new money, which is just a further attempt to justify non-existent inflation as inflation. If I may quote from the usury media article below.

“Policymakers also push the button on a quantitative easing programme – which will pump tens of billions of pounds of newly created money into Britain’s troubled economy.”

Article

How do we know this is bullshit, well firstly all you have to do is look at the official data in the UK (see below) regarding its money supply (M0) from March to December 2009 & you will clearly see there was no increase of £125bn in the money supply at that time, which would have otherwise near tripled the nations (M0) cash & coin monetary supply.

All that transpired in 2009 was instead a increase of 2 billion (M0) in new cash & coin that we the people create anyhow because it further represents a percentage or fraction of ledger money (M2) that includes bank deposits in circulation anyhow, plus an increase of an additional 1.1 trillion in (M2) ledger bank deposit money we create in purported loans in private debt. Keeping in mind a portion of that 1.1 trillion is money likewise earned or unearned from overseas that is nonetheless money we create in private debt in any nation.

So in ether graph (M0) & (M2) you see the increase in the UK money supply remains steady as the years pass primarily due to perpetual reflation as every increase in government debt, which  irreversibly multiplies all this falsified debt into terminal debt due to the volumetric impropriety of interest (perpetual deflation) in all private debt, hence the need for perpetual reflation in government debt that is mathematically impossible to pay down, which is a process of perpetual deflation & reflation that cant ever increase the remaining circulation above or beyond the sum of principal initially created in private debt.

UK Graph data

Secondly logic alone should tell you banks do not ever create money, much less ever loan money if they neither risk or give up consideration of value, concluding its we the people who create all new money (principal only) in private debt because we give up the only commensurable consideration of value in the only true debt, trade or transaction, however due to peoples irresponsibility they allow banks to purposely misrepresented our debts to each other in alleged loans from a thieving bank, which is a falsified debt to a thieving bank who gives up squat.

WHAT THEN IS QUANTITATIVE EASING EXACTLY?

Well, its similar in respects to a bailout. That is both of which are only ever servicing inter-banking debt or in house debt between banks, which is ultimately between banks & the central bank of any nation.

Try to Imagine a big fat central banker pouring already stolen money out of the left pocket & into the right pocket, because this is whats essentially happening where qualitative easing (QE) is bypassing the direct purchase of government debt where a bailout otherwise would not.

The only difference then is the bailout increases government debt as the money travels from one pocket to another, & QE bypasses the direct purchase of any new government debt in the sense its indirectly purchasing formerly purchased government debt from banks or other banking corporations, so the process of QE is not increasing government debt by purchasing new bonds, but instead previously purchased bonds from other banks before their maturity date, so in effect the central bank gets that money back from the taxpayer plus interest when those bonds mature.

Whichever the process BAILOUTS or QE its only ever temporally solving any outstanding inter-banking debt between banks, simply because the people can no longer service this inter-banking debt via their own personal falsified debts anymore due to interest of course, which is all owed (allegedly owed) to the central bank (mere publisher) anyhow.

Whether its a bailout or QE its never reaching industry & commerce or never reaching the people in this lie of economy today in the entire process of both.

We could almost debate if the central bank even parts with any sum of QE because its ultimately owed (allegedly) to the central bank anyway, hence the QE is just another sleight of hand of a thief, which is just a thief taking already stolen money out of one pocket & just quietly slipping it back in the other pocket, & hey presto the bankers fool see’s the big fat central banker create all this new money out of thin air (NOT),, & apparently its somehow magically increasing a monetary circulation to justify inflation that is clearly non-existent..

So the reader might ask now whats ultimately transpiring with that stolen money in the big fat central bankers pocket?

Well, with the assistance of political betrayers its perpetually laundered back into the monetary circulation as every increase in government debt or federal expenditure, perpetually reflating circulation as we the people consecutively pay principal & interest out of circulation in all private debt .

This is why the graph above shows a steady increase in the money supply (principal only) that we people initially create in private debt regardless, apposed to any dramatic jump in the money supply that possibly might otherwise justify qualitative easing pumping all this new money into circulation to further justify inflation which  is clearly non-existent, much like any phony loan to us in private debt, where a thieving bank is pretending to create new money yet again & would have you irrationally believe just by increasing the circulation by principal alone is inflationary. Which is false assumption so long as were all paying *principal+interest* out of a general circulation only ever comprised of some remaining *principal* at most.

No one on the face of this planet can prove or demonstrate how any sum of interest is created or issued into circulation above the some of principal.

Hypothetically even if QE creates new money above the sum of principal we initially create in all private debt — that 125 billion is nothing compared to the trillions (M2) we create & pay out of circulation in all private debt — stolen many, many, many times over in  perpetual cycles of deflation due to interest.

Therefore regardless if a mere 125 billion somehow magically appears in the monetary circulation as new money, WHICH IT DID NOT, not without any sale, trade or transaction to otherwise pump it into any lie of economy it cant possibly justify inflation regardless, not so long as we are all paying billions if not trillions in principal + interest out of circulation.

If any of you want more evidence look no further than the current UK national debt (perpetual reflation).

Here again I’m using logic alone & primary school mathematics to prove banks do not ever create money, not even by quantitative easing, much less can QE stimulate non-existent growth or justify non-existent inflation, not that inflation can be any rational indicator of true sustainable growth.

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


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

 

Is Bitcoin the solution?

30 Friday Jun 2017

Posted by in bitcoin, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

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)

Does taxation fund government expenditure?

30 Friday Jun 2017

Posted by in Does taxation fund government expenditure?

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

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)

 

Is gold a viable solution?

30 Friday Jun 2017

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

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

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)

 

Is banking regulation a solution?

30 Friday Jun 2017

Posted by in banking regulation

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

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)

Is interest free banking the solution?

30 Friday Jun 2017

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

 

Money vs Credit

30 Friday Jun 2017

Posted by in Money vs Credit

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

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

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)

 

E.C. Riegel vs M. Montagne

21 Wednesday Oct 2015

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

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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