Tag Archives: usury

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)

What exactly is inflation?

30 Friday Jun 2017

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

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

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

Source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OXYMORON: Devaluation = Inflation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is interest free banking the solution?

30 Friday Jun 2017

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

 

Is Nationalizing Banks a Solution?

30 Friday Jun 2017

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

 

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)

 

Do banks create money from debt securities?

30 Tuesday May 2017

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

≈ 9 Comments

Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

 

E.C. Riegel vs M. Montagne

21 Wednesday Oct 2015

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

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aside

Is Mathematically Perfected Economy a cult?

22 Wednesday Jul 2015

Posted by in Is mathematically perfected economy a cult?

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

This post is addressing the Anthony Migchels Cult propaganda about MPE at realcurrencies.

According to wikipedia a cult is the sociological classifications of religious movements, a cult is a religious or social group with socially deviant or novel beliefs and practices..

Religion:
A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence

Belief:
Belief is a mental representation, treated in various academic disciplines, especially philosophy and psychology, of a sentient being’s attitude toward the likelihood or truth of something.

Social Group:
A social group within social sciences has been defined as two or more people who interact with one another, share similar characteristics, and collectively have a sense of unity.

Socially Deviant:
In sociology, deviance describes an action or behavior that violates social norms, including a formally enacted rule (e.g., crime),as well as informal violations of social norms (e.g., rejecting folkways and mores). It is the purview of sociologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, and criminologists to study how these norms are created, how they change over time and how they are enforced.

Novel:
Novelty (derived from Latin word novus for “new”) is the quality of being new, or following from that, of being striking, original or unusual.[1] Novelty may be the shared experience of a new cultural phenomenon or the subjective perception of an individual.

So one might ask now is MPE a Cult?

Q: Might MPE be defined as a religion?
A: Possibly Yes.

Q: Might MPE be defined as a belief?
A: Possibly Yes.

Q: Might MPE be defined a Social Group?
A: Possibly Yes.

Q: Might MPE be defined as socially defiant?
A: Technically NO, MPE is in fact not in deviance of an enacted rule based on formal agreement that would otherwise be termed a violation, simply because no where in history has banking ever formerly been assented by the people, so there has been no formal agreement that would otherwise stipulate a violation or deviance of a presumed norm, or an enacted rule, bereft of any formal proofs that has just instead been imposed as an assumption. (eg: bank loans). On the contrary MPE is far from informal when it  formally proves & demonstrates a particular presumed norm, purported agreement or enacted rule is based on a LIE.

Q: Might MPE be defined as Novel?
A: Possibly Yes.

The next question I guess is Banking, or any purported solution that preserves the crime of banking a cult.

Q: Might banking be defined as a Religion?
A: Possibly Yes.

Q: Might banking be defined as a belief?
A: Possibly Yes.

Q: Might banking be defined as a Social Group?
A: Possibly Yes.

Q: Might banking be defined as socially defiant?
A: Absolutely YES, banking violates the social norms by pretending to loan money, including a formally enacted rule (e.g: the crime of theft), as well as informal violations of social norms that presumes banks loan money, bereft of any formal proof or qualification.

Q: Might Banking  be defined as Novel?
A: Possibly Yes.

CONCLUSION:
I put to the reader, according to wikipedia what belief that only two people are in agreement is not a religion today, or what might we just assume is a cult  that’s socially defiant?

Keeping in mind  MPE strictly upholds the formally enacted rule or law that stipulates stealing is a crime of theft without compromise, contradiction or any equivocation. Therefore  MPE in fact does not even qualify as a cult by definition, regardless of informal violations of the social norm that suggests banks do create & or loan us money without a shred of evidence that otherwise proves they actually do.

Have any of you ever considered the assumption that just asserts banks loan us money is a cult belief in itself, bereft of any formal proof or qualification?

Could this possibly mean those who propagate the idea MPE is a cult are calling the kettle black & it is they who are banking cultists who want nothing more than to preserve a monumental crime of theft for their own personal gain, fame or glory. Particularly the banks first crime pretending to loan a sum of principal by irrationally denying all along banks not only steal a sum of principal in a pretended loan, but any interest we pay above the sum of principal is in fact stealing all that much further from us when each & everyone of us spends money today, where artificial price inflation is in fact not caused by circulatory inflation at all, but instead the very interest we all pay on our personal falsified debts, which can only ever give people (banking cults) the illusion that just assumes increasing prices means increasing value or purported growth.

So why did Anthony Migchels begin all this Cult nonsense about MPE?

Is it because MPE advocates have already exposed him for his “Mutual Credit “ proposal after years of openly plagiarizing MPE. Stealing from the MPE thesis only in part to sell the lie to his readers that suggests a mere publisher in his “Mutual Credit “ scam can  create & loan us money that MPE itself disproves. In retaliation as a result of being held accountable for his deception Anthony has just propagated further lies on the internet suggesting MPE is cult to point everyone away from the one & only solution.

Does Anthony not want to preserve the banks first crime of theft, or be it preserve the purposed obfuscation of our promissory obligations by denying us the right to issue a promissory obligation to each other free from the very crime he wants to preserve in his “Mutual Credit “ proposal that uses words such as “repay’ ” loan” & “borrowing” definitive to theft?

Is Anthony Migchels not a Banking Cultist himself & one of many cult leaders out there today who want nothing more but to preserve the very crime MPE exposes?

The following is from Anthony’s mutual credit proposal.

QUOTE
In regard to Mathematically Perfected Economy, a highly advanced Mutual Credit system, 0% interest rates will lead to a demand for credit that is greater than the economy can handle: it would create so much structural demand in the economy that there would simply not be enough productive capacity in society to meet it and prices would start to rise. Asset bubbles are to be expected, both in commodities and real estate. A vicious circle of growing asset prices and growing demand would seem to guarantee this.
END QUOTE

Firstly MPE is not a mutual credit system, far from it as matter of fact. Anthony is just writing this to disguise the fact he has been plagiarizing MPE, & secondly to suggest Zero interest in MPE will lead to higher demand of money (alleged credit) is quite frankly an oxymoron, considering eradicating interest eradicates the higher demand of money to otherwise pay principal + interest out of a circulation comprised of only principal. Therefore to go on to conclude low production wont meet a greater demand for money is another oxymoron to irrationally justify the LIE that suggests MPE is susceptible to asset bubbles.

If anyone was to ever look at MPEs mathematics — regardless if production is up or down the represented production is always equal to the remaining circulation & remaining debt– where there simply  is no inflation or deflation, much less asset bubbles.

Sure If the theory of supply & demand stands correct as a determining factor in price only after banking/interest is eradicated that currently far surpasses any increase or decrease  in price possibly caused by supply & demand — I would nonetheless define price fluctuations caused supply & demand *natural price inflation & deflation* which are often restricted to one particular product apposed to all production & for so long as the supply of that product remains overabundant or scarce in relation to its demand.

However under a Mathematically Perfected Economy™ in a true free enterprise market, free from the current artificial manipulation of the cost or value of all money & property — or any mutual credit scams pretending to loan us money — if a product supply actually meets demand we can further determine the price of that product cant possibly be subject to inflation or deflation. Neither natural price inflation & deflation possibly caused by supply & demand of a *product*, not even artificial price inflation caused by the added cost of interest, nor for that matter circulatory inflation & deflation either. That’s if anyone was to ever look at MPEs mathematics.

In all seriousness Anthony wouldn’t know what is sovereign even if it jumped up & bit him on the nose. The only reason why Anthony evades the mathematics that categorically proves him incorrect is because if he didn’t & likewise stole the math’s along with just about everything else he has stolen from MPE it would be all too clear to everyone he has been plagiarizing MPE all along to preserve the crime of banking in his mutual credit scam — that nonetheless steals the principal in a phony loan that should be rightly retired, not re-payed, loaned or borrowed, because we the people (obligor) already create the sum of principal before any deposit or book entry to subsequently pay the debt on the sale trade or transaction..

The logical question begs to be asked ; How can banks create money if they neither risk or give up consideration from their otherwise prior legitimate possession? They simply dont.  How can banks create money via fractional banking on ZERO DEPOSIT? They dont. This likewise defies the whole assumption that suggests banks create money from a fraction of deposits, simply because there is no deposit to begin with to apply faction banking. How can the real creditor giving up property in exchange for money rationally  loan what has not yet been paid? They dont , never have, which proves we have never borrowed from other peoples deposits in the bank either.  Banks have no reserves other than what they’re stealing & laundering out of monetary circulation via purported loans in private debt — that is  laundered back as every increase in government debt to perpetually reflate circulation.

I invite the reader to read an in depth discussion I had with Anthony Migchels — not only disproving everything he asserts in his MPE cult propaganda before he even published it, but providing further evidence with ” before & after screen shots”  of his website proving he has purposely edited whole paragraphs out of my comments that were disproving his assumptions, only to inform his readers after the edit I’m somehow brainwashed by a cult with what I can & have already proven on countless occasions using nothing more than  second grade mathematics & the rudimentary logic of a kindergarten child.

Please by all means I invite anyone reading this post to read on HERE where I expose this charlatan for who he really is. I have nothing to hide.

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

 

(Published : July 21, 2015, last edit October 25, 2017)

 

The cost of a suit in relation to gold

28 Saturday Jun 2014

Posted by in The cost of a suit in gold

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

#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 “

Is money a debt?

14 Wednesday May 2014

Posted by in Is money a debt

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

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

#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