Earthlinggb's Blog

The New Economics will be mathematics.

Posted in Finance by earthlinggb on May 11, 2013

During the early 1990s, I was working as a European Sales & Marketing Manager for Racal. It was the early years of marriage and babies and I wanted to add a Business angle to my existing Physics background so I decided to embark upon a BA (Hons) in Business Studies at Napier University in Edinburgh where I had also done my Physics degree about a decade earlier.

Yes, I was solidly in the “matrix”. I was ambitious and wanted to ensure that next rung upon the corporate ladder. And I achieved it (in some respects, to my detriment).

I would like to share with you something which everyone of us – including me – on that course failed to recognise. We just didn’t question. That’s not what you are there to do. You are there to listen, to read, to write, to be able to repeat everything just as you are taught by the great guru in front of you who has previously been in your position and listened, read, written and repeated so well he gets to stand up before the next generation and feed them the same thing.

The course included significant study of Economics and cost accounting etc. The following book was our “bible” – I don’t know if this book is still used or an updated version still in print but this was the “bible” at the time…..

Xcel revenue 4Xcel revenue 5

Great minds write these books! Men who graduate from esteemed colleges such as The London School of Economics! (Yes, THAT school once again!)

BUT we, as students, never really question things when our minds are on trying to achieve, trying to pass the exams, trying to make sure we say and do all the right things so to prove to our peers (who are all doing the same thing) that we are worthy of sharing a classroom with them. We certainly don’t have the time or the inclination to say “Wait a minute! There’s something not quite right here”. After all, you’re the new one to the information and the lecturer knows his stuff inside out now doesn’t he? HE isn’t going to just tell you or regurgitate erroneous facts, figures, processes etc is he?

But let’s skip a couple of decades more and arrive at 2013. Those couple of decades have been one hell of a ride! You’ve climbed that corporate ladder, you’ve made the six figure salary, you’ve lived and worked in the most exotic of locations and hell! You’ve been a Director and Country Manager for International companies! What a STAR you’ve been!

But let me tell you – it’s all total nonsense! In 2013, you look back on your “stellar career” and you dismiss it all. Yes it brought you material goods, worldwide travel, exotic holidays, privately educated kids, but it was all achieved while the very system which allowed you to do it was rigged and while you ate and paraded around with your cars and your money and opulent homes, you had maids and drivers who hardly had a pot to piss in (no matter you tried to alleviate that a little) and just around the corner from your homes, in Manila, Kuala Lumpur and Singapore, there were whole families living in corrugated shacks by the railroad. There were women who would approach you not only to sell their bodies but, sometimes to sell their BABIES! Meanwhile, thousands died of starvation and disease all over the world everyday while you dined at the classiest of restaurants and stayed in the most luxurious hotels across the planet.

THERE WAS SOMETHING WRONG! But you didn’t know what it was and so many still don’t (and many of them don’t even wish to).

Then something happened. Something BIG happened to you! Big yes, good no. And it all just stemmed from a 20 year love which ended abruptly. You never saw it coming. It was like the proverbial steam train hitting you. But it was worse than just the ending of a marriage. It was the sheer scale of lies and deception and willingness of the other to do whatever it took to get the money! But it was so much more than that too. It was realising a court (Yes a supreme court in Singapore) was corrupt to the core. It was finding yourself jailed (with no record) because you had the audacity to tell them they were corrupt when you found out exactly what had been going on (Courts AND governments DO NOT LIKE IT when the small man shouts “Just wait a second here!”). It was looking over to “her” in court, after she was exposed as a perjurer, but YOU being thrown in jail because you would not play ball when the court ignored the perjury and she walked out of court with a smile as she saw you handcuffed and led down to cells before being thrown in Queenstown prison. Anyhow, that’s a whole other story.

But it was all of that that set you out to study – not another academic course written by those who wish to condition your thinking – but study law for the purposes of protecting yourself and defending against this onslaught you were faced with. You became “forensic” in following every single element of your case, the affidavits, the proofs of the claims, the attachments of expense claims, the whole deal. Your lawyer was hopeless. He was just playing the game with the other lawyers and the court so that, when you brought it to his attention that you had found out the court had never had jurisdiction from step one – the shit hit the fan and you had to get out of Singapore. Otherwise, you were in jail once more.

I told you they don’t like getting found out!

So what has all that got to do with this book and economics and the subject of this blog? Well it’s to give all those of you who may be commencing on your studies and/or your careers a heads up: You have no idea where life shall lead you and while you don’t and while you are in the growth mode of life, you will just accept that everything is just how it is and that there is nothing wrong and nothing obscured from you. Everything your lecturers relate to you is absolutely sound. However, I can assure you – it isn’t. Looking behind that curtain, lifting that veil and recognising it – or being willing to and open minded enough to – is difficult. Unfortunately, it is only when you are faced with something so blatantly monstrous and corrupt in your own life that you tend to want to find the explanation.

So, with that, back to the book:

Here are a couple of pages taken from it (from Chapter 33 entitled “Money and Prices”).

Xcel revenue 6Xcel revenue 2

Point 1: “Goldsmiths used to accept deposits of gold coins and precious objects for safekeeping, in return for which a receipt would be issued which was, in effect, a PROMISSORY NOTE. As time went by, these notes began to be passed around in settlement of debts ACTING AS BANKNOTES DO TODAY”.

What is a PROMISSORY NOTE?

WIKIPEDIA: A promissory note is a legal instrument (more particularly, a financial instrument), in which one party (the maker or issuer) promises in writing to pay a determinate sum of money to the other (the payee), either at a fixed or determinable future time or on demand of the payee, under specific terms. If the promissory note is unconditional and readily salable, it is called a negotiable instrument.

British law

§ 83. BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT 1882. Part IV.[3]Promissory note defined(1)A promissory note is an unconditional promise in writing made by one person to another signed by the maker, engaging to pay, on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time, a sum certain in money, to, or to the order of, a specified person or to bearer.(2)An instrument in the form of a note payable to maker’s order is not a note within the meaning of this section unless and until it is indorsed by the maker.(3)A note is not invalid by reason only that it contains also a pledge of collateral security with authority to sell or dispose thereof.(4)A note which is, or on the face of it purports to be, both made and payable within the British Islands is an inland note. Any other note is a foreign note.

Examples of Promissory Notes:

Promissory_note_-_2nd_Bank_of_US_$1000Burma_1926_Promissory_Note

Let me now point you to British Case law:

Case Law:

A Lord Denning judgement that says a bill of exchange once tendered has to be treated as cash… The principle is that a bill, cheque or note is given and taken in payment as so much cash, and not as merely given a right of action for the creditor to litigate a counterclaim (see Jackson v Murphy [1887] 4 T.L.R. 92). “We have repeatedly said in this court that a bill of exchange or a promissory note is to be treated as cash. It is to be honoured unless there is some good reason to the contrary”

(see per Lord Denning M.R. in Fielding & Platt Ltd v Selim Najjar [1969] 1 W.L.R. 357 at 361; [1969] 2 All E.R. 150 at 152, CA)

I trust that the above is clear and unambiguous enough for you?

“A promissory note is to be treated as cash”. No dispute, just fact. The reason? Because promissory notes ARE cash. That is why the banks accept your signing of them which, in turn, allows them to MERELY RE-PUBLISH your promissory note as a banknote or bank cheque or electronic fund transfer. The entire point is, however, it is NOT necessary for the banks (the entire system which exists) to hold this power of “transmutation” of your own commercial value. This is where the entire fraud/deception of the banks lies.

Meanwhile, please listen to this banker:

There are a few points he makes which you would then think “Yes he has a point” such as that about paying for the bus with stamps. However, it does not hold up in today’s electronic, card-based society does it? Yes, with the New Economy solution, everything would be electronic/cards. A cashless society in fact. “Just what the state and the bankers want!” I hear you say. Yes it is what they want BUT the immense difference is, they want it for your control and to pay them taxes and interest which are entirely unnecessary. “How..”, you ask, “..would MPE be any different?” Very simply: Along with MPE comes ACR (Absolute Consensual Representation) and a mandate which keeps a dramatically reduced government in check. A government which, by the way, due to MPE and no interest, cannot find itself fattened up by corrupt practices and feeding off the bankers’ handouts from the defrauding you of your money.

Meanwhile, do not consider that every transaction (for chocolate bars and newspapers or even furniture and electronics etc) would need a written, signed Promissory note”. It wouldn’t. Your “credit balance” would be held within the CMI (Common Monetary Infrastructure) which is purely and simply a database of people’s assets, liabilities and transactions (including government and corporations).

Now, the first column of page 474 then simply explains the idea of fractional reserve banking which most of us know about. It, itself, is quite a monumental con since the entire basis of it is lending money which the banks simply do not have (while they charge interest on it). When I first started to study this whole monetary issue, I considered that to be where the entire con lay. However, as I proceeded, I realised there was something more while I could not quite put my finger on it and articulate it.

There is a group/organisation by the name of POSITIVE MONEY which is gaining significant interest and support by people and even MPs while they are finding themselves being funded by various sources (Quakers being one – I attended a Positive Money conference in Edinburgh during which Ben Dyson stated this in answer to a question raised “Who is funding you?”). During that conference, which I attended on the basis, initially, of being very supportive of the goals of Positive Money, I found myself asking questions particularly relating to the question of basic money issuance and the words of Captain Henry Kerby in a Early Day Motion during the 60s in Parliament where he said that money should be issued by the Crown free of any interest. I found myself being somewhat ignored by the Positive Money team once I began to question some issues I had with their ideas.

A fundamental flaw by Positive Money is this: They are promoting the idea of having a two tiered monetary system whereby, in everyday high street banking, there would be no fractional reserve whereas, in the higher levels of investment banking etc, fractional reserves could still apply! The PROBLEM here is quite obvious when one considers the outcome of it. It would mean that, while the existing corruption and the corrupt individuals who play it, would be allowed to continue at the upper echelons of the economy – and through which all significant investment in business and infrastructure within the world’s economy is financed – we, the people who work within the real economy, are “starved” of this thing which they, the banks, purport to be money. We would be “starved” of it because of the very fact that there would be FAR less of it due to the eradication of the fractional reserve. Yes, we KNOW (as I have just explained) that the fractional reserve is a con BUT, within the current system, if you allow it to continue for the elite while discontinuing it for the rest of us, then you have, effectively, created an iron fence between the haves and have nots. The haves have already consolidated much of their wealth (corruptly by the use of the fractional reserve) and Positive Money’s idea is to effectively, allow them to steal it as they have, and lock the barn door after the horse has bolted. Our capability, then, to leverage off such a system (within the existing corrupt system as it is), is removed. I hope the reader recognises this?

However, the fractional reserve issue obscures the REAL, fundamental deception which has had the world locked into servitude where it need not be at all.

Let’s proceed to the “Credit creation” section on page 474 of the textbook…

A single bank system:

Think about the liabilities, assets, deposits and cash. What is staring you right in the face here? (and it is the same for ANY and ALL banks of the world).

Answer: NOT ONE CENT OF THE MONEY IN THAT BANK ACTUALLY BELONGS TO THE BANK!

The deposits are from depositors (you and I). The cash, on the assets side of the ledger are the deposits from you and I!

THE BANKS LITERALLY DO NOT HAVE ANY MONEY OF THEIR OWN! Not ONE solitary cent!

But it is OH SO MUCH WORSE THAN THAT! The text goes on to say that the banks then, by way of the fractional reserve con, LEND this “non existent” money to borrowers, from which, the banks gain interest on money which was never theirs and did not exist! BUT, there is an IMMENSE deception here also and this goes to the root of all:

While the bank is ALLOWED to use fractional reserve procedure when “lending” money to people, it DOES NOT MEAN that they necessarily will. What MUST happen first?

The bank MUST find borrowers who are “GOOD” for the issuance of this “non existent” money. PLEASE NOTE HERE THAT I USE “non existent” IN QUOTES BECAUSE, AS YOU WILL SEE, THE MONEY IS NON EXISTENT TO THE BANK BUT IT IS NOT NON EXISTENT WHEN YOU CREATE IT FOR THEM! Yes, YOU work “magic”. It is YOU who transmutate that “potential energy” of the fractional reserve into “kinetic energy” of real value.

How does this happen?

Well the bank cannot lend “money” which, as yet, does not exist and which is simply an arbitrary possibility which exists in the system which says “A bank can retain a its depositors’ deposits and lend a multiple of this figure”. If it could just issue money like this on a whim and keep doing so with NOTHING to back it, then why does it not? Starvation and scarcity could be ended overnight if that were the case.

The bank can ONLY make that fractional reserve manifest itself as REAL MONEY when YOU or I apply our signature to a loan agreement. Now guess what ALL (without exception) of those loan agreements signed by us are?

PROMISSORY NOTES! 

Please re-read the definition of Promissory notes. They are a promise to pay. Period! We promise to pay back the bank the original “loan” plus the interest they attach to it.

SO WAIT A MINUTE. DO YOU SEE IT YET? HAS IT HIT YOU YET? NO? IF NOT, IT’S OK. IT IS SO MONSTROUSLY SIMPLE THAT IT IS THAT SIMPLICITY WHICH MAKES ALL OF THIS HARD TO GRASP WHEN FIRST INTRODUCED TO IT. DECEPTION IS GENERALLY BEST WHEN IT IS SO OBVIOUS WHEN ONE APPLIES CRITICAL, OUT OF THE BOX, THINKING!

Just allow yourself to remove the blinkers which these people have supplied to you through endless years, decades and centuries of life. To you, your parents, your parents’ parents etc.

EVEN ECONOMISTS, MANY TIMES, CANNOT GRASP THE SIMPLICITY OF THIS. AND NO, PLEASE DO NOT ASSUME I AM HOLDING MYSELF UP AS SOME INTELLECTUAL GIANT. I AM NOT. I HAVE JUST STUDIOUSLY RESEARCHED THIS AND I HAVE HAD HELP BY OTHERS ALONG THE WAY (WHETHER THEY HAVE MEANT TO HELP OR NOT) WHILE TRYING TO BREAK IT ALL DOWN INTO THE BASICS.

The banks, as you know, will not issue money (loans) to anyone without that someone being “GOOD” for the loan. What does “GOOD FOR IT” mean? Well, of course, it means that you have the wherewithal to pay back that loan and the interest. You have an income and/or other assets that act as that guarantee. IT IS YOUR VALUE THAT CREATES THE VALUE OF THE MONEY PAID OUT TO YOU AS A LOAN. IT IS, THEREFORE AS I SAID, YOU WHO CREATES THE “MAGIC” – THE TRANSMUTATION OF WHAT IS ONLY “POTENTIAL MONEY” INTO “KINETIC (REAL) MONEY”. YOU CREATE THE MONEY! 

The bank has a process doesn’t it? It does not issue you any money or loan until you can satisfy financial criteria. YOU see that as being absolutely natural and necessary (and it is) but you see it that the bank is then providing you something that they own – the money. You (and the legal/financial/government system which has you BELIEVE in this monetary system – remember it is ALL about “confidence in the banking system”. CONFIDENCE. Why? Because it is a CONFIDENCE TRICK!) have been led to assume that money (in whatever form) emanates from the banks (high street banks, central banks etc) but it doesn’t. When you sign that loan – that PROMISSORY NOTE – it is YOU and YOUR VALUE which backs the issuance of that currency and all the banks do is enter YOUR VALUE as a figure that YOU “PROMISE TO PAY” into their computers.

THE FRACTIONAL RESERVE (or the proportion of it which you are signing a guarantee to) then kicks in and the bank smiles because you have allowed them to manifest a potential value into real value. They need your income/asset statement to “report” validity of issuing that money.

Now, here is the thing: If everyone, tomorrow, stopped borrowing from banks and the original depositors removed their deposits, then the bank would have no deposits to use as a basis for fraudulent multiplication of those deposits by way of fractional reserve. They would, therefore have no cash assets because the cash assets they have are precisely the deposits which have been removed.

So WHERE is all that money that the banks create? NOWHERE. The banks DO NOT “create money”. YOU DO! 

So when you read or watch all of those documents and videos telling you that the deception is that Banks can create money “out of nothing”, it is simply not true and is another level of deception which is actually in the banks’ favour for you to believe because then, they maintain the “cloak” over what really happens.

Point 2:

Look at Page 475 of the textbook. You will see the following: “You can also see that each horizontal line in table 33.1 balances assets against liabilities and, therefore, at no stage are accounting principles infringed. The bank’s balance sheet at the end of the process would appear as:

LIABILITIES (£)                                          ASSETS (£)

Initial deposits 10,000                               Cash 10,000

Created deposits 90,000                           Loans & Advances 90,000

TOTAL: 100,000                                       TOTAL: 100,000

Again, please remember that not one cent of the money (deposits, cash, “created” deposits, Loans and advances) is money, IN ANY WAY, which has EVER belonged to or been produced by the bank. The bank does not PRODUCE value of any nature within the REAL ECONOMY.

But what else is wrong with the table? There is something missing although the bank/monetary system and economists will never bring to your attention. The table DOES NOT present the true picture and, where it is said, there are no accounting principles infringed and that the system is “in balance” – IT IS NOT!

Why?

It’s all in the “loans & advances”. Come on. Think. What’s missing? It’s the “elephant in the room” by its absence.

ANSWER: INTEREST!

Loans and advances have interest attached don’t they? Ah! But THAT would put the whole picture out of balance so we can’t show that! But that INTEREST is real. It is added to the loan and advance so the actual figure of 90,000 is, in reality, multiplied by the interest percentage. THAT IS THE ONLY WAY THAT THE BANKING SYSTEM CAN MAKE A PROFIT BECAUSE ALL OTHER MONEY IS ACTUALLY OUR MONEY!

[Note to our Muslim friends who believe their system has no interest: Sorry to disappoint your religious beliefs but, while it is not applied with the word “interest” attached to it, every loan you get has “fees” added while you simply receive the principal. Those “fees” ARE interest and those fees would be applied to the “loans and advances” given in the table. There’s no such thing as a “free lunch” for you muslims either. You’re deceived by your own corrupt leaders too]

So what do we have here? We have banks, with NO money of their own, issuing us with entirely our own created money and charging us interest on it. While the money we create for them allows them to multiply it further and issue more to us when WE create it for them (with even MORE interest). The PROBLEM is this: The entire economy (the REAL PRODUCTIVE economy which you and I exist in) has ONLY principal.

If only OUR created principal exists in the economy then HOW do we, as a whole, pay back the INTEREST added? IT DOES NOT EXIST IN THE REAL ECONOMY. Not ONE PERSON has ANY portion of that interest to pay back. What does this mean?

It means that you and I have to compete (dog eat dog in fact) to see who can “win” the interest game and for EVERY “winner” there is a loser. However, the REAL winners are the banks because not only do they get paid some of the interest money by the “winners” but the losers relinquish their assets to the banks (your home/mortgage for example). Now take that up to government level (and ALL governments are borrowers). The governments compete (their competition result in wars and the deaths of millions for “supremacy” and resources and our soldiers are the pawns who ignorantly play this real game of death for them on this “Grand Chessboard”) and there are also winners and losers.

Why would our esteemed politicians play this game? Well it’s simple. Look at them. Look at their relative lifestyles and wealth. What happens when you legislate in favour of the banks’ goals and you are privy to the impacts that legislation will have? While, not only can you invest with that knowledge but also, you are retained by the Corporations and banks before, during and after your tenure in office (see Tony Blair, Ken Clarke, John Major just for three excellent British examples of this). The corruption, however, is throughout the system of government and public service because the system, to maintain itself, requires the military, the Police and the judiciary all to keep doing what they do. Meanwhile these people either do not see, or don’t care, that the very corruption they maintain to keep the system in place, will effect them in one way or another. They have families, friends, cousins, etc who may not be in a position of power and that system will negatively impact their lives at some stage.

Now, why do I enclose the word “winners” in quotes? Well how many people out there who thought they were “winners” in this game have recently (since 2008) found themselves losers? Millions of you! Me included.

While remember this: While the world’s economy has crashed, in these last few years there have been additional billionaires (and millionaires) added to the previous list. How can that be when the world’s financial system has crashed so badly and there is “no money” to be had?

Simple: The corrupt “mafia” who control this system have called in their loans – the loans that aren’t loans in reality but are our value disguised. They have stolen your labour and value by way of obfuscation (obscuring the real ownership of money by us).

Ok, before continuing with a closer look at how this obfuscation works (while I hope the foregoing makes it quite clear already), let’s consider some real world examples which impacts us all every single day:

ENGLAND – DARTFORD CROSSING

From Houses of Parliament 1984: Dartford Tunnel House of Lords

The first Dartford Tunnel Act was passed in 1930, but the first tunnel did not open until 1963. That tunnel was so successful that Parliament, in the Dartford Tunnel Act 1967, authorised the construction of a second tunnel. That Act also provided for the whole of the cost of the second tunnel to be defrayed out of toll income. The tolls in 1963 were set at 2s 6d. They are now 60p which is considerably less than they would be if the ordinary rules of indexing for inflation had been allowed to operate. If those rules had operated, the toll would now be 79p or 80p.

There was evidence given in another place to suggest that we could reach that position even earlier. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) might laugh, because it sounds like a long time ahead. However, in the context of general Government finance, a period of about 16 years during which time a debt of £68 million is expected to be extinguished is not a long time. In the context of financing such an operation, it is a reasonable period that justifies the philosophy of charging tolls and allowing the user of such an exceptionally expensive crossing to bear the cost of doing so.

The next alternative is that the Government should take over the £68 million debt and that it should be borne by the general taxpayer who bears the major burden of road construction. The cost of building an ordinary motorway is perhaps £2 million a mile. We are talking about a tunnel of a little under a mile to be built at £40 million a mile. We are entitled to say that that is an exceptional cost, that a large proportion of the benefit is obtained by the local users and that some other way should be found of financing that proposition. I do not believe that we are justified in placing the cost on the general taxpayer throughout the United Kingdom.

From h2g2: http://www.h2g2.com/approved_entry/A667839

The first tunnel was completed in 1963 at a cost of £13 million; construction had taken five years due to difficult tunnelling conditions through the chalk. Traffic flowed in both directions between the A2 in Kent and the A13 in Essex.

By 1972 traffic had more than doubled, and construction of a second tunnel began to the west of the first. Again it was hampered by the difficult conditions, cost £45 million, and took eight years to complete.

The Queen Elizabeth II river crossing at Dartford (commonly called the Dartford Bridge) was the largest cable-supported bridge in Europe when it was built. Work began in August 1988, and took three years to build at a cost of £86 million – it was completed on time and within budget.

The following is from a Freedom of Information Act response: 

From: Smith, Kevin
Highways Agency

20 August 2009

Dear Mr Mark-William:Baker

I refer to your enquiry dated 10 August regarding the charges collected at the Dartford Crossing and provide the following information.

From 31 July 1988 until 31 March 2003 the Crossing was managed by the Dartford River Crossing Co Ltd. The QEII Bridge was not actually opened to traffic until 1991, the construction of this bridge started in 1988. 

For the period from 31 July 1988 to 31 March 2002 Dartford River Crossing Co. Ltd. were required to produce annual accounts and these may be requested from Companies House. 

They can be contacted at:
Web: http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/
Telephone: Companies House Contact Centre – 0303 1234 500
E-mail: [email address
Address: Companies House 
Main Office 
Crown Way
Maindy 
CARDIFF
CF14 3UZ 

This was an early Private Finance Initiative (PFI) concession, enacted by the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Act 1988, which transferred the existing debt from the tunnels to the private sector who would retain toll revenue to pay off the existing debt and the debt incurred by building the new bridge. Tolls were set by the Department of Transport (and its forerunners) in conjunction with the Concessionaire. The concession was for a period of 20 years from 31 July 1988, but could be ended as soon as the debt was repaid. The Secretary of State determined that all financial commitments had been met by 31 March 2002.

However, the Dartford-Thurrock Act 1988, Schedule 6, Section 16, (4) (1) contained the provision for a Toll Extension Period for the collection of tolls to provide a fund for future maintenance of the crossing. An Extension Agreement between the Concessionaire and the Secretary of State was in place from 4 March 1999 and allowed the Toll Extension Period to run from 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003. All Toll Revenue during this period was passed over gross to the Department for Transport. 

For the period of the Extension Agreement – between 1 April 2002 and 31 March 2003, the Highways Agency records show the sum of £68,363,698.02 received into their bank.

The current charging scheme at the Dartford Crossing came into force on 1 April 2003 under the powers of the Transport Act 2000. Since that date an annual account has been completed and these for the periods between 2003/2004 to 2007/2008 can be found on the Highways Agency website below, under “Reports” 

Web: http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/project…

Copies of the accounts can also be obtained from TSO. (The Stationery Office) who can be contacted at;
Web: www.tsoshop.co.uk
Address: TSO
PO Box 29
Norwich
NR3 1GN
Telephone: Telephone Orders/General Enquiries 0870 600 5522

The account for 2008/2009 is currently being prepared and should be available on our website in early 2010.

For your information there has been a charge in place to use the Dartford Crossing since 1963, when the first tunnel was opened.

From that time until the 30th July 1988, it was the responsibility of the Essex and Kent County Council Joint Consultation Committee. We do not have audited accounts of this period, but you may wish to approach either of these councils directly to obtain data on toll revenues for this period. Their contact addresses are; 

Address: Essex County Council Kent County Council 
County Hall County 
Market Road Maidstone 
Chelmsford Kent 
CM1 1QH ME14 1XQ 
Telephone: 0845 743 0430 Telephone: 08458 247 247 
Web: essexcc.gov.uk Web: kent.gov.uk

I hope this is helpful. 

Yours faithfully

Kevin Smith, Business Manager
Highways Agency | Federated House | London Road | Dorking | RH4 1SZ
Tel: +44 (0) 1306 878181 | Fax: +44 (0) 1306 878494
Web: http://www.highways.gov.uk
GTN: 3904 8181

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartford_Crossing

From April 2010 to March 2011, 50,939,941 vehicles used the crossing, at a daily average of 139,545 vehicles.[6] This represented a fall back to pre-2002 levels, from averages approaching 150,000 since the turn of the millennium.[6] The highest recorded daily usage was 181,990 vehicles on 23 July 2004.

So we have the following facts:

1. The entire crossing, composed of two tunnels and a bridge, cost £13M + £45M + £86M = £144M. Yes you may say that the £13M, £45M and £86M, at today’s prices, would be higher (but that is all part and parcel of the interest con we are under). But nevertheless, the relative costs WERE PAID FOR at the time. The material, the labour ALL bought and paid for. The supplier of materials and the workers, designers, engineers, everyone would be paid. As stated, for example, the bridge came in ON BUDGET. Therefore, it was paid!

2. In ONE year, 51 million vehicles used the crossing. Now, during that one year, the cost of only a car (not trucks, buses etc) was £1.50. Taking just that figure, the crossing made £76.5M. The cost of a car is now £2. The revenue generated over the 20 year concession (maintaining the £1.50 price for the purpose of demonstration): £1,530M

Let me repeat that: 1 BILLION 530 MILLION POUNDS STERLING!

And yet, even in their own words, they state “The concession was for a period of 20 years from 31 July 1988, but could be ended as soon as the debt was repaid. The Secretary of State determined that all financial commitments had been met by 31 March 2002.”

So what’s going on here? Well, it’s very simple. Privatisation and that privatisation is based upon national debt and the reality that we cannot pay that debt off (under this existing usurious monetary system). The costs we are shouldering for this example, and for a never ending list like it, are to pay the national debt interest (for which we also pay taxes – income and property+ others).

WHILE THERE IS A SOUND, PROVEN SOLUTION WHICH OUR LEADERS IN ALL COUNTRIES WILL NOT EVEN ENTERTAIN. THEY DO NOT WANT THE DEBT TO EVER BE PAID OFF (AND IT CAN’T BE IN THE CURRENT SYSTEM BECAUSE, WITH THE ADDITION OF INTEREST TO AN ECONOMY WHICH ONLY EVER HAS PRINCIPAL IN IT, THE SYSTEM IS TERMINAL).

Yes it is true that our government/leadership do not have the intent to pay off our national debt. They simply wish to SERVICE THE DEBT. As shown here:

Captain Henry Kerby 2 Captain Henry Kerby 1

Ask yourself the very simplest of questions: Who would not wish to ever pay off their debt? And why?

Now, here is another example of a bridge about to be built:

Surrey Bridge

NOTE: “Cost will be shared between the government… and Surrey County Council”.

Where has both, the government and Surrey County Council got the money to build this? Yes, you guessed it – YOU! And that is the ONLY place they can get it from. So, now they will pay back that money to who? Yes you! In salaries for your labour in constructing it. Once its construction is complete and paid for, there should be no further costs involved (with the exception of annual maintenance which, strangely, we, the people, carry out – albeit through corporations which need to make a profit. However that KIND of profit is unnecessary because it exists to pay interest debt).

But let’s assume another way they can find that money: Taking loans! Loans, as we know, are Promissory agreements/obligations. How do the government and Council pay back those loans? Do they add anything of value by way of labour to the economy so as to take on these “loans” and be “good for it”? 

No. It is, again, YOU the taxpayer who pays the “loans” back!

But while this (vicious) circle continues, the debt is fraudulently multiplied by the addition of interest (which does not exist in the real economy which has principal only remember?).

THE SOLUTION

To understand the solution, we must first understand the deception. How do you otherwise find a solution for a problem you do not see or understand as existing? You can’t. It’s like punching an enemy you cannot see.

So, I will attempt to explain this as clearly as I can.

1. The banks have no money.

2.The banks DO NOT “create money” they ISSUE it!

3. These issuances of currency/money are simply representations of your and my own promissory notes.

4. The underlying value of ALL money in existence is NOT gold and silver etc and never was and never shall be. Gold and silver, NO MATTER that they have been around as “money” for millennia, are nothing more than any other commodity – precious metals yes. Have an inherent value of sorts yes (but so does platinum, copper, seeds, in fact any commodity whatsoever) but they STILL represent the value you create within the existing monetary system as demonstrated by the fact they are exchanged for your promissory notes/banknotes (remember banknotes ARE promissory notes – see page 474 once more) – and, as such, they have the inherent fault of being inflationary and deflationary. [Note: Bitcoin also has this flaw and is, in no way, a solution to the world’s monetary system. Bitcoin is no more valuable than any other investment such as shares. They act in precisely the same way and, as has been shown, do nothing to prevent wild swings and do nothing, therefore, to prevent inflation and deflation]

5. Inasmuch as the banks are simply representing OUR value, all they are doing is RE-PUBLISHING our promissory notes to one another.

6. You see a house you wish to buy at £100K. You sign a promissory note (“loan”) which is a guarantee to pay  – with your labour and/or assets – but, instead of being free to issue that promissory note direct to the house owner/asset holder you wish to purchase from, you are forced to issue it to the banking system.

7. What does the banking system do? It “transmutates” that promissory note having inherent value (YOURS) into it’s own printed promissory notes/banknotes. It then passes those banknotes (electronically credits the house owner’s bank balance) to the owner of the asset/house. Insodoing, the bank then turns to you “the borrower” (who has created that otherwise non existent money for the bank by way of your signature of the original promissory note) and demands you pay them the £100K PLUS interest.

8. That £100K becomes a deposit and a cash asset within the bank and adds to all the millions of other people’s promissory note creations of money to the bank’s “assets” (not their assets at all as we have seen).

9. The banks then use the fractional reserve system to multiply those deposits even further and lends out more of this “money” they say they have. All the while charging interest to each and every “borrower”.

10. This system has been in operation for centuries while we now have approximately 7 billion people on the planet. These 7 billion people (and all those generations before) have, as a whole, never had the interest money issued into the economy to pay the interest so the very most we could ever do is pay what IS issued into the world’s economy and that is PRINCIPAL ONLY. The REAL ECONOMY cannot pay back money which never physically existed because the principal issued is the ONLY amount which reflects the entire value of our labour.

DO YOU SEE IT NOW? DO YOU SEE WHY THE GLOBAL DEBT (that means everyone on planet earth bar none) is what it is?

So if it includes everyone then why would they do it? Because they (the world’s financial oligarchy) will always be able to pay their interest/debt off because they control the system (not that they actually do pay but that’s another story). IT IS LIKE A CASINO. THE HOUSE ALWAYS WINS. The interest is sucked out and up to the global banking elite who then use that wealth to have our governments further legislate to pay off the debt by privatising infrastructure and land/resources. In the end, the elite do not want money. Money is simply the vehicle with which they indebt the rest of us (including governments) to the point where we have to hand over control of all resources, land and infrastructure to them. Once they have achieved that, then the legal system has them in full ownership and, if you own everything, you don’t NEED money!

11. The banks OBFUSCATE the issuance of money. They fraudulently take ownership of YOUR promissory obligation and, as we have seen, this IS “money”. When you sign that obligation (“loan”) they then add it to their assets. What they then can do (and do do) is SELL that note – because it is REAL value – and the market will pay for it. An example of them selling these notes are the Credit Default Swaps and CDO’s which we heard so much of during the mortgage crisis (which still exists). They package the debts (promissory obligations) up and sell them! How can they sell them if they are not REAL MONEY? What gives them their value particularly when, as you understand it, you still have not paid off the “loan”?

So here’s ANOTHER issue: If they sell these notes for money (which they do) THEN SOMEONE HAS PAID THEM THE VALUE OF YOUR MORTGAGE DEBT. THIS MEANS YOUR MORTGAGE DEBT HAS BEEN PAID OFF! BUT THE BANK STILL DEMANDS YOU PAY THE DEBT SO THEY ARE BEING PAID TWICE! THEY HAVE BEEN PAID AND YET THEY WANT PAID TWICE AND STILL DEMAND YOU PAY INTEREST ON AN ALREADY PAID OFF DEBT!

Additionally, according to “law” a debt paid off is a debt no more. If the market buys your debt they have paid it off! Does the buyer come after you to pay off the debt? No. Yet they are the owner of it now. So why does the bank demand you pay an extinguished debt?

12. The obfuscation of the banks then is this: You create the money. They RE-PUBLISH that money as theirs and issue it to the owner. That is ALL the banks do! They then charge you interest on your own created money. In any other circumstance, it would be YOU who charged THEM interest for lending them money! They make HUGE profits out of your signature creating that money for them. They multiply it and lend it out again and again!

So back to the solution:

1. That £100K house we spoke of. What if you did not issue a promissory note to the banks but simply issued it direct to the owner of the house? (this can be applied to any and all scenarios – private or public or corporate).

2. You would issue a promissory note for £100K to the house owner and the house owner’s account would be credited with the £100K directly and instantly.

3. Your account would show a debit/debt which must be paid down (and out of circulation entirely) over a period of time fitting with the type of asset purchased. In this case a house. The paydown period, in this case, could be 100 years. £100,000 paid down over 100 years is £83 per month. NO INTEREST BECAUSE THERE IS NO MIDDLEMAN WHO SIMPLY RE-PUBLISHES YOUR DEBT – i.e. The bank.

4. The accounting of that transaction (and all transactions nationwide or globally) would be handled by what is called a CMI (Common Monetary Infrastructure). A simple database of all obligations and the recording of all individuals and corporations accounts.

5. There would be no such thing as a bank or a central bank. There would be no such thing as “money” from the perspective of today’s understanding of what money is (which is wrong anyhow). There would be NO INTEREST applied to ANY principal within the economy

Do you remember the Liabilities and Assets table of the bank? The £10,000 of deposits and the £10,000 of cash? It was suggested it was balanced (but had not accounted for the interest). Well, in the case of what is MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY, that balance would be truly kept.

BALANCE IS A FUNDAMENTAL OF NATURE. THIS IS ALSO WHY THE “LAW” (although corrupted) TALKS ABOUT EQUITY. THE LAW OF EQUITY IS THE LAW OF BALANCE: HARMONY.

WITH MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY WE CREATE HARMONY LIKE NEVER BEFORE.

Can you see/envision all the multiple impacts that the implementation of such a system would have?

Perhaps I will get around to writing a follow up to discuss these. For now, I hope you enjoyed the introduction and that it has achieved what it set out to do: Remove the curtain and exposed “The Wizard” in all his glory!

I am sure there will be many people who may read this and have questions of all sorts – a myriad of them I’m sure. There will also be those who read and will wish to dismiss it all – your prerogative – but you will find, if you apply yourself to learning all about Mathematically Perfected Economy, that there are no “catches”. When you can define the problem – and we have – you are then in possession of VERY powerful “tools” to arrive at the solution.

There are many resources on the web relating to MPE (PfMPE). Coupled with MPE is ACR (Absolute Consensual Representation). ACR fixes the present political/legal problems and, although I have already written many blogposts on the fundamental issue with the legal system, it can always be repeated and written in a revised way to make it even more clear. I intend to do that at some point in the near future also.

PLEASE STUDY MPE. IT IS SIMPLE, EFFECTIVE AND, WITH NUMBERS, WE CAN SHAKE THE FOUNDATION OF THE CORRUPTION AND DECEPTION TO THEIR CORE.

ALEX JONES, MAX KEISER, RON PAUL ETC ETC ETC DO NOT PROMOTE OR SUPPORT MPE. THEY WILL NOT DISCUSS IT IN ANY WAY. THEREFORE, IF YOU CLING TO EVERY WORD OF THESE PEOPLE THEN THIS IS NOT FOR YOU.

IF, HOWEVER, YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED HERE AND IT RESONATES, WHILE YOU MAY BE A FOLLOWER OF SUCH PEOPLE, I WOULD CHALLENGE YOU TO CHALLENGE THEM ON IT. YOU WILL FIND THAT, WHERE YOU MAY HAVE HAD THE ABILITY TO COMMUNICATE WITH THEM TO ANY SIGNIFICANT EXTENT, THEY WILL REFUSE TO DISCUSS OR DEBATE THESE POINTS WITH YOU. UNTIL I FOUND THIS ARTICULATION OF WHAT I HAD ALREADY SENSED, I WAS LISTENING INTENTLY TO THE AUSTRIANS ETC. NOW I RECOGNISE THE REAL ISSUE, I SEE THE AUSTRIANS ETC SIMPLY WISH TO MAINTAIN THE FUNDAMENTAL DECEPTION AND RETAIN BANKING WHERE IT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT NECESSARY. WHY? YOU TELL ME! 

 

ADDENDUM:

To further prove that these people who are imposing this austerity on us while our promissory notes have been stolen from us by banks who have then sold the notes on (and therefore the debt is extinguished) as securitizations (You remember the Credit Default Swaps etc from the mortgage crash don’t you?). Here is the reality of Promissory notes being sold as REAL value (cash) by the corrupt:

 

Regardless of whether you signed a mortgage or a deed of trust, you also signed a promissory note — a promise to pay back a specified amount over a set period of time. The note goes directly to the lender and is held on its books as an asset for the amount of the promised repayment.

Here is where foreclosure defense can begin to chip away at a bank’s claim on your property. In order for a mortgage, deed of trust or promissory note to be valid, it must have what is known as “perfection” of the chain of title. In other words, there must be a clear, unambiguous record of ownership from the time you signed your papers at closing, to the present moment. Any lapse in the chain of title causes a “defect” in the instrument, making it invalid.
Promissory Notes are Key to Foreclosure Defense

Some courts may also challenge MERS’ ability to transfer the promissory note, since it likely has been sold to a different entity, or in most cases, securitized (pooled with other loans) and sold to an unknown number of entities. In the U.S. Supreme Court case Carpenter v. Longan, it was ruled that where a promissory note goes, a deed of trust must follow. In other words, the deed and the note cannot be separated.

If your note has been securitized, it now belongs to someone other than the holder of your mortgage. This is known as bifurcation — the deed of trust points to one party, while the promissory note points to another. Thus, a foreclosure defense claims that since the relationship between the deed and the note has become defective, it renders the deed of trust unenforceable.

Your promissory note must also have a clear chain of title, according to the nation’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), the body of regulations that governs these types of financial instruments. But over and over again, borrowers have been able to demonstrate that subsequent assignments of promissory notes have gone unendorsed.

In fact, it has been standard practice for banks to leave the assignment blank when loans are sold and/or securitized and, customarily, the courts have allowed blank assignment to be an acceptable form of proof of ownership. However, when the Massachusetts Supreme Court in U.S. Bank v. Ibenez ruled that blank assignment is not sufficient to claim perfection, it provided another way in which a foreclosure can be challenged.

Another foreclosure defense argument explores the notion of whether the bank is a real party of interest. If it’s not, it doesn’t have the right to foreclose. For example, if your loan has been securitized, your original lender has already been paid. At that point, the debt was written off and the debt should be considered settled. In order to prove that your original lender has profited from the securitization of your mortgage, it is advised that you obtain a securitization audit. The audit is completed by a third-party researcher who tracks down your loan, and then provides you with a court-admissible document showing that your loan has been securitized.

A foreclosure defense can also argue that once a loan has been securitized, or converted to stock, it is no longer a loan and cannot be converted back into a loan. That means that your promissory note no longer exists, as such. And if that is true, then your mortgage or deed of trust is no longer securing anything. Instead of the bank insisting that you have breached the contract specified in the promissory note, foreclosure defense argues that the bank has actually destroyed that agreement itself. And if the agreement doesn’t exist, how can it be enforced? A corollary to this argument states that your loan is no longer enforceable because it is now owned by many shareholders and a promissory note is only enforceable in its whole entirety. How can thousands of people foreclose on your house?

http://www.debt.org/real-estate/foreclosure-defense/

Got that?
PROMISSORY NOTES!
In their very own words (yet STILL not admitted outright but, in fact it is here) the ONLY real value of “money” is represented by YOUR PROMISSORY NOTE.

 

Question: Do we have any recourse even in THEIR own “law” to remedy this and put them away for life?

Answer: Yes (but only if the population get behind it).

It’s called the Theft Act – or Theft and deception Act 1968/1978.

 

Theft Act 1978

 

Now, please understand this: The State adopts ITS interpretation of law because we allow it to. We allow it to by taking NO action. Yet ALL of their Acts, their “Laws” can be turned and used against them and we can change how things operate and run in this (and all) countries. NOT by violence, rioting, insurrection etc (where the Human Rights Act allows them to quell such activity and kill you!), but by mass knowledge and intelligence. A true intellectual revolution.

I would like to say “If you wish to part of that, then put your name in a comment box below” but, somehow, and unfortunately, I have this feeling that very few of you would. There seems to be a thirst for knowledge but not such a hunger for solutions and action for change. THAT needs to change otherwise this misery and corruption is just going to continue.

Advertisements

48 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. your government shoots little children said, on May 12, 2013 at 7:29 am

    Vital essay, needs to be read by everyone

    • earthlinggb said, on May 12, 2013 at 1:52 pm

      I’m glad it pierced the veil for you. Please share if you wish.

  2. ruthstruth2013 said, on May 12, 2013 at 8:07 am

    Brilliant..thanks!

  3. […] THE NEW ECONOMICS […]

  4. ruthstruth2013 said, on May 12, 2013 at 10:01 pm

    Reblogged this on ruthstruth2013 and commented:
    Awesome overview of economy.

  5. Sarah Ledsom said, on May 13, 2013 at 8:50 pm

    Just wish more people could read this blog, it’s a “proper” education. I am still in the learning process and that is on going thanks to this blog.

  6. johnturmel said, on May 14, 2013 at 5:37 am

    Jct: http://johnturmel.com/bankmath.htm has the engineering mathematics proving interest-free is the way to go. Sad that this ended up touting a Mathematically Perfected Economy whose author Mike Montagne’s been ducking a debate with me for a year. This was great. Montagne’s stuff not understandable.

    • earthlinggb said, on May 14, 2013 at 10:47 am

      John, thanks for the comment. I very much want people, who are applying their energies to considering solutions and unravelling the problem, to take a more collaborative view of the issue rather than get into squabbling over what may be the finer detail. There is no doubt that an interest free economy is the way to go. I don’t think there has been any doubt about that among those who do not presently own the corrupt system we live under. It may even go back so far as this man Jesus for all I know!
      I’m glad the blog resonated with you and I have given your page a summary glance for now but intend, at some point, to read it in detail. The thing is, if you can appreciate what I have written here (and I see strong parallels already in what you have written) then there is synergy between MPE and the thesis you have come up with. The fundamentals tell us both where the solution lies – the eradication of interest for one thing. What I did not see in my cursory view of your page (I may have overlooked it) is a statement or explanation of the fact that all money is actually created by us by way of our promissory obligations. Therefore, the banks not only steal our principal from us but also then add interest to it (which is impossible to pay off because the economy only has principal within it). It is, therefore, a terminal system – a terminal disease.
      I would not wish to comment regarding your point about trying to debate with Mike Montagne except to say that I believe Mike has also tried to debate others who have ducked his offers.

      I have no “dog” in this game. I am not interested in debating to win points. I simply want the current system ended and the solution implemented.

      • ruthstruth2013 said, on May 14, 2013 at 10:57 am

        Thank you johnturmel and earthlinggb. I will read your work with interest John and am very keen to hear your explanation or coverage of the issue that earthlinggb raises above: that all money is actually created by us. This, for me is one of the most fundamental differences between the work of Mike and others. I would very much like to arrange a chat with you about your proposal as compared with MPE. I think that open discussions about any issues that are unclear is the only way forward so we can unite behind solution. Thanks!

      • johnturmel said, on May 14, 2013 at 4:32 pm

        I have no “dog” in this game.
        Jct: Good for you. If you want to know what’s going on between me and Mike, Youtube Montague Turmel for his 14 part diatribe (thought I got my licks in). I just don’t like him calling every other money reformer a plagiarist of his work when a Google search shows he and his MPE only came on the scene around 1998.

      • johnturmel said, on May 14, 2013 at 4:33 pm

        Sorry, youtube Montagne Turmel

        • earthlinggb said, on May 14, 2013 at 9:54 pm

          John, I’m somewhat confused by the fact you enjoyed the article. The fundamental fact which MPE exposes and describes is the obfuscation of and stealing of our very own principal promissory obligations which I describe here. I don’t then understand why you would appreciate/understand my explanation of it but not Mike Montagne’s?
          Much of your description of money and how it is created relates to banks creating it. This is the fundamental premise which is wrong. The banks do not create anything. We do. You, yourself indeed point to this (but you do not seem to then say much more on the topic) when you state in your text:
          “Monetary reformers who think that money issued by the banks is fraudulent valueless money are incorrect. It is evident that all the new money issued is originally backed up by collateral or personal IOUs pledged at the time of the loan.”
          You’ve hit the nail on the head there but you do not seem to recognise it. I may be wrong of course. But those collateral or personal IOUs pledged ARE the promissory obligations I am speaking of. Those are what are the “transmutated” by the banks into the money they “lend” us. The fact is, we are creating the money for them and they are simply re-publishing our IOUs (Promissory obligations which are our consideration given to the asset holder/creditor for their property). The banks are acting as entirely unnecessary middlemen who fraudulently turn OUR value (commercial value) into THEIR representations of it while then charging interest for doing nothing more than fraudulently misrepresenting OUR obligations as THEIR form of money!

      • johnturmel said, on May 15, 2013 at 9:37 am

        The banks do not create anything. We do.
        Jct: When was the last time you created some money and didn’t land in jail? We do NOT. We should but we do not. The fact we do not is the problem and the fact we should is the proposed solution. But do not confuse what it should be with what it is. And it is a problem. What you describe, “we do”, is the yet-achieved solution.

      • johnturmel said, on May 15, 2013 at 9:43 am

        I’m somewhat confused by the fact you enjoyed the article. The fundamental fact which MPE exposes and describes is the obfuscation of and stealing of our very own principal promissory obligations which I describe here. I don’t then understand why you would appreciate/understand my explanation of it but not Mike Montagne’s?
        Jct: Well, this is your description of how the UNILETS would work:
        “4. The accounting of that transaction (and all transactions nationwide or globally) would be handled by what is called a CMI (Common Monetary Infrastructure). A simple database of all obligations and the recording of all individuals and corporations accounts.
        Jct: Except UNILETS would also include “Government” accounts. So why start at the bottom pushing an unknown MPE when you can start at the top pushing a known UNILETS. Besides, UNILETS has working LETS models all around the world about to unite to intertrade Hours with or without the UN, and MPE can’t produce a working model. Why is MPE software supposed to work on a big database but can’t on a small?

        • earthlinggb said, on May 15, 2013 at 2:05 pm

          Jct: Except UNILETS would also include “Government” accounts. So why start at the bottom pushing an unknown MPE when you can start at the top pushing a known UNILETS. Besides, UNILETS has working LETS models all around the world about to unite to intertrade Hours with or without the UN, and MPE can’t produce a working model. Why is MPE software supposed to work on a big database but can’t on a small?

          Ans: John, MPE would apply to ALL transactions, government AND individual and Corporate. The CMI would be used for that purpose and the model is produced. I would argue that UNILETS, being allowed to exist and being used, is down to the fact that UNILETS does not pose a great danger to our state governments and their banking collaborators. The reason for this being that UNILETS does not attack the core problem – yet you actually elude to it – the IOUs/Promissory notes ARE the real “money”. It is precisely why those notes may be sold on by the banking system. It’s our promissory obligations (individual or government or corporation) which actually make those banknotes and/or loan agreements/promissory obligations have value! WE are the money creators. The banks’ “money” cannot materialise IN ANY WAY without them finding US as the signatory to the “loan” and US producing something. Their “money” is entirely nothing but mere representation (falsified/counterfeited) of OUR commercial value! Instead of US (individuals/corporations/government) then signing our promissory notes for any particular asset, product or service to the banks who then simply “mirror” our obligation to the asset/product/service holder, we simply issue/sign our promissory note directly to the holder of the asset/product/service. We are then, directly, the obligor/debtor to the creditor/asset holder. The latter gets his/her principal amount asked for and we provide it without being saddled with the corruption of interest. The principal is paid down out of circulation over the period of depreciation or consumption of the asset/product/service. It is shockingly simple, logical and effective.

    • ruthstruth2013 said, on May 15, 2013 at 6:39 am

      Well said Mark in your reply yesterday. Thanks for making it so clear. It is the fundamental point.

      • earthlinggb said, on May 15, 2013 at 11:00 am

        I can see from John’s new comments that the penny hasn’t yet dropped for him. He is still in the mode of thinking money is the physical representation in terms of paper, coin or electronic. John, this is the absolute fundamental. Yes, you are right that, if we “print” our own representations (promissory notes) then it is considered (by the state) as counterfeiting – you’re right of course – BUT you’re missing the crux of the matter: It is the banks’ counterfeiting of our promissory notes which allows them to issue/print what THEY term as “money” – it is ONLY THEIR re-publsishing/representations of OUR value! This is what you are not seeing John.

      • KingofthePaupers said, on May 16, 2013 at 1:46 am

        It is the banks’ counterfeiting of our promissory notes which allows them to issue/print what THEY term as “money” – it is ONLY THEIR re-publsishing/representations of OUR value! This is what you are not seeing John.
        Jct: I really don’t care how we differ in how we “see” it. I care about how it works. You want to play rhetorical games with words? LETS is a working time-based interest-free currency. UNILETS is the global model. MPE is a global model that doesn’t work on the local database. Evidently, how you “see” things is the problem. But it’s pretty clear MPE can’t work on a small database and it’s pretty clear it probably can’t work on a global either.

        • earthlinggb said, on May 16, 2013 at 9:47 am

          “I really don’t care how we differ in how we “see” it.” Then, frankly, take a hike. As I said, I am open to discussion in trying to achieve collaboration. Your puffed up ego does not fit that approach.

          “You want to play rhetorical games with words?”
          What on earth are you talking about man? (Rhetorical question as this discussion is now closed).

          Next time you jump on someone’s blog and purport it to be “great” (suggesting you are in agreement with it) have the damned courtesy of being willing to discuss elements of it you may find difficult to absorb rather than “I really don’t care how we differ in how we “see” it”. It sounds like a schoolchild not getting his way!

      • KingofthePaupers said, on May 16, 2013 at 2:42 pm

        “I really don’t care how we differ in how we “see” it.” Then, frankly, take a hike.
        Jct: Okay, we’ll just leave it that you think there’s something lacking in the UNILETS timebank and I think it’s ideal 1/s banking systems engineering design. I see perfection in an interest-free global timebank and you don’t. And we’ll let posterity decide. How would you like to have a video debate? http://vonvo.com hosts them if you’d like to explain to the world why the Millennium Declaration C6 for an interest-free time-based currency isn’t all that perfect. Should be an easy debate, you only have to find one weakness and I have to maintain complete integrity of design.

      • johnturmel said, on May 28, 2013 at 2:11 pm

        >I can see from John’s new comments that the penny hasn’t yet dropped for him.
        >Jct: I see perfection in an interest-free global timebank and you don’t. And we’ll let posterity decide. How would you like to have a video debate? http://vonvo.com hosts them.. you only have to find one weakness and I have to maintain complete integrity of design.
        Jct: Isn’t it funny that the penny hasn’t dropped on me yet but when I make a challenge to debate, all’s quiet on the MPE front. Has the penny dropped for you?

        • earthlinggb said, on June 4, 2013 at 1:48 pm

          John, I just recently recognised that Mr Montagne has the same problem as you do – You’re both up your own arses! Enjoy your debates. It might actually be fun to listen to two idiots debating who’s most incompetent.

      • John KingofthePaupers Turmel said, on June 4, 2013 at 1:53 pm

        earthlinggb: John, I just recently recognised that Mr Montagne has the same problem as you do – You’re both up your own arses! Enjoy your debates. It might actually be fun to listen to two idiots debating who’s most incompetent.
        Jct: I just love it when a chicken squawks a few insults and runs away from debate. Har har har har har har.

        • earthlinggb said, on June 4, 2013 at 2:39 pm

          John, listen mate. You came to my blog with a thesis of your own. You pointed directly to an OBVIOUS issue which you refer to in your own writing you dumbkopf! If you can’t recognise something you elude to in your own bloody writing and get that out of the way first, I certainly wouldn’t even think of entertaining a jacked up, egotistical little twit like you. Same goes for Mr Montagne and his “quasi religion”. I just happened to find out, through simple questioning of the man, what a “High Priest” he thinks he is. Reminded me of you and your big mouth so I thought I’d let both of you squackers get on with it. My GOD you kind of people need some humility! You get up on your soapboxes and you already feel like dictators. Some chance then of either of you building any serious alliances. You’re both social incompetents! Try putting your ideas over with those attitudes. Good luck! “Kingofthepaupers” indeed. It’s like the church, they preach to the paupers too. I wonder why that is! Now don’t irritate me with anymore of your shit. Ciao John take care of yourself – sure you’re good at that.

      • John KingofthePaupers Turmel said, on June 4, 2013 at 8:33 pm

        arthlinggb: you dumbkopf! a jacked up, egotistical little twit.. both of you squackers.. dictators..social incompetents!your shit.
        Jct:: You foam at the mouth while you chicken out from debate and all I had said was:
        “Okay, we’ll just leave it that you think there’s something lacking in the UNILETS timebank and I think it’s ideal 1/s banking systems engineering design. I see perfection in an interest-free global timebank and you don’t. And we’ll let posterity decide. How would you like to have a video debate?
        Jct: Gee, through all the foam, I didn’t notice anything about backing up what you say, and like your foam, you’re a lightweight who shoots his mouth off and runs away.

      • John KingofthePaupers Turmel said, on June 4, 2013 at 8:59 pm

        >earthlinggb: John, I just recently recognised that Mr Montagne has the same problem as you do – You’re both up your own arses! Enjoy your debates. It might actually be fun to listen to two idiots debating who’s most incompetent.
        >Jct: I just love it when a chicken squawks a few insults and runs away […]
        earthlinggb: John, listen mate. You came to my blog with a thesis of your own. You pointed directly to an OBVIOUS issue which you refer to in your own writing you dumbkopf! If you can’t recognise something you elude to in your own bloody writing and get that out of the way first, I certainly wouldn’t even think of entertaining a jacked up, egotistical little twit like you. Same goes for Mr Montagne and his “quasi religion”. I just happened to find out, through simple questioning of the man, what a “High Priest” he thinks he is. Reminded me of you and your big mouth so I thought I’d let both of you squackers get on with it. My GOD you kind of people need some humility! You get up on your soapboxes and you already feel like dictators. Some chance then of either of you building any serious alliances. You’re both social incompetents! Try putting your ideas over with those attitudes. Good luck! “Kingofthepaupers” indeed. It’s like the church, they preach to the paupers too. I wonder why that is! Now don’t irritate me with anymore of your shit. Ciao John take care of yourself – sure you’re good at that.
        Jct:: “dumbkopf! jacked up, egotistical little twit..squackers.. dictators..social incompetents!your shit. You sure know how to foam at the mouth while you chicken out from debate. All I had said to elicit this diatribe was:
        “Okay, we’ll just leave it that you think there’s something lacking in the UNILETS timebank and I think it’s ideal 1/s banking systems engineering design. I see perfection in an interest-free global timebank and you don’t. And we’ll let posterity decide. How would you like to have a video debate?”

        Jct: Gee, through all the foam, I didn’t notice anything about backing up what you say, and like your foam, you’re a lightweight who shoots his mouth off and runs away from the showdown. But you sure know how to call names to cover your retreat. Har har har. Love making foul-mouths back down in public, forever.

        • earthlinggb said, on June 4, 2013 at 10:56 pm

          Ok I’ll be blunt. Work it out you stupid senile git! Blunt enough for you? You come up with the answer on your own blog and don’t even recognise it! Now THAT is senile. And you have the audacity to fill my blog with your inane comments? Typical fricking American blowhard!

  7. Denis Hounsome said, on May 14, 2013 at 9:13 pm

    earthling you never fail to amaze me.

    • earthlinggb said, on May 14, 2013 at 9:15 pm

      How’s that Denis? This must be your first comment to any of my blogs isn’t it?

  8. KingofthePaupers said, on May 16, 2013 at 1:39 am

    The reason for this being that UNILETS does not attack the core problem
    Jct: No, the LETS or UNILETS or any 1/s token system successfully attacks the core problem of owing more than was printed. How you can’t realize that UNILETS is a Mathematically Perfected Economy tells me MPE itself is not that perfect, is it? So my point is: why couldn’t your CMI or MPE be demonstrated on a small database as you propose it for the global while LETS works locally and proposed globally. If your model works globally, why can’t you demo it locally like LETS has done?

    • earthlinggb said, on May 16, 2013 at 9:38 am

      John, there are a couple of things I am now sensing with these new comments of yours. I had watched one of your videos with, what seems, a couple of students in the street. My observation was of a very ego-driven guy, somewhat pompous and rather childish to be honest. I decided to overlook my initial view thinking well, we all have character traits (some of which I find most off-putting particularly from a well aged gentleman). However, I now see that same character shine through on here. Further, I note your comment “I don’t care…” – well John, that about sums it up and says it all. You approached this blog positively and are now (and have been) trying your damnedest – but with little success – to undermine it while all you seem interested in is pushing/promoting your LETS ideology. I do believe that is the only reason you commenced this discussion. Your assumptions about MPE re local/global are entirely wrong while your point about LETS hitting the “core” problem is also wrong. Indeed, interest is ONE of the core problems but, again, you are either incapable of recognising something which you elude to in your own text (IOUs) as being the fundamental core problem ( that is the RE-PUBLISHING of such promissory obligations by the banks) OR,as you state, you simply don’t care to! Either way, your approach to this is quite telling. So LETS move on John – meaning, I really no longer have the patience with someone taking that approach. Thanks for your contributions. It is a pity, after all of this, they prove of no value. Remember that “dog” I was speaking about and the ego? Next time you go for a shave, look in the mirror.

  9. Maree Taylor said, on May 27, 2013 at 6:28 pm

    Need to get my head around this. It feels right. Regards

    • earthlinggb said, on May 27, 2013 at 8:39 pm

      Totally understand Maree. It takes a little while for the penny to drop but trust me, once it does the genie can never be put back in the bottle. And it is right Maree. What they have done is outrageously simple yet brilliant. What stops many from “seeing it” is our conditioning over centuries. We see banks as just what they are and that we need them We DON’T! Let me know when that penny drops. Any questions, please don’t be afraid to ask. Regards.

  10. Cathryn Birchall said, on May 28, 2013 at 12:38 pm

    One of the clearest explanations of the monumental fraud that I’ve read, and I’ve read a few! Well done for de-mystifying this scandal and for the spiritual path you now tread. I will share, share, share!!!!

    • earthlinggb said, on May 28, 2013 at 6:55 pm

      Thank you Cathryn. And I hope you do “share share share” 🙂 I’m always very pleased to get feedback from people who have found it useful and explained clearly to them. I understand we all learn in different ways however. For others, it may require some form of other explanation.

  11. […] Reblogged from Earthlinggb's Blog: […]

  12. Holland4MPE said, on July 13, 2013 at 5:56 am

    Reblogged this on GEPERFECTIONEERD GELD & ECONOMIE.

  13. Ambassador said, on July 14, 2013 at 10:10 am

    For me MPE was untill now difficult to comprehend. It felt good. But I could not reproduce it in my own words. So thanks.

    In my own thinking, I already asked myself: what do we need banks for?
    If I want to buy a house I can lend the money I need, directly from other people (friends, family and perhaps others) and to each and every one of them I make a promise: I pay you back x Euro’s in y years, by paying you z Euro’s each month. I, we only need a system that keeps track of de promises and the pay backs. Completely transparent to all people involved. So every one can keep an eye on each others credibility (doing what is promised). I, we also need a back up system when someone breaks his promise.
    An other disadvantage could be that the house-seller does not get his money immediately.

    So as I see it you make it even more simple. I give my promise-note directly to the house-seller (buying it) and he brings it to the bank. So he gets his money (purchase value) immediately and the bank puts me in debt for that amount of money. So I have only one “person” to pay every month. Is that correct?
    But why would a bank do that for us? How does it earn money? Just by being payed for the service of accounting? Just by being satisfied with my monthly payments?
    I’m I still overlooking something here?

    Thanks again.

    • earthlinggb said, on July 14, 2013 at 11:34 am

      Ambassador, thank you for your comment and question. It really is great when I can see this has been explained well enough that people really grasp it. So thank you. Yes, it is correct that one would give the promissory note direct to the house seller (the value then being recorded within a “CMI” – Common Monetary Infrastructure, not a bank. No need for banks. There never has been a need for them. – So then, yes, you only have one “person” (the CMI) to pay every month – paying down the debt out of circulation in line with consumption/depreciation.
      A bank would not do that for us because a bank is a business for profit yet a bank gives no consideration like all other businesses should do. Banks simply administer the money in the economy and that money is a medium of exchange which represents (or should represent) the true, exact, value of the real economy in terms of all property and assets. The CMI would do the administrative job of the banks today but the CMI would be no more than a large database of record, recording all transactions. It would be staffed by accountants and such, yes, but simply not run for profit. The staff would be salaried Based upon the value placed upon such a function by society just like any other function. What we would see under MPE, however, is that there would be some major re-adjustments to the value placed on various jobs due to a change of perception by society re the worth and usefulness of such jobs. They would not be valued (or devalued) in the way they are today.
      Hope this helps?

      • Ambassador said, on July 17, 2013 at 10:39 pm

        Yes, it helped. Thanks.
        I would love to start a CMI.
        😉

        • earthlinggb said, on July 17, 2013 at 10:51 pm

          Well, for now, we just need a few million more to sign the mandate. For now, join the Facebook page: People for mathematically perfected economy worldwide. Cheers.

  14. Steph Taylor said, on July 28, 2013 at 8:09 pm

    Just wanted to add that a good resource for those trying to understand money is available at servantking.info – see Programs particularly ‘Confusion of money’. It ties in with your article in that the prom note has value because it is a claim to something of ‘real’ value. Another thought (from the case of mixt monies) when genuine bills of exchange were issued: consideration was both ways & ownership passed both ways – courts held that additional amounts could not be charged to that stated on the bill (eg if currencies devalued where there was delay in payment), but, now we trade with prom notes (known as ‘dry exchange’ -as goods pass at a later time?) so interest is allowed to be charged. Ironic that all ‘money’ is now dry exchange and anything we do own outright is registered to some state entity (eg car, house)! Or, is the reason we own nothing because we haven’t ‘paid’ because we used debt notes of the bank and the bank never makes actual payment with real value (eg gold)? Hope i made sense!

    • earthlinggb said, on July 29, 2013 at 12:30 am

      Some great points made there Steph and very interesting. I can see very strong parallels and see a few further points which may demonstrate one or two issues. I intend to return to these points you’ve made when I’ve had time to consider them myself. Thanks very much for the input.

  15. Anthony Goodman said, on August 1, 2013 at 4:06 pm

    Thank you! That’s all absolutely clear to me now. You’ve made MPE very understandable (I stand under MPE!). I’d already realised that all we need is a change in our awareness because the banking infrastructure is already in place and can, in principle, be REPURPOSED into being the Common Monetary Infrastructure (CMI). When I’ve described such a system to people who have been moaning about (what is ultimately) ‘the lack of money’, the penny invariably drops. I see faces light up with the realisation of direct insight into the money problem and it’s solution. But with this blog, you’ve helped me connect even more dots for a more complete and accurate big picture of what ‘economy’ is all about.

    I’d still like to figure out how ‘economic rent’, as the economists call it, would be dealt with. What about privately owned land? The privatisation of land ownership has been a significant aspect of our out of balance economy, regardless of banking fraud. Anyway, I’m sure that will become obvious as I look more deeply into MPE and ACR.

    Thank you so much again.

    A Goodman

    • earthlinggb said, on August 1, 2013 at 4:17 pm

      Thank you Anthony for the comment. Again, it please me no end to have people comment that it all makes sense to them once they have read and considered fully. As you know, once done, you wonder why it was never recognised before! “The simplest things…” as they say.
      Please, as I would ask of all commenters who understand it, share so that as many people as possible can finally realise a true solution to all of this we are faced with.
      Unfortunately, my time is rather limited at the moment to reply with the depth due to your question re comic rent and land privatisation as well as to Steph’s points below. I do intend to come back to them all however and hope you will have patience with me on this.

      Regards.

  16. […] How/why? Read the following: The New Economy. […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: