Tags

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

#SHOW COMMENTS

The question we all should be asking ourselves,  has anyone disproved MPE ?
The answer is ” NO ” not in over 44 years.  Read more

Most if not all economists have been taught a false doctrine in universities & schools where money creation is overlooked completely teaching unqualified assumptions as fact when they are indeed not fact if one looks at all the contributing factors at hand .

1) What does the promissory obligation or promissory note represent when the purported borrower issues it ? , known as a contractual obligation or to the average Joe the loan contract.

2) Contract essentials, when the essentials of contract law are violated.

Contract Essentials
Example 1, Example 2

If any of the essentials are missing the contract may be void, avoidable, unenforceable or illegal?
Having said that if a purported loan contract is void it means there is NO loan from a bank nor is there any debt owed to any bank 😉

1) Intention – an intention to *create * a legal relationship

2) Offer – a proposal which may be accepted, or otherwise rejected or terminated

3) Acceptance – acceptance of an offer and its terms and conditions

4) Terms – terms and conditions. This is treated as a separate element because not all offers expressly state or clearly identify all the relevant terms and conditions.

5) ** Consideration ** – something of value given in exchange for a promise; not required if the contract is signed as a deed

6) Capacity – contracting parties which have legal capacity (eg they are not bankrupts, minors or subject to mental health law)

7) No other ground for legal issues or invalidity – uncertainty, mistake, fraud, misrepresentation, misleading representation, duress, undue influence, unconscionability, illegality, good faith, penalty, unenforceable restraint of trade etc. Sometimes these grounds are grouped under the heading genuine consent.

Mathematically Perfected Economy ( Contract Essentials )

Therefore the debate must start with the obligors or purported borrowers promissory obligation where certain questions have to be addressed first.

1) What consideration does the bank give up of its own upon the obligors promissory note or promissory obligation? ( Before any banking book entry )

2) How is interest created & then issued into circulation above the sum of principal to prevent circulatory deflation, upon a monumental scale,  when its perpetually paid out of circulation upon all our very own personal, but private, debts to local banks?

Addressing these two simple questions establishes the true creditor who actually gives up property, gives up consideration ,likewise the obligor or purported borrower gives up their labour & production which is also deemed lawful consideration, however we have now, then, established the only entity or entities ” banks ” purposely intervene on our promissory obligations we have  to each other, where banks are giving up no consideration of their own commensurable or equivalent  to the falsified debt ” that ” banks ” impose on any purported borrower, thus the purported borrower or obligor is indeed the true issuer of new money ( principal only ) upon its very conception by issuing a promissory obligation  & any money published thereafter, or a further representation of that promissory obligation  the ” banks “ publish or prints thereafter is a purposed misrepresentation, evidencing  the former contractual obligation or promissory obligation/ note the *alleged borrower* issues before any banking book entry.

Likewise having now established the bank doesn’t create money we can now determine the bank is merely pretending  to loan any sum of principal only as if it was the banks  principal to loan out in the beginning, consequently , then, keeping all payments, failing , then, to retire the principal, unjustly, then , as a further consequence, charging unwarranted  interest, only, as if the ” banks ” risked or gave up principal consideration value of their own that would be otherwise commensurable or equal to the former contract or promissory obligation, interest I may add now,  that hasn’t been created nor issued into circulation above its intended representation, EG: A house , clearly indicating  any paid interest to ” banks ” above the sum of principal is perpetually depleting a general circulation that only ever consists of some remaining principal at the very most, making it mathematically impossible for everyone to pay down their * falsified debts * without a guaranteed default imposed upon an  * alleged borrower * through NO fault of their own.

As a consequence of this criminal behavior by a monumental theft of vital circulation, by all banks ( no exceptions ), our political representatives are then multiplying our very own * falsified debt * into terminal sums of falsified debt by periodically borrowing further sums of national debt ( principal & interest ) that was originally paid out of a general circulation ( by one of us ) so as to perpetually re-inflate circulation over & over just enough to artificially sustain a vital circulation for all our industry & commerce, or whats left of our industry & commerce only just enough, then, so the ” banks ” can  continue consolidating & dispossessing even further of our wealth public & private, on every cycle, keeping us, then, always in a state of shortage while all along we are robbed blind every Hour, every Minute & every Second of every Day.

NOTE: The very reason why MPE™ cant be implemented on a micro level in any community small or large is because it will result in competing with another local currency & if we exchange money or property with another competing currency that has an adverse volumetric disposition such as Interest for example logically we will inherit the other currencies volumetric impropriety simply by exchanging any money or property subject to that other currency.

MPE™ has to be done on a national level at the very least so we can keep the money at home for starters, if we are ever to compete or trade with another nations production  & its currency . If we did implement MPE on a micro level we may well allow another currency to artificially manipulate MPEs 1.1.1 ratio or adversely effect the volume of circulation per represented property value making it impossible for everyone to pay down & retire the circulation without someone defaulting on there obligation through no fault of their own .

The idea of microeconomics or competing currencies  fails at its core concept by not addressing the nations volume of circulation on a macro level & the act of exchanging money & property subject to artificial manipulation with another currency opens up the door for one currency adversely effecting another that wouldn’t otherwise have an adverse volumetric disposition.

Micro currencies competing within any nation is an epic fail of rudimentary logic & is stupid as stupid gets .

Mathematically Perfected Economy ( Debate Challenge )

Mike head to head below with Roger Hayes one of many plagiarists from the purported lawful bank in a heated debate, this is hot hot hot & a must to listen to for all the family folks.
Many Thanks to sovereign Garry at TNS radio for this opportunity.

Mike Montagne ( MPE™ ) ” Debate ” with Roger Hayes ( unlawful bank )

Just a few notes:
Let me be clear, no one is renting in MPE, nor do homes appreciate in price, there are no bureaucrats who dictate the value of your labour & production you give up & receive from each other, not the CMI  , not any politician & most certainly not any thieving bank who artificially inflates prices on falsified debts, you only pay for what you consume in MPE & that is rightfully retired at your choice of consumption.

NOW YOU CAN PAY DOWN YOUR HOME SOONER IN MPE OWNING IT OUTRIGHT IF YOU WANT?
For example If you bought a * NEW * house in a Mathematically Perfected Economy™ for $100,000, with a projected life span of a 100 years consumption based on its value a builder gives it, or subsequent additional  consumption value a seller may give that house over its lifespan , based then , on quality of materials, design , quality of workmanship etc , & you then,  paid down $100,000 sooner over 50 years rather than the projected 100 years the CMI will still retire the $50,000 you already paid in advance ( still in your account otherwise as savings, NOT STOLEN BY A BANK ) as you consume the remaining life span of the house you purchased still adhering to MPEs 1.1.1 ratio. ,respectively equal to remaining debt obligation, remaining value of the house & remaining money in circulation.

So If one Pays down $2,000 instead of $1,000 a year on a $100,000 home with a lifespan of 100 years you consequently then own that house in 50 years instead of 100 years , likewise if you pay down $5,000 a year you own that home out right in 20 years , again if you pay down $10,000 a year you will own that home outright in 10 years, keeping in mind whatever you pay above your consumption stays in your own savings account ( ITS NOT STOLEN BY A THIEVING BANK ) & you see it being rightfully retired as you consume the remainder of the house & at any stage for any unforeseen circumstance you need do draw on that money you paid in advance sitting in your own account you can.

However If one did choose to pay down their obligation faster one wouldn’t have that extra money one otherwise would have to spend on other things such as holidays or  a business, expanding business, employing more people , paying more to employees etc , the list is endless.

MPE ( Who decides the ” rate ” of depreciation )

Its Not rocket science, ” interest exists” today when its borrowed back as national debt to re inflate circulation which always comprises of the principal & the interest that was paid out of a general circulation that only ever consists of some remaining principal at most which multiplies falsified debt into terminal sums of falsified debt.

By the very definition of the word * exist * is not to say interest doesn’t exist  because it does exist as a sum of principal?.  Indeed earned profit from the out set of any Promissory obligation  is not a sum of interest at all , its always a sum of principal, interest can only exist as a sum of principal , to deny the existence of interest & the principal borrowed back to * persist * as a multiplication of artificial debt upon reflation  is not only denying the existence of a multiplication of debt but its also  to deny the existence of the banks 2nd crime where a sum of principal is stolen in the form of unwarranted interest on a falsified debt, likewise to infer principal only exists is to  also deny interest exists as sum of principal paid out of circulation on a falsified debt.

Interest may not be created but certainly does exists as a further or consequent theft of principal, so  to suggest interest doesn’t exist  is to deny a crime has taken place where paid interest to a local bank, the banks 2nd crime, is only a result of the banks 1st crime pretending to loan you the sum of principal which is a former theft of principal before the 2nd crime of charged interest & indeed before any banking book entry disguised then as an ” alleged loan “ when the obligor ( not the borrower ) issues a promissory note , therefore the bank only ” allegedly loans “ you the principal that you created only as IF it was the banks principal to loan out to begin with, which only ever issues a sum of principal into circulation from the outset regardless?.

Therefore we have now established the banks first two crimes.
1) The local bank steals a sum of principal an * alleged borrower * creates by purposefully obfuscating the obligors promissory obligation, before the banking  book entry, pretending, then, to loan principal only as if it was the banks principal value to loan out in the beginning.

2) As a result the bank, then, steals a further sum of principal by charging unwarranted interest on what is a *falsified debt* only as if the bank gave up or risked consideration of its own commensurable or equal to the *alleged loan* or debt it falsifies to itself.

I therefore challenge * anyone * even mainstream academia in economics or law to debate on TNS radio, contact me here , anything else is taken as clear evasion of fact.

PS : If anyone  genuinely believes they have poof MPE is flawed I logically expect one to take up my already 2 year old debate challenge ( see the video above ) & contact me personally, either here in the comments below on ” this blog ” or by email with such purported proof in writing first , so I at least have something to prepare & work with , now if one cant grant me this simple request it will be taken one is not serious in their intent to formally debate at all , but may have other motives at hand  ” personal or otherwise ” that might or may just take precedence over any rational debate .

Thank you

David Ardron

comment full 2

Advertisements