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



The *WORD* was the first form of currency that arose among the men.  It circulated in the first communities that established private property. This coin, which would be unimaginable for many today, was a primitive form of promissory obligation. Instead of a promissory note, it would be a verbal prototype, which came to replace barter naturally. The word was the first leap to a development of trade and therefore the concepts of society and private property.

Through the word, one could *issue* an obligation to pay or a promise to a real creditor. For example, John issued his word to a sheep farmer and acquired some of his sheep, promising in return for so many of his chickens that he would raise. The payment of this promise is called redemption. The promise was obliged to redeem Johns word with his own production, and the creditor gave up their property (sheep) for believing in the ability of John producing chickens and thus to redeem his word. This promissory obligation represented the commitment of John to produce so many chickens and deliver them to the true creditor (sheep farmer) in the future. The agreement or contract, would be sealed only by word and trust, without any more formal record.

The real creditor, in turn, could pass on that promise to the community until the promissory obligation was fulfilled, redeemed, therefore so as to acquire the production of other creditors that accepted the original promise of the chickens. The subjects of this economy, needed to fulfill the verbal contracts otherwise they would lose credit in their communities. Thus, the word constituted its function as currency because it allowed trade between producers through credit.

The commitment could be recorded, if necessary, with the help of witnesses, which would confer validity and a primitive form of evidence to verbal contracts. The witness could be used in local tribunals verifying the issuance of the promissory obligation and its intrinsic agreements, and the consensus between the two parties: the creditor and the obligor.

Evidence of entitlement to wealth is one of the most essential factors that money adopted since it started to be recorded in a more consistent or physical form. A tablet made of clay could be used for this purpose, which would constitute a form of notation. The concept of promissory note was birthed through the passage from orality  to writing. The notation thus strengthens the evidence of entitlement to the true creditor, as well as the obligation of the issuer of the promise.

Thereafter, the money or currency, begins to reveal its fundamental principle: that of being a protection to the creditor’s claim of value given up in the exchange of property for a promissory obligation. The protection is partly because the promise is registered and would point to the issuer of something of value, thereby allowing the true creditors to make use of this money as they wish. The promissory note received in an exchange for another’s production shows that the true creditor who gives up the property has, the right to take equal measures of earned entitlement from the pool of wealth so long as another accepts it.

The origin of the term “I give you my word” must therefore have originated in this early commercial relationship. The breakdown of the inherent morality in an oral agreement, or non-payment of debts, would compromise the credibility of a defaulting obligor. “My word is my bond”, may also have an origin in the fact that the word can function as money, since bonds today refer to purported debt securities. ( note : treasury bonds today are not the creation of money because their purpose & function  is to merely re-inflate circulation with what has already been created    )

Contracts have an executable nature, but if someone who did not redeem his word was executed in antiquity, it’s another story. The Code of Hammurabi, king of Babylon, indicates that this option was recurrent. The earliest records of promissory notations were found in Mesopotamia and date from 2000 BC.

Photo by Marie-Lan Nguyen

Tablet of notation used in ancient Mesopotamia to record a promissory obligation between an obligor and a creditor.

Because of its fragile state, susceptible to abuse, problems related to the lack of evidence, which creates a space for voluntary breaking of commitment, the word, despite of having worked as a currency and had facilitated trade between men, was substituted for the written promissory note. Worldwide, up to now, money remains a promissory notation.

For millennia, we have lived in an purposed obfuscation of the nature of our currency and money creation. The imposition of currencies linked to commodities, such as gold and silver, was born out of an exploitation of our universal right to issue promissory obligations to actual creditors who give up property. Banks came into existence to impose a currency that would overshadow the intrinsic characteristic of any preexisting form of money, allowing bankers, ‘money changers‘, to intervene on our industry and commerce, seizing for itself all the money ever created into circulation. Banks have never given up property or anything of value of their own commensurable to the debts they falsify to themselves and impose on us. Unwarranted interest is likewise imposed, only as if the bank risked something of their own, thus stealing & laundering circulation which irreversibly multiplies falsified debt into terminal sums of falsified debt .

The redemption of the word as the fulfillment of an obligation in respect to the rights of those who believed in it, would be an end of a cycle that was vital to the common good of all men. The etymology of the word “pay” is to “pacify” (a obligation). If man had managed to keep the immutability of his words likewise his promise to pay unexploited obligations we would not have to pretend to be prosperous in today’s LIE of economy. Words, indeed, should be worth more than gold.

” All rights reserved to the original author Adriano Lorenzo & consequent Co author David Ardron “

(Video clip source ” The Ascent of Money ” by Professor Niall Ferguson.)

Any claim or unqualified assumption that purports a clay tablet of notation such as the above evidences a fact banking existed 2000BC is completely unfounded & simply not true,  because the word ” máš ”  in the Sumerian according to translators has a double meaning, purporting to mean  interest ,   however máš “ likewise translates to lamb or goat, which is clearly misinterpreted as interest on a  presumed loan, which was instead a promise.

In other words clay notations  in ancient Mesopotamia involved a promissory notation to pay over time with ones future livestock/ production   to  a true creditor who  actually gave up their own property or production, therefore taking a risk in the exchange upon the issuance of another’s promissory notation, however due to the misunderstanding of interest by most if not all people   today, interpreters included , they’re failing to conclude the presumed interest is actually * earned profit *, in fulfilling a * principal  debt * were it was merely an unimpeded agreed promise (NOT A LOAN)  to pay over time with ones own future production to a true creditor who actually gave up a like volume or measure of their own production for that promise (money), which  most certainly did not entail any intervention resulting in the taking of unearned gain, or unwarranted interest paid to an interventionary party, or be it to a thief who clearly gives up nothing of their own  such as today’s banks, who impose such an unjust intervention upon our promissory obligations /notes, contracts or promises we have to each other, where such notes today are  subject to a monumental crime of theft by banks pretending to loan the value of what value is given up in the promise.

Logically to infer clay notations evidences a form of early banking dating back to 2000BC is to likewise admit there was unjust intervention  & no consideration of value given up by a purported creditor on those clay notations which was clearly not the case.

comment full 2