Tags

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

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

Now we have established a debt instrument is a *promissory obligation* which is a *contractual obligation* we can now ask ourselves do banks create or issue a debt security, or any further representation or misrepresentation of a debt security such as a treasury bond, by asking one simple question that relates to the *Contract Essentials* (contract law), which can either validate or invalidate a contract that may or may not precipitate a debt to the bank or mere publisher of money (central bank) .

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

Of course one cant just irrationally assume the bank creates money from a debt security if the bank cant prove or even demonstrate what consideration of value the bank gives up or risks in that debt security, when all banks can ever do is publish a further representation of the money the real issuer is creating, who is actually giving up consideration of commensurable value equal to the debt to otherwise evidence who the real issuer of a debt security (promissory obligation) actually is, which logically determines who is creating money.

I ask a simple question of logic to the reader. If the bank or mere publisher cant prove or even demonstrate what consideration they either risk or give up, well who else can prove they give up lawful consideration of value if not ourselves the real issuers or creators of money, which is clearly the obligor who actually makes (creates) a promissory note or contractual obligation by signing & therefore issuing that contractual obligation (money) which owes an obligation to another, therefore the obligor is one who must pay on a promissory note or obligation , otherwise known as a debtor who is legally or contractually obliged to provide a benefit or payment to another.

I ask again if a bank or mere publisher neither risks of gives up consideration of value & WE DO, predominantly the obligor & it is the obligor who actually signs the contractual obligation in a purported loan how is it even rationally or ethically possible for any bank to create money if the bank neither risks or gives up consideration, or even signs the contractual obligation to otherwise justify even taking interest in a purported loan *only as if * the bank or mere publisher risks or give up consideration of value in the purported loan .

As for security deeds, HOWEVER, such as deed to a home, WELL, this is not what actually creates money & its a barefaced LIE to suggest it ever is, simply because the deed is not a promissory obligation or debt security that creates new money. Just because this debt security or promissory obligation is collateralized by the property it purchases doesn’t make that promissory obligation or money itself a deed to a home. Only a bankers fool would suggest something so moronic.

Therefore the deed of a home is the rightful possession of the real creditor who gives up prior ownership of *property itself* , which is property that has *consideration of value* representing therefore what the seller is giving up in any sale such as a home itself, until such time that home is sold to the debtor or obligor, thus transferring deed title to the debtor or obligor for paying the real creditor in full from the outset of creating the money or issuing a promissory obligation, regardless if the bank is taking unlawful possession of deed title resulting from any purported loan from any bank to the obligor, yet this is not to just blindly assume the money representing the debtors or obligors own present & or future production is what value the seller is giving up, much less the non-existent value any bank is purportedly giving up from its otherwise prior legitimate possession — absolutely not — simply because although both CREDIT & MONEY have consideration of value logically “that value” is separate each to to their own in respect to what the buyer & seller is giving up in that sale, which is an exchange of consideration of value. Property being the value the real creditor is giving up & the money being the value the debtor gives up, either by actually earning money to pay the debt & or what value the obligor is formerly giving up by signing & issuing a promissory obligation that issues new money (principal only) into circulation by promising their own future production that even has lawful consideration of value today, otherwise the thief (ie:bank) wouldn’t be even stealing the consideration of value we give to all money & property in phony loans, “X2” due to unwarranted interest.

Furthermore the security deed is not the banks rightful possession or title of ownership to begin with if the bank cant even prove or demonstrate what consideration the bank is actually risking or giving up in any purported loan to otherwise evidence the banks rightful possession, repossession of physical collateral, or title of any deed, much less evidence the banks purported creation of OUR money, or any loan to one of us.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advertisements