Refuting R. Harmsen at rudhar.com

#SHOW COMMENTS

If I may add a new pretender R. Harmsen, WHO is not only advocating banking exploitation with unqualified assumptions but  likewise publishing further unqualified assumptions about MPE  here , here & here in attempt to sell you banking  exploitation that pretends to loan money .

Lets undress the 3rd article which undress’s the 1st & 2nd regardless shall we?

R. Harmsen.: So money is a promise to pay, an obligation to pay following an obligatory schedule, however it is also voluntary but nevertheless enforced by the republic? (Or the state? Or the Common Monetary Foundry on behalf of the state?)

What does this enforcement do to the sovereignty of that money issuing individual, the one who made the voluntary promise?

D. Ardron: No , the CMI retires money on behalf of the people NOT the state because the state/ republic  gives up no consideration of value in any obligatory schedule or in the creation of money, not now, or in MPE either? ,  the promissory obligation is a promise to pay by the people as they use or consume represented property they purchase, public & private , which is an obligation to pay & retire the sum of principal the obligor creates by signing & issuing an unexploited  promissory obligation . The obligatory schedule is an equal  1.1.1 ratio where the remaining circulation is always equal to the remaining obligation or principal debt & always equal to the remaining * represented * property value.

What is voluntary is our right to issue an * unexploited * promissory obligation , which is an enforceable commitment thereafter the issuance by an obligor , to pay down ( not pay back ) & rightfully  retire the principal at the rate of the obligors choice of consumption or depreciation of the related property .

If the obligor does not  rightfully retire the Principal for the represented property they purchased, we cant solve the otherwise circulatory inflation if they didn’t. It is the obligor who enforces their commitment or obligation by signing & issuing a promissory obligation.

R. Harmsen: What means of power does the state or the CMF have to enforce payment, if there is no true debt? There is a voluntary obligation to pay, but that’s not a debt? In the existing economy and financial system, a financial obligation is always a debt. Seems much clearer to me.

D. Ardron: If you don’t pay or give up something of value  for what you receive or consume you are therefore a thief , enforced payment after one signs an unexploited obligation therefore prevents one from stealing or purposefully  un-fulfilling their obligation to  pay down & rightfully retire the principal , again , if we didn’t enforce payment it can be quite difficult to rightfully retire circulation to solve an otherwise circulatory inflation?

The debt in MPE is not your conventional debt where you pay back a loan , or a falsified debt where the bank pretends to loan a sum of principal & charges unwarranted interest to someone for the privilege of being robbed .

In MPE your not loaning or borrowing money off a mere publisher who gives up no consideration of value commensurable or equal to the debt it falsifies to itself or equal  to the banks *alleged * money creation ,which is in fact not a debt at all going by the definition of the word , but a theft , X2 often because of unwarranted interest .

The existing economy is a LIE of economy, simply because banking theft is not articulated in the definition of the word “economy”  nor is theft defined  in the word ” debt ” ?, therefore the existing LIE of economy today is a financial system based upon  purposed exploitation of our universal right & ability to issue an unexploited promissory obligation to someone who actually gives up property ( see the origin of money ) , which lie of economy today therefore is nothing more than a monumental theft & one big money laundering racket?.

In MPE , It is true one owes a true creditor ( someone who actually gives up property ) a like equal measure of ones own production over time for what production the true creditor gave up (EG: A house ) , however one is merely paying down out of circulation what one has paid in full to the true creditor from the outset of ones very own promissory obligation ( money creation ). No one is paying back as such because one merely pays with a like equal measure of ones own production  for what one consumes of another’s production,   which is rightfully retired, deleted, extinguished  that guarantees the very integrity of the money circulating for its intended representation, which is most certainly not anyone’s to keep in fulfilling a promissory obligation, we give up & receive an equal representation of wealth to each other upon money creation, which also  consists of the earned profit or entitlement from our labour & production we give up & receive from each other, without banks or government representatives intervening on our business & commerce stealing from us in the process.

R. Harmsen.: I’m sorry, it seems I don’t manage to understand this part of MPE and CMF. Too many contradictions, too much unclarity and inconsistency.

D. Ardron: So you should be sorry, for there are no contradictions In the MPE thesis  if one takes the time & effort to ask the questions to the right people first, before publishing unqualified assumptions on the internet, which can only confuse & divide people further which what can only be lies based on assumptions  ?, In MR Harmsen’s case its only a poor attempt to disqualify MPE in favor of his banking exploitation .

R. Harmsen.: OK, at the rate of consumption or depreciation. That sounds interesting. Let’s see how that works out in practice. I buy a deep-frozen pizza at the supermarket, take it home and put it in my fridge. But I don’t eat it yet, I may eat it tomorrow.

D. Ardron: The ” related property ” is property subject to a promissory obligation, your pizza will be more than often NOT subject to your promissory obligation when you purchase it . The every day cost of groceries are generally paid out of ones earned savings or earned profit ,which is the result of someone else issuing a promissory obligation on new represented property upon a sale, that you likewise earn as its spent further in circulation . ( Note: Logically there’s NO free lunch or unearned profit taking  in MPE™)

R. Harmsen.: That means there is no consumption yet. So I won’t have to pay it yet? I’ll pay tomorrow because I’ll eat it tomorrow? Will the CMF have to keep track of all the sales at the supermarket, who bought what and when, and when do they actually consume it, so payment can be enforced at that very moment of actual consumption?

D. Ardron: If you don’t pay for a pizza its either given to you for free or your a thief  ? The CMI keeps track of all transactions that go in & out of your account in the CMI , if a supermarket uses the CMI the CMI sees what is deposited & withdrawn.

What about consumables in a Mathematically Perfected Economy?
Example :
If I buy apples from a farmer to sell in my shop I may issue a promissory obligation to purchase those apples that pays the farmer for his labour & production which can pay down the farmers promissory obligation plus any earned profit, I sell those apples in my shop giving up my labour & production which can pay down my promissory obligation plus any earned profit from the sale. When someone pays me for those apples in my shop they have given up their labor & production & when they eat those apples the apples no longer represent value therefore the money created to put the apple on your table is retired by the farmer & myself the shop keeper . Any profit spent by the farmer or myself circulates further & likewise its earned by someone else to be retired on their promissory obligation. Either way here we are giving up an equal representation of wealth to each other upon the creation or exchange that issued new money into circulation thus the remainder of circulation is always sufficient to service any outstanding obligation or debt which always equals the remaining property value, where in this case example, the money created to produce the apples is almost retired immediately upon the sale of those apples either by the farmer & or myself the shopkeeper. However earned entitlement or profit / savings circulates further to be retired on someone else’s promissory obligation. Keeping in mind here if I the shop keeper give my earned profit or entitlement away even to a homeless man on the street & get nothing in return its my loss & my loss alone where that money I gave away simply circulates further regardless as the homeless man spends it wherever & its retired eventually on someone else’s promissory obligation.

If I the shopkeeper conspired with the farmer for some reason & I managed to issue a promissory obligation above what those apples are worth ( which would be extremely difficult to do because the CMI knows how much it costs the farmer to produce those apples ) I am therefore doing two or possibly three things here .

1) I would have to increase my prices or the price of my apples in my shop so as to have the ability to actually pay down my obligation therefore I would be cutting my own throat because my competitors who are not intellectually disabled or not criminals would be selling their apples cheaper.

2) I would be still left paying down a promissory obligation or the debt above what the apples are actually worth regardless so I’m giving away my labor & production away for free to the farmer & its my loss & my loss alone that’s if my customers go else where to buy their apples.

3 ) I then take the risk of being charged with treason for attempting to falsify a debt above its represented value therefore there is a strong possibility ,if found guilty, I would face the death penalty or life imprisonment.

” Monopolies in MPE therefore would be extremely difficult to achieve , impossible if you are dishonest or a fool blinded by greed & the reason why is because all our industry & commerce we have between each other wont be impeded in anyway or wont be subject to banking exploitation from the get go, thus industry & commerce in MPE will be competing in a true free enterprise market, something I must stress here we have neither had nor has a free market existed on this earth & nor will a free market exist while the banks purposely intervene on our contracts obfuscating our promissory obligations we actually have to each other.

R. Harmsen.: Perhaps this is a somewhat childish example I’m presenting here. Perhaps consumption should be defined as ‘taking the article past the checkout and out of the supermarket’.

D. Ardron: Perhaps so,, because more than likely one does NOT issue a promissory obligation to buy a frozen pizza in MPE , but that’s not to say the supermarket chain didn’t issue a promissory obligation to buy 1000 frozen pizzas?

R. Harmsen.:On the other hand, a new economic and ‘banking’ system to replace the existing one, should be defined in clear and unambiguous terms. We should know exactly what to expect to be able to weigh the consequences.

D. Ardron: MPE is not replacing one banking system with another banking system , simply because the practice of banking is a means of theft & deemed treason in MPE?  Indeed we should define in clear and unambiguous terms which is what MPE has exactly done for years now only to fall on deaf ears & willful blind ignorance , see the glossary of terms which can be likewise found at www.perfecteconomy.com/  www.perfectedeconomy.org/

Under Mathematically Perfected Economy therefore, a 100,000 dollar home with a 100 year lifespan, costs us only a thousand dollars a year, or 83 dollars and 33 cents a month.

R. Harmsen.: At the rate of depreciation, how does that work out?

Let’s assume it’s a new house. So first, over a period of several weeks or months, a group of construction workers is building the house, and they use building materials and machines.

Payments only start after the house is finished, and only at the rate of $83.33 per month. How are the workers’ salaries paid before the house is finished? And after? $83.33 clearly isn’t enough to pay all the construction workers and the building materials.

D. Ardron: Incorrect ? Payments start when someone issues a promissory obligation on * represented property *. The $ 83.33 example is pertaining to the sale of a house subject to representation, paying down $100,000 house with life span of 100 years & rightfully retiring  $83.00 a month  at the rate of the obligors consumption of the related property .  NOT necessarily the cost of a builder nor any workers that may construct the house if they finance that construction with earned saving , simply because your not accounting for any earned profit which is always a further sum volume of principal created before , during  & after construction , contrary to the assumption or lie of economy rather that merely assumes our labour or increasing labour can magically increase the value of any preexisting sum of principal that maybe left in circulation, without increasing  the *sum volume* mind you? , by which assumption is failing to account for the sum volume of circulation or any volumetric impropriety such as unwarranted  interest for example? , which is at the end of the day, an epic fail of rudimentary logic & 2nd grade mathematics?

Most if not all employees wages or salaries in MPE will be paid out of the employers profit line ( earned profit ) , if we ignorantly  did choose  to represent all our production a employer would have to issue a promissory obligation to pay his employees wages so as to circulate money further?, not to mention having the hassle or inconvenience of putting up something he owns as collateral in doing so when it could  cost him less using the services of the CMI if he just paid his employees wages  out of his earned profit margin to likewise circulate money further,  in what would be a true free enterprise market , likewise unrepresented labour (also earned profit ) in production can be represented on the finished product if someone issues a promissory obligation to purchase the finished product, when money is needed, that one otherwise does not have ,without the need for any regulation whatsoever .

Now In the case where an employer is just starting a new business he can collateralize something he already owns ( which can be money sitting in his account or unrepresented  property )  so as to issue a promissory obligation to pay employees wages until his profit margin is sufficient enough  to sustain any paid wages & of course  pay down his promissory obligation .

R. Harmsen.:So the builders and materials suppliers probably have to live on the monthly payments from all those other house owners, of houses they built in the previous one hundred years? So workers will still also receive payment for houses their fathers and grandfathers built, assuming they too were construction workers?

D. Ardron: Incorrect assumption, money circulates so long as property has remaining value in MPE, what is paid to the CMI is rightfully retired  ?, its not stolen to perpetually re-inflate circulation as irreversible sums of artificial debt?   The builder however may issue his own promissory obligation to build the house before any other person  issues a subsequent  promissory obligation to purchase the new house on completion  .

example:

If I built a brand new house from the ground up at a cost of $70,000 in a Mathematically Perfected Economy™ with an estimated lifespan of 100 years ( which is no different to what current insurance companies do today estimating the price of anything really, only exception  is when we actually look at  MPEs  obligatory schedule of payment  we clearly see all property we consume, even a house depreciates at a rate  we consume it much like everything else we consume just like today ) & I then decide to sell that brand new house  for $100,000 consequently then that $30,000 excess on top of my cost  is my * Earned Profit * which is * GREATER VALUE *  that is most certainly NOT INTEREST but * Earned Profit * as a result where I gave up my labour /work  & time to produce that house & what some one pays me for that house ( principal only ) by issuing a $100,000 promissory obligation ( money creation ) thus issuing 100,000 UNEXPLOITED DOLLARS  into circulation upon the sale indirectly or directly is always an EQUAL representation of wealth we give up to each other, not that we give up to any publisher of money OR thieving  bank who merely pretends to loan us money risking nothing of their own . Now on the other hand If I live in that house & neglect that house over a 20 year period of consumption then deciding to sell that house a respective buyer can then negotiate a price with me,  if that buyer  is smart they will see the neglect & offer me $70.000 instead of $80,000, & if I agree the house is refinanced by the CMI at $70,000 . Another likely scenario therefore if I add a NEW room on that house after 20 years of consumption, I may negotiate a value of $90,000 with a respective buyer & if the buyer agrees the house is refinanced by the CMI at $90,000, likewise if I add a second floor to my house I can even negotiate a value of $180,000 that’s indeed above any prior value, where its clearly  ALWAYS WE THE PEOPLE WHO DECIDE THE VALUE OR THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION  OR   CONSUMPTION  from the ground floor up when we produce anything  in MPE™ really, in what  will  be a TRUE free enterprise market free of exploitation. ( NOTE: Its both the true creditor who actually gives up property & the obligor who negotiates & determines the depreciation rate or any subsequent  consumption rate upon the exchange or sale of represented property )

R. Harmsen. OK, it can be one, but it requires a large-scale and long-term accounting by the CMF (Common Monetary Foundry) to keep track of all those obligations and their eventual fulfilment.

D. Ardron: The CMI merely keeps that 1.1.1 ratio , its accounting nothing more , as for your own business or personal transactions the CMI only accounts what goes in & out of your account & likewise accounts any promissory obligations . Long term yes, but the scale it keeps track whether its big or small .

R. Harmsen: Meanwhile, who owns the house? The occupants? The builders together? Some independent entity that rents the house to the occupants? The CMF?

D. Ardron: Let me be clear, no one is renting or leasing 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.

R. Harmsen:  Isn’t this in fact the concept of hire purchase, or leasing with a purchase option?

D. Ardron: incorrect assumption once again Mr Harmsen?

R. Harmsen: What happens if the owners (whoever they may be) want to sell the house? Or if the occupants want to move to someplace else?

D. Ardron: If you want to sell your house you can , If you decided to sell your house that you paid in full after 50 years you keep the remaining value of the house which is $50,000 free of taxation or exploitation & it’s yours to spend if you wish because you have already paid for a house in full your no longer consuming , however whoever buys your house  after 50 years issuing their own promissory obligation likewise takes on the remaining $50,000 obligation & pays down the remaining consumption left on the house as they consume of it in the same manner you would  , even if one pays for a house directly from savings or earned profit without issuing a promissory obligation that money paid stays in their own account & its retired as they consume the remainder of the property.

Now if one pays for a house directly from savings or earned profit ( without issuing a promissory obligation ) on purchasing unrepresented property produced from another’s earned profit or savings one owns their house outright on the purchase  where one is merely  circulating the money   further so it can be earned & rightfully retired on someone else’s obligation, which is much the same or the exact same manner as buying your groceries at a shop circulating the money further so it can be earned & rightfully retired on someone else’s obligation, either way money is created by the obligor for representation regardless when its needed without any intervention or regulation whatsoever , no matter how fast one pays, the CMI always  proves & demonstrates to you its rightfully retiring ( NOT STEALING & LAUNDERING ) the principal from your account at the rate you choose  to consume the remainder of the property you purchased.

R. Harmsen: I see no answers to these question on MPE sites or in videos. Maybe I didn’t read and watch enough of them. So far my conclusion on this point is: too unclear, no unambiguous definitions, no clear implementation plan, the proposed new system is not viable.

D. Ardron: By the looks of it you see only what you choose to see Mr Harmsen because its all here on this blog if you care to study its contents, asking questions before making the unqualified assumptions ? but this is expected coming from a 11th hour pretender contemplating plagiarizing MPE.

R. Harmsen: Was the above schedule, of paying only $83.33 a month for a $100,000 home, payment at the rate of consumption, or at the rate of depreciation? I suspect it must be consumption, consuming the facilities the house offers, consuming the possibility to find shelter in this house.

D. Ardron: Please let me be clear , the obligatory schedule is a mathematical formula that proves it  commits no crimes against us nothing more, where in fact the obligatory schedule, if one cares to even look at it  proves to us all with logic & elementary 2nd grade math alone  No one decides the value of property or our * labour & production * except WE THE PEOPLE  because its we the people who takes all the risk & creates all wealth from the ground floor up , NOT the CMI , NOT any bureaucrat or government regulation & most certainly NOT any thieving bank who merely pretends to loan us money , the CMI again does not determine original or subsequent value of the related property, the builder , producer determines value; “buyer + seller”, based upon materials, quality, workmanship etc, which may include any subsequent additional value attributed to the related property, before a proprietary determinate life span can be applied or reapplied.

R. Harmsen: That’s because if you take depreciation as the basis the calculating the required payments, you don’t arrive at $83.33 a month: over a longer period, the value of house tends to go up, not down, even when applying an inflation adjustment.

D. Ardron: Again the $83.33 is an example only for a person who may want to buy a home which is a monthly  sum calculated as an obligatory schedule of payment for a $100,000 home with a 100 year life span?

How we  arrive at $83.33 a month is rudimentary logic & basic mathematics ,, where a $100,000 home divided by 100 years consumption  equals $1000 consumption a year to be rightfully retired , $1000 divided by 12 months is $83.33 a month to be rightfully retired.

The * price * of a house that goes up is wholly artificial under any purported economy subject to interest  . If your paying a bank principal & interest which is often 2X principal for a $100,000 home your paying $200,000  for that home , where you have really paid the *value * of two houses to a bank / thief for only receiving the value of one house off the true creditor who actually gives up the house, consequently the bank has devalued the currency or devalued what money is left in circulation upon perpetual re-inflation or an irreversible multiplication of artificial debt thus stealing all the value of money & property?

There are only 2 types of inflation .
1) Circulatory Inflation or hyper inflation : Never happens because the rate of circulatory deflation or should I write a rate of a perpetual theft of circulation by a banks purposed obfuscation of our promissory obligations, always, always, always exceeds the rate of any prior reflation by national debt, clearly evident by perpetually  increasing  sums of  national debt upon further cycles of reflation   which is indeed necessary today to service the prior sum of debt.

( your not in a wash of money by increasing national debt are you, & WHY is this ?,  THINK > simply because national debt  or a irreversible multiplication of artificial debt perpetually reflates a general circulation over & over  that’s also perpetually   deflating over & over at a greater rate than any prior rate of reflation due to a never ending continuous ground floor theft of principal + interest   by a banks purposed obfuscation of our promissory obligations or upon MONEY CREATION  itself ?  ,Follow the money &  see Banks vs MPE illustrations  )

2) Price Inflation: On a whole, is primarily caused by unwarranted interest imposed on all our industry & commerce, where businesses has no choice in most cases to raise their prices to meet their own debt obligations to a bank, therefore price inflation on a whole today is almost entirely artificial in nature, which is passed on to the consumer in the price of goods & services.

R. Harmsen: There may also be periods when the value goes down. Anyhow, the value development varies over time. While the value of the house is going up, under MPE/CMF, does it mean the occupant (who is possibly also the owner?) will not pay $83.33 a month, but instead should receive money? If so, from whom? The CMF? But the CMF itself does not have any money, it merely does the accounting of promises by other. So who is going to pay for that house appreciation?

D. Ardron: Homes don’t appreciate in MPE , they depreciate at the rate of ones choice of consumption  ? MPE proves today’s inflation & deflation is evidence of a theft of circulation nothing more?, the value of a house has decreased due to the banks purposed obfuscation of our promissory obligations , as a result banks are stealing & laundering circulation which is often * 2X  or  3X  above * the represented property value of principal, * perpetually decreasing * the remaining volume of circulation  by * charging unwarranted interest * on all our falsified debts to all local banks ,where the remaining volume of principal in circulation has actually lost its value per represented property value ,&  WHY ?  Simply because your paying more out of the * existing or remaining * volume of circulation per represented property value , NOT paying more out of an * increasing * volume of circulation per represented property value. Contrary to the lie of economy that assumes without proof or qualification that price inflation is caused by circulatory inflation which is mathematically impossible for any currency subject to  interest.

R. Harmsen: For payment at the rate of depreciation, a car is a better example. It does generally lose its value over time, although not at a constant rate: faster first, more slowly later. Maybe that could or should be averaged out for simplicity. But then what if the first owner of the car sells it already after a few years? Does he get the extra depreciation refunded? By whom?

D. Ardron: It wouldn’t matter if its a car or a home , you only pay for what you consume in MPE ,which is rightfully retired , what is consumed has no value, so the money that represented that consumed value is the property  of NO ONE  , its not stolen by a bank , but thats not stopping you giving your money away in MPE ? if you want to give away your money, or labour & production, you cant issue a promissory obligation representing nothing of value in doing so, rather if you want to give away money,  it has to come out of your earned savings or your own pocket, thus it will be your loss & your loss alone., what is given away  simply circulates further until someone else earns it & pays down & retires their own promissory obligation.

If your not using the representation / money but in possession of it such as earned profit or savings in MPE™, its then merely a record of a prior exchange or former * principal debt * paid into circulation that evidences what someone has given up & likewise received giving up their own labour & production to another which is a true representation of wealth.

R. Harmsen: So under MPE (Mathematically Perfected Economy), with the CMF (Common Monetary Foundry) in place, money is the promise to pay, the obligation to pay, as registered by the CMF. Does that mean that making that promise, having that promise registered at the CMF, is already the payment? Or is there a later stage of actually fulfilling the promise to pay, by actually paying?

D. Ardron: Yes both. money takes the form of a promissory obligation just like today paid to the true creditor as a further representation  from the outset of ones promissory obligation, only our promissory obligations in MPE are free from  any intervention  or terminal exploitation that imposes a loan for the mere cost of publication or the mere cost of publishing of a further representation of our promissory obligations to actually pay a true creditor in full who gives up property or something  of commensurable value .  The promissory obligation for the issuer, or for the obligor is simply to pay & retire the sum principal they created at the rate of their own consumption of the related property they purchased . ( NOTE: Its both the true creditor & the obligor who negotiates & determines the depreciation rate or any subsequent  consumption rate upon the exchange or sale of represented property )

The CMI is NOT making a promise because the CMI gives up NO consideration of value ,the CMI is NOT signing & issuing the promissory obligation in the creation of  money, THE obligor does ( NOT BORROWER ), so naturally  the obligor pays down the sum of principal they created over the life time of the property purchased  , the CMI accounts & retires what value is consumed as the obligor pays for what they consume of the related property.

R. Harmsen: But if the promissory obligation itself is the money, how can there be a difference between promising to pay and actually paying? Is payment the handing over of the promise? The registration of the payment?

D. Ardron: Its quite simple Mr Harmsen,there is no difference really ,only we don’t have banks intervening on our contracts with each other , the creation of money is when we sign & issue a promissory obligation before any banking book entry & before any further representation is published from the outset  such as cash or digits for example, which  is the very evidence of our very own unexploited promissory obligations we have to each other in MPE ,by which the *non profit  CMI*  facilitates in MPE    ,, because its we the people who are the only ones who give up lawful consideration of value, therefore we create the value money has , we the people create & give money value , even today we create money purporting to borrow money , only the banks steals that value we give to money & property ” X2 ” because of unwarranted  interest on what are falsified debts, or a monumental crime of theft , where banks merely pretend to loan us money they never legitimately had claim too in their prior possession?

Instead of carrying money, we might only carry a card, similar to a debit card. Physical money, automated teller machines [ATMs] and the like might largely be considered no longer necessary. […]

R. Harmsen: Now let me try to picture this. I go to a supermarket, put articles in my shopping cart (known as a supermarket lorry in many English-speaking countries), and at the checkout I swipe my MPE-CMF new style debit card. Then my promise to pay the supermarket is electronically registered at the CMF, whereby I, as a sovereign individual, have issued my own money.

D. Ardron: Your debit card in MPE is NOT a promissory obligation , it represents a further representation of a promissory obligation , more than often what one draws from their savings account using a debit card is earned profit which is the result of another’s promissory obligation that’s been spent further in circulation.

Upon implementation of MPE we have a choice to use a debit card ( no credit cards ) & or cash , where if we chose to have cash accompanying our debit cards the cash is withdrawn & deposited  from  ATM machines to keep the added costs down on the CMI if we didn’t decide on just debit cards only , we don’t have money laundering offices / banks  in MPE pretending to loan us money ? The non profit accounting or the Common Monetary Infrastructure, NOW KNOWN AS THE ( CMI )  is primarily electronic BUT if we so decide we want cash also, so be it.

R. Harmsen: How is the supermarket going to use my promissory obligation to pay its suppliers, transport company, supermarket workers, supplier of refrigeration equipment, utility companies, etc.? Will the supermarket, via the CMF, pass on my promise, and that of other clients, to those creditors as payment? And the suppliers, e.g. a wholesaler, passes on those promises to its suppliers, like local farmers, food processing companies, international food importers?

D. Ardron:The supermarket does not directly use your promissory obligation or your debit card to pay their own obligations ? However the supermarket can pass on a further representation ( published money ) of your promissory obligation such as cash or debit card savings  , which the supermarket  earns out of a general circulation much like yourself,  in the case of a supermarket its earned when you purchase groceries or a frozen pizza , which further representation earned by the supermarket can likewise pay down any promissory obligation the supermarket may also have .

R. Harmsen: If the money is only promises, how will they know I will eventually make good on my promises? Will the supplier of the supermarket be willing to accept my promises to pay, as payment for what the supermarket owes them, because that supplier trusts me? To be able to trust me, do they do have to know about me and when exactly I bought things in the supermarket to what amount? How does that relate to privacy?

D. Ardron: Money is not only a promissory obligation,,  it likewise has lawful consideration of value , representation given up by both the true creditor who actually gives up property & the obligor likewise giving up their future production  . How the CMI knows you are going to make good on paying down the principal  so it can be rightfully retired is by checking your credit worthiness or rather issue worthiness before you issue a promissory obligation  , which is demonstrating you have the ability to earn & pay down the principal you may create & pay into circulation upon purchasing new represented property   .

All industry & commerce today including supermarkets already accepts our promises to pay simply because all money , including today’s bank money is a further representation of our promissory obligations only today’s bank money is a purposed misrepresentation of our promissory obligations we have to each other, where the bank steals & launders circulation via alleged loans ?

As for your own privacy the CMI does NOT make public what you purchase & sell,, however if you were a politician in MPE, the CMI may publicize your sum of transactions , whether they are deposits or withdrawals , if anyone or a politician for example  is suspected of stealing , taking bribes & venturing houses of disrepute etc & found guilty for of crimes their account balances will be publicized . Upon implementation of MPE, It is up to the people to decide if politicians  account balances are made public, but logically not what they actually purchase unless of course they, including anyone  are suspected  & then  convicted of  a crime such as pretending to loan depositors money for example ?

R. Harmsen: In fact, such a system of payment is very similar to what is already commonplace between companies: sending each other invoices, paying later, meanwhile granting each other trade credit. Debtors vs. creditors, accounts receivable and accounts payable. I described that in an earlier article.

D. Ardron; Invoices are NOT  a promissory obligation that creates money, invoices are a notice to pay for goods & services rendered in the course of business & commerce which is a notice that more than often has no value , the invoice in most if not all cases is not a signed contract which may have consideration of value  ? .  Credit however  in the form of one companies  production  in return for another  companies production is merely a form of trade or barter , if a company doesn’t require the services of another company they send invoice or notice that reminds the debtor to credit another’s account for services or production rendered.

R. Harmsen: In the existing economic system, such trade credit is only of a temporary nature. It is ended after a relatively short period by the actual payment. Also, trade credit is not passed on from one creditor to the next to form long chains of promises. It seems to me that that is what is going to happen if something like a CMF were implemented.

D. Ardron; That is not to happen in MPE ? , Preposterous UNQUALIFIED assumption Mr. Harmsen?

Indeed even today credit is passed on from one creditor ( not a bank )  to the next creditor as earned profit  to form long chain of promises OR promissory obligations ( NOT invoices) which is a contract purposely obfuscated by banks today that allows the banks to steal all money ever created into circulation only to perpetually re-inflate circulation as irreversible sums of artificial debt ? . However money does circulate further in MPE through a long chain of real creditors & obligors but we have no need for a perpetual re-inflation & no national debt as a result .

THERE IS NO INFLATION OR DEFLATION IN MPE:

The meaning of  ” inflation ” is to increase but its an abnormal or distorted increase,  so there is NO such thing as inflation & deflation in MPE because there is no distortion or abnormality ,even circulatory in nature neither a increase or decrease of circulation is abnormal or distorts the availability of the remaining volume of circulation that it was intended to represent in relation to remaining property value & remaining principal debt /obligation which are balanced or always equal at all times .

With the total eradication of interest In MPE we have no price inflation on a whole because the interest imposed on all our business & commerce today that’s likewise passed onto the consumer is non existent in MPE  .

Circulatory Inflation & deflation therefore just doesn’t happen from the get go in MPE even when an obligor issues a promissory obligation for new represented property that  issues new money into circulation simply because this increase of circulation is immediately equal to the remaining principal debt & remaining value of the property that the obligor purchased so long as the obligor retires principal at the rate of their consumption there is NO inflation or deflation.

Deflation is  to reduce or a reduction in the availability of circulation resulting in a deficient circulation . so in MPE we don’t even have deflation or an insufficient volume of circulation simply because we will always have exactly the required amount of money per representation available  left in circulation to pay down & retire the remaining  principal  from circulation in servicing any outstanding obligation , balancing then circulation equal to the remaining obligation & equal to the remaining property value .

Circulatory Inflation & Circulatory deflation therefore means there is an adverse  volumetric impropriety that exists in the remaining availability or volume of circulation  for what it was intended to represent  which is a volume of circulation  that’s abnormally  above  or  below its intended representation, therefore the remaining  volume of circulation is not balanced or  not equal to the remaining property value & not equal to the remaining obligation or principal debt.

MPE™ is really a monetised barter system where we give up & receive an equal representation of wealth to each other upon money creation , where no one is borrowing or loaning money, unlike today’s purposefully  obfuscated debt which is NOT created as a debt at all, rather its * falsified debt * subject to banking exploitation or a purposed obfuscation. which equates to a * MONUMENTAL THEFT * & * MONEY LAUNDERING RACKET * nothing more ,

Likewise  money is NOT created as a debt in MPE™ either, simply because we as the obligor ( NOT BORROWER ) creates money ( principal only ) free of exploitation or purposed obfuscation   to first pay the true creditor in full who gives up property & then the obligor  likewise earns, & rightfully retires money, ( principal only ), with their future production at the rate of depreciation or their choice of consumption of the related property they purchased  in fulfilling a obligation, money in MPE™ therefore only becomes a * principal debt * when we use it in the exchange of property or services, unlike today where money only becomes a  * principal debt subject to interest * when we use it in the exchange of property or services, however unlike MPE,  today’s money is stolen on conception creation by thieving banks who are purposely falsifying a debt to themselves by intervention upon our contracts with each other which is the core obfuscation & first crime a bank commits where the bank is neither risking or  giving up consideration of its own commensurable or equal  to the falsified debt it imposes, essentially stealing principal representation on conception creation of money , so in effect we are really exchanging our labour & production that the banks have already falsely claimed as their very own today  by merely pretending to loan a sum of principal to the ” alleged borrower “ which is a sum of principal the ” alleged borrower “ actually created upon signing & issuing a promissory obligation * before any banking book entry *, thereafter the 2nd crime of unwarranted   interest  is imposed ONLY AS IF the bank risked or gave up commensurable consideration of  its own.

R. Harmsen: In the existing system, debtors and creditors themselves keep track of how much they owe whom, and who owes them how much and what for. Smaller companies could also outsource that work to an accounting agency.

D. Ardron; It is mathematically impossible for a debtor or obligor ( not borrower )  & creditor , someone who gives up property, to keep track how much they owe simply because they are paying falsified debts to banks or paying through the banks purposed  obfuscation of currency creation  which are falsified debts  subject to varying interest rates that artificially inflates prices.

Sure one company might be able to keep track of what they owe to another company & actually fulfill  a debt  but they don’t keep track of a ever greater volume of people being dispossessed of all their property & wealth so they can physically pay their debt do they Mr. Harmsen ?

Those who think they achieved prosperity or success in life no matter how modest with out first taking into consideration of all those who have suffered only as a result of another’s success NEED TO THINK AGAIN, indeed the successful today would not be successful in life at all really if it wasn’t for all those who have lost everything through no real fault of their own due to terminal exploitation which includes homeless children , truth of the matter due to this ignorance, arrogance, greed or  lack of empathy for others who have suffered only so another can succeed will only result in everyone losing everything in the end.

R. Harmsen: Such a firm would then be similar to the CMF that Mike Montagne proposes: it keeps track of other companies’ obligations to pay, without being party in the transactions themselves. There are no financial claims or obligations between debtors and the accounting agency (other than for the obvious fee for their registration work), nor between creditors and the accounting agency. The claims and obligations (which are a type of assets and liabilities) exist only between debtors and creditors. The accounting agency merely enters them in a computer system.

D. Ardron; The CMI is a * non profit * accounting system , the CMI is NOT a company , we issue promissory obligations, promissory notes , contractual obligations,  that have consideration of value , we don’t issue invoices , purposed  obfuscations ,or misrepresentations of the contracts we actually have to each other.

Is MPE similar? Absolutely not, because  MPE does not misrepresent a contract or obfuscate our promissory obligations  with mere invoice’s or a reminders to pay.  All money published in MPE from the outset of one issuing a promissory obligation upon new represented property is the evidence & record  of our promissory obligations we have to each other, nor does the CMI publish the invoices of trade purporting these invoices are the evidence of our production when the contract actually is , which is a promissory obligation or promissory note , any money published thereafter as a result is a further representation of a promissory obligation,  not a invoice or notice of payment for services or production rendered? To suggest money can represent invoices is not only illogical & absurd but its the mind set of a plagiarist  ,11th hour pretender ?

R. Harmsen: This is very different from what a bank does, although Mike Montagne misunderstands this, seeing that he wrote that “[…] the banking system merely publishes further representations of our promissory obligations *to each other* […]”. I wrote about that subtopic in an earlier article.

In fact, a bank enters into a financial relationship with its clients. There are claims (assets) and obligations (liabilities) between the bank and its clients. The bank however does not interfere in claims or obligations between its clients, although these too do exist.

D. Ardron; Is this not the pot calling the kettle black regarding contradictions ?

* SEE ORIGINAL Quote HERE * :  “The bank however does not interfere in claims or obligations between its clients, although these too do exist. “ END QUOTE

PLEASE NOTE: Mr. Harmsen has since now reworded his original quote above on his article, only in a poor attempt , clutching at straws , to evade answering the questions immediately below.”

* SEE reworded Quote HERE * The bank however does not interfere in claims or obligations between its clients. Such bilateral claims and obligations between bank clients do also exist, but the bank does not have anything to do with them.

Q: Does the bank not  interfere on the contract or does an interference likewise exist Mr, Harmsen??

Make your mind up Mr, Harmsen?

Q: Does the banks (bilateral) obfuscation exist or can you prove & demonstrate what consideration of value a bank gives up upon one of our promissory obligations ( in a bilateral agreement or contract ) , * before the banks book entry * ?

Don’t forget now Mr. Harmsen, deposits or the everyday savings of individuals couldn’t even exist in ones account at a bank  if it wasn’t for a perpetual reflation or an irreversible multiplication of artificial debt ?

” PLEASE NOTE: Mr. Harmsen has since written a 4th article here ,where at the bottom of his article he is actually admitting to the whole world  that he cant see or refuses to comprehend  a purposed misrepresentation of a contract  is the purposed obfuscation of our promissory obligations or promissory notes we have to each other, attempting then,  to justify his preposterous unqualified  conclusions quoting prior articles of the same nature based on the lies of economy & misinterpretations pertaining to MPE & Mike Montagne of all things, concluding mike doesn’t understand banking, when its clearly evident Mr. Harmsen himself doesn’t understand banking because he advocates the LIES of banking as fact, which he can neither prove or qualify   

( EG:  Mr. Harmsen’s preposterous assumptions in his 4th article again  implies an itemized statement or written account of goods sent to a purchaser or mere Invoice which are notices to pay for services & production already rendered in the course of commerce today can replace, or misrepresent the only issuance of a preceding contract that has the lawful consideration of value,  Eg : Promissory obligation or promissory note , contractual obligation ( money creation )  , suggesting a written account of goods sent to a purchaser or mere invoice has consideration of value is again coming from the mind set of an 11th hour pretender, charlatan,  attempting to justify banking exploitation & or coming from a would be plagiarist who is contemplating plagiarizing MPE, only in an attempt to sell further banking exploitation as a purported solution , which can only divide & confuse people further with unqualified assumptions & out right lies at the end of the day.    )

The bank therefore does not loan depositors money Mr Harmsen, its mathematically impossible if logic is applied?  . See Testimony of a banker?

Logic tells us Mr. Harmsen  fails to see that the bank steals & launders all money ever created into  their unwarranted possession ( principal & interest out of a circulation that’s only ever comprised of some remaining principal at all times, even upon perpetual reflation  ) only to loan it back as perpetual re-inflation or as an irreversible multiplication of artificial indebtedness, so its physically possible for any  individual or those who are lucky enough to have the ability to earn principal & interest out of a circulation  comprised of principal only  to consequently  go out & earn that reflation first so as to actually deposit that money in any bank or deposit at any money laundering office whether its savings or paying a falsified debt ? You fail to see purported loans through a purposed obfuscation  today still creates new money ,NOT loan depositors money because there would be no deposits if it wasn’t for any prior reflation , clearly evident by perpetually increasing debt ( federal & state )   upon further cycles of re-inflation .

What they do when they * banks/money changers * make alleged loans is to accept promissory notes or the alleged borrower’s ” promissory note in exchange for credits to the alleged borrower’s transaction account (s). Alleged loans / assets and deposits / liabilities both rise by the amount of the alleged loan

If I can prove with logic alone only the principal is created by one of us by signing & issuing a promissory obligation / note * before any banking book entry * when we ” allegedly ” borrow principal from a local bank , how can fractional multiplication thereafter ” allegedly ” multiply principal when either way here from the outset of the promissory obligation principal is only ever issued into circulation for what it is intended to represent, EG : A house, or upon a sale or purchase of property?

Unless Mr. Harmsen can prove & demonstrate what consideration of value a bank gives up of  their own in the purported loan contract or upon one of our promissory obligations, * BEFORE THE BANKS BOOK ENTRY *,   when the alleged borrower walks into a bank signing & ISSUING a promissory note that has the only consideration of value, LOGIC then must tell us all again it can only mean the bank money is indeed NOT THE BANKS OWN CONSIDERATION OF VALUE ? , simply because the logic of a kindergarten child tells us if the obligor or alleged borrower  creates all new money by giving up the only lawful consideration , FIRST,  BEFORE THE BANKS BOOK ENTRY , promising their own future production in the purported loan contract which is a promissory note , that  indeed has lawful consideration of value TODAY , therefore LOGIC now tells us the bank  gives up NO consideration of value of their own  commensurable or EQUAL in value  that is neither representing the value of the house or the value of the obligors promissory note or any alleged loan,   where LOGIC tells us again now, it can only then  mean THE BANK MONEY IS ABSOLUTELY NOT THE BANKS CONSIDERATION  OF VALUE TO LOAN OUT TO BEGIN WITH  & nor is the house that the real creditor gives up , which in turn likewise automatically dismisses a further unqualified assumption of Mr. Harmsen’s that merely assumes without any proof or qualification that banks loan out other peoples deposits or  savings to an alleged borrower in any alleged bank loan?.

Once Again?   If I can prove with LOGIC  alone ( NOT WITH  UNQUALIFIED ASSUMPTIONS & BANKING  LIES ) but with rudimentary logic alone that only the principal is created by one of us, by signing & ISSUING  a promissory obligation / note *FIRST  BEFORE THE BANKS BOOK ENTRY  * when we ” allegedly ” borrow principal from a local bank it can only mean then that the alleged borrower or obligor creates & issues the only money that has consideration of value FIRST ,BEFORE , a bank ” allegedly” issues or ALLEGEDLY creates its money , rudimentary logic then  tells us all AGAIN it is the alleged borrower or the obligor who creates any sum of principal FIRST BEFORE ANY BANK CAN PUBLISH A FURTHER REPRESENTATION OF OUR PROMISSORY OBLIGATIONS  whether that further representation  takes the form of, cash, credit  OR digits on a *LEDGER BOOK ENTRY * or computer.

Mr. Harmsen cant even answer this relatively simple question relating to consideration of value pertaining to the contract essentials necessary to make any contract lawful  in any of his preposterous articles NOT  EVEN THIS ONE?, rather Mr. Harmsen evades this question making further preposterous , absurd , unqualified assumptions about banking promises when the banks don’t promise a thing but a theft pretending to loan money they don’t even give value  , ( banks DON’T even sign our promissory obligations) attempting then to justify his absurd assumptions using  banking lies, which don’t even articulate the consideration a bank gives up on any alleged loan to one of us?   ,  not even articulating exactly what * lawful consideration of value * a bank may even risk or give up of its own in their purported creation of money,  such as  for example the consideration of value of  ones house or  ones future labour production?

As a result ,  Mr. Harmsen has absolutely no argument WHATSOEVER that ascertains it is a fact that a bank either legitimately loans the banks own consideration of value or creates a sum of principal or a sum of interest that the bank actually gives consideration of value .

However Mr. Harmsen or any banking associate of his who likewise advocates banking exploitation or theft pretending to loan money  could then argue the only consideration the bank risks is the mere cost of publication, which is the mere cost to publish a further representation, ( bank money or credit ) , that still evidences the  issuance of one of our promissory obligations or notes mind you , which would, then, amount to about $2 for the bank to publish $200,000 that the obligor, or the alleged borrower actually creates by their signature upon issuing a promissory obligation, before the banks book entry , where they, the  * banks, money changers * give up no  consideration commensurable, or equal, to the debt they unjustly falsify to themselves , however the local bank uses the  alleged borrowers credit worthiness or the only lawful consideration given up by the obligor, which is the alleged borrowers promissory note to , then,  borrow money from a central bank who in turn then publishes a further representation, which is a purposed misrepresentation of the former contractual obligation, or misrepresentation of the obligors issuance of a promissory note so as to, then,  allegedly loan that further representation or rather a purposed  misrepresentation, ( bank money , credit ) to the alleged borrower.

HOWEVER ? The $2 the bank may give up is redeemed by the bank in a fraction of the first alleged loan repayment by the alleged borrower, what is clear is any payment to a bank above that $2 is a THEFT ?.

The interest the central bank charges to the local bank ,( using the obligor’s or alleged borrowers consideration to publish the bank money in the first place ), is always lower than what the local bank charges on an alleged loan to the obligor, or alleged borrower, thus, the difference in interest rates is the local banks unearned profit , or unjust reward for stealing, & laundering circulation, ( principal & interest ), into the hands of the central banking system .

Both the central bank, & the local banks risk nothing of their own really , the local banks always use ” the alleged borrowers  consideration or our promissory notes, promissory obligation ”. ( not their own consideration ) , to borrow money that we the people always create upon conception.

No new money ever comes into existence, not until, one of us issues a promissory obligation first , thus the bank money, or ANY representation did not even exist, not until an alleged borrower walks into a bank , ( money laundering office ) ,& signs a promissory obligation FIRST.

R. Harmsen: Payment in MPE with CMF probably means passing on the debtor’ promise to pay, to the creditor.

D. Ardron; Principal paid to the CMI is rightfully retired , its not passed on to the true creditor, nor is it stolen & laundered only to multiply a artificial debt which is mathematically impossible to pay down  , however the money published or further representation published from the outset of an obligors promissory obligation ( money creation ) in MPE is paid in full to the true creditor without any intervention by a mere publisher or the CMI .

R. Harmsen: Payment in the traditional banking system means that the debtor passes on part of its claim on the bank (the promise by the bank to pay the debtor) to the debtor’s creditor’s claim on the bank.

D. Ardron; Payment in the traditional banking system , or LIE of economy,  means the bank is not rightfully retiring the principal created by the obligor because they the bank steals the principal in the form of *unearned profit * by imposing unwarranted interest on what are falsified debts when we the people allegedly borrow a sum of principal  from banks.

If your paying for example the sum value of 2 houses in principal & interest to a bank / thief for only receiving one house from the real creditor who actually gives up property ,, logically the bank/ thief  has therefore stolen the value of 2 houses regardless of deposits in the bank, which deposits in ones savings may earn back a mere fraction of  the total sum stolen ( principal & interest )  by thieving  banks?

Logically banks don’t spend or pay what they steal back into circulation , if they did pay or spend what they steal back into circulation we would not have to perpetually borrow it back as irreversible sums of artificial debt upon perpetual re-inflation ?

R. Harmsen: I think such a payment system is much more reliable and viable than what Mike Montagne proposes, because in it, to trust that payment has actually taken place, the creditor needs only trust its own bank, not a long chain of debtors’ debtors’ debtors’.

D. Ardron; If any one  trusts a bank / thief & sells you the idea that this is more reliable & viable than MPE using  what are unqualified assumptions you are then dealing with a charlatan who is an accessory to theft for advocating theft , or if not a thief themselves for proposing a preservation  of the very hand that has been stealing from us for centuries now by pretending to loan money , even pretending to loan depositors money going back to early banking where banks or thieving goldsmiths were pretending to loan out the value of depositors gold, when they were really stealing the gold deposits by pretending to loan those deposits obfuscating our promissory obligations,  thus redeeming what they steal ( principal & interest ) in physical gold at that time, just like today only in fiat before any book entry & thereafter again by imposing unwarranted interest?, again its mathematically impossible to loan, or  pay any more than principal simply because the * sum volume *  of interest is never ever created or issued into circulation above the * sum volume * of principal in the first place & nor can any sum of interest be issued into circulation above the sum of principal , its mathematically impossible without representation,  which is always a * sum volume * of principal regardless how one looks at it , that’s of course if one  has the ability to use rudimentary logic of a kindergarten child ?.

Anyone who is selling you on the idea that renting money allegedly justifies interest paid to a bank is a charlatan , simply because all new money created & any further representation published from the outset of an obligors promissory obligation  is not the banks rightful possession  to rent out in the beginning ,or to keep or on sell for that matter, because the bank neither risks or gives up consideration of value of its own  commensurable or equal to any alledged loan & nor is the obligors  promissory obligation or note the possession of any other depositor in the bank because logically other depositors don’t sign & issue each others promissory obligations or alleged loan contracts.

See where Mr Hansen gets his ” renting LIE ” from HERE

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 PERPETUAL reflation  is not only denying the existence of a irreversible 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, a perpetual deficit,  paid or rather stolen out of circulation on a falsified debt.

Interest may not be created sure ,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.

Conclusion:

Mr. Harmsens articles is taken as an attack on MPE & much worse , an attack upon the author of MPE ,Mike Montagne, simply because Mr. Harmsen answers his own questions with mere unqualified assumptions without formally discussing MPE with those who know MPE.

What is likewise preposterous is that Mr. Harmsen is   giving purported credit to his mere unqualified assumptions based upon the lies of economy, which purports banks actually give up consideration to loan money or even loan  depositors money, that MPE has already proven to be a lie for over 45 years now,, using what is  rudimentary logic & 2nd grade mathematics ?.

If Mr Harmsen asked genuine questions of concern to the right people first  that can only  be answered in full by Mike Montagne or those who have actually taken the time & effort to study MPE like myself  for example , he wouldn’t be making a absolute fool of himself with his preposterous conclusions  & assumptions in his articles  , nevertheless I’m personally holding you Mr. Harmsen accountable for advocating banking exploitation in the form of a purported loan from a bank & as a result attacking the one & only solution that not even you Mr Harmsen, can formally disprove?  .

Let me be clear I’m not attacking Mr. Harmsen here folks , only defending the truth that cant be broken  & holding what appears to be another 11th hour  pretender accountable for not only propagating lies, but confusing & dividing people further  ,pointing people away from the truth that  MPE articulates , using therefore what are mere unqualified assumptions & outright lies in the process sadly .

“Remember folks you don’t & you never will get a mathematically perfected economy™ from snake oil salesmen rather you get division, fear, lies & deception every time & when that day comes, under every rock you will find hiding pretenders , usurers, advocates of usury phony “economists”… all the seekers of unearned profit who knew not even how to limit their great crime against us”

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

comment full 2

20 thoughts on “Refuting R. Harmsen at rudhar.com”

  1. “banks only * pretend * to give the alleged loan contract consideration of value telling us its the bank who is lawfully loaning us a sum value of principal,”

    What is so strange is that people CAN buy houses and cars with such alleged lies. They can’t with MPE’s “promissory obligation”. Nobody in their right mind accept promises as payments. Except promises by banks, because it’s a banks business to be financally trustworthy.

    That you all hate banks so much, doesn’t change that simple fact.

    • ” What is so strange is that people CAN buy houses and cars with such alleged lies.”

      Yes it is strange how people are duped into giving up the value of two houses to a thieving bank for only receiving one house of a real creditor who gives up consideration of value such as a house .

      ” They can’t with MPE’s “promissory obligation”. Nobody in their right mind accept promises as payments. Except promises by banks, because it’s a banks business to be financally trustworthy.”

      What is beyond your intellectual reasoning is that they indeed can with promissory obligations issued in a mathematically perfected economy ,only thing there is no lies where there is no thieving bank who is purposely intervening & misrepresenting one of our contracts, pretending to be the real creditor giving up a house or risking consideration of value that’s commensurable or equal to the value of the house & as a result only then pretending to loan money they give consideration value ?

      What is likewise beyond your intellectual reasoning is that people already accept the value of our promissory obligations today, however the bank LIES much like yourself & * pretends * its giving up the consideration of value in their alleged creation of money or any alleged loan to one of us ?

      No I DON’T hate banks ? I despise thieves who pretend to loan something they give no value & those who try to justify this theft with mere unqualified assumptions & lies, charlatans if you will, who cant prove what consideration of value a bank gives up in any alleged loan to us but still insists there is a loan & a borrower?

      ITS NOT A FACT WE NEED BANKS, we would be far better off without banks & this is a irrefutable fact the MPE thesis has already proven & demonstrated for over 45 years now using what is rudimentary logic & 2nd grade mathematics.

  2. The mantras of MPE: “Commensurable consideration”. “Further representation”. “Obfuscation of the currency”. “Retiring circulation”.

    Emptry phrases meant to obfuscate the matter at hand. And then accuse OTHERS of obfuscation. Chutzpah.

    • ” Emptry phrases meant to obfuscate the matter at hand. And then accuse OTHERS of obfuscation. Chutzpah.”

      On the contrary ” consideration of value ” is something that has to be present in any contract , only thing you haven’t the intellectual capacity to look up the word ” Commensurable” in a dictionary, which means ” EQUAL” or ” equal consideration of value ” in the context pertaining to “Commensurable consideration”, likewise because you cant prove what consideration of value a bank gives up you merely assume with out a shred of proof or qualification that the words ” obfuscation ” & ” retiring circulation ” are likewise empty mantras.

      Words have meaning Mr Hamsen, only you haven’t the intellectual reasoning or ability to look up their meanings in a dictionary & then apply these words in the context that we are using them in so they may have meaning to you.

      If these words have empty meaning to you personally Mr Hamsen it can only mean what is between your ears is likewise empty?

  3. “rudimentary logic of a kindergarten child tells us once again the bank money can only be a FURTHER REPRESENTATION OF OUR PROMISSORY OBLIGATIONS”

    Would you please explain to this here kindergarten child, what you mean by “further representation”? Especially what is so “further” about it?

    I suspect you don’t even know what that means yourself, as you are simply parroting Mike Montagne’s rhetoric. And he too may not even know what it means. Or at least he refuses to explain.

    • ” Would you please explain to this here kindergarten child, what you mean by “further representation”? Especially what is so “further” about it? “

      If you actually read this blog post I articulate why its a further representation because neither you or any bank can prove what consideration they give up of its own in the banks alledged creation of money or when the bank allegedly loans money ?, however the logic of a kindergarten child is all that’s needed here really, but if you insist your intellect is below the level of kindergarten child I will repeat myself for Mr hanson who is only again pretending I haven’t articulated what a Further representation is, hoping you the reader hasn’t read this blog in its entirety ?

      Now A further representation is pertaining to what always comes first before any banking book entry?

      A representation of our promissory obligations is logically a further representation of our promissory obligations or a further representation of conception creation of money itself. What is a further representation is the evidence of our promissory obligations, its ” Evidence of Entitlement to wealth ” which is published or printed from the very outset of an obligors promissory obligation regardless . Only banks ” misrepresent our promissory obligations ” * before any book entry * by merely pretending to loan the ” Evidence of entitlement” that the bank gives no value themselves & nor are banks entitled to this evidence simply because neither Mr Hanson or any bank can prove exactly what consideration of value the bank gives up of its own in their alleged creation of money or in any alleged loan to one of us?

  4. ” its the alleged borrower who signs & issues a promissory note * FIRST * before the bank allegedly creates, allegedly issues or allegedly loans its bank money”

    That is factually and demonstrably incorrect. Learn accounting and what money is, read my articles. You simply do not understand what you are writing about. Please learn first, then write.

    • Unless you can prove what consideration of value a bank gives up before, upon or after an alleged borrower signs and issues a promissory obligation your articles are therefore nothing but unqualified assumptions & lies Mr Hansen?

      Your simply evading the answer to the question about consideration of value , if you did honestly it would prove your articles to be nothing but a purposed pack of lies only to confuse & divide people further ?

      You must be playing me for a fool or testing my patience, or both Mr harmsen?

      Not only your spamming my email your spamming my blog like there is no tomorrow with further unqualified assumption & lies which defy all intellectual reasoning & rudimentary logic ?, But I will attempt to address them all here & thoroughly undress you for the charlatan you are .

  5. “before the bank allegedly creates”

    A bank cannot create money, because a bank, by definition, does not HAVE any money. Never, impossible.

    When the money is created, that same second it is already in the possession of the borrower.

    By the way, what exactly do YOU mean by consideration? English is my third language and I had difficulty understanding that seemingly simple word. http://rudhar.com/economi/monydebt/en/2130617.htm . I asked Mike Montagne about the truly intended meaning, after HE invited me to skype, but then he refused to comment.

    • ” When the money is created, that same second it is already in the possession of the borrower.”

      Once again ,, Unless you can prove what consideration of value a bank gives up before, upon or after an alleged borrower signes and issues a promissory obligation your articles are nothing but unqualified assumptions & lies Mr Hansen?

      ” By the way, what exactly do YOU mean by consideration? “

      Consideration is value,,, Mr hanson . I have articulated ” Consideration of value ” over 20 times on this blog post & countless times throughout all my blogs , pointed you to the contract essentials many times which needs to have consideration of value, but you ask the question pretending that mike or I haven’t articulated what consideration is already, or are you clutching at straws now with another LIE Mr hanson ?

      Are you playing me & everyone for a fool here Mr hanson ?, testing our patience or are you just that intellectually disabled?

  6. “Mr. Harmsen who advocates a theft in the form of a purported loan from a bank ”

    You can keep repeating your uninformed misunderstandings as often and as loudly as you like, but that doesn’t change them from being what they are: misunderstandings.

    • There is no denying it, your proving to everyone that you do advocate a theft in the form of a purported loan from a bank , & you cant even prove there is a loan ? Now if you can prove what consideration of value a bank gives up or even risks you may have some creditability, but you cant can you Mr Harmson? , but you insist banks loan money to a borrower & attempt to legitimize usury calling it rent when its nothing but a 2nd crime of theft resulting from the first crime of theft where the bank pretends to loan a sum of principal in the first place , unless you can prove what consideration a bank gives up of its own which may justify interest? , but you cant can you now Mr Harmson ? No one can, because the bank gives up no consideration, which in turn disqualifies your articles & proves its the work of a charlatan who is attempting to convince others a theft is fair on a banks book entry .

      Now who are you trying to fool here Mr Harmson ?, if your not fooling yourself then your a thief yourself or an accessory to theft for advocating theft , take your pick Mr Harmson

  7. > NOW LOGICALLY WHAT HAS TO ALWAYS COME FIRST HERE FOLKS?

    The bank and the client negotiate, and if they reach an agreement, they sign the same contracts at the same time, in the presence of a notary. That is how mortgage loans work in NL, not so in AU?

    There are two contracts, by the way, one for the loan and one for the mortgage. Because they are two separate things. That too is something that a lot of people don’t seem to understand.

    • The bank and the alleged borrower negotiates a purposed misrepresentation of the alleged borrowers promissory note or obligation before any book entry , unbeknown to the alleged borrower they’re signing & issuing a promissory note on the banks paper , however the bank does not sign it Mr harmsen, YOUR A CHARLATAN & LIAR MR HARMSON , the alleged borrower does only, NOT THE BANK ?, which makes the alleged borrower the maker of the promissory note disguised then as a mortgage or loan contract that the bank neither risks or gives up consideration of value in that purported loan contract, the contract is not the banks book entry because its a promissory note , and there is your banks purposed obfuscation of our promissory obligations Mr harmsen , again the alleged borrower does not sign the banks book entry, to suggest or infer such a thing is really coming from a world of willful blind ignorance , its absurd , your making up assumptions or lies rather as you go now Mr harmsen? .

      Now if you cant prove & demonstrate what consideration of value of a bank gives up of its own in any contractual obligation that allegedly loans money it only proves you are your very own worst enemy Mr harmsen .

  8. “Now I ask the reader what comes first here? & I mean this is kindergarten arithmetic for all the family.”

    Nothing comes first. They both occur at the same time.

    One promissory note is exchanged for another promissory note by the other party. But the conditions are different, that’s why it makes sense.
    The bank promises to make the money available, and it does, right then.
    The borrower promises to pay back the loan, in monthly installments, and does so.

    Why is that unfair? It might be unfair because the bank has the less favourable conditions in this case: it must pay the full amount immediately. But that unfairness is compensated for by the interest. Still a fair deal.

    • They absolutely don’t occur at the same time ? The promissory note is always signed before the bank can put an entry in their books , again your a fool if you think a promissory note is a book entry , its a failure of rudimentary logic ?

      Nevertheless you cant even prove what consideration a bank gives up before , upon or even after the contract is signed anyway, so your merely clutching at straws because you know you cant prove what consideration a bank gives up in their alleged creation of money or when they allegedly loan money to us? You have been evading the question from the get go .

      What makes you a blithering fool Mr Harmsen is that the banks are exchanging a further representation that they have given no consideration of value themselves & then they charge us unwarranted interest for the privilege of being robbed, which is often a theft of 2 times the principal in total , that is simply what is unfair Mr.Charlatan.

      For the last time, unless you can prove & demonstrate what consideration of value a bank gives up I will not be entertaining any more of your preposterous ,absurd assumptions & lies here anymore.

  9. “by articulating exactly what * lawful consideration of value * a bank risks or gives up ”

    The money IS the consideration. As a consideration for the borrower promising to pay back the loan at SOME time (debit side of bank balance sheet), the bank makes the money available (for use at ANY time) in a transaction account (credit side of bank balance sheet).

    Two sides of the balance sheet, promises go in both directions, promises are exchanged. Fair deal.

    You don’t see that because you refuse to learn basic principles of double accounting (Luca Pacioli).

    There is a transformation of time: the borrower can pay back LATER in portions, but the borrower can use ALLthe money that the bank supplies RIGHT NOW. For that transformation and risk service, the bank charges interest.

    • Mr. Harmsen who advocates a theft in the form of a purported loan from a bank cant possibly prove nor demonstrate what consideration of value a bank risks or gives up of its own upon an obligors promissory note BEFORE THE BANKS BOOK ENTRY, WHICH IS BEFORE ANY BOOK ENTRY ON YOUR BANKS DOUBLE BALANCE SHEET MR. HARMSEN?

      Mr. Harmsen only then *pretends* to have answered the question about consideration of value much like his banking associates who likewise *pretend* to loan money without even articulating what consideration they give up either? , there is not one article of Mr. Harmsen’s that is even proving & demonstrating what consideration a bank gives up of their own in their alleged creation of money, or any alleged loan to one of us ? , & NO Mr. Harmsen you haven’t proven the consideration a bank allegedly gives up is the bank money itself because the rudimentary logic of a kindergarten child tells us its the alleged borrower who signs & issues a promissory note * FIRST * before the bank allegedly creates, allegedly issues or allegedly loans its bank money or before your double book entry Mr. Harmsen ?, you haven’t yet proven & demonstrated in any of your articles exactly what consideration of value the bank gives up themselves that represents the value of any bank money?, therefore the rudimentary logic of a kindergarten child tells us once again the bank money can only be a FURTHER REPRESENTATION OF OUR PROMISSORY OBLIGATIONS by which promissory obligations has the only consideration of value .

      Now if you cant prove what consideration a bank gives up on the only thing of value in a purported loan which is one of our promissory notes or promissory obligations BEFORE THE BANKS BOOK ENTRY Mr. Harmsen, you have again neither proven or demonstrated in any of your articles that there is even any borrower paying back a loan to a bank?

      I have already exhaustively articulated & proven with rudimentary logic & 2nd grade mathematics that alleged Bank loans are a theft of our labour & production we give up to each other Mr. Harmsen, simply because NOT EVEN YOU Mr. Harmsen can prove & demonstrate what consideration of value a bank gives up of its own at all, not even before your banks balance sheet or thereafter & not even when an alleged borrower walks into a bank signing & issuing the only thing that has lawful consideration of value which is an obligors promissory note, that the bank neither sign’s or gives any consideration of value for that matter Mr. Harmsen. What they do, the banks only * pretend * to give the alleged loan contract consideration of value telling us its the bank who is lawfully loaning us a sum value of principal, which are the very same LIES your advocating & attempting to justify in your articles & here in the comments now without even a shred of proof whatsoever , but rather using what are mere unqualified assumptions that fails the elementary logic & 2nd grade mathematics?

      Shame on you Mr. Harmsen for attempting to deceive people with lies after I have already proven to you & everyone reading this blog that they are indeed lies & you still persist attempting to deceive the reader? shame on you Mr. Harmsen.

  10. “Q: Does the banks (bilateral) obfuscation exist or can you prove & demonstrate what consideration of value a bank gives up upon one of our promissory obligations ( in a bilateral agreement or contract ) , * before the banks book entry * ?”

    I already explained that in an earlier article, and it also follows from articles 10 and 11, 1, 2 and 3 and several others. I not knowing to repeat all that here.

    The phrase “before the banks book entry” is meaningless: in double accounting, book entries always reflect what really happens. It does not matter is that is seconds or days before it or after it, the bookdate records when it happened. Learn basic accounting.

    EVERYTHING I ever wrote about money creation and credit, follows from only two fundamentals: double bookkeeping (Luca Pacioli) and the definition of money: money is what banks owe the public. By definition.

    • Shame on you MR. Hanson , you haven’t yet explained what consideration of value the bank either risks or gives up of its own when one of us walks into a bank signing & issuing a promissory note ,NOT signing the banks book entry MR. Hanson? , but signing & issuing a promissory obligation which you cant prove or demonstrate the bank gives consideration of value .

      Mr Harmsen is now attempting to convince the reader not only with links to his LIES in his articles but likewise assuming rudimentary logic is just meaningless when one of us issues the only thing of value ( promissory note ) ,first, before the banks book entry, so its only then possible thereafter for the bank to put an entry into their books?

      Now I ask the reader what comes first here? & I mean this is kindergarten arithmetic for all the family.

      Is it :

      A) One of us issuing a promissory note where logic alone tells us the obligor is giving up consideration of value promising & giving up their future production ? , or giving up the value of two houses to a bank for only receiving the value of one house off someone who actually gives up the house?

      OR

      B) The banks subsequent book entry that not even Mr Harmsan or any bank for that matter can actually prove or qualify what consideration of value the bank actually gives up of its own in that book entry?

      NOW LOGICALLY WHAT HAS TO ALWAYS COME FIRST HERE FOLKS?

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