How to logically proof we do NOT ¨loan¨ money from banks



From a Facebook member:

“My only sticking point is how do defeat the argument that a “bank” “loans” you their own money from their own “savings” ie. how do you logically prove that this is not the case to those who do not understand a Promissory Obligation?”


Excellent question, please find the answer below:

Essentially, to understand the answer, and to successfully defend any plea to restore our promissory obligations to each other to their *only* rightful state, we have to understand and apply the principles resolved by mathematically perfected economy™ to the relevant circumstance of three different circumstances:

a) new purported issuance (which is the original obfuscation);
b) re-lending of subsequent possession of the obfuscation by the obfuscator;
c) or re-lending of subsequent possession of the obfuscation by any person or entity other than the obfuscator.

Essentially, these three different circumstances distinguish three different potential legitimacies to any rightful claim to the principal or interest.

Properly and fully understood, our amendment provides the necessary arguments to negotiate these three categoric circumstances. There are, nonetheless, fine nuances to an ultimate “legality” — not only withstanding present ostensible laws, but as necessarily sustained by our rights to MPE+ACR™. In any case, as your question suggests, anyone meaning to assert and to prevail in their sovereign rights to MPE+ACR™ needs not only to do so to the letter, but must understand without error how to do so to the letter — for any misuse or mis-citation of our case not only invalidates our rightful claims (by invalid argument), but wrongfully establishes “legal precedents” against our rightful claims. These potential breaches of rightful authority are a further reason our amendment makes mis-use of the truth treason, for to lack such a provision amidst such predominate pretension as we contend with today is as much as to license destruction of the only reasonable reparation of terminal global conditions, necessitating resolution of what is inevitably a singular case and recourse.

No one not understanding every nuance of our case then, or proceeding *as if they did*, independently (and thus divisively) of a singular resolution, merely inherits license to compromise the efforts of all by falsely or erroneously arguing their case or the case of others.


A typical capitalist retort for 45 years now has been, “Who would loan us money if it weren’t subject to interest?”

The issue of which you ask — of lending already-existent money therefore is indeed critical, because if risk is incurred in loaning *existing* money, then indeed, *actual* risk justifies interest. As your question emphasizes then, it is less obvious how our arguments resolve purported lending of already existent money.

In the case of *creation* on the other hand, our arguments prove it is not the case that money is lent into existence.

1. The arguments of MPE™ prove we *do not* borrow money *into existence* — that on the contrary, a “banking system” which gives up no commensurable consideration in pretending to issue money, no more than publishes further representations of our promissory obligations to each other.

Our resolution of the natural and only rightful disposition of the life cycle of promissory obligations furthermore demonstrates that POs represent value and that the very substance of “money” therefore derives entirely from redeemability sustained by the obligor. Owing to utter lack of a further candidate, the obligor therefore is the only rightful or legitimate issuer of money.

Furthermore, as principal represents value only until it is fulfilled, paid principal therefore is the rightful property of no one; and is only rightfully retired then with payment.

Interest is not justified furthermore, because the only real “creditor” (preferably to be referred to as an “acceptor,” because they certainly do not issue “credit”) is paid in full from the outset of a natural and inevitable arrangement — if and only if the “money” accepted is indeed redeemable. This redeemability is in turn guaranteed by enforceability of the contractual obligation of the obligor, in which fulfillment the obligor renders to acceptors so much of every obligor’s own production as is thus assented to have equal value in the fact acceptors determine to pay equivalently for the production of the obligors.

Owing therefore to a *guaranteed* redeemability to which the acceptor inevitably assents, not only then is “interest” unwarranted, but our very pattern of practice and normative principle bear these findings out in a fact “banking” *itself* denies interest to the acceptor.

*IN THE PURPORTED CREATION OF MONEY THEN*, as “banking” gives up no commensurable consideration :

1.1. the debt is *not* to the banking system;
1.2. “banking” does not incur any risk of the principal, because the principal is not even the legitimate property of “banking”;
1.3. rightly, payments of principal are instead *only retired from circulation*; and,
1.4. interest is absolutely unwarranted and unjustifiable.


2.1. As the obfuscator (“banking system”) has no right to the principal, and because instead, payment of principal ought only to be retired, neither does “the banking system” legitimate possess *either* the principal or interest ever afterward.

2.2. Furthermore, as this artificial circumstance precipitates only from a combination of wrongful exercise of the obfuscation and denial of the universal right to issue unexploited promissory obligations, every obligor’s right is to restore these promissory obligations as well to their only rightful state.


3.1. As much as this circumstance precipitates likewise from wrongful denial of the universal right to issue unexploited promissory obligations sustained (only) by the principles of MPE™, a right likewise exists to resolve these POs to MPE™ by repayment of the principal by issuance of a proper PO.


These are a summary of arguments fulfilled only by more exhaustive intellectual property, which rights to exercise then are limited to collective association of PEOPLE or PERSONS for mathematically perfected economy™, as prescribed by our amendment for MPE+ACR™.


Geef een reactie

Vul je gegevens in of klik op een icoon om in te loggen. logo

Je reageert onder je account. Log uit / Bijwerken )


Je reageert onder je Twitter account. Log uit / Bijwerken )

Facebook foto

Je reageert onder je Facebook account. Log uit / Bijwerken )

Google+ photo

Je reageert onder je Google+ account. Log uit / Bijwerken )

Verbinden met %s