How is it possible to maintain a vital circulation?

Waiting for an internal review by Bank of England of their handling of this request.

Dear Bank of England,

How is it possible even to maintain a vital circulation without accumulating inevitably terminal sums of debt?

Yours faithfully,

Jake

Enquiries, Bank of England

Dear Jake

We acknowledge receipt of your email dated 19 July (our ref FF 25701). We will reply in due course.

If you have any queries please contact the Bank's Public Information and Enquiries Group on 020 7601 4878.

Yours sincerely

Public Information and Enquiries Group
Bank of England | Threadneedle Street | London | EC2R 8AH | +44 20 7601 4878
[Bank of England request email]

show quoted sections

Enquiries, Bank of England

1 Attachment

Dear Jake

Please find attached a response to your email dated 19 July.

Yours sincerely

Public Information and Enquiries Group
Bank of England | Threadneedle Street | London | EC2R 8AH | +44 20 7601 4878
[Bank of England request email]

show quoted sections

Dear Enquiries,

Thank you for your reply, but no answer can be found at the link you suggested? Please answer my simple but vital question.

Thank you,
Yours sincerely,

Jake

Enquiries, Bank of England

Dear Jake

Please try this link http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/69...

Yours sincerely

Public Information and Enquiries Group
Bank of England | Threadneedle Street | London | EC2R 8AH | +44 20 7601 4878
[Bank of England request email]

show quoted sections

Dear Enquiries,

That´s the same link?? Altough the question seems to be very similair there are no answers in your reply whatsoever.

Can you please give me a straight forward answer to my simple question.

Yours sincerely,

Jake

Enquiries, Bank of England

Dear Jake

We acknowledge receipt of your email dated 1 Aug (our ref FF 25701). We will reply in due course.

If you have any queries please contact the Bank’s Public Information and Enquiries Group on 020 7601 4878.

Yours sincerely

Public Information and Enquiries Group
Bank of England | Threadneedle Street | London | EC2R 8AH | +44 20 7601 4878
[Bank of England request email]

show quoted sections

David left an annotation ()

How very disappointing that after all the rhetoric, the bank advises that it is not obliged to answer even one of the questions put to it.

This on the basis that answering will exceed the cost limitation of the FIO act.

Given the severity of the conditions facing people, perhaps we should ask to borrow the sums required from the bank so that it can pay itself the requisite fee.

Enquiries, Bank of England

1 Attachment

Dear Jake

Please find attached a response to your email dated 29 July.

Yours sincerely

Public Information and Enquiries Group
Bank of England | Threadneedle Street | London | EC2R 8AH | +44 20 7601 4878
[Bank of England request email]

show quoted sections

Dear Enquiries,

Let´s simplify the question even further. Is it possible to maintain a vital circulation when the Bank ¨of¨ England issues money at interest?

This can be answered with a simple Yes or No.

Yours sincerely,

Jake

Dear Bank of England,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Bank of England's handling of my FOI request 'How is it possible to maintain a vital circulation?'.

[ No reply/long overdue ]

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ho...

Yours faithfully,

Jake

Enquiries, Bank of England

1 Attachment

Please find attached a response to your email dated 1 July below.

Yours sincerely

Public Information & Enquiries Group
Bank of England |Threadneedle Street|London|EC2R 8AH|+44 (0)20 7601 4878
[Bank of England request email]

show quoted sections

Dear Mark,

Thanks for your reply. Let me simplify my request by writing down the following in order for the bank to give the answer we are looking for. Here we go.

A=B,

B=C,

C=A+D

Can you see the flaw?

The above argument simply states the premises A=B and B=C and then makes the statement C=A+D. But if A=B=C, then

clearly A=C and C=A+D is false, unless of course D=0.

Right?

So what? You might be asking what’s the big deal? Bear with me as you try this on for size:

Principal=Collateral,

Collateral=Debt,

Debt=Principal + Interest!

Now that is a big deal, right?

All current money contracts are centred on such flawed logic and according to several legal doctrines, they ALL are invalid. Because the collateral cannot be equal to both “Principal” AND “Principal + Interest”!

So there you have it, money contracts containing such a false syllogism are invalid and they represent the current system. And if the syllogism were to be corrected, then that means that the system would be too!

Check Mate!!!!

Only a Stable Currency corrects the syllogism so that:

Principal=Collateral,

Collateral=Debt,

Debt=Principal!

Can the bank please confirm the above statement which proves (not amatter of opinion, but a mathematical fact) that under the current obfuscation of our currency it is NOT possible to maintain a vital circulation without accumulating terminal debt.

Yours sincerely,

Jake

David left an annotation ()

The admission of the uglier impacts on people and the failure to answer the simple questions as placed by Jake and others can no longer be sustained.

Quite how the officers of the Bank of England have managed to maintain this failure to answer and attempts to hold up a respectable facade have fallen like autumn leaves.

As just one part of the combined system of control, we acknowledge that your rolls may well have been constrained by those commanding your actions.

With the humanitarian crisis now extending into almost everywhere that the international banking/finance/corporate entities have targeted so called opportunities of profit, a distinct relationship of abject poverty and the perversion of law can be seen as dark companions that threaten everything of virtue.

It comes I suppose as no surprise that the executive officers, senior economists and political leaders (with the shadowy and exclusive think tanks) have also been forced into denial of these simple truths and prevented reasoned dialogue.

But the obvious truths are increasingly plain to see and our simple but natural duties to one another in service towards solution and the protection of people should be a given the highest priority. Unless of course the controlling influences are in truth the enemy of the people that they daily transgress against and abuse so cruelly.

It is this duty that is enshrined within our laws both ancient and modern that we now call upon you to recognise. Failure to do so will do much more than end the dynastic control of the temples, it will callously and ruthlessly kill and abuse.

The liquidity essential for all peoples entrapped and dependant on the use of legal tender, that empty promise, must now be released directly into the population, not as further debt carrying interest.

This is perhaps late in the day, but real living dialogue in order to implement real solutions must now be regarded as the duty of all that are aware.

By failing to answer, you have answered, now all that needs to occur is to forgive and move towards resolution.

Enquiries, Bank of England

1 Attachment

Dear Jake

Please see attached response.

Yours sincerely

Public Information and Enquiries Group
Bank of England | Threadneedle Street | London | EC2R 8AH | +44 20 7601 4878
[Bank of England request email]

show quoted sections

Dear Bank of England,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Bank of England's handling of my FOI request 'How is it possible to maintain a vital circulation?'.

[ Refusing to aknowledge a mathematical proof that any economy subject to interest is terminal. The only currency which we should be considering is mathematically perfected currency‚ As there is one and one only solution to inflation and deflation; to systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property; and to inherent, irreversible (and therefore terminal) multiplication of artificial indebtedness by interest… thus it is only by eradicating altogether the latter costs; manipulation of the cost or value of money or property; and inflation or deflation.

The so called central banking systems The Fed, BOE, ECB, World Bank, IMF of the world in fact never earn this “money,” not only because they produce no product or actual service for it, but because the “money” they pretend we must borrow from them is no more than our own promise to pay. Nor are they actual creditors, for on the contrary, they give up nothing for our promises to pay, and only intervene upon our commerce to pretend the justification for dispossessing us of all our production is no more than their unassented authority to no more than publish our promissory notes, at no practical cost to themselves whatever. They thus collect, just in ostensible principal, so much as all the wealth which is ever subjugated to these obfuscations, only as if this mere publication of our promissory notes made them actual providers of credit; and only as if any resultant debt is ever actually owed to them.

They further subject these lies then to interest, as if actual risk existed in the negligible costs of no more than publishing our promises to pay. All these intentional falsifications of principle then are such blatant, self evident, and ever demonstrable facts that it is amazing any truly free and just people would ever tolerate their fatal subjugation to these obfuscations for nought. Evidently too, this is the common observation of today’s vast pretended representation, for never were these purported principles subjected to the assent of a knowledgeable, intelligent public; nor is it possible they were ever passed by one, for it is intellectually impossible to intelligently ensure our demise for no more than handing over the publication of our promissory notes, the very fulfillment of which is ultimately even made impossible by the breaches of principle in the resultant, wholly unnatural, ever unjustified, and fatal arrangement.

Pretended representation therefore would hardly achieve these purposes if a knowledgeable public discovered that the lies of pretended economy invalidate its every asserted principle; that none of this has even the least power to serve us in any way; that the allegiance of the government of every republic owes to the very perpetrators who, by taking so inconceivably from us, readily install and enforce usurpation in every vital office and controllable media. The perpetual, concerted evasion of accountability before us therefore is no accident, it is instead a calculated, vital accessory to the most serious, arrogant, and repulsive crimes in history.
]

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ho...

Yours faithfully,

Jake

Dear Bank of England,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Bank of England's handling of my FOI request 'How is it possible to maintain a vital circulation?'.

Refusing to aknowledge a mathematical proof that any economy subject to interest is terminal. The only currency which we should be considering is mathematically perfected currency‚ As there is one and one only solution to inflation and deflation; to systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property; and to inherent, irreversible (and therefore terminal) multiplication of artificial indebtedness by interest… thus it is only by eradicating altogether the latter costs; manipulation of the cost or value of
money or property; and inflation or deflation.

The so called central banking systems The Fed, BOE, ECB, WorldBank, IMF of the world in fact never earn this “money,” not only because they produce no product or actual service for it, but because the “money” they pretend we must borrow from them is no more than our own promise to pay. Nor are they actual creditors,
for on the contrary, they give up nothing for our promises to pay, and only intervene upon our commerce to pretend the justification for dispossessing us of all our production is no more than their unassented authority to no more than publish our promissory notes,
at no practical cost to themselves whatever. They thus collect, just in ostensible principal, so much as all the wealth which is ever subjugated to these obfuscations, only as if this mere publication of our promissory notes made them actual providers of credit; and only as if any resultant debt is ever actually owed to them.

They further subject these lies then to interest, as if actual risk existed in the negligible costs of no more than publishing our promises to pay. All these intentional falsifications of principle then are such blatant, self evident, and ever demonstrable facts
that it is amazing any truly free and just people would ever tolerate their fatal subjugation to these obfuscations for nought. Evidently too, this is the common observation of today’s vast pretended representation, for never were these purported principles subjected to the assent of a knowledgeable, intelligent public; nor is it possible they were ever passed by one, for it is intellectually impossible to intelligently ensure our demise for no more than handing over the publication of our promissory notes, the very fulfillment of which is ultimately even made impossible by the breaches of principle in the resultant, wholly unnatural, ever unjustified, and fatal arrangement.

Pretended representation therefore would hardly achieve these purposes if a knowledgeable public discovered that the lies of pretended economy invalidate its every asserted principle; that none of this has even the least power to serve us in any way; that the allegiance of the government of every republic owes to the very perpetrators who, by taking so inconceivably from us, readily install and enforce usurpation in every vital office and controllable media. The perpetual, concerted evasion of accountability before us therefore is no accident, it is instead a calculated, vital accessory to the most serious, arrogant, and repulsive crimes in history.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ho...

Yours faithfully,

Mr. J. Schot

C Anderson left an annotation ()

Whilst it is difficult to know exactly what the requester was endeavouring to achieve with their request. I have assumed (also referring to their comments) that they wish to know how the Bank can maintain the supply of money when we have an economy based on interest bearing instruments which may "devalue" the perceived value of the money supply.

I would first suggest reading the Wikipedia entries on economics and money supply which provide some details on the role and function of interest bearing instruments in a modern day economy.

The UK has two official measures of monetary supply (or the total aggregate value of all money circulating in the entire economy)

M0 is referred to as the "wide monetary base" or "narrow money" and M4 is referred to as "broad money" or simply "the money supply".

M0: Cash outside Bank of England + banks' operational deposits with Bank of England. (No longer published.)
M4: Cash outside banks (i.e. in circulation with the public and non-bank firms) + private-sector retail bank and building society deposits + private-sector wholesale bank and building society deposits and certificates of deposit.

There are several different definitions of money supply to reflect the differing stores of money. Due to the nature of bank deposits, especially time-restricted savings account deposits, the M4 represents the most illiquid measure of money. M0, by contrast, is the most liquid measure of the money supply.

M4 is derived from the consolidated balance sheet of UK monetary financial institutions (MFIs). M4 data is currently provided by UK resident banks and building societies and the BoE.

M4 comprises:
The M4 private sector's (i.e. the UK private sector other than monetary financial institutions (MFIs)) holdings of:

sterling notes and coin;
sterling deposits, including certificates of deposit;
commercial paper, bonds, FRNs and other instruments of up to and including five years' original maturity issued by UK MFIs;
claims on UK MFIs arising from repos (from December 1995);
estimated holdings of sterling bank bills;

and

35% of the sterling inter-MFI difference (added to OFC deposits, within wholesale M4). For further details please see the September 2011 Monetary and Financial Statistics article ‘Estimation and allocation methods within money and credit data’. Prior to September 2011, 95% of the domestic sterling interbank (now inter-MFI) difference was allocated to OFC deposits, the remaining 5% being allocated to transits. This followed a review of its causes (see page 101 of the June 1992 Economic Trends).

The sectoral distribution of holdings of CDs cannot be fully identified; errors may affect M4 itself, as well as its sectoral analysis.

Retail M4 (or M2) comprises:
The M4 private sector's

holdings of sterling notes and coin; and
sterling denominated 'retail' deposits with UK MFIs.

The BoE also publishes statistics on the supply of money within the UK and this data is available at: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/statistic...

However, to endeavour to assist the requester with information regarding the circulation of "money" and the Bank of England's role in this you may wish to look at the following documents, these may not specifically answer the question directly but will hopefully provide an insight and some information regarding the BoE's role in influencing monetary policy in the UK:

The following provides an overview of the Bank's role and how interest rates affect the supply of money:

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/Doc...

The following is a range of documents that I have identified which may relate to how the BoE maintains a vital circulation of money in the economy itself.

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publicati...

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publicati...

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publicati...

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publicati...

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publicati...

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publicati...

The following bulletin has information regarding the supply of Broad Money and how the BoE QE policy was designed to offset weaknesses in overall supply of money into the economy. See page 22 - Research & Analysis

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publicati...

For an impact of QE policy on the UK economy the following White Paper may provide the requester some illumination on how the BoE policy in this area has impacted the UK economy:

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publicati...

Please also see Money and credit: banking and the
macroeconomy at http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publicati... for an analysis by Paul Tucker.

The following has information regarding price stability http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publicati...

In respect of how QE injects "new money" into the economy and the BoE's policy in controlling the supply of this into the UK economy the following paper provides an explanation: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/education...

There are many more documents available on the BoE website that may provide further information to the requester and I would recommend visiting the website and undertaking a search for "money supply", "monetary policy", "money creation", "supply statistics" all of which may yield useful results.

I hope this post has been helpful.

Jake left an annotation ()

Why would this post be helpfull? Does it answer the question? No! Just further obfuscation...

David left an annotation ()

These convoluted and ornately over complex responses will simply not satisfy and are an insult to the intelligence of readers.

Please be as concise and precise as is possible with your responses, as an officer from within an office of a body corporate, none should consider themselves to be above the laws both domestic and international when it comes to your duties towards others.

The populations throughout the reach of the central banking system are having their economies and livelihoods destroyed by the structures implicit within the numerous system of measurements you cite. As such the implementation of life saving solutions is prevented and our mutual duties negated.

Is it not true that the "Bank of England" along with all other central banks is in reality subservient to the Bank of International Settlements, whose board both Mervin King and Paul Tucker reside upon?

That being the case, then such positions demonstrate a formidable and dangerous conflict of interest, especially since it is also alleged that under these roles, they regard themselves as being above any and all forms of prosecution for crimes.

Your avoidance of a concise reply as to the fundamental mechanisms involved and real solutions being non-existent within the present structures and agendas that remove the possibility of resolution without diminishing the lives of millions of people is unacceptable.

Culpability for maladministration does after all is said and done, remain with those that conspire to such tragic impacts.

For the avoidance of doubt, for each and every man woman and child put into harm or stress from this economic terrorism, retribution will unfold. Please try to answer the question from the perspective of the people, not al gore ithm driven nonsense that deals in fictions rather than lives.

Jake left an annotation ()

Well said David. Appreciated!

Ruud Harmsen left an annotation ()

Interest is not a problem for the circulation, because interest paid to the bank returns to the economy.

Full explanation here in articles 12 thru 15 at:
http://rudhar.wordpress.com/2012/10/04/m...

Jake left an annotation ()

Even if every last penny would return back into the economy (without interest attached) which won´t happen, do we want to leave that power in the hands of private institutions??

mike montagne left an annotation ()

Ruud Harmsen wrote:

"Interest is not a problem for the circulation, because interest paid to the bank returns to the economy."

-----

Neither you nor the bank issue a credible explanation *how* interest paid to the banking system "returns to the economy." Jake therefore makes a vital point which you evidently either do not understand, or intend to deceive us (like "the bank") precipitates in no more than rightful ramifications — which of course you neither justify.

"Interest" doesn't just magically return "to the economy" without incident. It returns by either of two courses:

a) we earn it back into circulation; or,

b) we must borrow it back into circulation.

Many people have simply claimed that because *they merely assume* *we can* earn interest from the banks, interest does not multiply a sum of falsified debt into the very terminal sum of falsified debt everywhere around us. But the faults of this ever-unqualified, assumed gem of a retort are the very reason the world suffers the present terminal monetary failure. Why is the retort so obviously unqualified and deceptive? Because, unless *we are* earning *all* the interest we pay out of the possession of the subject public, *back* into circulation... we are indeed borrowing *all the remainder* — with the consequence being a terminal escalation of falsified debt to a banking system, which, because it gives up no commensurable consideration in the entire life cycle of the money it purportedly creates... the banking system merely publishes further representations of our promissory obligations *to each other* — which are neither debts to the banking system, nor which comprise any risk to the banking system as only purportedly justifies interest.

The submitted question, and the banking system's evasion of answers which are obvious, and which correspond to facts evident everywhere around us then (however much "banking" presumes to have well hidden them), in fact demonstrate both:

c) that the banking system means to continue to deceive us that it actually "loans" previously non-existent money into circulation, that,

d) it can persist in the obfuscations of our currency which *inevitably* precipitate in the present, terminal, global monetary failure.

e) No more important question can be asked then; and,

f) furthermore, no credibility in the resultant, monumental scope of crime exists, without an entirely comprehensive answer, indeed, comprehensively and conclusively qualifying your retort.

The question your retort pretends to answer however, is not whether we *can* "earn" however assumably much of assumably warranted interest back into "the economy," for *most certainly* you neither indicate nor corroborate what sums of earning would indeed be required to accomplish the object you claim — which itself contradicts every fact around us:

On the contrary then, the fact is, that unless we *do* earn *all* assumably warranted interest back into "the economy," we are forced instead *to borrow* it back into circulation. So we see why a veritable answer to these questions is so crucial, because *if* indeed we are to maintain a vital circulation (a circulation sufficient to sustain the industry and commerce which are obligated otherwise to sustain an ever escalating sum of falsified debt), what we do not *or cannot* *rightly* (and that is a vital question as well) *earn* back into circulation, must instead be borrowed.

We understand many things from the only comprehensive answer — including why federal governments of every republic across the world are forced to over-spend, with the credit-worthiness of over-extended publics being so compromised as the public itself can no longer afford to sustain compromised circulation by a further escalation of borrowing. The present sums of falsified debt are indeed terminal then, for the costs *not even to service the full extents* so exceed each such public, that the public cannot even afford to borrow further, as yet remains indispensable to sustaining a vital circulation. Ay, thus your assertion merely presumes likewise, that it is possible to recover from sums of debt it is impossible even to service, which in fact are only accumulated not because interest re-enters "the economy" without detriment, but because the obfuscation inherently, irreversibly, and therefore inevitably multiplies falsified debt into the very terminal sums of falsified debt everywhere around us.

Not only does the sum of falsified debt irreversibly escalate all the further beyond possible reach then as a consequence of the obfuscation of our currency, you merely infer that the consequence *is not* terminal sums of falsified debt, without a word of qualification.

But yes then, it *is* possible to maintain a vital circulation under the obfuscations of banking — *BUT ONLY IF* indeed, we are *borrowing* interest and principal back into circulation, until we suffer the very terminal sums of falsified debt everywhere around us.

Obviously too then, the bank would simply provide the only credible answer, if indeed its means were justifiable (or *already justified*), and if it didn't intend to persist in such vast crimes as we are forced to reconcile in an eradication of banking, if we are to deliver to ourselves the only possible monetary justice.

You simply claim that "interest paid to the bank returns to the economy."

But how would this simply happen, or happen well, unless each and every one of us is *actually earning back* *ALL* the interest we pay out of the general circulation?

We can only borrow the difference.

Thus as so little is earned back (and unless such a process too is justified by a fact the banking system no more than publishes further representations of our promissory obligations to each other)... then indeed, vast sums of interest and principal are only borrowed back into circulation (even if in the terminal stages of such imposed systems, this is itself only accomplished by the breach of principle indigenous to terminal, federal over-spending).

You can do the simple math. We all can. What is it?

Whatever principal we are forced to borrow back into circulation thus sustains every prior sum of falsified debt — to this extent then, making it mathematically impossible to pay down prior sums of falsified debt.

Likewise, unless we earn back *all* the interest, we can never *even begin* to pay down any prior sum of falsified debt, because *all* the interest we are forced to borrow back into circulation therefore only increases every prior sum of falsified debt, until even at an inherently escalating rate of ever greater sums of interest, paid and re-borrowed merely to sustain a vital circulation (as the question asked)... we inevitably suffer a terminal sum of falsified debt which, in destroying credit-worthiness to borrow further... imposes all the merely artificial conditions of the present, upon us.

Only the most ultimately infamous criminals in history then, would mean either to evade the question, or our reasonable understanding of its only credible answer.

Ruud Harmsen left an annotation ()

> mike montagne left an annotation (29 May 2013)

I put my comments in a separate article on my web site: http://rudhar.com/economi/monydebt/en/21... .

Ruud Harmsen left an annotation ()

David left an annotation (10 September 2012) in reply to C Anderson:
==
These convoluted and ornately over complex responses will simply not satisfy and are an insult to the intelligence of readers.
==

In other words: you are not willing or able to make the effort to read and understand the material supplied, and instead reject it?

Jake left an annotation ()

@Ruud Harmsen You haven´t even discovered the obfuscation of the currency. In light thereof your reply to MM is simply preposterous

People can only deduce that the only consideration actually given up by banks is the costs of publishing further representations of our promissory obligations. A cost we are much better advised to absorb ourselves through the peoples Common Monetary Infrastructure (which is merely an accounting system) at much less cost and consequence.

The problem is that the imposed (obfuscated)currency inherently, and irreversibly multiplies debt into terminal debt.

What inherently drives up the cost of all things???

Artificial multiplication of debt on the subject industry, which is obligated to service the artificial multiplication of debt.

What should concern us is who stands in the way of solution, and why.

To offer all of us some perspective I invite you to a 3-way discussion. Send a Skype invite to Skype ID: m_montagne (Everyone else please feel free to join as well)

#pfmpe

Ruud Harmsen left an annotation ()

Jake wrote:
==
You haven´t even discovered the obfuscation of the currency.
==

That's right, I haven't. Because it doesn't exist. It's in your minds only.

==
People can only deduce that the only consideration actually given up by banks is the costs of publishing further representations of our promissory obligations. A cost we are much better advised to absorb ourselves through the peoples Common Monetary Infrastructure (which is merely an accounting system) at much less cost and consequence
==

Clearly you still don't understand what banks do, how they do it and why that is useful. Did you read my article #5 yet? It's here: http://rudhar.com/economi/monydebt/en/00... .

Ruud Harmsen left an annotation ()

Jake:
==
The problem is that the imposed (obfuscated)currency inherently, and irreversibly multiplies debt into terminal debt.
==

No it doesn't. It simply isn't true. Interest causes no money shortage. Did you read my articles 12 thru 15?

==
What inherently drives up the cost of all things???
==

In the eurozone, the ECB painstakingly keeps inflation down to an average of 2% per annum. That is low. It isn't zero, because the ECB does not have absolute power to achieve what they need to achieve. So an average of zero would lead to periods of deflation, which is undesirable.

I suppose the FED and the Bank of England etc. etc. have similar policies. The publish what they do, so you read about it.

Interest certainly doesn't drive prices up.

==
Artificial multiplication of debt on the subject industry, which is obligated to service the artificial multiplication of debt.
==

It isn't artificial and there is no multiplication. It is a myth based on lack of understandig, and it simply isn't true.

==
What should concern us is who stands in the way of solution, and why.
==

It is not wise to try to solve a problem that doesn't exist, and through away the baby with the bathwater in the process.

Ruud Harmsen left an annotation ()

==
To offer all of us some perspective I invite you to a 3-way discussion. Send a Skype invite to Skype ID: m_montagne (Everyone else please feel free to join as well)
==

Declined. This isn't a subject that lends itself to oral discussions, because it requires careful examples and accounting, balances etc.

Please first read and understand all my 19 articles, because you obviously haven't. http://rudhar.com/economi/monydebt

Ruud Harmsen left an annotation ()

Jake:
==
Even if every last penny would return back into the economy (without interest attached) which won´t happen, do we want to leave that power in the hands of private institutions??
==

Yes. Lending money that others saved is just a service like there are so many others. If we leave transportation and supermarkets in private hands, for example, why not banks? Banks are money supermarkets, nothing special about them.

I don't know if central bank should be in private hands. I do know that their policy should NOT be determined by governments, because government (especially democratic ones) want to spend money to make themselves liked, and so will always tend to put too much money into circulation and cause devaluation by inflation. Central banks MUST operate indepently of governments, with only one basic rule: stability.

Jake left an annotation ()

@Ruudharmsen

I did look into your preposterous article(s)...Money supermarkets....lol....

Most people can’t give you a good definition of money — a definition which holds; and a definition which serves them.

Yet if we ask the questions which develop a fully accountable answer, we readily arrive at a fact that the only definition of money which can inflict no offense whatever, is a currency which comprises immutable tokens of value.

In fact likewise, most people do intuit that money is a relatively immutable token of value — not understanding how the exceptions are engendered, or how the exceptions offend them. In other words, they recognize that immutability is a vital object; they likewise recognize that immutability of a promissory note is even vital to its facts of contractual obligation; but they do not recognize that one and one only monetary prescription makes good on this indispensable object of immutable tokenization of value.

Both to tokenize value and to immutably tokenize value nonetheless are only TO REPRESENT not only however many different products, but necessarily, to likewise represent the volumes of such products, or we fail to keep the ostensible 1:1 relationship between circulatory volume and remaining value of all products, which is necessary to immutable value.

The only way to immutably tokenize value therefore is if the units of value of the circulation are immutably linked to the remaining value of ALL represented property (not just to one or several of MANY products); and thus likewise, the remaining volume of units of circulation must at all times equal the volume of remaining value of all the products which the circulation is intended to represent, or we fail to keep these principles. In fact then, the only way to maintain these equal volumes is to pay the value of the represented property out of circulation as the value of the property is perceived to be consumed, or to depreciate. The only way you can do this of course, is if we pay monetary obligations comprised only of principal, at the rate of depreciation or consumption of all represented properties.

Volume of circulation must likewise equal remaining volume of all represented property. Franklin observed in his “Modest Inquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency,” that the colonists prospered substantially more when they supplemented their circulation of precious metal with paper currency (certain implementations of which were debatably subject to interest). He postulated that some prospective extent of such supplementation might be excessive; and that it might have negative consequences. But nonetheless he noted (evidently then because they never reached such a limit) that the additional circulation of paper currency sustained substantially greater prosperity.

Why?

They must therefore have suffered previously from an effectively deflated circulation. But simple questions thus resolve Franklin’s curiosity:

If the circulation is to represent (tokenize) value, then if the circulation were ever to exceed the volume of the remaining value of all property, then someone would have received circulation for nothing. Such an excessive, “inflated” circulation however would be impossible, if in fact all promissory notes (of principal only) are legitimately collateralized.

Likewise however, if the effective volume of circulation is ever less than the volume of represented property, then it is impossible to trade all property all at once; and someone will not have received and persisted in just reward for their production.

So, an “effective,” just circulation must at all times equal as close as possible the remaining value of all production (“products”).

A further malady exists in the present disposition of currencies subject to interest. That is, ever more of a circulation is perpetually dedicated to sustaining ever greater sums of artificial debt, leaving ever less of the same circulation to represent/tokenize the value of property. Thus interest makes abiding by our necessary principles of immutable tokenization impossible.

1. The only circulation which sustains all these necessary objects therefore is a volume of circulation which is at all times equal to the remaining value of all property.

2. The only way to maintain such a circulation is to pay principal out of circulation at the rate of consumption or depreciation of related property.

3. Thus as a circulation comprised of promissory notes only represents FINANCED property (subject to promissory obligations), the only way to sustain a circulation which necessarily represents the remaining value of all property is to further accommodate immediate conversion of equity into currency.

These in fact then are the principles of mathematically perfected economy; and this is a vital path of the logic of overall solution.

But our question asks if money is a product? Essentially, this is to ask if it MUST be a product in order to serve these vital purposes of a just currency, which of course must eradicate all potential for systemic offense.

We can see however, even on an abstract level, that the concept of tokenization can only go awry if the need for tokenization must account for all products, and the concept of tokenization requires A product or a few products to do so. Yet even according to the concept of tokenization itself, the token is distinct from the product itself — unless to be an immutable token of value, “money” must actually exist in the physical form or instances of some such “product.” In other words, if just/”honest” money is a product; how then and why would argue this restrictive concept of A product or products? How can either case serve the objects of volume equaling the volume of all products, if money “must” be a product or products; and if the volume of the product or products must yet equate to the volume of all products?

In fact, given the aforesaid observations, we readily recognize that nothing but all products can so represent all products; and the only reason folks like the Austrian “economists” are trying to insist on a product (or products) for their obfuscated claim to tokenization, is they refuse to acknowledge the very principles they pretend their one or few products somehow uphold — and yet are proven not to uphold.

As Franklin likewise observes, never did their precious metal monetary standards result in actual consistent values of money; and the reasons are evident in these principles: There is no perpetual 1:1:1 relationship between remaining circulation: remaining value of represented property: and obligation, because you refuse to recognize that the only mathematical course to this perpetual relationship is to pay off promissory notes comprising obligations of principal only, at the rate of consumption or depreciation of the related property — with the payments thus retiring the circulation as the value of the property itself is consumed. In fact, only promissory notes of principal, paid at this obligatory schedule of payment can accomplish these purposes; and do so even without regulation.

Thus we readily understand the problems of interest, which itself in fact perpetually violates our necessarily perpetual 1:1:1 relationship; which perpetually disposes ever more of the circulation to servicing a perpetually multiplying sum of artificial debt — leaving ever less of the same circulation to sustain commerce.

Thus the answer to the original question is that money CANNOT BE A product, if it is to be an immutable token of value, because a product, in which the resultant circulation would ostensibly be redeemable, ITSELF cannot represent All products! Thus it cannot provide a perpetual 1:1 relationship between volume of circulation and redeemability which purportedly eliminates subversion of value.

The only currency which can accomplish this purpose of making the circulation effectively not a product, but in fact at all times ACTUALLY REDEEMABLE in ALL products, is mathematically perfected economy — which alone therefore, immutably tokenizes all products represented by the circulation, and in such a way that the circulation is always redeemable in the very scope and volume of products it was from the beginning, intended to represent.

Conclusion

So, an effective just circulation must at all times equal as close as possible the remaining value of all production/products. A further malady exists in the present disposition of currencies subject to interest. That is, ever more of a circulation is perpetually dedicated to sustaining ever greater sums of artificial debt, leaving ever less of the same circulation to represent/tokenize the value of property. Thus interest makes abiding by our necessary principles of immutable tokenization impossible. A – The only circulation which sustains all these necessary objects therefore is a volume of circulation which is at all times equal to the remaining value of all property. B – The only way to maintain such a circulation is to pay principal out of circulation at the rate of consumption or depreciation of related property. C – Thus as a circulation comprised of promissory notes only represents FINANCED property subject to promissory obligations, the only way to sustain a circulation which necessarily represents the remaining value of all property is to further accommodate immediate conversion of equity into currency. These in fact then are the principles of mathematically perfected economy; and this is a vital path of the logic of overall solution.

¨
Declined. This isn't a subject that lends itself to oral discussions, because it requires careful examples and accounting, balances etc. ¨

Exept the invitation and we show you flow charts CB vs MPE. C´mon buddy, you might learn a thing or two about money

Jake left an annotation ()

For people not familiair with certain words I post a link to Glossary of Terms:

http://australia4mpe.wordpress.com/gloss...

When elementary math proves what we call “economy” only multiplies redundant costliness into terminal sums of falsified debt, then subjects of a grave ruse have failed to apprehend terms which meant so much to mislead them. Lacking rectified definitions, still we deny ourselves the words even to appropriately contemplate whatever might save us.

Jake left an annotation ()

As the world of the capitalist untouchables crushes ours, it is vital to understand that it is not the collapse of a thousand Enrons which brought us down. It is the very adversity to understanding which has allowed the destruction of our commerce, for if the people of the world merely endeavored to understand true economy, no usurer could prevail for a moment; no political pretender could deploy their office to serve usury; and no media would be owned by the very system of exploitation itself, that you may never understand usury.

It is the nature of their adverse system which your usurers would never have you understand. Your very understanding is their greatest fear, for they spend a great portion of their stealings from you to generate and to perpetuate a great, expensive facade that no problem exists.

Knowing even this, many say mathematically perfected economy™ ‘will never be allowed.’ No, mathematically perfected economy™ is inevitable, because usury can only fail; because usury only sows injustice; and because there is only one solution to usury. When soldiers return from foreign wars raised under guises so that even the victims of usurers will fight to establish yet another compliant central bank, and when those unwitting victims lose their own home to bankruptcy, they shall wish with all their constitution they had listened sooner and acted together to dissolve usury forever.

And when that day comes, under every rock you will find hiding usurers, advocates of usury, phony “economists”… all the seekers of unearned profit who knew not even how to limit their great crime against us.

Ruud Harmsen left an annotation ()

My comments to what Jake wrote:
http://rudhar.com/economi/monydebt/en/21...

Ruud Harmsen left an annotation ()

I'm not the Bank of England, put I did write a reply to Jake's questions, which in fact are the same as the earlier questions by Mark-Lee:
http://rudhar.com/economi/monydebt/en/21...

Ruud Harmsen left an annotation ()

I wrote, about Jake's invitation to use Skype:
==
Declined. This isn't a subject that lends itself to oral discussions, because it requires careful examples and accounting, balances etc. ¨
==

Jake replied:
==
Exept the invitation and we show you flow charts CB vs MPE. C´mon buddy, you might learn a thing or two about money
==

Yesterday evening (Amsterdam time), I did accept Mike's invitation to Skype, that he made on Twitter - after he blocked me there: he was asking me questions, but refused in advance to accept any answers. What kind of freedom of information is that? :)

On Skype too, after two short remarks, he stopped chatting. Strange. Not very convincing or reliable.

Ruud Harmsen left an annotation ()

David wrote, in response to someone else than me:
==
Please be as concise and precise as is possible with your responses, [...]
==

Well, I am, or at least I try to be. Precise, that is, concise: not really.

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org