The Political Measuring Stick

[mes5464]

I have to side with "it is mathematically impossible". In part, I draw that conclusion from this book,
http://www.amazon.com/They-Own-All-Incl ... 607&sr=8-1

It comes down to this, anyone paying you has to use money they earned from somewhere. The money circulating in your/our system is slowly being siphoned off by interest paid to the bank, so every system/circulation of money has to find other systems to siphon from. So, in the end, you can't benefit yourself without hurting someone else.

The second problem is the use of the Federal Reserve Note. In essence is only a note of debt, since it isn't real money and is no longer backed by gold. When you get paid your salary, pay off your house, or car, you are only paying it with more notes of debt. The debt is never actually paid, because EVERYTHING was either bought or sold using the "debt note" it is all really the property of the Federal Reserve. I don't fully understand it but it comes from the fact that the Federal Reserve transfered to land, the maritime laws of the sea, replacing the common law that is rightfully practiced on land.

On that note, we have to remember that Satan has dominion over the waters. I never really had an idea of what that meant, other than I thought he could kill/drowned you. Then, as I learned about how the maritime laws work I came to the conclusion (this is my opinion) that Satan gets to dictate the laws by which things are governed on the sea. That law is based on debt. When a sea captain loaded cargo onto a ship in Port A and carried it to Port B to sell it, he went into debt for the cargo. The debt wasn't paid until he made the return trip with the payment from the buyers, and used that to pay the debt for the cargo in Port A.

Since we never use any real money (gold/silver) we never actually pay any debts. We simply transfer the debt obligation around. The danger is in that all the houses, land, property is the collateral for the debts and in the end the banks will be able to follow all of the collateral like a chain back to the very beginning until they own everything and we are left with nothing.

I think I should explain the better, but this post is already too long. I hope this helps more that hurts peoples understand.

[7cylon7]

I have to side with "it is mathematically impossible". In part, I draw that conclusion from this book,
http://www.amazon.com/They-Own-All-Incl ... 607&sr=8-1

It comes down to this, anyone paying you has to use money they earned from somewhere. The money circulating in your/our system is slowly being siphoned off by interest paid to the bank, so every system/circulation of money has to find other systems to siphon from. So, in the end, you can't benefit yourself without hurting someone else.

The second problem is the use of the Federal Reserve Note. In essence is only a note of debt, since it isn't real money and is no longer backed by gold. When you get paid your salary, pay off your house, or car, you are only paying it with more notes of debt. The debt is never actually paid, because EVERYTHING was either bought or sold using the "debt note" it is all really the property of the Federal Reserve. I don't fully understand it but it comes from the fact that the Federal Reserve transfered to land, the maritime laws of the sea, replacing the common law that is rightfully practiced on land.

On that note, we have to remember that Satan has dominion over the waters. I never really had an idea of what that meant, other than I thought he could kill/drowned you. Then, as I learned about how the maritime laws work I came to the conclusion (this is my opinion) that Satan gets to dictate the laws by which things are governed on the sea. That law is based on debt. When a sea captain loaded cargo onto a ship in Port A and carried it to Port B to sell it, he went into debt for the cargo. The debt wasn't paid until he made the return trip with the payment from the buyers, and used that to pay the debt for the cargo in Port A.

Since we never use any real money (gold/silver) we never actually pay any debts. We simply transfer the debt obligation around. The danger is in that all the houses, land, property is the collateral for the debts and in the end the banks will be able to follow all of the collateral like a chain back to the very beginning until they own everything and we are left with nothing.

I think I should explain the better, but this post is already too long. I hope this helps more that hurts peoples understand.

In your case as stated that is a great use of debt. That is what money is!!!! This is a good thing people. We don't want to go back to the barter system. Money is a way to hold that debt. It is pretty cool. Later I can use that debt or money to buy something else.

This is a good use of money. There are many bad uses of money and debt which has already been explained above. I just wanted to not that in your case you described money or debt works perfectly.

[ithink]

I could in fact live my entire life without using debt at all.

I could work and exchange my time for some silver or gold or fiat money.

I could save up this money over time and pay full price for a small piece of land. I could make a grass hut with mud. Paid for in full.

I work some more.... save some money.... over and above my cost to live. Expand my land purchase for full price. no interest and no debt. I buy a land that produces food, cotton, water, oil ect....

I have just shown how you can live your entire life without ever going into debt.

It takes time, you have to start small, you can't have it now and all at once unless you enherit money, or land from your parents.

The problem comes with greed and the unwillingness to WAIT. Going into debt says you can have it now. You don't have to wait. Satify you wants now and pay later. or pay a little extra over time. and just like you have shown you end up paying twice as much as you would have if you would of just paid for it in full up front. but to pay in full up front you have to wait and save and you have to start small.

in fact this is what Brigham young suggested how you get rich. If everyone would do this the internatiolal banker would get zero. We would only need a bank to hold extra money in a safe place for a time.

Debt is a trap, it is suductive. in small amounts can be useful but most go overboard with greed and get themselves in too deep. just like this government has.

The main problem with the fed imo is that the profits go to private individuals. What if the goverment really own the fed. The fed could pay off all government programs. Taxes could be reduced government could take all that money and pay for all its programs.... well maybe not all but most.... or as in Ben Franklin days he said the reason we were so successful was because they gave out interest FREE loans and only put enough money in the market to support free trade. That is all that money needs to do. to enable the free flow of goods as changing a good for a good is very hard to do. That is why money needs to be divisiable easily.

Skousen thinks that in the millineium money will be backed by silver and gold. Even in the united order. Their will be two systems running in the millineium. The united order for those temple worthy members and for non members a free enterprise system but both based on money backed by silver and gold.

it will be interesting to see how this will all work out.

Put your opinion away, and start thinking right now. There is no more time to mess around and continue to pollute the water. Go do the research and quit parroting the rubbish touted by many tea partiers, the Republicans, and the that which the mass media has programmed you to think.

You say we cannot have debt, but you belong to a church which holds you in perpetual debt to Christ with a debt that can never be paid. Well surprise surprise, you also belong to another organization on this planet to whom you also owe a debt that can never be paid, and how does it feel?

Go do your homework and stop parroting the party line. Or, keep parroting: the British elite, the folks you thought you were free of, are high fiving every time you do.

[Jason]

I loan your family $500 bucks with $100 interest charge. Your family members work for each other - pay each other money for goods/services to your hearts content. Only $500 goes in the door to your home and $600 has to come out....where do you get the extra $100???

Where do I get the extra $100? From you! You pay me $100 to mow your lawn B-) problem solved.

Cool you now work for me for the opportunity to get back a little money that you created with your IOU! Unless I print extra money (no IOUs) or you get money from someone else who has taken out an IOU.....the obligation of $600 with only $500 in circulation remains.

Glad to see someone else chiming in, and catching on to what I see as a hole in the theory presented...

To summarize... Mummy, you are saying it's mathematically impossible, without new debt or new money printed/pumped into the system, to pay off all the debt and interest.

Amen! Also if that new money has an IOU attached (created via debt) you are only temporarily fixing your current problem (kicking the can - day of reckoning - down the road just a little further) while increasing the total obligation.

The problem I see is that while you're saying it's "mathematically impossible" you're only using the scenario's that make it impossible and not the scenario's which reveal it is possible... if we're just trying to see what's mathematically possible we can use any scenario, however unlikely or unrealistic, so long as it is also possible scenario.

What has been presented by myself, and teancum, is that there are possible scenario's which reveal the hole and show that it is in fact mathematically possible to pay off all the debt and interest without taking on new debt, or feeding more money into the system.

One more simple example...

Mr. Smith owes $130,000 to Mr. Banker. This is the total of his loan plus interest... Mr. Smith built a huge slide, and people pay him $100 to slide down his slide. Mr. Banker happens to love slides, he loves them so much, he slides down the slide about 10 times a day - thus Mr. Banker is giving Mr. Smith $1000/day! Mr. Smith takes that $1000/day and gives it right back to Mr. Banker... Thus we see that the same $1000 continues to circulate between Mr. Banker and Mr. Smith... No new money into the economy, no additional debt, just a circulating exchange... Therefore the debt Mr. Smith owes to Mr. Banker is decreasing by $1000/day, and within 130/days Mr. Smith is debt free! No new debt, no new money into the economy... And all the other people in the community also happen to offer a product or service that Mr. Smith loves just as much, so eventually they too have their debts paid off. Everyone is debt free, and the money continues to be exchanged for the various products and services available in the community. Oh, and Mr. Banker had to switch professions after all the debts got paid off.

....your example actually isn't very simple. Let's say that initial debt is $100,000 for simplicity (debt obligation of $130,000). Mr. Smith uses that money to build his big slide. Mr. Banker can't slide down that slide until Mr. Smith pays him some principle and interest payments (no legal means of creating/printing his - banker - own money). Mr. Smith paid the community the $100k for materials/labor to build the slide. So there is $100k in circulation.

Scenario 1 - Community slides down the slide at $1000/day. End of every day Mr. Smith pays Mr. Banker the $1000 on his loan. After 100 days the Community no longer has cash to slide down the slide. Mr. Smith has paid Mr. Banker back the $100,000 but still owes $30,000. Mr. Banker now owns the slide since Mr. Smith defaulted on the debt.

Initially Mr. Smith could charge more for slide rides since people felt wealthy but as the money in circulation decreases Mr. Smith will have to charge smaller and smaller amounts in order to get people to ride on his slide. Inflation/Deflation.

Scenario 2 - Mr. Banker likes slides too. Community slides down slide day 1 - pmt to Mr. Banker. Mr. Banker now slides down slide day 2 for free by giving back the $1000 to Mr. Smith from Day 1 who then at the end of the day gives the money right back to Mr. Banker again....but as you point out the debt obligation has now gone down by $2,000. Day 3 Community slides down the slide and Mr. Banker rides again for free - payment of $2k to Mr. Banker. The debt after Day 3 is $126k - money in circulation is still $100k of which Community has $98k and Mr. Banker has $2k. From Day 3 on Mr. Banker rides everyday with the Community by recycling the initial $1,000 payment. After another 63 days of slide rides the debt is paid off. The Community has $35k left. Mr. Smith has 0 - hopefully the slide hasn't worn out yet. Mr. Banker has $65k.

Yes in this scenario Mr. Smith can technically pay off his debt. The point it looks like I've failed to articulate is that Mr. Banker controls Mr. Smith. Mr. Banker can make Mr. Smith default.....or he can make Mr. Smith work for him. What did it cost Mr. Banker for the slide rides or possibly even slide rides and ownership of the slide?

At the end of the story - Mr. Banker got 65 days of slide rides and ended up with $65k in his pocket (that he didn't have at the beginning of the cycle - one more loan and he could buy his own slide from the community and not share). If he wanted to he could pass on the slide rides and own the slide the first cycle....or he could choose to keep Mr. Smith working for him. Mr. Smith is ultimately a slave to Mr. Banker the day he signed on the dotted line for the loan. What did it cost Mr. Banker?

Now start the cycle again with another loan.....all assets and labor flow to the banker. Say everyone in the community takes out loans and Mr. Banker gets services/assets from them.....how long before Mr. Banker owns everything? What did it cost him?

You see - It is mathematically possible, under certain possible scenario's, while maybe not likely or realistic, it is mathematically possible to pay off all the debt and interest, without new debt or new money.

I see your point....do you see mine?

It is mathematically impossible to pay the debt (without the Banker spending that money back into the economy - thus transferring assets/labor to the banker along with complete control over the economy - is that better?)....

Or in the gambling scenario I used in the article - the house has to give players money. Perhaps better stated - the players have to give the house additional assets/labor (besides what was pledged for the IOU) in order to make good on the IOU.

[creator]

...No, it is not mathematically possible to pay off any of the debt that is in existence today because we are compelled to re-borrow principal AND interest as subsequent sums of debt. As the principal is re-borrowed, more of the subsequent principal is required to maintain the circulation. This alone makes it not just impossible to pay debt off, but in fact, impossible to pay it down, and as long as the circulation is maintained, this process is irreversible. In addition, since more and more of the principal of subsequent money is required to cover the increase in interest, the money borrowed is incrementally and exponentially less able to sustain industry and commerce like it was intended to do.

Just like Mummy has done, you are taking the scenario that makes it impossible to pay off the debt and interest, rather than showing that it's mathematically possible to pay off all the debt and interest, with no new debt, no new money into the system, with the right scenario. I'm not arguing the current system... I'm showing you that there are scenario's, however unlikely as they may be, that allow all the debt and interest to be paid off, it's really simple math, simply economics... it could be easily demonstrated with a small group of people enacting this scenario, easy enough for a child to understand.

[creator]

I see your point....do you see mine?

It is mathematically impossible to pay the debt (without the Banker spending that money back into the economy - thus transferring assets/labor to the banker along with complete control over the economy - is that better?)....

Yes, I have seen your point the whole time! I also saw the hole, which makes it mathematically possible under rare circumstances.

But glad to see you've finally come around to admitting there is a mathematical possibility under the right circumstance that circumstance being that the banker spends all the money back into the economy. Though the end of your sentence revealed you're not thinking in terms of mathematical possibility, you're thinking in terms of the corrupt reality we face today, I'm simply illustrating a mathematical possibility, not even trying to address babylon.

[Original_Intent]

I see your point....do you see mine?

It is mathematically impossible to pay the debt (without the Banker spending that money back into the economy - thus transferring assets/labor to the banker along with complete control over the economy - is that better?)....

Yes, I have seen your point the whole time! I also saw the hole, which makes it mathematically possible under rare circumstances.

But glad to see you've finally come around to admitting there is a mathematical possibility under the right circumstance that circumstance being that the banker spends all the money back into the economy. Though the end of your sentence revealed you're not thinking in terms of mathematical possibility, you're thinking in terms of the corrupt reality we face today, I'm simply illustrating a mathematical possibility, not even trying to address babylon.

However, is the end result not the same? (albeit the can will get kicked farther down the road)

So the banker spends money into the economy, and the cycle repeats itself for possibly hundreds of years - in the end does the banker not end up owning everything, while adding no real production of goods to the economy? So even if the debt, under our current system is ever paid off - would we not reborrow money to have in circulation and eventually give everything for the privilege of using the banker's paper?

[Jason]

I see your point....do you see mine?

It is mathematically impossible to pay the debt (without the Banker spending that money back into the economy - thus transferring assets/labor to the banker along with complete control over the economy - is that better?)....

Yes, I have seen your point the whole time! I also saw the hole, which makes it mathematically possible under rare circumstances.

But glad to see you've finally come around to admitting there is a mathematical possibility under the right circumstance that circumstance being that the banker spends all the money back into the economy. Though the end of your sentence revealed you're not thinking in terms of mathematical possibility, you're thinking in terms of the corrupt reality we face today, I'm simply illustrating a mathematical possibility, not even trying to address babylon.

Rodger - Thank you for making me think it through more thoroughly!!!

....if the banker were the government (organization representing the people - people borrowing from themselves)....the interest would satisfy the tax burden as the government spends for infrastructure, etc.

[Jason]

I see your point....do you see mine?

It is mathematically impossible to pay the debt (without the Banker spending that money back into the economy - thus transferring assets/labor to the banker along with complete control over the economy - is that better?)....

Yes, I have seen your point the whole time! I also saw the hole, which makes it mathematically possible under rare circumstances.

But glad to see you've finally come around to admitting there is a mathematical possibility under the right circumstance that circumstance being that the banker spends all the money back into the economy. Though the end of your sentence revealed you're not thinking in terms of mathematical possibility, you're thinking in terms of the corrupt reality we face today, I'm simply illustrating a mathematical possibility, not even trying to address babylon.

However, is the end result not the same? (albeit the can will get kicked farther down the road)

So the banker spends money into the economy, and the cycle repeats itself for possibly hundreds of years - in the end does the banker not end up owning everything, while adding no real production of goods to the economy? So even if the debt, under our current system is ever paid off - would we not reborrow money to have in circulation and eventually give everything for the privilege of using the banker's paper?

Yeppers! Eventually all the assets would be owned by the banker and the people would be indebted for their lifetimes, their children's lifetimes, grandchildren, great.....etc.

Sounds familiar doesn't it???

[7cylon7]

%%- B-( :-@ ^:)^ ] %-(

I could not find a parrot.... to post .... I did not parrot..anything... all those thoughts were my own.

[ithink]

I loan your family $500 bucks with $100 interest charge. Your family members work for each other - pay each other money for goods/services to your hearts content. Only $500 goes in the door to your home and $600 has to come out....where do you get the extra $100???

Where do I get the extra $100? From you! You pay me $100 to mow your lawn B-) problem solved.

Glad to see someone else chiming in, and catching on to what I see as a hole in the theory presented...

To summarize... Mummy, you are saying it's mathematically impossible, without new debt or new money printed/pumped into the system, to pay off all the debt and interest.

The problem I see is that while you're saying it's "mathematically impossible" you're only using the scenario's that make it impossible and not the scenario's which reveal it is possible... if we're just trying to see what's mathematically possible we can use any scenario, however unlikely or unrealistic, so long as it is also possible scenario.

What has been presented by myself, and teancum, is that there are possible scenario's which reveal the hole and show that it is in fact mathematically possible to pay off all the debt and interest without taking on new debt, or feeding more money into the system.

One more simple example...

Mr. Smith owes $130,000 to Mr. Banker. This is the total of his loan plus interest... Mr. Smith built a huge slide, and people pay him $100 to slide down his slide. Mr. Banker happens to love slides, he loves them so much, he slides down the slide about 10 times a day - thus Mr. Banker is giving Mr. Smith $1000/day! Mr. Smith takes that $1000/day and gives it right back to Mr. Banker... Thus we see that the same $1000 continues to circulate between Mr. Banker and Mr. Smith... No new money into the economy, no additional debt, just a circulating exchange... Therefore the debt Mr. Smith owes to Mr. Banker is decreasing by $1000/day, and within 130/days Mr. Smith is debt free! No new debt, no new money into the economy... And all the other people in the community also happen to offer a product or service that Mr. Smith loves just as much, so eventually they too have their debts paid off. Everyone is debt free, and the money continues to be exchanged for the various products and services available in the community. Oh, and Mr. Banker had to switch professions after all the debts got paid off.

You see - It is mathematically possible, under certain possible scenario's, while maybe not likely or realistic, it is mathematically possible to pay off all the debt and interest, without new debt or new money.

Your simple example is a joke, and sorry, but you fail grade 5 math.

You say Mr. Smith owes 130K for a slide. Full stop right now, you've made a massive error. Mr. Smith may owe 130K, but what was the principal he received? Was it 100K? If so, the economy received $100K, but Smith owes $130K. Where does Smith get the other $30K? The answer is he does not. The impossible cycle is broken and Smith is bankrupt. Interestingly, Smith is bankrupt the day after he receives the loan, because after he owes 10 cents in interest he still can't pay that back.

The only hope Smith has is that Jones gets a loan from Bankster B and likes slides 1/3 as much as Bankster A. That helps Smith today, but unless Jones and his donut company have a lot of clients that took out loans like he and Smith did and they like donuts too, he'll default as well.

You better hope the banks keep loaning money, or the entire system collapses overnight. And of course, when the amount being called in for compounding interest becomes too onerous, it collapses the system as well, like what is going on in your country, where 1/3 of all new venture capital now goes entirely to financing. This is just one sign that the end is near, and no, Ron Paul's gold will not save you.

For the love of God, please wake up. Ignorance will kill us if we are not more careful and less prideful than we are. We can spout off on this website til the cows come home, but until the so called men humble themselves and are willing to regurgitate each and every lie they have been spoon fed from every source and institution they have been a part of excepting none, there is no hope of coming out on top.

[ithink]

%%- B-( :-@ ^:)^ ] %-(

I could not find a parrot.... to post .... I did not parrot..anything... all those thoughts were my own.

In saying your thoughts are your own, you parrot again. It is all propaganda. Those who deny it illustrate how powerful and pervasive the machine is. Certainly your feelings are your own, but sorry, your thoughts are not original.

[Jason]

In further thought on this subject today I would like to submit the following for thought and reflection -

If the government (as a collective representation of the people) were the sole entity allowed to create money via debt (to both banks and individuals) of which the interest and principle would be spent by the government back into the economy thus negating the probability of creating default or deflationary spiral...

if interest rates were raised the government would get a greater portion to spend on government needs.....but the people would borrow less due to the higher cost.....and vice versa for lowering interest rates. Seems that a long term equilibrium would be maintained.

Of course private banks could lend out deposits (make money off the margin) unrestricted.

[ithink]

In further thought on this subject today I would like to submit the following for thought and reflection -

If the government (as a collective representation of the people) were the sole entity allowed to create money via debt (to both banks and individuals) of which the interest and principle would be spent by the government back into the economy thus negating the probability of creating default or deflationary spiral...

if interest rates were raised the government would get a greater portion to spend on government needs.....but the people would borrow less due to the higher cost.....and vice versa for lowering interest rates. Seems that a long term equilibrium would be maintained.

Of course private banks could lend out deposits (make money off the margin) unrestricted.

Wrong. Any compound interest system currency will fail whether closed or not. What we have now is no different that what you just described, and it doesn't matter if you call it the Federal Reserve or the Federal Government.

I've provided links with material for you to study, material which you must all study or we will all suffer for our collective ignorance / stubbornness, or pride if you will, the exact pride Benson counseled against. I have found sadly, that the most closed minded people I have ever met besides Jehovah's Witnesses are Mormons. A sad statement indeed. Especially for a people who have been warned against "a bible, a bible, there can be no more bible" kind of mentality.

Here it is again: http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-if-i-were-president.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Jason]

In further thought on this subject today I would like to submit the following for thought and reflection -

If the government (as a collective representation of the people) were the sole entity allowed to create money via debt (to both banks and individuals) of which the interest and principle would be spent by the government back into the economy thus negating the probability of creating default or deflationary spiral...

if interest rates were raised the government would get a greater portion to spend on government needs.....but the people would borrow less due to the higher cost.....and vice versa for lowering interest rates. Seems that a long term equilibrium would be maintained.

Of course private banks could lend out deposits (make money off the margin) unrestricted.

Wrong. Any compound interest system currency will fail whether closed or not. What we have now is no different that what you just described, and it doesn't matter if you call it the Federal Reserve or the Federal Government.

I've provided links with material for you to study, material which you must all study or we will all suffer for our collective ignorance / stubbornness, or pride if you will, the exact pride Benson counseled against. I have found sadly, that the most closed minded people I have ever met besides Jehovah's Witnesses are Mormons. A sad statement indeed. Especially for a people who have been warned against "a bible, a bible, there can be no more bible" kind of mentality.

Here it is again: http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-if-i-were-president.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

....I've read through it a time or two before....but I'll go through it again!

[shadow]

Your simple example is a joke, and sorry, but you fail grade 5 math.

In saying your thoughts are your own, you parrot again. It is all propaganda. Those who deny it illustrate how powerful and pervasive the machine is. Certainly your feelings are your own, but sorry, your thoughts are not original.

Wrong.

For the love of God, please wake up. Ignorance will kill us if we are not more careful and less prideful than we are. We can spout off on this website til the cows come home

I thought you were done with this site. Welcome back :-\

[ithink]

In further thought on this subject today I would like to submit the following for thought and reflection -

If the government (as a collective representation of the people) were the sole entity allowed to create money via debt (to both banks and individuals) of which the interest and principle would be spent by the government back into the economy thus negating the probability of creating default or deflationary spiral...

if interest rates were raised the government would get a greater portion to spend on government needs.....but the people would borrow less due to the higher cost.....and vice versa for lowering interest rates. Seems that a long term equilibrium would be maintained.

Of course private banks could lend out deposits (make money off the margin) unrestricted.

Wrong. Any compound interest system currency will fail whether closed or not. What we have now is no different that what you just described, and it doesn't matter if you call it the Federal Reserve or the Federal Government.

I've provided links with material for you to study, material which you must all study or we will all suffer for our collective ignorance / stubbornness, or pride if you will, the exact pride Benson counseled against. I have found sadly, that the most closed minded people I have ever met besides Jehovah's Witnesses are Mormons. A sad statement indeed. Especially for a people who have been warned against "a bible, a bible, there can be no more bible" kind of mentality.

Here it is again: http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-if-i-were-president.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

....I've read through it a time or two before....but I'll go through it again!

Your attitude is the same attitude as mine, which is I am willing at every point to receive more knowledge. This is my attitude: "for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have." The strangest thing is that for some reason, the majority seem to choose the latter.

[ithink]

Your simple example is a joke, and sorry, but you fail grade 5 math.

In saying your thoughts are your own, you parrot again. It is all propaganda. Those who deny it illustrate how powerful and pervasive the machine is. Certainly your feelings are your own, but sorry, your thoughts are not original.

Wrong.

For the love of God, please wake up. Ignorance will kill us if we are not more careful and less prideful than we are. We can spout off on this website til the cows come home

I thought you were done with this site. Welcome back :-\

Thank you. I have never believed life was a popularity contest. If I open my mouth and too many people tell me how great it was, I feel I need to repent, because in a wicked world, opening your mouth should get you into trouble, not make you (m)any friends. And yes, that applies to this forum as well, doubly so, because shadow, we ought to know better than have shown we do.

[creator]

Mr. Smith owes $130,000 to Mr. Banker. This is the total of his loan plus interest... Mr. Smith built a huge slide, and people pay him $100 to slide down his slide. Mr. Banker happens to love slides, he loves them so much, he slides down the slide about 10 times a day - thus Mr. Banker is giving Mr. Smith $1000/day! Mr. Smith takes that $1000/day and gives it right back to Mr. Banker... Thus we see that the same $1000 continues to circulate between Mr. Banker and Mr. Smith... No new money into the economy, no additional debt, just a circulating exchange... Therefore the debt Mr. Smith owes to Mr. Banker is decreasing by $1000/day, and within 130/days Mr. Smith is debt free! No new debt, no new money into the economy... And all the other people in the community also happen to offer a product or service that Mr. Smith loves just as much, so eventually they too have their debts paid off. Everyone is debt free, and the money continues to be exchanged for the various products and services available in the community. Oh, and Mr. Banker had to switch professions after all the debts got paid off.

You see - It is mathematically possible, under certain possible scenario's, while maybe not likely or realistic, it is mathematically possible to pay off all the debt and interest, without new debt or new money.

Your simple example is a joke, and sorry, but you fail grade 5 math.

You say Mr. Smith owes 130K for a slide. Full stop right now, you've made a massive error. Mr. Smith may owe 130K, but what was the principal he received? Was it 100K? If so, the economy received $100K, but Smith owes $130K. Where does Smith get the other $30K? The answer is he does not. The impossible cycle is broken and Smith is bankrupt. Interestingly, Smith is bankrupt the day after he receives the loan, because after he owes 10 cents in interest he still can't pay that back...

Sorry, but it is you who have failed in the math here, seems you don't understand how money can continue to circulate so long as it is not held onto by one person... you must re-read and re-read and re-read the example(s) I have given and you will see the truth, that the math is sound, despite the example not being realistic or at all likely... My point is not to argue the reality of the system as it is today but only to show that there is a possibility to pay back all the interest and debt without acquiring new debt or injecting new money into the system - the point is to show the mathematically possibility, not the chances of that scenario actually happening in real life. Take a step back, re-read, and just think. And if you respond, don't stray from the example scenario given, as you have done. How can you hope to disprove something if you stray from the scenario being used to prove it?

[Jason]

Mr. Smith owes $130,000 to Mr. Banker. This is the total of his loan plus interest... Mr. Smith built a huge slide, and people pay him $100 to slide down his slide. Mr. Banker happens to love slides, he loves them so much, he slides down the slide about 10 times a day - thus Mr. Banker is giving Mr. Smith $1000/day! Mr. Smith takes that $1000/day and gives it right back to Mr. Banker... Thus we see that the same $1000 continues to circulate between Mr. Banker and Mr. Smith... No new money into the economy, no additional debt, just a circulating exchange... Therefore the debt Mr. Smith owes to Mr. Banker is decreasing by $1000/day, and within 130/days Mr. Smith is debt free! No new debt, no new money into the economy... And all the other people in the community also happen to offer a product or service that Mr. Smith loves just as much, so eventually they too have their debts paid off. Everyone is debt free, and the money continues to be exchanged for the various products and services available in the community. Oh, and Mr. Banker had to switch professions after all the debts got paid off.

You see - It is mathematically possible, under certain possible scenario's, while maybe not likely or realistic, it is mathematically possible to pay off all the debt and interest, without new debt or new money.

Your simple example is a joke, and sorry, but you fail grade 5 math.

You say Mr. Smith owes 130K for a slide. Full stop right now, you've made a massive error. Mr. Smith may owe 130K, but what was the principal he received? Was it 100K? If so, the economy received $100K, but Smith owes $130K. Where does Smith get the other $30K? The answer is he does not. The impossible cycle is broken and Smith is bankrupt. Interestingly, Smith is bankrupt the day after he receives the loan, because after he owes 10 cents in interest he still can't pay that back...

Sorry, but it is you who have failed in the math here, seems you don't understand how money can continue to circulate so long as it is not held onto by one person... you must re-read and re-read and re-read the example(s) I have given and you will see the truth, that the math is sound, despite the example not being realistic or at all likely... My point is not to argue the reality of the system as it is today but only to show that there is a possibility to pay back all the interest and debt without acquiring new debt or injecting new money into the system - the point is to show the mathematically possibility, not the chances of that scenario actually happening in real life. Take a step back, re-read, and just think. And if you respond, don't stray from the example scenario given, as you have done. How can you hope to disprove something if you stray from the scenario being used to prove it?

Just to clarify -
the money has to do more than just change hands between people.....has to go back into the economy from the bank without an IOU attached (for example - payment for goods/services)....otherwise ithink is correct. See scenario 1 in previous post. If scenario 2 changes from Mr. Banker sliding down the slide (goods/service) to just offering another loan....back to no money to pay interest.

[creator]

Just to clarify -
the money has to do more than just change hands between people.....has to go back into the economy from the bank without an IOU attached (for example - payment for goods/services)....otherwise ithink is correct. See scenario 1 in previous post. If scenario 2 changes from Mr. Banker sliding down the slide (goods/service) to just offering another loan....back to no money to pay interest.

Yes, I do realize that, but in my scenario the money changes hands and goes back into the economy without IOU's attached.

[Rincon]

I measure everything against the Constitution which was handed to the Founding Fathers by the Lord. That is why I vote for Constitutional Party Candidates. Not that they could ever be elected, but as a show of respect for the Constitution.

I think politics is meaningless at this point. President Benson was quoted many years ago as saying we had already passed the point when the Constitution could have been saved by peaceful means. Now it will cost blood to save it. An enemy hath done this. We shouldn't be surprised, everything is on schedule like the prophesies indicate.

[Teancum-Old]

I see your point....do you see mine?

It is mathematically impossible to pay the debt (without the Banker spending that money back into the economy - thus transferring assets/labor to the banker along with complete control over the economy - is that better?)....

Yes, I have seen your point the whole time! I also saw the hole, which makes it mathematically possible under rare circumstances.

But glad to see you've finally come around to admitting there is a mathematical possibility under the right circumstance that circumstance being that the banker spends all the money back into the economy. Though the end of your sentence revealed you're not thinking in terms of mathematical possibility, you're thinking in terms of the corrupt reality we face today, I'm simply illustrating a mathematical possibility, not even trying to address babylon.

Brian: Good to see you have brought most to agreement on this. If the banker puts his money back into the system with no IOUs attached, the loan's principal + interest can indeed be paid off -- definitely a mathematical possibility. However, this is not what is going on today through central banking. (

[Original_Intent]

I see your point....do you see mine?

It is mathematically impossible to pay the debt (without the Banker spending that money back into the economy - thus transferring assets/labor to the banker along with complete control over the economy - is that better?)....

Yes, I have seen your point the whole time! I also saw the hole, which makes it mathematically possible under rare circumstances.

But glad to see you've finally come around to admitting there is a mathematical possibility under the right circumstance that circumstance being that the banker spends all the money back into the economy. Though the end of your sentence revealed you're not thinking in terms of mathematical possibility, you're thinking in terms of the corrupt reality we face today, I'm simply illustrating a mathematical possibility, not even trying to address babylon.

Brian: Good to see you have brought most to agreement on this. If the banker puts his money back into the system with no IOUs attached, the loan's principal + interest can indeed be paid off -- definitely a mathematical possibility. However, this is not what is going on today through central banking. (

Yes Brian is indeed correct - it is possible but extremely unlikely. Which I believe he has acknowledged all along. And the massive scale of providing all of the money in the entire economy at interest, the banks would have to be buying things up at an equally massive scale to keep up with the interest and make the loan truly paid off. So on the one hand you have an unpayable debt, and everything transfers to the bank by default on the loan, OR the bankers spend money into the economy hand over fist, the loan is paid off, but all assets have been transferred to the bank thru purchasing.

So in either scenario, the banks end up with all the money (which they don't really care about - why would they? THEY SEE FRNS FOR WHAT THEY REALLY ARE!) and they also end up owning most if not all of the assets. What profiteth it a man if he gain the world but loses his soul? The Global conspiracy is very close to achieving the first part of that equation.

[7cylon7]

Ithink your annoying. :ymapplause: