Quote:
Originally Posted by Average Joe
It does not matter what money is or where it comes from, it is just a system of credits and debits anyway.
What i said in my last post is fact, fact and only fact.
You spend money on the credit card, it is somebodys money no matter what, and you owe it.
Now the extortionate interest rates, which they change as and when they feel like, now thats a point well made by esther.
|
Yes, this is the game of commerce.
"A deposit created through lending is a debt that has to be paid on demand of the depositor, just the same as the debt arising from a customer's deposit of checks or currency in the bank. Of course they do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts." – Federal Reserve Bank, Chicago, Modern Money Mechanics, p. 6
So, if you want to keep playing the game and pay back money that they never lent you, go ahead. I've done the same thing, but I'm learning the rules of the game fast.
To quote Mary Croft:
" When we ‘borrow money’ from a bank, which seems to be the only entity from which we can borrow, our signature upon a ‘promise to pay’ is not only what gets us the loan but also what immediately repays the loan. Did the bank lend us money? No. There is no money. It didn’t lend ‘money’, it exchanged the credit we created for bank promissory notes. I watch people’s eyes glaze over when I mention this concept so think of this:
I take my credit card over to Sears and purchase $100 worth of goods. I sign on the line which states, “I agree to pay...” I do agree to pay, just as soon as they can devise a method for me to do this. Since 1933, when the USA declared bankruptcy and who knows when in Canada (since Canada was on and off the gold standard for some time after the uSA fell to the banksters) public policy (in the uSA: HJR 192 of June 5, 1933, and in Canada, Order in Council No. 16, April 10, 1933) has dictated that since there is nothing of
substance with which to pay, the best I can do is promise to pay. All public debt will be discharged by the feds. Those who hold the gold pay the debt. The only way to do this is to sign a note with the number attached to it. It is a promissory note – the same as that which we sign in a bank just before we are told they won’t lend us cash.
I have asked ‘loan officers’ why they won’t just hand over to me the cash which we’ve just agreed I was going to borrow. They say, “I don’t have the cash right here; I’ll give you a cheque which you can take over to the teller and she’ll either deposit it into your account from which you can then withdraw cash, or you can just cash the cheque.” I ask, “If its right over there with the teller, why can’t you go over for me and get the cash?” They then tell me that I have to endorse the cheque they intend to give me. But I signed for cash. I promise to pay $10,000 plus interest for ... $10,000, not a piece of paper with numbers and a date on it. Why isn’t this a straight exchange – note for cash? Because they want two signatures. Keep in mind that every time we sign anything, we are creating credit, rather, bringing forth our unlimited credit, and if for some reason we don’t receive this credit, count on the fact that someone else did – by stealing our exemption. To
boot, we have agreed to it – take a look at the (unilateral and hence, unenforceable) contract, whether it is your driver’s licence or your credit card application. Your exemption is being stolen through your signature. It is
worth a fortune. Time to take control, eh?
Let’s get back to Sears. When I went into the store for the goods and I made payment, in whatever form, what did I get for my payment? No, not the goods; I got a receipt. The direct exchange was signature for
receipt. The goods were already mine; I just came to collect them. So, the merchant is happy because I signed for the goods; i.e.: he exchanged goods for my signature which that day was worth $100, so his accounts are
balanced. He doesn’t see that he exchanged his receipt for my signature. My books are balanced because I exchanged my signature for his receipt, I also happened to get the goods, which were pre-paid. Then, the merchant sends to the bank, my signature along with the hundreds of others which he gathered that day. The bank then transfers funds electronically over to Sears. The bank did not gather up cash (or anything of substance) and send it over to Sears; it transferred to Sears, by the clicking of computer keys (Electronic Funds Transfer), the amount of credit matching, and hence balancing the amount of, the credit slips. I’ll say it again, because it is so stunning: NO MONEY ever left the bank to PAY Sears.
The next thing I know I get a bill from VISA for $100. For what? I’ve already ‘paid’ – at least to the extent of my ability. Public Policy has dictated that this is all I can do. How do you want to ‘pay’ for goods which are already yours? Via working forty hours a week? Or via your signature, thereby giving them your tax exemption?"