Affidavit of Walker F Todd

[shinobi101]

Principality of Range View - Money of exchange, & of account

 

This is really interesting.

 

If the bank creates funds out of nothing, then their "consideration" in the contract is of no value, and they sustain no material loss if you don't pay!

 

The case documents are available from the court.

 

Take a look.

[shinobi101]

From point 11:

When a commercial bank makes a business loan, it accepts as an asset the borrower's debt obligation (the promise to repay) and creates a liability on its books in the form of a demand deposit in the the amount of the loan. (Consumer loans are funded similarly.)

[ ... ]

This would show that the bank received the customer's signed promise to repay as an asset, thus monetizing the customer's signature...

 

HOLD ON... Many of us are being chased and harrassed mericlessly for loans which are nothing more than an accounting entry. This probably doen't apply to all loans, but those which are created this way, the bank can lose nothing if you don't pay, as they had nothing to start with.

 

They can create "money" for a loan from nothing, charge you interest on it, and take your house if don't pay back the nothing they didn't lend you.

 

Any thoughts??

[rameses_qc]

It's from a US Court. Not binding here in the UK. You could use the same arguments, but I doubt it would get very far

[Kraken1]

What did you use the nothing the bank created for? Me I use it to buy a house, car etc. The nothing then becomes tangible and therefore it must have had substance in the first place, if not, where did my house come from?

 

Maybe this is all a dream?

[shinobi101]

It's from a US Court. Not binding here in the UK. You could use the same arguments, but I doubt it would get very far

 

Surely the fractional reserved banking system works the same way the world over?

 

Surely what is an "utter failure of consideration" on the part of the bank in the US, would be the same here?

 

If the bank literally created the "funds" out of nothing, then they are taking no risk at all in lending them to you, as they are nothing more than an accounting entry. They could write off a loan made this way with no loss of anything they ever actually had.

 

Even if not binding, do you think the affidavit might be acceptable as evidence, at least to justify demanding proof that the bank actually did lend real money?

[shinobi101]

What did you use the nothing the bank created for? Me I use it to buy a house, car etc. The nothing then becomes tangible and therefore it must have had substance in the first place, if not, where did my house come from?

 

Maybe this is all a dream?

 

The defendants used it to buy a house. Apparently they won!

 

Your house is real. The "money" used to buy it may not have been.

 

These concepts can be very hard to deal with at first. I'm still struggling with "If a bank creates funds like this out of nothing, why would any other bank ever accept it?" Nothing of value changes hands, just numbers moving around on accounts.

 

Also, virtually all money is created as debt, and loaned at interest. It is therefore mathematically impossible to pay it all back. The funds to cover the interest are simply not created.

 

There is a booklet from the federal reserve bank of chicago called "modern money mechanics" (available as pdf) which describes this in some detail.

Here's a quote from the bottom of page 6:

 

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. Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise by $9,000. Reserves are unchanged by the loan transactions. But the deposit credits constitute new additions to the total deposits of the banking system.

 

IMHO, the only way this wouldn't apply in the UK, is if we didn't use fractional reserve banking.

[Kraken1]

but if nothing is created and given a value then that something then becomes tangible and has value in its own right.

 

All money is only ever an extension of the barter system and therefore whatever form of currency we chose to adopt is based ultimately on trust of some description and the value society gives to that something. If it is ultimately tangible in the form of something you can touch, like a cabbage, then it ceases to be fictional. Further, like cabbages currency can be created or farmed by the banks but the risk against these is held by said banks. A further extension of this is the fluctuation of international exchange rates; the price of cabbages goes up and down.

 

I can see the attraction of the argument, though. The main issue though is if it succeeded then you'd destroy all currency and pretty much destroy the world. Credit crunch on acid.