Clear Your Debts 70% of Credit Agreements Are Unenforcable Therefore NON repayable.

Originally Posted by peacelovinman

Hi everyone



Let's get one thing straight here: the majority of money in our economy HAS BEEN CREATED FROM THIN AIR! Where did the billions come to bail out the banks? It was created from nothing! Nobody put anything of worth into the deal - the money was simply created from nothing. This money is backed by nothing of worth - it is "fiat" currency.

Agreed.

But that does not address the exchange of energy [labor] for goods and services, or goods and services exchanged for goods and services[barter].

No one wants to talk about that aspect

If you want a wide screen television that is valued at
1.36 ounces of gold, which is real money by any accounting that would be 1000 fiat dollars for discussion.

It took labor and materials to build that television. You need to come up with an equivalent amount of energy or goods to compensate the builders for their effort. Or you need to build your own television.

Put another way. The jerk that owes me 1000 fiat dollars. You are saying that he owes me nothing because I gave him nothing. This is not correct. I gave him forty hours of my life. He took the equivalent of my time and translated it into goods and services. Now he refuses to return the equivalent of my time to me. In order to replace that stored energy I am required to give up forty more hours of my time just to return to where I was before I encountered him. I am eighty hours older to maintain my lifestyle because of him.

You purchase a home for twohundredthousand dollars.
The owner walks away with the equivalent of 8000 hours of labor/life time that he will not have to work (using the pay rate of twenty five fiat dollars an hour). Now if you only give 1000 hours of your time, the owner has the time and your lender does not.

The value of an object or service is relative. If you can convince the owner to trade that home for a paper clip -
than it is a fair exchange because both parties are content with their exchange. However, if one of those parties is not content, then you have disparity and a problem. The point is, at the time of exchange you agreed that the value of that home was 8,000 hours of your life. Then, down the road you change your mind and only want to give 1000 hours of your life, yet can still exchange that home for eight thousand hours of another persons life? There is a disparity apparent here which I do not understand. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

Money is just an exchange medium. A system of stored
energy. What is the value of your life? A paperclip? It is all negotiable.

I do not have a problem with renegotiating the entire system. But rest assured, it will be replaced with another system unless you are clever enough to get the rest of the world to give you their lives with nothing in return as the money changers have. In the end it all comes down to meeting the needs and wants of people.
On a small scale this is fairly easy. Face to face, you know when you have been swindled. You also know when you look in the mirror if you have behaved without integrity. But on a larger scale, it is much easier to lose sight of the ethics of living in the world.

[peacelovinman]

Originally Posted by Baggywrinkle

Put another way. The jerk that owes me 1000 fiat dollars. You are saying that he owes me nothing because I gave him nothing. This is not correct. I gave him forty hours of my life. He took the equivalent of my time and translated it into goods and services. Now he refuses to return the equivalent of my time to me. In order to replace that stored energy I am required to give up forty more hours of my time just to return to where I was before I encountered him. I am eighty hours older to maintain my lifestyle because of him.

No, I am not saying that. The original question talked about credit agreements; what you allude to is not a credit agreement but a contract to supply goods or services. You do not have a legal right to create credit as banks do. If you attempted to do so, you would be arrested for counterfeiting.

In the transaction you detail above, you are more than able to show the accounting (i.e. that you have suffered material loss by somebody not paying you). Therefore, if you can also show that you have a legally binding contract with that person for supply of goods, you can collect, in fiat currency or any other medium of exchange agreed in your contract.

Banks and credit companies have given NOTHING and can therefore not show where a liability has occured. Again, I suggest you read the Mary Elizabeth: Croft book if you want to study the arguements.

Thanks for your comments, friend, and for advancing the discussion.