Just understand that no bank ever did, does not now, or can ever, own a "credit balance", because every credit balance in every bank is a bank liability - and no one can lend a liability.
This is stated in the 2014 Bank of England article, "Money creation in the Modern Economy" (p.16), "[Credit balances] are simply a record of how much the bank itself owes its customers. So they are a liability of the bank, not an asset that could be lent out.”
The old Latin dictum from which this arises (Nemo dat quod non habet) means, "No one can give what they do not have", and the first logical consequence of this simple fact is that, since they don't own any credit balance, they can't lend it.
But this prompts a second thought: if they don't own it, who does? The answer will then dawn on you: the owner of any credit balance is the one who deposited either the cheque, the cash, or the promissory note which forced the bank to create that credit balance. It's the customer, every time.
And now you might be starting to glimpse how the world population can eventually extricate itself from the psychopathic influence of this vampire-squid-like monstrosity. Learn the simplest accounting truth the banks have hidden from the world.
Their secret is protected only by systematic lies they tell us, which we have collectively accepted as true, and I've now published documentary evidence that exposes these lies in their accounting statements of bank pseudo-loans on my Substack.
"Pain and suffering will accompany the controlled demolition of the economy and life itself, but there will also be resistance to the measures and increased crime. The pathocracy has a plan to manage that: an anti-life hyper-control grid is being rolled out in tandem with the anti-life economic measures."
All of which suggests that the endlessly touted "Palestinian culture of death" is a shadow projection of the West's own death cult.
Not quite. I assume this question relates to part 1 where the mechanics of money creation were discussed? At any rate, the individual receiving a loan simultaneously becomes both a debtor and creditor of the bank. The individual is a debtor because he/she owes the bank and must repay the loan at some point; and he/she is also a creditor because the bank has created a deposit account for them to enable the individual to draw down on the loan by making payments to whomever they wish. The latter entry creates a deposit (digital money) from the former entry (making a loan). That's how digital money is created out of making loans.
Yes, it is, Wayne, and so-called “loans” are even trickier than Rusere suggests, as TWO accounts are involved in a bank “loan” transaction. The principal amount is debited to the bank’s asset account and credited to its liability account (both opened under your name). Since each account has a debtor and a creditor, both you and the bank are simultaneously debtors and creditors, with your positions reversed on the two accounts.
Your signature on your promise to pay the bank is the root (or final) cause of the credit (and matching debit). Your signature creates or authourises your promise to pay, and no credit will be created without it. Although the bank physically creates your credit, they are only the formal, material and efficient cause, not the final cause.
What we give banks for their so-called "loans" of credit is a "naked" promise to pay, which requires no asset in return. Banks induce us to make these promises by making a similar naked promise, “to provide credit” (not money). All we get in return is their credit-liability, NOT a bank ASSET, effectively their "reciprocal naked promise". So, it’s not a “loan” in the sense you and Rusere assume.
For sure, there is an obligation to pay, but we impose it on ourselves by the power of our will, by making our promise. And we must keep our promise, but the obligation is not based on a debt owed, since no “consideration” moves from the bank to us. The bank transfers none of its assets.
We do owe them fees for their accounting services, which record the creation of OUR credit and the transfer of it from our account to other accounts. The key point is that it is OUR credit at its inception; it never belonged to, and so, cannot ever be lent by, the bank. What the bank never did, and can never own, it can never lend. The common law dictum is: “Nemo dat quod non habet”, which means, “No one can give what he does not have”. What the bank “has” are its ASSETS, not its liabilities, and it CAN only lend the former, not the latter.
So, there is no justification for either interest charges or mortgage security on a non-existent debt. A bank can’t enforce performance of a naked promise since it gave no “consideration” for it.
Absolutely brilliant!
Just understand that no bank ever did, does not now, or can ever, own a "credit balance", because every credit balance in every bank is a bank liability - and no one can lend a liability.
This is stated in the 2014 Bank of England article, "Money creation in the Modern Economy" (p.16), "[Credit balances] are simply a record of how much the bank itself owes its customers. So they are a liability of the bank, not an asset that could be lent out.”
The old Latin dictum from which this arises (Nemo dat quod non habet) means, "No one can give what they do not have", and the first logical consequence of this simple fact is that, since they don't own any credit balance, they can't lend it.
But this prompts a second thought: if they don't own it, who does? The answer will then dawn on you: the owner of any credit balance is the one who deposited either the cheque, the cash, or the promissory note which forced the bank to create that credit balance. It's the customer, every time.
And now you might be starting to glimpse how the world population can eventually extricate itself from the psychopathic influence of this vampire-squid-like monstrosity. Learn the simplest accounting truth the banks have hidden from the world.
Their secret is protected only by systematic lies they tell us, which we have collectively accepted as true, and I've now published documentary evidence that exposes these lies in their accounting statements of bank pseudo-loans on my Substack.
A good place to start might be my exposure of the above Bank of England revelation, here [https://patcusack.substack.com/p/4-the-bank-of-england-exposes-the]
Thanks Emma. At age 81.75, my strategy is to encourage each reader to try waking up one other person each day, and teach them to do the same.
Sharing is the best move we can all make.
"Pain and suffering will accompany the controlled demolition of the economy and life itself, but there will also be resistance to the measures and increased crime. The pathocracy has a plan to manage that: an anti-life hyper-control grid is being rolled out in tandem with the anti-life economic measures."
All of which suggests that the endlessly touted "Palestinian culture of death" is a shadow projection of the West's own death cult.
so the public/depositor is the creditor (by way of authorising/signature/deposit) and the bank is the debtor!?
Not quite. I assume this question relates to part 1 where the mechanics of money creation were discussed? At any rate, the individual receiving a loan simultaneously becomes both a debtor and creditor of the bank. The individual is a debtor because he/she owes the bank and must repay the loan at some point; and he/she is also a creditor because the bank has created a deposit account for them to enable the individual to draw down on the loan by making payments to whomever they wish. The latter entry creates a deposit (digital money) from the former entry (making a loan). That's how digital money is created out of making loans.
so its not the signature that creates the monies/entry in the digital bookkeeping.
Yes, it is, Wayne, and so-called “loans” are even trickier than Rusere suggests, as TWO accounts are involved in a bank “loan” transaction. The principal amount is debited to the bank’s asset account and credited to its liability account (both opened under your name). Since each account has a debtor and a creditor, both you and the bank are simultaneously debtors and creditors, with your positions reversed on the two accounts.
Your signature on your promise to pay the bank is the root (or final) cause of the credit (and matching debit). Your signature creates or authourises your promise to pay, and no credit will be created without it. Although the bank physically creates your credit, they are only the formal, material and efficient cause, not the final cause.
What we give banks for their so-called "loans" of credit is a "naked" promise to pay, which requires no asset in return. Banks induce us to make these promises by making a similar naked promise, “to provide credit” (not money). All we get in return is their credit-liability, NOT a bank ASSET, effectively their "reciprocal naked promise". So, it’s not a “loan” in the sense you and Rusere assume.
For sure, there is an obligation to pay, but we impose it on ourselves by the power of our will, by making our promise. And we must keep our promise, but the obligation is not based on a debt owed, since no “consideration” moves from the bank to us. The bank transfers none of its assets.
We do owe them fees for their accounting services, which record the creation of OUR credit and the transfer of it from our account to other accounts. The key point is that it is OUR credit at its inception; it never belonged to, and so, cannot ever be lent by, the bank. What the bank never did, and can never own, it can never lend. The common law dictum is: “Nemo dat quod non habet”, which means, “No one can give what he does not have”. What the bank “has” are its ASSETS, not its liabilities, and it CAN only lend the former, not the latter.
So, there is no justification for either interest charges or mortgage security on a non-existent debt. A bank can’t enforce performance of a naked promise since it gave no “consideration” for it.