eListas Logo
   The Most Complete Mailing Lists, Groups and Newsletters System on the Net
      HOME    SERVICES    SOLUTIONS    COMPANY    
Home > My Lists > socialcredit > Messages

 Message Index 
 Messages from 5263 to 5322 
SubjectFrom
Reconstruction william_
Re: Responding in Martin H
Unlike Consumers, william_
Re: Unlike Consume Martin H
Re: Unlike Consume William
Question regarding william_
Re: Question regar Martin H
Re: Question regar Joe Thom
Re: Public-spirite Peter Ho
We are looking for Franšois
Re: Public-spirite Peter Ho
Re: Question regar william_
Re: Re: Public-spi keith wi
Re: Re: Public-spi Peter Ho
RE: Re: Question r John G R
Re: Re: Public-spi Wallace
Re: Re: Public-spi Jim Inne
Re: We are looking Martin H
Re: Re: Public-spi keith wi
Re: We are looking Bob Taft
Re: Re: Question r Joe Thom
Re: DICK EASTMAN: Peter Ho
Re: Re: Public-spi Peter Ho
Re: Question regar william_
Re: I await your a Peter Ho
Re: Re: I await yo Peter Ho
Re: Re: Re: I awai William
Z elistas <socialc John G R
Re: Re: I await yo Peter Ho
in further reply t william_
Re: in further rep Vicky Da
Re: Re: Re: I awai Martin H
Re: in further rep Joe Thom
Re: in further rep Joe Thom
Re: in further rep Vicky Da
Re: in further rep Adavans
Re: in further rep Adavans
Re: in further rep Bob Taft
Re: in further rep Joe Thom
Re: in further rep Vicky Da
Re: Shakespeare's Peter Ho
Re: Shakespeare's Peter Ho
Re: Food For Thoug William
Shortage of staple Eric Enc
Re: Re: Re: I awai Joe Thom
RE: Shortage of st Henry Ra
Re: Re: Re: I awai William
Re: Re: Re: I awai William
Re: Shakespeare's Peter Ho
Re: Re: Re: I awai Joe Thom
Re: Re: Re: I awai Martin H
Re: Re: Re: I awai Per Almg
Re: Re: Re: I awai William
Re: Re: Re: I awai William
Re: Re: Re: I awai Martin H
Re: Re: Re: I awai Joe Thom
Re: Re: Re: I awai Per Almg
Re: Re: Re: I awai Joe Thom
Re: Re: Re: I awai William
Re: Re: Re: I awai Wallace
 << Prev. 60 | Next 60 >>
 
socialcredit
Main page    Messages | Post | Files | Database | Polls | Events | My Preferences
Message 5296     < Previous | Next >
Reply to this message
Subject:[socialcredit] Re: [chdouglas] Re: Public-spirited Banking (was: Re: The Abolition of Interest on Loans)
Date:Thursday, March 20, 2008  07:35:46 (-0700)
From:Peter Hogwood <p_t_hogwood @.....com>

Actually, I would characterize Rothbard as being an
ignoramus, if not a complete ignoramus.  The Austrian
school is certainly not mainstream economics, but very
cult-like.
-

> The fractional reserve system or something like it
is absolutely essential to the modern industrialized
mass production economy producing goods and services
for the masses.

Why, exactly?
------------------------------------------------------

I could write a book to answer that question.  I'll
give you the briefest synopsis, which I'll introduce
here.

It has to do with accounting and numbers.  The
fundamental question is how could profit be calculated
in a non-creditary system?  It can't be in a
non-creditary system, which is the point.  A
commodity-like money operating in accordance to the
quantity theory just wouldn't work.  There is no
possible way for profit and loss to be accurately
calculated in such a system.

The mass production industrialized economy was
therefore impossible before the invention of double
entry accounting and the development of creditary
institutions like banks that the invention of double
entry accounting facilitated.

Basic model of the modern economy:

Firms pay out, in return for goods and services
received, generally recognizable creditary
instruments, or "tickets," which they redeem over
their sales counters for produced goods and services. 
Inasmuch as tickets printed by the individual firms
themselves would not be generally recognizable, and
therefore would not be tradeable, banks accommodate
the process by exchanging their generally recognizable
"tickets" in the form of deposits for the individual
"tickets" of the firms, a service for which they
charge a fee called interest, inasmuch as it is a
function of time. These "tickets" are contracts
involving credit and debt, pure and simple.
-

> Typical of this nonsense is your reference to the
non-existent "Credit River Decision" toward the end of
your post. If it is an actual court decision you
should be able to cite some law book in which the
decision is to be found. It is in fact a concoction
fabricated by some ideological nut case, then
circulated around the Internet to be picked up by the
gullible, like you.
>
> Peter

I had already given you a link to the court transcript
of this "non-existent" legal decision, which was all
there, quoted verbatim for the "non-gullible", like
you (the link being, as I said,
http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=18485
[snipped]
------------------------------------------------------

I apologize.  I was thrown off by the link to the
crank website and the ridiculousness of the
"decision."

Mahoney was a justice of the peace, the lowest
possible judicial official.  In most or perhaps all
jurisdictions it is an elected position, where the
candidates are not required to be lawyers or have
legal training.

The State of Minnesota has a website, a portion of
which discusses the Credit River case:
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/askfaq.html
that states:

"Because the decisions of these justice of the peace
courts are not precedential (that is, other courts do
not have to follow them), they are not published."

So that's why it is not found in ordinary law books.

Jerome Daly, the defendant, was an attorney who was
ultimately disbarred in great part over this matter.

Moreover, the underlying ridiculous Mahoney "decision"
was ultimately overturned on appeal.

Peter Hogwood
Certified Public Accountant
Monroe, Louisiana



--- Ardeshir Mehta <ardeshir@mac.com> wrote:

> 
> On 18-Mar-08, at 12:39 AM, Peter Hogwood wrote:
> 
> > Unfortunately, Ardeshir, the utilization of terms
> like  
> > "counterfeiting" and "scam" to characterize the
> modern financial  
> > system just emphasizes the perverse spin you put
> on the matter as a  
> > complete ignoramus, with no cognizance how things
> actually work.
> 
> Unfortunately for you, Peter, if you had actually
> read what I posted,  
> you'd have noticed that the words "counterfeiting"
> and "scam" were  
> used by Murray Rothbard, a prominent economist, who
> when he was alive  
> was the dean of the Austrian School of economics,
> and who is  
> considered by quite a few to have made major
> contributions to  
> economics, history, political philosophy, and legal
> theory, and to  
> have established himself as the principal Austrian
> theorist in the  
> latter half of the twentieth century.
> 
> (Who, of course, must a complete ignoramus,
> according to you.)
> 
> > The fractional reserve system or something like it
> is absolutely  
> > essential to the modern industrialized mass
> production economy  
> > producing goods and services for the masses.
> 
> Why, exactly?
> 
> > Typical of this nonsense is your reference to the
> non-existent  
> > "Credit River Decision" toward the end of your
> post. If it is an  
> > actual court decision you should be able to cite
> some law book in  
> > which the decision is to be found. It is in fact a
> concoction  
> > fabricated by some ideological nut case, then
> circulated around the  
> > Internet to be picked up by the gullible, like
> you.
> >
> > Peter
> 
> I had already given you a link to the court
> transcript of this "non- 
> existent" legal decision, which was all there,
> quoted verbatim for  
> the "non-gullible", like you (the link being, as I
> said, <http:// 
> goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=18485>):
> 
> [QUOTE]
> 
> IN THE JUSTICE COURT
> 
> STATE OF MINNESOTA
> 
> COUNTY OF SCOTT
> 
> TOWNSHIP OF CREDIT RIVER
> 
> 
> JUSTICE MARTIN V. MAHONEY
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First National Bank of Montgomery,
> Plaintiff
> vs
> 
> Jerome Daly,
> Defendant
> 
> JUDGMENT AND DECREE
> 
> The above entitled action came on before the Court
> and a Jury of 12  
> on December 7, 1968 at 10:00 am. Plaintiff appeared
> by its President  
> Lawrence V. Morgan and was represented by its
> Counsel, R. Mellby.  
> Defendant appeared on his own behalf.
> 
> A Jury of Talesmen were called, impaneled and sworn
> to try the issues  
> in the Case. Lawrence V. Morgan was the only witness
> called for  
> Plaintiff and Defendant testified as the only
> witness in his own behalf.
> 
> Plaintiff brought this as a Common Law action for
> the recovery of the  
> possession of Lot 19 Fairview Beach, Scott County,
> Minn. Plaintiff  
> claimed title to the Real Property in question by
> foreclosure of a  
> Note and Mortgage Deed dated May 8, 1964 which
> Plaintiff claimed was  
> in default at the time foreclosure proceedings were
> started.
> 
> Defendant appeared and answered that the Plaintiff
> created the money  
> and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry
> as the  
> consideration for the Note and Mortgage of May 8,
> 1964 and alleged  
> failure of the consideration for the Mortgage Deed
> and alleged that  
> the Sheriff's sale passed no title to plaintiff.
> 
> The issues tried to the Jury were whether there was
> a lawful  
> consideration and whether Defendant had waived his
> rights to complain  
> about the consideration having paid on the Note for
> almost 3 years.
> 
> Mr. Morgan admitted that all of the money or credit
> which was used as  
> a consideration was created upon their books, that
> this was standard  
> banking practice exercised by their bank in
> combination with the  
> Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, another private
> Bank, further  
> that he knew of no United States Statute or Law that
> gave the  
> Plaintiff the authority to do this. Plaintiff
> further claimed that  
> Defendant by using the ledger book created credit
> and by paying on  
> the Note and Mortgage waived any right to complain
> about the  
> Consideration and that the Defendant was estopped
> from doing so.
> 
> At 12:15 on December 7, 1968 the Jury returned a
> unanimous verdict  
> for the Defendant.
> 
> Now therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in
> me pursuant to  
> the Declaration of Independence, the Northwest
> Ordinance of 1787, the  
> Constitution of United States and the Constitution
> and the laws of  
> the State of Minnesota not inconsistent therewith ;
> 
> IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
> 1.That the Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the
> possession of Lot  
> 19, Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minnesota
> according to the Plat  
> thereof on file in the Register of Deeds office.
> 2.That because of failure of a lawful consideration
> the Note and  
> Mortgage dated May 8, 1964 are null and void.
> 3.That the Sheriff's sale of the above described
> premises held on  
> June 26, 1967 is null and void, of no effect.
> 4.That the Plaintiff has no right title or interest
> in said premises  
> or lien thereon as is above described.
> 5.That any provision in the Minnesota Constitution
> and any Minnesota  
> Statute binding the jurisdiction of this Court is
> repugnant to the  
> Constitution of the United States and to the Bill of
> Rights of the  
> Minnesota Constitution and is null and void and that
> this Court has  
> jurisdiction to render complete Justice in this
> Cause.
> 
> The following memorandum and any supplementary
> memorandum made and  
> filed by this Court in support of this Judgment is
> hereby made a part  
> hereof by reference.
> 
> BY THE COURT
> 
> Dated December 9, 1968
> 
> Justice MARTIN V. MAHONEY
> Credit River Township
> Scott County, Minnesota
> 
> 
=== message truncated ===



     
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

Services:  HomeList Hosting ServicesIndustry Solutions
Your Account:  Sign UpMy ListsMy PreferencesStart a List
General:  About UsNewsPrivacy PolicyNo spamContact Us

eListas Seal
eListas is a registered trademark of eListas Networks S.L.
Copyright © 1999-2006 AR Networks, All Rights Reserved
Terms of Service