|Subject:||Re: [socialcredit] the goldsmith "fraud" story|
|Date:||Saturday, June 28, 2008 08:37:23 (-0700)|
|From:||Joe Thomson <thomsonhiyu @....ca>
|In reply to:||Message 5419 (written by William Hugh McGunnigle)|
Hi Bill (McGunnigle),
(Bill McG. wrote:-) ....the contractual nature of the original "Goldsmiths
notes" does not alter the fact that they used the trust generated by their
"gold stores" to issue promissory notes in excess of their actual gold
stores in order to gain a monetary profit from "loans" they extended to
(Joe Thomson replies:-) But is not all 'credit' based on 'belief', Bill?
"A belief in the beneficial outcome of some line of action", which, in this
case, was that the "promissory note" would be paid WHEN it said it would.
The 'gold stores' of the goldsmith's may indeed have helped engender this
belief. But far likely more important than that was the ''character'' of
the goldsmith himself. Whether or not he had a track record in meeting his
obligations when called upon to do so.
This would be a larger factor in this "belief", I would think. For who,
other than the goldsmith himself would really know how much gold was
actually in his vaults? He, were he not of good 'character', may have
written receipts for it as it was received, and then absconded with it.
So for anyone to 'trust' the goldsmith with possession of their property, I
would think he'd have to have established a pretty solid reputation in the
Old J P Morgan, I've read, once stated that "credit" was based not on the
possession of gold or anything else, but on "character". And whatever we
might think of J P Morgan, I believe he did know something about the
(Bill McG:- )In other words they issued "promissory notes' for money they
did not actually have. I believe that is defined as "Fraud" in most
countries of the world in both secular and religious areas.
(Joe replies:-) Not if it actually was a "promissory note" that they
issued. The nature of a "promissory note" is that it is a "promise to pay"
at some time specified on it, NOT that the issuer HAS anything at the time
of its issuance to do the "paying" with. But rather WILL HAVE when called
upon to make good his obligation. It is not the same as a "warehouse
receipt", which simply acknowledges the storage of the recipient's gold and
would be a claim to ownership of it that could be transferred to other
(Bill McG:-) This practice still takes place in our monetary system except
that it is now legally
approved by various goverenments. It enables those without assets to make
money by simply manipulating money supplies using other peoples assets as a
(Joe asks:-) And where would we be today if we ALL could not do this?
Still "hanging from trees", (and not by the neck at the end of a rope!), is
I believe how another Bill on here has phrased it.
(Bill McG:-) Banks are allowed to call mortgage debts as assets when in
they are liabilities.
(Joe replies:-) Only if there is an inability on the part of the debtor to