Today, convertibility has all but disappeared for the three monies. All three species of money thus originated true debt obligations that were legally binding on their issuers. A similar obligation committed central banks to their reserve liabilities issued to commercial banks. Later, banknotes gave holders the right to claim conversion into silver or gold.
Once upon a time, sovereigns guaranteed that the coins issued contained specific amounts of precious metals. Yet, for the state, which obligation derives from the rights entertained by the holders of coins? Or, for a central bank, which obligation derives from the rights entertained by the holders of banknotes or the banks holding reserves? Debt involves an obligation between lender and borrower as contracting parties. Similarly, banknotes issued by central banks and central bank reserves are accounted for as central bank debt to their holders.Īlthough the law says that money is “debt,” a correct application of the general principles of accounting raises doubts about such a conception of money. Logical Phallacies & Critical ReasoningCoins circulating as legal tender in national jurisdictions worldwide are treated as debt liabilities of the issuing states and reported as a component of public debt under national accounting statistics (ESA 2010).Int Act 1978 Schedule 1 Words and Phrases Defined.Eviction Threats: Contacts for Assistance.Bailiffs & High Court Enforcement Officers.Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages & Others UKSC 52.Offer of Loan vs Contract to be in Debt?.For every Action an Equal and Opposite Transaction.#TGBMS The Great British Mortgage Swindle.Fisher and Lightwoods: Taking Possession.Bailiffs, Police and the Queens Coronation.
Hundreds of police officers sign open letter ….Document “False” if circumstances absent.Cause of Action: Does your “mortgage” company have a valid one?.Therefore in what circumstances does Money EQUAL Monies worth?Īnswers on a postcard … credit money monies worth mortgage mutual intent promise to pay Post navigation If you thought that “Money” (1) was being lent, as opposed to be advanced “Credit” (2) would you have had the same intent or could it be argued that “Mutual Intent” (5) never existed in the transaction for the bargain to complete? You think that someone is going to lend you the money that they have and you agree to paying this money back with interest because that is how it is in a commercial transaction.įor a contract or agreement to take place there has to be a number of elements. So what happens when you get a “Mortgage” (4)? When do you think this transaction completes the bargain? If you wanted “Credit” (2) and the only thing you had access to was a “Promise to pay” (3). In this case the PO had to have the Euro’s. That exchange is complete as you agreed to it but the PO took a cut for providing the service of “Exchange” (3). If you go to the Post Office to get your Euros you pay over “Money” (1). In both scenarios the person had to have the apples. If you wanted apples but completed the bargain with “Money”(1) then that exchange would be complete. If someone wanted some apples and could only complete the bargain by providing pears then that exchange would be complete. It really is as different as apples and pears. What does this mean and what were you actually loaned?
0 kommentar(er)
