The Nature of Money: Who owns your currency?
Money
Image by TW Collins via Flickr
As illustrated in last week’s comments on the nature of
money, our government prints and sells paper Federal Reserve Notes (“FRNs”) at
cost to the Federal Reserve System (“Fed”).
The Fed then legally owns those FRNs and subsequently loans them into
circulation in the US economy.
Implication? The
Federal Reserve not only owns legal title to the FRNs in your wallet—it also
owns legal title to whatever you purchase with those FRNs.
Most of what follows is speculation. I know I’m reaching conclusions that seem
impossible, but consider . . . .
• There’s an
ancient principle that whoever owns the money, owns whatever the money is used
to buy. For example, suppose I lived
2,000 years ago and gave my servant some money (pieces of silver) to go town to
buy me a new donkey. If my servant was
unfaithful, he might buy a donkey with my money, but ask the donkey salesman to
write the receipt (title to the donkey) so as to wrongfully identify the
servant (rather than me) as the new owner of the donkey. But, if I could later prove that I owned the
money (silver) used to buy the donkey, I could reclaim title and ownership of
the donkey.
• Suppose I lend
my pen to Bob and he uses it to write a short story. People would naturally presume from Bob’s use
of the pen that he owned the pen.
It’s even possible that Bob, after using the pen for some
time, might come to think of it as “Bob’s pen”.
But if I loaned that pen to Bob, no matter how much he
used it, it would still my pen. I would
own the pen. I’d own to the ink inside
the pen. It’s even arguable that I might
therefore have an ownership interest in whatever short story Bob wrote with my
pen and my ink.
Yes, I may have authorized Bob to use my pen, but unless
I gave the pen to him as gift or sold the pen to Bob, so long as I loaned the
pen to Bob, I retained legal title (actual ownership, control and right of
disposal) to that pen.
Bob, at best, might have equitable title (right of
use—but not ownership) to the “loaned” pen.
• Let’s apply
these principles (1. Whoever owns the money, owns whatever it’s used to buy;
and 2. The lender (at least) retains legal title to whatever was lent until the
loan is repaid) to our modern currency:
Given that the Federal Reserve (a private entity) buys
the paper FRNs at cost from the federal government, the Fed has acquired both
legal and equitable titles to the FRNs. The Fed owns those green pieces of
paper.
When the Fed (owner) subsequently loans those FRNs into
circulation, the Fed retains legal title (actual right of ownership, control
and disposal) of those FRNs—at least until the original loan is repaid in
full. Thus, until that original loan is
repaid, the Fed owns legal title to every green piece of paper in your wallet.
• Much like Bob
had the right to “use” the pen I loaned him, you also have the right to “use”
the FRNs in your wallet. That right of
“use” constitutes equitable title to the FRNs.
So what? What
difference does it make?
Lots.
It’s the difference between being a free man and being a
slave (or at least a sharecropper).
Why?
First, because when you use FRNs to purchase goods, cars,
computers, and homes, you don’t actually buy the product, you purchase a title
to product.
For example, virtually everyone supposes that when you
purchase a new car, you buy the metal, plastic, chrome and leather that’s
assembled into the physical automobile.
But that’s not true. What you
really purchased was not the physical car; you purchased the piece of paper
that constitutes title to the physical car.
And not one man in a thousand even knows what the title to his car is.
(It’s the MSO—Manufacturer’s Statement of Origin).
You thought you were buying a new, sweet-smelling
automobile. In fact, you purchased that
seemingly inconsequential piece of paper called the MSO—the seemingly
insignificant piece of paper (evidence of the complete or perfect title) that
ultimately determines both ownership (legal title) and right of use (equitable
title) to drive “your” car. And what did
you do with the title/MSO? You gave it
to the State.
Your right to drive a particular car does not flow from
the keys in your pocket or the gas you put in the tank. It flows from your title to that particular
car.
The reason you can’t drive “my” car (at least not without
my permission) is that I hold a title to “my” car. Likewise, if I try to drive “your” car
without your permission, you can charge me with unauthorized use (not theft) of
a motor vehicle.
• The same
principle applies to computers, foods and homes. You don’t purchase the physical object. You purchase a title to that physical object.
Think not? Go to a
grocery store and purchase some food.
Try to get out of the store without the cashier obstinately handing you
the receipt. They always make a point of
handing you the receipt. Hasn’t that
ever bothered you? Why do the clerks
insist on handing you the silly receipt?
Why not just throw the receipt in the trash?
Why? Because the
receipt is a title (or at least evidence of title) to the groceries you
purchased. You thought you were buying a
steak. In fact, you were purchasing a
title (the receipt) to that steak. The
clerk must give you what you actually paid for—not the steak, but the title (the
paper receipt) to the steak.
Your right to eat that steak flows from your title (paper
receipt) to the steak.
Your right to drive a car flows from your title to that
car.
Your right to live in a home flows from your title to
that home.
You didn’t buy the food; you purchased a title to the
food.
You didn’t buy the car; you purchased a title to the car.
You didn’t buy the home; you purchased a title to the
home.
Once you begin to grasp the significance of “title,”
you’ll begin to pay more attention to the paperwork involved in your purchases,
than to the sizzling of steaks, sweet-smell of cars, and number of bathrooms in
the mansions you seek to acquire.
• But here’s the
rub—and it’s a big rub. You are only
entitled to receive as much title to the property purchased as you had in the
currency you used to make the purchase.
(Remember? The man who owns the
money, owns whatever the money is used to buy.)
When America had real money (gold and silver coin) in
circulation, that real money was not loaned into circulation. Gold or silver
ingots were bought with taxpayer dollars and coined by the government and then
spent or sold into the economy—without being initially loaned into circulation
by a private party. That gold/silver
coin was an asset. It was the people’s
money and held and conveyed both legal and equitable titles. It was a “medium of exchange” whereby a man
who held both legal and equitable title to, say, a parcel of land, could sell
both legal and equitable title to that land to another man who paid for the
title with lawful money that also carried intrinsic legal and equitable titles.
• Insofar as I
have legal and equitable titles to one hundred $20 gold coins, I can use those
coins to buy legal and equitable titles to land and a home.
But if I only have equitable title to the currency I use
to purchase that same piece of land, I can only receive equitable title (right
of use) to that land and home. The legal
title goes to whoever holds legal title (right of ownership, control and
disposal) to the currency I’m using.
So what? I’ve got
the land and home. I can raise crops or
cattle or add a garage. What do I care
if I have legal title, equitable title or any title?
Here’s why I should care (and so should you): If I had both legal and equitable titles to
the currency I used to purchase “my” land, I’d also be entitled to receive both
the legal and equitable titles to the land.
As a result, that land and my home would truly be my “castle”. I would own it to the exclusion of all others
and I could use it however I pleased.
But if FRNs are loaned into circulation and the legal
title therefore remains with the lender (Fed), then I can only have equitable
title to “my” currency and I can only use that currency to acquire equitable
title to “my” land.
If I only held equitable title to “my” land, the home I
built on that land would not actually be my “castle”.
Ohh, a lot of people might envy me for “my” land and “my”
home. I, myself, might become quite
proud of “my” home and “my land”.
But that land and home wouldn’t really be mine. Instead,
so long as the Fed retained legal title to the currency used to purchase “my”
land, the Fed would hold legal title to the land purchased with its currency.
I could puff out my chest and strut around “my” land like
a king strolling about his castle, but the Fed would know that I was a
fool. Because I didn’t hold legal title
to “my” land/home, I’d be merely a sharecropper strutting around the “massa’s”
home and land.
While I might think of myself as a land “owner,” I’d
really be just a sharecropper on the “massa’s” land. Ohh, the massa (the Fed) would let me ‘n my
woman raise our brood of “pickininneys” on what I mistakenly thought of as “my”
land—provided that I work the massa’s land, take care of the massa’s home,
follow all of the massa’s rules and regulations, and give part of whatever I
earn to the massa in the form of “taxes”.
But if I got uppity and stopped working, stopped caring
for the massa’s property, stopped paying the massa his “share” on my labor, or
stopped obeying the massa’s rules and regulations—the massa could seize “my”
home in a heartbeat, and throw me and my family off “our” land. Because the “massa” (Fed) held legal title to
the currency used to purchase “my” home, that massa could summarily prove that
the land and home were never really “my castle” but merely a shack that the
massa had allowed me to use on the “global plantation”.
• The possibility
that you and I don’t really “own” legal title the “money” in our wallets might
also explain stories about government simply seizing someone’s cash and
refusing to give it back, even if the original possessor did nothing illegal.
I.e., if it’s not really “our” money (only pieces of
paper which are truly owned by the Fed) we may have possession (equitable
title) to “our” FRNs, but no legal title (actual right of ownership and
disposal) to reclaim “our” FRNs. If we
don’t really “own” our currency, what right do we have to complain if the true
owner (or his agents) takes that currency from us?
• I’m told that
the average “lifespan” of a FRN is about 18 months. After that, the FRNs are removed from circulation
by burning them.
Isn’t that strange?
Burning “money”?
After all, who ever heard of anyone “burning” gold or
silver coins (real money) when they became too old? Yes, those old coins—if they’re sufficiently
worn—might be melted down and recast into newer gold or silver coins. But nobody in their right mind would
absolutely destroy any gold or silver coins, no matter how worn or illegible.
When you stop to think about it, burning FRNs is absolute
evidence that those FRNs have no intrinsic value. They are mere “units of
account”. Numbers.
I can’t prove it, but I suspect that FRN’s aren’t being
burnt because they’re worn out, but because they’re so old that the original
loan which placed them into circulation may have been repaid and therefore
legal title to those “old” FRN’s may have defaulted to the current
possessor. If the original loan were
repaid, the Fed would lose legal title to the FRNs. As a result, those old FRNs would then
include both intrinsic legal and intrinsic equitable titles. If the FRNs carried both legal and equitable
title, they’d be “good as gold” in that they might actually be used to acquire
both legal and equitable title to property.
I strongly suspect that the old FRNs are being burnt
before the original loans are repaid and the FRNs’ acquire legal title and
become “units of value” rather than mere “units of account” (numbers). If we owned legal title to our currency, we
could pay rather than merely discharge our debts. We could “buy” rather than merely
“purchase”. If we could actually pay
our bills with a currency to which carried intrinsic legal title, we could
actually own property and our home might truly be “our castle”.
• I know that all
of this speculation concerning FRNs sounds too fantastic to be true. But, consider that in a similar vein, on
April 14, A.D. 1993, Former IRS Commissioner Shirley Peterson said publicly
that the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) is now:
“… a virtual impenetrable maze. The rules are
unintelligible to most citizens—including those holding advanced degrees and
. . . specialize in tax law. The rules are equally mysterious to many
government employees who are charged with administering and enforcing the law
….”
Based on a an alleged system of “laws” that even an IRS
Commissioner can’t understand, our government takes so much of our earning as
to drive us toward poverty, precipitate divorces, bankrupt businesses,
incarcerate some of us and push others toward suicide, alcoholism or
conspiracies to bomb government buildings.
It’s no accident that our “money” system is every bit as “impenetrable …
unintelligible … mysterious” as the IRC.
How can an entire nation fail to understand its own tax
and monetary systems? Are we to believe
that the creation of a relatively concise, comprehensible monetary and tax
codes are simply impossible? Or is it
more likely that the laws concerning money and taxes are written to be
intentionally incomprehensible in order to prevent us from engaging in the kind
of speculation seen in this article and perhaps even discovering the truth?
Q. What is this
mysterious “truth”?
A: That currency
involves two titles: legal and equitable; that the Federal Reserve, by loaning
FRNs into circulation, divides the equitable and legal titles to the FRNs and
to whatever FRNs are used to purchase; that the Federal Reserve owns legal
title to whatever is purchased with FRNs.
• There’s a lot
more to money than mere counting. Insofar
as you use FRNs, your government presumes you to be a virtual sharecropper who
doesn’t really own anything.
More importantly, until you understand the nature of
money, you’ll never be free.
Written at arm’s length and without the singular “United
States” (“this state”) by Alfred Adask
http://jahtruth.net/truth.htm
JAH "The Truth about..." Page.
Winston Churchill is quoted as having once said: "Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth. Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as if nothing had happened." Just as a bell that has been rung cannot be "unrung", the annoying problem with the Truth is that, once you learn it, you can not"unlearn" it.
http://jahtruth.net/defin.htm
For example:-
The Honourable M.P. for . . . - denotes a politician and everyone knows that most politicians are professional liars and therefore are the opposite of the definition.
Italian Renaissance statesman and political writer, Niccolo Machiavelli, wrote in The Prince, one of the most influential political works of all time, that governments are created to lie to the greatest number of people the greatest amount of the time.
And why do governments lie? Why, to cover up their previous lies in order to protect the perpetrators, of course.
Conservatism:- Conservatism in politics denotes a party whose doctrine is runaway consumerism and a disposable and "throw-away" society. Conservatism and Consumerism are by definition opposites. It is impossible to consume and conserve: it is either consumed or it is conserved and it is impossible for one to be the same as the other, so Conservatism is the opposite of its definition.
Labour - Labourism in politics normally denotes people wanting as much pay as possible for the least amount of labour, so Labourism is the opposite of its definition.
National Economy - a national economy in the western world is totally wasteful; where most products are consumed and thrown away as quickly as possible and are actually manufactured to be waste within a very short space of time; so a National Economy is the opposite of its definition.
Feminism - denotes women who want to be men and who act in a totally unfeminine manner, so feminism is the opposite of its definition.
Gay-homosexual - denotes someone who is unhappy with their gender and wants to pretend to be the opposite gender or to have a relationship with someone of the same gender because they are not happy with normality, so gay, which really means happy, is the opposite of its definition.
These groups of people choose a title that is the opposite of what they are or do to try to deceive the world into believing that they are something that they are not. In other words they are a LIE designed to hide the TRUTH and deceive us.
Please feel free to add your own discoveries to this list.
Here's one or two to get you started:-
Holiday - holy-day to worship and serve God; now used to denote the period/s when people often go abroad and spend their time doing many different unholy acts that they would not dare to be seen doing at home, so holiday is now the opposite of its definition.
Joy-riding - the unlawful, "taking without the owner's consent" (TWOCing - theft in the eyes of most sensible people) of another person's motor-vehicle, which often involves damage to, or the "writing-off" of the vehicle and the death and/or injury of innocent third-parties, as well as the perpetrators themselves, causing havoc and distress, not only to the owner, but to everyone concerned. So joy-riding is the opposite of its definition, because, even if there is no damage done to the vehicle, the owner is left distressed, at what he considers to be the theft of his vehicle, and greatly inconvenienced. There is certainly no joy in that.
Diocese - Dio-cese (Dio=God in Italian and ce(a)se, that is a dio-cese is an area of Catholic-priest influence, teaching men to cease communicating effectively with Father/God!)
Jewel - El is Hebrew for God, so JEW-EL or JEW-GOD means that jewels are worshipped as gods by so-called Jews; many of whom are jewellers; whilst claiming to worship God.
Noel - El is Hebrew for God, so so-called Christians who celebrate NO-EL or NO-GOD are actually celebrating there being no God in their Godless pagan Winter Solstice, drunken, gluttonous, sun-festival called No-el/Xmas/Yuletide.
JAH.
No comments:
Post a Comment