Turn on thread page Beta

Money watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    :O how much profit did the so called public sector make last year?
    I don't know. You would need access to all of the accounts to find that out.

    All money is the Bank of England's anyway. There is a copyright on every note. Banking crises aside, they can't lose.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by silentrevolution)
    I don't know. You would need access to all of the accounts to find that out.

    All money is the Bank of England's anyway. There is a copyright on every note. Banking crises aside, they can't lose.
    What use is that if the money is worthless? If it cant buy you anything it serves no purpose and it's just a load of paper.

    I can't decide whether this is about the fact that currency and finance is an idea and that money is not on anything solid like gold, or saying that every organisation is in fact a business out for financial gain.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Preasure)
    What use is that if the money is worthless? If it cant buy you anything it serves no purpose and it's just a load of paper.

    I can't decide whether this is about the fact that currency and finance is an idea and that money is not on anything solid like gold, or saying that every organisation is in fact a business out for financial gain.
    This is about both of the issues you mentioned. Money is obviously not based on anything solid, and every organisation is a registered corporation.

    Money only has exchange value - it doesn't have any use value at all. It warps domestic scale society and makes it impossible for each individual household to provide necessities for its members because necessities have become commodities through exchange value i.e. money The world food market is an example. It has made food a commodity - a globalised food market, where each country submits its produce for sale and then in return they get the exchange value on their produce which allows them to buy food from the market which then goes straight into the pockets of the government. It also allows companies like Monsanto to introduce things like the suicide gene. Yet, we have set up society on the basis of this currency, which pervades all areas of society. Many people do not even realise just how pervasive it is.

    Ultimately, it comes down to matters of having control though. The money is a legal fiction, so as long as we use it and believe in its value, the banks will have control over us. Well I guess the point is that we have accepted the lie, and given power to the banks to control us in that manner.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Interestingly, there was no debate in the House or Lords over the bank bailout

    Another corporation is MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT with the registered address HOUSE OF COMMONS, LONDON, , GB

    So MPs are all part of a corporation. When you vote, you are simply voting for new directors.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by silentrevolution)
    So MPs are all part of a corporation. When you vote, you are simply voting for new directors.
    So?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    So?
    So the corporate backers don't change
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by silentrevolution)
    So the corporate backers don't change
    What corportate backers?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by silentrevolution)
    These all operate under corporate policy, not common law. Notice the use of capital letters. Whenever you see your name in capital letters it indicates your ‘person’ which is a legal fiction separate from the human being (see Black’s Law Dictionary definition of ‘person&#8217. So these corporations go into business with the ‘person’ under corporate law. The language of legalese is used, in which words which have one meaning have another meaning in legalese. E.g. the word ‘register’ means ‘handing over’. So when you register a child, you are handing over ownership of it to a corporation. The GRO that authorises your birth certificate is a corporation. SOCIAL SERVICES PLC can only take your child if it has been registered. (But I’ll write more on legalese in another post)
    I think you are getting a little bit confused. There isn't a seperate "person" for the individual in law, except in very narrowly defined circumstances. You do have distinct corporate entities which have their own legal personality, but thats about it.
    No, the word 'register' does not mean 'handing over'. Noone has 'ownership' of a child, and you certainly don't hand anything over.

    (Original post by silentrevolution)
    Our whole society runs on money. So have a look at a note of money. At the top it reads ‘Bank of England’. The Bank of England is run by private bankers. On the note is says ‘I promise to pay’, not ‘I pay’ – therefore it is a DEBT. Money is in circulation, therefore it is recycled DEBT.

    It also says ‘the sum of twenty pounds’. Think about that for a moment - twenty pounds of what?
    Of course, it used to be gold or silver, but not anymore. Gold or silver had a value. But why was gold valuable? You could say, it is rare, un-reactive, whatever. But why does that make it valuable? It is only valuable because people attributed value to it. So let’s use the same argument for money. It is only valuable because people attribute value to it. BUT on first principles you cannot attribute value to a debt.
    But notes aren't a debt to you, they are a credit. Attributing significance to the fact that notes say "I promise to pay" instead of "I pay" is meaningless. They say "I promise to pay" because of tradition. Today, the value is the note itself in any meaningful practical sense.

    (Original post by silentrevolution)
    So society is based on a legal fiction which is a debt (money) and all of the so-called public services are trading for profit. The media wouldn’t give you such information though – because it is composed of corporations!!
    This I don't follow. Why are they all trading for "profit?". Institutions like social services, healthcare and the law courts certainly aren't making any profit.

    To call the state is a corporation is a very wide use of the word, and is rather pushing the envelope. If its a corporation in this wide sense of the word, its a corporation which we are all shareholders of, and of course we get the chance to represent our views in General Meeting (i.e. election). So what, exactly, is the problem?

    You tentatively show that the state has some similarities to corporations (as it must to even operate), but you don't explain why this is a bad thing, beyond some vague comments about the role of debt in the financial crisis - but this is very much ancillary to your main point.

    What, exactly, are the problems?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    This I don't follow. Why are they all trading for "profit?". Institutions like social services, healthcare and the law courts certainly aren't making any profit.

    What, exactly, are the problems?
    +1
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    What corportate backers?
    The bank(s) invested in them. As I wrote:
    (Original post by silentrevolution)
    The economic sphere has merged into all of the ‘public’ sectors. They are trading for profit, and have bankers/banks investing in them. The Rothchilds have served on the Board of Directors for the Bank of England and so have dictated policy. If these are all businesses, there is someone invested in the business who wants paying back - as in the famous Rothschild quote: ‘Give me control of a nation’s currency, and I care not who makes its laws.’
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    I think you are getting a little bit confused. There isn't a separate "person" for the individual in law, except in very narrowly defined circumstances. You do have distinct corporate entities which have their own legal personality, but that’s about it.
    No, the word 'register' does not mean 'handing over'. Noone has 'ownership' of a child, and you certainly don't hand anything over.
    Legal definition of register: ‘register n. in corporations, the record of shareholders, and issuance and transfer of shares on the records of the corporation.’
    Legal definition of person: ‘person n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages.’ Black’s law dictionary also defines person as ‘a fictional entity’ and as a ‘person’. (How can a word be defined with the same word?)

    So the person is actually a corporation, and when you register it, you are giving your person to ‘the record of shareholders, and issuance and transfer of shares on the records of the corporation.’ -ownership!

    Submit: ‘To offer for determination; commit to the judgment or discretion of another individual or authority.’ The word ‘submit’ in a legal sense means to ‘bend to another’s will’. This is exactly what you do whenever you submit an application.
    Understanding: ‘A general term referring to an agreement, either express or implied, written or oral. The term understanding is an ambiguous one; in order to determine whether a particular understanding would constitute a contract that is legally binding on the parties involved, the circumstances must be examined to discover whether a meeting of the minds and an intent to be bound occurred.’
    When a police officer says ‘do you understand’ in legalese they are asking ‘do you stand under me?’ i.e. do you recognise my authority.
    A state cannot legally claim any child who is not registered with a birth certificate. The birth certificate legally attaches the legal fiction of a ‘person’ to the child
    (human being). If you look at a birth certificate, there is a declaration made on behalf of the child by the parent (called an ‘informant’). Declarations are made in common law. If a car is not registered, it cannot be taken off you by the state etc.

    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    But notes aren't a debt to you, they are a credit. Attributing significance to the fact that notes say "I promise to pay" instead of "I pay" is meaningless. They say "I promise to pay" because of tradition. Today, the value is the note itself in any meaningful practical sense.
    You are missing the point. The note itself is a debt. It matters not in what practical sense we use the note – fundamentally value cannot be attributed to a debt. The wording on a note is very specific. Money only has exchange value - it doesn't have any use value at all.

    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    This I don't follow. Why are they all trading for "profit?” Institutions like social services, healthcare and the law courts certainly aren't making any profit.
    I understand this is difficult to accept, but all of the institutions I mentioned are indeed corporations, trading for profit. Search dnb.com for confirmation.
    I explained this here:
    (Original post by silentrevolution)
    The two possible sources of income would be private funding and taxes (e.g. income tax). You have to look at individual cases to judge which is the source of income. For example, political parties have a significant amount of private funding. In order to generate money there has to be a demand - that demand is consumption and wages, which then get taxed, and get put back into corporations through consumerism. The demand is created so the money has value and its creation is justified, then they just take it all back through the system.
    We don’t (as far I am aware) have access to the accounts of these corporations (the ‘public’ services) – most people are not even aware of this corporate function of them, as you have demonstrated.

    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    To call the state is a corporation is a very wide use of the word, and is rather pushing the envelope. If its a corporation in this wide sense of the word, its a corporation which we are all shareholders of, and of course we get the chance to represent our views in General Meeting (i.e. election). So what, exactly, is the problem?
    You tentatively show that the state has some similarities to corporations (as it must to even operate), but you don't explain why this is a bad thing, beyond some vague comments about the role of debt in the financial crisis - but this is very much ancillary to your main point. What, exactly, are the problems?
    They are corporations in a sense in which we are not shareholders. We are customers. The audience they represent is a very privileged one. An election is not a survey of shareholders, it is a survey of customers – this is a very important distinction. I don’t show that they have similarities to corporations, if you go onto the website quoted you will see they ARE corporations in their own right.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by silentrevolution)
    The bank(s) invested in them.
    So the banks own the UK not the other way round?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    So the banks own the UK not the other way round?
    Exactly
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by silentrevolution)
    Legal definition of register: ‘register n. in corporations, the record of shareholders, and issuance and transfer of shares on the records of the corporation.’
    Legal definition of person: ‘person n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages.’ Black’s law dictionary also defines person as ‘a fictional entity’ and as a ‘person’. (How can a word be defined with the same word?)

    So the person is actually a corporation, and when you register it, you are giving your person to ‘the record of shareholders, and issuance and transfer of shares on the records of the corporation.’ -ownership!
    No. All that definition says is that a corporation is treated as a legal person. This allows corporations to be legal entities that can make contracts, commit torts, own property etc.

    It does NOT mean that a person is a corporation. They both have legal personality, but they aren't the same thing.

    I'm not quite sure how you worked out that people "give your person to 'the record of shareholders". Shareholders own companies, not the other way round. The company can't bind shareholders in any way.

    Submit: ‘To offer for determination; commit to the judgment or discretion of another individual or authority.’ The word ‘submit’ in a legal sense means to ‘bend to another’s will’. This is exactly what you do whenever you submit an application.
    Understanding: ‘A general term referring to an agreement, either express or implied, written or oral. The term understanding is an ambiguous one; in order to determine whether a particular understanding would constitute a contract that is legally binding on the parties involved, the circumstances must be examined to discover whether a meeting of the minds and an intent to be bound occurred.’
    When a police officer says ‘do you understand’ in legalese they are asking ‘do you stand under me?’ i.e. do you recognise my authority.
    Submit is sometimes used in a legal sense to "bend to another's will", but this is different to the casual sense. Its not the same thing.
    I'm not sure what your definition of "understanding" is supposed to show. This is the same as in normal talk: if you reach an understanding with someone, you are in agreement with them. This is viewed objectively (i.e. from the surrounding circumstances) so that parties can reasonably know what they are agreeing to; it stops you from just turning around and saying "I didn't really agree to this, so I'm not bound by the contract, even though I said I did".
    And no, when a police officer asks "do you understand", he is asking simply that, the normal meaning of the word.

    A state cannot legally claim any child who is not registered with a birth certificate. The birth certificate legally attaches the legal fiction of a ‘person’ to the child
    (human being). If you look at a birth certificate, there is a declaration made on behalf of the child by the parent (called an ‘informant’). Declarations are made in common law. If a car is not registered, it cannot be taken off you by the state etc.
    This is simply untrue. A state will intervene to protect child welfare whether or not the child is registered; and it will get involved with cars whether or not the car is registered. Whether a car or baby is registered doesn't have any relevance to the rights and obligations of anybody; save that one might incur liability for failing to register said baby/car.
    Quite what your interpretation of "declaration" is supposed to show I don't know - of course if you sign a document and register something you declare it :confused:

    I'm afraid I can't see any problems or any irregularities in your legal definitions. All the definitions you have listed are used in normal colloquial chat, it is simply that in the legal profession people tend to keep the context in which they use important words limited to avoid confusion.

    What, exactly, is the problem with any of this?

    You are missing the point. The note itself is a debt. It matters not in what practical sense we use the note – fundamentally value cannot be attributed to a debt. The wording on a note is very specific. Money only has exchange value - it doesn't have any use value at all.
    Of course value can be attributed to a debt. Debt is traded all the time.

    Moreover, its a bit false to say that money really is debt these days. Money used to be backed by gold, and you could go to the bank and get your ten pounds of gold. But thats gone: what it says on the note is simply tradition. Money is simply a bill of exchange; i.e. a note that has value because people recognise it to have value.

    I understand this is difficult to accept, but all of the institutions I mentioned are indeed corporations, trading for profit. Search dnb.com for confirmation.
    I explained this here:

    We don’t (as far I am aware) have access to the accounts of these corporations (the ‘public’ services) – most people are not even aware of this corporate function of them, as you have demonstrated.

    They are corporations in a sense in which we are not shareholders. We are customers. The audience they represent is a very privileged one. An election is not a survey of shareholders, it is a survey of customers – this is a very important distinction. I don’t show that they have similarities to corporations, if you go onto the website quoted you will see they ARE corporations in their own right.
    I'm afraid I can't readily see anything on that site which supports your hypothesis.

    It is indeed possible to characterise public services as 'corporations'. Although once you have taken such a wide view of what constitutes a 'corporation', there is no longer a problem with calling something a corporation anymore.

    I still don't see what the problem is. The only thing you have come up with on this front is "we are not shareholders. We are customers". Since when do customers get to vote who sits on the board of a corporation?
    If you characterise the state as a corporation, we are both customers and shareholders. But I'm still not sure what the problem is????
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    No. All that definition says is that a corporation is treated as a legal person. This allows corporations to be legal entities that can make contracts, commit torts, own property etc.
    It does NOT mean that a person is a corporation. They both have legal personality, but they aren't the same thing.
    I'm not quite sure how you worked out that people "give your person to 'the record of shareholders". Shareholders own companies, not the other way round. The company can't bind shareholders in any way.
    The definition is not saying how a corporation is treated. It is saying how a legal person is treated as a corporation. You have it the wrong way around. Look, companies are shareholders in the person. The person cannot bind its shareholders.
    I gave the legal definition of ‘person’ and of ‘register’ and I showed how they relate to one another.

    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    It does NOT mean that a person is a corporation
    This is the legal definition of person: ‘person n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person.

    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    Submit is sometimes used in a legal sense to "bend to another's will", but this is different to the casual sense. Its not the same thing.
    I'm not sure what your definition of "understanding" is supposed to show. This is the same as in normal talk: if you reach an understanding with someone, you are in agreement with them. This is viewed objectively (i.e. from the surrounding circumstances) so that parties can reasonably know what they are agreeing to; it stops you from just turning around and saying "I didn't really agree to this, so I'm not bound by the contract, even though I said I did".
    And no, when a police officer asks "do you understand", he is asking simply that, the normal meaning of the word.
    I made the point quite clear that the legal sense is different to the casual sense. My point was that the legal sense of the word is used when we think the meaning is the casual one, therefore we get bound to contracts unknowingly. A police officer is a member of a corporation, and so is using the ‘legalese’ meaning of the word.

    (Original post by jacketpotato)

    This is simply untrue. A state will intervene to protect child welfare whether or not the child is registered; and it will get involved with cars whether or not the car is registered. Whether a car or baby is registered doesn't have any relevance to the rights and obligations of anybody; save that one might incur liability for failing to register said baby/car.
    Quite what your interpretation of "declaration" is supposed to show I don't know - of course if you sign a document and register something you declare it :confused:

    I'm afraid I can't see any problems or any irregularities in your legal definitions. All the definitions you have listed are used in normal colloquial chat, it is simply that in the legal profession people tend to keep the context in which they use important words limited to avoid confusion.
    A state cannot legally intervene with an unregistered child. You are arguing on your own suppositions here – the way you think the world works. Show me one example of an unregistered child being taken into care – it is illegal!



    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    I'm afraid I can't readily see anything on that site which supports your hypothesis.
    Try typing in some names and seeing that they are registered corporations.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by silentrevolution)
    The definition is not saying how a corporation is treated. It is saying how a legal person is treated as a corporation. You have it the wrong way around. Look, companies are shareholders in the person. The person cannot bind its shareholders.
    I gave the legal definition of ‘person’ and of ‘register’ and I showed how they relate to one another.

    This is the legal definition of person: ‘person n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person.
    No, companies are not shareholders in the person. A company's legal personality is completely seperate from that of the shareholders.

    I made the point quite clear that the legal sense is different to the casual sense. My point was that the legal sense of the word is used when we think the meaning is the casual one, therefore we get bound to contracts unknowingly. A police officer is a member of a corporation, and so is using the ‘legalese’ meaning of the word.
    You have zero understanding of contracts. Contracts between ordinary people are made based on the meanings understood between the parties, not based on the "legalistic" meaning of any particular word. You aren't bound to any contracts unknowingly.

    A state cannot legally intervene with an unregistered child. You are arguing on your own suppositions here – the way you think the world works. Show me one example of an unregistered child being taken into care – it is illegal!
    The irony of this is staggering. You are claiming that the law system is some kind of corrupt corporation, and then hold that it is not able to take custory over a registered child because its "illegal". If the legal system is simply a corporation owned by a state which simply exploits people, where does this magical body of limiting "law" come from?
    Moreover, you will find that social services do intervene and do take unregistered children into care, particularly those smuggled into the country illegally.

    Try typing in some names and seeing that they are registered corporations.
    Tried and failed.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    No, companies are not shareholders in the person. A company's legal personality is completely seperate from that of the shareholders.
    You have zero understanding of contracts. Contracts between ordinary people are made based on the meanings understood between the parties, not based on the "legalistic" meaning of any particular word. You aren't bound to any contracts unknowingly.

    The irony of this is staggering. You are claiming that the law system is some kind of corrupt corporation, and then hold that it is not able to take custory over a registered child because its "illegal". If the legal system is simply a corporation owned by a state which simply exploits people, where does this magical body of limiting "law" come from?
    Moreover, you will find that social services do intervene and do take unregistered children into care, particularly those smuggled into the country illegally.


    Tried and failed.
    When you say 'You aren't bound to any contracts unknowingly,' you are simply talking from personal prejudice of how you think the world works, as most of your posts demonstrate

    Limiting law comes from common law, against which contract law has been constructed as an edifice. I said that it would be illegal for them to take an unregistered child, but you have to know their legality to stop them from doing. These corporations wrote the statutes they can pass new ones, so naturally they want you to believe they are law. They are not law. They are statutes.

    It is unfortunate that you can't use a simple website. I'll guide you through.

    Go to dnb.com
    Go to the right hand side to 'find a company'
    From the drop down list select ‘United Kingdom’
    Type in some of the names I gave in my OP.

    Here is a video that makes it clearer:
    http://www.tpuc.org/node/494
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    From what I understand all the points you have made are absolutely correct, whats more is that merchant and banking law (maritime admiralty law or universal commercial code) can be traced back to the ancient world to the land that we now call Israel, even attaching a fictional legal status to a human being is very old. Jordan Maxwell has done brilliant work on this subject. I understand it's difficult for people to accept that they are being shafted big time but there is a whole world of symbols and language that is used submersively to control people and it's been going on for thousands of years.








    (Original post by silentrevolution)
    When you say 'You aren't bound to any contracts unknowingly,' you are simply talking from personal prejudice of how you think the world works, as most of your posts demonstrate

    Limiting law comes from common law, against which contract law has been constructed as an edifice. I said that it would be illegal for them to take an unregistered child, but you have to know their legality to stop them from doing. These corporations wrote the statutes they can pass new ones, so naturally they want you to believe they are law. They are not law. They are statutes.

    It is unfortunate that you can't use a simple website. I'll guide you through.

    Go to dnb.com
    Go to the right hand side to 'find a company'
    From the drop down list select ‘United Kingdom’
    Type in some of the names I gave in my OP.

    Here is a video that makes it clearer:
    http://www.tpuc.org/node/494
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.