[mandalisj]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

So how would you frame the difference in "par value" and "some value" as an argument in court? Just a simple list of basic points.

Look up the requirements of a holder in due course. They must pay value. The value of your promise is measured in gold at $42.2222, the value of their credit is not worth as much since the market price of gold is higher. Price and value are independent, contrary to what your banker wants you to believe.

Go re-read my post from the beginning slowly. You need to understand that the 'value' of a dollar is not an arbitrary concept, it is an actual measure in gold at $42.2222 per ounce. Just look at the Federal Reserve balance sheet at their gold valuation.

----------------------------------------------------
note- By amortization I mean paying down the credit. The same way the word is used in ordinary business.

amortization in business refers to the schedule of interest payments, I thought you were talking about the interest shortfall created by the financial system. What you are talking about has absolutely nothing to do with the points I am making about the par (gold) value of money.

I was pointing out that "true-zero amortization" means, mathematically, that the 'Loan-To-Value' stays at a constant %. If the mortgage 'floated' at a fixed % of property value, there would be nothing to pay, since the inflation is more than equal to the interest.

With no taxes or fees to pay, the value of properties would be even higher, providing even more basis for the liens due these items. But this is a different topic:

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/banks-...tml#post125510

Whatever. Unfortunately, you still don't know what 'value' really is.

Hey, I like Marx! Very succinct and pithy analysis, and sometimes really funny. Sociological thinking is a way of understanding what goes on. Feudalism leads to Capitalism, which leads to So******m, which leads to Communism. These are the changing forms of an historic evolution. Yes, it looks like Feudalism, because it IS Feudalism. Only now it's called somewhere in between Capitalism and So******m. Its like a sliding scale or progression. Old wine, new bottles. Nothing new under the sun.

The collective ownership of property, by a state or a crown, is feudalism. Legally, there is no difference between so******m and feudalism, since both require pledging of all property to the state/crown. Marx was a propagandist of the British establishment to create a justification for the collective ownership of property after the success of the American experiment (where the commoner was allowed to freehold title to property) destroyed the current intellectual foundation of the European system. Marxism is evil, as it is based on the idea that all work for the state, and if you like it so are you. So******m, communism, and feudalism are all forms of collectivism. If you think communism is different than feudalism, just look at the current regime in North Korea. Capitalism is a slur invented by Marx. Why don't you try 'populism' instead. The idea is that the individual owns title to their on labor and property, it was very revolutionary in 1776 and will be again when Ron Paul is elected president.

Don't expect any replies, I leave for Europe for the holidays soon and will be back next year!