Thank you, one under god, for providing such an excellent description of how ordinary people can become confused about money and banking.

And also for showing us how a normally (presumably) intelligent person can be bamboozled by an unscrupulous lawyer, more concerned about trick questions than truth or relevance.

>>I give you the equivalent of $50,000.00,..you return the funds back to me,.l.and I have to repay you $50,000 plus interest? Do you think I am stupid?"<<

Obviously, no-one in their right mind with $50,000 in their pocket would give it to a bank, then borrow it back. So the trickery comes in the word "equivalent".

What the lawyer is arguing is that because in the hands of the banker, the promissory note is able to be traded (i.e., it has value in their hands) it is "equivalent" to $50,000 in cash, in the hands of the borrower. Which, of course, it is not.

It has tradable value, but only by way of the security of the borrower, who has promised to pay it back. If he does not do so, the promissory note is valueless. Which is of course why poor property loans featured so heavily in the US' financial problems.

The lawyer's argument is completely circular. The promissory note only has value following the payment, by the bank, of $50,000. So, to say that the client has "given the equivalent of $50,000" to the bank is patently specious.

Ask yourself this: would you rather trust a) a banker who wants to lend you money to buy a house or b) a lawyer whose only objective is to trip you up and make you look like an idiot in court?

pericules...its an asset
thus it goes onto the books

you buy bonds right..same thing

look at your money[a note]..it should have two signatures on it
money is only a check[a promise to pay]

go look at an old pound note
it had actually the words writ on it
'promise to pay bearor one pound sterling[silver]]
at the bottum it was written redeemable at any commonwealth bank

the point being the constitution says
only gold/silver coin are to be legal tender for debt

[thus any note falls under contract law...is a promise to be a redeemable value..is a contract to deliver value

thats why its signed[twice]

fiat money [ie paper promise]..is only legal tender
because its a promise to deliver valie..heck the word fiat means by decree]

thus coins have the kins/queens face on it
a promise of both pureity and in weight to be that 'gold'..or that silver...[which chapter v of the constitution at 115 speaks of]

so bankers demanded the gold/sliver...
back when govts had treasuries...when the promise was undeliverable
they threatend to sue govt..so govt did a deal[that allowed bankers to take over the whole franchise[forcing govt to beg bankers for money at ursury[intrest]

its a shame people are so ignorant
they think a bank bill to be value
yet think [are decieved]..that..lol
any..other *bill..lol..is debt

see when we [govt]..went broke
there had to be a way to buy stuff that wasnt under lien
[cause by law stolen goods cant hold clear title...and by paying cash[fiat notes]..that are bankrupt...any goods legally are also under lien of bankruptcy

its the lies i hate ol mate
incometax was began..to repay the bank debt
boy talk about double dipping

[lol then
we bail the banking elites..[capitalists out]...lol

I think you may be getting closer to understanding, one under god.

>>pericules...its an asset
thus it goes onto the books<<

The problem is that as soon as the borrower defaults - that is, is not in a position to pay either principal or interest - the asset disappears. It must be written down, taken off the books, and a loss recorded on the profit and loss account. That was the power of the toxic loans held by the US banks - when they went sour, the banks were left with a massive hole in their balance sheet and losses coming out the wazoo.

Then again, perhaps you are still in the dark after all...

>>its a shame people are so ignorant
they think a bank bill to be value
yet think [are decieved]..that..lol
any..other *bill..lol..is debt<<

What "other *bills" do you have in mind here? It isn't very clear.

>>[lol then
we bail the banking elites..[capitalists out]...lol<<

That is one way of looking at it, of course. But there is another way.

Governments have been relying upon the banks to fund their extravagances for a number of years. Because we have been in boom times, across the world, governments have been spending like drunken sailors, on money they borrowed... from the banks.

The bonds they issued, promising to repay the principal in x years, and to pay y% interest along the way, were funded by banks. There's more than a touch of irony in a situation where a government causes a bank to go under through that government's inability or unwillingness to repay.

Did you understand, by the way, why the "worldfreemansociety" piece was pure bunkum? I really hope that you did.

http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=12069&p=92259#p92259

pers quote...""as soon as the borrower defaults..the asset disappears.""

no mate it increases the claimed debt
and gets a huge tax claim on its losses

""It must be written down,..taken off the books,""'

mate it was only 'on the books'..till it got bundled
rated tripple AAA plus..and on sold into outr pensions and investments

little known is the multifacited playing of it as a 'security'
and cashed in on...[securities get speculated on..but under it all is the quality of the promise..plus the assured values it represents

the problem in japan usa china etc wasnt the dent
but the insane values placed on assets by the rating's agencies
or rather those whjo know ghow they 'rate'..assets in bundles

thing is the 'lenders[banks]..
got their cash back..by swelling the bundled securities to pension funds..and investers taking advice of the ratings agencies

""and a loss recorded on the profit and loss account."''

is pure bunkum...proffit loss..thats one colum
where were the accountants being held to account
or the ratings agencies held to account[or those who robosigned the processing]..will the courts now do their job[a few are]

se they origonals alone hold contracted rights
and the robo signing was often only on photocpies
and in court if you dont got the ;origonal'..you got nuthin

""the toxic loans..held by the US banks""

lol was only their own greed[bonus]
..plus short term proffiteering to sharholders[in the masin other corpertions/trusts..other investment vehivles[also looting/bonus and colluding to do then not do

no one is held to account
govt protections were circumbvented and prevented from working

""the banks were left with a massive hole""

no mate..the underwriters were
potentially

needing to cash in their securities..
plus the securities of those underwritting the securities valued AAA+..that really were only junkbond derivitives...of photcopies[huge frauds ol mate]


'''What "other *bills" do you have in mind here?
It isn't very clear."""

not my job to educate you ol mate

>>[lol then
we bail the banking elites..[capitalists out]...lol<<

That is one way,of looking at it, of course.""...

good we can agree occasionally

""Because we have been in boom times
governments have been spending like drunken sailors,
on money they borrowed... from the banks."""

borrow FROM the banks
TO BAIL OUT the banks..
something seems wrong there

so we get govt to enter onto the bank book..an asset[bond]
the bank sells on to the fed

""The bonds they issued,
promising to repay the principal in x years,
and to pay y% interest along the way, were funded by banks.""

no they were monetised..by the fed or equivelent
or by onselling via securities to investers

""There's more than a touch of irony
in a situation where a government causes a bank to go under
through that government's inability or unwillingness to repay.""

lol the very bond
they used to bail the banks out..in the first place

lol

there are a few more topics on the subject
be great to have you there too

You're still muddling things up, one under god.

>>pers quote...""as soon as the borrower defaults..the asset disappears."" no mate it increases the claimed debt and gets a huge tax claim on its losses<<

Then...

>>""It must be written down,..taken off the books,""' mate it was only 'on the books'..till it got bundled rated tripple AAA plus..and on sold into outr pensions and investments<<

Let's take a closer look.

Fact #1: when a borrower defaults on a loan, it is no longer an asset, because the loan/asset ceases to have value

Fact #2: when a loan/asset ceases to have value, it needs to be written off via the profit and loss account. Thus, reducing the holder's profits, or increasing their losses.

Fact #3: it is indeed possible for some classes of assets to be bundled together, and sold as a parcel. In which case the value released by the sale will be entered into the profit and loss account, and the assets extinguished from the balance sheet.

However (and this is the important bit) Fact #3 does not in any way invalidate Facts #1 and #2.

Think of "pass the parcel". Whoever is holding the assets at any point in time has to reflect their value on their balance sheet. If you happen to be caught with them when the bottom falls out of the market - let's say, all the borrowers default at the same time, and the entire parcel is worthless - Facts #1 and #2 come into play. Fact #3 won't, because no-one is going to buy it.

>>little known is the multifacited playing of it as a 'security'<<

Ummmm.... actually, everybody who has taken even the faintest interest in the background to the GFC understands the workings of this market. Check out "securitization" on Investopedia.

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/07/securitization.asp#axzz1fhelG03A

While Wikipedia tells us that:

"Securitization has evolved from its tentative beginnings in the late 1970s to a vital funding source with an estimated outstanding of $10.24 trillion in the United States and $2.25 trillion in Europe as of the 2nd quarter of 2008."

Hardly "little known", one under god.