what is the position of systemaccounting on monetary policy?


"monetary policy" is a golden calf

while there is yet a reason to alter the money supply, it does not include protecting state-chartered lending companies from a failure in judgement

furthermore, producing a scientific measure of the price of money has nothing to do with deferring to the expectations of state-appointed officials who are quick to offer up the wealth created by the private sector to state-chartered lending companies requiring "regulation"

the systemaccounting standard requires, without exception, a law of conservation of value & liability to be enforced throughout its system

to understand the implication of requiring a conservation law from a money supply, consider the example of an economic actor attempting to operate a "bank" within systemaccounting:

a person seeking to operate a lending company raises $500 from each of 10,000 users

each account belonging to the 10,000 funding users decreases by $500

the lending company operator now has $5 million to fund loans

10 borrowers request to borrow $500,000 for 3 years from the lending company operator, or $5 million total

important: a "request to borrow" money is ambiguous, and best described as "offering a note promising to repay the sum, interest included, to the lender at a later time." offering to sell a note, or borrow money, produces risk. offering to purchase a note, or lend money, consumes risk

the lender judges the value of the opportunity contained in each 3 year note to be worth the risk, and lends the money (purchases 10 notes for $5 million total)

when the funding account owners inquire from the lender about the balance of the lending company account, a law of conservation forces the lender to reply, "zero"

and 10,000 account owners intending to fund a $5 million loan portfolio will have zero objections because they chose to share the risk with the lending company operator

while economists invent sophisticated phrases such as "money multiplier" to allow increasing the notes receivable of a "bank" and NOT decreasing a "depositor" cash account, physicists reject the event as a failed cross-firm balancing transaction which violates a conservation law, and is nothing but double-counting money's ownership

also, the privilege indulges 1) depositors who refuse to accept the full cost of default for investing in a failed lender, and 2) lenders who refuse to physically prove their judgement as worthy of credit in the credit market

in systemaccounting, the moment money leaves "the vault", the borrower is measured to be the money's new owner

monetary policy also distorts creditworthiness

the authority to declare a change in ownership of property does not, and will never come from a mandate furnished by the democratic process insofar as this declaration is one of scientific fact identifying a mutually-agreed upon measure by which a pair of human beings exercised their free will

allowing a "bank" to contradict the physical universe by double-counting money's ownership is to define its creditworthiness in an alternate, "democratic" universe leading to a future the economy must reconcile when the creditworthiness was proven undue (a promise goes unfulfilled)

creditworthiness is a measure of the frequency with which one physically fulfills their word, or creditworthiness = fulfilledpromised

a person who fulfills their word 5 out of 10 times (5/10) is 50% creditworthy

when selling notes (borrowing money), the numerator is "delivered", and when purchasing notes (lending money), the numerator is "received" ("fulfilled" accommodates either direction)

currently, "banks" are allowed to add whatever notes they purchase from borrowers to the money supply because the u.s. treasury's "bank" chartering process grants them the privilege of defining their own standard of creditworthiness: "BANK" = received/promised

should one's creditworthiness be measured according to the government charter they receive instead of the measure which the credit market tests all other firms, the amount of money promised in the denominator will grow increasingly large because fulfilling promises (numerator) is second to being a "bank", "i'm exempt from proving all the promises i purchase from other people as fulfilled before more money is offered to me. and when i do receive more money, i'm allowed to pretend as though it's still in my possession after lending it to someone else. i receive both privileges because i'm a bank"

when untested, unearned, yet government-ordained creditworthiness attempts to raise an economy up through the constant stacking, compounding, and renewing of debt, the only possible outcome for the unfortunate ones sent to labor at the top of this 'tower of promises' is a collapse through what is only the most recent artificially-sustained floor having no other purpose but to avoid triggering the structurally-inherent sinkhole of accumulated & deflected default risk scattered throughout previous levels

economists may not see a problem with placing the cart before the horse where the measure of creditworthiness is concerned, or sending multiple generations to be swallowed whole by an ever expanding denominator of "money promised", but a physicist will openly recognize that the burden these generations are forced to carry as a result of this false unit of measurement has unjustly caused them to be both slaves and sacrifices to it

ask a physicist how much an animal can reliably haul and their answer will come from first measuring the limit. asking how much risk a human can haul is no different

there are no entities within systemaccounting that may count their receivables as part of the money supply

bookkeeping the transmission of value's ownership between buyers and sellers of goods & services, so financial risk remains sealed between its producer and consumer, requires conserving both value & liability during a transaction

regardless of the medium used to record the transmission of value (paper, hard disk, etc.), this mathematical object increases the efficiency of trade by allowing its users to i) measure and relate goods & services in terms of numbers, while ii) remaining certain of what they are owed after servicing the demand of others

money is already an axiomatically complete object, so when a government chooses to add to it by centralizing a borrowing & lending function through the "bank" chartering process, the perfection upheld by the calculus of value's ownership is violated to create an environment of statistical ambiguity that accommodates the falsely-assumed credit-worthiness of firms facing little accountability for the risk they socialize & multiply throughout the system

Was this helpful?