About the Author

Scott is a luxury yacht captain, a degree-qualified project manager and a subject matter expert in planning and scheduling software — specifically Oracle's Primavera P6, the tool used to schedule the construction of power plants, rail systems, refineries, and the kind of large programmes where a single broken dependency delays a billion-dollar outcome.

That discipline is not about opinion. It is about sequence — what must exist before the next step is possible, what is claimed to happen versus what actually happens, where the logic breaks, and who benefits from the break.

Applied to banking, that lens turned out to be unusually revealing. The industry's publications, standards, and regulatory texts are written as though they describe a coherent system. Read them strictly, in order, without charity, and the coherence thins. Steps are asserted that cannot be performed in the sequence given. Words appear that carry a specific legal meaning the reader is assumed to share but rarely does. Whole stages of money creation are described with verbs that quietly skip the moment money actually comes into existence.

A project manager notices these things, because a project manager is paid to notice them.

One thread in Bancorruptcy follows a single word — regulation — critical within the Constitution on money creation.

The word has two meanings, and most readers only hear one. The first is control by rules, orders, or directives. The second is control relative to quantity.

Consider a scuba diver. The diver's regulator controls the quantity of air flowing into the buoyancy vest — more air to rise, less to descend. The diver does not rely on rules, orders, or directives to manage that air. The regulator simply matches the quantity of air to what the diver requires.

In a monetary context, regulation is almost always assumed to carry the first meaning. Read in the second sense — the one the scuba diver uses — the question becomes far simpler, and far harder to avoid: is the quantity of money being regulated against the quantity of value the people actually create?

Framed that way, much of what is presented as regulatory complexity begins to look like the first sense of the word working very hard to ensure the second sense is never asked about.

This is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of reading a word precisely. Take it for granted, and you get one outcome. Read it exactly, and you get a very different one. In banking, the difference is measured in trillions.

A banker, a lawyer, an economist, or an accountant has a career-long incentive to let certain words pass. An outsider has no such incentive.

Bancorruptcy does not offer the authority of membership. It offers the authority of careful reading, patient sequencing, and a refusal to treat industry-standard language as self-evidently true.

Readers can judge for themselves whether that approach holds up. The citations are in the book. The source documents are on this site.