PEOPLE For  Mathematically Perfected Economy™ (PFMPE™)  :  mathematically perfected economy™ (MPE™) is the singular integral solution to 1) inflation and deflation, 2) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and 3) inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt in proportion to a vital circulation, engendering inevitable systemic failure at a finite system lifespan defined by an inevitable, terminal sum of insoluble debt. Mathematically Perfected Economy™ is every prospective debtor's right to issue their promise to pay, free of extrinsic manipulation, adulteration, or exploitation of that promise, or the natural opportunity to make good on it.

MORPHALLAXIS, January 14, 1979.

ABOUT INTEREST, KEY TO THE CYCLE OF USURY

Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience.

John Locke, 1690

THE REVEREND MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.

THE MISCONCEPTION OF "EXTREMISM"

"Was not Jesus an extremist for love? 'Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you.'

Was not Amos an extremist for justice? 'Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.'

Was not Paul an extremist for the gospel of Jesus Christ? 'I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.'

Was not Martin Luther an extremist? 'Here I stand; I can do none other so help me God.'

Was not John Bunyan an extremist? 'I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience.'

Was not Abraham Lincoln an extremist? 'This nation cannot survive half slave and half free.'

Was not Thomas Jefferson an extremist? 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'

So the question is not whether we will be extremist, but what kind of extremist will we be.

Will we be extremists for hate or will we be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice; or will we be extremists for the cause of justice?

In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill, three men were crucified. We must not forget that all three were crucified for the same crime — the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thusly fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment."

mike montagne

Solo bow hunt, self portrait, 7 miles into the North Fork Wilderness.

ANSWER TO 1996 MSNBC QUESTION (PUBLISHED BY MSNBC): "ARE POLITICAL REPORTERS POLITICALLY BIASED?"

"Unless there is an editor or reporter with a perfectly neutral work-focus and style of presentation, then ALL reporters and editors are politically biased."

"Bias however, is no sensitive issue where a mature audience is apt to detect bias and account for it. The damaging aspect of 'news' coverage is its non-focus on imperative issues and qualifiable solution; and that so many citizens of all countries of the world hold to so many irrelevant snippets as if they can be served by them."

"For some 20 years for instance, the prospect of a 'balanced budget' occasionally draws some focus. But, in the news, and in politics, never have we seen an exhaustive proof of whether it is even mathematically possible to balance the budget under current and ever-worsening conditions. If however, world politics will ever see the solution of ever-mounting debt, and a solution of the ever greater costs of ever mounting debt, inevitably this will be through the eyes of a mathematic expression equivalent to conclusive, mathematic proof."

"Do the people even want to see or hear this, or administer to issues in conclusive terms? Only their focus on such a scope will tell. But certainly no news-service offers the inevitable argument."

"In any event, the impertinence of the audience befits the impertinence of submitted material. If they had no equally impertinent audience... all impertinent material, and all impertinent politicians, would be equally vanished."

"Just something to consider, as we plunge ever deeper into insoluble debt."

Tuesday, April 1, 2008

'IT'S THE INTEREST, STUPID'

In the 1992 presidential campaign, the Clintons ran on a slogan, "It's the economy, stupid."

Yet it was "the economy" when Jimmy Carter prevailed in the wake of the Nixon disgrace, fuel crisis, and rising "inflation" — the latter of which would purportedly be "fought" by raising the rate at which usury multiplies debt.

Not surprisingly then, President Carter would accumulate more debt in 4 years than any president before him. The sum of 4 years of Carter deficits amounted altogether to what seems now a mere $150 billion.

It was "the economy" too, when Ronald Reagan was elected over the incumbent President Carter. The pivotal moment of the 1980 debates in fact was Reagan turning to Carter, squarely staring the president in the eye, and telling him the $150 billion federal debt he had accumulated was simply "unforgivable."

Carter knew it. We all saw it in his eyes and demeanor; and because accumulating 15 percent of the federal debt of the whole of our history was something strikingly adverse — even if the irreversible underlying process wasn't economy at all — Carter's defeat in that very moment was sealed just for Reagan's saying so.

As surely as interest inherently promotes ever greater sums of debt at ever greater rates, in just the next seven years Reagan tripled not just the mere $150 billion federal debt Carter had accumulated, but the entire federal debt of the whole previous 200-plus years of our history. He left us with $3 trillion of unpaid federal deficits — 3 thousand billion "dollars," or 20 times the debt Carter accumulated. By his own yardstick and terminology then, Reagan's two terms each were a full 10 times as unforgivable as his shamed predecessor's transgressions.

Reagan's hypocrisy also gave us the greatest single day stock market crash since the 1929 event which brought on the First Great Depression. On the heels of the crash which would be faked out of existence, "somehow" always ready for the events they promise cannot come... every advocate of usury ("the economy") raced to make sure things would continue to look better than they were. Gambling masters shut down "the markets" electronically, the very millisecond bets soured too fast. The dirt piled so high it leaked from under the rug. The outer veil was attended to, not the inner workings by which the credit masters and their missionaries can only multiply debt upon us at an ever escalating rate.

And so, because the fundamental inconsistencies were purposely not rectified (even as every player in this cast received a proof of mathematically perfected economy™), it would still "be" "the economy" when "read my lips," George H.W. Bush, son of Adolph Hitler's banker, Prescott Bush, curiously took office on the heels of the exalted Reagan "successes."

Because none of these players would rectify a process which can only multiply unearned stealings... inherently moreso than ever before, it would still be "the economy" when the Clintons ran in 1992.

But proud as Hillary pretends to be for "fixing" "the first Bush mess," the Clinton's wouldn't fix anything. In the mold of "true" modern politicians, and in the mold of an equally impertinent public, we were distracted moreso by a mega-million-dollar stain on a blue dress than a whole bogus industry, propped up before us to pour guzzillions into a system which had already made us so unfit to re-borrow sufficiently, that without a surreal, steady infusion of "money" into the circulation, we could never otherwise maintain a circulation.

Humpty Dumpty was falling off the wall, and as he rocked off the edge, Clinton only proudly pretended he helped you by whatever it took to preserve Humpty as an unassented permanent fixture. If I recall, the President robbed Peter to pay Paul, and never did explain the triumph which sure enough, soon vaporized right before our very eyes.

Any critical thinker knew the purported Dot Com "boom" was only hot air, because there wasn't even really a product, and because the players could only compete for a market which was already taxed to its limits. Somebody had to go; and in the mold of true modern political events, you were consoled it would never be Humpty, or the trillions of units by which Humpty counted his change. In other words, it would be you.

So when G. W. took over steering the dynasty which only drives itself to collapse under insoluble debt, it was still "the economy" for which all the more would be swept to the mountain heaped under the rug. Until recently he assured us every day was rosy; and as his days now come to a close, he reassures us it's not time to "over-curreck."

Day and night now, the predators who put him in office are out to make sure they get their last share of the loot when the musical chairs tune stops playing. The people will pay. The people will pay. The people will pay — never the clan whose very purported "business" is only to take ever multiplying unearned gain from them.

After all, if it is right, then it is right even to the very end, isn't it?

Look around you as the smell rises from your gutted country and all the facades of usury fail. Notice one thing: When things turn sour, what are usurers compelled to do?

To save the hour for the last further iota of unearned taking, they are always, always, always compelled to restrain interest.

Ah... and when they can no longer think to suffer their cost of reducing your interest further, they will condemn you to a vanishing circulation which you can no longer afford to replenish by sufficient further borrowing. And that's when meeting their interest makes sustaining the necessary commerce impossible.

So no, "It's not 'the economy,' stupid; it's 'the interest.'"

It's the interest. It's the interest. It's the interest.

ABOUT INTEREST, KEY TO THE CYCLE OF USURY

What is the cycle of usury?

Many people have proposed economic solutions through history. Every little while yet it seems we have another, even as I have from the beginning built the clear mathematic case for singularity, and closure.

There were no contending solutions when I first stood against problems which only to myself seemed to be obvious and even terminal fundamental flaws. But through the very eyes of that singular solution, and through further intensive work such as writing and working with the models I provided the Reagan Administration, all the things that are happening to this very day were clearly seen then. I am just a person. But it's true even that I saw these fundamental irregularities would rise only to partial recognition 40 years later, for who do you think reminded me so, every day?

Yes, my efforts to communicate may not have been effective; and I might even have damned my purposes, for not doing "it for money." But I have actively promoted mathematically perfected economy™ since high school; published a modest formal proof of inevitable failure and singular solution ten years later, in 1979; and the models and documentation I provided the Reagan Administration were open sourced to academia before the web was the internet.

Mathematically perfected economy™ has been here a long while; and so why is it that even your recent political heroes are now advocating "solutions" which will preserve the very thing threatening to crush the last life out of our country?

When the web was young, if you searched for "Federal Reserve" you found these pages listed alone, above the Federal Reserve itself.

If you searched for the cause of the First Great Depression, you found a page here which used to be titled, "Mathematic PROOF the So Called Federal Reserve CAUSED the [First] Great Depression."

What became of that page?

"Mathematic PROOF the So Called Federal Reserve CAUSED the [First] Great Depression" may have set a record. In just one incident, it was stolen and re-published, originally complete even with my copyright notices, 18,000 times.

What does that have to do with interest or solution?

Its thieves (of just this one case) have since marketed videos for years, which for profit pass on all the information which was introduced to the web here for far different purposes. Their presence, prolifically embellished with my expressions, is today more prominent than mine; and yet, perhaps only because that's where they drew their line for plagiarism, they stopped short of proving solution — in fact even conspicuously eschewing the arguments they would have had to "borrow" to step so clearly into unoriginal waters.

I've been tolerant of this to now, but possibly not for good enough reasons. If you hear the Federal Reserve "is neither Federal nor a reserve of anything," those words come from these pages; and they even come liberally in combination with other expressions or approximations of expressions which originate in these pages.

Today now, everyone is a seeming expert in the transgressions of the so called Federal Reserve. But there's a curious mark upon all this unoriginal effort under which solution is now buried: It tells the same story which, without absolute solution, lacks a good reason for telling the same story.

Worse then, it jumps from the case it never can demonstrate because any alternate case concurs neither with the evidence or the underlying processes, to an alternate "solution" or recommendation which may or may not appeal on specious grounds to you.

It's so odd to watch all this senseless splintering. If competitors had asked, we'd have made a better video; and we'd be a movement.

Why not do that?

In their constant immediate tendency to avoid essential thinking, sheeple respond to vague patterns much as if it were not untoward to merely wander or flee to or from "solutions" which in little more than the moment, just sound or seem "good" to them. But solutions are only engineered; and so for the whole of the flock to become a country which knows where it's going, its citizens must each give pause to the math which edifies the consequences of little Johnny's third step.

What is the contending work we have to consider?

Most of that too is addressed here. But let's just take a different kind of example — an example which raises the idea of a uniform, perpetually repeated pattern, rather than the underpinnings of cause.

It's remarkable I think that a theory about repeating patterns or waves so loosely correlates with my proposition of inherent collapse as a consequence of irreversible, inherently escalating multiplication of debt by interest.

Russia has certainly produced great mathematicians. The one I am most familiar with perhaps is Mayevski. But before he was shot by Stalin, Nikolai Kondratiev produced a set of observations regarding an inherent cycle of rise and collapse of the very kind of "economy" under consideration. His work is still important today in the form of the Kondratiev Wave or Long Wave, which he gave a basic cycle of 60 years.

What's interesting first to me about the Kondratiev Wave is that (at least as far as I am aware) its projection is not a product of identifying underlying cause. If it were based on an understanding of causative process, surely Nikolai Kondratiev's work would recognize not that the cycle of the Long Wave's prosperity and collapse would be of a relatively uniform length, but instead, as the waves of the sea are shaped uniquely by explicit applied forces, that the length of his Long Wave is the very explicit and exacting duration projected from the calculations I provided President Reagan.

What is further interesting to me is that it plays such a role in the dialog and interaction of so many "economists," who for one reason or another are bent not on determining explicit cause for a pattern which may barely fit its theory, but instead prefer to discuss its potential relevance otherwise.

In the very same way, your understanding of interest is critical; and if the age we are seeing end has a purpose, that purpose is that you understand interest is usury, and that usury is a pattern which much like Kondratiev asserts, collapses every system of usury until we solve the simple fact usury is a process of inevitable collapse.

That's why Kondratiev had a pattern to observe.

A good friend for 30 years writes software and used to be an accountant. He understood mathematically perfected economy™ 30 years ago without hesitation or stumbling, and yet he reads the competing sites springing up everywhere; he listens to Alex Jones give scope to half baked ideas; and he, like many other people, regularly sends me links.

But he says he has a method for immediately determining if the author of alternate material has the least meaningful inkling of the problem or solution:

  1. He first electronically searches the page for the terms "interest" and "usury."

    Finding neither, the page is in the dark ages by 40 years.

  2. Finding either, he manually scans the region for any suggestion that the author advocates or agrees with eradication of interest or usury.

    Finding that not to be the case, the material can't possibly advocate solution.

  3. Only material which meets both conditions can concur with solution.

Until the plagiarism, you've found all those pages.

It's not "an economy." It's a malignant, inherently destructive terminal process, intended from its very inception to dispossess us unjustifiably, or the justification would mark every Federal Reserve "Bank" like the Lincoln Memorial.

Interest has a critical fault. So long as it exists, there's no neutralizing or stabilizing of its consequences; its inherent processes are perpetual, and irreversible.

As Mr. Kondratiev observed, "interest" inherently meets its end.

RELATED EXTERNAL MATERIAL

RELATED PRIMARY ARTICLES

RELATED REFUTATIONS/REVIEWS OF CONTROVERSIAL MONETARY PROPOSITIONS

"To find the players in all the corruption of the world, 'Follow the money.' To find the captains of world corruption, follow the money all the way."

mike montagne — founder, PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™, author/engineer of mathematically perfected economy™ (1979)

While 12,000 homes a day continue to go into foreclosure, mathematically perfected economy™ would re-finance a $100,000 home with a hundred-year lifespan at the overall rate of $1,000 per year or $83.33 per month. Without costing us anything, we would immediately become as much as 12 times as liquid on present revenue. Transitioning to MPE™ would apply all payments already made against existent debt toward principal. Many of us would be debt free. There would be no housing crisis, no credit crisis. Unlimited funding would immediately be available to sustain all the industry we are capable of.

There is no other solution. Regulation can only temper an inherently terminal process.

If you are not promoting mathematically perfected economy™, then you condemn us to monetary failure.

© Copyright 1979-2008 by mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.Copyright 1979-2008 by mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™, Mathematically Perfected Economy™, Mathematically Perfected Currency™, MPE™, and PFMPE™ are trademarks of mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™, perfecteconomy.com. The trade name, Mathematically Perfected Economy™, may only be used, and may freely be used, only by permission, and only by countries complying with the prescription for Mathematically Perfected Economy™ herein.

THANK YOU FOR VISITING PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™!

Firefox™.BEST VIEWED WITH MOZILLA FIREFOX™ AND FULL USAGE OF A BROWSER WINDOW AT LEAST 1450 PIXELS WIDE.


Search perfecteconomy.com     Search Web