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.

Example Austrian School Rejections of Mathematically Perfected Economy™

"Math cannot predict human action."

Generic response of "Austrian Economists," even when answering to calculations of obligatory issues such as the required maintenance of a vital circulation.

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.

Aldous Huxley

Ludwig von Mises

"No one can find a safe way out for himself if society is sweeping towards destruction. Therefore everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hang on the result."

"The idea that political freedom can be preserved in the absence of economic freedom, and vice versa, is an illusion. Political freedom is the corollary of economic freedom."


It is ironic on the first hand I think that Ron Paul supporters unite (as I did) over the proposition of dissolving a privatized monetary system which can only multiply debt into price inflation, marginal solubility, and ultimate collapse... and that they nonetheless stand by their candidate who has already reneged on his commitment to dissolve the system which can only cause these things.

It is obstructive to solution as well that Ron Paul mis-attributes price inflation or devaluation of the dollar to federal printing presses. The presses instead produce a privatized currency which certainly does not multiply private debt by federal over-spending — particularly if we are not even servicing the further mounting federal debt. We can take federal spending and taxes completely out of the equation for instance, and private debt will yet continue to multiply so much as periodic interest on debt.

Thus, Ron Paul will not solve anything if he will not solve inflation, deflation, and multiplication of debt by interest — which thus is to adopt mathematically perfected economy™.

My intention however is not to undermine the Ron Paul campaign. Until recently, as a consequence of their evasion of MPE™, I was one of their most steadfast supporters.

My intention is to save my country. That means doing whatever I can to apprise vital players of solution; and that means I can only work with whoever will work with me.


Some people reacting presently to mathematically perfected economy™ make the assumption that the ideas here were just thrown together as most such material is; that there cannot be a conclusive solution; in some cases, people believe it is impossible to solve or perfect economy mathematically.

Yet all such propositions are answered to by a proof I published in 1979 that any monetary system subject to interest ultimately terminates itself under insoluble debt; and that there is one and one only 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 by interest, which ultimately engenders systemic collapse.


It is not difficult to understand the ramifications of federal over-spending, or to realize that federal over-spending we are not paying for is not a cause of price inflation. Federal over-spending is not imposing its costs upon us presently if we are not paying for that over-spending; if we were paying for the over-spending, we would not be accumulating further federal debt.

Federal deficits are a symptom of not being able to service multiplication of private debt. Federal deficits attest to the failure of present generations, who rather than rectifying the affairs at hand will settle for passing their unpaid bills onto their own progeny. Federal over-spending is reckless and unjust, because it leaves a crippling blow to be dealt to future generations. But that blow may never be dealt, because it is the multiplication of private debt which we must service which drives the costs of all subject things upward at an inherently escalating rate, until so much of the circulation is dedicated to servicing debt that commerce sustained by the remaining circulation cannot possibly hope to service any further multiplication of debt.

Humpty Dumpty falls then under the inherent, irreversible multiplication of private debt in proportion to the circulation.


Costs therefore are inherently driven up by interest, because sustainable profit margins cannot be maintained without accounting for the costs of servicing inherent, perpetual multiplication of debt.

Why the Dollar is Falling

So long as the federal government would borrow more (spin those private printing presses Paul calls federal), and so long as the country can withstand the irreversible, inherently escalating multiplication of its private debt, the crippling indebtedness of our federal government is a financial opportunity to usurers.

The dollar only "falls" eventually, because the debts imposed by the dollar are so compromised the game is virtually over. When not even the usurer can win here, the game in America is a done deal.

The game is not over because the federal government will not borrow further into the hole we already can never dig our way out of. The game is over here because there isn't even a reasonable prospect of another false boom or further sell-off of assets or industry on which to gut America for a further few trillion of debt sufficient to replenish the circulation enough to service immediate new vistas of debt. The so called housing boom could not find a way for instance to multiply the costs of homes any further beyond our current means... so the bubble bursts... and whatever else with it... until the whole house of cards comes down.


So in lieu of terminating the privatized currency, Ron Paul is now advocating competing currencies and transparency in the persisting operations of the so called Federal Reserve System.

What however will purportedly competing currencies subject to interest accomplish, but dividing the profits of our collapse among further players? Or why propose competing currencies, if you are going to advocate eradication of interest, which is all that can save us from multiplication of debt in proportion to a vital circulation?

Example Austrian School Rejections of Mathematically Perfected Economy™

I must preface the following example Austrian School Rejections of mathematically perfected economy™ by clearing most supporters of Ron Paul and other candidates of blame.

Other than an elder "Leave it to Beaver" generation which is so broadly bent on living out the rewards of being first to sit at the Monopoly Board at so much cost to all the rest of us, the principal obstruction to solution is other advocates of unearned gain. It is ironic that a movement seeking to dissolve a system so destructive because it embodies unearned gain, should be steered by advocates of unearned gain even to the last day of unearned gain.


One thing I find as the inevitable pitfall to MPE is that math cannot predict human action. Economic policy cannot simply rely on math as there are many different disciplines involved. Math cannot even predict the stock market or foreign currency movement (DMI, RSI, MACD, Stochastics, etc.). How will it really apply to the entire economy when it isn't useful for one single aspect? When math solves quantum mechanics I will give it my full trust.

[Ron Paul Supporter]

This a uniform response of Austrian School pretenders which doesn't even adhere to their own purported principle. The particular reaction chooses to respond not to MPE™, but instead to a single issue solved by MPE™ (inherent multiplication of debt by interest), saying but not proving we cannot predict human action, while the only action involved is the necessary (and therefore absolutely predictable) maintenance of a vital circulation. (In fact we can and have projected for the alternate case as well [not maintaining a circulation, and suffering the resultant deflation].)

From the very first that I have presented the solved issues, I have carefully stated the condition of the deduction is the maintenance of a vital circulation. Thus there is no "unpredictable" element of human action whatever; there never has been; and the truth of the assertion is wholly independent of unpredictable human action.

Moreover, rather than predicting human action, we are only making it possible for plausibly desirable human actions which are impossible except in mathematically perfected economy™. Only in mathematically perfected economy™ for instance is it possible always for true producers to receive for their production whatever they deem to be an equal measure of the production of others, because no transaction whatever is subject to the costs of usury.

What reasonable person would ever object to that, unless their interest is unearned gain — destroying this right of true producers, and in the process, paving the way for usury to impose perpetually escalated unearned taking, even to collapse?



1. How will your model account for changing future human emotion, sentiment, and valuation, as to account for the varying depreciation rate this change will cause? In addition, there could be other external factors, such as physical, that would alter the valuation of an asset. A good example would be a fire burning up natural wood resources? With a lowered supply, the valuation of those assets held would surely move upward. Or, in opposite, people may plant more trees and decrease the value of a held asset. How will repayment be determined in such instances?

[Ron Paul Supporter]

This question asserts economics must account for a proposition which isn't even necessarily real, and which may obstruct the values or principles we may want to pursue, versus the manipulations the question hopes to be imposable upon us.

A person who makes a product tends to think in terms of units of work involved in production. They think of how long the product will endure against what it subjected to. They may invest effort in extending the lifespan; and if they do, they do so expecting to be compensated for that effort. But the product still has a lifespan which expires. The product doesn't truly gain value through its lifespan; its lifespan is given up as it is consumed.

While market factors play in what they may receive for their work, or whether their venture can survive for instance against an artificial factor such as inherent multiplication of indebtedness, such unnatural factors which manipulate the cost or value of money or property are eliminated by mathematically perfected economy™. Thus the question may pertain to adversities which themselves are eliminated.

A logger doesn't think, "This is the last tree we'll be able to take out of this forestry resource for another 5 years; I should be able to charge 20 times as much for cutting it down." This is the thinking of the manipulator. The logger sees the cost of harvesting trees across the number of trees harvested. It's one sum of work; and because work is what they intend to be paid for, they see the work as a sum of work.

If we were a world only of producers of real products or services, the logger's costs of the delivered tree is all we would pay for the logger's costs of the delivered tree. It is the manipulator, the trader of others' work, who does not produce, who looks to take advantage of situations, who looks to maximize unearned profit from others' work. The idea of manipulated cost or value is an idea based not in real value or cost, but instead in the potentials of extortion.

True producers therefore tend to be reasonable in their sense of values, because they intend to measure what they get for their work by ascertaining the equal work of others. They are neither glad or served to pay 3 trees for the tree they cut down yesterday, or lifetime after lifetime of work for a home built by but a few months of work, particularly as the additional costs imposed upon them by artificial leverage or opportunity are for the unearned gain of those who produce nothing.

A fire burning one forest down doesn't make the wood in another forestry more valuable. Forests burn down naturally; and the forestry resources are hardly exhausted. It matters not that supply is lowered in a given area, because this is a natural event which is always to be accounted for. The overall rate of renewal determines the real supply; and a harvesting rate determined accordingly engenders a relatively constant supply, not truly determined by individual fires said for the purposes of manipulation to affect overall supply.

We have in effect two conflicting philosophies. One wants earnings for its work equivalent to its work. The other wants unearned gain which can only be taken at the cost of earning equivalent to real work.

We cannot have our cake and eat it too. We mature beyond the era of unearned gain, or we suffer its consequences — with the principal consequence being the alpha feeder will be the central bank; which will take all.

Like cannibalism, unearned monetary gain and all the manipulation which goes with it will one day disappear from history forever after.

The truth is that no present or past model "accounts" for changing future human emotion, sentiment, and valuation; so my own deduction is that the question is asked out of intended impracticality, with the purpose being to retain usury for the comfort the questioner holds in a system which inherently multiplies debt to collapse.

I frankly hope no one will ever intend to account for these things, for if they do, then all the effort of eradicating manipulation is for nought. After partners agree to a trade, only if the money remaining in circulation equals the remaining value based on the agreed rate of depreciation will the money retain the intended value across the lifespan of the related asset. If a fire burns the home down before its lifespan expires, then we have to pay for it. But we can insure the home as we do today, or we can pay for our losses outright. But we can afford far more to do whatever we want any way that we want, if and only if we eliminate all extraneous costs. That's the whole idea of "economy." To introduce unearned gain is to engender a whole different set of objectives at the cost of true free enterprise, and the possibility of acquiring for work, an equal measure of the work of others.

2. How will the loan on an asset that tends to always appreciate, such as land, be paid back?

2. How will the loan on an asset that tends to always appreciate, such as land, be paid back? If a loan is granted for a parcel of land, and that land never depreciates, then will any loan payment be necessary? Or, since the land only appreciates, would it be correct to increase the loaned amount in conjunction with the appreciation?

[SAME Ron Paul Supporter as above]

This question deserves the same answer.

3. Would We Not Have A Dilemma Where It Is Beneficial To Own As Much Appreciating Land As Possible, As A Payment Would Never Be Required

3. If the answer to #2 is yes, is it more appropriate to increase a loaned amount alongside appreciation? Then would we not have a dilemma where it is beneficial to own as much appreciating land as possible, as a payment would never be required? And, as it appreciates you would actually make a living by increasing a debt that is balanced by the asset? If so, then would we not have a negative pressure on all economic sectors that require land for growth (I think this would apply to almost every business)?

[SAME Ron Paul Supporter as above]

The conditions laid out by the question are a perfect example of why the first answer applies to all. When you attempt to accommodate manipulation, what manipulation then is not as legitimate as any other? Should it ever be a purpose of an "economic" system that some sustain themselves at the cost of others by abuse of natural law?


4. A theoretical, non-mathematic question: If the people control who and what a loan is granted for then are there conflicts with protecting everyone's liberty equally, whether meant intentionally or not? Or would we simply propagate mob-rule or a tyrannical representative rule as we see currently see in our current, non-constitutional government? Although the people control the money system, does this ownership represent all equally, no matter what they cherish or appreciate? Or, would we have to set loaning standards that are, in essence (in my opinion), a negotiation between the masses to decide who is credit worthy and who is not? After all, isn't this exactly mob rule?

[SAME Ron Paul Supporter as above]

And this is how far out of line Austrian School discussions swerve. After all, when you dismiss mathematics either for analysis, projection, or solution, and when you uniformly dismiss even the possibility of solution to retain an adverse system, soon enough I suppose the purported system of logic is only reduced to a cherry picking where it is legitimate enough to assert even that the formal determination of rates of depreciation are impossible, that they only result in mob rule.

After all, how many Austrian "Economists" can you find who will concede even that there is one and one only solution to inflation and deflation, or inherent multiplication of debt by interest?

They're few and far between because they dismiss the rules we need, in fact so they can advocate unearned gain at the consequences they don't even intend to solve.

What you propose is nothing more than a mathematically reconstructed version of a symmetrical model for human economic organization that has been repeatedly discredited

What you propose is nothing more than a mathematically reconstructed version of a symmetrical model for human economic organization that has been repeatedly discredited. The MPE suffers from the same flawed premise as any other utopian vision of human organization. This flaw is known as the "Tragedy of the Commons."

People are simply not incentivized to work and innovate when the fruits of their labor are distributed unequally to less industrious members of the community. While an interest based monetary system suffers the same inevitable fate wherein the parasites eventually devour the host, at least it allows a host to grow and develop in the first place.

Bankers are certainly among the most parasitic and least noble members of the human community. But they nonetheless serve an important function by allocating capital among competing borrowers and their proposed economic activities based on an incentivized calculation regarding the ability of such borrowers and economic activities to yield sufficient profit to pay back principal and interest payments.

What is the incentive to differentiate among different borrowers under the MPE when there is no possibility of profit or loss by the entity making the lending decisions?

While an interest based monetary system eventually breaks down because of greed, corruption and the intractable problem of insoluble debt, there is no reasonable alternative. In short, what you propose through the MPE, by its very assumption that there exists a perfect mathematical model for running an economic system containing inherently flawed organisms, presumes the feasibility of a symmetrical model for economic development that contradicts the asymmetrical reality of human nature.

[Ron Paul Supporter]

This is a dose of the purposed twistings of Austrian dogma. A utopian vision is discouraged because human organization is allegedly impossible, even as the purpose of an economic system is not human organization at all, but the design of monetary processes to serve human effort, whatever the organization or lack otherwise thereof.

The Tragedy of the Commons of course makes no overt or implied effort whatever to disprove mathematically perfected economy™. Nor is any other applicable discredit cited. The form of the argument only expects that we somehow assume that the asserted repeated discredits are valid from what is not even supplied.

After asking for faith, the refutation then offers two propositions in bad faith, counting them against mathematically perfected economy™ instead of in its favor:

  1. "People are simply not incentivized to work and innovate when the fruits of their labor are distributed unequally to less industrious members of the community."

    Then of course people are far more incentivized to work under mathematically perfected economy™, because mathematically perfected economy™ entirely eliminates maldistribution of wealth to the less industrious members of the community who take even so freely from our production without providing us anything in return, that multiplication of debt eventually even terminates the system.

    Under usury, even the initial cost of a home to a debtor is a multiple of our production; and worse, further manipulation of the cost or value of money or property so multiplies the cost of our own production to us, that we spend lifetime after lifetime (less incentivized) paying for our own production, itself originally amounting to no more than a few months of human labor.

  2. "While an interest based monetary system suffers the same inevitable fate wherein the parasites eventually devour the host, at least it allows a host to grow and develop in the first place."

    As we agree also then that allowing a host to grow and develop in the first place is a merit, mathematically perfected economy™ therefore enjoys a many-fold advantage over usury, because mathematically perfected economy™ reduces the cost of procuring our production to no more than the cost of the production.

    Not only does interest multiply the initial cost of production however, it multiplies debt in proportion to the production. Thus particularly as the conclusion of the inherent lifespan of any monetary system subject to interest nears, it is ever less possible then to host or grow [further] development "in the first place."

    The first generation in the new monopoly game may enjoy some initial advantage over later generations; but in the end they do not even pay their debts (which are impossible to pay); and so the last generation to come to the board is left the consequences.

While admitting that "bankers are certainly among the most parasitic and least noble members of the human community," the dogma next asserts, "But they nonetheless serve an important function by allocating capital among competing borrowers and their proposed economic activities based on an incentivized calculation regarding the ability of such borrowers and economic activities to yield sufficient profit to pay back principal and interest payments" — which is merely something Austrians assert our republican form of government cannot determine as well.

Thus the refutation falls down on all its points, because we can do better. Our debts to each other can be freed of the unearned and destructive consequences of unearned gain via interest; nor are we served by denying borrowers, or the inherently ever less incentivized "benefits" of production subjected even involuntarily to usury.

The United States for one country, did not prosper under the foreign philosophy of Austrian usurers posing as economists. The unauthorized and many times and ways failed experiment of privatized currency at the expense of all so inherently much unearned gain has had its day; and only given an intelligent public sufficiently dedicated to re-asserting true free enterprise, will that day not be finished by the devastating near term destruction which this Austrian and others would retain upon us.

The leadership we need will not deviate or compromise from solution, because no purpose, object, or success exists in doing so. The leadership we need will strive only for real, veritable solution.




"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™, 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™!


Search     Search Web