it is their right, it is their duty...
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.
The Broken Ideology: Monetary Narcissism Condemns Its Own Progeny To Destruction
PRIVATIZATION OF THE CURRENCY, AND PUBLIC DEBT
The Bank of the United States is one of the most deadly hostilities existing against the principles and form of our Constitution. The system of banking is a blot [defect] left in [unsolved by, and unfortunately tolerated by] all our Constitutions [state and federal], which if not covered [eventually solved and revoked] will end in their destruction. I sincerely believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity is but swindling futurity [on the greatest possible scale].
1912 DEMOCRAT PARTY PLATFORM AS REPORTED BY CONGRESSMAN LOUIS T. McFADDEN; AND THE IMMEDIATE BETRAYAL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY PRIVATIZATION OF THE CURRENCY UNDER THE SO CALLED FEDERAL RESERVE ACT
The Aldrich Bill [which proposed privatization of the currency under a central bank] was condemned in the platform upon which Theodore Roosevelt was nominated in the year 1912; and in the same year — when Woodrow Wilson was nominated — the Democratic platform as adopted at the Baltimore Convention expressly stated:
"We are opposed to the Aldrich plan for a central bank."
This was plain language. The men who ruled the Democratic Party then promised the people that if they were returned to power, there would be no central bank established here while they held the reins of power.
PREAMBLE OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
President John Adams
Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law, 1756
It should be your care, therefore, and mine, to elevate the minds of our children and exalt their courage; to accelerate and animate their industry and activity; to excite in them an habitual contempt of meanness, abhorrence of injustice and inhumanity, and an ambition to excel in every capacity, faculty, and virtue. If we suffer their minds to grovel and creep in infancy, they will grovel all their lives.
Letter to Thomas Jefferson
All the perplexities, confusions and distresses in America arise not from defects in the Constitution or confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, as much from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
The Broken Ideology: Monetary Narcissism Condemns Its Own Progeny To Destruction
No reasonable generation expects posterity to succeed against an ever more obstructive and inevitably terminal process. Neither does a diligent public presume rectitude or duty from imposition of such a process by deception and betrayal of the public will, even if for no other reason than nations have never ever excelled by perpetual erosion of its potential to prosper, particularly in obligations to give up ever greater portions of potential earnings until even after driving off industry by exceeding such stress upon markets and production both, the artificial demands of the unassented process eventually exceed even what could remain to give — not even leaving a way to produce the terminal deficiency.
Just generations have no deaf ears for the only veritable explanation for such a process' end. Nor do just generations even participate and advocate unearned taking, mounting in disadvantages they themselves never prospered against. Nor does justice or any other sense of responsibility to posterity concurrently hold forth without any genuine argument whatever, that it is equally right to leave insoluble debts which their years and deeds accumulated by the first injustices — the payment of which would even wipe away the cheaper gains against the rest of us which they took to do so.
Indeed instead, either right or wrong all this is; and the true test of right, wrong and even hypocrisy is whether what sustained them in their time would suffice to their equal satisfaction against the time they imposed upon tomorrow.
We know the answers to these questions as much as Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Lincoln, Jackson and so many others gave them to us long ago. Even Woodrow Wilson eventually recognized he had served the most grievous error in our history. Thus anyone truly better than the decided, concurring answers of the founders, would certainly have qualified their differences to posterity's satisfaction.
But we have no such explanation; and never will.
History is not even so gullible that it is possible to bury why a generation spites solution, wanting never to account for the consequences of indifference, wanting never to be asked for its justification, knowing that for the lack of any good answer, only ire and hypocrisy can be offered in reason's stead.
Knowingly then, those who hold so fast to the relative pittance of unearned wealth they reserve for themselves, doing this to live amongst the far greater deterioration they impose, thus want the sufferers not even to whisper that whole body of questions which can never be answered, because no one can account how it is right to give up so much which is not even theirs, for so little, which cannot even be paraded but in disgrace.
The perpetrating generation wants instead a free pass to abandon accountability to the last days of the republic, that posterity simply suffer their deeds and let them live out their days as undeserving beneficiaries of unsustainable, terminal injustice. Meanwhile the very ideas of representation, prosperity and true free enterprise hinge upon the very universal representation they deny us.
Thus knowingly, and only for the while, to spare only themselves from inescapable culpability, such a generation simply stands forever in the way of the singular prescription for monetary rectitude which would restore representation, and even their own just prosperity.
For that acquiescence, history can hardly remember them well. Because the unimpeded course of history is progress, refused progress is itself a suspect aberration; and therefore enough to compel re-examination in which the general tendency is to perceive history for its want of justice, in which the oppression of succeeding generations is hardly to fare well.
Further times will likely observe instead that because the oppressing generation so abandoned reason, they too so failed even to devise sufficient terminology that they disposed themselves to a century of ostensible discussion without even exacting the vital meat of matters.
How many books, how many newscasts, how many speeches, and how many mindless utterings reflecting no more, deny the obvious culmination of irreversible multiplication of indebtedness?
Only a people who intend not to appreciate vital understanding, are satisfied perpetually to simply call inevitable failure from irreversible multiplication of indebtedness, "a depression." But it is no wonder then that not one of them ever erected a model or proof it is even practical to maintain a circulation subject to interest without terminal indebtedness. It is no more pertinent or intended to engender understanding, that they ask who will loan money without interest, when the money they gave usurers the power to create interminably is even published without cost.
Nothing is known without critical thinking; and particularly not the most obvious lies of history. How then will history recognize the present era's assertions as knowledge, or even a genuine intent to know? It will answer that question recognizing first that being purposely denied both the terminology and explanation which would resolve depressions forever, we can only understand solution by genuine, independent efforts. It will further answer that question after recognizing secondly, that critical thinking would have left us with a custom of far more exacting terms to account for the nature and causes of "a depression," as intended justice would require.
Accounting for the breadth and magnitude of its consequences, monetary narcissism therefore is the most divisive and destructive inertia of our time, for to sustain itself for the while it gives free license to the worst political inertias. But it is even more incredible that it is a goal; and that it persists as a goal, even as it can only be sustained by evasion.
Its victims nonetheless readily recognize that an unrectified process which can only cause world-wide depressions will engender others; that unassented "central banks" imposed across the world are not just coincidences; they comprise in fact such devised, concerted, and purposed intentions spanning such a breadth of history, that because usury can serve no subject people, for it to have endured so long and in so many places, all the intentions and all the resources usury acquires together can have spared no area or severity of subversion.
No regular citizen and no bona fide industry can ever have independently arrived at usury or unearned gain as prescriptions for "economy." Usury is not even sustainable. Unearned gain merely exploits markets, making just reward and industrial integrity impossible, merely to serve the interests of redundant, interceding manipulators.
Usurers erect an alpha predator, omnipotent by its topmost, obligatory place in the feeding chain, and given the one power to consume economy so pervasively that nothing has the power to escape eventual forfeiture at the inevitable end of its exhaustive cycle.
A central bank is just the house of a privatized currency, meant to proliferate and to convey all unearned taking to the alpha. So long as its currency is the instrument of involuntary servitude, the alpha's means and purposes prevail.
The ruse is so old and so simple.
Merely to maintain a vital circulation, interest compels us perpetually to re-borrow principal and interest as subsequent sums of debt, perpetually increased so much as periodic interest. Any practical rate of interest thus engenders ever more usurious, terminal sums of debt.
The eventual consumption of the entire circulation in servicing this artificial escalation of debt in turn unveils the ostensible question whether usury and "capitalism" are mutually exclusive to true free enterprise, for in subduing all free enterprise by irreversible multiplication of unearned taking, usury comes to own everything — including the most conducive vehicles of propaganda; and still, the only exercising of capital even provided for is exploitation. Because the pool of wealth is production, the very unearned gains of that exploitation make due reward of equivalent production for production — and thus the very foremost principle of true free enterprise itself — impossible.
There you have it — the politics, productivity, representation and course of monetary narcissism's unearned taking.
So to sell its nod to usury, a generation took the first seats at the Monopoly Board, in the end, together to compel prices which, financed by usury, itself denied even that generation the opportunity to prosper as they would have otherwise, while condemning their progeny to far greater costs than the pittance they took to do so. And so, to give way to both usury and exploitation was merely to extend the relevance of "a depression" to negligent, temporary participation in usury's consequences.
The usual rationalization for this participation asserts that the present consequences are relative and natural. Even while and since the United States plummeted from the world's greatest creditor nation to its lowliest debtor from 1980 to 1987, usury's advocates held forth that this perpetual process is as it has always been; that Reaganomics was succeeding; that every other name they give usury is a new formula for sustainability — while in fact sustainability is impossible in the presence of irreversible escalation of debt in proportion to every circulation required to service it.
Yet in a whole mixture of contradictions, narcissists blame adversely rising prices on the demands of labor unions which they have destroyed according to the political principals of usury they routinely elect, while alternately, particularly in their claim the present escalations are merely relative, they hold in keeping with government distortions even that adverse price inflation hardly exists. To frost that cake, all the while they produce nothing and take $3,500 a month rent for half a $50,000 condominium we could own for $35 a month in mathematically perfected economy™, no union in history has succeeded against them even to maintain wage increases which were but a pittance of the true rising costs of living.
No just generation of course would sell its nod to usury, merely to take the first so many years at a Monopoly Board cleared for another cycle of exploitation by the more exhaustive drain of usury... thus together with exploitation as the meat of its own substance, to deny to production, wages relative to the ever increasing costs exploitation thus imposes... all the while pointing their fingers at the laborers of all production, who of course produce all wealth... to deny them even the homes they alone produce. But it is simply and obviously impossible for the wages of production to be the falsely claimed cause of multiplying costs, because the very magnitude of artificial cost inflation is first a purpose of usury; secondly, its very magnitude far exceeds the complained escalation, which therefore cannot be explained by wage trends; and finally because, in inherently dedicating ever more of a circulation to servicing artificial debt, usury and exploitation together make wage trends in keeping with the escalation, impossible.
In the wake of usury and exploitation, ever less in fact is inherently left for wages, because ever more of the circulation is inherently dedicated to servicing debt — and this of course is exactly why our former industry has been driven from our country to slave markets.
Today still nonetheless, by no more than sleight of credibility, usury's advocates simply hold out that posterity will prosper likewise, if we only follow the pattern of the first hypocrites to sit at the previous cycle's cleared Monopoly Board.
Those who say these careless things have neither done the math or seen it. Corroborating math cannot even exist, because usury's inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt in proportion to a vital circulation even leaves ever less to the ultimate sustainability of extrinsic exploitation.
Usury is the alpha, and the only ultimate winner. If we could truly say otherwise, proponents of usury's purported rectitude would readily produce models which invalidate the proposition interest is inherently usurious, and that usury thus imposes inherent, irreversible, ever more adverse, escalating debt. They will never produce such models either, simply because any practical implementation of usury requires maintaining a vital circulation by re-borrowing principal and interest as subsequent sums of debt, perpetually increased therefore so much as periodic interest.
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the protective paper covers we were required to put on our school books told us that if we went to college for 4 years, in our whole lifetimes we might earn enough to pay for what now amounts to a college education. Our very book covers told us daily that due to the natural course of improving industrial productivity, that by 1980, one of the greatest problems we would have would be what to do with all the spare time our industrial prowess would give us.
We participated in and witnessed those improvements in industrial productivity, only to see our industry disappear to slave labor pools. This happened, and continues to happen at an escalating rate, only because our very own proven industry could no longer survive here with markets, labor, and industrial costs perpetually multiplied at inherently escalating rates by usury.
Is it even possible then that all this is merely relative, or as it always was? Is it even possible for the terminal stages of usury to impose only the indebtedness of the first stages of the cycle?
When a $35,000 home built in 1963 "appreciates" to a million dollars for instance, who benefits, and how do they benefit?
According to U.S. Census Bureau data, the median family income for 1963 was $6,249. While this material does not cite how this value would genuinely be expressed in 2006 dollars, nonetheless it gives this value in 2006 dollars as $35,177.
However legitimate or illegitimate the withheld formulas, whether we are as well off in 2006 or 2008 as we were in 1963 is obvious if we do the math. But most willing servants of usury or advocates of exploitation would exclaim instead the wondrous advantage of such false appreciation.
Nonetheless, the house is really worth no more; in terms of production it can only be worth less, as much as its lifespan has expired. Furthermore, if we all pursued unearned gain to the end of the earth, nothing would be produced, and any presumable gain of the one of us would be cancelled by corresponding losses to the others. We can only acquire so much as another $35,000 home built in 1963 for our $35,000 home built in 1963. But across the span of time from then to now, already we may have paid perhaps a million dollars for $35,000 of our own production — all of this in unearned gain to usury and exploitation.
COSTS UNDER MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY™
Under mathematically perfected economy™ on the other hand, we would have paid the producers of that home with no more than an equal measure of our own production. If all the while that home had a hundred-year lifespan, then overall, over all that time, under mathematically perfected economy™ we would have paid and would still be paying, $350 per year or $29.17 per month to repay the home's builder, who is the real creditor of the paper money we use.
Under mathematically perfected economy™, we pay for our production with equal measures of our production. If there were one or two or three years of quality labor in building that home which a few men erected in months, then after paying just that in our own labor, the home is paid for, merely for excluding usury from the equation.
Exploitation on the other hand is ruled out by the mere fact we can build or procure other homes so justly, because in preserving the value of money perpetually mathematically perfected economy™ never finances anything but to the extent of its depreciated value.
COSTS UNDER USURY
The generations which now advocate usury didn't want to do it that way. They didn't want to save and to preserve the value of their own savings to sustain themselves. They wanted posterity to pay not only for their present and future sustenance, but to pay however many further prices for the property they procured for far less; and they wanted posterity to pay whatever interest and further costs ensued for all of this, however further multiplied by usury.
What did they want; what did they get; and what did they leave us then for the price they so well settled?
Committed to usury at today's rates, that home would have cost them $239 in 1963 — more than 8 times what it would have cost them under mathematically perfected economy™; and thus itself ruling out the opportunity to save as would have sustained them through all their days, should the value of their money have been preserved as only mathematically perfected economy™ can preserve it.
Eventually sold to posterity for a million dollars today however, the monthly costs of servicing the usurious debt would be some $7,338 per month — more than 30 times the costs of usury in 1963; and some 252 times the costs of the home under mathematically perfected economy™.
HOW MUCH DID PERSONAL OR HOUSEHOLD INCOME INCREASE?
For all this to simply be relative, or just as it ever was, income must have increased accordingly.
A minimum wage wasn't established until 1968, but the approximate equivalent in 1963 would fall at approximately $1.25 per hour.
While the same U.S. Census Bureau data gives the 1963 median household income ($6,249) to be $35,177 in 2006 "dollars," without even citing how many "breadwinners" are required to generate what it reports to be 2006 median household income, the Census Bureau reports 2006 median household income to be $58,407. Thus granting all leeway to the benefit of the proponent of usury and the proposition usury costs us nothing over time ("all this is only relative"), taking the greatest expressed increase in median household income (however many "breadwinners" are required), determines an increase from $6,249 to $58,407.
In other words, while the number of required "breadwinners" long ago increased from 1 to [beyond] 2, the median income for a household increased 9.34 times, while the costs of the same, largely used home, increased more than 30 times, and while the original cost of the home will be paid for yet another 252 times, merely for usurers to absorb the costs of publishing the money.
So, here's your escalation of costs; and none of this is merely relative, or just as it ever was.
For it in fact, not only are we not better off at all, but because debt is obviously escalated in proportion to capacity to service debt, then unless further borrowing as is necessary to maintain the vital circulation can reverse the proportional multiplication of debt, the process is obviously terminal.
HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE THE USURER (CENTRAL BANK) TO RECOUP THEIR COSTS, ELIMINATING "RISK"?
The regularly cited justification for "interest" (usury) is purported risk.
Under each "financial" (usury) arrangement, as soon as the costs of publishing the money are recouped, the central bank breaks even. No further risk endures to the central bank; and all the rest is profit.
How long does it take to recoup these costs?
In 1975 it was reported that the costs of printing money was one tenth of a cent per bill, regardless of denomination. If the money is electronically accounted for, its costs may be virtually nothing.
Under the worst, most expensive or risk intensive possible case to the usurer then, to publish in dollar bills the maximum $35,000 we might have borrowed in 1963, the cost to the central bank of this money is $35.00.
At the rate of payment of $239 per month, it takes just 4 days to recoup these expenses and thus to eliminate all risk of loss. When the monetary obligation of $86,040 is "repaid" in full, the profit is $86,005; and thus for the sake of the claimed rectitude, the privatized monetary system realizes a profit of 2,457 times its costs or purported risks.
Similarly, to publish the maximum of $1,000,000 posterity is forced to borrow today, the maximum cost to the central bank (figured at 0.1 cents per $1 bill) is $1,000.00.
Likewise then, at the rate of payment of $7,338 per month, it takes just 4 days to recoup these expenses and eliminate all risk. When the monetary obligation of $2,641,680 is "repaid" in full, the profit is $2,640,680; and thus for the sake of the claimed rectitude, the privatized monetary system realizes a profit of 2,641 times its costs or purported risks.
WHAT IS "RELATIVE"?
By the time the money changers have been "repaid" just these two "financial" arrangements (there may be more entailed), the usurers have taken $2,726,685 of profit on original costs of $35.00, over what part of the lifespan of the home would instead have cost just $21,000 in 60 years of mathematically perfected economy™.
At the same time, at most the generation graced merely with the opportunity to sit at the Monopoly Board first might have taken $913,960 ($1,000,000 - $86,040) from posterity. Probably much less.
In 1963, even a minimum wage of $1.25/hr could readily have afforded the home under mathematically perfected economy™, as the annual income would be some 40 hours times 50 weeks, or $2,500, while the annual costs of the home would have been only $350.
To afford the same home to the same degree in 2008 with a minimum wage under usury, the minimum wage would have to be $314.49.
The minimum wage is $6.55.
The best shot at validating the proposition that the stress on however many further heads of household therefore is no more than it ever was, is the thirty-plus fold increase in monthly service costs from $239 to $7,338, which would require increasing the $6,249 median household income of 1963 to $191,863.
The same table gives 2006 median household income to be $58,407.
AT THE SAME TIME, LEAVING ITS DEBTS...
The chain of virtue cracked when no land was reserved, that posterity could only compete for it to the pleasure of exploitation, and when rather than rectifying usury, homes were sold first to some measure of legitimacy to recoup unjustifiable losses to money changers from their own progeny, rather than preventing them. The chain of virtue broke when exploitation became a custom, that even the costs of exploitation multiplied indebtedness ever after.
Advocates of unearned gain will never ask what happened here, because of course they did this. Today nonetheless, not necessarily of any further fault, many of those advocates collect from public programs such as Social Security or Medicare far more than they ever could have paid in.
We say at the same time that the national or federal debt is nearly ten trillion, which is to say nothing of the consequences to immensely greater, artificial private debt. Other public debt spreads the fact of insolubility even further, while to meet it state and local governments now scramble to sell public assets already paid for by the people many times over, to raise even more by charging them for their own possessions yet again and again.
Half the populace may have no better purpose or higher standard than ensuring posterity's demise, and the lies of the federal government and its usurpers indeed are many; but what made this country and even gave exploitation the opportunity to destroy it, was a vision of necessary rectitude none can deny.
One of those lies is the national debt. A decade ago it was claimed that a federal budget had been balanced. But there was no increase in tax rates or revenue, nor any such decrease in spending or costs which accounts for that claim.
The stink of it is, that Peter was robbed to pay Paul; and that in the intentionally corrupt accounts which explain everything from gold disappearing from our Treasury to Enron, there is as much as over a hundred trillion dollars of unfunded near term federal liabilities, resulting from robbed reserves for public programs, by which robbery it is simply not counted as what it is — debt.
If you divide one-hundred trillion dollars ($100,000,000,000,000) by three-hundred million people you just begin to touch upon the scope and magnitude of the crime. This comes to three-hundred-thirty-three-thousand, three-hundred-thirty-three dollars of federal debt per capita.
Depending how generations figure rectitude, that may mean that a child is born into this once free nation saddled with interest which will further multiply this debt only to failure, and yet we today compel them to owe an absolutely criminal $333,333 of just *our* federal debt.
If instead you account for this debt from its beginnings, holding each year of acquiescence accountable for what it accumulated, you determine a more striking and pertinent conclusion — that elders who have determined themselves to simply leave this debt to posterity, each owe millions instead.
Now tell me, what is the real fortune of the elder who sold the $35,000 home they built in 1963 for $1,000,000?
Let's see: the uppermost $913,960 they might have taken, less millions is?
If it is right to accumulate debt by such an unassented, redundant and destructive process, and if it is right to claim there is no multiplication, and if it is right to claim the escalation is only relative, then is it still not right for those who incurred so little to pay?
No. On the contrary, it never was right. Which is exactly why it is not right to condemn your own progeny to destruction.
The optimism printed on our schoolbook covers was not just a dream; nor was that dream altogether unrealized. Except for distribution of the rewards, it is a proven industrial reality. That industry was destroyed and those rewards were usurped by usury.
In a republic even temporarily usurped, but still existing at least as a body of law, usury is only perpetuated by irreverence. The disappearance every day of what was rightly possible yesterday; the present artificial accumulation of public and private debt; the corresponding disappearance of our industry; the artificial implausibility of restoring it; and the failure mounting everywhere about us under artificial, insoluble sums of debt... all these things were from their very beginnings sufficient warnings of terminal calamity. Yet to this very moment there are many who will judge not even to reject usury to retain exploitation, but as if the two were not even inseparable, to retain both.
Even as mathematically perfected economy™ would dissolve their debts and restore to them the savings they would have accumulated in their lifetimes, that is not enough for them.
The Preamble of our Constitution emphatically declares the foremost object of the People in its very first preposition. It tells us that what we have merely inherited was ordained "in order to form a more perfect union."
The Preamble does not pretend to have perfected a body of law or form of government; it tells us instead this is the foremost purpose of the form of government. That republic is lost already if monetary narcissism can preserve itself at the cost of the republic.
RELATED EXTERNAL ARTICLES
RELATED PRIMARY ARTICLES OR MATERIAL
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)
REFUTATION OF CONTROVERSIAL MONETARY PROPOSITIONS, REVIEW OF OTHER MATERIAL
REVERSE CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER
pfmpe[ at ]perfecteconomy[ dot ]com
Gross National Public Debt Clock
"National debt," perhaps better said to be "federal debt," refers only to public debt accumulated by the federal government. National debt does not include the even greater sum of private debt, or further public debt accumulated by state and local governments.
PER CAPITA, THE CURRENT FEDERAL PUBLIC DEBT COMES TO APPROXIMATELY THIRTY-THOUSAND DOLLARS.
FIGURED AT THE ROUGH SCALE USED BELOW TO DETERMINE RESPONSIBILITY FOR PRIVATE DEBT, THE AVERAGE FEDERAL DEBT WOULD BE ROUGHLY $93,750 PER ELDER ADULT MOST RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCUMULATION OF FEDERAL DEBT. BUT LIKE PRIVATE DEBT, THE UNDUE BURDENS OF THIS SHARE WILL SIMPLY BE SADDLED UPON YOUNGER GENERATIONS.
PER CAPITA U.S. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE DEBT
Estimates of the sum of private and public U.S. debt together, accounting for potential Social Security and Medicare liabilities as of November, 2007, run as much as more than $96 trillion; or $320,000 per capita even for infants; OR AN AVERAGE OF ROUGHLY HALF A MILLION DOLLARS PER ADULT.
THIS EQUATES TO ROUGHLY $1 MILLION PER ELDER ADULT, MOST RESPONSIBLE FOR ENGENDERING THIS DEBT.
TO ADD THIS PAGE TO YOUR BOOKMARKS OR FAVORITES...
BOOKMARKS > BOOKMARK THIS PAGE
TO MAKE THIS PAGE YOUR BROWSER'S HOME PAGE...
TOOLS > OPTIONS...
SPREAD THE WORD!
PEOPLE MAY NEVER COME HERE UNLESS YOU RECOMMEND THIS MATERIAL!
TO SEND THIS PAGE AS A LINK OR PAGE...
FILE > SEND...
CLICK THE COPY-TO-CLIPBOARD TOOLS TO...
COPY THE URL TO THIS PAGE:
COPY THE HTML CODE FOR AN ANCHOR TO THIS PAGE:
COPY THE HTML CODE FOR AN ANCHOR TO OUR HOME PAGE:
PLEASE SUPPORT PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™!
PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™ is the original and only bona fide solution to the world's imposed, falsified economic systems. On November 7, 1998, tens of thousands of voters designated PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™ a Starting Point HOT SITE. Since the early 1990s, even while subject to extensive imitation and plagiarism, we have served up to hundreds of thousands of visitors per month, from all parts of the world.
DONATIONS FROM JANUARY 1979 TO APRIL 2008, $0.00!!! My great appreciation to Max Demarzi and I Young, who have since donated $100 and $50 respectively. You know, $1, $2, $3 is cool. If everybody did that, we wouldn't have any trouble at all maintaining this effort !
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.
SEARCH PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™