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.
WHAT IS USURY? WHY PURGE THE ORIGINAL DEFINITION OF USURY FROM HISTORY?
WORDS OF CHRIST ACCORDING TO THE GOSPEL OF LUKE, CH 6 (KJ)
34 And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive [more than you have loaned], what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. [to take the multiplication of their debt]
35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again [hoping for no more than you have loaned]; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.
36 Take no usury or interest; and fear your God, that your brother may live at peace with you.
"When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket, and then that society vanishes in a spread of ruins and slaughter. Do you wish to know whether that day is coming?
Watch Money. Money is a barometer of a society's virtue.
When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion — when you see that in order to produce, you need permission from men who produce nothing — when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors — when you see men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you — when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice — you may know that our society is doomed.
Money is so noble a medium that it does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot. Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection, and the base of a moral existence."
JOHN KENNETH GALBRAITH
In economics, the majority are always wrong. The study of money, above all other fields, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it.
"The end of democracy and defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of the lending institutions and moneyed incorporations."
If the American people ever allow banks to issue their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation [by having to maintain a vital circulation by perpetually re-borrowing principal and interest as subsequent sums of debt, increased perpetually so much as periodic interest], the banks and [bank owned] corporations which will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.
Joseph M. Goebbels
"The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State."
Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it.
To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker, but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all.
WHY PURGE THE ORIGINAL DEFINITION OF USURY FROM HISTORY?
"Usury" is forbidden to all 3 major religions of the world; and whether according to truth or man's purposed deceptions, the implications of either the distinguishable or undistinguished meanings of the terms "interest" and "usury" are critical to world peace, justice, and prosperity, because an obvious effort has existed across the world to impose purported monetary systems ostensibly justified by transformation of the term "interest," versus public assent.
A sufficient testament to this crucial subversion is the purposed morphing of the term interest in works as diverse as public dictionaries and recent purported translations of scripture. That is, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (in chronological order), all derive from the Old Testament, in which a scattering of commandments forbid the practice of usury. Islam, in its further works is perhaps the most strictly compulsive in its observation of these commandments, because whereas Christ teaches observation moreso as the singular voluntary road of virtue, in Islam the law is to be enforced, as both the taking and paying of riba are strictly forbidden.
One of course can wonder then how it can be possible to have a truly self determined Islamic country subjected to a central banking system in which interest or usury is integral. In fact we can deduce instead that rather even than a product of public determination, the forbiddance of interest/usury would necessarily be an irreversible constitutional feature of an Islamic nation. Of course, if the nation is truly self determined, this question would be a most prominent feature of an agenda accommodating what issues the people would want to decide.
Similarly, in the fuller anti-observational manifestation of political ostracism carried out before and since, Christ of course was slain but days after his famous demonstration at the Temple of the Money Changers, where the usurpation and connected deeds of usury were openly practiced even in a temple. Although there is an Old Testament passage which evidently has been construed to tolerate practicing usury against enemies, that mere, perhaps perverse or biased interpretation of the expression can be taken by the more prevalent evidence, as well as empirical and even theoretical practice, to be in conflict with the whole thrust of the remainder of scripture, for where interest or usury are imposed, there is neither peace nor justice.
So this controversy is both central and counter-omnipotent, in a world where no subject nation has assented to usury, where it is not even possible to volunteer involuntary servitude, and where no intelligent public would ever condemn itself to a process which is inherently obstructive and even terminal to all the objects it might have.
As "interest" is a lesser recognized equivalent of "usury" in earlier translations/interpretations of scripture, thus to perpetrate a facade that interest is distinguished in its effects from usury, a long term effort evident in dictionaries, biblical texts, recent bodies of law or regulation and so forth, attempts to excuse interest by revision of its definition, former equivalent context, and inferential usage.
The assumable intent of these revisions of course would be to soften the previous equivalent criminality of interest in scripture, that an ostensibly distinguished "interest" can be assumed to be tolerable to ostensible observation of religious principle by the unassenting subjects upon whom interest is imposed.
Imagine who would have the resources and purpose to orchestrate and proliferate such a thing. Or can this work be a truly independent manifestation of advancing/evolving understanding?
FORMAL DEFINITION OF USURY (1967); RELEVANCE OF THE ORDER OF DEFINITIONS
Said transformations can be understood for example from first stepping back to Webster's 1967 Seventh Collegiate Dictionary, which defines usury and clearly explains the order of presented definitions:
"In general, the order of definitions follows the practice of the Third New International, where the earliest ascertainable meaning is placed first and later meanings are arranged in the order shown to be most probable by dated citations and semantic development. This arrangement applies alike to all meanings whether standard, technical..." (etc.).
usury 1 archaic : [original, archaic] INTEREST 2 : [original, formal] The lending of money with an interest charge for its use 3 : [later re-definition] an unconscionable or exorbitant rate OR AMOUNT of interest : specif : interest in excess of a legal rate [or an unconscionable or exorbitant AMOUNT of interest] charged to a borrower for the use of money.
So here in the very dictionary we see an actual chronology of the purposed morphing of the term. In other words, according to the oldest (archaic/traditional/biblical) definitions, (1 and 2), interest and usury are equivalent. There is no difference. The terms are interchangeable, except perhaps for the inferred or characteristic usage, where usury might as well apply too to the broader effects even of a monetary system subject to interest, whereas interest might customarily apply more narrowly to the specific unearned gain attached to money under whatever conditions deprive a populace otherwise of necessary "finance" — in other words the further circulation necessary to sustain further endeavors.
CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE USURY/INTEREST CAN BE IMPOSED
As we have shown, unless new money comes into circulation to sustain new production, and unless the new money (alternatively, "finance") and only so much as the new money is paid out of circulation at the rate of consumption of the related production, inflation or deflation are engendered, and the costs of production are inappropriate.
The essential nature of "money" therefore (as it exists in virtually any practical system), is a debt; and thus any practical circulation is effectively comprised of our promises to eventually pay each other for new production.
Usury, or a monetary system subject to interest therefore, exists only by depriving its subjects of the alternative to issue its promises to pay each other, without cost imposed by an extrinsic party, which provides in fact nothing to the transaction, or even the potential to perform the transaction.
In the contrary case of mathematically perfected economy™, there is no such deprivation of the opportunity to pursue our natural objectives by issuing our own promises to pay, because effectively the people are free to take on promises to pay, certified and bound by a process applied equally to all, and which guarantees an economy free of all the irregularities imposed by interest or usury.
So in the first place, usury or interest exists by the facade of risk and denial of a proper currency, while if there were risk it is imposed by the destruction of credit-worthiness by interest itself; and yet there is no real risk whatever to the producers of the money, because the usurer publishes our promises to pay each other at virtually no cost whatever.
So the purported justification of interest is merely a further instance of purposed disinformative revision if the subject re-definitions fail to openly weigh all the involved matters, that we can even understand that interest and usury are truly distinguished by a tangible demarcation sufficient to establish that "interest" is truly "legal" in terms of providing representation.
Essentially therefore, the required arguments must rule out the proposition that the promise of one man to another can be made usefully, without subjecting between the two to the unearned profit of yet a third who neither provides nor risks anything, but writing the promise of the first to the second.
It is in itself contradictory then to presume that there is some legitimate amount or rate, for if it is legitimate to do so, why is it not legitimate to do so a lot or a little?
The first essential question of usury or interest therefore is the principle, for only if the relationship between the first and second are legitimized by the interceding of the third, can we possibly legitimize some ostensible extent at which to do so.
Because the third provides nothing to the first and second they cannot provide themselves without cost, there is no veritable argument at all then that the third provides a vital service; and particularly there is no veritable argument that purported vital service justifies a process which, all the faster by ostensible "usury," or all the slower by ostensible "interest," can only inherently and irreversibly multiply debt into a terminal sum of artificial debt, all for the sake of unearned gain.
SO IS THERE EVEN AN APPRECIABLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN USURY AND INTEREST WHICH DISTINGUISHES THE ULTIMATE EFFECTS OF THE ONE FROM THE OTHER?
But further to the point of whether "interest" or usury and their effects are different, even according to interpretation of the unexplained advent of the later definition (3), if "interest" produces an obligation to pay an unconscionable or exorbitant AMOUNT of interest, then interest is usurious — and therefore is indifferent from usury, despite the ostensible legitimacy of legality.
If the detrimental effects of usury which (conspicuously) are not even raised in the definition are distinguishable from interest then, it is absolutely imperative to be able to demonstrate that rates of interest do not generate unconscionable or exorbitant amounts of interest.
This however we cannot do, because any rate of interest multiplies debt in proportion to a circulation; and therefore, any rate of interest ultimately engenders such a sum of artificial debt that the periodic interest is indeed even so unconscionable and exorbitant that the subject commerce will even collapse under the weight of that unjustified debt.
Only the absence of interest does not multiply debt in proportion to the circulation.
IT IS MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE THEREFORE TO ESTABLISH "A LEGAL RATE" OF INTEREST
It is mathematically impossible therefore to establish a truly "legal" rate of interest, because any rate of interest can neither represent or serve the objects of the people. The inference is simply part of the intended facade.
HOW AGGRESSIVELY AND PERVASIVELY ARE RESOURCES BEING REVISED TO CONDONE USURY UNDER THE FACADE OF OSTENSIBLY LEGITIMIZED RATES OF "INTEREST?"
EZEKIEL 22 — JERUSALEM'S SINS
12 In you men accept bribes to shed blood; you take usury and excessive interest [a] and make unjust gain from your neighbors by extortion. And you have forgotten me, declares the Sovereign LORD.
The cited revision of the Old Testament above relates a forbidden behavior to excessive interest.
The word "excessive" however has recently been introduced to the re-translation; and so only if we refer to a footnote [a] can we return toward the actual translation/meaning:
a. Or usury and interest.
Where does the word "excessive" come from, particularly if there wasn't even an equivalent term for the word "interest," and either usury or interest could only be deduced from the metaphors which originally comprised the expressions?
Here is an even earlier translation of the same paragraph of Ezekiel 22:
12 In thee have they taken gifts to shed blood; thou hast taken usury and increase, and thou has greedily gained of thy neighbours by extortion, and hast forgotten me, saith the Lord God.
Here we see the metaphor carried forth. Thus "increase" was interpreted all the while to apply to what we understand to be interest/usury.
Interest therefore is usury; and because either comprise irreversible processes to but one inevitable state of dispossession, interest too is always usurious.
"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™