WHY RON PAUL AND EDWIN VIEIRA HAVE FAILED TO DELIVER SOLUTION

ONE YEAR OF PERMANENT PROSPERITY In the wake of a party platform which explicitly declared that if they were returned to power by the 1912 election the Democrats would not create a central bank, within the very first year of the Wilson presidency the people were betrayed by 1913's creation of the very thing they had voted down. The dark history surrounding that event is well enough known; and yet it is not even necessary to know of it to understand the potentials, vulnerabilities and consequences of the issues at play. But because interest is even the only intrinsic process introduced by the imposed system, we know then that the very purpose of the private entities which were so carefully cloaked in the guise of federal offices was to multiply debt upon us for unlimited profit, come whatever may. The purpose of the so called Federal Reserve System then was only that a currency subject to interest would require us to perpetually maintain a vital circulation by re-borrowing interest and principal as ever escalating debt. Thus even by reducing availability of the perpetual stream of credit which is necessary to perpetually replenish the circulation, the pretended monetary system was inadvertently given the further power to impose immediate collapse by deflation. The so called Federal Reserve could withhold credit or make credit unaffordably expensive to deflate the circulation. So by this ready, facile power of deflation, the parasitic entity could take direct possession of vast indebted assets, as debtors deprived of a vital circulation could only fail to service their debts. As the day unfolded, because there are no other reasons or purposes, this would be how and why they would perpetrate the first so called Great Depression. The private so called Federal Reserve Banks therefore took this place at the core of the nation with the very purpose of unearned profit by these means — the very license to which then is to lift all ethical restraints from their fundamental opposition to any and every society which tolerates usurers to issue their currency. The very deceptive name of this enmical, parasitic entity then is a practically necessary part of an incredible, purposed deception; and the only possible real purpose of all this is as much as to cast the nation to the fate not only of illimitable unearned taking from it, but terminal taking by a currency which can only multiply said consequences to no effect whatever but eventual collapse. The stock/"securities" market bubble of the 1920s of course was the same kind of thing we see today. It was only a false manipulation of ostensible value, accomplished by aggressive short term lending to debtors, drawing them in to the allure of buying and selling "securities" again and again at ever higher prices than the original purchase. If these private "banks" did not already own the subject property, an obvious and very evident purpose of course would be that this false manipulation of value could soon be terminated by withholding the vital further credit necessary to service the debts of the false bubble itself. The related circulation would thus deflate, and the "banks" would immediately become the real owners of the contested property. Thus amidst the false bubble of an ostensible stock market boom comprised merely of liberally free, unjustifiable masses of credit, Republican presidential candidate Herbert Hoover promised permanent prosperity: "We have not yet reached the goal, but given a chance to go forward with the policies of the last eight years, and we shall soon, with the help of God, be within sight of the day when poverty will be banished from the nation." So said Herbert Hoover in his speech accepting the Republican nomination for President on August 12, 1928, a mere year before the private so called Federal Reserve Banks would cease the credit to sustain servicing their false bubble's debts, thus orchestrating their intended multiplication of debt into a mass take, a coup de grace at the imposed end of the first 15-year lifespan of their system of usury in an event we now merely call the First Great Depression. Thus with a terminology either intentionally cloaking cause or leaving cause to mystics, we strip this very man made, man caused, man sought, wholly artificial event of a name which would even allude to its necessarily iniquitous nature. And so to mere unwarranted hopes of equally or even more hapless and inept supporters, Herbert Hoover registered one of the most preposterous, indelible lies of history. And so furthermore, as is the case for any political quest which ignores or does not solve the real causes of whatever issues face us, the rest of the country and world, however impertinent, would suffer with them, only to one day many years off, merely re-commence the march to inevitable failure in the end of a second inherently limited lifespan of the very same iniquitous system — a system now proven, and in fact even then proven, to have one consequence only. Hoover spoke for most middle-class people. They only thought the American dream of unlimited plenty was close to fulfillment. The huge industrial machine which had begun building up during the Civil War had reached fantastic heights of mass production. Assembly lines poured out products by the millions, while advertising stimulated the consumer to buy them. From privy, ice-box, and buggy the country moved almost overnight into the New Era of bathrooms, electric refrigerators and automobiles. Washing machines, vacuum cleaners and telephones promised to make life easier and more convenient. Homemade amusements gave way to radio and the movies. American business and American salesmanship had in fact put the nation aboard an express train rushing toward permanent prosperity, but the permanence of the prosperity which indeed we would have achieved otherwise itself hinged on the sustainability and propriety of the monetary system to which it was subject. Failing to understand the facade of a monetary system which had been imposed upon them, they never dreamed the inertia of their train could be stopped by withholding credit. They never dreamed that their interdependence in fulfilling the multiplying obligations imposed upon them itself meant that over night, the withholding of credit even in one critical sector would bring the rest down like a house of cards. Nonetheless, a little careful study would have made all that so clear that a national union would have existed which not only understood and foresaw these probable calamities, but recognized how serious it indeed remains that we unite upon nothing less than absolute solution.

Saturday, April 26, 2008

WHY RON PAUL AND EDWIN VIEIRA HAVE FAILED TO DELIVER SOLUTION

Why does Ron Paul (seemingly "of all people?") refuse to answer to mathematically perfected economy™?

Behind every unfolding political matter are reasons; and to get to those reasons, there are the questions and common thinking which discover whatever we need to know if we are to accomplish what we need to accomplish.

We know that Ron Paul and his own said purported "nation's top expert on constitutional money," Edwin Vieira, advocate a return to the gold standard. We know that Ron Paul advocates the "Austrian school" of "economic" thinking. We know that "Austrian economists" advocate interest. We know even that "Austrian economists" regularly reject the application of mathematics to analyses of "economic" phenomena — simply and even routinely dismissing even the whole of material such as this, saying uniformly that mathematics cannot predict human behavior when in fact it is a requisite behavior and even an unavoidable behavior in which a subject populace is compelled to maintain a circulation subject to the processes which indeed and nonetheless produce the present ramifications.

And so nonetheless, no matter how hard we look or try ourselves to fill in the blanks, nowhere does history or the minuscule, unqualified assertions offered up by Mr. Paul or Mr. Vieira show us how the gold standard will relieve us of all the calamities it never protected us from in the first place.

The issue behind the present unfolding political matter therefore is simple:

We absolutely agree that we should dissolve the so called Federal Reserve System and its many redundant satellites; and we absolutely agree that the Constitution must be respected without exception as the supreme law of the land, because a country whose government operates without absolute, unexcepted respect for the people's law, which very law is intended to bind their government to serve them... is itself a country whose government paves its own way for abuse upon abuse, all of which amount to denial of representation.

But I absolutely dispute that a return to the gold standard solves our issues, or accounts for such ominous questions as how to resolve or prevent collapse under our mounting artificial debt; and so the present issue becomes one of which of the two of us, if not both, intend to deny the people due accountability, and the representation to which the whole spirit of the Constitution is dedicated.

The prospect of near term collapse which Mr. Paul seems loosely to agree with itself leaves no leeway for false steps, or incremental steps ostensibly toward solution, even if someone were to advocate we could or should be served by such a thing; and so I remind Mr. Paul and his followers then that the founding fathers themselves not only argued over these faults, but never produced a proof of solution which would lay the present situations to rest.

Therefore I believe unless Mr. Paul's unqualified assertions deserve to stand even above Jefferson, who himself advocated that we recognize those faults and solve them, that we engage in the fruitful dialog which produces that solution. After all, neither has Mr. Paul produced a proof of solution as embodied by the present work.

Having exhausted years attempting to raise such a discussion with Dr. Paul, I am forced to raise my arguments only against his assertions. It was not my choice to do so; Mr. Paul's long-standing silence leaves no other option.

A *FLOOD* OF INVESTMENT?

A return to the gold standard of course has no power whatever to arrest multiplication of debt in proportion to the circulation if the subject system tolerates coexistence with interest. Thus not only does gold then embody no power whatever to relieve us of the destructions of usury, gold, like all other subject property, is even subject to disappearance as an inevitable consequence of usury.

These considerations of course make the issue of "interest" exceedingly important on this count alone, because interest itself would make it impossible even to sustain a purported gold standard.

But nor can gold sustain industry, production or prosperity requiring a circulation above available quantities of monetary gold. Prices committed under existing conditions for instance cannot simply fall that already committed portions of the finite circulation of the gold standard can sustain further necessary industry. Suppose just for instance that everyone saved their gold or a currency representing it; how then would it be possible to sustain the further industry to build new homes, or to conduct further trade by currency?

There would be no available currency, nor any legitimate way of introducing further currency, to sustain that desirable further industry.

The fixed circulation itself then inherently engenders inflation and deflation as the quantities of industry, production or prosperity vacillate independently from the relatively fixed circulation.

And so the real question is why would politicians or political zealots tell us otherwise?

What fictitious carrots will they or will they not even dangle before a country made fools by unqualified propositions which cannot serve us?

We don't have to look far for examples of such dubious promotion, for the necessary sites of the potential transgressions are linked directly to the bills Mr. Paul and Mr. Vieira themselves promote:

So says moneyfiles.org, which promotes the private, profit making currency business supported by Ron Paul and his favorite expert of that cause, Edwin Vieira.

Even perhaps more peculiarly it seems, the site appears to promote their own proposition by way of citing an article referring to their very own unqualified recommendation!

Is it possible or probable then that no other credible analysis would support this potentially fictitious claim?

So suppose we were to abide by the ostensible virtues of a circulation comprised of finite quantities of gold, which purportedly furnishes us the monetary aspects we need: Where then even would the "flood of investment" come from but the finite circulation which, necessarily, may already be committed to something else?

Why would advocates of the gold standard even look to further sources for "investment" (much less promote their appearance from elsewhere as an advantage of gold), but that the adversely restrictive circulation of the gold standard itself precludes vital financing from the critical lack thereof, within the principal, advocated monetary system?

If gold were such a useful currency as they evidently want to tell us then, would we not seek to praise gold instead for the fact the gold itself provided every necessary, useful, and perfect way to finance all necessary commerce?

Thus the very carrot bespeaks of the critical defects of the very thing they advocate.

Worse possibly, is this further *private* "investment" perpetrated by the denial of financing not to be subject to "interest"?

We know that "Austrian economists" advocate interest. We also know that Ron Paul has advocated "competing" currencies, even as *any* singular currency not explicitly established by Congress is itself unconstitutional. Without assuring us otherwise, certainly the proposition of competing currencies even possibly asserts that currencies should be tolerated to pursue and even to change "competitive" standards, rather than to adhere to the principles which the singular standard of mathematically perfected economy™ already establishes solves all the questions of which we presently ask.

How deviating from the one standard which serves us is possibly to our advantage, Mr. Paul does not tell us either.

But then if his competing currencies are to coexist with interest, not only is a return to the gold standard to ensure the same fate as the system he cries out against, their proposition thus further ensures we shall lose our gold to usurers as well.

So Mr. Paul's steering clear of the one prescription which solves inflation and deflation, systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and inherent multiplication of debt is quite conspicuous.

Because most of our differences are already addressed by this introduction, and because this introduction raises the specter of such sufficient potential faults as should compel responsible people to engage in this discussion, in the table below I respond only to one of Mr. Paul's assertions which allows me to summarize and cover some remaining ground.

RELATED PRIMARY ARTICLES

1. Wikiquote (source of Ron Paul statement below)

RON PAUL Paper Money and Tyranny, September 5, 2003 (according to Wikiquote) A paper monetary standard means there are no restraints on the printing press or on federal deficits. In 1971, M3 was $776 billion; today it stands at $8.9 trillion, an 1100% increase. Our national debt in 1971 was $408 billion; today it stands at $6.8 trillion, a 1600% increase. Since that time, our dollar has lost almost 80% of its purchasing power. Common sense tells us that this process is not sustainable and something has to give. So far, no one in Washington seems interested.

mike montagne THE PHYSICAL MATERIAL "THE MONEY" IS MADE OF IS NOT THE ISSUE "A paper monetary standard means there are no restraints on the printing press or on federal deficits." (?) Ron Paul Well of course, there would be no restraint on the issuance of money, if without restraint Congress gave up the people's right and authority to issue currency... and particularly if without imposing any restraint they gave it to private corporations which multiply unearned *takings* from us by how much "money" subject to interest they can get into circulation! It doesn't get any more simple or obvious than that. The lack of restraints however has nothing whatever to do with the material the money is made of. There are no restraints because Congress never conceived of any, and because Congress never imposed any. Period. What does the material of which the money is made have anything to do with that? But is the avalanche of circulation either then because *some of it* is made of paper, or electro-magnetic signatures, or any particular thing whatever? Or is the avalanche of circulation itself because interest multiplies debt and requires us even to replenish the circulation at an ever escalating rate, merely so that we can service the artificial multiplication of debt? It was this very intention of the system therefore which required the lack of restraints, Mr. Paul. Furthermore, perpetual deflation of the circulation by interest is the very reason that under usury, restraints cannot be imposed without engendering failure by deflation. Plainly and obviously then Mr. Paul, we can never impose the restraints we need until we eradicate interest. But mathematically perfected economy™ already imposes your desired restraints both upon the creation and retirement of circulation,, because mathematically perfected economy™ alone both introduces what new circulation and only so much new circulation as new production, and furthermore retires every penny of the related circulation as the production is consumed. It is literally impossible therefore to suffer inflation and deflation or manipulation of the value of money under mathematically perfected economy™, because this prescription alone maintains a circulation which at all times is equivalent to the remaining value of every iota of wealth the circulation is intended to represent. Moreover, by this prescription alone too, is the currency *therefore* *always* redeemable in the very things of value it is intended to represent. These things are not even possible under the gold standard. FAULTS OF THE GOLD STANDARD WHICH CONGRESS MUST PERCEIVE IF CONGRESS IS TO AVERT FAILURE Only the improprieties of Congress then explain the lack of restraints you cry out for, but do not even prescribe yourself. You steer us instead you say toward the gold standard, which has no power to arrest multiplication of debt by interest; and cannot therefore avert collapse so long as you intend that standard to coexist with interest. So you won't solve multiplication of debt; but will you solve any other issue either? Absolutely not; and I'll tell you why: You will not solve inflation and deflation, because, particularly if production or wealth exceeds the quantity of monetary gold, you cannot maintain a circulation which is equal to the value of production; and therefore, as Benjamin Franklin observed, your golden currency will never even achieve its purported objective of consistent value. Even your Austrian School "economist" colleagues advocate a law of scarcity governing perceived (or coercive) "value." Thus as production exceeds monetary gold, according to your own assertions this would drive the cost/value of gold (or thus money) upward. Your dream evidently is that the finite quantity of gold prevents us from making abusive administrative mistakes, where merely because "we" have neglected to answer for these issues, we have no principle or process which maintains a circulation which is always equal to the wealth it is intended to represent (consistently). You say that government cannot regulate the value of money, even as it is government's responsibility under the Constitution to do so; and even as mathematically perfected economy™ demonstrates not only exactly how to do so, but there is one and one way only to do so. But so, failing yourself to realize how a system of paying for our industry as we consume of it will automatically regulate the circulation so as maintains the value of money, and failing further to realize there is one and one way only to do so, you simply give up the concept of regulation to the finite quantity of gold and dismiss the fact there are any detrimental consequences of that whatsoever? By definition, mathematically perfected economy™ is the only solution to inflation and deflation Mr. Paul; and that is to maintain a circulation which is always equal to the remaining value of the assets which it represents: Debts issued to sustain new production therefore must be paid off at the rate of consumption in order to solve inflation and deflation. The rest of the potential offenses of a monetary system can be classified as manipulation of the cost or value of money or property; and as these manipulations are presently manifested through any possible combination of inflation, deflation, and/or consequence of interest... neither then can you possibly solve injurious manipulation of the cost or value of money or property because again, only mathematically perfected economy™ does so. Thus if the Congressional branch of government cannot devise necessary restraints, or simply claims they cannot exist, this only emphasizes that the Congressional branch of government does not understand or refuses its responsibility. What principle obstructs you from devising the right restraint? Why can't a paper money be subject to constraints? Explicit constraints are imposed by mathematically perfected economy™. What's wrong with those restraints? In fact, what is even imperfect about them? FEDERAL DEFICITS Federal deficits are likewise your responsibility in Congress, and likewise can be managed under paper money as well as they can under any other material. In fact if you and the Congressional branch of government — who are responsible for this mess, and who have never one of you made a valid effort to clean it up — had ever recognized that interest makes the necessary restraints impossible, and if you had thus eradicated interest, not only would not a penny of interest ever have been paid against federal expenses... multiplication of private debt would not have made it impossible for those who have incurred (and should pay those) federal expenses to pay them. If you in Congress had meant to purposely divide our nation then you couldn't have done it better, because while this iniquitous system treads its way to near term collapse, you give one earlier generation the unjust power to benefit relatively from injustice, and pass all that criminal, massive injustice off on their very progeny. Yet even today we can see those mounting debts can never be paid. So what you ask of those who inherit this nation is impossible; and you therefore condemn them to destruction under this irreversibly mounting debt. FEDERAL INTEREST IN THESE ISSUES While it is certainly incredibly irresponsible that no one in Washington is sufficiently interested in this matter, your constant claim against "creating money out of thin air" fails to identify cause. Neither however does your advocation of the gold standard make any reasonable sense in terms of solution. The only thing that makes you more responsible than your colleagues is that you smell a problem. That's hardly sufficient to raise relevant interest among the walking dead. Don't you realize that the arguments of mathematically perfected economy™ nonetheless can effectively force the dead into action? Don't you realize that the arguments of mathematically perfected economy™ even distinguish definitively who represents us? Well even if not, you certainly have left even your constituents in the dark as to the possibility and path of transitioning to a gold standard, or how a nation which has been made by your colleagues ineptitude the most indebted nation in the world, will even retain its gold, particularly as subject to further usury, if we did so. WHAT ARE THE REAL ISSUES? Even if your dreaded paper money only represented the wealth for which it is created, that alone keeps us from issuing more than we have wealth to represent. If we pay for the wealth as we consume of it, then not only do we have the restraint you merely say does not exist; we have the one and one only prescription for circulating money which always will sustain all wealth and industry... never multiplying debt... never engendering inflation or deflation... and thus never imposing any systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property whatever. It is the interest and improprieties of the schedule of payment which are the cause of all the issues — not the conducive cost of the currency, or an excessive circulation which does not even exist. The sky is not falling "because we created money out of thin air." The sky is falling because 1) when you hold in your hand "a dollar," it actually represents a *dynamically* *multiplying* obligation to pay... and because 2) that *eventually impossible* obligation to pay is *already* so incredibly far much greater than the wealth most of us hope that false dollar could otherwise represent. The purported "confidence" in "the dollar" therefore ultimately tumbles because there was no real basis for "confidence" in the first place. The lie of the false dollar was always a deception; and it was never the inexpensiveness of the lie which hurt us. The sky is falling instead because of the inevitable ramifications of a purposed process, which in fact was the original, principal intended object of a privatized currency. From the very beginning, the issue — and the only distinguishing process even — was "interest."

SUMMARY

Given the gravity of the long developing situation, and the elementary proposition that mathematically perfected economy™ alone solves 1) inflation and deflation, 2) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and 3) inherent multiplication of debt by interest, I think it incredibly reckless and irresponsible not only that Mr. Paul persists in his evasion of mathematically perfected economy™, but that he continues to suggest that anything else answers our wishes.

But I do hope supporters return the Republican Party from its hijacking to true fiscal responsibility and a breadth of other dispositions held dear by the founders, because in respect to the present issue at least, paper, electronic signature or whatever, it is not the material of money or the purported issue of "fiat" which meets us with destruction — it is the singular principle of true fiscal responsibility which can save us.

Obviously enough then I hope, it is not a return to the principles of the founders to which I object; rather it is a truly comprehensive return to those principles which I encourage. In short, and as even Thomas Jefferson told us, there was work left undone which requires a return to the nursery of intellectual development which fostered this country.

In other words yet, our nation and republican form of government was fostered neither by evasion, unanswered questions of accountability, or mere unqualified counter-claim — and so it is the extremes from these things which we must *all* revisit if we are to find the way again.

EDWIN VIEIRA

I have wasted much of the past year evidently attempting to connect with Ron Paul. Somewhere, somehow, someone has not only cut my work off, but done so in what I consider the most inconsiderate and irresponsible fashion, because I have even repeatedly asked for something, anything from the top, however simple, impolite, to the point, just at least so that I might know that any of my many repeated appeals have even reached Mr. Paul. I have been denied even the coarsest answer this minimal request requires.

Who and how the many appeals have been met by silence matters not as much probably as why, because it is the potentially dark reason for this silence which arrests solution.

If Mr. Paul bothered to qualify his proposed solution, we would know why with certainty. But as he only asserts that "creating money out of thin air" is our problem, we must look for the who of our controversy to extrapolate the why. In his press release announcing his so called honest money act, Mr. Paul himself names his top expert; and the man he names in fact is quite familiar with my work:

This statement is incredible on a handful of grounds.

In the first place, to claim expertise in "constitutional money" is only to claim mastery of the known faults of a single clause of the Constitution which states that *only* Congress shall issue money or regulate the value thereof.

Mr. Paul purportedly advocates returning to the Constitution. But without even a constitutional amendment, Mr. Vieira is involved in authoring various state bills which attempt for states to lay claim to independent powers to issue or utilize gold currency potentially even produced by private, profit making ventures.

We have the elementary further fact that the needs of the country are served by a uniform national currency bound to a singular representative principle. Essentially then too, that uniformity is abandoned by the very principle of "competition" Mr. Paul advocates, and the very departure from constitutional norm Mr. Vieira's bills advocate (even as he is not even a state representative).

In the name of constitutionality only then, Mr. Vieira is thus advocating potential violations of the Constitution, which is the claimed area of expertise; and in these potential violations of constitutionality, the states, or even private entities beyond the very intended realm of government (as in the so called Federal Reserve System), are to be allowed to issue independent and even different and even perhaps transforming currencies — for unless there are such differences there is not even any of the proposed competition, and unless there were multiple principles which provide desired properties and regulation to a currency, and unless there is some undefined natural process which yet determines that the "competing" currencies Mr. Paul proposes arrive at the one principle which serves us, certainly all this is no more at best than a pretension of rectitude.

So we have by this purported constitutional expertise, potentially various principles operating outside of and despite the Constitution, not only without even ascertaining the desirable principles, but ignoring the potential facts they may already be achieved in mathematically perfected economy™.

No real binding principles are even declared, or necessarily, they would concur with the very proposition of mathematically perfected economy™ to which Mr. Paul and Mr. Vieira will not answer. Not surprisingly then, the very subject legislatures have rejected those bills because Mr. Vieira, despite having a willing audience, has never convinced any real authority that the bills have the slightest chance of accomplishing any real purpose:

Instead of abiding by the Constitution, the principles, ostensible value, and even the extent of issuance of the different unconstitutional monies are altogether to be determined outside the realm of representative government, ostensibly by "markets" which themselves are not even clearly defined.

This in fact appears to be mighty reckless, unconstitutional stuff.

Whatever makes all the related propositions matters of "expertise" then hinges on the dubious validity of the remainder of the assertion.

But how in fact is it that "markets" serve us rather than prey upon us — or that the undefined "markets" even need to determine what serves us beyond our singular prescription for solving inflation, deflation, systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and inherent multiplication of debt by interest?

By what *possible* superior principles then can or do markets better determine the quality and quantity of money that's being used?

Even the quality of the material of which the tokens are made has nothing to do with any of these inherent objectives of a monetary system, or true free enterprise.

Why then, the propriety of all this is impossible.

On the contrary, what Mr. Paul calls a free market in fact itself merely has no reasonable restriction whatever attached to it. He does not make such restraints known; and as we know, what it is that makes "free markets" function efficiently and fairly as Mr. Vieira says, is that the last grain of rice can be purchased for unearned profit, taken on the very consequence that the very people who produced the rice can be made to starve.

So Mr. Paul and Mr. Vieira pronounce that their gold will perform impossible miracles:

We can in fact already trade in gold and silver. If there's such advantage to trading in gold and silver, why aren't people just doing it?

Since Mr. Vieira first visited my pages, he became an admitted self taught expert; and his site and further materials have taken strikingly similar facets, including predicting failure and giving attention to biblical interpretation of usury (in which I have a distinct previous interest). Here in 2008 for instance, moneyfiles.org claims to be "Tracking The World Great Depression Of 2005."

Curiously, there's no explanation why the year 2005 is given, what the method of prediction was, or what the process of collapse is.

Perhaps they couldn't think of another one.

A further interesting thing however is that the email address to contact moneyfiles.org is interest_free_money at juno.com. I wrote from a non-pfmpe address asking if they were the authors of this idea of interest free money?

As in my many polite appeals to Mr. Paul, I received no answer.

So now we have this article, in the interest of understanding all these things.

RELATED PRIMARY ARTICLES

3. [ KEY ]  ABOUT INTEREST, KEY TO THE CYCLE OF USURY: 'IT'S THE INTEREST, STUPID, IT'S THE INTEREST'
4. ARTIFICIAL SUSTENTION — RELEVANCE OF PROJECTION AND CAPACITIES TO ARTIFICIALLY EXTEND THE LIFESPAN OF USURY
5. INHERENT PATTERN OF FAILURE OF ANY PURPORTED ECONOMY SUBJECT TO INTEREST
6. CURRENT SHAPING OF THE FAILURE — PRELUDE TO A SECOND GREAT DEPRESSION, OR TO MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY™?
7. [ KEY ]  WHY AND HOW PRECIOUS METAL MONETARY STANDARDS [THE GOLD STANDARD] CAN ONLY FAIL. WHAT IS SOUND MONEY?
8. [ KEY ]  THE PURPORTED QUESTION OF WHO SHOULD ISSUE THE CURRENCY — WHO WOULD LOAN MONEY IF IT WERE NOT SUBJECT TO INTEREST?
2. PROBABILITY AND TIMELINE FOR WORLD-WIDE ECONOMIC COLLAPSE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF INTEREST
15. WHAT IS Mathematically Perfected Economy™?
41. [ VITAL MODEL ]  PARABLE OF PERFECT ECONOMY — HOW USURY COMPELLED THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
    42. HOW MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED CURRENCY™ EXTENDS THE INDIVIDUALISM OF THE PARABLE
13. WHAT IS FREE ENTERPRISE?
14. DETERMINING THE VALUE OF MONEY, PROPERTY, AND PRODUCTION
7. [ KEY ]  WHY AND HOW PRECIOUS METAL MONETARY STANDARDS [THE GOLD STANDARD] CAN ONLY FAIL. WHAT IS SOUND MONEY?
12. WHAT IS USURY?

RELATED REFUTATIONS/REVIEWS OF CONTROVERSIAL MONETARY PROPOSITIONS

61. Why Invalidate All Contending Monetary Propositions?
62. Why Pre-MPE™ Austrian School Dogma Can Never Solve Our Issues
    63. FATAL FLAW OF AUSTRIAN SCHOOL ECONOMICS — COMPLETE REJECTION OF MATHEMATICS?
    64. REGARDING INTEREST THEN, DOES AUSTRIAN SCHOOL ECONOMICS NOT HAVE TITLE TO LIBERTY AND RIGHT REVERSED?
    65. [ POPULAR EXAMPLE ]  William B. Ryan Kent State University Capital Ownership Group Forum Ad Hominems Disprove Mathematically Perfected Economy™?
        
        Or Academia Inadvertently Validates Mathematically Perfected Economy™?
    66. Example Austrian School Rejections of Mathematically Perfected Economy™
    67. VICIOUSNESS AND EVASION AS THE REGULAR DEFENSE OF THE AUSTRIAN SCHOOL
68. What's Wrong With Ron Paul and Milton Friedman's Idea To Stop Expanding The Money Supply?
69. [ NEW ]  Friedman Never Solved the Cause of the First Great Depression
70. [ NEW ]  Calling Out Ron Paul Supporters to Qualify the Gold Standard
71. What's Wrong With Social Credit and Douglas' A + B Theorem?
72. Why Have Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Ron Paul, Edwin Vieira and So Many Others Failed to Deliver Solution?
    73. WHY RON PAUL AND EDWIN VIEIRA HAVE FAILED TO DELIVER SOLUTION
    74. H. R. 1148 — RON PAUL'S ATTEMPT TO RESCIND THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT?
    75. EDWIN VIEIRA DISCLAIMS AUTHORSHIP OF THE FANTASIES IN THE ORIGINAL DRAFT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE HB 1342, PURPORTEDLY TO ENDORSE CONSTITUTIONAL MONEY
    76. HR 2779 — RON PAUL AND EDWIN VIEIRA'S SO CALLED HONEST MONEY ACT
    77. BANAL FAULTS OF THE SO CALLED AMERICAN MONETARY ACT OF THE SO CALLED AMERICAN MONETARY INSTITUTE
    78. Invalidation of G. Edward Griffin's Creature From Jekyll Island Obfuscation Of The Need To Re-borrow Interest To Maintain A Circulation
        79. USURY OR MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY™ — WHICH PRESERVES 'COLLECTIVISM' OR 'INDIVIDUALISM'?
    80. GARY NORTH PRETENDS THE ORIGINS AND FAULTS OF MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY™
81. The Broken Ideology: Monetary Narcissism Condemns Its Own Progeny To Destruction
82. THE COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE FANTASY OF A DEBT FREE MONETARY SYSTEM
83. AXIOMATIC ECONOMICS? VICTOR AGUILAR'S PURPORTED REVIEW OF MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY™
84. Margrit Kennedy's Essays On Interest and Inflation Free Money
85. OPINION ON THE PENNSYLVANIA CURRENCY ADVOCATED BY ELLEN HODGSON BROWN IN 'WEB OF DEBT'
    86. [ NEW ]  NO, ELLEN. 'IT'S NOT THE DERIVATIVES, STUPID'
87. EDWARD FLAHERTY'S PURPORTED DEBUNKING OF JAIKARAN'S STOLEN DEBT VIRUS THESIS
88. REAL OPTIONS OF 'TRADERS,' TRAITORS AND LOOTERS IN THE LAST DAYS OF THE REPUBLIC
89. Has Anyone Ever Disproven Mathematically Perfected Economy™?
90. How Mathematically Perfected Economy™ Solves The Faults Of All Alternate 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)