mathematically perfected economy™ (MPE™)    1  :   the singular integral solution of  1) inflation and deflation,  2) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and  3) inherent, artificial multiplication of debt into terminal systemic failure;    2  :  every prospective debtor's right to issue legitimate promises to pay, free of extrinsic manipulation, adulteration, or exploitation of those promises, or the natural opportunity to make good on them;    3  :  our right to certify, to enforce, and to monetize industry and commerce by this one sustaining and truly economic process.

"The question itself is false."

William B. Ryan, Kent State University "Capital Ownership Group" "Think Tank" (in his recent effort to smear mathematically perfected economy™)

What should concern us is who stands in the way of solution, and why.

mike montagne

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].

Thomas Jefferson

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

John Locke, 1690

MORPHALLAXIS, January 14, 1979.

William B. Ryan Kent State University Capital Ownership Group Forum Ad Hominems Disprove or Validate Mathematically Perfected Economy™?

Saturday, March 15, 2008


Because exploitation of an ostensibly self ruling public only survives by corruption, apathy, and disinformation, and as few conceivable prizes compare to those of denying us monetary rectitude, the prospect of establishing monetary justice exists only in a more significant conviction to prevail over all disinformation. Merely to require the truth is to end apathy. But only to find and exert it is to leave corruption no way to prevail over an apprehending republic, having means to implement its findings. A deserving public therefore at least bores to the truth at every necessary occasion, recognizing that disinformation is intolerable to every good purpose. It is an obligation to each other then, so often, and without exception, to meet all opposition to monetary representation with the most exhaustive, incisive scrutiny. Nothing less in fact can apprehend what we only call "interest" and "economy," particularly when the only possible accomplishment of imposing the former and pretending the latter is exploitation.

This singular possible purpose of exploitation both compels and simplifies the present task, first because it certifies a fault in arguments which can only intend to promote exploitation, and secondly, because this fact reduces our work to no more than sifting through the arguments until we find the intended deception. These of course will even be announced, because they are the whole purpose of the disinformation. Thus the present essay responds to just such a class and faction of opposition to monetary solution.

While William B. Ryan's ad hominems and obfuscation may advance no real or useful discipline, critical thinkers will first question what possible benefit can descend from the obvious standards of participation which follow. Still, it is the critical thinker who may be surprised most to hear everywhere, and in no more than the wake of Mr. Ryan's dubious efforts, that the "debt virus theory," or Ryan's own "ten can't repay eleven fallacy," or even actual mathematically perfected economy™... are claimed to be disproven, for we must be cynical to anticipate how the following assertions will proliferate despite their obvious wickedness and faults.

Yet Mr. Ryan's intended disproof does not even address mathematically perfected economy™; and quite evidently because Mr. Ryan finds even in himself, no capacity to effectively assault its facts of solution. Quite conspicuously, Ryan merely hopes instead to convince us that the most critical and obvious issue solved by mathematically perfected economy™ does not even exist; and thus by no more than insinuation, he hopes first that we fail to realize that his own testimony proves what he means to disprove, so that we may further neglect how mathematically perfected economy™ indeed solves all the categoric faults which Ryan does not even contest. Most obviously, if interest indeed multiplies debt in proportion to a vital circulation as Ryan himself inadvertently proves, then certainly eradication of interest solves not only all accumulating iniquity, but inevitable monetary failure.

At issue then is the very fundamental cause of the present crisis, projected twenty five years ago by computer models I provided the Reagan Administration and which you can still download from these pages to replicate a projection which depends wholly and singularly upon the very process Ryan means to deny exists. If as I hold then, and as inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt by interest is thus the fundamental cause of artificial world wide monetary failure, then if "economists" are to prevail by Ryan's trivial obfuscations, you are to be denied solution that exploitation can persist, even at the price of world wide monetary failure. To apprehend Ryan's innuendo is thus to resolve for yourself the nefarious work by which the world has been committed — without either its understanding or assent — to the enrichment and destiny of the faction Ryan means to perpetuate.


More than ten years ago, the William B. Ryan of the present controversy emailed an invitation to join the Social Credit Forum, which advocates Douglas' "A + B Theorem." While Ryan's initial email outwardly appeared to be a cordial invitation to explain my original theses a) that any purported economy subject to interest inherently terminates itself under insoluble debt, and b) that there is one and one only integral solution for the categoric faults of the resultant, purported economies, his appeal proved no more than an intended ambush in which Mr. Ryan himself evidently wished at least to enjoy a most prominent role.

The present essay responds to Ryan's most recent and assumably polished efforts. The derision ten years ago was even far more coarse. Within minutes of responding to Mr. Ryan's invitation, I received dozens of irate emails assaulting my requested presentation with a strange admixture of Social Credit and Austrian dogma: Who was I to advocate mathematics can either identify, solve, or prove solution of categoric faults of purported economy? No, Douglas had already [mathematically] identified the problem as the difference between what workers were paid and the whole of industrial income. Who was I to advocate (instead) that we must perpetually replenish a vital circulation if we are obligated to pay the sum of all principal and interest out of our possession, from a general circulation comprised of never more than some of the remaining principal? Who was I to demonstrate further then, that so long as we must re-borrow interest to maintain that vital circulation — that so long as we must re-borrow principal as new debt equal to former debt and interest as new debt above the sum of former debt — debt is inherently and irreversibly multiplied in proportion to the vital circulation until we succumb to terminal debt?

The Social Credit Forum meant to laugh this idea off the planet, that "the world's" "economies" are inherently terminal because they inevitably multiply exploitation beyond what the exploited can give up. To their assertions this failure would never happen, I spent two weeks exhaustively explaining to hundreds of emails how it was happening then, everywhere about them.

Half a dozen years later, Ryan offers his present attempt to prove interest does not multiply debt into terminal failure. Conspicuous in his own inadvertent proof of the contrary, is that the faction he represents uniformly avoids the initial fundamental questions, why "banks" should be allowed to collect principal and interest for merely publishing our promises to pay. After all, the true creditor gave up property for notes which are merely published by the "banking" system; and this arrangement certainly denies the true creditor interest, to take, for no more than the cost of tokenizing the debtor's obligation, first principal equal to that of all wealth ever so financed, and secondly, to perpetually multiply that unjustified taking by interest. To strategically evade these questions is to recognize the indefensible purposes of these obfuscations, compounding the hypocrisy of Ryan's ploy.

Douglas of course evidently wanted to identify a cause which he perceived to generate the disadvantages ascertained by the theses Ryan asked me to submit. But Douglas' doesn't even focus on the dubious mechanics of a mere published currency subject to interest, which of course is the logical beginning of any quest for fundamental cause of any potential problem whatever. An efficient search begins at the root; a genuine quest is to find, not to ignore; and not even finding a public mandate or purpose for such a currency, most of all then we should suspect not only the design, but the designers — particularly for the inevitability, severity, and incongruity of the consequences. Furthermore, whether the faults are incidental or intended is certainly decided by defending them for the sake of the consequences — which makes Ryan's ploy all the more transparent.

Instead of unraveling the nature of the currency, Douglas settles on a supposed disparity which he deems to explain labor's ever greater disadvantages under such a system: he presumes that the difference between what is paid labor and what industry takes in makes it impossible for labor to afford to consume all industrial production; and that this explains some perpetual systemic deterioration. As his failure to identify cause likewise denies him the means to solve his non-existent deterioration, he instead hopes to compensate for it, even if the first error further denies him the means to calculate the compensation; and yet, from the proposed, perpetual social recourse, we understand the name of the resultant "Social Credit" movement: it's all about a perpetual handout which understandably has never gained much traction, and which is completely unnecessary under mathematically perfected economy™, which solves the cause of deterioration.

Contrary to Douglas and the Social Credit faction, as the remainder of industrial income is disbursed to management and ownership, no fact even exists that labor should be able to consume all the production of industry. Douglas simply errs in considering only part of industrial income and part of the industrial market, presuming a part should have the power of the whole. Yet, obviously no accumulating disparity exists in the mere division of income, because soluble industrial income accounts for all the costs of production, including servicing irreversible multiplication of artificial debt, which inherently erodes margins of solubility, forcing prices ever upward until the costs of servicing the artificial debt infringe on a finite capacity to sustain industry.

Why then might we wade through Mr. Ryan's classic appeal? Only because his so thoroughly represents no more than a handful of attempts to disprove mathematically perfected economy™; and you can't possibly know better otherwise.


William B. Ryan Kent State University Capital Ownership Group Forum Ad Hominems Disprove Mathematically Perfected Economy™?

Or Academia Inadvertently Validates Mathematically Perfected Economy™?

Cited Basis of William B. Ryan's Purported Refutation

On Sun, 03 Nov 2002 of Kent State University's "Capital Ownership Group's" "Virtual Think Tank" pages, William B. Ryan posts an entire former PFMPE™ newsletter ("Leaders Fit For Fools") with the following introductory remarks against the proposition that a currency subject to interest inherently multiplies debt in proportion to a circulation:

[1]  I've been on this fellow's mailing list for some time. He is another crank I enjoy reading if only for the humor. To me, it's more fun than going to the zoo and looking at the funny animals. [2]  His "mathematics" results in the profound conclusion that 2 + 2 = 5.

[0]  "...in any system where the currency is loaned into circulation as a debt subject to interest, it is mathematically impossible to maintain a circulation without debt increasing in proportion to that circulation, until the costs of debt consume the entire circulation, and commerce itself can no longer be afforded."

[3]  This is simply not true.

William B. Ryan's Purported Disproof of What He Calls The "Ten Can't Repay Eleven Fallacy"

In his subsequent post to himself, William B. Ryan presumes to disprove that this one problem of many solved by mathematically perfected economy™ even exists. I leave it to the reader to deduce why he does not distinguish the problem from mathematically perfected economy™ itself, particularly as many readers will assume (incorrectly) that the relevance of one problem and the solution of many others are equivalent, even if Mr. Ryan actually fails to disprove inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt by interest. Of course, neither I, nor Jefferson (sidebar), nor anyone else I am aware of ever put the problem in the terms Mr. Ryan may purposely obfuscate. Ryan's intended points are enumerated [p] for further discussion:

[4]  The typical way the cranks put it is this: If banks loan ten, where does the money come from to repay eleven? The difference between eleven and ten being, presumably, interest.

[5]  The question carries with it a number of implied false assumptions. [6]  The question itself is false. [7]  It begs the wrong answer. [8]  The mistake is to try to answer it rather than questioning the question itself.

[9]  The following story falls within the same category of logical fallacies:

"Three men go into a motel.

"The man behind the desk said the room is $30, so each man paid $10 and went to the room. A while later the man behind the desk realized the room was only $25, so he sent the bellboy to the room with $5. On the way the bellboy couldn't figure out how to split the $5 evenly between the three men, so he gave each man $1 and kept the other $2 for himself.

"This meant the three men each paid $9 for the room, which is a total of $27. [10]  Add the $2 the bellboy kept = $29.

"Where is the other dollar?"

The predicate to the question should have been: Subtract the $2 the bellboy kept = $25. Where are the twenty-five dollars. Answer: The motel has it.

As to the ten can't repay eleven fallacy, the answer is similar. [11]  The flux representing the flow of loans is the very same money as the reflux in payment of principal plus interest--the reflux is the flux delayed in time. [12]  Ten can't repay eleven falsely implies that the interest is something extraneous to loans, and must be extracted from outside the lending process. [13]  In reality ten is repaying ten. [14]  And it is empirically verifiable. Here's how: [15]  At zero interest none of the reflux is allocated to interest; all of it is allocated to principal. At a rate of interest X, X is allocated to interest, and the reflux - X is allocated to principal. [16]  It is entirely a matter of accounting in the books of lenders and borrowers. When plotted on the same graph against time, the flux and reflux curves are parallel regardless of the rate of interest.


So Mr. Ryan begins with ad hominems (1) and a surreal allegation (2), which he alleges represents the thesis of a selected truncated quote (0), which he merely asserts is not true (3).

He resumes with further ad hominem to introduce a pretended summary he wholly invents himself (4). He then equates his pretended summary to an irrelevant story (9), which he asserts to have a similar answer to the "ten can't repay eleven fallacy" he has invented.

By obvious standards, bona fide refutations must apply directly to the ostensibly refuted proposition. Rather than a credible approach at disproof, Mr. Ryan's efforts take the form of disinformation.

He thus introduces his disproof (11...16) with remarkable analysis. Although the cited quote (0) is a statement, he refers to its purported equivalents with such leeway as to treat them as questions (5). Although a question is not an assertion, he then states that "the question is false" (6); that the question begs the wrong answer (7); and that "The mistake is to try to answer it" (8) — which he then purports to do.

He then merely asserts that "The following story falls within the same category of logical fallacies" (9). Yet in the story, he simply obfuscates that we should add the $2 kept by the bell boy to the $27 ultimately paid for the room to account for the $25 originally paid out of $30, when obviously, the $25 intended cost of the room plus the $2 kept by the bell boy equals the amount actually paid for the room ($27); and the $27 actually paid for the room plus the $3 refunded is the equation to return the original $30 sum paid.

Thus the only attempted trick question is Mr. Ryan's.

In the body of the ostensible disproof provided within this diatribe nonetheless (11...16), it is reasonably clear that his terms flux and reflux (11) refer to the very process I cite by which we can only maintain a circulation by re-borrowing principal and interest paid out of the general circulation as [with "as," unequivocally expressing equality] subsequent sums of debt, which are increased so much as periodic interest [expressing the inherent transformation of paid interest, re-borrowed as debt (new principal)].

Contrary to his introductory assertions, no one misunderstands that the flux and reflux are equal if a circulation is maintained; and Mr. Ryan well knows that from his visits to the zoo, because he had to cherry-pick and truncate a quote to avoid 35 years of consistent explanation that a) having to re-borrow principal paid out of the general circulation as new debt negates the usual assumption that we can pay down the sum of debt; and that b) having to re-borrow interest paid out of the general circulation as new debt above the former sum of debt comprises the transformation of periodic interest into a greater sum of debt.

Of course, I am not even aware of anyone who assumes that more has to be re-borrowed back into a circulation to maintain a circulation of what has been removed from it. So Mr. Ryan's point of argument itself is merely an invention.

Thus we all understand that we have to re-borrow what we paid out of the circulation if we are to maintain a circulation. Moreover, this is plainly evident not only in the Excel spreadsheets I've made available for some 15 years (which Mr. Ryan could easily have examined), but in the source code and functionality of the models I provided the Reagan Administration, which were made available to public bulletin boards as early as 1983-4.

Thus if Mr. Ryan had made the least effort to check the math, he would have found it in order before he made the false allegation he redundantly attempts to disprove.

Moreover then, redundantly demonstrating that the "flux" and "reflux" are equal where a circulation is maintained disproves nothing of the attacked proposition, because in fact it is Mr. Ryan's misunderstanding or invention that inequality of the flux and reflux were presumed to engender inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt in proportion to a circulation, with the ultimate consequence being terminal collapse.

On the contrary, what inherently multiplies debt in proportion to a maintained circulation is the plain and simple facts a) that re-borrowed payments against principal do not reduce the existent sum of debt; and b) that re-borrowed payments against interest are thus transformed into further debt.

In Mr. Ryan's terminology, flux (interest + principal paid out of the general circulation) indeed equals reflux (a new principal, borrowed back to replenish the circulation). Thus the subsequent principal or resultant sum of debt is equal to the former principal or debt plus interest.

Actually, if Mr. Ryan read his own words carefully, he would see that he disproved himself:

"At a rate of interest X, X is allocated to interest, and the reflux - X is allocated to principal." (15)

That's exactly right. In re-borrowing interest, interest is converted to new principal (debt), which, because it exceeds the previous sum of debt, is indeed how much debt increases.

Thus indeed, a circulation subject to interest inherently and irreversibly multiplies debt in proportion to the circulation, even by inherently greater increments of periodic interest on ever greater sums of debt, until the system collapses under a sum of debt it can no longer service.

Nice try. But I think it would be a good idea to be more careful with the word, "crank."


So here is the very graph of the math Mr. Ryan neither performed according to his own prescription nor viewed in his visits to the zoo (from which he could have downloaded his asserted chart), wherein equal flux (principal and interest) re-borrowed (re-fluxed) as the subsequent sum of debt accumulate ever greater debt until the costs of servicing debt are terminal.

Of course, everyone can CLICK HERE to download and verify or refute William B. Ryan's disputed book keeping entries their self (16 Kb, zipped-ryan.zip contains 57 Kb RYAN.xls).

Thus as I have explained to Mr. Ryan personally before, indeed as we pay principal and 10% interest out of a 100-unit circulation and re-borrow the interest on the original 100 hypothetical units of debt, the sum of debt increases annually from 100 units to 110, 121, 133, 146, 161, 177, 195, 214, 236, 259, 285, 314, 345, 380, 418, 459, 505, 556, 612, 673, and to 740 units in 21 years, whereat servicing the 740-unit sum of debt (including the 5% dedicated to principal in the hypothetical [which you can alter however you want, Bill]) requires 100.912 units — more of course than the entire circulation (100), and leaving nothing at all to sustain whatever commerce is obligated to service the debt it can no longer afford to service.

So indeed we see — and particularly in a chart of equal flux and reflux (or otherwise) — that the transformation of interest into principal inherently and irreversibly multiplies debt until at most, an inherent maximum possible lifespan is reached — or actually, until it stumbles upon its general practical lifespan, which must fall short of the maximum "possible" lifespan.

For William B. Ryan and such others' further edification then, in a chart accounting for the 5% dedicated to servicing principal, the annual costs of servicing debt are 15, 16.500, 18.150, 19.965, 21.962, 24.158, 26.573, 29.231, 32.154, 35.369, 38.906, 42.797, 47.076, 51.784, 56.962, 62.659, 68.925, 75.817, 83.399, 91.739, and 100.912 units respectively for the 21-year maximum possible lifespan of the system.

So in the end Mr. Ryan, you prove what you set out to disprove. In your own words:

"At a rate of interest X, X is allocated to interest, and the reflux - X is allocated to principal." (15)

CONCLUSIONS — A Question for Kent State University

According to the home page for the Capital Ownership Group at Kent State University (http://cog.kent.edu/), a purpose of COG is "to abate the negative effects of globalization."

But if mathematically perfected economy™ is not even urgently embraced to avert the failure of an inherently terminal system evident everywhere about us — which is the driving force of unassented globalism by destruction of every constitutional republic —  what we have at the Kent State University "Capital Ownership Group" is no less than a prevailing "quality" of thinking, occupying no less than hundreds of purported economists in nothing less than fabricating such obfuscations solely for the purpose of preserving the exploitation which even the name of this group exalts. There is no quality academic effort, not only in attempting so vainly do disprove that the most obvious fault solved by mathematically perfected economy™ does not exist, but in resting on this purposed delusion that we the unassenting subjects of that system of exploitation can maintain a vital circulation without re-borrowing and accumulating an inevitable terminal sum of debt, to simply revert to the responsible, terminal system, without ever having qualified a single principle by which it could truly serve us.

Of course, we can understand two reasons these "economists" would resist MPE™ for their own hides at the expense of ours, because 1) in a pre-MPE™ era the proposition of MPE™ demonstrates their uselessness in failing to develop a bona fide discipline conducive to solution; and because 2) in an established MPE™ era, MPE™ will certainly render them useless for their lack of any possible further purpose such as the extended tenure over which they failed forever at their original purported purpose. There is simply no place for false economists in true economy; and from their fragile but so consistent solidarity, we might even expect that they know so.

Thus while their false "economy" inflicts so much damage upon the rest of humanity by inherently and irreversibly multiplying debt even to collapse, they preserve unearned profit at the expense of true free enterprise, and even our country. Why tell us about that then, especially if they cannot even give us any better reasons than Mr. Ryan's, and they're bound to piss off somebody who can?

According to the liberally re-written history of a previous era, Montezuma sent jests to head off Cortez, hoping only to so distract him by feigning a stupidity incapable of communicating the direction of their capitol — all so that the Aztec empire might not be destroyed.

"Similarly," Kent State University's "Capital Ownership Group" "think tank" gives us irreversible, terminal, ever escalating usury, William B. Ryan, and a purposely falsified "science" so destructive it must be destroyed for solution and rectitude to prevail.

And Bill, fine fellow, why don't you write any more?


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

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

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

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

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

© COPYRIGHT 1979-2009 by mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.COPYRIGHT 1979-2009 by mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. TRADEMARKS: PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™, Mathematically Perfected Economy™, Mathematically Perfected Currency™, MPE™, and PFMPE™ are trademarks of mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™, perfecteconomy.com. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.


Search perfecteconomy.com     Search Web