HOME, FOREWORD, SITE DIRECTORY AMENDMENT BLOG FORUM GLOSSARY TESTIMONIALS FREE NEWSLETTER CONTACT JOIN PFMPE™

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.

MORPHALLAXIS, January 14, 1979.

mike montagne's mathematically perfected economy™ BLOG

mike montagne at iMac.

YOU ARE VIEWING ARTICLES IN THE FOLLOWING CATEGORY (SELECT CATEGORIES FROM THE DIRECTORY, RIGHT):

To browse all articles, select the mathematically perfected economy™ category from the directory (right). Top and bottom links to 'earlier' and 'more recent' blogs will then include all content.

October 28th, 2009

Alternate PFMPE? logo.

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

mike montagne

OBAMA IS ‘KENNEDY-ESQUE’?

I receive far more correspondence than I can reply to, but occasionally it may serve some of us at least to respond to a particular piece which reflects the disinformation and confusion we need to see our way through. I have no idea who Michael Gerson is, but I received and responded to this letter today:

EMAIL FROM “BILL” (2009 10 28)

Read and save………

Bill

Justice is what love looks like when it takes social form.

Giving democracy a dose of clarity

By Michael Gerson, Wednesday, October 28, 2009

There have been various attempts over the decades to bury moral philosophy ??to dismiss convictions about right and wrong as cultural prejudices, or secretions of the brain, or matters so personal they shouldn’t even affect our private lives.

But moral questions always return, as puzzles and as tragedies. Would we push a hefty man onto a railroad track to save the lives of five others? Should Petty Officer 1st Class Marcus Luttrell, in June of 2005, have executed a group of Afghan goatherds who, having stumbled on his position, might inform the enemy about his unit? (Luttrell let them go, the Taliban attacked, and three of his comrades died.)

These examples and others ??price-gouging after Hurricane Katrina, affirmative action, gay marriage ??are all grist for the teaching of Michael Sandel, perhaps the most prominent college professor in America. His popular class at Harvard ??Moral Reasoning 22: Justice ??attracts about a sixth of all undergraduates. For those lacking $49,000 a year in tuition and board, he has written “Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?” which has been further translated into a PBS series and a Web site, JusticeHarvard.org.

Sandel practices the best kind of academic populism, managing to simplify John Stuart Mill and John Rawls without being simplistic. His discussion of Immanuel Kant’s case against casual sex was almost enough to make me dig out my college copy of “Critique of Pure Reason.” Almost.

But Sandel is best at what he calls bringing “moral clarity to the alternatives we confront as democratic citizens.” In this cause, he outlines three attempts to define the meaning of justice, each with large public consequences.

Definition one is the maximization of social welfare ??the greatest happiness for the greatest number. But utilitarianism, in Sandel’s view, has glaring weaknesses. It allows no principled defense of individual rights. What if the sum of social happiness is increased by throwing a minority to the lions? And utilitarianism ultimately can make no distinction between fulfilling higher forms of happiness and degraded ones. Why should we prefer the pleasures of art museums to the pleasures of dog fighting?

A second definition of justice consists of respecting individual freedom. This approach can take the form of market-oriented libertarianism ??the belief that justice is identical to the free choices of consenting adults. Or it can have a more egalitarian expression, in which society is organized for the benefit of its least-advantaged members. But both of these views assume that government’s only job is to set fair rules and procedures; it is entirely up to free individuals to choose the best way to live.

Many Americans would find this view not only unobjectionable but also unassailable. Sandel assails it. “I do not think,” he says, “that freedom of choice ??even freedom of choice under fair conditions ??is an adequate basis for a just society.”

This equation of justice with freedom, he says, is unrealistic about the way human beings actually live. Our views of right and wrong, duty and betrayal, are not merely the result of individual free choice. All of us are born into institutions ??a family that involves our unconditional love, a community that elicits feelings of solidarity, a country that may demand a costly loyalty. Sandel argues that a liberal individualism cannot explain these deep attachments. We are “bound by some moral ties we haven’t chosen.”

Sandel, in the good company of Aristotle, contends that knowing “the right thing to do” in any of these institutions requires a determination of its purpose. And the purpose of government is not only to defend individual rights but also to honor and reward civic virtues ??patriotism, self-sacrifice and concern for our neighbor. This third definition of justice, by nature, is a moral enterprise.

Because Sandel is a progressive, he calls this approach “communitarian.” The stars of his political firmament are Robert Kennedy, for his call to vigorous citizenship, and Barack Obama, for his recognition that social justice is often based on moral ideals. But Sandel’s belief in family and community, his respect for religious motives and his defense of patriotism might also be called conservative, at least in an older sense of the term.

Sandel sets out to confront the most difficult moral issues in politics. He ends up clarifying a basic political divide ??not between left and right, but between those who recognize nothing greater than individual rights and choices, and those who affirm a “politics of the common good,” rooted in moral beliefs that can’t be ignored.

[Email omitted to preserve privacy of author.]

Dear Bill,

We live not in a democracy, but in a republic; and there are no “different kinds” of justice; there is one justice, which is defined by the bounds of liberty ??the actual maximum limits of liberty ??beyond which liberty would infringe upon and negate the equal liberties of others. As for the oxymoron of being “bound by moral ties we haven’t chosen…” since when do we not choose every such attachment? We have no control or perpetual choice in what we practice?

The divide Sandel must fail to clarify then is that a)?”those who recognize nothing greater than [but?] individual rights and choices” can only serve the purpose of breaching liberty, assumably hoping to attain and reserve for themselves the advantages of its excess (which are injustice); and b)?that “moral beliefs” therefore are no more (and no less) than to opine the natural bounds of liberty without regard for the qualifying arguments.

An example of both transgressions would be one generation claiming prosperity only by passing off criminal, insoluble, wholly artificial sums of debt to their own progeny ??likewise hoping to pass this off as justice, even as they would object to its double standard if they too were forced only by this irresponsibility, to bear an equal measure of its injustice. The generation claiming justice thus advocates injustice which is not merely “a moral or immoral ‘belief,’” but which further imposes an even ever diminishing possibility of prosperity, because what they call economy in fact merely presupposes (and does not justify) that we must borrow our own promises to pay at interest, which in turn makes it mathematically impossible even to maintain a vital circulation without perpetually re-borrowing principal and interest as ever greater and eventually terminal sums of debt. The assumed justice of the first generation, prospering relatively more under initial, far lesser sums of debt, certainly cannot be justified by the fact they refuse to acknowledge, much less to pay the public debt incurred by their time (and mere “moral belief”). On the contrary, to ask us to “believe” likewise is to ask us to accept the contradiction of purported prosperity which would be more than wiped out if the claiming generation *were* to pay the debts which are the only possible and terminal consequence of the system it presumes to justify by no more than claiming a “moral belief” which its very evasion of consequence of course invalidates.

The problem then with (or fault of) reducing the eternal and self evident bounds of liberty to mere “moral beliefs,” rather than facts of infringement, is that anyone wanting to breach the explicit bounds of liberty can argue against mere “moral beliefs,” because to express them only as such is to say only that this is what “I believe” versus what “you believe.” The very form of expression itself is completely (and usually intentionally) ignorant of the governing fact of infringement ??which even comprises the only possible prevailing arguments.

On the other hand, no one on the contrary can argue successfully against a case of exceeded bounds, because the compromising of the equivalent rights of others is always demonstrable. Worse then, the faults of “immoral beliefs” (asserting justice in exceeded/duplistic bounds) will always percolate to the fore, because their exercise can only compromise the equal liberties of others. In fact, this is the very reason we perceive and defend ourselves against injustice; and it is likewise the foremost governing principle which the design of a republic is in fact intended to preserve instead, in one, just liberty.

If it hasn’t already, time at least will prove who is right, even when whole generations hope for no more than to escape the consequences of their own undoings of liberty. But to call this morality only because it is an unqualified “belief” which can only serve that injustice ??that’s a stretch of truth which not only will never pass the ultimate scale of time, but the faults of which are unraveling before us in the very artificial, unnecessary, and unjust monetary failure before us.

Obama then can never rightly be considered a champion of liberty OR justice, so long as he serves the imposed systems of exploitation, which can only heap artificial debt upon us until we find nothing moral whatever in that preposterous pursuit which usurps a presumed authority to publish our promises to pay, not only to unjustifiably collect principal equal to all industry ever pretended to be “financed” by this obfuscation ??but further to multiply that artificial indebtedness until we are not only completely dispossessed by it, but can no longer afford either to produce, or to afford the artificial costliness of whatever little, unconsumed production might remain for some fast vanishing while.

If Obama is a saint for perpetuating that graft, then so are Geithner, Emanuel, Volker, Greenspan, and Alexander Hamilton ??against Jefferson, Adams, Monroe, Madison, Franklin, Jackson, and Lincoln. But the present men are hardly “Kennedy-esque” then either, for in fact JFK instead sought to remove this unassented and unwarrantable power from the so called Federal Reserve ??which of course, for the sake of its strictly adverse purposes, is neither federal nor an actual reserve of anything. Kennedy if you remember issued EO 11110, which at least sought to return us to a constitutional currency, even if it fell far short of a solution to the issues before us.

That famous EO, which so distinguishes Kennedy too from the current genre of men, of course has never been honored. And so, contrary to the pretended similarity of (a “Kennedy-esque”) intention, it is instead only in the same vein of corruption which of course ensued Kennedy’s assassination that, quite to the very opposite extreme, Obama has assembled all the very exploiters instead; and that instead, this is to preserve the unassented and unjustifiable system of exploitation, even as it works its final destruction.

Regards,

mike montagne

founder, PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy?; author, mathematically perfected economy? (1979).

RELATED MATERIAL

“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? (1968-1979)

? COPYRIGHT 2009, by mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy?.

http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2009/10/28/obama-is-kennedy-esque/

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE? FORUM:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewforum.php?f=22

[END PERMALINK(S)]

May 4th, 2009

INITIAL DRAFT OF OUR 2009 [WORLD] AMENDMENT FOR MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY? AND GOVERNMENT INTEGRITY

We have just posted our initial draft for our 2009 AMENDMENT FOR MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY? AND GOVERNMENT INTEGRITY. This is your chance for serious peer review and contribution, and to get involved with this effort ahead of the curve. Please review the document at:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/pg-amendment.html

Many people are responding privately, and before finishing their study. All responses have been very positive except one, which I have posted to our forum:

17.01.2013
Enrice
Hi people, i want improve erections. Plz recommend me some pills and places where i can buy it.
08.02.2013
Carla
Hello Enrice the best pills to increase potency is Tadadalafil or Cialis. Buy cheap cialis online, you can on this online store: http://buycheapcialisonlinemg.com/

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewforum.php?f=104

We would appreciate your posting responses to our forum, that any dialogs, questions, and answers be open to all.

“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)

March 18th, 2009

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

mike montagne

NEW PFMPE™ VIDEO — MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY™ Versus USURY

We’re happy to announce release this morning of our new 2 1/2 hour video program, Mathematically Perfected Economy™ Versus Usury. To watch the 20-segment, 10-chapter program in high definition at YouTube, please visit the Mathematically Perfected Economy? Play List at http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=4F0FC0AC39B3086A. Use the Play All link to negotiate the whole program in sequence.

A free version of the program can also be watched from our page, PFMPE™ VIDEOS. Enjoy!

RELATED MATERIAL

“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)

© COPYRIGHT 2009, by mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™.

Except for profit making ventures or entities otherwise granted explicit permission to publish this copyright material, this article may be distributed or reprinted in whole only, from and including any quotes preceding its title, through and inclusive of the following permalink(s), by email or otherwise. Visitors may also download our entire directory of regular/main site articles from our downloads page: http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-free-pfmpe-downloads.html. If you want to save your country, we encourage personal distribution of this material to all conducive recipients of your personal address books. Of course, you may also send only the following permalink:

http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2009/03/18/new-pfmpe-video-mathematically-perfected-economy-versus-usury/

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE™ FORUM:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewforum.php?f=22

[END PERMALINK(S)]

February 24th, 2009

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

mike montagne

DOES BANKRUPTCY EXTEND THE LIFESPAN OF A SYSTEM OF EXPLOITATION?

Kirk Jackson wrote:

Hi Mike,

Thanks again for your informational site. I have a question for you. Is it possible for the bankers to extend the lifespan of the system due to the bankruptcies that occur? In essence, the debt would be reduced because they would be forced to accept pennies on the dollar in cases. In effect they are plundering/stealing wealth from the people through usury and forced liquidations.

Is this not a way for them to extend the system?

Let me know your thoughts.

Thanks,

Kirk Jackson

Hi Kirk,

The first models I produced for the Reagan Administration (as well as all work since) accounted for bankruptcy and any other factors which prominently manifest in the terminal stages of the system. Two principal things happen as a consequence of bankruptcy: 1) as a consequence of the legal status of bankruptcy, debt and/or the costs of servicing debt are reduced; 2) as a consequence of the state which ultimately obliges bankruptcy, the abilities to service debt and re-borrow as necessary to maintain a vital circulation are destroyed.

The first, as you intuit, does effectively extend the lifespan in terms of what debt is serviced. The initiating/causative fact of the latter however expresses the present terminal state… and thus an inability to sustain a circulation… which further reduces the capacity to sustain further industry… in turn compromising that industry in its ability to service debt and sustain a circulation by re-borrowing principal and interest paid out of the general circulation in servicing the existent sum of debt. This inherent disappearance of the circulation of course comprises the present “credit crisis.” All these things together shorten the lifespan, and thus expedite systemic failure.

So yet, 30 years ago, my models accounted for the combination of these effects in determining a maximum possible/practical lifespan. Because so many people have a difficult time visualizing the ultimate consequence, I’ve just in the past few days added additional capabilities to my models/mathematics, to walk a person visually through the whole process.

At best, impractical expectations allow bankruptcy together with the present prospect of a bailout to moderately extend the lifespan of the system only 1 or 2 or 3 years. The necessary conditions to realize that modest extension are improbable; and yet the system still collapses — at best we only extend the term of exploitation so modestly.

That is the upward bound of potential “benefit” — which effectively is an improbable, artificial extension of a marginal, compromising state, only still to fail. At worst on the other hand (and a far more practical expectation), if *all* of the desired “benefits” of a “bailout”/”stimulus” do not reach *all* of the victims in ways which truly are required to realize the extension, the additional costs of the additional debt in fact, on the contrary, collapse the system even faster than it would collapse without a stimulus.

The video I’m working on will visually explain the bounds of either attempt to sustain the system of exploitation — and particularly, in regard to the ramifications of immediately adopting mathematically perfected economy?. Hopefully, I’ll be done with the video in a few days (but it’s quite a production).

RELATED MATERIAL

“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)

© COPYRIGHT 2008, by mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™.

Except for profit making ventures or entities otherwise granted explicit permission to publish this copyright material, this article may be distributed or reprinted in whole only, from and including any quotes preceding its title, through and inclusive of the following permalink(s), by email or otherwise. Visitors may also download our entire directory of regular/main site articles from our downloads page: http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-free-pfmpe-downloads.html. If you want to save your country, we encourage personal distribution of this material to all conducive recipients of your personal address books. Of course, you may also send only the following permalink:

http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2009/02/24/does-bankruptcy-extend-the-lifespan-of-a-system-of-exploitation/

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE™ FORUM:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewforum.php?f=22

[END PERMALINK(S)]

February 5th, 2009

As I wrote to Mike privately awhile ago, the essence of his solution, Mathematically Perfected Economy, is at once an economic principle and an ethical one. The principle is that of non-intervention; a principle which is found at the heart of Democratic Theory. His conception appears to my mind as an economic analog to the conception of civil liberties which seeks to guarantee for each individual all those freedoms which are consistent with the same guarantee for every other individual. In its economic manifestation it can be stated as follows (Mike’s definition of MPE): It 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.

From this perspective it should be abundantly clear that bankers as legally sanctioned usurers and faux creditors have no place in a democratic society. They are neither desirable nor necessary. They should be no more welcome than slave owners, political dictators or murderers. They have no right to insinuate themselves into economic relations as the only legal arbiters of debt and credit. But having done so, they have impaired every other freedom inherent to the democratic ideal and continue to prevent a truly free market economy from taking shape.

Jim Eldon, December 30, 2008 response to Ellen Hodgson Brown

LARRY LARKIN ASKS HOW AN ADEQUATE CIRCULATION IS MAINTAINED IN MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY™

Larry Larkin asks:

Larry Larkin wrote:

My understanding is that with the MPE™, [1] virtually all money comes into existence through debt, like our current system. [2] As the debts are repaid the money is retired from circulation. [3] What if the amount of new debt slows down, won’t the circulation begin to diminish?

[4] Money, or more specifically circulation, supports both commerce and debt — if the debt is fully extinguishable, then isn’t the circulation extinguishable too?

Larry

  1. The first thing we have to get across is that the term, “debt,” cannot aptly distinguish the nature of the two compared currencies. There are monumental differences in the nature and ramifications of each purported debt; and we need to explore those ramifications thoroughly not only to understand them, but to realize that the simplistic term, “debt,” is powerless to distinguish actually opposed concepts.

    In the case of mathematically perfected currency™, the circulation is indeed comprised of obligations which in every case equal only the principal and currency in circulation. The very integrity of all the resultant monetary obligations therefore is made possible by the fact the sum of debt is never greater than the circulation. Likewise, the integrity of the debt is only guaranteed by a schedule of payment in which the debtor pays for the related property at least at the rate of consumption or depreciation.

    The currency of mathematically perfected economy™ therefore is not just an inert, un-multiplied debt which alone allows us to pay for each others’ production with equal measures of our own production. The currency of mathematically perfected economy™ furthermore comprises an inseparable obligation to pay at the rate of consumption or depreciation of the related property.

    The unique nature of this combination of attributes alone therefore makes it possible to sustain all the production we are capable of (because there is no extrinsic cost), and maintains the only conditions which replicate direct trade without impediment or exploitation, and which preserve the nature and relative value of every unit of the circulation, clear to its retirement.

    In the case of the present, imposed system on the other hand, the currency comprises “interest-bearing debts,” which introduce a whole further set, not of incidental or possible ramifications, but of inherent, inevitable, ever more destructive, and ultimately terminal ramifications. We must of course understand all the further manifestations of inherent multiplication of debt by interest to appreciate the differences between these two, greatly disparate classes of “debt.”

    But as the previous and following arguments establish, in every aspect the integrity of mathematically perfected economy™ is in fact made impossible by the imposition of interest. Thus we are actually using the same terminology for extremely disparate things. We say wrongly for instance, regarding interest-bearing “debt,” that the debt is the principal, when the resultant monetary obligation is of course obviously the sum of principal and interest.

    Worse then, this purposely obfuscated terminology obstructs understanding even the very magnitude of initial exploitation by needless multiplication of debt, imposed upon us merely by allowing an extrinsic, uninterested party publish our own promises to pay, at perpetual multiplication of cost to us. The obfuscated terminology perpetually disinforms us then that what we owe is only the principal, while every case makes the obligation/debt a sum of principal and interest which is far greater; and all this is comprised only of a said loan, which actually only involves publishing our promise to pay at virtually no cost whatever. It cannot be more obvious that this exploitation is intentional then, simply because solution is so resisted even at every juncture of purported representation. But the terms are a part of this resistance; and we are better advised to persist in more appropriate, explicit terminology, because to say that both currencies are simply debts is to play to the intended purpose of the disinformation.

    So we do not simply have “debts” in the case of usury; and so it is because the integral obligation to pay principal and interest out of the general circulation (in servicing “debt”) at all times exceeds a circulation comprised of no more than the principal (and regularly even far less), that it is impossible or impractical even to continue servicing the resultant monetary obligations without perpetually replenishing the circulation of the interest and principal we are obliged to pay out of circulation in servicing whatever momentary sum of debt. Thus we are obliged by the nature of this distinct, opposed class of “debt,” to maintain a vital circulation, with this perpetual, unavoidable, and thus irreversible borrowing/maintenance perpetually increasing the sum of debt by ever greater sums of periodic interest on an ever greater, and eventually terminal sum of debt.

    We are not even finished distinguishing this opposite pole of debt however, because we must understand how interest results in an inevitable, terminal sum of debt. The obligation to re-borrow interest as new debt above the former sum of debt ultimately produces a terminal sum of debt because the process perpetually multiplies the sum of debt in proportion to the related circulation. This not only inherently devalues the money by dedicating ever more of the circulation to servicing debt, it leaves ever less of the circulation to sustain the industry which is obligated to do so. Because the rate of multiplication inherently escalates, eventually the rate of multiplication of debt so outstrips the possible rates of industrial growth and consumption that an eventual sum of debt demands more of the circulation to service debt than leaves a remaining circulation capable of sustaining the industry which is obligated to do so.

    At the inevitable terminus of an inherently finite lifespan then, not only can we no longer afford to fully service the escalated, artificial sum of debt, we cannot thus afford or qualify to borrow further, as is necessary still to maintain a vital circulation against what yet we are still paying out of the general circulation in servicing the terminal sum of debt to whatever extent we can.

    Thus in the terminal phase of the finite lifespan, the circulation deflates at whatever rate we are servicing the sum of debt, with this manifesting in a potentially sudden and vast collapse of industry under the disappearance of circulation. At the same time of course, we remain so much as permanently unqualified to borrow further, because to do so is to assume further debt above a terminal sum of debt we already cannot afford to service.

    This of course is the very present nature of the purported “credit crisis.” But it is not a crisis of credit, which is only the end state. All this is to be realized from the very disparate things we are calling debt. The crisis instead then is a crisis of the nature of a currency which can only produce these conditions, and which can only preserve them once the terminal phase of the finite lifespan is reached.

    So these two highly disparate forms of “debt” are in fact so opposed, that not only is it impossible for a circulation subject to interest to achieve the natural, fundamental objectives of an economy; it is eventually impossible even to sustain industry or restore conditions which are necessary to do so. All the money you can pour on the terminal conditions will only disappear, and generally rapidly, in the persistent obligation to service an already terminal sum of debt which, along with the obligation to service it, can only be increased by the very adverse nature of further currency subject to interest.

    On the surface then, not understanding the different natures of the two utterly separate classes of “debt,” we tend to take on a superstitious fear — as if “debt” itself comprises the fatal adversity.

    But on the contrary, certifying and preserving our ability to pay for what we consume as we consume of it, paves the only way both to furtherance of industry to the full extent of our capacities, and to perpetually just and affordable costs of the resultant production. So these are principal reasons we are obligated to solve the issues which the “debt” of mathematically perfected economy™ alone solves, and which interest-bearing “debt” makes it impossible to solve.

    WHY IT IS NECESSARY, AN ADVANTAGE, AND EVEN THE ONLY ACTUAL ALTERNATIVE THAT CURRENCY IS ISSUED AS AN OBLIGATION

    Essentially, the minimal facet of a currency is representation. What does a currency represent; or what should/must it represent? This is the first question anyone must answer in certain terms before they can build an understanding of monetary rectitude, or a system embodying monetary rectitude.

    Money inherently involves at least and possibly no more than one essential attribute: it must represent value.

    How do we determine the desirable attribute(s)? By examining the ramifications of possible cases.

    What for instance if the relative or practical value of money changes? In every case where the value of money does not perpetually represent the property it initially represented, one party is injured in the loss of earned gains when money is transferred, while the other benefits unjustly, without deserving an unearned gain. Not only does this introduce a “possibility” of injustice, the possibility of ostensibly lawful injustice sets in motion a quest to manipulate circumstances for unearned gain, further engendering a need all the more to defend the value of money or property, however possible. Worse, in the perpetual disappearance (deflation) and shortage of circulation which can be dedicated to sustaining industry/production subject to interest, the shortage is coercive to doing business or trade at loss, and particularly, to the ever greater undeserved advantage of whoever publishes the money at virtually no cost whatever. But if we are to achieve monetary justice, money must and must only represent consistent value across its lifespan.

    In mathematically perfected economy™ alone yet, the value of the currency is preserved across the entire lifespan of every unit by a perpetual 1:1:1 ratio between the circulation, remaining debt/obligation, and remaining value of the related property. So here alone do we establish the desirable perpetuation of the value of every unit, as is impossible subject to interest.

    But why must currency be issued as debt; or why is it most appropriate, or to any advantage to issue currency only as debt?

    The two seeming alternative ways of issuing money into circulation of course are either to spend it into circulation, or to issue it as debt. What are the ramifications or differences, if any?

    That we have no deficiency or fault in the justified debts or the integrity and perpetual value of mathematically perfected currency™ — all of which necessary virtues are impossible under interest — might convey that we have achieved all necessary objectives, except for the possible remaining question whether money should be introduced as debt, and/or, at least in a practical sense, whether money can only be introduced as debt.

    Obviously, we can contend that we’re simply spending money into circulation, if we do so; but is it actually any different to do so? One further question gives us the answer to this question.

    Suppose for instance we decided arbitrarily to spend taxation into circulation, even thinking thus that we are funding government without cost; and that we are getting away with funding government without cost?

    To answer this question we have to examine cases which will give us the answer.

    Consider a case for instance where perhaps a population and its industry diminished substantially, say each to ten-percent of previous extents which through some point of escalation had been perfectly sustained by spending a circulation into existence which related to the former industry perfectly. As a consequence in this post escalation era, far more circulation than production (true circulatory inflation) would be free to compete for the diminished production, because there is no 1:1:1 ratio between a remaining obligation, remaining value of related property, and the circulation available to serve either.

    On the one hand then, the resultant circulation would diminish in value (negating all the assumable benefit and value of possessed circulation), or on the other hand, each of us having far more circulation than production, few of us would be compelled to engage in production.

    This devaluation then, should it transpire without our vital, perpetual 1:1:1 relationship, naturally seeks the same equilibrium that a currency paid out of circulation would see, because the ratio of available circulation to the state and availability of production remains the determining factor. The only difference in the two systems is that in mathematically perfected economy™ we preserve the ratio across the lifespan of the circulation and related property.

    But so the effect of finding that equilibrium is just the same as having paid away the circulation, as we consumed of the related property. In other words then, no benefit is actually achieved by not paying the circulation against whatever we consume of production.

    Furthermore, by “simply” spending the currency into circulation, we have only attempted to achieve an impossible thing which we have not gotten away with, across the breadth of the system. That is, we may have employed people to build roads and bridges, and we paid them; but those who have consumed their production have not paid for their consumption directly, as would share the burden justly. All of us pay for the bridge through circulatory inflation; but those who do not use the bridge may thus be saddled with unjust costs.

    In the end then, spending money into circulation does not at all avoid or eliminate the obligation to pay for what is consumed, and distributes the burden unjustly.

    In other words still then, no mode whatever of issuing currency eliminates a resultant obligation to pay: there is in the issuance of all money an incumbent and inevitable act of paying. An obligation to pay exists — which is a debt.

    By issuing currency as an explicit debt then, all we are doing is enforcing justice: we are ensuring that the consumer of the production pays for their consumption as they consume of it.

    So this is the essential and vital, minimal nature of currency.

  2. Yes, and this is why as the debts are repaid, the circulation (payments) are retired: The lifespan and volume of currency are synchronized with the lifespan and remaining value of the related property. When the debtor pays as they consume, that very circulation that they pay out of circulation no longer represents anything of value, and must be retired from circulation accordingly (although it could be re-used in other, later instances of debt).

  3. Essentially, either a) existent circulation or production is traded for further production; or b) a lack of having produced and been rewarded comprises the alternate case, where a promise to pay is justified by being capable of paying.

    So there is never any unnatural or obstructive shortage of circulation. a circulation may dwindle even to zero with no adverse effect whatsoever, because a) mathematically perfected economy™ allows us to immediately convert equity into circulation; or b) wherever we are capable of paying as we consume of the desired property, we can issue our promise to do so through the common foundry, which certifies our credit-worthiness and maintains our accounts, not only of payments and remaining balances, but likewise of accumulated equity, at virtually no cost whatever.

  4. So while the circulation of either monetary system is extinguishable (and the consequence of interest is terminal debt), the volume of circulation in mathematically perfected economy™ naturally remains equivalent at least to the equity or remaining value of existent production; and rises naturally and without cost or impediment as will sustain further industry, just as actual conditions predicate. If a person has earned and can pay outright, they may do so. Yet wherever further trade requires further circulation, we are free to issue certified promises to pay which sustain that industry and trade by the one and only prescription which is sustainable; and we do so by no more than establishing how our industry will sustain our industry — which of course is the only natural requisite of production.

RELATED MATERIAL

“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)

© COPYRIGHT 2008, by mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™.

Except for profit making ventures or entities otherwise granted explicit permission to publish this copyright material, this article may be distributed or reprinted in whole only, from and including any quotes preceding its title, through and inclusive of the following permalink(s), by email or otherwise. Visitors may also download our entire directory of regular/main site articles from our downloads page: http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-free-pfmpe-downloads.html. If you want to save your country, we encourage personal distribution of this material to all conducive recipients of your personal address books. Of course, you may also send only the following permalink:

http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2009/02/05/larry-larkin-asks-how-an-adequate-circulation-is-maintained-in-mathematically-perfected-economy/

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE™ FORUM:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewtopic.php?f=102&t=365&p=956#p956

[END PERMALINK(S)]

January 30th, 2009

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

mike montagne

UTTER HYPOCRISY AT DAVOS “WORLD” “ECONOMIC” FORUM

Hypocrisy couldn’t run thicker than at the Davos World Economic Forum, where the slogan is “improving the state of the world.”

Owning, manipulating, and exploiting the state would be a more appropriate description. Neither is Davos a world forum of course, because its attendees, structure and curriculum are opposed to the general, natural disposition of the world which has been made the mere unassenting subjects to all likenesses of Davos’ intentions.

Every visible aspect of this exclusive convention proves on the contrary that any effort to establish genuine monetary rectitude at Davos would be most unwelcome, for even Davos’ monitoring and moderation of online comments is a testament to world adversity and exclusion. In fact, despite millions demonstrating around the world against the imposed system of exploitation which Davos exclusively represents, there is only one comment ??and that only mildly testy. Only 300 characters are allowed ??hardly room to put Davos into perspective. Naturally, every polite comment demonstrating that mathematically perfected currency? alone solves the issues which nonetheless are raised as consequences of Davos’ singular, exclusive intentions, has been refused posting.

Every one.

Do you imagine that anyone at Davos can or will provide a proof of alternate solutions to inflation, deflation, and inherent, irreversible, inevitably terminal multiplication of debt in proportion to a vital circulation?

Absolutely not.

Davos thus is not a “world” forum. It most certainly will not even seek to solve inflation, deflation, and inherent, irreversible, inevitably terminal multiplication of debt in proportion to a vital circulation; and so converse to the claimed purpose of improving the state of world, its beligerant purpose will remain solely to preserve the system of exploitation, even in the face of that selfish idea’s obvious costs to the world Davos pretends yet to represent.

After all, if Davos were a “world” “economic” forum dedicated to improving the state of the world, why would Davos be so tidy in its certain exclusion of mathematically perfected economy?, but that we, the world, could pay each other for our own production with no more than equal measures of our own production?

RELATED MATERIAL

“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)

? COPYRIGHT 2008, by mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy?.

Except for profit making ventures or entities otherwise granted explicit permission to publish this copyright material, this article may be distributed or reprinted in whole only, from and including any quotes preceding its title, through and inclusive of the following permalink(s), by email or otherwise. Visitors may also download our entire directory of regular/main site articles from our downloads page: http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-free-pfmpe-downloads.html. If you want to save your country, we encourage personal distribution of this material to all conducive recipients of your personal address books. Of course, you may also send only the following permalink:

http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2009/01/30/utter-hypocrisy-at-davos-world-economic-forum/

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE? FORUM:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewforum.php?f=22

[END PERMALINK(S)]

January 26th, 2009

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

mike montagne

September 29, 2008 proposition to immediately arrest monetary failure without cost by transitioning to mathematically perfected economy?, requested by Obama Campaign regulars as sent, and simply returned by the so called Obama Economic Policy Team.

REGARDING OBAMA’S REFUSAL TO SECOND GUESS THE FED

The most disturbing thing about a President who says he “won’t second guess the Fed” is, if you understand the nature of their obfuscation of money, you’re way above second guessing them: you know all they can do is a) make incoming publications of our own promises to pay (”money”) more or less expensive (raise/lower interest), and/or b) loosen or tighten restrictions, “hoping” that can increase the volume sufficiently in that way, while the inherent multiplication of debt “may” “or may not” have increased the sum of debt already to a terminal sum of debt, itself disqualifying us from borrowing further as remains necessary to maintain a vital circulation of what we’re perpetually compelled to pay out of it to service the existing, escalating sum of debt.

There’s no “second guessing” involved in where that’s going; you know it’s all wrong and you know it’s all heading *only* the wrong way if you know the first thing about their obfuscation of “money.”

The next most disturbing thing is that once the sum of debt reaches terminal stature from the artificial obligation to maintain a vital circulation by perpetually re-borrowing so much as all the principal and interest we pay out of the general circulation in servicing a sum of debt which thus increases by ever greater periodic sums of interest on an ever greater sum of debt… they can only maintain a vital circulation by accumulating debt we cannot service. That means federal overspending… issuing themselves free money to buy our production from us without producing… all that sort of thing (artificial sustention).

The latter can only work so far as it sustains every sector of “the economy” (purposed system of exploitation), with the tumbling of certain sectors having the mass and inertia to bring down anything and everything dependent upon it.

So are housing, the auto industry, airlines, transportation infrastructures, industry, and even our expatriated industry failing elsewhere… are all those things sufficient mass?

If they weren’t, then they wouldn’t be tumbling.

And tumbling far they do not have to go.

So what does a President mean when he “won’t second guess the Fed?”

He means his singular approach is to let rats attempt every trick, deception and futility to sustain their imposed system of exploitation, so they can continue to exploit us to the maximal degree possible.

If he meant something else, he’d be speaking to us about mathematically perfected economy?. If he waits much longer, and has half a good monetary bone in his body, he’ll only have eleventh hour pretenders who by the dozens now are lining up on the side of “interest-free monetary” systems, proposing “their own” solutions, which of course can only compromise a singular solution for 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.

RELATED MATERIAL

“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)

? COPYRIGHT 2008, by mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy?.

Except for profit making ventures or entities otherwise granted explicit permission to publish this copyright material, this article may be distributed or reprinted in whole only, from and including any quotes preceding its title, through and inclusive of the following permalink(s), by email or otherwise. Visitors may also download our entire directory of regular/main site articles from our downloads page: http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-free-pfmpe-downloads.html. If you want to save your country, we encourage personal distribution of this material to all conducive recipients of your personal address books. Of course, you may also send only the following permalink:

http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2009/01/26/regarding-obamas-refusal-to-second-guess-the-fed/

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE? FORUM:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewforum.php?f=22

[END PERMALINK(S)]

January 26th, 2009

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

mike montagne

DECRYING OBAMA’S VACILLATION ON TAXATION

This article responds to a general perception expressed in a Common Dreams post:

“Candidate Obama vowed that he would give “the Middle Class,” meaning households with yearly incomes of less than $ 250,000, a tax reduction. He reassured the nation that this would not increase the National Debt because he would slightly raise the tax on “the Rich Class” for compensation.

“Now the compensation has been taken off the table with the argument that one must not raise taxes during a faltering economy. Baloney. We have already learned, or we have re-learned, one fundamental fact about economic down turns. The “Rich Class” either cannot or will not stimulate the economy by spending the differential between their income and $250,000 or by investing the differential in stock. A slight increase in their tax rate will not hurt the economy one bit. Apparently President Obama is brown-nosing them. Why?”

Actually, in the debates against Ms. Clinton your observation is at least implicitly true, as he tried to give the impression that no injury or disadvantage would be suffered in terms of accumulation of federal debt. But more broadly, the whole debates on each side of the aisle (including Ron Paul’s purported return to constitutional, [undefined/unqualified] “honest money”) asserted no qualifiable process whatsoever how any purported goals were to be accomplished.

The election therefore thoroughly denied us a single qualification of a few pathetically bankrupt proposals, all of which we invalidated on our pages.

Particularly then, given the winner of “the election,” Obama’s proposal has no prospect of succeeding, because the cause of the failure is a terminal sum of debt under a system which can only multiply debt all the further, as we can only maintain a vital circulation by re-borrowing principal and interest paid in servicing an ever escalating sum of debt… with the sum of debt perpetually and irreversibly escalating by so much as periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt.

The forces which push “the economy” beyond its limits actually escalate (inherently) to the very end.

Once the terminal sum of debt is reached, the private sector is no longer qualified to borrow further, as they have already reached or exceeded the limits of their credit-worthiness.

Thus, the only “ostensibly legitimate” way to maintain the vital circulation is un-serviced federal over-spending. This too of course only pushes the sum of debt beyond the terminal limit, while the mere artificial neglecting of the obligation to service that debt is all that “artificially sustains” the system.

For my definition of “artificial sustention,” see the following glossary URL, which further explains the limitations of artificial sustention in the terminal stages of the system of exploitation:

http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-glossary-of-terms.html#artificialsustention

RELATED MATERIAL

“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)

© COPYRIGHT 2008, by mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™.

Except for profit making ventures or entities otherwise granted explicit permission to publish this copyright material, this article may be distributed or reprinted in whole only, from and including any quotes preceding its title, through and inclusive of the following permalink(s), by email or otherwise. Visitors may also download our entire directory of regular/main site articles from our downloads page: http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-free-pfmpe-downloads.html. If you want to save your country, we encourage personal distribution of this material to all conducive recipients of your personal address books. Of course, you may also send only the following permalink:

http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2009/01/26/decrying-obamas-vacillation-on-taxation/

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE™ FORUM:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewforum.php?f=22

[END PERMALINK(S)]

January 25th, 2009

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

mike montagne

HOW MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY™ SHAKES OUT FOR GOLD

This article responds to Larry Larkin’s truly excellent questions in our PFMPE™ Forum. Larry writes in regard to mathematically perfected currency™:

I am still unsure as to whether some gold and silver coins are detrimental in some way to the application of the MPE™, or if it is merely an inconvenience [to issue them]. If it is simply an inconvenience [to issue or coexist with gold or silver coinage], then I request you revisit the issue.

Larry, asking from the disciplined mind of an engineer, regularly focuses relevant discussions on their potential faults or shortcomings, and on the matters which count. You can view or participate in this thread at:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=337&p=830#p830

Larry,

Excellent question (as always).

Let’s go over it a different way, and further endeavor to resolve the bounds of the future of gold holdings, should we transition to mathematically perfected economy™. These are the finer points of the several related issues:

Those coins are not at all impermissible items of trade, for they would be things of value themselves; but they are not mathematically perfected currency™; and, by nature, they cannot and would not serve the same objectives/purposes, or be issued on the same principles.

That does not mean they cannot coexist; in fact they can.

But we would be in error to think they could serve all the purposes of mathematically perfected currency™, or even that the value of the coins should be perceived in some permanent way in terms of value as to introduce any factor of stability whatever; and our misunderstandings on these counts (forgetting the limitations and faults of a gold standard) paves the way for forfeiting principles which are vital to sustaining all the industry we are capable of. Particularly then, the intellectual and further danger is that those misunderstandings pave a way of potentially reverting to some at least of the very faults which we now suffer. All they give you on the other hand is an expensive token of value, which in fact itself is not stable.

To this latter fault/fact then, I would insist the denomination of the coin not be defined in units of currency, but instead in units of weight and purity/substance. But none of this in then end, is altogether adverse to the holder of gold:

In other words, by nature, the implementation of a currency altogether derives from an immutable obligation to deliver value, the instantiation and whole need of which serves cases where a) for one reason or another there is insufficient circulation (which cases involve potentially [and probably] vast volumes of circulation which no substance such as gold can sustain); and where therefore, b) a person or persons thus assumes an obligation to pay for some further production or equity.

What mathematically perfected economy™ accomplishes therefore, in effect (in regard to the relevant senses), is c) in restoring to the individual or such persons collectively, their right to issue their promises to pay, free of extrinsic manipulation, adulteration, or exploitation of those promises, or the natural opportunity to make good on them… is mathematically perfected currency™ d) alleviates any need to “borrow” effectively from others (such as a central bank, or any other such “lending” entity); which in turn means e) there is never any shortage of money f) to sustain industry and g) to give the entire circulation permanent value from the point of its introduction onward, by virtue of the perpetual 1:1:1 relationship between the remaining circulation, remaining obligation, and remaining value of *all* represented property maintained by the obligatory schedule of payment of mathematically perfected economy™.

Gold, or any such relatively finite substance cannot accomplish these objectives, because the finite volume precludes maintaining the perpetual 1:1:1 relationship.

But of course, gold has value, and you can make it into a coin. Because this is a raw resource/material of relatively finite/limited supply and potentially vast demand, what you’re doing when you make it into a coin however is 1) you’re fixing its value if you do so in the conventional sense, even while 2) the demand *or other needs for it* may rise or fall; and 3) this itself cannot and should not imply consistency, or suggest (without qualification) 4) that we fix some ostensible value in terms of nominal units of currency to the coin. It *is represented* rightly in other words (and according to the intents of its holder), only by declaring its weight and substance.

All this then is actually the desire of most people who *want* to see gold coin issued. They do not want a preconceived value to be imposed upon it; in fact that itself conflicts with the “free market” principle they usually advocate in conjunction with gold. The two are mutually exclusive: that is, i) to pretend we can attach a fixed value to gold when its costs of acquisition/harvesting, demand, and advent of more important uses are further factors which will compete for gold (and even dictate better purposes for it, than very expensive coin)… all these things are in fact adverse to the other, usually desired purpose, ii) that gold coin realize its full potential value.

To be clear, I do not advocate the latter in the exploitative sense. In my opinion, the value of the resource should generally be determined by the cost of harvesting it (which of course may rise and fall itself, with a general tendency to rise, because of scarcity and difficulty of harvesting [as opposed to artificial appreciation or escalation of cost]).

In the end then, we don’t really accomplish anything with gold coin, especially if we remember to recognize the fact its actual costs naturally vacillate, and most probably, due to scarcity and ever more difficult harvesting… usually to the upside. Recognizing the very principles which most holders of gold are interested in then, serves the holder by preserving that value not by abstract/artificial restriction to a pre-conceived value, but by expressing the gold as what it is — so many ounces of such and such purity of substance (or so many ounces of gold in the resultant substance). This is the expression which actually preserves the value of the gold to its holder; and we can so evaluate how this value is affected further by the artificial failure of the present currency and further factors, as opposed to those same factors under mathematically perfected economy™ and its currency:

When or if you occupy all this gold unnecessarily as coin, you furthermore deprive the real markets and usages for gold of the supply they require, which further obfuscates cost if exploitation is involved (demand is leveraged into artificially high prices).

Remembering all this; and deciding to rid ourselves of exploitation (unearned profit in addition to the exploitation of a currency which can only multiply debt into collapse), we suffer no adverse effects of gold coin whatever.

But this is to observe then that the value or actual cost of that coin in one day is greater usually than so many days before, owing at least to the natural tendency for costs of extraction to be greater.

There should be no such thing then as a $20 coin; there can only right be an X oz, Y purity coin, of value rightly determined at any moment generally by the costs of harvesting. Further cost or purported value cannot be exalted to our advantage any moreso than it would be to our actual advantage that someone buy all the lumber produced or all the rice or corn produced, to exploit availability for unearned profit by their control of availability.

As an ostensible/purported form of money then, gold involves the extreme disadvantage of comprising an extremely expensive currency, with no benefit whatever; and with its greatest and most practical value being its natural value instead. Its value even on that plateau however is not stable, never has been, and never should be; and this is not even the desire of anyone usually holding gold, for if it were, their desire can only be preserved in mathematically perfected currency™.

But, observing these principles, can we circulate gold coin of a given weight and purity?

Surely. Absolutely. And with no damage but that such a circulation deprives us of other desirable and effective usages (which injury may be substantial).

After all, it is only in observing these principles that gold finds its natural value; and these principles alone therefore preserve the value of gold which rightly reward its holders.

The unfortunate thing then would be for its holders, wanting only the most they can possibly get (versus to preserve their wealth), to oppose actual solution of all the issues, only to hold out on their aspiration at our cost. They may and probably will on the other hand lose out if they pursue that goal without embracing the consequences, because a broken economy can hardly afford gold.

What is the natural and desirable value of gold?

We can probably estimate where the value of gold should go in today’s “dollar” (perception of the falsified dollar, the units of which we yet are subject to in the sense that they represent the parts of all cost which are dedicated to the value/cost of our production as distinct from whatever else is dedicated to serving artificial debt.

I happen to live in an area with substantial active or potentially active gold mining, sales of claims, and so forth. Much of all this is relatively dormant because of course the overall costs of mining don’t justify the rewards. With the upward trends and projections, there was a substantial resumption of mining activity until fuel prices hit their recent peak. This can be said or thought at least to indicate where the price of gold justifies its “production” (harvesting).

On its basic terms of justifying costs of production then, I would expect the *actual value* of gold to hold in the relative senses which are important to its holders at present, except that “if” the economy crashes, its value will probably actually fall, and maybe quite significantly, because you can’t eat gold, and because it sustains little vital industry.

It is ironic that gold holders are so often against rectifying the economy then (if the latter projections hold), as I would think they would realize on the other hand that yes, while gold may, during the initial parts of the fall, hold or increase its relative value against the escalating devaluation of the dollar, still, should we allow that escalating devaluation under multiplication of debt flower into full fledged collapse, gold will have little leverage to claim any stake in sustenance.

Of course, I don’t offer these ideas as opinions, but as projections of the very same principles that many gold buffs are counting on. I only project from those same facts that investment in gold will only work to the advantage of its holders against the falling dollar, until the back of the system is utterly broken. We’re getting pretty close to that now.

So what would I project on the other hand if the system is rescued by relatively immediate transition to mathematically perfected economy™?

This in fact is where I see the holder of gold to come out the best. Maintaining the current price, against reduction of all other costs seems to me to be the greatest coup possible for the gold bug.

In other words, I see our only way out to be the prices of our homes for instance falling to costs of production, from which are eradicated all along the line of harvesting resources and rendering them into production, all the costs of interest and artificial multiplication of debt. This of course not only eliminates the cost of interest on the principal loan for the home (for instance), it eliminates all such upstream costs as well, reducing the potential costs of homes to indeed our costs of production (work); and, in turn, making the wages of our work far more valuable insofar as how far they go.

Suppose then that the value of gold is sustained because miners determine to mine on the wage they can take, which is what remains after costs of operation/extraction are subtracted from the present value/price of gold? So let’s take this to be roughly $1,000/oz as further developing circumstances may soon determined.

At present then, an oz of gold pays perhaps a month or just more against a $100,000 home. If the costs of homes escalate by temporarily and artificially rescuing “the housing market,” the value of gold falls, and potentially dramatically, even ostensibly “holding” its current “price” (actual falling relative value).

If on the other hand we transitioned to mathematically perfected economy™ at some near term point, that $1,000 oz of gold pays for a full year of the same home ? something perhaps 10x what it does now.

So the greatest realization of the desires of the gold bug too are most plausible of course in the realization of mathematically perfected economy™.

This probability of greatest benefit again is just the potential or probable math, based on the bounds of where either direction are bound to go. In my opinion, weighing the plausibilities of the two potential courses, everything possible points to *by far* the greatest possible and probable advantage to the holder of gold to be realized by immediate adoption of mathematically perfected economy™.

Persistence in the present, imposed system (subject to further corruption/manipulation of “the value” of gold), has little potential upscale. If for instance, the dreams of the gold bug are realized in $2,000/oz prices, we see the near term potential doubled. Even not seeing that *potential* upside under the present system, the value of gold is immediately multiplied 10 fold. If the upside under present conditions is realized/manifested under mathematically perfected economy™ on the further hand, you see a 20 fold relative improvement in your investment.

So those are the basic bounds of how I see all this shaking out for the gold bug.

RELATED MATERIAL

“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)

© COPYRIGHT 2008, by mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™.

Except for profit making ventures or entities otherwise granted explicit permission to publish this copyright material, this article may be distributed or reprinted in whole only, from and including any quotes preceding its title, through and inclusive of the following permalink(s), by email or otherwise. Visitors may also download our entire directory of regular/main site articles from our downloads page: http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-free-pfmpe-downloads.html. If you want to save your country, we encourage personal distribution of this material to all conducive recipients of your personal address books. Of course, you may also send only the following permalink:

http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2009/01/25/how-mathematically-perfected-economy-shakes-out-for-gold/

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE™ FORUM:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewforum.php?f=22

[END PERMALINK(S)]

January 23rd, 2009

The very reason you did not present any solution courtesy of Zarlenga or Brown is because neither author has one.

You asked that “if my main points are in error lay out the reasons why the logic is faulty.”

There it is.

Jim Eldon, responding to Jere Hough in regard to Hough’s article, “What We Must Do to Fix the Economic Crisis”

JERE HOUGH PROMOTES CONFLICTING SOLUTIONS, ELLEN HODGSON BROWN, STEPHEN ZARLENGA, GRIFFIN, COOK

This article responds to Jere Hough’s OpEd News article, “What We Must Do to Fix the Economic Crisis,” in which Mr. Hough re-raises Ellen Hodgson Brown’s “Ponzi Scheme” metaphor, pleading, “A oppressive [sic] and destructive totalitarian world government run by the “Ponzi-Schemers” of our world awaits our failure to act swiftly and properly.” Advise Mr. Hough that no one more effectively impedes that than the authors he promotes.

I respond to Mr. Hough’s defense of Brown and Zarlenga to Jim Eldon, who defended himself perfectly well without my jumping into the fray. The reason is plain. Mr. Hough has obviously written me in the past; and if solution is to emerge from the perpetual stream of eleventh hour pretenders, of course we’re going to have to engage in all the battles, as follows.

Quotes of Mr. Hough’s response to Mr. Eldon are enclosed in the colored regions. The frame of reference is the original relationship as responded to Mr. Hough’s article at OpEd News.

Jere Hough wrote:

Andrew [sic (Jim?)],

Thanks for the comment, although I fail to see how contradicting my likening of our economy to a Ponzi Scheme contributes to an understanding of our most fundamental economic problem - our money.

Mr. Hough,

As we know each other well enough from your April 13 thru May 6, 2008 emails (which of course I am prepared to re-present here), and as you claim even here to be familiar with my work (only since then), I find it quite audacious that you claim further in your first of these emails to me, to have had many of the quotes from our quotes page on your computer for many years, while a prominent quote beneath your signature is an adulteration of a disputed Jefferson quote which originates from my pages (and 1979 work) and would concur in its most important observation with my 1979 thesis that any purported economy subject to interest ultimately terminates itself under insoluble debt. The very quote you borrow unknowingly from me then, itself implicitly disputes the unqualified assertions of your recommended authors.

Jefferson of course did not even loosely allude to any aspect of inevitable failure as a consequence of a purported necessity to “invest” in the economy. Nor did any of the founders but Hamilton advocate that “money” should be obfuscated into such a thing as would obviously make it a vehicle to exploit the whole of industry to its inevitable demise; and of course, the very quote under your signature was offered as an explicit invalidation of Hamilton’s proposal, which Jefferson recognized would dispossess the country just so.

Furthermore of course, you don’t have an original source for that quote (which comes from my pages and 1979 work), do you Mr. Hough? Well, would it be you acquired it from your friend Zarlenga then, who like Jaikaran, Brown, and so on, curiously pays no credit to my work whatever, but follows the very course of my same research without even turning up a further key fact or instance of logic resolving the problems at hand beyond what I did so long ago, and all this to raise a purported solution Zarlenga himself confesses does not solve all the involved matters (is not a solution)? Ms. Brown will not even answer vital questions of her purported solution; and she disqualifies the very essential process (like you?) by denying (outright in her case, on these very pages) that interest is the problem — while of course, it is the very one and only feature of the subject currency which distinguishes it from a neutral, inert token of value (as most of us would intend of it); and while of course it is this very feature of the currency which Jefferson meant to identify by accusing this property in its inherent association with banks, and therefore even as something he distinguished would not at all be in the interest of just government to do. Is it not incredibly odd in fact then, that if Zarlenga implicitly or explicitly denies my thesis of inherent failure, and that as you concur, you yet brandish the very words of Jefferson which sustain my thesis?

I find your copy of this disputed Jefferson quote a bit curious then in regard to your recommendation for further reading, and particularly in your implicit denial yet that my work demonstrates the fact of singular solution it has claimed for 30 years. As we both know, you have a personal problem with my rejection of your appeal to recognize these late comers, who saw opportunity in raising the issue for the sake of solution, even as none of them have invalidated the proposition of *singular* solution set forth 30 years ago. How many solutions to inflation and deflation are there, Mr. Hough? More than 1? How many solutions are there to inherent, irreversible, and terminal multiplication of debt by interest, Mr. Hough? More than 1? How many integral solutions are there then, Mr. Hough? More than 1? If you are familiar with my work, which you have never invalidated either, how yet is it you dispute the one and one only solution that work has, for 40 years, been all about?

Of course, the prophesy of today attributed to Mr. Jefferson and deriving from my work, has spread all across the internet for many years. But the first instances of it practically anyone can find is my 1979 work, and pre-web bulletin board documentation to the computer models I provided the Reagan Administration. Do you have an earlier source, Mr. Hough? No. The *disputed* quote then has only so circulated by so many others, who have likewise tweaked a word or two here or there to pretend originality (likewise without source of course), to claim the words without attribution likewise, and only to raise yet another half baked idea that derivatives or some other manifestation far downstream of fundamental cause is the underlying problem. Does “It’s the derivatives, stupid,” ring familiar in your recommended reading? Is it not even curious that title plays further from my far older article, “It’s the interest, stupid”?

You realize nonetheless Mr. Hough, that the integrity of your mere appeal on behalf of the unqualified and differing purported solutions of your eleventh hour author friends, hangs on whether your likening of the nature of the money to a Ponzi Scheme (like theirs) endows anyone with any capability to recognize (or understand) anything.

The first thing that smells about this proposition of a Ponzi Scheme (to anyone mindful of the vital differences), is that a person who deciphers the simple causes of the circumstances we now suffer is hardly disposed to use such careless terminology. On the contrary, a characteristic of revealing analysis is unwavering dedication to exacting terms which represent everything that is to be understood. People who seek to understand obscured, ambiguous things Mr. Hough, give every element and every process vital names, evoking exactly what must be understood about their role in what we are seeking to solve. The only adequate names of discovery are full, accountable expressions themselves. Upon realizing that a circulation subject to interest compels perpetual borrowing merely to maintain a vital circulation; and upon realizing that so much as we must re-borrow principal and interest paid out of the general circulation in servicing debt, this will inherently and irreversibly increase the sum of debt so much as ever greater periodic sums of interest on an ever greater sum of debt; and upon realizing that this inherent process therefore is terminal, the last thing the perceiver of the problem is going to do, Mr. Hough, is jump from their seat and shout, “Ponzi Scheme!”

Nor, understanding the process Jefferson was reaching for, would the perceiver or solver of the problem think to argue for their purported solution by dismissing the vital arguments. They wouldn’t dream they’ve done the world a favor by rejecting their own diligent ascertainment of the nuances which compel this manifestation of failure, by obfuscating prose. They wouldn’t dream furthermore that the prose for the described terminal process, which can only be understood in said terms, is your (and their) eleventh hour expression, “Ponzi Scheme.” The person who has carefully unraveled these things wouldn’t dream anyone at all could construct in their mind an actual understanding of the cause of failure from this extremely compromising obfuscation of their vital perceptions. Most prominently of all, they would know full well that no one but no one but no one could possibly understand or develop solution from this remarkably improbable expression, “Ponzi Scheme,” because in the least, the student of the idea of solution would have to re-construct the whole cause and in fact too invent the actual solution from a term which doesn’t even provide the first clue how to do so. Can you show us how to re-construct the cause and solution from your term, Ponzi Scheme, Mr. Hough?

Now, because you can cite some further pretender who cannot cite the real problem who also advocates such a futile description (and has no interest in solution), does that make your bankrupt expression right? Of course not. But that’s the only argument you offer, because there is nothing else to offer in defense of your eleventh hour term which no one is recognizing solution from.

Of course still, it would be plagiarism if your eleventh hour friends pretended to author an explanation that to maintain a vital circulation inevitably requires re-borrowing principal and interest as subsequent sums of debt, perpetually increased by so much as periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt, until the system succumbed to a terminal sum of debt which it could no longer afford to service, and which inability to service rendered it incapable of qualifying to assume further debt, as is necessary yet to continue replenishing the circulation. You say in your first email, that “Some of your [my] ideas seem pretty complex.” But tell me, does the sentence you just read not reduce the whole 600 pages Ms. Brown claims and whatever Zarlenga has ever written, to the fundamental cause of failure (in far less)? Is there some more simple explanation? Or is it that your friends can’t put that explanation into fewer, equally accurate and accountable terms, even after knowing my explanation, as they surely do?

I assert it’s yet another thing; and that their real goals (particularly as they dismiss my proposition of singular solution) are sufficiently obvious that I don’t even need to tell anyone here what makes these adversaries of solution tick, while they haven’t raised a further relevant issue, and refuse even to defend their eleventh hour propositions.

Nonetheless, the extinguishability/discountability of the vital terms/expressions you exalt is impermissible in any genuine discipline. Certainly neither I or any other person reads the essential meat of the matter from the definition of a Ponzi Scheme. As I wrote to Ellen in this ongoing controversy, “Ponzi Scheme” is no more useful than to call “bankers,” “bad men.” So I never called this inherently terminal process a Ponzi Scheme, not once since I authored the present explanation 30 years before your friends arrived to offer compromised adulterations and pretended solutions which neither you nor they have ever qualified.

How sloppy is all this? I note in your adulterated version of my quote of Jefferson that you capitalize your attribution, “THOMAS JEFFERSON.” What does that mean, Jere? That we should respect what Jefferson tells us? That you understand what he’s telling us, that a form of money multiplies indebtedness to complete dispossession? Or it is instead the right of government to issue that form of money, as you later assert in your article? Will that form produce a different consequence, if it is issued by the government? Absolutely not! Neither then was that what Jefferson was trying to tell us. So you accentuate the author, while academics attribute the quote to me, and while the whole of its content points not to who issues the currency, but the nature of the currency, which produces in those same words, an inevitable outcome: “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.”

Here is a perfect example of demeaning the vital issues:

Jere Hough wrote:

This money-monopoly essentially loans money into existence at usurious interest rates, usurping the money-creation powers granted to congress by our US Constitution: Article 1, Section 8.

As you know if you are really familiar with my work, I explained 30 years ago how there is no valid claim to alternate usurious or non-usurious rates of interest rates. Any practical rate of interest inherently and irreversibly multiplies debt in proportion to the vital circulation. By contemporary definition then (unless you agree with my work), rates currently being charged are explicitly non-usurious!. No ifs ands or buts about it!

Nor then is the problem your purportedly usurious rates (according to the conventional definition, or mine?). You, Zarlenga, and Brown of course advocate lower rates, which only multiply debt at a more moderate but equally terminal rate. Look around you. We’re suffering failure under “non-usurious” interest rates right now, and the reason is those rates multiply debt in proportion to a vital circulation.

Jere Hough wrote:

This corrupt system works exactly like an enormous “Ponzi Scheme”. If you have been following, or learning from, the current new stories of the Bernie Madoff “scandals”, you should be familiar with the term, Ponzi Scheme. Still, few people actually understand the mechanic’s of a “Ponzi Scheme” or fully comprehend what separates that form of complex fraud from a legitimate investment. In short, a Ponzi Scheme is a kind of “pyramid scheme” designed to enrich the early investors, those at the top of the pyramid, from the funds coming into the pyramid from new “investors” (victims) later. Little or no real product or valuable service is produced. Money is only transferred from new investors (victims) to earlier ones, so as to give the appearances of profitability.

“Exactly like.” Is that right?

If there were no Bernie Madoff at all, Mr. Hough, the purported economy would fail under a terminal sum of debt. The only parallel to a Ponzi Scheme you even draw here is a metaphorical position in a metaphorical pyramid. Oh sure, the scheme is designed to enrich the people in your metaphorical position. But actually, the whole vehicle of exploitation depends on an implicit and unavoidable obligation to maintain a vital circulation, sufficient to service original obligations comprised of principal and interest from a circulation comprised only of the principal. The exploiters however are not investors; and the method of exploitation is certainly not investment.

The method of the usurers is only to publish our promises to pay each other, at virtually no cost to themselves. Is that “exactly” how a Ponzi Scheme works, Mr. Hough?

Indeed they eventually “invest” some of our promises to pay which they multiply by interest — a thing in fact wholly absent from a Ponzi Scheme. But that isn’t the cause of the failure, is it Mr. Hough? Are we failing because “investors” own industry? Are the purported monetary systems of the world failing because the people have invested in the government when they borrow money? Hah! The systems of exploitation which have been imposed upon the world are failing Mr. Hough, because you have to borrow this form of money if you are denied mathematically perfected economy™; and because if you do borrow your own promise to pay from the usurer, you can only borrow more, and more, and more, and more, merely to maintain a circulation which will permit you to service the accumulating sum of debt until you suffer a terminal sum of debt. That’s the scheme, Mr. Hough. And sorry, Ponzi didn’t invent it. It existed for thousands of years before Ponzi.

And so the real problem here is the eleventh hour advocates who deny solution, or continue to raise false ones. Your eleventh hour literary champions haven’t even advocated that an economy allow us to pay for our production in every case, with an equal measure of our own production. Why not, Mr. Hough? Why not provide for the people to trade their production as they would otherwise see fit? Is it to any benefit at all that we let someone here or there take from them? Or is it a human right to issue our own promises to pay, free of extrinsic manipulation, adulteration, or exploitation of those promises, or the natural opportunity to make good on them?

If we take your paper at face value Mr. Hough, there is no solution. It would seem to me that if you can defend that implicit or explicit message, you are well prepared to invalidate that mathematically perfected economy™ is the singular (one and one only) 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.

Which means inevitably that you can prove there is a better solution, and that it will be to our disadvantage, if we enable ourselves to pay for instance for a $100,000 home with a hundred year lifespan, at the overall rate of $1,000 per year, or $83.33 per month. Essentially then Mr. Hough, the arguments we are waiting for from you sustain 10,000-plus homes a day going into foreclosure, for the sake of reading Stephen Zarlenga or Ellen Brown, who have never produced a monetary model in their lives capable of projecting or solving the present issues. Much less were the models they never produced accurately projecting an inevitable collapse as explained in the aforesaid terms, to transpire (conservatively) at approximately 2010 AD. You can still download those models and run that projection from the pages you deny offer solution, Mr. Hough.

RELATED MATERIAL

“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)

© COPYRIGHT 2008, by mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™.

Except for profit making ventures or entities otherwise granted explicit permission to publish this copyright material, this article may be distributed or reprinted in whole only, from and including any quotes preceding its title, through and inclusive of the following permalink(s), by email or otherwise. Visitors may also download our entire directory of regular/main site articles from our downloads page: http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-free-pfmpe-downloads.html. If you want to save your country, we encourage personal distribution of this material to all conducive recipients of your personal address books. Of course, you may also send only the following permalink:

http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2009/01/23/jere-hough-promotes-conflicting-solutions-ellen-hodgson-brown-stephen-zarlenga-griffin-cook-part-1/

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE™ FORUM:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewforum.php?f=22

[END PERMALINK(S)]

mike montagne — PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™.

"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 — PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™

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.

Firefox™.BEST VIEWED WITH MOZILLA FIREFOX™.


Search perfecteconomy.com     Search Web