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.
mike montagne's mathematically perfected economy™ BLOG
YOU ARE VIEWING ARTICLES IN THE FOLLOWING CATEGORY (SELECT CATEGORIES FROM THE DIRECTORY, RIGHT):
mike montagne’s mathematically perfected economy blog » 2008 » January
The mainstream media has been trying everything possible to blow Ron Paul out of the water: exclusion from debates; citing anomalous polls which do not concur with his prevalent popularity; removing polls when Paul takes prominent leads; and continual superficial bashing of the candidate, his electability, or his stellar integrity.
The mainstream media has been trying everything possible to blow Ron Paul out of the water: exclusion from debates; citing anomalous polls which do not concur with his prevalent popularity; removing polls when Paul takes prominent leads; and continual superficial bashing of the candidate, his electability, or his stellar integrity.
Evidently (?) there was an issue many years ago where… I really don’t know what happened, but evidently a renegade author or two penned a few ill conceived words in Dr. Paul’s name… something like that. Personally, I find it extremely difficult to fathom that Ron Paul could possibly be a racist; it’s one of those things anyone can smell. Not only do I not smell it; I don’t even figure that this rarer genre of person can be disposed to the lowlier characteristic the mainstream media has recently charged him with.
These are nasty allegations; and obviously they are politically motivated. To conjure the culprit, look for who benefits.
To his credit, in the end the interviewer condescends with Ron Paul that he finds the allegations extremely uncharacteristic. He earns my respect; and in the end, this all shakes out well except for one thing in my opinion: We have allegations coming from somewhere; and we have honest answers from an unflappable candidate who’s whole career is a testament, even a model of integrity.
What I don’t like… what I find wanting… is that the battle is still waged on the field of superficial, ostensible import. The mainstream media is guilty of keeping the battle there; and in doing so they tip their hand that they intend to shield from America the unassented developments which most endanger and divide America. What we need to do if the people’s political interests are to be served is to get at the meat of the matter. Why is it that for 100 years the mainstream media has never questioned the principles of the Federal Reserve System? Why have they never asked how it is possible even to maintain a circulation, without multiplying debt in proportion to the circulation until we suffer insoluble debt? Has anyone ever disproven that proposition? Why is it these vital questions never meet the light of day across the whole of the mainstream media?
Absolutely, the mainstream media is persistently guilty of prejudicial protection of possibly (and probably) the most dangerous, subversive entity of the world. In tipping their hand, in steadfastly refusing to honor questions which are so vital even to the fact of representation, the mainstream media certifies it is an extension of this enemy of representation. Little wonder then, we witness the deterioration we have, everywhere about us.
If we cannot visit this vital issue in the mainstream media, then, as we see here, the mainstream media is only its own opportunity for misbegotten slander. I don’t see the [false] “family values” party asking Julie Rudliani about her dressing habits or how the New York Police really feel about her pledge that working conditions were safe in the wake of 911. There aren’t even many rescue dogs still living. That’s not an issue of integrity? I guess not, if you represent war, predatory capitalism at the expense of free enterprise, unassented globalism, and the military-industrial complex.
If we can’t pound out the principles of economic solution, we will only get more of the same. The people must raise the issue of true free enterprise amongst themselves; and, to protect our candidate from the unthinkable, we must assert our intention to return to true free economy, come whatever may. False economics is how they who are against us accumulate wealth and power; false economics is how they dispossess us of our former wealth and power. The people never agreed to the underlying process in the first place.
That isn’t germane?
I’ve posted two YouTube videos. Each speaks for itself. In the first, Dr. Paul handily and unevasively answers to allegations in a way which is impossible for shady politicians. As you watch, as in many other such interviews (and the recent Myrtle Beach, South Carolina debate) you can even feel him win over the interviewer.
In the second, a first class citizen with the authority to speak elevates my pride in being an American. As Dino says so well, we have greater, more meaningful issues to deal with.
I hope you enjoy both videos. In my opinion, they’re gems worth studying.
RON PAUL ANSWERS TO MAINSTREAM MEDIA (NOT THE PEOPLE’S) ALLEGATIONS OF RACISM.
A FIRST CLASS CITIZEN TELLS IT LIKE IT IS. imho… A RIGHTEOUS PIECE.
PS. I NOTICE THAT DINO’S VIDEO HAS MORE VIEWS AND RATINGS THAN THE RON PAUL VIDEO ITSELF! (MAJORLY FAVORABLE RATINGS.)
Whoops. Two more:
YEP. SOME DAY WE’LL BE A COUNTRY.
AGAIN, DAMN WELL SAID.
CHECK OUT SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS WE THE PEOPLE HAVE TO SAY. CLICK SOME OF THE OTHER VIDEO LINKS WHICH SHOW AFTER YOU CLICK THE MENU BUTTON.
They said he wasn’t electable. They said he wasn’t a significant candidate. They excluded him from the previous debate. A mass protest rose. Probably, he was only reluctantly allowed to return to Friday’s debate. Then what we knew all along would happen, happened:
RON PAUL SOUNDLY DEFEATED ALL FOES IN THAT DEBATE!
Ron Paul, the only standing champion of the Constitution, is proving America wants America back.
RON PAUL TAKES MYRTLE BEACH FOX DEBATE WITH AN IMPRESSIVE 35% OF THE PUBLIC VOTE.
Despite all the obstructive and defamatory efforts of the anti-american mainstream media, Ron Paul scored a resounding win of Friday night’s Myrtle Beach, South Carolina Fox Debate.
Ron Paul, the only standing champion of the Constitution, is proving America wants America back.
Ron Paul kicked the crap out of the mainstream media’s pet Republican military-industrial complex and unassented central banking pretenders with a resounding 35% of the vote. Mike “Tax em to death” Huckabee, with 18%, shared the distant second spot with Fred Thompson, who took 17%. Julie Rudliani, cross dresser proponent of war (and purported defeater of Paul in the fraudulent New Hampshire Primary), registered a dull 6% on the Richter scale. Ron Paul thus received as many votes as the second and third place debaters — Huckabee and Thompson — combined.
Paul’s incredible victory however still marks just the beginning of his probable success, because from the beginning, the UNAmerican media has painted the champion of the Constitution out of the 2008 presidential race. In effect, they have painted the American PEOPLE out of the 2008 cause — hoping to prevent us from understanding what Ron Paul and what his supporters call the Ron Paul R3VO7UTION are all about.
For all of our lives, candidate after candidate have promised scantly described change. They have appealed to our adamant desire for change; but they have never before even threatened (the establishment) to propose truly meaningful, fundamental change — the only kind of change with a real chance of returning America to a course which truly serves Americans.
The mainstream media is not owned by typical Americans. The mainstream media is owned by the kind of people who would prefer to gut America to its last dying gasp.
If you believe in the original American principles; if you believe in our Constitution, Ron Paul is going to be your candidate. If you are going to save America from all of the things which are destroying America, then you too will join the only real effort to return to principle.
Benjamin Franklin did not say two things are certain: death and unjust taxation.
You are paying interest upon interest upon interest, because you have tolerated the unlawful and unassented imposition of a privatized currency which, for the sake of unearned profit, can only multiply debt until you collapse under an artificial sum of debt.
No; responding to just such an unassented imposition of a privatized currency as we have now, Franklin said, “We would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters, if it had not been that they took from us our money, which created great unemployment and dissatisfaction.”
Those who cite Poor Richard’s Almanac to convince you of the contrary, plainly do so out of context; and plainly do so to promote your unknowing servitude — for they carefully avoid discussion of the relevant principles.
Paul answers to a preposterous claim of the mainstream media that he is unelectable. Months ago, Las Vegas betting odds were 61% — not that Paul would win the Republican nomination… but that he would win the election. Can you imagine it is preposterous that Americans — of all people — want to dissolve the IRS and Federal Reserve System?
At least they asked the question respectfully. See this YouTube video for the most respectable answer you are ever going to get from a presidential candidate:
YouTube HIGHLIGHTS OF RON PAUL MYRTLE BEACH FOX DEBATE WIN.
The resounding victory casts the clearest doubt on the vote counting fraud of the New Hampshire Primary. Paul got *no* votes in precincts; families came forward saying, “but our whole family voted for Paul…” and the contest for the vote recount goes on. If the neo-cons behind this think they’re going to get away with it… they have another thing coming: Last I checked, this is still America.
Note from the shady purported outcome of the New Hampshire conquest who benefitted from the fraudulent count. War and debt; whoever profits from these things regardless of morality, justice, or principle… evidently that is who is trying to take the election. The only people they have wrongly excluded are Paul and Kucinich — both of whom stand against the unassented central banks of the world. See McCain for example, who has recently vowed to stay in Iraq for 100 years, without a word of principle. I find it hard to believe there are 6% of Americans who lust for 100 years of imperialism or bloodshed. But if there are, to hell with all of them.
Trust me: the world is watching. If ever there is to be a blowback against unassented globalism, it’s just around the corner of the next dark event: If I were an international banker or a Bilderberger, I’d be minding my Ps and Qs.
The pent-up ire of the real America is about to rise.
Princeton researchers have shown how a criminal can steal an election undetected, using an actual Diebold voting machine.
This project was created by Ariel J. Feldman, J. Alex Halderman, and Edward W. Felten, who write: “Anyone who has physical access to a voting machine, or to a memory card that will later be inserted into a machine, can install said malicious software using a simple method that takes as little as one minute. In practice, poll workers and others often have unsupervised access to the machines.”
Even more frightening, you only have to access one machine. A computer virus can be implanted in only one machine and spread undetected.
Do we want to trust our elections to machines that can be hacked without a trace in less than one minute?
In a fund raising effort, the Democrats are holding up McCain on tape, answering a question about president bush intending to stay in Iraq for 50 years.
“Make it a hundred,” quips McCain.
In a fund raising effort, the Democrats are holding up McCain on tape, answering a question about president bush intending to stay in Iraq for 50 years.
“Make it a hundred,” quips McCain.
OK, so the man wants to prove he’s most fit to be the leader for the military-industrial complex; and indirectly he’s saying that military-industrial marriage should direct our affairs without any higher morality or purpose than citing how long we’ve been in other countries.
Yes, it’s sick; it’s pathetic; it’s criminal.
On the other hand, a hundred years is how long we’ve suffered the consequences of the so called Federal Reserve System.
Obviously I’m not saying two wrongs make a right. The Federal Reserve System was passed by the Democrats in violation of explicit campaign promises that party would not create a central bank.
And now they want our money to continue their operations.
Which is more shameless?
It matters little, if we tolerate shameless politics.
I think they’re right about one thing:
We should keep records of both sides’ abuses of power, and intent to abuse power… and put them all in little rubber boats out somewhere in the ocean. Right off the shore of Iraq would be fitting.
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
Thomas Jefferson
In my opinion, it is amazing that so many people so free testify to our detriment, regardless even of the severity of the consequences. I don’t mean to pick on this particular author; but here we have a person who throughout their life will have to pay say 10 or 15 times their own production for the production of others for the disposition they take. Not only do they lack whatever constitution compels some of us to question the rectitude of usury; they are actually arguing in its favor!
Forgive me, but I find it totally incredible that even given all the other errors, anyone could think the risk of lending money should justify paying three houses for one, even if the money cost a house. But as the money cost the central banking system virtually nothing, I am truly astonished that person after person even goes out on a limb to try to justify central banking.
What for?
In any case, here is just a brief sketch of such a limb.
imho, it is one thing to condemn yourself to the consequences of your err, but it is an offense (and a great one at that) to condemn the rest of us to those consequences, particularly when they include usurpation of representation.
imho, it is germane therefore to include this example of a reaction on these grounds, and it is warranted that we hold each other accountable for pretended analysis and opinion. After all, how many people will just such opinions condemn to the consequences of usury?
This blog thus responds to typical controversial assertions of a blog found at:
Elements of the original article appear in the color of this paragraph.
PARAGRAPH 1 OF “THE MONEY TREE” BLOG:
“A comment to my last post suggested that I visit www.perfecteconomy.com, People for Mathematically Perfected Economy. So I did. It is a very interesting topic [i] and I agree with the premise that the Federal Reserve is not completely constitutional and [ii] that our monetary system has some flaws. [iii] But the system that is [sic] suggests doesn’t seem to me to be any more sustainable than or [sic] current system. [iv] I’m not an economics major or anything, but I did minor in mathematics, so I do know a thing or two about numbers.”
“and I agree with the premise that the Federal Reserve is not completely constitutional”…
Beyond the fact that the remainder of your further assertions are already refuted at PFMPE (to which refutations you do not respond), why you choose to pontificate on mathematically perfected economy is quite unclear. It seems to me that your authority is already on very unfirm ground, because evidently you do not even understand that anything which is not completely constitutional, is unequivocally unconstitutional.
Plainly and simply then, if you agree that the so called Federal Reserve System is not *completely* constitutional, then inherently you have confirmed that the so called Federal Reserve System is unconstitutional.
Yet your assertion appears to dispute the fact that the Federal Reserve System is unconstitutional. A basic question for you:
Is it even possible to claim that anything is not “completely” constitutional, without inherently confirming that thing is unconstitutional?
“and I agree… that our monetary system has some flaws…”
The whole official role of the so called Federal Reserve System is embodied in the fact it imposes a privatized currency subject to interest.
What flaw can than the so called Federal Reserve System have then, other than a flaw incumbent to interest?
You go on to dispute that the Federal Reserve System has such a flaw; but a principal premise of mathematically is to rectify the inherent multiplication of debt by interest, because the process of merely maintaining a circulation inherently culminates in collapse under insoluble debt.
How do you refute the explanations of MPE which show that merely to maintain a circulation, we must re-borrow so much as what we pay against principal and interest obligations? How do you refute the explanation it is impossible to pay down the sum of debt, as we must re-borrow what we pay against principal obligations as subsequent debts, equal to the prior debt? How do you dispute that as we borrow back what we pay against interest obligations, this increases the sum of debt so much as periodic interest?
If you cannot refute this explanation, how can your dispute possibly be valid?
Furthermore, in what ways can the so called Federal Reserve System possibly be perfect?
Not only does the Federal Reserve System not solve inflation or deflation, interest makes solution impossible.
Its privatized currency can only multiply debt in proportion to a circulation until we suffer collapse under insoluble debt.
As a constant relationship between money and related property or industry is impossible, and as ever more of a circulation is inherently devoted to servicing debt, the system perpetually manipulates the cost or value of money or related property to our detriment.
As these are the only things the system does, and as all of these things are imperfect at least from the standpoint of their wholly artificial detriment, the system is wholly imperfect.
Furthermore, given the ultimate consequences of the system, I would say then that these are quite substantial imperfections. How can you possibly disagree?
But the system that is [sic] suggests doesn’t seem to me to be any more sustainable than or [sic] current system.
LOL!
“More” sustainable?
Excuse me, but sustainability is a boolean attribute; Something is either sustainable or it is not.
So your assumption nonetheless is that a) inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt in proportion to a circulation is as sustainable as the opposing approach, b) which is to eradicate artificial multiplication of debt so as no one has to pay anything more for the production of others than an equal measure of their own production? To maintain a circulation which is at all times capable of paying all debt (b), is no more sustainable than a system (a), in which it is impossible from the moment the first currency is introduced to circulation to pay the resultant obligation, because the resultant obligation is the sum of principal and interest (which from the initiation of the system exceed the circulation?
How can you possibly think the latter could possibly work to your disadvantage?
What happens in the former case then (a), when the sum of debt is so great that servicing the sum of debt requires the entire circulation?
How is the latter system (b) not sustainable, as it always maintains a circulation which is wholly sufficient to fulfill the unmultiplied obligations of debt?
I’m not an economics major or anything, but I did minor in mathematics, so I do know a thing or two about numbers.
Great!
I was put in college algebra in the second grade and was taking general calculus at 10. One day — probably not thinking any of us would — a teacher asked if anyone could try to prove the Pythagorean Theorem. I produced a proof right off the top of my head. But as you can tell (though I sometimes have been encouraged to do so), I don’t offer that as a purported validator of my argument.
So what is it about your opinions that make them better than my research?
Let’s do the math.
I’ve been advocating mathematically perfected economy™ for 35 years. At the behest of Will McPhee (who used to head the math staff of the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs), I spoke offhand and at length about mathematically perfected economy™ without a dissenting opinion before hundreds of professors of UCCS — years before I published a proof 1) that any purported economy involving a currency subject to interest inherently collapses under insoluble debt; and 2) that there is one and one only integral solution to inflation, deflation, intrinsic manipulation of the value or cost of money or property, and inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt in proportion to a circulation by interest — the very interest which you casually dismiss as no problem at all.
Thomas Jefferson said,
“If the American people ever allow banks to issue their currency, first by inflation, and then by deflation, 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.”
I may be wrong of course, but it seems to me that in a very obtuse way, Jefferson is trying to confirm the very process of inherent multiplication of debt I explain. (I ran into the quote afterward. Thus it jumped out at me when I heard it.)
In any case, what else could Jefferson possibly be saying?
Maybe you know better.
Let’s see… Even President Wilson, who passed the Federal Reserve Act, later said:
“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country.
A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation therefore, and all our activities, are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world — no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”
So forgive me for this as well, but at this point another question jumped out at me: How many minutes did you spend on your refutation?
I’m just wondering, do you think it was enough to justify committing the rest of us to perpetual payment of many times (and ever more times) our own work until we suffer collapse under insoluble debt?
PARAGRAPHS 2, 3, 4 [AND NO MORE]
(2) “In section 4 of the site, WHAT IS MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY?, the rules of the system are outlined. The key to it is the elimination of interest. Interest is simply the profit that a lending institution receives from it debtors. They then give an example of the system for purchasing a house.”
I can only draw one of two deductions from your statement: 1) either you didn’t read a word about interest from the PFMPE site; or 2) we can just take it on your word that interest doesn’t multiply debt in proportion to a circulation. Of course, if your word is so good, then assumably by reasonably consistent mathematic principles, you have refuted the proposition that interest inherently multiplies debt in proportion to a circulation until commerce collapses under insoluble debt.
[Your inclusion mis-cites my explanation of paying for a $100,000 home (which has changed, but still it errs in citing the former material).]
(3) “Now it seems to me that sure the processor gets his processing fee and the builder gets his money, the owner gets his house, but what does the lender get for parting with his money for A HUNDRED YEARS?!?”
I agree that mathematics solves the problem; but your problem is the you haven’t even given the involved questions the preliminary effort to define what “money” and its related processes are.
Now I will also admit that “economists” aren’t about to tell you the truth about the same matters (which is another reason mathematicians should solve the issues), and so of course, prevalent deceptions contribute to misunderstanding, if we let them. (I’ll answer to this point further, below.)
(4) This system is not sustainable, no lender would loan money without the promise of a profit.
Your lack of a concept for money is why you have the ultimate conclusion backwards.
But just to give you a taste of what’s ahead, I’ll tell you now why your deduction is preposterous: Your concept of the roles of money and lending in both systems is grossly in error.
Well that sounds preposterous itself doesn’t it?
Only if you haven’t given the issues but the least possible attention:
You see, if you gave me the power/privilege to publish all the paper money for this country for instance at a cost say of 0.1 cents per bill regardless of denomination, I would gladly take the face value of the bill back and never charge you a cent of interest.
After all, for every $1 bill I printed for $0.001, I’d get $1 back — multiplying my original investment by 1,000 times;
for every $5 bill I printed for $0.001, I’d get $5 back — multiplying my original investment by 5,000 times;
for every $10 bill I printed for $0.001, I’d get $10 back — multiplying my original investment by 10,000 times;
for every $100 bill I printed for $0.001, I’d get $100 back — multiplying my original investment by 100,000 times…
maybe you’re beginning to get the picture?
Do you think all the money in existence always existed? Or do you realize money is either printed at minimal cost or created electronically at minimal cost? Do you think we can only print money when we buy gold from mining operations, to hold that gold in monetary reserves?
If so, then why was the promise to redeem the Federal Reserve Note in lawful money rescinded so long ago?
Understanding “economy” isn’t about taking pot shots at reality. I think you were accusing me of that, weren’t you?
The student of the history of the present system immediately encounters so much information regarding the corrupt, unassented imposition of this system, and so much information everywhere which concurs with the fundamental causes of those consequences which I have so carefully presented, that I really don’t think there’s much good reason do dispute any of the things you do. I hope you realize that; and I hope you’ll give some thought to the consequences of what you have been thinking.
Look at the column to the right, and see what Congressman Louis T. McFadden said about the Federal Reserve System. Do you know where the American people are on this issue?
You might say they’re pretty much with you — and I’ll grant you that, sad thing that it is. It’s as if the common American today grants their self impunity from the warnings and highest advice of men like Jefferson, who made a country few of us today would.
Nonetheless, I cordially invite you to debate your assertions. I for one think the topic deserves the best attention we can give it.
While the article is largely factually correct, much more can be drawn from the cited factors; the article does not reach down to the fundamental irregularities responsible for the brink of failure under insoluble debt; and it is useful to deduce how mathematically perfected economy™ would rectify the dangerous circumstances which we are now in the midst of.
The Information Clearing House article, “The Fed?s role in the Housing Crash of ?07,” quotes economist Roubini Nouriel, Dow Jones, 23 August 2006: ?This is the biggest housing slump in the last 4 or 5 decades: every housing indicator is in free fall, including new housing prices.?
This commentary largely relates to the first 4 paragraphs of the cited article:
The American people appear to be oblivious to the economic hurricane which is expected to touchdown in late 2007. That?s when $1 trillion in ARMs (Adjustable Rate Mortgages) will ?reset? triggering a massive increase in foreclosures and plunging the country into a deep recession.6 If energy costs continue to rise at the same time or if the dollar loses more ground, we may be rooting around in the backyard garden-plot looking for passed-over spuds and radishes.
The crisis is entirely the work of Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan,1 whose ?cheap money? policy caused a speculative frenzy in the real estate market which sent home prices through the stratosphere. In fact, the bubble originated in 2001 when Greenspan lowered interest rates to a meager 1% and ignited a refinancing boom as well as a sudden up-tick in home sales.2Now, after 17 straight interest rate increases, the bubble is quickly losing steam and the effects are being felt from sea to shining sea.3 Rest assured, the sudden downturn in the housing market is just the first gust from an impending tornado. By the end of 2007, America?s match-stick economy will look like the rubble strewn landscape of New Orleans 9th Ward.4
Greenspan has been the biggest player in this pre-Depression operetta. He kept the printing presses whirring along at full-tilt while the banks and mortgage lenders devised every scam imaginable to put greenbacks into the hands unqualified borrowers. ARMs, ?interest-only? or ?no down payment? loans etc. were all part of the creative financing boondoggle which the kept the economy sputtering along after the ?dot.com? crackup in 2000.
It worked like a charm, too. Aided by the Fed?s cheap money policy, the housing market sizzled. In just 6 years the total value of real estate jumped from $11 trillion to $21 trillion! (?From 2001 through 2005, outstanding mortgage debt rose 68% from $5,293 billion to $8,888 billion?) It?s the biggest expansion of debt in history and it was all engineered by seductively low interest rates.5
While the article is largely factually correct, much more can be drawn from the cited factors; the article does not reach down to the fundamental irregularities responsible for the brink of failure under insoluble debt; and it is useful to deduce how mathematically perfected economy™ would rectify the dangerous circumstances which we are now in the midst of.
The first err the casual thinker might make after reading these introductory paragraphs is to deduce that we are in the midst of the projected period of failure, but we “haven’t” suffered the failure. It is careless to reject the propositions of the article on these superficial grounds, because in fact, the president was forced to forestall the projected failure by temporarily blocking the “resetting” of the cited Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMs). In other words, even among the status quo supporters of the usurious system which produced these and all other threatening levels of debt, it has been realized that it was absolutely necessary to prevent interest rates for the immediately affected mortgages from rising higher.
From the whole of this evidence then, even though the status quo disavows (by silence) the fundamental improprieties of the underlying system, the actions of the status quo confirm indeed that the system has (however) engendered sums of debt which threaten failure to the whole system; and furthermore, that interest is the factor on which immediate failure hinges.
Thus, we can readily draw the vital deductions and recourse from the cited material:
The crisis is entirely the work of Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan,2 whose ?cheap money? policy caused a speculative frenzy in the real estate market which sent home prices through the stratosphere.
COMMENTARY
It should be understood that do not mean to come to Mr. Greenspan’s defense. In effect, his duties remain crimes against humanity.
But still, it must be understood that as the system inherently multiplies debt in proportion to initial circulations, the system itself makes it absolutely necessary to perpetually reduce interest rates and to increase the circulation, if some circulation is to remain available to service the escalating multiplication of debt. If you fail to do so, the system collapses:
You must reduce interest rates, when the sum of debt threatens to collapse the system, or the periodic interest on debt will collapse the system.
Because we suffered marginalizing debt, Greenspan had no alternative but to reduce interest rates.
I provided the Reagan Administration computer models which calculated the maximum possible lifespan of any “economy” subject interest, which clearly illustrate this obligation to reduce interest rates.
Because there is a need to increase the circulation likewise (as further illustrated by said computer model), and because the marginalized system comprises a great thirst for further currency, thus it is the inherent, inevitable conditions of the system too which compel the rise in borrowing. Failing to borrow enough to service the ever more rapidly escalating debt, the system collapses.
In fact, the bubble originated in 2001 when Greenspan lowered interest rates to a meager 1% and ignited a refinancing boom as well as a sudden up-tick in home sales.3
COMMENTARY
It it is not inaccurate, it is certainly indefinitive and potentially misleading to conceive of the escalating costs of homes as a “bubble.” The costs of homes have increased at a generally escalated rate since the beginning of the second lifespan of the Federal Reserve System, succeeding the first termination of commerce the subject system caused in what we now refer to as the first Great Depression.
We have two trends; the first is inherent, and the second is a matter of intended leverage:
The nature of the currency is inherently and irreversibly multiplying debt in proportion to an initial circulation.
Merely to maintain a vital circulation, we the subjects of the system are forced to re-borrow whatever we pay against principal and interest obligations as subsequent debts, increased so much as interest. What we pay against principal must be re-borrowed as a subsequent debt equal to the former; and what we pay against interest obligations must be re-borrowed as new debt. The latter perpetually increases the sum of debt by ever greater increments of periodic interest on debt, until the sum of debt is so great that the subjects of the unapproved system can no longer afford to service debt.
Ultimately the system will collapse under this inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt. But if we are to understand the events cited by the article, it is critical to understand that the system can only produce ever more marginal credit-worthiness:
It is not the fault of the subjects of the system that their credit-worthiness is marginalized; they can do nothing about the general, escalating deterioration of credit-worthiness but rectify the improprieties of the system.
Neither can the generic lending institutions serving as middle-men between the unapproved central bank and the subject society do anything about the general, escalating deterioration of credit-worthiness, because the escalating marginalization of credit-worthiness is inherent to the fact the debts of each of us to each other are subject to unearned interest, collected by the so called banking/financial institutions.
On top of the inherent multiplication of debt by interest, you have the so called lending/financial institutions taking advantage of improving industrial productivity.
In other words, industrial enterprise evolves according to a natural pattern of improving efficiency; and the additional earnings for our (ever reduced) labors we would naturally realize are prey to the parasitic processes which can consume them by multiplying indebtedness further.
What gains we may make despite the unassented multiplication of our debts to each other are consumed by exalting the false principle that we benefit from rising costs of housing. By spinning rising costs as “appreciation,” the system of stealing benefits from the facade of appreciation, because all those who are forced to take the ride hoping for the benefit of appreciation, are actually committed to all the indebtedness they can possibly afford.
The leveraged system therefore commits them to the most marginalizing degrees of indebtedness, while yet the system imposes a marginalizing debt upon the entire subject society, which will eventual collapse the whole of it.
Later generations particularly have no other option but improbable political reform, because preceding generations will participate in the extortion. The necessary political reform is improbable on the other hand, because the central banking system owns their representatives; because the central banking system owns the media; and because, in this unspeakable aspect of “capitalism” (which is not free enterprise), the central banking system does all it can to seal the failure of any attempt at genuine political reform.
Why?
If they were interested in rectitude of course, they would never have imposed the system; and it would never have seen its opportunity to prey upon us. It is not a system of justice; it never was; and it never can be, because it can only multiply debt upon us for nought.
Whatever corruption, subversion, and usurpation is necessary to retain the system upon us is just what will be done.
The ostensibly beneficial effect of the facade of appreciation nonetheless is that we pay lifetime after lifetime for homes that we ourselves produced by but a few months of work.
The alternative of course is to free the currency from unearned profit so that we can render to each other equal measures of our own work.
In other words, the rhetorical question is, “Do we want to pay each other a few months of our own work for the few months of labor which produced the home; or do we want pay perpetually to private entities which produce nothing, and which usurped our government to impose this system upon us?”
Now, after 17 straight interest rate increases, the bubble is quickly losing steam and the effects are being felt from sea to shining sea.4
COMMENTARY
(LOL) Well, of course, given the intrinsic manifestations of the system, the “bubble” can only burst — particularly when the system is at the brink of collapse (which the article itself projects). The worst thing the private Federal Reserve Banks could possibly do, is to raise interest rates as the system arrives at the brink of collapse.
Thus the projected consequences not only are a testament that we are at the brink of collapse; the observed consequences vindicate Greenspan against the preceding allegations.
By the end of 2007, America?s match-stick economy will look like the rubble strewn landscape of New Orleans 9th Ward.5
COMMENTARY
The reason it isn’t (yet) is artificial: even the fringes of the very “financial” community itself convinced Bush (of all people) to intervene:
Thus we are technically in the described free fall (a process which my work projected in 1979, and which my computer models accurately predicted in the early 1980s);
The only thing restraining us from that free fall is the artificial locking of (lower) interest rates; and
Therefore (again), the data indicates interest is the responsible factor.
It?s the biggest expansion of debt in history and it was all engineered by seductively low interest rates.6
COMMENTARY
Obviously; and tomorrow, if the system can survive, we will see yet greater expansions of debt than before known in history — because the system inherently and irreversibly multiplies debt at an ever escalating rate!.
The American people appear to be oblivious to the economic hurricane which is expected to touchdown in late 2007. That?s when $1 trillion in ARMs (Adjustable Rate Mortgages) will ?reset? triggering a massive increase in foreclosures and plunging the country into a deep recession.1
COMMENTARY
The American people are worse than oblivious: our elder generations are participating in the dispossession of their own progeny; and in so doing, they will bring the curtain down upon themselves unless we rectify the purported economic system.
This of course is why this is one of the most critical presidential elections of all time.
We must rescind the so called Federal Reserve System.
But we also must establish mathematically perfected economy™, if we are still to avoid collapse engendered by further multiplication of debt; and if we are to achieve rectitude.
Elsewhere, the “threatening warships” are referred to as “boats.”
The Guardian Unlimited reports that, “Tensions between the US and Iran resurfaced today when Pentagon officials alleged that Iranian warships threatened three US Navy vessels in the Strait of Hormuz.”
Elsewhere, the “threatening warships” are referred to as “boats.”
The article goes on to say, “The alleged incident comes after a period of relative calm in relations between the two countries and ahead of a rare visit to Iran by Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency.”
Bush is digging for another war. Evidently, the neo-cons are not sufficiently creative to vary the prior pattern.
Under the imposed central banking systems of the world, employment and potential wages are extinguished to an ever greater degree as the costs of multiplying debt perpetually reduces what portion of the circulation can be devoted to employment or wages.
Labor is the odd man out in the squeeze between industrial survival and usury. Labor always loses.
Under the imposed central banking systems of the world, employment and potential wages are extinguished to an ever greater degree as the costs of multiplying debt perpetually reduces what portion of the circulation can be devoted to employment or wages.
The system inevitably collapses because its subjects cannot even maintain a circulation without multiplying debt upon themselves: They must perpetually re-borrow what they pay against principal and interest obligations; and so debt increases so much as interest, until the debt is so great that the system caves in under the weight of servicing debt.
All along the way to the inevitable collapse of such a system, while costs are driven up by interest, the ever diminishing remainder of circulation available to devote to any other purpose but servicing debt means ever less is available for employment and wages. Labor is the odd man out in the squeeze between industrial survival and usury. Labor always loses.
SUSTAINABLE LABOR, EMPLOYMENT, AND WAGES UNDER Mathematically Perfected Economy™
Because whatever finances industry requires are readily loaned into circulation and readily paid under mathematically perfected economy™, we can readily afford new industry.
As the debts of industry are not multiplied by interest, there is no squeeze play in which labor loses. Reasonable wages can be maintained, as there is no multiplication of costs and perpetual reduction of the spending power of markets.
As the spending power of labor per wage is approximately 12 times greater under mathematically perfected economy™ (see previous MPE 101 topics), the markets to which industry can peddle its wares are likewise 12 times as solvent. Thus industry has 12 times the probability of survival or prosperity under mathematically perfected economy™.
In truth, the so called housing crisis is not a housing crisis at all. The phenomenon is an artifact of the fundamental flaw in the Federal Reserve currency, which can only multiply debt in proportion to a circulation until we suffer collapse under insoluble debt.
As we know, we have a housing crisis — some 14 million American *families* are in immediate danger of losing their homes; only emergency measures preventing scheduled increases in interest rates stand between putting these people on the street. The present spin on this issue is that these consequences result from a “sub-prime” mortgage bubble, which of course could only burst.
In truth, the so called housing crisis is not a housing crisis at all; and far more of us are in jeopardy of losing our homes if the purported economy teeters into a prolonged or pronounced “recession.” The phenomenon is an artifact of the fundamental flaw in the Federal Reserve currency, which can only multiply debt in proportion to a circulation until we suffer collapse under insoluble debt.
Similarly, the so called housing crisis is not a recent artifact of this multiplication of debt. We started seeing great numbers of homeless people in the early 80s under the Reagan Administration, as private debt escalated to such magnitudes that we could not afford the equally escalating costs of federal government. This resulted in federal deficits which tripled the national (federal) debt of the United States in just 7 years, over which the United States descended from the greatest creditor nation in the world to its “greatest” (lowliest) debtor.
One of the carrots dangled in front of the sheeple by the media of the usurers is that “the value” of our homes appreciates.
Of course, this is a lie. The value of a home — as does any asset which is being consumed — is actually depreciating.
The purpose of the lie is obvious: If the central banks can promote the false idea of appreciation, then they can indebt us (through the middlemen of the banking graft) to the greatest extent that we can afford to service debt.
The purpose of the lie is obvious: If the central banks can promote the false idea of appreciation, then they can indebt us (through the middlemen of the banking graft) to the greatest extent that we can afford to service debt.
Thus it is the cost of our homes which is increased; not their value; and the intended consequence of course is maximized unearned profit. Remarkably, “economic” pundits even use the unearned profit (which is to our cost) to portray a further falsification of vitality of the “economic” system.
The system isn’t economic at all; and the purported vitality is actually an expression of how much we are suffering by usury.
We can understand that easily in the facade’s most rudimentary terms: The result of the purported price appreciation is that we pay lifetime after lifetime to usurers who produce nothing, for homes we produce by but a few months of human labor.
CONSEQUENCES OF HOSING UNDER THE SO CALLED FEDERAL (PRIVATE) RESERVE (FALSE RESERVE) SYSTEM (OF STEALING FROM US)
School book covers we used to put on our books in the 1950s and 1960s for instance used to tell us that by the year 1980, our industry would be so productive that we would have so much free time on our hands, that an actual concern was the question, “What would we find to do with all this free time?”
The only possible consequence of the inherent multiplication of debt by interest, together with this false carrot of housing value appreciation, is multiplication of housing costs in proportion to possible means. The so called sub-prime mortgage anomaly is not a matter of incidental malpractice; it is a matter of the only practice possible when we must try to house people in homes… the cost of which are inherently multiplied beyond our means.
School book covers we used to put on our books in the 1950s and 1960s for instance used to tell us that by the year 1980, our industry would be so productive that we would have so much free time on our hands, that an actual concern was the question, “What would we find to do with all this free time?”
Instead, while a single “bread winner” easily supported a home and large family in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, in the 80s the multiplication of costs by the so called Federal Reserve System required 2 bread winners to support a home. As the further multiplication of costs can only require more; and as the multiplication is a multiplication in proportion to our income or means, of course this cost “appreciation” thus resulted in homelessness, where our nation should have been *prospering* — and would have been prospering just as our book covers foretold, if it were not for the stealings of the so called Federal Reserve System.
THE TRUTH ABOUT HOMELESSNESS UNDER USURY
Nothing fixed the cause of homelessness which we saw rising so dramatically during the Carter-Reagan era. The causes of homelessness have only increased, and can only increase under the inherent multiplication of debt in proportion to means of the so called Federal Reserve System.
People aren’t returned to homes under usury; further people are deprived of them (as Jefferson taught).
What happens to these people?
They die, and we sweep them off the streets.
HOUSING UNDER Mathematically Perfected Economy™
They die, and we sweep them off the streets.
Under mathematically perfected economy™ our debts are not subject to usury (multiplication by interest); and we pay against our debts at the natural rate of consumption or depreciation (which are equivalent).
Thus a $100,000 home with a hundred year lifespan costs us $1,000 per year or $83.33 per month.
What then are the ramifications of immediately adopting mathematically perfected economy™?
*MANY* people still paying against their homes will have paid fully for their homes.
In terms of their home, they will immediately be debt free.
Those without homes will be able to purchase a new $100,000 home with a 100-year lifespan at the overall rate of $83.33 per month.
Even people with part time, minimum wage jobs will be able to afford homes.
Against a cost under usury of $1,000 per month, the scale of savings under mathematically perfected economy™ thus frees up 11/12 (91%), or $910 of every $1,000 dollars currently being paid toward homes, which monies then of course can be devoted to promoting commerce and prosperity.
With short term debt being re-financed under mathematically perfected economy™, even greater savings in interest are realized, because short term interest rates are higher (often *much* higher).
With over 90% of our personal earnings being freed up to sustain further commerce, immediate adoption not only means avoiding collapse under insoluble debt; it provides for immediate realization of approximately 12 times present prosperity.
WHAT IS THE CIA DOING FOR YOU? “CIA AND COCAINE,” SEE THE VIDEO.
In 2004, Webb who remained active as an independent journalist, reportedly committed suicide by shooting himself in the head — twice.
“Pulitzer Prize winner Gary Webb, the journalist who broke the original CIA-Crack story in the 1990s, was rewarded by his employer the San Jose Mercury with a demotion.
He was also hounded out of the journalism profession by a smear campaign whose participants included the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Examiner.”
In 2004, Webb who remained active as an independent journalist, reportedly committed suicide by shooting himself in the head — twice.
Webb joined three other men — authors Danny Casolaro and J.H. Hatfield and artist Mark Lombardi — who “committed suicide” after getting too close to Bush family secrets.
I asked a mathematician to calculate the numerical odds of four American men who all were interested in this subject committing suicide and this is what he said…”
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. 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.
SUBSCRIBE to RSS FEED.
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.
BEST VIEWED WITH MOZILLA FIREFOX™.