MY POST TO THE RON PAUL MEETUP FORUMS, APPEALING FOR BONA FIDE ECONOMIC SOLUTION, AND/OR DEBATE

My dire concern for the success of this revival, together with a vision for our success, compels me to point out a fatal flaw in this campaign.

We need to pull a rabbit out of a hat. Not tomorrow. Not the day after that. Not next week.

Today.

This is your rabbit:

Many of you will outright deny we have a fatal flaw. I’ve heard many of you already. That denial is itself one of our greatest obstacles, because it obstructs us from considering the necessary refinement of our efforts. It is the hinge point of our failure, because it precludes a sound, productive debate of what we haven’t done right, and why we haven’t taken in the vast breadth of the voting populace with an overwhelming, wholly convincing and irresistible message.

We don’t have to leave question marks anywhere ? at least none which are our fault. Those who are against this debate want to go on saying that creating “money out of thin air” or that the government’s spending policies are “inflationary” are sufficient explanations to the American People we have not attracted, that this revolution will solve our country’s economic woes.

They may have some appeal to some of us, but they aren’t sufficient explanations; and I’ll tell you straight away how you can prove that to yourself right now:Go door to door and ask each person you encounter what *solution* either assertion suggests to them.

You probably don’t even have to do this to realize what you will find.That’s right; we DO have a fatal flaw; and it is even more than the question of deducible solution, because there are further fatal flaws in material I will address momentarily. But I promise that unless the household is already a member of this movement, your question will be met with blank stares ? the kind which clearly express our fellow Americans haven’t the slightest idea what solution you could possibly suggest from these equivocal assertions.

We can turn this into a good thing, but not if we tarry; and not if we cannot convey an absolute solution.

But do we understand an absolute solution, either?

To answer this question, I present to this proposed debate the proposition that our proposals will *not* solve our country’s economic woes; and I suggest that we broaden the scope of what we are attempting to do, to monetary reform which will solve the woes of the world.

How and why?

Many years ago (1979), I published a mathematic proof 1)that any purported economy involving a currency subject to interest ultimately terminates itself under insoluble debt; and 2)that there is one and one only integral solution to a)inflation and deflation, b)intrinsic (systemic) manipulation of the value or cost of money or property, and c)inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt by interest.

The purported relevance of this set of proofs is that it identifies all the classes of woe imposed by the present, unassented monetary system, and that it solves them not by a prescription which can be adulterated or compromised, but by proof of a singular prescription for mathematically perfected economy.

I present this proposition now, for your candid evaluation.

Many of you will immediately respond skeptically, and rightly so, to anything which purports perfection, mathematics and economy all in the same expression, because most of us realize that what we call modern “economics” is only a pseudo science, wholly bereft of formal proof and theorem.

Most of us too realize that the facades of this pretended discipline all revolve about the intention to take unearned gain from us.

But let us develop a science of economics, that we can evaluate the propositions of what our problems are, and how we may solve them.

2a)If inflation and deflation for instance are defined respectively as increases or decreases in circulation per goods and services, then we solve inflation and deflation both (or mathematically perfect an economy of inflation and deflation) simply by maintaining a circulation which is at all times equal to the remaining value of the related assets. Thus we have mathematically perfected economy in terms of inflation and deflation (2a).

To solve inflation and deflation therefore, we must pay off debts at the rate of consumption or depreciation (which are to be understood to be equivalent) of the related asset. A schedule of payment is obligatory to mathematically perfected economy.

Please note then that the propositions of this movement fail to solve inflation and deflation (as herein [and elsewhere] defined).

2c)According to the proof I published in 1979, any purported economy involving a currency subject to interest ultimately terminates itself under insoluble debt. Thomas Jefferson said something quite close to this, when he asserted that “If the American people ever allow the banks to issue their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation [by introducing a currency subject to interest, by having to pay interest and principal out of the circulation, and then by having to maintain the circulation by re-borrowing the principal and interest as a greater debt, increased so much as periodic interest], the banks and [eventually 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 [had just] conquered.”

So, as I have translated it, Jefferson’s proposition equates to the proof that any purported economy subject to interest ultimately terminates itself under insoluble debt. Merely to maintain a vital circulation, we are forced to re-borrow all that we pay out of the general circulation in the way of principal and interest, as subsequent sums of debt, increased so much as periodic interest. The sum of debt thus escalates by ever greater increments of periodic interest on ever greater sums of debt, until we can no longer afford to service an eventual sum of debt. The purported economy crashes, having inherently and irreversibly multiplied unearned taking upon its subjects, ostensibly justified by the “risk” of losing a currency which cost the central bankers virtually nothing to produce.

Note that the problem however is not that the money is created “out of thin air” as some are saying, but that it inherently and irreversibly multiplies debt and costliness upon us; for what issue is there with money created of any substance whatever, if that money truly represents the wealth it is intended to?

Neither is that costliness a manifestation of “inflation” (an increase in circulation per goods and services); it is singularly a manifestation of irreversible multiplication of debt produced by interest, because the circulation can be static; and production or goods and services can be static; and, so long as there is interest, ever more of the circulation will be consumed in servicing ever multiplying debt.

Some of you may doubt the fatal ramifications of this phenomena.

But recall that in the 1980 presidential debates, the moment most approximating the truth transpired when Ronald Reagan turned to President Carter, looked him in the eye, and pronounced the $150 B of federal debt accumulated under 4 years of the Carter Administration as “unforgivable.”

I wrote the Reagan Campaign then as I am now writing the Paul Campaign. I provided Reagan’s staff with a version of my 1979 proof which showed that unless he adopted mathematically perfected economy, he would suffer far greater multiplication of public and private debt than Carter had. I also provided a mathematic proof that his proposed federal tax cuts would fail. If you remember, he advocated cutting federal taxes 10% per year for three years, saying this would balance the federal budget and cure what he called “inflation.” My proof established that his 10% tax cuts (not being the cost of *all* things) were not even sufficient to *offset* the costs of *all* things increasing *more than* ten percent, much less could they possibly *solve* the cause of his “inflation,” which is inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt in proportion to the circulation.

But this was not all that I provided the Reagan administration.

Certain members of his staff warmly received my work. In due time, on the heels of the proofs I supplied, I provided his staff with computer models capable of calculating the maximum possible lifespan of any purported economy subject to interest, and which accurately projected the very accumulation of debt to this day. These were submitted to David Stockman. Yes, these models even foretold the tripling of national debt under Reagan; and it is quite possible, if not probable, that the material I provided is the principal reason David Stockman ultimately resigned. Not only did I shoot holes in all the *unqualified* things Reagan had advocated; I proved their solution ? a singular solution which was wholly ignored, and which ignorance took our country from its initial status as “the greatest creditor nation” in the world to its lowliest debtor nation. In seven years under Reagan, we accumulated $3 T in federal debt, a parallel multiplication of private debt, and became the most indebted nation in the world, because our privatized currency *can only* multiply debt upon us.

To solve inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt, we must eradicate interest. None of the circulation can be subject to interest. In effect, the people issue their own certified promises to pay (notes) via representative government, which notes are secured by the related asset.

Please note then however that the propositions of this movement fail to solve inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt, because they fail to eradicate interest. And also note, that this is the most destructive and threatening aspect of the present purported economy, because we are on the verge of systemic insoluble debt.

2b)Now that we have solved inflation, deflation, and inherent multiplication of debt in proportion to the original circulation, let us turn to intrinsic (systemic) manipulation of the value or cost of money or property, which is the final class of injustice a purported economy can impose upon the people.

Because the purported economy only has the power to manipulate these things through multiplication of debt, manipulation of the circulation (non-solution of inflation and deflation), manipulation of interest, and perpetual transformation of the proportions of the circulation which must be dedicated to servicing the ever swelling debt, therefore we solve intrinsic (systemic) manipulation of the value or cost of money or property by solving inflation and deflation, and inherent multiplication of debt. The combination of our other two solutions (2a and 2c) thus solves intrinsic manipulation of the value or cost of money or property.

Note furthermore then that because the propositions of this movement solve neither 2a or 2b, neither do the propositions of this movement solve manipulation of the cost or value of money or property.

2d) Furthermore, let us address the prospects of returning to the gold standard.

First of all, no such standard in and of itself has any power to solve inflation and deflation in a circulation capable of sustaining *any desirable* sum of commerce (which may exceed finite monetary reserves). But neither can a alternate monetary standard solve inherent multiplication of debt or manipulation of the value or cost of money or property then, because to do so we must eradicate interest and adhere to a schedule of payment equivalent to the rate of consumption.

Nonetheless, a finite circulation can never sustain desirable commerce exceeding the quantity of monetary reserves; and this is a critical reason every gold or precious metal monetary standard has failed. We may require a greater circulation; and when we do, adherence to a finite standard will obstruct us from doing so.

Furthermore, the only ostensible value of a further dimension of a purported monetary standard is preservation of the value of the currency; and nothing either accomplishes this, but solving intrinsic manipulation of the value or cost of money or property.

Note however that the money of MPE is not created out of thin air, as is so loosely alleged in these quarters. Under mathematically perfected economy, the circulation always equals the remaining value of the related assets. No ostensible extrinsic standard is even necessary then, because the money always equals the remaining value of the hard assets which secure the circulation.

2e)So how does mathematically perfected economy work?

A $100,000 home with a hundred-year lifespan must be paid off at the overall rate of $1,000 per year, or $83 per month.

By gosh, people could actually save enough to pay for their own retirement then, couldn’t they? What “sub-prime mortgage crisis” would we have? who couldn’t afford health care, especially if its costs were not inflated by inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt?

But note that we can only afford to save if the value of money does not depreciate; and that, in maintaining a circulation which is always equal to the remaining value of *all* related assets, only mathematically perfected economy does so.

2f)So how do we convert the present system into mathematically perfected economy?

We refinance all debt with out interest and bind its payment to a schedule equal to its consumption or depreciation; and we restore to the people the best we can approximate of what they would have retained, had they not been subject to the involuntary servitude of the so called Federal Reserve System.

Now I happen to know how “Austrian Economists” feel about mathematics. But I’m willing to take all of you on.

Are we ready for real solution in this country? Or is our appeal for “change” as hollow as others’?

And so I say not only that it is understandable that the households you can visit greet you with blank stares, I say that’s what they should greet you with, especially if you cannot answer a question they should ask: How it is even possible to maintain a circulation without suffering further and fatal multiplication of debt, if Ron Paul does not advocate mathematically perfected economy.

Show me what you’ve got; debate these propositions at the following links.

We can lead the way for the world, if we ourselves will wake up!

RELATED MATERIAL

1. Why Ron Paul Failed to Captivate the WHOLE Country (Nolan Chart)
   1. DEBATE NOLAN CHART ARTICLE
2. My Post to the DAILY PAUL FORUM… If You Had RON PAUL’s Ear For 2 Minutes Before The Upcoming Debate… WHAT WOULD YOU SAY?
3. My Critique of RON PAUL’S ‘COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION PLAN’
   1. DEBATE My Critique of RON PAUL’S ‘COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION PLAN’
   2. DEBATE THIS BLOG
4. PARABLE OF PERFECT ECONOMY — HOW USURY COMPELLED THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
   
   [MOST POPULAR PAGE, MANDATORY READ, AND A GOOD ALTERNATE STARTING POINT BEFORE JUMPING TO TOP.]
5. WHAT IS SOUND MONEY? WHY PRECIOUS METAL MONETARY STANDARDS CAN ONLY FAIL
   
   [MANDATORY READ.]
6. Why Pre-MPE™ Austrian School *Thinking* Can Never Solve Our Issues
7. A FATAL FLAW OF AUSTRIAN SCHOOL ECONOMICS — COMPLETE REJECTION OF MATHEMATICS?
   
   [MANDATORY READ; RELEVANT TO CURRENT ELECTION.]
8. REGARDING INTEREST THEN, DOES AUSTRIAN SCHOOL ECONOMICS NOT HAVE TITLE TO LIBERTY AND RIGHT REVERSED?
   
   [MANDATORY READ; RELEVANT TO CURRENT ELECTION.]
9. Austrian Economics
   
   Deborah L. Walker, Library of Economics and Liberty, Concise Encyclopedia of Economics
10. Capital and Interest: A Critical History of Economical Theory
    
    B?hm-Bawerk, Eugen von (1851-1914)
    1. The Opposition to Interest in Classical and Medieval Times
    2. The Defence of Interest From the Sixteenth Till the Eighteenth Century
    3. Turgot’s Fructification Theory
    4. Adam Smith and the Development of the Problem
11. Google Austrian School Economics in a separate tab or window
12. PROBABILITY OF WORLD-WIDE ECONOMIC COLLAPSE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF INTEREST
    
    [A PRINCIPAL REASON FOR MPE™; POPULAR PAGE.]
13. WHAT IS Mathematically Perfected Economy™?
    
    [POPULAR PAGE.]
14. WHY AND HOW USURY HAS BEEN IMPOSED ACROSS THE WORLD
15. PURPOSES OF THE DECEPTION THAT INFLATION IS CONTROLLED BY INTEREST (USURY)
    
    [MANDATORY READ.]
16. RELEVANT HISTORIC QUOTES
    
    [POPULAR PAGE; AN EXTENSIVE HISTORIC PATTERN.]
17. THE FALSIFIED ARGUMENT THAT RISK JUSTIFIES INTEREST (USURY)
    
    [MANDATORY READ.]
18. WHAT IS FREE ENTERPRISE?
    
    [MANDATORY READ.]
19. WHAT IS USURY?
    
    [MANDATORY READ; EXPLAINS THAT INTEREST CAN ONLY ENGENDER USURIOUS DEBT.]

This entry was posted on Friday, February 8th, 2008 at 7:12 pm and is filed under CENTRAL BANKS, WORLD BANKS, Mathematically Perfected Economy, RON PAUL, events and politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.