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.


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.

Monday, June 30th, 2008

Ron Paul does indeed preach the basic thrust of Jeffersonian and Washington foreign policy; and for that he deserves considerable credit.

I am not sure the idea is as unpopular as you suggest, so much as it is adverse to the largely undeclarable goals of candidates who represent selfish and destructive U.S. hegemony, international usury, and *their* corporate interests above the people’s. To say it is unpopular is as much then as to say the people don’t understand how all these things represent interests which are against them. The sheeple of the corporate media of course *can* know no better, because the same people, who own that media, purge the tales of today’s events of all the things which would tell sheeple their masters are wolves.

But whether Americans overall have so lost touch with their original principles is at least debatable. I hear some Americans declare outright that they support killing for oil. Yet if many others weren’t astonished by that proposition, neither would the neo-cons have had to invent the WMD lies, or allege that Iraq was a base of terrorism. These lies themselves attest to the unpopularity and distastefulness instead of this naked form of imperialism and military coercion.

Nonetheless, the traditional foreign policy Mr. Paul would like to return to is not merely attributable to Jefferson and Washington. As John Adams recorded by declaring our roots, its basis is an adherence to the Christian doctrine of do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The principle of that doctrine of course is justice; and that justice, to which no exception can exist, is the core of the further idea that universal justice is the only foundation for real peace. Our original foreign policy was no less a noble concept than that.

Understanding these simple things, furthermore, essentially means advocating the teaching of justice, for without its understanding, we can never have or maintain it. To maintain justice also means the thorough reporting of injustice. It means sustaining dialog capable of establishing universal justice. These in fact were the very things the colonists sought; and against which, being denied them, we revolted.

Rather than imposing the injustice of taking a country’s resources, or denying its means of production, the colonists rose against these very things inflicted against themselves. It is a matter of either great hypocrisy or whole loss of the original principle (or both) then, that a nation which rose up to establish an eternal fortress against imperialism, refused representation, and any denial of property or right, should today find itself resorting to lies and plunder, largely because of a purported economic system which so deprives us of our own production and opportunity to produce, that we leave ourselves little answer but such wickedness.

One reason Mr. Paul is so popular among our military then, is that it is they who are forced to implement this wickedness, who not only have to see it for what it is, but whom are forced to pay all its dearest prices. Because we are human — at least so long as we remain humane — the price of military iniquity is most cruel to the soul of the hand made to exercise it. Truly supporting they who are asked these things then, involves an equally dear obligation to ensure the price to be paid is right.

No less is the obligation of our nation to get its political facade in order.

You rightly complain of the faults of interventionism; the costs of foreign aid, while we endure perpetually escalating indebtedness; the banishing of our industry to foreign countries; the futility of attempting only to sustain that industry at huge, unsustainable deficits; and the incredible irresponsibility of leaving our children this mess if we should even be so fortunate not to suffer its full consequences far sooner than that. You muse, “It is seemingly more and more likely that the only way this behavior will end is by an economic collapse.”

But there is one common cause yet of all these things. That cause is usury, which multiplies debt upon us as we are obligated by it to maintain a vital circulation; and as maintenance of that vital circulation inherently entails perpetually re-borrowing principal and interest as ever greater sums of debt, increased at escalating rates of ever greater periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt.

It is this process which Christ too complained of which is responsible for our industrial deterioration, for it is the costs of servicing the debt which have long ago now driven our real industry elsewhere. It is the usurers who came to own our industry by “markets” which are arenas of predation; and it is these usurers who have taken technologies we developed elsewhere, to our complete disadvantage. It is usury which owns the monopolies which extend their might by foreign “interventions” which thinly disguise the imperialism of the undeclared plutocracy. It is that plutocracy which raises candidate after candidate who will never raise the nature of usury as the most destructive process against the people. It is that plutocracy which owns the media.

Ron Paul however does not preach Jeffersonian and Washingtonian monetary policy, not only because there is no such thing, but because if anything, Austrian dogma preserves the destructive usurpation which was urged on by Hamilton, unopposed by Washington’s monetary naivete.

Hamilton of course worked hard to gain the undeserved trust of Washington, who, because he had no substantive understanding of monetary theory, largely left the development of a monetary system to a representative of “banking interests.” In the resultant controversies against Jefferson, the inability of the founders to determine a sustainable and just monetary system, together with our own failure to do so, paved the way for the issues of our own day.

As opposed to the idea of money representing the wealth we produce, Hamilton advocated both a central bank and the purported free markets which offer up ownership of our productive capacities to the highest bidder, which of course will be the central bank.

Austrian dogma supports these pretentious notions, against which of course, Jefferson warned that the currency of such a system would deprive the people of all property until their children woke homeless on the continent their fathers had conquered.

That day of course has come. But it is impossible that a given proposition represent Jefferson, and/or Washington or Hamilton, because their positions are opposed. Jefferson understood that a privatized currency subject to interest involved a process which could only engender dispossession of our industrial capacity, and, thereby, eventual usurpation of the very seat of representation. Washington, largely failing to perceive the dangers Jefferson and many others raised, defaulted to Hamilton. In the vacuum of the lack of a perfected monetary prescription, Hamilton represented the usurers against the interests of the people.

This controversy and lack of solution played out in over 200 years of strife. Central banks were created and rescinded. Andrew Jackson told the bankers, “You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by eternal God, I will rout you out.” So he did.

Lincoln was probably assassinated because he came so close to understanding how to perfect economy. In the wake of his killing, manipulation of credit resulted in artificial events which formed the purposed backdrop against which the private so called Federal Reserve System — an all powerful conglomerate of 12 private corporations which are neither federal nor reserves of anything — was foisted upon the American People in violation even of campaign promises that no central bank would be created. As is the case for any currency subject to interest, this system could only multiply debt in proportion to the capacity to service debt, until the system reaches a maximum practical lifespan, after which it fails because it cannot service its artificially multiplied debt.

After being promised to prevent what it can only engender, the so called Federal Reserve System imposed its first such failure a mere 15 years into its existence. Its second lifespan begins at the closure of World War Two, and arguably is in the present death throes of inevitable failure, because in fact we are not credit-worthy even to maintain a circulation without the artificial sustention of federal over-spending.

So indeed, if the American People will not meet the need to understand that there is one and one only solution to irreversible multiplication of debt by interest, they will never choose singularly to eradicate interest, that their money can serve them as real tokens of wealth only can.

Neither of course will they demand a candidate who advocates the one and one only solution to our issues.

But Jefferson did not tell us that the American People should wait for a candidate to represent them. On the contrary, he said explicitly that if the American People ever allow the banks to issue their currency, that all these acts against us would fall upon us.

The Austrians Mr. Paul doggedly represents in fact not only advocate the interest of private bankers; private currencies; and even “competing” private currencies, as if inconsistency could possibly serve us. The Austrians also advocate what they call “free markets.” But these markets are hardly free: they are subject to the inherent, irreversible, inherently escalating multiplication of debt by interest — all of which serve unearned gain to the ever greater destruction of free enterprise.

The essential propositions are mutually exclusive.

The American People have been betrayed by usurers from our beginnings; and yet all this while there is one and one only solution to inflation and deflation, systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and inherent multiplication of debt by interest. That is therefore that the people issue their own promises to pay without the artificial cost of interest, and that they pay their debts at the rate of depreciation or consumption of the related asset.

Thus a $100,000 home with a 100-year lifespan costs us $1,000 per year or $83.33 per month; and so, unless Ron Paul will adopt mathematically perfected economy as his platform, he too cannot represent the American People. But if he *or any of the other candidates* *would* do that, they *would* be the only candidate who could serve not only the American People, but perhaps the very most critical principle upon which world justice, sustainability and prosperity depend.

Of course, we do not have to endure monetary failure to see, or to do all that; and so it is hardly to our credit that we are not acting now to establish the one prescription comprising monetary justice for the sake of the world.


Sunday, June 29th, 2008



I provided the Reagan Administration computer models which, by calculating multiplication of debt by practiced patterns of interest and growth, projected full blown failure under a terminal sum of debt at approximately 2010 AD from 1983. We’re arguably in economic failure now, and we will never reach 2040 before that failure is full blown.

To your (or Paul’s) credit, your federal debt figures are conservative by many alternate ways of determining them; and, by others’ reckonings as well, escalation of unfunded further liabilities (owing to borrowing from Peter [social securty and so forth] to pay Paul [any other program]) amounted to as much as 100 trillion two years ago.

Given the possible accuracy of these reckonings, and further “undiscovered” facts such as false leveraging or anticipated asset appreciation which will fail with further deterioration/collapse, the actual per capita condition of the prospective failure can be far worse than you give.

While I commend Mr. Paul for standing up against these atrocities, I believe he has squandered the best opportunity we have had in the last 100 years to right our country, because he has constantly raised false assertions of cause and solution which far too many of us see through.

If for instance inflation and deflation are defined respectively as increases/decreases in circulation per related wealth, then obviously, by the most elementary math, we know that we can only solve inflation and deflation by maintaining a circulation which is perpetually equal to the related wealth.

We can only do that by introducing so much circulation as the market determines the value of the respective wealth, and by paying off a related monetary obligation equal only to that, at the rate of consumption or depreciation.

Mr. Paul does not advocate this solution.

Likewise, contrary to his assertion of devaluation of the dollar by a purported fact of “inflation” he has never proven, the prospective collapse is engendered by inherent multiplication of debt in proportion to the circulation, as we are compelled to maintain a circulation to service debt, and to maintain a circulation, we are compelled to re-borrow principal and interest paid out of the general circulation, with the necessity to replenish the circulation thus perpetually increasing the sum of debt so much as periodic interest.

Paul, Vieira, Griffin, and other Austrians of course do not even recognize this process (see my invalidation of Griffin).

But we solve this process of multiplication of debt by interest, only by eradicating interest — which the Austrians on the contrary advocate. So, without any better attempt at invalidating the process than Griffin’s preposterous effort, the Austrians (who likely will assert communism, socialism, collectivism, or lack of free markets or an adversity to math as they always do) only commit us to the failure ahead. Of course, they don’t advocate an alternate solution, because there is one and one only solution to inflation/deflation, systemic manipulation of the cost/value of money or property, and inherent multiplication of debt by interest (which they don’t even recognize).

So finally, mathematically perfected economy solves systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, by its *combination* of the elementary solutions of inflation/deflation and systemic multiplication of debt by interest — which are the only powers a monetary system has to manipulate the cost or value of money or property.

Ron Paul not only does not advocate that singular integral solution, he continues to evade debating it, and continues (perpetually) to assert a false cause for instance for price inflation. He attributes price inflation to circulatory inflation, despite no formal proof or theorem of same, and despite the fact that I proved long ago that the only systemic cause of price inflation is inherent multiplication of debt by interest.

Worse, Mr. Paul and his Austrian friends who always take the opportunity to sling insults in return to these facts, can hardly prove the circulatory inflation he claims when the circulation is far less than the value of all wealth.

So he advocates returning to a gold standard, when monetary reserves can hardly sustain a circulation sufficient to sustain industry far exceeding that circulation — even claiming while works Franklin produced when he was just 23 disprove his assertion, that gold will endow the money with a consistent, perpetual value, which only mathematically perfected economy maintains by always preserving a circulation free in its entirety to be redeemed only in that wealth, free and capable in its entirety to resolve the remaining monetary obligations, and free from servicing interest or multiplying debt by interest.

Mr. Paul, you may recall, yet uses my term, “insoluble debt” — a term I introduced in 1979 in my original formal proof of inherent multiplication of debt (later stolen by authors of “The Debt Virus” and so forth), and of singular solution to all these irregularities in mathematically perfected economy.

If Mr. Paul does not recognize the process of multiplication of deb ty interest; and if Austrians are to continue advocating interest even if this proposition is true, then how is Mr. Paul even truly advocating the problem, his authority/authorship of solution, or the facts by which we can determine either as truth?

So you see, Mr. Paul is certainly not the only one trying to tell the truth; and if “the revolution” which existed long before he even claims to have taken an interest in “economics” is to prevail, we’re going to have to determine *which* is the truth,, and who is really advocating it.

Furthermore nonetheless, in regard to Ron’s position on the cited bill, I’ll stand with him in certain important respects:

You quote Mr. Paul as saying,

“The solution is for government to stop micromanaging the economy and let the market adjust, as painful as that will be for some. We should not force taxpayers, including renters and more frugal homeowners, to switch places with the speculators and take on those same risks that bankrupted them. It is a terrible idea to spread the financial crisis any wider or deeper than it already is, and to prolong the agony years into the future. Socializing the losses now will only create more unintended consequences that will give new excuses for further government interventions in the future. This is how government grows - by claiming to correct the mistakes it earlier created, all the while constantly shaking down the taxpayer. The market needs a chance to correct itself, and Congress needs to avoid making the situation worse by pretending to ride to the rescue.”

He’s absolutely right that we should not allow speculators to take freely from the pool of wealth on the one hand, and relieve them of responsibility of *their* consequences by putting the costs of their mis-doings on the taxpayer, renter, etc.

But the solution is not to call the market free, when it is subject further to the involuntary servitude of multiplication of debt by interest, and to promotion of cost by usurers, who for profit maximize debt. That “market” is no more free than any other slave.

The solution is to refinance all this debt under mathematically perfected economy. Thus a $100,000 home with a 100-year lifespan would cost us $1,000/year or $83/month.

Then and then alone will *A FREE MARKET* be paying for the production of others *WITH* whatever that free market determined was the value of that wealth.



Sunday, June 29th, 2008

As the so called securities/stock markets vacillate, the so called Austrian School of “economists” continues to advocate unearned gain, calling the subject arenas, “free markets.” They deny usury; and continue to advocate unearned gain even as the economy fails.

The whole idea of “securities” is unearned gain. There is no security whatever from a system which can only engender failure, to which unearned gain can only contribute, because unearned gain from the pool of wealth can only come at cost to real producers, who are obliged yet to service the sum of debt all monetary systems subject to interest impose upon their subjects.

Because only production produces wealth; and because reward for producing wealth can only come from the ultimate price of distributed wealth (however imposed upon by unearned gain), unearned gain deprives real producers of the very opportunity to receive for their production, an equal measure of the production of others.

This of course is part of what’s “driving up” energy and food costs. It’s why millions are starving while food waits in storehouses until the starving can meet the price of the commodities trader who produces nothing and takes the vast share of potential reward for produced wealth.

These things are bad enough on their own. But given an underlying monetary system which itself can only multiply debt while we maintain a vital circulation by re-borrowing interest and principal as ever greater sums of debt, the competitive quest for unearned gain exhausts the last potential reward for real enterprise, even before inherent multiplication of debt by the monetary system imposes inevitable collapse under a terminal sum of debt we can no longer afford to service.

As both are coming to a head now; the smoke and mirror of “long term securities” can only hope to take profit from an unsustainable, bankrupt system.

Only under mathematically perfected economy are the costs of unearned profit eliminated. Only under mathematically perfected economy are “the markets” truly freed by solving devaluation of currency and multiplication of debt by interest — something the Austrians actually *advocate* to our perpetual demise. Neither Paul, Vieira, Griffin, Mises, Browne, Hayek, or anyone else of the Austrian School can advocate solution, because they advocate both interest and unearned gain — calling that arena of predation a “free market.”

Friday, June 27th, 2008

Propaganda, lies, or utter stupidity?

Vote for Wilson campaign truck (upper, forward right-side panel) asks (tells), “Who broke the money trust? Who keeps us out of war?”

Our country has suffered under over 200 years of various attempts — never with a public mandate — to impose usury upon an unwitting citizenry who do not even know that a currency subject to interest can only multiply debt in proportion even to the potential capacity to service debt.

Several of these attempts to establish so called national or central banks have succeeded for a while, always through tumultuous histories. Every such system can only engender mounting inequity, because its multiplication of debt inherently dedicates ever more of a circulation to servicing debt, leaving ever less of the circulation to sustain the very commerce which is obliged to service the debt. Ultimately, ever such system collapses at a maximum practical lifespan, predicated by an inevitable moment when inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt in proportion to the circulation engenders a sum of debt which the system can no longer afford to service.

Even if we do not understand this process, all this should sound quite familiar in the evidence everywhere about us. The present implementation of 12 private corporations promised quite contrarily to prevent such things. But of course, so suggested process is even capable of preventing inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt by interest, as to maintain a circulation, we are coerced to perpetually re-borrow payments against principal and interest obligations, with the necessity to perpetually replenish a constantly deflating circulation thus resulting in a perpetual escalation of debt, ever equal to the previous sum of debt, plus so much as periodic interest.

Over the last years of the 19th century and first few years of the 20th, artificial banking calamities were purposed as a background for which to propose a thing which could never solve the causes thereof — consolidation of the powers to dispossess us likewise, in a combination of the principal perpetrators. These twelve private corporations would be endowed with the further remarkable power even, to produce a privatized currency at no cost, and not only to charge interest on introduced currency which therefore *absolutely would not* represent *earned* wealth; but to multiply debt to the very consequences we can only expect of a currency which for no risk to its issuer whatever, only purportedly justifies interest.

So, much as Mr. McCain advocates and denies advocation of *further* “privatization,” in the spirit of a hidden agenda today, the Republicans raised the audacious proposal of combining the conspiring banks in their vicious Aldrich Bill. As Congressman Louis T. McFadden and others well recorded to our Congressional Record, the 1912 Democrat Party Platform explicitly promised that if returned to power, the Democrats would *not* create a central bank. With the American People smelling the skunk, the Democrats were elected.

But a remarkable betrayal of the people immediately ensued. Principals of the Aldrich Bill were immediately found within the Wilson Administration, and in less than a year, in the eve of December 23, 1913, the vicious Federal Reserve Act, a little compromised virtual twin of the Aldrich Bill, was foisted upon the betrayed American People.

As no act which preserves interest can eradicate multiplication of debt by interest, this act can only preserve multiplication of debt in proportion to a circulation, until for merely maintaining a vital circulation, at whatever rate of deterioration predicated by interest and growth, the system ultimately fails. It of course did so but a mere 15 years into its existence.

In the midst of the First Great Depression, it would soon be found financing the military preparations of Hitler for WW II and even paying the debts of Japanese military preparations to German Munitions makers. After the Second World War, credit-worthiness inherently destroyed by the unassented and unjustifiable system would be restored, that its second finite lifespan could begin. The artificial sums of debt which were the underlying cause of the whole failure, were only destroyed by the failure itself. After 15 years, to resume usury, credit was granted again. The first players on the Monopoly Board were encouraged to multiply their unearned profit from their own progeny; and to the real benefit of no one under the resultant, perpetual devaluation of the currency, every subsequent generation would be committed to paying lifetime after lifetime of their own production, for but a few months of our own work.

Now, just around the corner is the prospect of the end of the second inherently finite lifespan of the same process, which can only multiply debt into an ever greater, eventually terminal, insoluble sum of debt.

Long before even Hitler would be prepared to wage war against us however, President Wilson, realizing how severely he had been duped and what the consequences of that dupery to the country are, made this apology to history:

“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 &mdash 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.”

Wilson’s campaign slogans had advocated his candidacy by asking, “Who broke the money trust? Who keeps us out of war?” His slogans claimed “prosperity preparedness.” Rather than breaking the money trust, he gave it unlimited power and ensured our destruction by it. Rather than keeping us out of war, he had unwittingly financed the opposition. Rather than preparing the way to prosperity, he paved the way for the dispossession Jefferson and Lincoln had warned us of, long before.

In telling this story for almost 40 years, I am often asked why have the Democrats (or Republicans) never rectified this error?

Of course, the answer lies in the wake we should foresee in such usurpation. But to this very day I ask the same question, knowing too that there is but one solution for both circulatory and price inflation/deflation, systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and inherent multiplication of interest — something I have proposed less formally since 1968, and formally since 1979.

The obvious intentions of said usurpation explain of course too, why we have been obstructed from mathematically perfected economy™ ever since. Today nonetheless, this question is more important than ever, because we stand at the brink of failure under said process of artificial multiplication of debt. If we fail now to implement what I call mathematically perfected economy™, we may very well once again lose not only the industry which has been banished to slave markets or extinguished altogether, but all our property in the failure of this imposed, unjustifiable system.

Without saluting the much borrowed and adulterated cause of deterioration my work identified long ago, candidates like Ron Paul have even advocated termination of the Federal Reserve, simply claiming false causes of price inflation — a thing which I have shown for 40 years is driven by artificial multiplication of debt.

Mr. Paul himself then negates the only real reason to rescind the culpable system. Worse, he means to hide the only facts from which we can deliver solution.

What we need today is to return to *some* form of money which only truly represents wealth; and, against the issues which the gold standard always failed to resolve, we need to that form of currency to be redeemable perpetually in the very things it is intended to represent. Otherwise, we require an alternate standard such as the gold standard; but given a monetary system which delivers money which is *always* redeemable in the very things it purports to represent, we have no need of such a standard whatever — and the exceedingly expensive currency it redundantly entails, and can never protect us from the faults which devalue a currency.

The value of money of course can only be systemically manipulated by inflation/deflation or interest, because these are the only powers the system has to do so. Circulatory inflation/deflation does so by altering the proportional relationship between the circulation and the industry we want it to sustain. Because interest multiplies debt in proportion to a circulation, the fact it dedicates ever more of the circulation to servicing debt versus sustaining the commerce which is obliged to service the debt, further corrupts the capacity of the circulation to sustain commerce, even until the system collapses.

Because [circulatory] inflation and deflation are respectively defined as increases or decreases in the volume of circulation per the related volume of wealth the circulation is intended to represent, there is one and one only solution to inflation and deflation; and that is to introduce so much circulation as the original value of the wealth, and to pay off the resultant monetary obligation at the rate of depreciation or consumption.

We cannot therefore solve manipulation of the value of the currency via inflation or deflation if the currency is subject to interest, because interest compels us to pay more out of circulation than the original principal. But neither does a form of money which is merely published at virtually no cost represent earned wealth, as purportedly justifies interest. There is no justification of interest whatever therefore; for in fact, the money only represents the credit of a producer, and only guarantees that the creditor can collect that value if the money is not subject to an extrinsic party, who produces nothing, but collects interest to effect that the real creditor cannot collect the principal.

Pretentious scholars assert again and again that we can in fact pay the sum of our principal *and* interest obligations from a circulation which can be no more than the principal. They give examples that we can earn money back from the so called banking system to pay the interest. But of course this no more proves their deduction that we can pay *all* the principal and interest of eternity in such a way, than drinking a thimble of water and taking ten steps proves you can cross the dessert on that thimble of water.

For us to avert multiplication of debt by maintaining a circulation subject to interest, we must be able to earn *all* the interest on *all* debt back from banks, for every penny of interest that we do not restore to circulation by earning it from banks in turn increases the sum of debt in proportion to the circulation — ensuring the collapse they say is averted by drinking a thimble of water. It is not even possible to earn so much “back” from banks, because production/principal multiplied by interest exceeds our very production.

But certainly, the fact that across the whole subject population so few of us *do* indeed earn but a pittance of wages from “banks” illustrates the negligible practical degree to which all the interest we pay on debt is offset by a purported capacity to earn from “banks.”

So, this singular solution of inflation, deflation and inherent multiplication of debt by eradication of interest is mathematically perfected economy™, because the combination of these two solutions further solves all possible systemic manipulations of the cost or value of money or property. Other than averting near term failure under further irreversible, artificial multiplication of debt, what does the proposition of mathematically perfected economy™ mean to us?

By refinancing all debt under mathematically perfected economy™ for instance, a $100,000 home with a hundred year lifespan would be paid off at an overall rate of $1,000 per year, or $83.33 per month.

So mathematically perfected economy™ is also the only way we can pay each other for equal measures of our production with whatever we deem to be equal measures of our production. Given too that further means of unearned gain are denied predatory opportunity, mathematically perfected economy™ too is the only truly free market, and true system of sustainable, free enterprise.

As the Republican rejection of Mr. Paul, together with the “privatization” thoroughly implemented at incredible overall cost to the people by the present and future prospective Republican regimes prove, the Republicans are only here to pretend to serve the people, while they give free license to our destruction by further “privatization.” It was a takeover of the Republican Party almost 100 years ago, which would use that party to preserve usury and those tied to its purse strings, ever after.

Mr. Paul failed to produce monetary solution, for the gold standard had already failed; the value of gold has vacillated wildly even recently; a return to the gold standard can never sustain industry far exceeding the quantity of monetary gold; nor can the gold standard avert multiplication of debt by interest. Nonetheless, the true gravity of support for Mr. Paul based solely on his stance against the so called Federal Reserve was purposely subdued by the mainstream media, owned of course by the very purse strings which so intend to perpetuate our involuntary servitude. Thee are far more of us here who are extremely disenfranchised by the politics which preserve this evil imposition.

The Democrats have only proposed to treat the wounds inflicted by this system by ever greater taxation and perpetual expansion of otherwise redundant social programs, which in the end and to an ever greater degree all the way, are only to be defeated by further multiplication of debt.

Why then can’t the Democrats see to shed the stigmas of “tax and spend” and “socialism” by rectifying the error of Wilson, and establishing mathematically perfected economy™?

Thursday, June 26th, 2008

Here, if Diebold again shall work its wonders, perched about American flags he soon hopes to swear before, we have John McCain both proposing privatization of Social Security and later telling us he has never advocated privatization of Social Security.

To the degree that vast unfunded liabilities engender either direct or indirect accumulation of federal debt (regardless of the program to which the debt is “officially” attributed), Social Security may already be considered a “privatized” social program, under the umbrella of which, at prospectively no profit or undue cost, federal offices perform the whole of mundane duties, while the so called financial system collects vast unearned profit by its usurpation of the monetary system.

What then, in any prospective political manifestation, does “privatization” mean? In the present case of “privatization” so far, “privatization” means enforced, obligatory expenses financed at vast redundant costs simply given to private corporations (the private, so called “Federal” Reserve System), for no benefit or service whatever. Thus under the quest to “privatize” so far, these usurers and the many who are tied to their purse strings are looting our country to the last days of the republic.

Thus to preserve the degree of privatization imposed in the monetary system, or to extend privatization to any other further area of administration (imposing further profit, as imposed upon the present war), both are to stand for privatization at incredible expense to the people — and, even under the present extent of privatization so far, to the already demonstrated fault of destroying the very sustainability of the program.

The term “privatization” therefore is designed to appeal to the simpleton who associates “private” with representation of the individual/freedom. Of course, like practically all political terms these days, it effectively means the opposite of what it’s intended to appear to mean (to the simpleton): it is a veil over acts which prey upon the individual and destroy freedom.

Because politicians of McCain’s line of pretension therefore can never engage in transparent, comprehensive discussion of the implications of privatization, they simply tell their constituents that privatization is more effective. But the truth always is, that the most efficient thing to do is to cut the fat out of the program, because given that we can do that, the *profit* which is the object of privatization can only increase cost above that. The first and most destructive fat to cut then would be the privatized monetary system which is destroying the whole country and very prospect of free enterprise. McCain of course won’t even consider doing that, because he represents all these thieves — and by extension, their multiplying destruction.

If McCain were to argue the opposite, that a government social program cannot be administered by the likes of Congress, of course he has no business even being either a Senator or advocate of privatization, because then his actions admit he cannot even touch upon the program which will minimize costs.

But to argue that a mandatory social program be amputated to privatization on the other hand certifies he’s a whore to the plutocracy, which itself is moving its headquarters to places such as Dubai, where they can hide from U.S. law for their crimes, and where they can better avoid the cries of the American people, in the death throes the plutocracy leaves us.

Wednesday, June 25th, 2008

[This article responds to Walter E. Williams’ Minority View — “Problem of Ignorance” at GMU, as further cited at Liberty Maven, “Who Understands The Free Market? Walter Does.”]

Walter evidently intends to borrow credibility by citing Hayek (as if Hayek’s assertion is credible). He says,

“Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek, one of the greatest economists of the 20th century, called it a fatal conceit for anyone to think that a single mind or a single committee can somehow do things better than the spontaneous, unstructured, complex and creative forces of the market.”

What a crock. You say that Williams understands free markets; but when in history has a free market itself solved problems such as inflation/deflation, systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, or inherent multiplication of debt by interest?


In fact what you are probably calling a free market here itself comprises a resistance to solving these things — all for the contrary sake of predation. Is a man’s promise to another made better by costs imposed by a third which eventually make payment impossible?

Evidently, you say so.

So, under the facade of purported economics which *are* bankrupting us and which are wholly bereft of a single formal proof or theorem (as is exemplified by the article’s assertions), we are made subject to a monetary system which can only multiply debt upon that market and its producers, to whatever degree we must re-borrow principal and interest paid out of the general circulation — thus engendering a perpetual and eventually terminal escalation of debt.

On the one hand, Austrians renounce the whole plausibility of math, either for analysis, solution, or validation. Yet they cite simple mathematic problems such as traffic statistics, and regularly pronounce them insoluble, even while every signal you visit is its mentor’s best solution. That’s a mighty poor excuse for “understanding” “free” markets which never even granted their assent to the central banking systems imposed upon the world.

On the other hand, without qualification, evidently Austrians claim “spontaneous, unstructured, complex and creative forces” better determine solutions or course (whatever, mud) than pragmatic, structured, simplified/solvent efforts which in all true disciplines characterize quality work.

Walter emulates the latter, but he does so to raise the former.

So it just doesn’t hold water, Walter. I don’t even see what you intend to instruct us in. Is it economic rectitude? It can’t be, if you won’t even venture to justify the nature of money. Is it sustainability? It can’t be, unless you can show us how a handful of unassented banks can consume so much of our production for the money they print out of thin air, that we don’t have to re-borrow any interest we have paid out of the general circulation, the perpetuation of which will irreversibly multiply debt in proportion to a circulation.

Yes, I’m aware Austrians *think* they’ve already invalidated “the debt virus theory.” That’s because the author pretended to be its author, of something he didn’t even fully understand, much less could cite correctly.

Austrians pretend there is no such thing as mathematically perfected economy; that interest is justified, even as new money is required to sustain further commerce, and no new money published at virtually no cost whatever can possibly represent earned wealth, at stake at the necessary cost of interest.

Walter says, “The big problem in any system, whether it’s an economic, biological or ecological system, is information, communication and control.”

Those are not atypical issues Walter, which validate purported Austrian economics in its obstruction of solution.

Nor is the Austrian course even in possession of something unique. Given any problem, any true engineer organizes the given information and deduces a solution which engenders the desired control.

We cannot even truly say, much less can we validate the preposterous Austrian notions by asserting, “For congressmen, or a committee they select, to take over control of the nation’s traffic signals requires a massive amount of information that they cannot possibly possess such as traffic flows at intersections, accident experiences and changes in peak and low peak traffic patterns.”

No, Walter. Today especially, we *can* “possess” and even process massive volumes of information.

In fact we do so routinely — except of course if “Austrian economists” get in the way of solving inflation and deflation, systemic manipulation of the cost or value of our credit *to each other*, or inherent multiplication of debt by interest — something the Austrian “somehow” savors.

I agree with you Walter that we the people can determine how to run our lives better than Washington can. I disagree that purported Austrian economics is any better than Washington, for you have the privatized currency subject to interest each of you would impose upon us — and both obstruct rectifying.

Monday, June 23rd, 2008

In his June 18, PressMediaWire.com article, “Ron Paul Questions: Iraq or the Economy,” Ron Paul asserts enormous concurrent monetary costs of the present aggression against Iraq.

He tells,

“War takes what would otherwise be productive economic capacity and transfers both that capacity, and the wealth it would generate in normal, peaceful, times into far less economically viable activities. It also impacts budget priorities in ways that are detrimental to our nation. I have often pointed to the fact that we are building bridges in Iraq while they are collapsing in the United States.”

Having demolished far more than bridges to restore unjustifiable profits to international oil companies understandably banished by Saddam Hussein, the reasons and costs of this destruction and re-construction are now facts of history.

So, another generation of citizen and soldier are given their day’s destructive rationale: “If we don’t fight them over there, we’ll be fighting them over here.” Meanwhile, the few succeeding administrative efforts paved the way for uncompeted contracts, further privatization of profits from conflict, and, from this time onward, for artificial multiplication of the costs of the spoils. Record profits were sealed by these nefarious efforts, while the whole of purported objectives either did not exist (WMD), were impractical or doomed to failure (immediate revision of long traditions of public disposition), or were meant to accomplish undeclared purposes (purported “democratization” perpetuates all the real objects of “privatization”).

Obviously then, war does not just translate into “less economically viable activities.” When it serves oppressors, it perpetuates oppression and all its costs. So always, to serve oppressors abroad is to advance the means and stature of those oppressors at home.

The thinking we are always compelled to give these issues, raises again and again the observation that, except in the case where both are dedicated solely to defeating it, power and government are the principal tools to promote oppression. The deduction a succeeding humanity needs consistently to make therefore, is that even the least potential for usurpation or abuse of power are to be eradicated for every conceivable reason.

War and privatization are mere cases of abuse of power which transfer spoils and artificially imposed profits and costs. Inherently, the governmental struggles for each are always between oppressors, because the only cause of the subject peoples is protection from oppression. And so for the most obvious reasons, strife of any such nature is always cloaked in seeming goals of the people, while the inherent goal of the people ? from which they should never take their eye ? is instead to develop governments and infrastructures which can neither foster or host oppression of even the seeming least kind.

Rather than war or privatization of ostensible government duties then, the inherent goal of all people is eradication of every least possibility of oppression from every government and infrastructure; and the very thing which marks the one government which truly serves its people, is its unswerving and unexcepted dedication to that same eradication.

Real economy therefore is imperative. In the balance nonetheless, the facts of how much we are served by either oppression or its eradication are equally simple.

Given so much real production, then if its wealth is shared as its efforts are born, this justice both eliminates strife and maximizes the generation of wealth, because all of our efforts are necessary and dedicated to the production of real wealth.

On the other hand, war or any other effort which is intended not to share wealth in balance with the efforts which produce it, not only perpetuates strife and injustice by imposing or preserving that disparity; it diminishes the realized volume of wealth from that which would have been produced otherwise. Even for the potential disruptions of the intended sins of a few, the sum of productive effort is diminished so much as we are forced instead to defend our wealth, to prepare to defend our wealth, and to attempt, and to prepare to attempt, to take wealth from others. Obviously, in the case of war, the efforts of producing wealth are further doubled by every necessitated reconstruction of wealth which is destroyed. Not just war then; but all this competes for a pool of wealth diminished to the extents these efforts do not produce wealth.

Yet there are far greater potential costs of failing to understand these things, because each generation which fails to understand them is a highway not just to perpetual oppression or its escalation, but to its further entrenchment.

Because purported monetary systems are the principal tools both for dispossessing wealth and accumulating unassented power, the possibility of failing to understand monetary improprieties is most apt to prove itself the people’s most self destructive capacity. Thus it is as important as Mr. Paul ultimately tells us too, to arrive upon the one unerring monetary analysis from which we can understand solution.

Interspersed among further references to war nonetheless, he says,

“All war, [1] but most particularly war funded by monetary inflation, bleeds a country in multiple ways. Obviously, many of the young people who are in the military literally give their blood, and sometimes their lives, fighting in wars of this type. [2] Meanwhile, those who do not fight the war, but fund it, are forced to pay both the immediate costs, as well as seeing their long term purchasing power erode, as the twin pillars of debt and inflation are foisted upon the backs of current taxpayers and future generations. [3] Neither conspiracy nor coincidence explains steep increases in the price of gas as the war drags on. [4] No, this is simply a reality of the inflationary policies that, among other things, make this war possible.”

To our considerable possible endangerment then, few of us wonder how any possible misunderstanding of these assertions might lead us awry. After refining the mis-statements, let us consider just one probable scenario:

  1. To support his unqualified thesis that circulatory inflation engenders price inflation, Mr. Paul attempts to stress that “most particularly a war funded by monetary inflation, bleeds a country in multiple ways.”

    The intended gist of this statement is that we are paying for this particular war in multiple ways, because it is funded by what he calls monetary inflation.

    1. But by definition there is no monetary inflation (traditional “inflation”) unless there is an increase of circulation per goods and services.

      There is an aspect of perpetual deflation in any monetary system subject to interest, comprised of payments against principal and interest obligations. Because the deflationary aspect is inherently greater than a non-inflationary introductory aspect in which only principal is borrowed into circulation, for Mr. Paul’s assertion of monetary inflation to hold, it must be demonstrated that federal over-spending introduces so much currency that the circulation exceeds the remaining value of all represented assets.

      On the contrary, federal over-spending is not sufficient to do so, or make this a cause then of whatever damages we suffer.

    To evaluate its further ramifications, let us take this statement in conjunction with the next.

  2. He says then that, “Meanwhile, those who do not fight the war, but fund it, are forced to pay both the immediate costs, as well as seeing their long term purchasing power erode, as the twin pillars of debt and inflation are foisted upon the backs of current taxpayers and future generations.”

    Rather than pretending to understand this and the previous false assertions on purportedly superficial appeal, we should all recognize their obvious faults:

    1. First of all, the federal deficits of the purportedly inflationary method of financing the war (which we have already disproven as such) only accumulate debt *because no direct, concurrent cost of the war is imposed.* In other words, there is no one who does not fight the war, but funds it ? and this in fact comprises one of the greatest dangers of funding wars, because beyond insulating a country from moral considerations by disinformation, a renegade government may invoke as an unwarranted further temporary incentive, a lack of any reasonable monetary cost whatever, as would otherwise rightly deter the less principled from war.

      1. The only possible direct cost of the war therefore is potentially to be imposed upon a future generation, which, even if that time is not far away, will potentially be disadvantaged by further multiplication both federal and private debt, far moreso than we are today.

      So while this distribution of costs is incredibly unjustified, and while this is as much as to grant a power to wage extensive wars which a populace bearing reasonable assumptions of monetary cost would never tolerate, there is no direct concurrent cost whatever.

    2. The only way we can be directly paying for the accumulated debts then, is interest.

      But long ago, we began to accumulate all this such federal debt because we could neither afford any longer to service further private or federal accumulation of debt, while private debt continued to multiply in proportion to our means as in the obligation merely to maintain a circulation, we necessarily re-borrowed principal and interest as subsequent sums of debt, perpetually increased so much as periodic interest. We can’t even afford to be servicing interest on the debts of this war. So neither is this a factor.

    3. The only further way we may be indirectly paying for the war then, is via price inflation and/or some other process of devaluation.

      1. But as we have sufficiently shown, we are paying neither alleged costs in servicing federal debt, or circulatory inflation.

        Mr. Paul’s twin pillars do not exist.

      2. On the other hand, he presumes his monetary inflation engenders price inflation, and that this is a cost of the war engendered by the non-existent monetary inflation.

        As these pages have shown however, the only systemic cause of price inflation is the obligation to maintain a circulation by re-borrowing principal and interest as subsequent sums of debt, perpetually increased so much as periodic interest. Price inflation and devaluation of the currency therefore are consequences of interest, as the costs of servicing debt perpetually drive prices upward to maintain margins of solubility, and as ever more of the circulation is dedicated to servicing the perpetual escalation of debt, leaving ever less of the circulation to sustain the commerce which is obliged to service the debt.

  3. “Neither conspiracy nor coincidence explains steep increases in the price of gas as the war drags on.”

    Mr. Paul must not be following the news, some of which claims that commodities trading has artificially driven up the cost of fuel, food, and other production.

    But conspiracy is a fact of all government activity. The issue is whether the conspiracy if for or against us; and here, there is little if any question the conspiracy is against. Most notably, such rapid, dramatic increases in the cost of fuel *at the juncture of an election* may indeed be designed to sway support.

  4. “No, this is simply a reality of the inflationary policies that, among other things, make this war possible.”

    Mr. Paul may be on the trail of finding these things. But no, even the temporarily averted costs may never be imposed ? at least because the future accumulated debt, and even the present accumulated debt, can never be collected. Certainly neither can the averted costs be attributed to an assumed inflation which itself cannot exists. In fact, recent figures show great danger of such rapid deflation as would make it impossible even in the near term to continue servicing the little debt we have.

To his credit, Mr. Paul left most political blood hounds behind, smelling something quite wrong. Perhaps he almost has his finger on it. But if he will follow his nose to the end of the trail, he will find his efforts relate to artificial sustention, and that indeed, a principal danger this surreal means of funding war comprises, is that it makes this war and any other like it ? as well as anything else a renegade government may choose ? artificially possible, for the sake of the one thing which “funds” and is bound to survive all this ? further oppression.

So what are the overall dangers of these misunderstandings?

First of all, these very mis-statements divide us even so as it is impossible to agree on the one possible monetary solution. Lacking a cohesive understanding of the forces at work, and even so, turning our backs on solution, we can hardly even identify our real enemies.

We are in the midst of a turning point toward precipitous failure. Without understanding, we are the hapless victims of a near term all-out “economic” war which itself exists because its proponents intend, clear from moments already passed, that there will never be a true, free economy.

Because failure is inevitable if we so much as maintain a vital circulation, there will be a failure, even as the end can be forestalled by artificial sustention.

But because all this will fail, one day your usurers will come to convince even the young who are planned to lose most, that they will benefit from dissolving the debt they never incurred and can never pay. in a process which will move them to a new currency. The new currency of course will in fact be the same old, usual instrument of usury, given a new lifespan in which its changers will hope to make it the perfect chameleon in which unearned taking is perpetuated. They who do not understand can never know the difference.

As surely as 8,000 homes a day are presently foreclosed upon for wholly artificial and adverse escalations of purposed indebtedness which can only be avoided by perfecting economy, oppression is their plan.

If further monopolization and oppression were not the long term plan of world “globalization,” oppression would end in each and every one of the present nations; and “globalization” itself would develop in a mandate of the people, instead of a vacuum from which they are purged.

The dangers of the present misunderstandings therefore, are that you can’t possibly understand the objects and power of whoever directs the present global departure from representation, much less can you stand in its way, unless you understand usury.

Friday, June 20th, 2008

Dear Mr. Nader,

I have been following the election and events behind the election very closely, and am responding to your newsletter of this morning, which among other things loosely outlines the non-potentials of Barack Obama’s naive monetary strategies.

If in fact you are open to the proposition of veritable monetary solution, perhaps indeed you may be the last man standing who can save our country. But unless you intend to account for any and all plausible deficiencies of your platform (as we should expect from all candidates, but are so far denied), then as was the case for Mr. Paul, the proof of singular solution I hope to pose to you would mean two very costly things to all of us — that no candidate represents solution; and that fundamental faults intelligent men should see can be expected to manifest in near term systemic failure.

A growing faction of this country recognizes those issues are artificially imposed by what is as much as usurpation of the republican form of government. President Wilson of course apologized for opening the door to a system he did not create, but surely to which he ignorantly rolled out a red carpet. Many books have emerged about these events, but of course, to perceive the corruption which resulted in the so called Federal Reserve System is far less than enough to right our country, which has largely become driven by the so called financial world which exists at the purse strings of this unconstitutional institution and a monetary system which can be proven to have a singular potential to bankrupt us under inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt.

I provided the Reagan Administration with computer models (which you can still download, complete with source code, from our pages) which calculate the maximum possible lifespan of any purported economy subject to interest, and which from the first years of the Reagan Administration, projected his tripling of national debt, and accurately projected for deployed interest rates and circulatory growth, the accumulation of debt to now. Calculations performed during Mr. Reagan’s first term gave us a maximum practical lifespan of the present system to about 2010 AD.

An underlying thesis of these models and the solution of the responsible faults, is the proposition that money cannot be anything but a token of wealth; that further industry can only be sustained by creating new, further tokens of wealth (which therefore cannot represent earned wealth, which according to popular dogma, ostensibly justifies interest); that it is mathematically impossible to solve certain critical, terminal faults if the currency is subject to interest; and that in fact any purported economy subject to interest inherently terminates itself under an inevitable sum of insoluble debt, as a circulation must be maintained to perform the obligation of servicing debt, and as maintenance inherently and irreversibly multiplies debt in proportion to the circulation as we are forced thereby to perpetually re-borrow payments against principal and interest obligations as subsequent sums of debt, perpetually increased so much as periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt.

If your math is so good as can save the country sir, I’m sure you’ve performed such calculations as indicate in fact that such an accumulation of public and private debt exists; that it is in fact irreversible if we merely maintain a circulation; that banks certainly have no power to consume so much of our production as what we are obliged to pay on the currency in the way of interest; and that of course the accumulation of this debt in proportion to the circulation in fact is terminal, both because it dedicates ever more of the circulation to servicing debt, leaving ever less of the circulation to sustain the commerce which is obliged to service the debt, and because eventually a sum of debt, increasing in proportion to the circulation which dictates the limitations of servicing the escalating sum of debt, thus means an eventual sum of debt will exceed the finite capacity to continue servicing debt.

Of course, this inherent terminal consequence was reached a mere 15 years into the first possible lifespan of said iniquitous system — a system which can only destroy our country, and which *is* destroying our country.

To a leader who can save our country sir, the end of the second possible lifespan of that same system is both obviously and undeniably here; and, particularly under the present circumstances therefore, and as this explanation for our circumstances is both plausible and has never been disproven (see our pages for documented attempts), I for one can hardly imagine for instance Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln, both of whom tried to solve the same problems, hearing of such a thing as “mathematically perfected economy™,” and not wanting to see me immediately on that matter.

I leave it to you then Mr. Nader, and probably then to economic advisors who cannot be too selfish to obstruct us from overcoming all the implications, to ensure you exhaust this matter to the full interest of real representation — a thing we have lacked far too long.

Any hour of the day or night will be fine.

Yours sincerely,

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

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.


Search perfecteconomy.com     Search Web