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 » July
Do you believe the ruler of any nation on earth should be allowed to lie, to deceive his people into killing millions for the ulterior objectives of a plutocratic elite who mean likewise to oppress our own country?
RESPONSE TO BLACK MONDAY — Business Spectator’s ARTICLE, AUSTRALIAN BANK TO SHOCK WALL STREET
While on some accounts it is wise of National Australia Bank to cut losses ahead of other world banks, obviously, as NAB is in the same business, and as that business can only multiply debt in proportion to a circulation as we are forced to maintain a circulation by re-borrowing principal and interest as subsequent sums of debt, perpetually increased so much as periodic interest… just the same then, National Australia Bank’s business engenders the same consequences within Australia.
Because interest multiplies debt in proportion to a circulation, any purported economy subject to interest ultimately terminates itself under insoluble debt. As we saw from the beginning, the issue in the United States is not “sub-prime mortgages,” but that “interest” inherently and irreversibly destroys credit-worthiness by imposing ever more unserviceable sums of debt.
“The National Australia Bank’s decision to write off 90 per cent of its US conduit loans will have dramatic repercussions around the world. Wall Street will be deeply shocked when they understand the repercussions of what NAB has done. It is clear global banks have nowhere near provided for their exposures to US housing loans which in the words of John Stewart are experiencing a ?meltdown?.
We are now way beyond sub-prime. NAB says that it is suffering a 55 per cent loss on American housing loans ? an event that has never happened in the history of a developed country in recent memory. This is an unprecedented event and means that the cost of bailing out the US financial system is now far beyond the highest estimates. A US recession is now locked in, but more alarmingly, 55 per cent loan losses point to the possibility of a depression.
It means the cost of bailing out housing exposures to the two mortgage insurers will be so great that it will leave no room to bail out anything else, and there are several US banks that are now in big trouble. NAB says that the dislocation in the residential market is separate from the corporate market, but the flow on is inevitable.
While global banks have been writing down their balance sheet assets, few have tackled their conduit exposures which are off balance sheet, but to which they are ultimately liable.”
We need to understand of course that the “smartest” banks will be compelled to cut obvious impending losses first, and that the rest of “world’s” banking system will have to follow. If we understand that “interest” inherently and irreversibly multiplies debt in proportion to a circulation to inevitably terminal sums of debt… then unless the “banking” system again succeeds across the whole world in propping up a facade of sustainability by pouring free money into the deflation usury engenders, the events soon to follow are an indirect testament to inherent failure, and the fact only mathematically perfected economy™ can save us.
Rest assured however, that the banksters are hedging their bets that they can retain usury, even if usury inherently terminates itself, and with it, the hopes of sheeple.
It often goes without understanding that monetary reform is *the* vital key to achieving true world justice, peace, representation, health, environmental quality, responsible media, true prosperity… all the things which are vital to us. In the least, this is because the monetary systems presently imposed about the world make all such things ever more unachievable by inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt in proportion to our potential means or capacity to service debt.
The driving force behind denied representation and purported globalism therefore is not mere thirst for power; on the contrary, usurpation of power is the necessary means to impose and extend usury, which in turn is the most powerful sustenance of further usurpation and denial of representation, to impose usury and unearned taking perpetually. The result is plutocratic rule, thinly veiled as representation, with the whole purpose being monopolization of vital production and infrastructures for the very preservation of unjust degrees of unearned gain. So the intended defects of inherently usurious monetary systems are intended; and it is this intention which obstructs us from representation on all fronts.
The vehicle for this vast unearned gain is the very “central banking” systems which have been imposed about the world. Under the dogma that we cannot create our own promises to pay without cost, and of course without discussion of the fact that the only way to preserve credit-worthiness and any manifestation of justice whatever is that we do in fact issue our own promises to pay without extrinsic, redundant cost… these systems inherently and irreversibly multiply debt upon us, as we are forced to maintain vital circulations by re-borrowing what we pay against principal and interest obligations as subsequent sums of debt, perpetually increased so much as periodic interest.
It is thus by inherently and irreversibly increasing the sum of debt, that these systems take from us to an ever greater degree by forcing us to service an ever greater sum of debt. The fatal fault of the imposed process however, is that it is irreversible, and can only multiply debt in proportion to a circulation. Thus every such system suffers a maximum possible lifespan at which the costs of servicing the irreversibly multiplying sum of debt eventually exceed the capacity of the system to give up so much wealth as the artificial sum of debt requires of them.
Thus at least at some regular interval of systemic collapse, usury begs its subjects to recognize the cause of its demise is usury.
But obviously, no intelligent public would design such a system to serve its purposes. Instead, it is these unjust costs which make justice impossible. In turn, it is the lack of possible justice which makes peace impossible, because all just costs are inherently multiplied perpetually, because the profit is unearned, and because the profit goes to ever greater degrees to those who produce nothing, at cost to anyone who does produce, and even to the obstruction of production. The whole natural and just order the world would otherwise realize, is perpetually undermined, overturned, and obstructed to an ever greater degree by usury.
And as it is the intention of usurpers to perpetuate and extend this criminal system which makes representation impossible, it is also this access to wealth which gives the perpetrators the media for the very purpose of disinforming us.
In the end, to serve monopolies such as oil for the exceeding, unjustifiable benefit of a few, we cannot even afford to implement vital alternatives such as alternate, clean energy sources — not even for the benefit of further monopolies, because artificial indebtedness itself makes it impossible for the usurpers to extract any further or more expensive unearned profit from a system which, in its last days, is already indebted to the maximal possible degree. Much less do usurers themselves *ever* need to find alternative, beneficial sources of revenue except to preserve their usurpation, for inherent, irreversible multiplication of indebtedness itself assures them they will take all that is possible from us.
Without mathematically perfected economy™ then, we can never restore to ourselves the real possibility, and even the immediate, natural probability, of achieving all the things which are vital to a truly healthy planet, prosperity, or the far vaster achievements mankind would already have under his belt, if not obstructed by usury.
Many people, and particularly many ostensible economists, presume to our peril that the First Great Depression was caused by the stock market crash.
The peril of this presumption is that in thinking a consequence is the cause, we fail to perceive the real cause, or its solution.
The stock market crashed in 1929 because of the same multiplying indebtedness per real value and potential capacity to service debt which spans the breadth of the pretended economy now.
Although the Great Depression precipitated from healthier statistics than plague us now, rather than saving, people were “investing” their spare money in so called securities on short term credit. The purported success of the market coerced the people to do so, because the temporary returns on “investment” far exceeded the returns for saving, and because devaluation of the dollar under multiplying indebtedness further reduced the relative value of savings.
But as is the present case, the dollar was not devalued by inflation. Rather, it was devalued by price inflation, resulting from multiplication of debt by interest and dedication of ever more of the circulation to servicing debt, versus sustaining the commerce which is obliged to service the debt. The underlying nature of the “money” therefore was the root cause of both erosion of the value of money, and the mounting probability that the subject commerce would fail under the unsustainable obligation to service a sum of debt which multiplies perpetually, as we necessarily replenish a circulation by re-borrowing interest and principal as ever greater sums of debt.
People therefore wagered their spare earnings in speculation. Having a small margin of typically say, 10 percent, they could borrow the remaining 90 percent to purchase “securities” on debts such as represented by 7, 10, 15-day promissory notes. At the conclusion of the short-term debt, they would sell the “securities,” and re-coup substantial unearned profit at the expense of the producers of wealth, as for instance if the artificially inflated value of the securities rose 10 percent, this would double the money they had invested.
We don’t have to be mathematic geniuses to see that in not long, this artificial inflation of the value of stocks/”securities” would create to the unwitting a deception that a magnitude of prosperity existed, while the prosperity itself was a small fraction of the debt the subject people had so multiplied upon themselves.
Seeing this disparity, or perhaps acting for the sake of their superior position to take, one day the private banks which comprise the so called Federal Reserve withdrew the further “credit” (perpetually self-multiplying debt) necessary to sustain the waiting “accident.” Oh, sure, in partnership with the so called Federal Reserve, the people had over-extended their credit-worthiness.
So suddenly having to market their “securities” to a market having only the margin in circulation… of course the market immediately crashed.
But why did it take down the rest of the purported economy with it? That’s the question.
The market crash took the rest of the purported economy down with it, because the whole system was so subject to debt. The collapse of this one sector, pushed the sector passed the brink of solubility; and so it was a collapse under excessive credit which brought the rest of the system down.
What are we to learn then from these combined conditions of falsely inflated values, sustained by perpetual excessive “credit”?
It is no more the sector which collapsed which signifies the probability of overall failure than it is a certain wave which crashed on the beach which caused the sun to set. No more can we find that wave to be the cause of sunsets the following day, than we can expect the pretended economy to fail but for any other reason than the nature of the currency, which inherently multiplies debt in proportion to the circulation.
Because a currency subject to interest multiplies debt in proportion to our potential to service debt, ultimately every such system fails under a mountain of insoluble debt it eventually can no longer service. And so, when any sector breaks, it may take all further sectors of a highly jeopardized system with it.
The peril of failing to understand the root cause is, that we may never be compelled to do anything about the nature of the currency.
We know for instance that the so called Federal Reserve has, for several decades, artificially buoyed stock prices — often even buying “government securities” with money these private banks publish at virtually no cost or risk whatever. Seeing this seems to sustain “markets,” we are lulled into a very false sense of security by this narrow range of “evidence,” for as we can readily see, behind the backs of those whose barometer is the “markets,” private and public debt both have multiplied to incredibly unsustainable magnitudes, to the detriment of the generations now and in the future, which are to pay the consequences.
If you were the first players to take turns at the Monopoly Board after the First Great Depression, you might think how wonderful all the unearned profit which can be taken by the first generation player, while the rest of us pay 50 prices just for rent, and while you might leave us too with all the public and private debt which has been accumulated to perpetuate the false, temporary proposition that the people benefit equally, generation after generation under usury.
Before or after the Second Great Depression then, we can finally come to understand that dispossession is the very purpose of the imposed, pretended economy; and that while “interest” inherently multiplies debt into terminal sums of debt, the reason the unassented systems are retained upon us is their original purpose — which is to take from us without justification, by perpetual multiplication of debt.
This Depression may or may not look like the last one to you. And you may think we have time because the so called markets are falsely sustained by infusions of cash. But the real issue is multiplying indebtedness.
The article tries to draw together a probability of failure by observations of consequences, rather than unraveling the root cause in the nature of the currency. To support Mr. Paul’s drumming that circulatory inflation is the cause devaluing the dollar, the article tells us largely that monetary movements/creations are responsible for an “excess” of circulation:
The oil price has doubled in the past year because the US Federal Reserve panicked over risks to the over-leveraged financial system and flooded markets with excess liquidity.
In the pattern that Mr. Paul has followed, the article doesn’t even cite relevant data which would necessarily, by definition, demonstrate that the years of such purportedly inflationary increases in circulation have rendered a circulation exceeding the value of the wealth we have produced. In other words, we do not have inflation; we suffer deflation, because the circulation is far less than the remaining value of the wealth we have produced. Yet the article harkens back to the dawn of the Reagan failures, falsely claiming their success as a model of solution:
Under parallel circumstances, then Fed chairman Paul Volcker did precisely that [raise interest] in 1979, bringing the central bank’s lending rate up to 20% over two years of tightening. Inflation under the Carter regime had run out of control, the dollar collapsed, and the price of oil rose to a then menacing $40 per barrel. After Volcker tightened monetary policy the dollar’s trade-weighted exchange rate doubled and the price of oil fell sharply.
At the same time, the Ronald Reagan administration cut marginal tax rates sharply, and the American economy began a quarter-century growth cycle.
Whatever “growth” an “economy” subject to usury succeeds in, essentially prevails only over the redundant costs of interest. What the article hails as a success refers in fact to a prevailing over 7 years that saw us descend from “the greatest creditor nation” in the world to its lowliest debtor ? a position from which we have sunk further ever since.
Interest obstructs growth and success, because it makes either more expensive. Elevated interest rates thus are more preclusive than more tolerable rates.
The article yet draws from its misperceptions of the past to advocate saving the purported economy by raising interest.
Nonetheless, the reason why you can’t raise interest in the later stages of the lifespan of any purported economy subject to interest is simple:
A circulation is only maintained by re-borrowing principal and interest paid out of the circulation in the process of servicing debt. The re-borrowing necessary to replenish the circulation of its perpetual deflation thus preserves the previous sum of debt in the principal which is re-borrowed, and converts what periodic interest is re-borrowed into new debt. The sum of debt under interest therefore grows at an inherently escalating rate of ever greater sums of periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt. The higher the rate of interest, the faster the multiplication of debt, and the greater the cost of servicing debt.
In the later stages of the finite lifespan, as far greater debt exists in relationship to the circulation, to extend the lifespan against the prospect of near term failure (as would be evident in present housing foreclosures), it is necessary to relax interest rates so that the heavily burdened system can sustain itself against the weight of servicing a far greater mountain of ever growing debt than before.
Rather than Mr. Paul’s non-existent or non-attributable “inflation,” it is interest which multiplies the cost of all things as industry is forced to account for the costs of ever greater debt in preserving necessary margins of solubility. The degree to which elevated interest purportedly exceeds in holding prices down is only by making money so expensive to the market that the market cannot afford the price increases which are necessary to maintain margins of solubility. Moreover, there is no real benefit at all: the cost which would have manifested in increased prices instead manifests in an equally damaging increase in the unearned profit of usurers, in the form of unearned “interest.”
After all, we are claiming a benefit from an imposed cost, only by suffering at least an equal magnitude of cost somewhere else!
So, not only is the whole idea an intended deception; the least conducive time to try to return to this facade of rectitude is a time when the system is so marginalized that the market can least afford a higher cost of money and faster multiplication of debt, while the little industry which has survived multiplication of debt too is so marginalized, that it can least afford not to maintain margins of solublility.
Under the present mountain of far greater debt, and under the very prospect of catastrophic failure the article purports to address, we have exactly those dubious conditions ? against which to weigh the prospects of the damaging facade of the past.
Obviously then, unless someone can refute these facts of detriment, we would be quite ill advised to follow the advice of the article.
Because there is one solution only, I left the following post:
You have us further treating consequences without treating the cause. I suppose, because Alex rubs elbows with so many Austrians, that nobody here accepts the fact that interest multiplies debt in proportion to a circulation. Thus you can have households putting away whatever you want to let them for retirement, but if you can’t protect the value of the dollar, why should they put the first cent there?
There is one way only to solve this mess, and that’s mathematically perfected economy?:
Alex believes the dollar is devalued by “inflation.” If we have inflation, then everywhere you look, the circulation exceeds the remaining value of the related assets. But au contraire, everywhere you look, nobody has any money.
Why is that?
Because there is a constant deflationary phase to the cycle of money, in which we are perpetually paying interest and principal out of the general circulation in the process of servicing debt.
What drives up the costs of all things then?
Servicing an ever greater sum of debt. Worse, as ever more of the circulation is dedicated to servicing debt, ever less remains to sustain the commerce which is obligated to service the debt.
This is the systemic cause of price inflation. We don’t have circulatory inflation.
Beyond systemic price inflation, we have artificial multiplication of cost by every conceivable form of unearned gain ? commodities trading for instance. Either one can kill us. But systemic multiplication of debt in proportion to potential means of servicing debt *inevitably* kills us, because multiplication of debt in proportion to a circulation is irreversible so long as we maintain a circulation, and the banking system consumes less of our production than we pay periodic interest on debt.
But make no mistake then Alex; the cause of the collapse is inherent multiplication of debt by interest; and the only thing that will save us is eradication of interest.
Furthermore, if you want to preserve the value of the dollar so that we can succeed in all other directions, then you have to solve inflation and deflation; and the only way to do that is to introduce so much circulation as the original value of the related asset; and to pay off a monetary obligation equal to no more than that at the rate of depreciation or consumption. Thus neither can we solve inflation or deflation or achieve that abstract goal that Ron Paul and Alex call “sound money” if we pay interest as well, because then (as now) the deflationary cycle exceeds the replenishing cycle.
Only mathematically perfected economy? achieves these goals.
Or maybe you’d like to debate otherwise on your show, Alex?
Stretching the limits of disinformation, NewsMax.com liberally obfuscates the proposition that rough times are not already here, and that to find the underlying cause of a coming collapse, none of us have to understand a privatized currency which can only multiplying debt in proportion to a circulation. No. Instead of understanding the singular consequences of usury, we should look no further than Barack Obama.
Newsmax cultivates sheep so trained not to jump off a cliff which does not exist, they will perpetually jump from the one which does. The readers of this far right rag are never to recognize that a million homes in bankruptcy and 12,000 going into foreclosure daily are attributable to the gross fiscal irresponsibility, reckless foreign policy, promiscuous trade deficits, and ulterior “privatization” and “outsourcing” of neo-cons who have usurped the Republican Party — in fact explicitly for the sake of all this unearned profit at our expense.
True enough, Obama hasn’t fielded the one monetary solution for 1) inflation and deflation; 2) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property; and 3) inherent multiplication of debt by interest. But neither have the neo-cons.
Which is why we don’t have a candidate from either party of betrayal.
This blog responds to Karen Young’s BigIdeasForObama post, detailing a 61-year-old Librarian’s ejection from a McCain rally:
Progress Now captured this video of Carole Kreck, a 61 year librarian, waiting in line this morning at the Denver Center for Performing Arts to attend the John McCain town hall meeting. She held a sign that said “McCain = Bush.” She was on public property at an event that was open to the public. So much for “Freedom of Speech”.
McCain’s security detail told her to leave. The police were called and they issued her a ticket for trespassing and escorted her out.
I don’t mean to tone down anyone’s indignation, but unless I don’t recall correctly, this has been standard far right procedure at least since Bush first ran for the presidency.
If I recall correctly, they as much as cordoned off a huge area of San Francisco so he could make an appearance, un-begrudged by we the people. They were emptying town after town while he made the first appearances to promote facades about Iraq. I’m not even sure he could get away with that any more, but the general rule is that if you’re not a certified sheeple, you can’t even watch.
What you really ought to be pissed about is that this is a blatant effort which in fact (see the video) is so thorough that as this woman herself questions, *anything* which could possibly be construed to express opposition to the candidate is purged not just from the eventual “rally,” but from the outside area, *preceding* the “rally.” So subtle is the message of her sight, we can’t even be sure this woman was protesting McCain. But as this video clearly demonstrates, there’s a concentrated, orchestrated effort to make it look like no one can see through the veil; that no one knows better.
Somewhere I have a gruesome picture tucked away of a young lady shot by rubber *shotgun* bullets, used to disburse “protestors.” You have to have a permit for that now. No peaceable assembly without a permit. Yep. She was shot in the face with a 12 gauge; and it’s a good thing I wasn’t there. There’s no reason for this but extreme orchestrated efforts to subdue the people.
To be fair, most of us probably remember the taser incident, where a student asked Senator Kerry about capitulating to Bush’s stealing of the election. Kerry should have jumped off that stage and rescued that young man, especially since he intended to answer the question.
This is going on right and left in our country. There’s thousands of documented incidents where for instance you might have hundreds of Ron Paul supporters alongside a half-dozen Giuliani folks. What happens?
The mainstream media guys come along shoot three seconds of the Giuliani supporters all artificially crowded together, so it looks like there must be hundreds of them. Right there, somebody else is shooting the whole thing on video, and pans from the facade of Giuliani support to the hundreds of RP folks everywhere, where RP is barred from the debate; and in truth, the only reason Giuliani has a spot at that orchestrated, stymied event is he’s a plausible figurehead for the party dogma, which is just a facade to present the sheeple on the right.
Sure, they’re going to keep everybody who might even ask a reasonable question out of the facade if they can. The greatest enemy of oppression is the truth, because always, always, always, there are many of us, and so few of “them.” What they’re really, direly afraid of here, is that we the people will restore the political roots of our revolution. They’re so afraid, they cannot even tolerate the *possible* message of this gentle old woman. The police no longer serve the people; they serve the oppressors.
The new nation was faced with obfuscations of how to pay the debts of the revolution. Alexander Hamilton proposed to concentrate otherwise undue power in a central government, which he asserted should “establish credit” by going into sufficiently impressive further sums of debt to private banks of foreign nations.
Never elaborating on the consequences of usury, or invalidating the plausibility of the people or government issuing its own, unsubjugated promises to pay… Alexander Hamilton simply insisted that “establishing credit” was necessary, particularly to acquire further “credit” to prepare for and engage in further conflicts.
Wisdom will immediately see the danger in this arrangement then; that vast wealth would be perpetually and exhaustively multiplied to certain private, foreign banks, which are simply forfeited the people’s right to contract between each other (which is all that money is); thus that by imposing involuntary servitude together with interest’s obligation to maintain a vital circulation, and particularly then, together with the power to withhold the further credit necessary to sustention at ever greater cost, these unassented “banks” are endowed outside and averse to any regular vehicle of representation, with the vast, unaccountable, limitlessly manufacturable power to dictate altogether the disposition, might, and therefore even the prevalence and failure of oppositions. The power so carelessly given then, is even the power to destroy all resistance to the untethered purposes of the power to perpetuate itself against us.
This illimitable, unassented access to power and wealth is what Hamilton’s so called Federalists actually wanted by his advocations that we borrow with the purported ambition of establishing credit.
But of course, because there is but one consequence of a currency subject to interest, Hamilton’s insisted course would make it ever more impossible to sustain the form of debt under which he sought to subjugate us. There would be practically nothing important eventually which such banks would not own or control, directly or indirectly.
Because Hamilton’s course could never compete with a truly representative monetary system… so, under the intentional guise of “necessary credit,” Hamilton misleadingly advocated what actually amounted to multiplying indebtedness, which he sought by simply evading the prospective fact of a singular genre of perpetually redeemable, representative, and readily available money. By the designs of this evasion, Hamilton promoted a tunnel vision disposed to self-multiplying indebtedness, with its attendant subversions of representation and deteriorations of social infrastructure. Pretending to understand himself that credit subject to usury is an advantage, Hamilton further sought to deceive us of the ever more destructive further proposition of actually seeking indebtedness, to the purported advantage of the impossible and destructive goal of proving a capacity to sustain ever greater self-multiplying debt.
In the pattern of all servants of usury and its attendant forms of unearned gain… Hamilton thus sought, by simply evading any genuine consideration of the one rectified design of money, to sell us to a form of debt which could only compel us to perpetually re-borrow interest and principal as ever greater sums of debt, merely to maintain a circulation. In the end, as Jefferson would project truly, this illegitimate and unassentable power above all others would make the banks the direct or indirect owners of all industry; would indebt our progeny to bankruptcy — and so, by the process of dispossession inherent to an inherently usurious currency… would ultimately leave our children homeless on the continent their forefathers had conquered in a revolution dedicated actually to liberation from all those attendant forms of unearned gain.
Fortunately then, Thomas Jefferson resisted these ulterior intentions, asserted by Hamilton on behalf of “banking” interests who hoped only to gut a sufficiently naive or un-united nation.
Because the intellectual challenges of Hamilton’s evasion and obfuscation were largely beyond President Washington and Vice President John Adams, Jefferson was the light by which to see, dragging along the weight of others, who, walking in their sleep, represented the naivete Hamilton hoped to exploit. But so, we might not have been a country long if President Washington had tended to any greater degree to reinforce Hamilton’s intended monetary miscarriages, even as Hamilton dedicated much effort to gaining and preserving not only Washington’s favor, but putrifying Washington’s and Adams’ cabinets until President Adams fired Hamilton’s relentless and probably well rewarded lackeys.
A hundred years later, we would see this same kind of effort succeed by betrayal of political promises, acting outside the intended channels of representation within the formation of the naive Wilson Administration. The later subversion of course would result in the creation of the falsely named “Federal Reserve” System — even exceeding Hamilton’s vehicle as a confederation of 12 private banks which are neither federal nor real reserves of anything.
Amidst these similar, earlier events, the back-stabbing, traitorous Hamilton would eventually be mortally shot in a duel with Jefferson’s Vice President, Aaron Burr — but not until Hamilton so succeeded in discouraging Jefferson from further enduring his relentlessly unjust assaults, that with Jefferson so much as retired from the senseless public bickering, Hamilton had his first “national bank” — the very kind of vehicle necessary to the destruction of the fledgling nation.
That bank of course soon failed under its intended, relatively unrestrained offenses against the people. But Hamilton sought, and to a substantial degree succeeded, in a triangle of evils: to indebt us, to militarize us, and to involve us in foreign conflicts which the record shows would have preserved the interest of the usurers he served.
Had Hamilton had his way across eternity, we would never understand that the people are the ostensible final authority, only instrument, and most deserving beneficiary of the one possible design for a perpetually redeemable currency. Hamilton instead would have had private, extrinsic parties issue our promises to pay each other — as Jefferson warned, at the perpetual cost of escalating dispossession, ensurance of usurpation, and gravest probability of ulterior strife.
How then should we have paid our debts to France?
The answer to this question rests not in perfect hindsight, but in principle: If in separating ourselves from subjugation to the Bank of England, we had re-financed all debt without interest and scheduled its payment according to the depreciation or consumption of the related assets, then not only could we alone in the world have guaranteed our creditor repayment, protected from devaluation by inflation, deflation, or multiplication of debt by usury… at the same time, at virtually no cost whatever, we could have financed all the industry and prosperity we were capable of, that we could have repaid our debt by retiring our additional promises to France from circulation with the least taxation of a perfectly sustainable, far superior volume of industry.
We would also of course have precluded private banks from multiplying their wealth all the further at our equally great cost, into the usurpation which eventually manifested in the so called Federal Reserve System.
In other words still, if mathematically perfected economy™ had emerged with the revolution, there would have been no actual monetary debt to France, because we would have paid for whatever we needed by issuing promises which would have been perpetually redeemable in the products of our industry — the integrity of which notes would have co-survived with the emergence of our nation.
As history therefore attests, the only solvent principle before us was to issue promises to pay to France; allow those promises to pay to be naturally redeemed in terms of our industry/wealth wherever those promises to pay would be honored; and to retire the notes from the circulation by taxation, to apply the costs of war justly, without redundant cost, and ultimately, without inflation.
At the end of Adams’ term, the country was deadlocked over the ensuing election. As he had already assaulted the character of many others for his masters’ ulterior purposes, Hamilton published a broadly read letter laced with rude ad hominems to discredit Adams, hoping the so called Federalists too would prevail over usury’s greatest rival, Jefferson. By a slim margin, Adams, the sitting incumbent, would not be re-elected.
Despite Hamilton’s vicious disinformation campaign, Jefferson achieved a tie of the electoral vote, and the decision between the eventual President Jefferson and Vice President Burr fell to Congress. Jefferson privately warned Adams that if the “Federalist conspirators” prevailed, violence would erupt. After thirty-three consecutively tied votes, hoping only to appease or disarm Hamilton’s destructive following, President Adams asked the popular Jefferson to honor a national debt subject to usury, asserting what they both knew — that this would defuse the ulterior thrust for unearned gain championed by Hamilton’s intended obfuscation, that the government would fall not to Hamilton’s “Federalists,” but to the ever honorable Mr. Jefferson.
Yet even to this reassurance Jefferson replied, “I will not enter office with imperfect freedom to follow the dictates of my own judgment.”
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.