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

mathematically perfected economy™ (MPE™)    1  :   the singular integral solution of  1) inflation and deflation,  2) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and  3) inherent, artificial multiplication of debt into terminal systemic failure;    2  :  every prospective debtor's right to issue legitimate promises to pay, free of extrinsic manipulation, adulteration, or exploitation of those promises, or the natural opportunity to make good on them;    3  :  our right to certify, to enforce, and to monetize industry and commerce by this one sustaining and truly economic process.

MORPHALLAXIS, January 14, 1979.

mike montagne's mathematically perfected economy™ BLOG

mike montagne at iMac.

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

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

Monday, September 29th, 2008

OPEN (ONLINE) COPY OF MIKE MONTAGNE’S PROPOSITION OF SINGULAR MONETARY SOLUTION, AS REQUESTED BY OBAMA CAMPAIGN

Monday, September 29, 2008, 10:13 AM

To *all* whom it may concern,

As agreed in the invitation extended to me in this past Thursday afternoon’s telephone conversation with Jackie, I address the Economic Policy Team, offering as I explained in that discussion:

  1. to prove absolutely that under the monetary faults it is irresponsibly, merely purported to be capable of surviving, the monetary program so far offered by the Obama campaign can only inevitably fail;

  2. to prove absolutely that no contending political proposition addresses or solves the fundamental causes of the present failure; and that if I were President, I could arrest the present process of collapse in 1 day; and that I could reverse the processes of failure by implementing a singular solution which a prepared candidate could implement in 1 month; and

  3. to prove absolutely that only under the already qualified solution that I propose, will it be possible for our country (or the world) to achieve true prosperity, to the full extents we are otherwise capable of.

This proposition therefore would already be delivered to the Economic Policy Team which has yet to respond. But in other words yet, I offer to prove I can prevent anyone further from losing their home or business, or all further deserved property at stake. I declare that only by mathematically perfected economy? can we preserve and restore our employment and industry. I offer to prove that I can ensure in so much as a month, that we would achieve a far more vast prosperity than you propose. I declare in fact that what I offer you is the one and only prescription by which not only Americans, but the world can prosper to the full degree that we the people are naturally capable of.

By demonstrating its adversity or even disinclination to this proposition, the McCain campaign can only prove an even more destructive propensity for disservice and failure. It is therefore that only by the Obama campaign’s remote expression of interest in this proposition, that a chance exists for this country to conquer its problems immediately.

Nonetheless, if I can indeed provide what I offer, or if the problems this appeal identifies to you are true, to ignore this proposition therefore could be to willingly participate in engendering one of the greatest potential catastrophes in human history.

I realize still of course that you may say or think at first in response to the possible seeming audacity of such an offer, that I must be out of my mind. But on the contrary, if you are qualified to serve our country, and if you will ever succeed in truly serving our country, the very terms of my explicit offer are exactly what you must be capable of, and prepared to do.

Moreover, it is not I or these propositions which have evaded accountability; and it is time for the American People (and the world) to realize that the present styles of evasion are the very factory of our demise, for all our institutions, our academic disposition, our media, and a most corrupt, degenerate political body which reigns over us altogether without true public mandate or comprehension, have so little understood the present issues all this while (or have so feigned a contrary, unqualifiable understanding), that only when the irreversible faults of the present, iniquitous monetary system proved those unattended faults could only engender monetary failure, have any of you only now stood up to announce you are the ones to save us from failure.

I remind you further however, that you have now done so without advocating absolute solution, or even a proposition of solution which can be demonstrated to be reasonably plausible against the reservations I raise.

Even in the brevity of this letter, I shall soon sufficiently demonstrate that those faults have existed for some 100 years; that they have already produced a First Great Depression; and that they can only produce, a Second, a third, and so forth.

Thus if you are to prevail in the current campaign for the exceptional fact that you yourself can prove solution, then my arguments are absolutely vital to the purpose of the American People truly perceiving that you and you alone can and will serve them.

As I meant for this appeal to be forwarded directly to Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden, and as I expect it to reach them one way or another, and in one form or another, I will therefore address the candidates directly in the remainder of this proposition:

You, Mr. Obama of course, made a now well known speech using the famous Hopi parable that “we are the ones we have been waiting for.” I submit this assertion will only be proven if you receive my appeal well; and that on the contrary, we are merely the ones who can afford to wait for an inept and corrupt government to solve our problems no longer. Your campaign slogan asserts (it does not prove) that you stand for “change we can believe in.” I submit that if either of your propositions are so, then I will hear from you at your earliest convenience.

Let us set the table:

  1. Essentially, to fulfill the promises so far set forth, I must prove that quantitatively, your proposition of mere investment in technological advancements (which we may already be sufficiently capable of), will be defeated by the greater underlying processes which already have us at the brink of monetary failure.

  2. You on the other hand, to prove the contrary, would have to prove:

    1. that the very modest scope of your program will be affordable all that while;

    2. that it will survive further, inevitable, and otherwise irreversible manifestation of the failure over a potentially extensive period, over which your program must, but is only presumed to mature;

    3. and that after whatever such period transpires for a potentially great while, the assumable results of your program will still be consumable (affordable) by an American and World Public which, to afford the further costs of implementation, must not only survive the continuing process which engenders failure ??but must further do so, preserving an unfathomable capability to afford costs which they cannot afford now, while further, inevitable multiplication of terminal debt upon us on the contrary, will only further destroy our present, insufficient capability to afford what we can now, all the further.

Even from this scant expression of requisites, reasonable people will understand that your proposition can and probably will be defeated on any of these critical counts.

But even in abstract terms Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden, the raw issues of our controversy comprise a tall order for you to meet, for first of all, to deny the opposing, degenerative processes of the system which have now produced the specter of an utter failure already capable of defeating all industry in the near term, is itself essentially to deny you have anything to solve. Obviously on the contrary, no such proposition or position could be more inept or irresponsible.

In fact nonetheless, I produced computer models which proved that disposition wrong (and which thus invalidate the mere assumed prospects of your program), way back in 1983.

So you will not be alone in failing to answer to the present appeal, because in fact every United States President since and including Gerald Ford has been apprised in detail of the fact of one and one only solution to the processes which can only engender the present failure before us.

But in 1983 as I say, I provided the Reagan Administration with:

  1. mathematic proofs that any monetary system subject to a privatized currency of the present nature can only inherently and irreversibly multiply debt in proportion to a vital circulation, until the system fails under an inevitable sum of terminal insoluble debt which the system can no longer afford to service;

  2. a mathematic proof there is one and one only solution to 1)?inflation and deflation, 2)?systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and 3)?inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt in proportion to a circulation;

  3. further mathematic proofs that Reagan’s proposed three years reduction of federal tax rates, 10-percent-per-year, would either offset price inflation exceeding 10-percent per year, or of course solve its causes;

  4. computer models, complete with source code (which was released to pre-internet bulletin boards), capable of forwardly projecting the inherent multiplication of debt by any purported economy subject to interest, and thus capable of calculating the maximum possible lifespan of any monetary system such as has been imposed upon us.

I may thus claim to have extensive experience with the disservice of our country; and I may further assert that the ensuing controversy ??his side of which Mr. Reagan never qualified, and because of which he failed all the while ??eventually resulted in the resignation of David Stockman, who of course was asked to mask the failure by prejudicing mathematic formulas to falsely depict prosperity in the face of the monumental debt the Reagan Administration in fact amassed. You may remember that Mr. Reagan ascended to the presidency after pronouncing the seemingly mere $150 b of federal debt accumulated by Mr. Carter in 4 years, as “unforgivable.”

But I can also tell you that those models, together with explanation as I now offer you, projected that converse to his own claims, Reagan would triple the national debt of the entire previous history of our nation. Those models, which no contrary model disproves, merely account for the underlying process which your “economic” program does not account for. They show that for political disservice which has purposely preserved this unwarranted destruction, the inherent and inseparable process of the present, pretended economy, if not rectified by mathematically perfected economy?, would result in world-wide monetary failure at approximately 2010 AD.

To test whether this is true in fact, you can still download the source code and working models from our web pages; you can still run 1980 numbers in those projection models; and you will still come up with that answer ??inevitable monetary failure at approximately 2010 AD ??the accumulation of debt in which in fact perfectly concurs with the actual accumulation of debt to now, because the projection merely replicates the process of multiplication by prescribed interest rates, and so forth.

Your “Economic” Policy Team of course may assert to you that this idea is preposterous. Disprove it then with a fitting and accountable invalidation of these models. Disprove it by invalidating the underlying thesis. On my web pages, you will find already existing invalidations of every class of attempt to disprove mathematically perfected economy? so far. So of course, unless you can exceed these attempts at disproof over the past 30 years, you therefore cannot even introduce any new material.

But no one has disproven mathematically perfected economy? is the singular integral solution for what it claims to solve; and so, unless you can find a flaw in the supporting arguments that no one else has, neither will you.

It would be a most dangerous and irresponsible thing therefore, to fail to respond to my proposition; and I don’t think the American People are going to put up with much more of that genre of ineptitude and abuse from a purported representative government. If they shall be asked to in fact, our Constitution, our republic, and the very rule of law and principles upon which each can only survive, are in fact usurped by mere pretenders, the likes of which we should rid from our country forever.

I remind you however, Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden, that I am not alone in my capability and intention to defend my country from its enemies, foreign and domestic. As I respected you, Mr. Biden recently, for informing General Petraeus that no one was buying the purported success of the “surge,” I submit that no person in their right mind can accept the present “economic” program of this campaign as a solution for the underlying problems which will defeat your program as surely as they are presently defeating the last of our surviving industry. Our country is already gutted by that process and its advocates’ further “privatization.” To further pursue the present, inevitably destructive course of those unwarranted and unassented processes, is nothing short of treason.

Our founding fathers indeed presented even to you the principles of which I now write. But they did not solve them, even if we can see each, Jefferson, Franklin, John Adams, Andrew Jackson, and Abraham Lincoln, were about to do just that. Many others ??including great, yet-unvindicated congressional leaders of past history such as Congressman Louis T. McFadden ??left a record pointing to the solution I advocate that you are bound irrevocably to implement, by all duty to the American People and their Constitution.

The history of our country is pervaded by a struggle against usury, in which, only by the abuse or usurpation of representation, the usurers have now prevailed.

Yet Thomas Jefferson told us long ago:

If the American people ever allow banks to issue their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and [bank owned] corporations which will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

In submitting these observations, Jefferson of course replied to Alexander Hamilton and President Washington, who asked at Hamilton’s behest that Jefferson advise the President as to the constitutionality of a national bank. Despite the now proven quality of Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank, Mr. Washington, perhaps like you, favored the unfounded arguments of Mr. Hamilton, who of course served the interests of usury.

But what did Jefferson mean, “first by inflation and then by deflation”?

To interpret this potentially profound observation, we can only ourselves observe that by having to maintain a vital circulation by perpetually re-borrowing principal and interest as subsequent sums of debt, a purported monetary system such as we have been subjected to against our will and our Constitution can only perpetually increase the sum of debt until we suffer complete monetary failure.

After all, to maintain a vital circulation, we are compelled to re-borrow principal paid out of the general circulation as subsequent sums of debt, equal to the previous sum of debt it would otherwise resolve. To the degree that we must do this then, of course it is impossible to pay down the sum of debt.

But furthermore, to the degree that to replenish the circulation we are constantly compelled to re-borrow interest, this unassented system can only perpetually increase the sum of debt in proportion to a vital circulation, until the system succumbs to a terminal sum of debt which it can no longer afford to service.

I therefore submit that this is what Mr. Jefferson meant by a [simultaneous] combination of inflation and deflation, for in fact there is no more critical thing to understand about interest, but that regardless of any practical rate imposed for unearned profit, it is inherently usurious and inevitably terminal. I further tell you that in their time, it is understandable that the founders had not yet resolved these observations into a perfected solution; nor should we expect then that they left a perfected monetary prescription in the Constitution. Instead, to their eternal credit, they expressed in the one sentence of the Preamble, that it is our duty, whatever the state of the Constitution as amended, to perfect the union.

All the while of this process of inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt of course, ever more of the circulation is dedicated to servicing debt; ever less of the circulation is left to sustain the industry which is compelled to service the artificial multiplication of debt; the debt nonetheless increases at an ever escalating rate of ever greater sums of periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt; the costs of servicing debt infringe to ever greater degrees on margins of solubility; surviving industry is even expatriated; and we can only eventually suffer complete and even world-wide monetary failure so long as we persist in the unauthorized and unassented imposition of usury, which no “economist” *has ever* proven is sustainable.

So indeed further, the personnel who might so readily dismiss this proposition without even due courtesy, cannot even cite a single theorem or proof of the pseudo-science, “economics,” which is not only wholly bereft of any such thing, but is the very curse for which we suffer.

Nor then has the opposition modeled the ostensible sustainability they merely contend exists. In fact all history has refuted that opposing proposition.

Yet you hope to prevail in a modest program, the whole of which quantitatively is far less than the present rates of this multiplication of debt; and which only hopes to survive that process without solving it?

I dare say that would be quite preposterous, gentlemen!

With all due respect then, I offer to refute your program or any further, contrary assertions, and to further explain mathematically perfected economy? however it is necessary, that we can establish solution and preserve the objects every true republic in history will exist for.

Obviously, it would be an honor to serve you in that object of my country and the world; and so I hope somehow that our country can turn from its dark ways, that without ensuring any further progress of the present catastrophes, together we can instead achieve goals which humanity has long intended, and will forever intend.

I then am not the one we have been waiting for. In fact I have long been here, advocating and proving the singular possible solution many have long ignored.

If you want to end their wait in due course, I expect and hope, in perpetual faith to the truth of these matters, to hear from you at your earliest possible convenience.

On the other hand, if I do not hear from you just so soon, I inform you that you offer no change we can believe in, gentlemen. As an American citizen just the same, I mean to settle for nothing less.

With just that faith in principle,

“To find the players in all the corruption of the world, ‘Follow the money.’ To find the captains of world corruption, follow the money all the way.”

mike montagne ??founder, PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy?, author/engineer of mathematically perfected economy? (1979)

Saturday, September 27th, 2008

In fact, if not a derivative ever existed, we would yet be at the brink of monetary failure right now.

mike montagne

No, Ellen. It’s NOT the Derivatives, STUPID!

Ellen Hodgson Brown (”Web of Debt”) has quite a few questions still to answer as to how the colonial currency she referred to as “the most brilliant banking model in our national history,” possibly was even intended to solve inflation ??much less that it establishes solution or accounts for the further issues which, only if solved, would rectify a monetary system. Instead, Ellen (and now Ron Paul?) purports there’s a plurality of ways far more complicated than mathematically perfected economy?, all of which Simple Simon says fixes the tainted, private Federal Reserve System. Why heck, thanks to all the folks who suddenly understand “economy” so well, we’re in fine shape if we just learn “it’s the derivatives, stupid.” Which of course is the title of her recent article.

“Something extraordinary is going on with these government bailouts,” she writes; and as if she has put her finger on that “extraordinary” thing, she quotes “economist” Robert Chapman:

 

“The point everyone misses,” wrote economist Robert Chapman a decade ago, “is that buying derivatives is not investing. It is gambling, insurance and high stakes bookmaking. Derivatives create nothing.”

No Ellen, and Mr. Chapman as well, I have news for you: “Investing” isn’t “investing,” either. Nor (likewise) does it create or produce anything. On the contrary, the very “investing” you yourself miss is all about unearned taking; and so, because it takes from the pool of wealth (production) without like contribution, the only possible consequence of this purported “investing” is that real producers are deprived of just reward for their production.

After all, what is Wall Street itself, but gambling? Is anything produced there?

Except for the case of an IPO, how much of all the money wagered there is ever “invested” in real industry, actual production?

Wall Street in fact therefore is one of our greatest problems, because if the prosperity of “Wall Street” can only come at the expense of real producers, then we should understand that at every moment, the better “Wall Street” “does,” the worse free enterprise can possibly fare.

Why rescue Wall Street at all then? (Is the question, Ellen.)

So yet, Ellen complains,

 

“We the taxpayers are on the hook for the Fed’s “enhanced liquidity facilities,” meaning the loans it has been making to everyone in sight, bank or non-bank, exercising obscure provisions in the Federal Reserve Act that may or may not say they can do it. What’s going on here? Why not let the free market work?”

Well, it’s not a free market at all then, Ellen. The so called Federal Reserve System, like Wall Street, is an arena where our potential industry is plundered to death, to the obliteration of any reward to anyone who actually produces anything.

But since when is the Federal Reserve Act itself constitutional?

Why then would a lawyer cite it, or require confirmation from it, that we “may or may not” invoke a public bailout of something which a real “economist” would already understand, can only damage us?

No Ellen, the horse does not trail the cart. In fact, if not a derivative ever existed, we would yet be at the brink of monetary failure right now.

What’s more, neither is it “the quality” of the loans, for which we’re at the brink of failure.

Au contraire, it’s inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt by interest which alone can explain how we have owed far more than we have ever produced; and for which debt can only multiply further, as, just to maintain a vital circulation, we are compelled to re-borrow principal and interest, as subsequent sums of debt, perpetually increased so much as periodic interest.

Purported experts who tell us otherwise therefore ensure we falter further, for it is your very cherry-picking of unqualified solutions which neither you, or Stephen Zarlenga, or Ron Paul, or Edwin Vieira, or G. Edward Griffin, or Jaikaran will debate, which confuse the people from the one thing which will save them: mathematically perfected economy?.

How do you maintain a circulation subject to interest without engendering monetary failure Ellen, where any of that interest is profit and where any of the circulation must be maintained by perpetually re-borrowing principal and interest as a subsequent sum of debt, perpetually increased above the previous sum of debt by so much as periodic interest?

Isn’t that even exactly why you have come up with your ridiculous, unfounded explanation, asserting this is how the Pennsylvania Currency worked?

How do you otherwise service debt subject to interest without suffering the present consequences, as the interest and principal we must reborrow to maintain a vital circulation perpetually increases the sum of debt so much as periodic interest?

Did derivatives multiply debt; or did interest?

Do you deny this is what the very so called Federal Reserve System was imposed for? Do all your obfuscations of interest mean to deny that’s the very purpose of interest? Do you mean to retain interest, by obfuscating it as taxation in your miserable explanation the Pennsylvania Currency was the most brilliant banking model in our national history?

Since you claim now to account so well for these obvious quantities and processes, where did I go awry in the source code which predicted this failure in 1983 from the very inherent, irreversible process of multiplication of debt by interest?

Franklin himself disputed gold could claim all the things which Mr. Paul simply repeats again and again without qualification. How is it you and Mr. Paul are so opposed to an interest free economy ??the only real economy possible?

Why would you reject solution of the observations of Mr. Jefferson, who reportedly said, “If the American People *ever* allow the banks to issue their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks *and [bank owned] corporations* which *will* grow up around them *will* deprive the people of all property, until their children wake homeless on the continent their fathers conquered?”

Is this not the process I’ve outlined, in which we must maintain a vital circulation subject to interest by re-borrowing (re-inflation of) what we pay out of the general circulation (deflation)… is this not an inherently simultaneous process, just as Thomas Jefferson told us?

Moreover, did Thomas Jefferson look to Hamilton’s National Bank Bill to find its constitutionality; or did he look not only to the Constitution itself, but to the arguments which established it?

It’s really very simple, Ellen: As a privatized (or even public) currency subject to interest forces us (only by denying us any form of currency but an unconstitutional form of currency subject to interest) to any degree and in any instance(s) to maintain a vital circulation by re-borrowing interest, then the sum of debt multiplies at an ever escalating rate of ever greater increments of just so much periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt, until we collapse under an eventual, terminal sum of debt.

Why are *some* “banks” failing?

Well, you and I would find it impossible to fail, having taken the unauthorizable powers the private Federal Reserve System has taken.

But let’s just think just a moment what happens as the so called Federal Reserve System can only multiply debt:

Well now, hugely devious behavior alone could collapse a “federal” “reserve” “bank.” But what about all these other banks?

They’re just middlemen. They’re caught in the squeeze between the privatized currency’s publishers and the poor bastards who are forced to service the perpetually multiplying sum of debt. The Federal Reserve prints “the money” for nothing; but after that, though no risk is involved to the so called Federal Reserve Banks, it represents an obligation to the middle-men ??the subservient private banks in between.

As the sum of debt multiplies, more and more money has to be loaned back into circulation to replenish it of the deflation Mr. Jefferson has explained to you and Mr. Paul. All the while, ever more of a circulation is dedicated to servicing the escalating sum of debt, while ever less is left to sustain the commerce or industry which is obliged to service the debt. Margins of solubility are impossible to sustain, because the costs of servicing the debt eventually make sustainability impossible.

All the while, these middle institutions are required to produce collateral, and to paint pictures of themselves which falsely depict their own sustainability; for without the false portraits, they can’t loan the further money not only necessary for the subjects of involuntary servitude to survive, but for the middle banks themselves to survive by collecting for the central bank.

Well, naturally then, as the impossibility of sustaining the escalating sum of debt draws nigh, they devise lies which obfuscate whether they or their marginalized clients are so worthy to borrow further. They’re no longer really worthy. But they lie to tread water. That’s what derivatives are, Ellen. They’re the lies of the drowning victims, who in fact can only be saved by eradicating interest. Quite obviously, we the People cannot be saved by imposing the cost of the middle “bank’s” failures on we, the victims, whose failures already signify our inability even to bear such further burden.

So, telling the people so long after others that this is a Ponzi scheme Ellen just doesn’t convey the picture the people need. You have advocated a brilliant banking model, as if a banking model is what we require.

But in fact we need to rid ourselves not only of banking models, but of the very concept that banks or their proponents (such as yourself) have ever justified “interest.” The producer is the real creditor Ellen, because it is the producer who accepts the paper, ether, or whatever token of wealth (”money”), on the faith that media is forever redeemable in whatever it is purported to represent.

Your “banking models” just pave the way for an extrinsic, further party to intercede between the creditor and debtor, while the usurping creditor of course will only ever do so for profit ??and of course, unearned profit at that.

Of course then, granting them leeway toward unearned profit at all is folly, because maximimal unearned profit then becomes the quest of many, and many more, to whatever degree possible, in what you call a “free market.”

As I have shown in the response to you which has yet to receive a credible reply, one and one only monetary prescription at all times preserves the redeemability of the debtor’s obligation. Likewise, mathematically perfected economy? alone makes it possible in all cases to acquire for our production an equal measure of the production of others. Under mathematically perfected economy?, monetary obligations (debts free of interest) are at all times redeemable, both in like production and the remaining value of the very wealth the currency of mathematically perfected economy? alone represents.

So no Ellen, you’re wrong again: It’s not the derivatives, stupid, which either symbolize or are the cause of the present deterioration which for your fame’s sake we have neglected to now to the brink of collapse. Derivatives in fact preserved the system for yet another false day of artificial sustention, that even authorities such as yourself have that further day yet to realize no, it’s the interest, stupid!

It’s the interest; it’s the interest; it’s the interest…

RELATED MATERIAL

“To find the players in all the corruption of the world, ‘Follow the money.’ To find the captains of world corruption, follow the money all the way.”

mike montagne ??founder, PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy?, author/engineer of mathematically perfected economy? (1979)

Monday, September 1st, 2008

Mario Sikorski Updates Us On More Banking Mumbo Jumbo

http://uk.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUKLS63299020080828?rpc=401

By Krista Hughes

FRANKFURT (Reuters) — Major central banks are working on new rules to bolster global liquidity flows in times of crisis by accepting assets denominated in foreign currencies, a Group of Ten central banking source said on Thursday.

They aim to address calls made more than two years ago for them to cooperate more — a recommendation that was issued again in a Financial Stability Forum (FSF) forum report in April.

Under the changes, commercial banks could be allowed to use euro-denominated collateral to borrow dollars from the U.S. Federal Reserve and submit dollar-denominated assets as guarantees for European Central Bank liquidity operations.

“The assets would have to be of high quality,” the G10 source said. “No firm decision has yet been taken.”

If there weren’t an inherent degeneration of “quality” (credit-worthiness) as interest irreversibly multiplies debt into insoluble debt, why the scramble to find further credit for existent assets?

RELATED EXTERNAL ARTICLES

“To find the players in all the corruption of the world, ‘Follow the money.’ To find the captains of world corruption, follow the money all the way.”

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

Monday, September 1st, 2008

Mario Sikorski Writes About Claimed Negative Interest Rates

Mario Sikorski wrote:

http://www.marketoracle.net/Article6013.html

“It does not make sense to me for lease rates to be negative, assuming they are indeed negative, as stated. However, just because something does not seemingly make any sense, is not proof of manipulation in and of itself.”

Well, we see already that to some financial commentators things are getting out of hand and out of head too.

Yes. What they mean by negative is “negative when you account for price inflation” (however legitimately or illegitimately they are accounting for price inflation. In other words, they are losing at the present rates because we cannot pay them and because the debt engendered by all the previous rates, continuing to multiply by the present rates, engenders such increasing costs that the money they are returned, even multiplied by the present rates, is devalued so much that it is worth less when they get it back than when they lent it.

Well, welcome to the crowd… and who should be subject to such devaluation but the usurers themselves?

But so it all makes sense. The talking heads still don’t want to address the interest issue because they themselves are advocates of unearned gain. They *want* unearned taking; and most of all the people they work for exist for the purpose of unearned taking. So they’re not making any whole sense of it, simply because they won’t look into the mirror.

RELATED EXTERNAL ARTICLES

“To find the players in all the corruption of the world, ‘Follow the money.’ To find the captains of world corruption, follow the money all the way.”

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

mike montagne — PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™.

"To find the players in all the corruption of the world, 'Follow the money.' To find the captains of world corruption, follow the money all the way."

mike montagne — PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™

While 12,000 homes a day continue to go into foreclosure, mathematically perfected economy™ would re-finance a $100,000 home with a hundred-year lifespan at the overall rate of $1,000 per year or $83.33 per month. Without costing us anything, we would immediately become as much as 12 times as liquid on present revenue. Transitioning to MPE™ would apply all payments already made against existent debt toward principal. Many of us would be debt free. There would be no housing crisis, no credit crisis. Unlimited funding would immediately be available to sustain all the industry we are capable of.

There is no other solution. Regulation can only temper an inherently terminal process.

If you are not promoting mathematically perfected economy™, then you condemn us to monetary failure.

© COPYRIGHT 1979-2009 by mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.COPYRIGHT 1979-2009 by mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. TRADEMARKS: PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™, Mathematically Perfected Economy™, Mathematically Perfected Currency™, MPE™, and PFMPE™ are trademarks of mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™, perfecteconomy.com. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Firefox™.BEST VIEWED WITH MOZILLA FIREFOX™.


Search perfecteconomy.com     Search Web