THROWING DOWN THE GAUNTLET ON THE GOLD STANDARD (AGAIN)

In a former Ron Paul Meetup forum, a forum correspondent writes only:

In a campaign of quantity versus quality, the so called Ron Paul Movement has bought up every conceivable domain name only implying whatever Mr. Paul and his family of “Austrian Economists” merely claim is “sound money.”

While even Benjamin Franklin long ago (at the age of 23) substantially invalidated the gold standard, and while my work for the last 30+ years emphatically invalidated Mr. Paul’s arguments long before he chose to persist in them, Mr. Paul himself of course has refused to answer once to these arguments in twenty years.

But so, twenty years of evasion therefore establish some unknown prospect or even possibility of returning to the gold standard?

To perpetually assert what is not solution is a perpetual affront to solution.

Thus I reply:

“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)

© COPYRIGHT 2008, by mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™.

Except for profit making ventures or entities otherwise granted explicit permission to publish this copyright material, this article may be distributed or reprinted in whole only, from and including any quotes preceding its title, through and inclusive of the following permalink, by email or otherwise. Visitors may also download our entire directory of regular/main site articles from our downloads page: http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-free-pfmpe-downloads.html. If you want to save your country, we encourage personal distribution of this material to all conducive recipients of your personal address books. Of course, you may also send only the following permalink:

http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2008/10/28/throwing-down-the-gauntlet-on-the-gold-standard-again/ [END PERMALINK]

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE™ FORUM:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewtopic.php?f=84&t=109

NEW YORK TIMES FALSELY PROMOTES A FACADE OF GREENSPAN’S HUMILITY

On October 23, proving many years of false assertions itself, a New York Times article, “Greenspan Concedes Error on Regulation,” claimed:

Of course, “markets” are hardly free if they are subject to a currency which can only multiply indebtedness into terminal sums of debt. In fact all along the way to terminal failure, true producers are deprived to ever greater degrees of just compensation for their production, until of course they are dispossessed even of the opportunity and their right to produce.

But the purported humility therefore is a lie. Greenspan isn’t about to support rectifying the system of its inherent faults. On the contrary, while he feigns apology, he means to ensure the perpetuation of that unjust system. Every president since and including Gerald Ford was offered the opportunity and way to resolve these issues via mathematically perfected economy™. None answered, and particularly Mr. Greenspan, not only because they all knew then that they were wrong, but because despite being wrong, they intended instead to perpetuate the irreversible multiplication of that unearned taking.

RELATED MATERIAL

0. Greenspan Concedes Error on Regulation
1. If I Were President — how to arrest world wide monetary collapse in a day
2. PROBABILITY AND TIMELINE FOR WORLD-WIDE ECONOMIC COLLAPSE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF INTEREST
   3. [ KEY ]  ABOUT INTEREST, KEY TO THE CYCLE OF USURY: ‘IT’S THE INTEREST, STUPID, IT’S THE INTEREST’

“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)

© COPYRIGHT 2008, by mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™.

Except for profit making ventures or entities otherwise granted explicit permission to publish this copyright material, this article may be distributed or reprinted in whole only, from and including any quotes preceding its title, through and inclusive of the following permalink, by email or otherwise. Visitors may also download our entire directory of regular/main site articles from our downloads page: http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-free-pfmpe-downloads.html. If you want to save your country, we encourage personal distribution of this material to all conducive recipients of your personal address books. Of course, you may also send only the following permalink:

http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2008/10/28/new-york-times-falsely-promotes-a-facade-of-greenspan-humility/ [END PERMALINK]

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE™ FORUM:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=108

RESPONSE TO CONSTITUTION’S DEFENDERS FOR OBAMA POST

This morning I responded to the following ConstitutionsDefendersForObama post:

PFMPE™ RESPONSE

Dear [poster],

Having asked the questions you have, you are not far from the answer.

You are absolutely right as well that the real nature of the problem is purposely obfuscated. Realize for instance that what is called “economics” is certainly not economic if it produces the effects you point out; and that furthermore, not only is the pretended discipline fraught with internal controversy, it is wholly bereft of formal proof or theorem. That is, unlike any of the true sciences, “economics” doesn’t even have a first precept, giving it the object or purpose of engendering what is “economic.” There is not even a single theorem which establishes the present pseudo science is even sustainable.

While still he sustained himself largely by complying with that pseudo science, John Kenneth Galbraith put it like this:

Ayn Rand said,

You are an artist, and you would prefer not to have to understand all the false dogma the mainstream media feeds us; and of course you hardly have to understand it all.

But because we are a republic, if we are going to solve our problems, we do have to understand the core problem, that we can fix it above a government so corrupt as to be co-perpetrators of what amounts to a monumental crime against us. After all, we readily understand that in nature, we prosper however much our willingness and capability incorporate available resources into production. Without exhausting resources then, the very idea that the whole of the world’s “economies” (a lie from its beginning) should fail itself paints a portrait of a wholly unnecessary and artificial failure. That a renegade government refuses to rectify the problem when we can (and have) prescribed exactly how to do so, furthermore establishes a testament that the problem is intentionally imposed, for a purpose — and that obvious purpose is the vast unearned taking from us, by artificial multiplication of debt.

If you and I were doing business together… perhaps I want to buy a painting from you… and I can’t pay you immediately, you might accept my promise to pay, particularly if it is based on certain conditions which absolutely guarantee that you will be paid.

Under the central banking systems which have been imposed upon the world, a third party, who produces nothing, intervenes on our arrangement. They say, “No, no, no, no, no… you cannot issue your own promises to pay each other: *only* promises to pay issued by the central bank have integrity, because they cost you *further* — they are subject to interest.”

Now you, being the producer of the subject property, are the real creditor. In the first case, you accepted my promise to pay, which was guaranteed by conditions I have not yet stated but will get to in a few more sentences. In the second case, you accept my promise to pay, issued by a banker; and, while *we* might define money differently (and particularly, as an inert, indestructible, redeemable token of value), and while this particular form of money costs the central banker virtually nothing whatsoever to publish, yet we presume there is some risk involved to the false issuer of the promise, which justifies my paying *them* several paintings to acquire your one.

Obviously, you and I are going to engage in less “economic” activity as a consequence of this substantial further cost.

But there is a further problem with introduced by this imposed form of “money,” which is all you have to understand to get at the crux of the present monetary failure.

That is, this imposed form of “money” inherently and irreversibly multiplies debt in proportion to a circulation, so that ultimately the whole system collapses under a sum of debt it can no longer afford to service.

How does this happen?

Under this imposed system (it was never approved by an election; and in fact the prevailing side of the 1912 election voted *against* the creation of “a central bank”), the principal is introduced to circulation as a debt subject to interest. Because the resultant obligation is to pay both the principal (circulation) *plus* the interest (which exists beyond the sum of the circulation), therefore our payments against this monetary obligation of principal and interest perpetually deflate the circulation. That is, we are constantly paying principal *and* interest out of the general circulation, which exists only insofar as a remaining sum of principal. We are therefore perpetually depleting (”deflating”) the circulation moreso than what principal exists.

Furthermore, to continue servicing these monetary obligations, we must maintain a vital circulation.

Of course, because the money only comes from “the central bank,” and because we can only borrow this altered, purposed, artificial form of “money” into circulation, therefore we must borrow back into circulation the principal and interest we pay out of the circulation.

What does this mean?

First of all, it means that to whatever degree we must re-borrow principal, it is mathematically impossible to pay down the sum of debt: The principal we pay down must be re-borrowed, therefore as new debt, equal to the former debt. This aspect of our obligatory replenishing of the perpetual deflation of the system thus always retains the former sum of debt, however much we pay against it.

Secondly however, it means that interest payments too must be borrowed back into circulation; and therefore, because interest payments counted none at all toward the previous sum of debt, thus because we can only borrow them back as new debt… *therefore the sum of debt perpetually increases so much as we have to re-borrow interest back into the general circulation, to maintain a vital circulation*.

Finally then, therefore the sum of debt perpetually increases at inherently escalating rates, so much as the periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt.

Read it slowly, and you will understand it.

Thomas Jefferson, arguing against the creation of “our” first “national bank” (which Hamilton attempted to create *after* the Constitution was finalized [without a central bank], by *circumventing* the constitutional processes and regulations)… Jefferson put it this way:

Of course, that day has come.

Jefferson also said:

Some casually laugh at the idea we can perfect “an economy.” But as Kennedy said, as our [few simple] problems are man made, therefore we can [readily] solve them.

In the case of the present facade of “economy,” we have only two very basic issues to solve; multiplication of debt by interest, and inflation/deflation (how much money to circulate).

The first we can only solve by eradicating interest; and the second too, we can only solve by eradicating interest, because interest requires us to pay out of the general circulation, more than exists.

So, how do we solve inflation and deflation?

That problem is elementary: Because each are defined respectively as increases or decreases in circulation per the wealth the circulation is intended to represent, thus the *only* solution for inflation and deflation is to maintain a circulation which at all times is equal to the remaining value of the wealth it is intended to represent.

The only way to do that is to pay off debts which are not subject to interest (ever multiplying unearned profit, taken at no cost whatsoever, by a process which perpetually undermines the integrity of the currency, and ultimately engenders terminal sums of debt)… at the rate of consumption/depreciation of the related assets.

Thus the one and only solution is simple:

In the case of a $100,000 home with a hundred year lifespan, we pay off the home at an overall rate equal to its 100-year consumption or depreciation, which of course comprises an overall rate of $1,000 per year, or $83.33 per month.

Obviously, quite contrary to Mr. McCain’s bogus assertion that we need our house prices to come up (which, under the present system, results instead in our paying to “the central banking system,” lifetime after lifetime for the product of a few months of our own production), what we really need to do is to re-finance all debt immediately, under mathematically perfected economy™.

Here is my prescription for exactly how to do so — how to arrest inherent, inevitable monetary failure under the present system in less than a day:

http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-if-i-were-president.html

I also promised to explain how the artificial, imposed “money” of the central “banking” system inherently undermines the ability to pay off the resultant debts. Perhaps you already understand from my previous explanation, but of course, as the sum of debt is inherently and irreversibly multiplied in proportion to the vital circulation, ever more of the vital circulation is inherently and irreversibly dedicated to servicing an ever greater sum of debt. This of course leaves ever less of the circulation to sustain the surviving industry which is obligated to do so. Thus it is ever less possible to do so all the while of the inherently finite lifespan of every such system; and ultimately it is impossible to do so, because ultimately and inevitably, the entire circulation would be devoted to servicing debt.

Of course, however much further unearned taking is imposed upon us by further parasitic processes (by further entities which produce nothing or take unearned profit by extortion, coercion, subversion, usurpation…), it is the proximity of that final day of inherent, further multiplication of a terminal sum of debt which explains our present circumstance.

Of course, as [previous poster] says, the mainstream media isn’t about to proliferate the truth, because of course the mainstream media is owned by the very perpetrators of this crime against humanity.

As to the constitutionality of it, you should I would hope take some interest in the following evaluation of Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank, which he wrote for President Washington in response to Hamilton’s (successful) efforts to circumvent the new Constitution to create an entity the founders *purposely* themselves refrained from creating:

http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-evaluation-of-jeffersons-opinion-on-the-constitutionality-of-a-national-bank.html

I will close then with one final quote from Jefferson:

In other words, no private “federal” central bank can be endowed with a power above us to publish ultimately irredeemable promises to pay, particularly to take involuntary servitude from us, based on the unqualifiable proposition that the promises, which are our promises, and which the unassented “central bank” produces for nothing, constitute some ostensible risk to the unassented, intervening entity.

Yes, industry prospers particularly well on circulations which can sustain all conscientious development; but under usury, as Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Jackson, Lincoln, McFadden, and many others told us… all that prosperity is soon swallowed up by the facade of justified “interest.”

RELATED MATERIAL

1. IF I WERE PRESIDENT — HOW TO ARREST WORLD WIDE MONETARY COLLAPSE IN A DAY
2. EVALUATION OF JEFFERSON’S OPINION ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A NATIONAL BANK

“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)

© COPYRIGHT 2008, by mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™.

Except for profit making ventures or entities otherwise granted explicit permission to publish this copyright material, this article may be distributed or reprinted in whole only, from and including any quotes preceding its title, through and inclusive of the following permalink, by email or otherwise. Visitors may also download our entire directory of regular/main site articles from our downloads page: http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-free-pfmpe-downloads.html. If you want to save your country, we encourage personal distribution of this material to all conducive recipients of your personal address books. Of course, you may also send only the following permalink:

http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2008/10/23/response-to-constitutions-defenders-for-obama-post/ [END PERMALINK]

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE™ FORUM:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=95

BECAUSE HE HAS NO BETTER ANSWER…

PAUL KRUGMAN, NOBEL LAUREATE, IRRESPONSIBLY CALLS FOR CONTINUED FISCAL IRRESPONSIBILITY

With a bewildering magnitude of enthusiasm, an EducatorsForObama forum member writes:

Discuss it we will.

The evident basis for this panicked appeal is Paul Krugman’s trivial October 16, 2008 New York Times article, “Let’s Get Fiscal,” which she sends in its entirety. Only critical faults/issues (still involving most of the article) are enumerated below. As you will see, her reiterated assertions actually represent Krugman well:

THE TEETH OF IRRESPONSIBILITY

True science of course is first and foremost to leave no premise unchallenged; no reasonable question unasked. Most of all, no solution in science perpetuates faults which are readily proven by the most plausible answers to obligatory questions.

Moreover, these are such routine customs of true science that anything less stands out like the proverbial sore thumb. The tests of such material are not merely academic. Intelligent readers of important matters always, always, always must know when they reach an ostensible conclusion: have all the relevant questions been asked?

A prospectively intelligent republic understands nothing, and has no tool to intelligently rule over itself, without an affirmative answer to that question — or without an affirmative answer to the further question, does the prescribed course best account for all the matters at hand?

If the first question cannot be answered affirmatively and definitely, then the course does not even account for all the matters at hand — much less can it justly be said to best account for them.

The latter, most crucial question on the further hand, depends on conclusive qualification not only of all the points certifying the propositions of the first question, it depends on conclusive, unerring development of the prescription in question. All material of such propositions lacking either, fails to meet the necessary standards which predicate intelligible, successful government.

Before we look for any teeth in Krugman’s unqualified propositions, let me ask, does anyone think they see absolute solution in them?

Already, the irresponsibility he proposes — not only to continue, but possibly to exacerbate — has engendered insoluble federal debt which at this moment has brought us to our knees, and will cripple us and worse forever. Is there a proof we will succeed by the continued irresponsibility he advocates? Is there a proof of no other alternative? Has he asked all the relevant questions? Has he even answered them, if he hasn’t asked them?

What can we rightly think then of his unqualified proposition?

Or on the contrary, does it beg the further questions, and a dialog developing real solution?

If we presume that Mr. Krugman has well prescribed our way, it would only be for never fully pursuing the answers ourselves, because one simple, routine question exposes the poverty and flaws of that disposition.

Because Mr. Krugman has no answer, or cares not to answer for the whole question, he purposely raises only a partial form of it. He points out a reasonable and obvious, customary reservation against timeliness. That is, he warns only that government investment in research such as the Obama Campaign proposes may well not produce sufficient benefits within a period in which the positives offset the negatives suffered across the same timespan (10).

An obvious flaw even of the attitude of this purposely narrowed scope, is that we are seeking only to offset negatives. Why is it right not to instead seek to eliminate all obstructions or encumbrances, particularly if any obstruction or encumbrance is unnatural, and itself has never been justified?

Is it right that we prosper to the full extent of our willingness and capability to incorporate available resources into production? Or is it right, that all the while we remain capable and willing to incorporate available resources into production, that some artificial irregularity unjustifiably obstructs the whole world from doing so?

In response nonetheless to the one mere facet he raises, Mr. Krugman reassures us that we don’t have to worry about falling short of an expiring time frame, because the present downturn will surely outlast fruition of eventual benefits, if any — if we survive so long, if the eventual benefits are enough to offset the bad, and if we can even afford the products of those eventual developments after however much longer the failing monetary system further destroys our credit-worthiness.

These are just some of the further questions which Mr. Krugman’s and Mr. Obama’s propositions must answer for certainly, if Mr. Obama is to succeed not in delivering us from the ever escalating oppression of a system imposed for that very purpose, but prospectively, to merely succeed eventually, in treading water for a short while against inherent, irreversible, further escalation of indebtedness.

As I explain again and again throughout these pages, any purported economy subject to interest ultimately terminates itself by itself, irreversibly generating ever escalating sums of debt, until that system inevitably generates a terminal sum of insoluble debt.

In any such system, the real creditors remain the real producers of wealth, who are asked to accept a promise to pay for their production. A central bank merely creates the promise of the debtor at virtually no cost whatever to itself, and then, having intervened unjustly upon every such transaction, demands interest from the whole of the circulation. There is no risk whatever, because the promise to pay of the debtor is created without cost.

But because the whole monetary obligation [principal and interest] of all the currency [principal] so introduced to circulation therefore exceeds the circulation from the outset, it is mathematically impossible for the subjects of the system to continue servicing their obligations without re-borrowing what they pay against these obligations, out of the general circulation:

1. What they pay against the principal therefore must be re-borrowed; and, by the nature of the system of unearned profit, therefore whatever they pay against principal is re-borrowed as a subsequent sum of debt, equal to the previous.

   Thus to whatever degree the subjects of the system are forced to re-borrow principal to maintain a vital circulation, it is mathematically impossible to pay down the sum of debt.

2. Whatever they pay against interest and must re-borrow [as new principal] to maintain a vital circulation therefore, increases the sum of debt.

   Thus the sum of debt increases so much as periodic interest on the sum of debt.

3. Therefore, because they must maintain a vital circulation, the sum of debt inherently and irreversibly increases at an inherently escalating rate of ever greater increments of periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt.

   Inevitably then, because this multiplication is in proportion to the sustaining circulation, and because ever more of the circulation is dedicated to servicing debt — leaving ever less of the circulation to sustain the true industry which is obligated to do so — inevitably, every such system terminates itself under an insoluble sum of debt it can no longer afford to service.

   All the artificial sustention in the world cannot save that system from its own end then, particularly as the escalating rates of inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt become so monumental.

So then, do Mr. Krugman’s assertions prove the course of exacerbated, further deficit spending, itself increasing that multiplication of indebtedness?

After all, any certainty that we can accomplish any goals of research, development, or infrastructure repair, maintenance, or re-building, itself certifies that we are indeed capable in every other way to accomplish these things, but for the very obstructions imposed by the purported economy — imposed then, and still existing for such illimitable profit of the privatization Mr. McCain and those he represents stand for.

There is no other preclusive factor but this illimitable multiplication of unearned taking by those whose unmitigated gutting of our republic assures its mortal end.

What should concern us is who stands in the way of solution, and why.

Of course, the very reason that we the people have not already succeeded in these very same (unoriginal) ventures — now only proposed to ultimately succeed by artificial intervention — is the artificial deterioration which “the economy” has already imposed upon us.

Truly free enterprise, free of this incredible predation, would long ago have solved these problems. In fact I myself am well aware of substantial technological innovations waiting already for many years to provide their benefits to us, which are stymied wholly and singularly by lack of funding, purposely denied those existent achievements only so that those who have not developed them can “own” them.

Nonetheless, while “investors” readily cheat innovation of every cent they can — only because we the people ostensibly deny ourselves sustainable funding, free of usury and further predation — now these same artificially “aided” developments, intentionally crippled by the other hand, are supposed to potentialize their success as the very underlying system further multiplies indebtedness upon us. Of course, if we even survive the while over which ownership of already existing capacities will merely be fought, in the end of that mere battle to take further earnings from us, the whole subject society will suffer a drastically diminished capacity to afford further costs, such as the eventual products of those existent developments.

No one then — and particularly not Mr. Krugman — has quantitatively established that those “developments” will eventually — even for a short while —  succeed in treading water against the inherent, escalating multiplication of indebtedness which those who claim now that they will represent us, refuse even to address.

In other words, if it were not for the very perpetual, inherently escalating artificial obstruction of our prosperity which both parties of betrayal intend to continue, we would already prosper so much as our willingness and capability to incorporate available resources into production would permit.

So we are intentionally not delivered our vital answer from Mr. Krugman or those who award him for excluding the very nature of the problem from the debate over rectitude. But to distinguish the difference, let us examine Mr. Krugman’s evasions, point by point:

1. “It’s politically fashionable to rant against government spending and demand fiscal responsibility.”

   Advocating fiscal responsibility is not a matter of “fashion”; it is a sacred responsibility, the abuse of which comprises the whole substance of our perpetual failure to ascertain or establish solution.

   Fiscal responsibility is a perpetual obligation. But it is emphatically a perpetual obligation as we are incurring debts we are not paying, and passing those off onto our progeny, ostensibly for our own undeserved “benefit.” The only beneficiary of this irresponsibility is the privatized monetary system, for which the subject republic can only suffer to ever greater degrees as that system purposely multiplies debt not only all the further, but at inherently escalating rates to inevitable, terminal sums of debt.

   What is right about this artificial multiplication of debt? When did we give our assent to it? What is legal about that system? Why would we the people ever engineer such a thing? Why has it not been rectified, but that people like Mr. Krugman stand forever in the way?

   What sane republic would forever refrain from perfecting this imposed systems mere two fatal faults — inflation/deflation, and inherent multiplication of debt by interest — the latter particularly of which is the very cause of the present, inevitable, near term monetary failure?

   Particularly then, what sane republic would refrain from perfecting that imposed system, if the republic’s preservation only required removing that unearned, undeserved, unjustified, and terminal taking from the sane republic?

2. “But right now, increased government spending is just what the doctor ordered, and concerns about the budget deficit should be put on hold.”

   Inadvertently here, Krugman himself testifies that the imposed system itself obstructs our success, for his unwarranted proposition asks for solubility which has been made impossible.

3. “Just this week, we learned that retail sales have fallen off a cliff, and so has industrial production. Unemployment claims are at steep-recession levels, and the Philadelphia Fed’s manufacturing index is falling at the fastest pace in almost 20 years. All signs point to an economic slump that will be nasty, brutish — and long.”

   These still are purposely down-scaled portraits, authored in houses which still claim present events might only engender a severe recession. Ten-thousand homes a day going into foreclosure is not a possibility of severe recession; it is the sign-post of an all-out world-wide monetary failure; and it is particularly a loud warning of that failure, when “appreciating” home “values” (which are further escalating costs, further multiplied by “interest”), just yesterday comprised an absolutely ludicrous avenue from inevitable failure.

   From the very beginning, these deceptions of rectitude or possibility of avoiding failure were designed to multiply unearned taking from us, and our concurrent destruction.

4. “And how long? It could be very long indeed.”

   This lie downplays the consequences as well, for a system which can only engender terminal indebtedness, itself destroys any veritable way whatever to resolve its ultimate state of collapse, amidst wholly destroyed credit-worthiness.

5. [excluded trivia…]

6. “In other words, there’s not much Ben Bernanke can do for the economy.”

   Exactly.

   So long as there is unearned profit in the imposed systems of dispossession and destruction, and so long as we the unassenting subjects maintain a vital circulation, this process of inherent multiplication of debt to terminal debt is irreversible.

   When we can no longer maintain a vital circulation on the other hand, the day of failure is upon us.

   Bernanke can only speed up or slow down this terminal process by raising or lowering interest, that we can afford to borrow as is necessary to maintain a vital circulation. All the while nonetheless, ever more of that circulation is inherently dedicated to servicing debt, while ever less thus remains to sustain the surviving industry which is obligated to do so.

7. “He can and should cut interest rates even more — but nobody expects this to do more than provide a slight economic boost.”

   Only because interest adjustments affect new debt; and existent debt is customarily “re-financed” at considerable further, immediate cost. The effects therefore are intentionally limited by the perpetrators.

   Nonetheless, at best, the only power is to extend the date of inevitable failure, for the mere process of maintaining a vital circulation ensures the inevitable failure.

8. “It can provide extended benefits to the unemployed, which will both help distressed families cope and put money in the hands of people likely to spend it. It can provide emergency aid to state and local governments, so that they aren’t forced into steep spending cuts that both degrade public services and destroy jobs. It can buy up mortgages (but not at face value, as John McCain has proposed) and restructure the terms to help families stay in their homes.”

   Each cited circumstance is a fault of the imposed system which can only be solved by rectifying the system.

   We don’t have to “buy up” mortgages. We have to free debtors from usury: we have to re-finance all debt without interest (unassented, unjustifiable profit to the “central banking” system, which publishes the “money” at no cost whatever). This alone solves terminal multiplication of debt in proportion to possible sustenance.

   To further solve inflation and deflation, we have to pay the resultant monetary obligations at the rate of consumption or depreciation. This, together with the previous solution of inherent multiplication of our promises to pay each other, alone makes it possible for our promises to pay to be what they promise to pay — a capacity to procure the wealth each of us produce for whatever we deem to be equal measures of wealth produced by others.

   What is the consequence of rectifying the imposed system? How could we possibly deteriorate further, if we eliminate multiplication of debt, and if the subjects of said mortgages are thus compelled only to pay $1,000 per year or $83.33 per month on every $100,000 of remaining equity of property originally having a 100-year lifespan?

   The benefits of real solution, together with the real reasons that solution is obstructed, are not far to seek.

9. “And this is also a good time to engage in some serious infrastructure spending, which the country badly needs in any case.”

   Only so, because to preserve all this unearned taking from us, abuse of power has resisted for so long our incontrovertible need and intent to rectify the imposed systems. What Krugman is asking for effectively, is a temporary return of some of the solubility destroyed by the system, while the system yet continues to destroy solubility at an inherently escalating rate.

   The time to spend on infrastructure then, was the time to spend on infrastructure. The fact we have not done so, the fact we “badly need” to do so, further testifies to the obstruction so long comprised and multiplied by the very intentions of the unassented monetary systems.

10. “The usual argument against public works as economic stimulus is that they take too long: by the time you get around to repairing that bridge and upgrading that rail line, the slump is over and the stimulus isn’t needed. Well, that argument has no force now, since the chances that this slump will be over anytime soon are virtually nil. So let’s get those projects rolling.”

    As Krugman himself has said, we are not confronted with “a slump.” But the real question is not just whether some ostensible benefit will be provided at some future time within the recession, depression, or utter failure. Neither are the real questions the further matters of whether we can survive to that future time; or whether at that future time, so much further diminished in our capacity to sustain further costs upon the further multiplication of debt which will ensue, we will even be able to afford the products of future developments, which the imposed system has already made us unable to afford.

    The question is what can out-strip, inherent, irreversible, perpetual multiplication of debt at inherently escalating rates? What can out-perform inherent failure under inevitable, terminal indebtedness?

    Particularly with the whole world at the brink of artificial failure imposed by unjustifiable, irreversible multiplication of indebtedness, the question is, why do we not establish ready solution? Who stands in the way of solution?

11. “What we need right now is more government spending — but when Mr. McCain was asked in one of the debates how he would deal with the economic crisis, he answered: “Well, the first thing we have to do is get spending under control.”

    Again, Krugman asks for temporary restoration of solubility which will, virtually immediately, be consumed by the alpha parasite, sucking us dry at far faster rates than Mr. Krugman’s band-aid can stave.

    On the other hand, Mr. McCain can’t possibly advocate how to get spending under control either, without advocating mathematically perfected economy™.

12. “If Barack Obama becomes president, he won’t have the same knee-jerk opposition to spending.”

    Krugman only proposes a knee-jerk reaction which will result in indistinguishably different further destruction.

13. “He should ignore that chorus.”

    Thomas Jefferson said, “Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.”

    But you, Mr. Krugman, too believe what is wrong; and you advocate we follow you off a cliff, that those who give you awards and false badges of authority can preserve usury forever.

    Thomas Jefferson also said:

    If the American people ever allow banks to issue their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation [by having to maintain a vital circulation by perpetually re-borrowing principal and interest as subsequent sums of debt, increased perpetually so much as periodic interest], 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.

    Which is the very process I argue, is matched by a singular integral solution.

    Jefferson also said:

    The end of democracy and defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of the lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.

    The Bank of the United States is one of the most deadly hostilities existing against the principles and form of our Constitution. The system of banking is a blot [defect] left in [unsolved by, and unfortunately tolerated by] all our Constitutions [state and federal], which if not covered [eventually solved and revoked] will end in their destruction. I sincerely believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity is but swindling futurity [on the greatest possible scale].

    You Mr. Krugman then, would advocate the very destructive processes against which Mr. Jefferson so well intended to defend us.

14. “The responsible thing, right now, is to give the economy the help it needs. Now is not the time to worry about the deficit.”

    On the contrary, nothing of course could be much more irresponsible: The “help” “the economy” needs Mr. Krugman, is solution.

Some day, probably long after tomorrow Mr. Krugman, when the system you help only to preserve finishes the failure it imposes upon us, at best, you will propose that we simply restart that system, artificially renewing the credit-worthiness which is artificially destroyed only by that imposed system’s inherent multiplication of debt.

You will say or at least imply with words equally bereft of genuine qualification, that the very same system is sustainable; and you will ask us to bow our heads yet still to yield to irreversible multiplication of unearned profit, at our ever greater cost and inevitable, cyclical destruction.

These however Mr. Krugman, are the only things standing right now in the way of our prosperity and our right to prosper to the full measure of our willingness and capability to render production from a conservative consumption of available resources. You Mr. Krugman are the problem; not the solution. What you propose is intellectually and morally bankrupt.

As I explain in “If I Were President…” (http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-if-i-were-president.html), how to arrest world wide monetary collapse in a day… the real solution here is to refinance all private debt under mathematically perfected economy™, where, as I have already explained in this page, the people will thus service their rectified debts on the scale of $1,000 per year or $83.33 per month for every $100,000 of debt against property having a hundred year lifespan.

Obviously then Mr. Krugman, without any irresponsible spending whatever, so much further liquidity would exist amongst us merely for eliminating unearned taking from the system, that we would not be losing our homes by the tens of thousands per day, we would not be losing our jobs. We would be employing ourselves far further; and we would readily accomplish the objects of programs you advocate require government aid, simply by eradicating the destruction and dispossession which unassented government all the same while imposes upon us.

The propositions laid on the table by both parties of betrayal persist only in two courses to the same dire consequences. Mr. Obama hopes the accomplishments we would otherwise be capable of will succeed if we heap more artificial debt upon us. True to the recent even more destructive thrust of the usurpers, Mr. McCain advocates “privatization,” which is a pretentious veil over further unearned taking, which of course is the present curse of our republic.

The hope of the American People, and even the world then, rests on a distant possibility.

Whether these are just words, history will tell. But Mr. Obama asks us to believe not just in his ability to fix Washington — he asks us to believe in ours.

The only tangible thing on that table therefore, is that we can hold Mr. Obama accountable to his ostensible promise that given its own reign, our republic will choose the only road to solubility and sustainability.

That’s a pitiful chance at rectitude to bemuse, in a republic established by the likes of Mr. Jefferson.

RELATED MATERIAL

1. IF I WERE PRESIDENT — HOW TO ARREST WORLD WIDE MONETARY COLLAPSE IN A DAY, AND ESTABLISH REAL, SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY IN LITTLE LONGER (mike montagne, OCTOBER 14)
2. Paul Krugman’s October 16, 2008 New York Times article, “Let’s Get Fiscal”

“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)

© COPYRIGHT 2008, by mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™.

Except for profit making ventures or entities otherwise granted explicit permission to publish this copyright material, this article may be distributed or reprinted in whole only, from and including any quotes preceding its title, through and inclusive of the following permalink, by email or otherwise. Visitors may also download our entire directory of regular/main site articles from our downloads page: http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-free-pfmpe-downloads.html. If you want to save your country, we encourage personal distribution of this material to all conducive recipients of your personal address books. Of course, you may also send only the following permalink:

http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2008/10/22/paul-krugman-nobel-laureate-irresponsibly-calls-for-continued-fiscal-irresponsibility/ [END PERMALINK]

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE™ FORUM:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewtopic.php?f=81&t=94

You are doing the right and good thing making this thoughtful accumulation of research readily available. Best regards always, Sigrun Thank you for taking the time to explain in so much detail. It could be the very fact that it takes work to read and understand that you come to understand more fully and give the knowledge more weight. In God’s Hands, Khomar I’m neither a mathematician nor an economist, two disciplines in which I fared rather poorly, to be truthful, but I am good enough with logic and number to see that you’re quite brilliant at economic theory and that you’re on to something big. Very big. I wouldn’t let the “theft” of some of your foundation work bother you; it’s a big kudo to you that they’ve borrowed from you, though their conclusions or motivations be false. Ron Boyer

MORE ON THE CONTROVERSY OF ELLEN HODGSON BROWN’S GLOBAL RESEARCH ARTICLE PRETENDING WORLD-WIDE MONETARY SOLUTION

Those of you who are familiar with these pages know that since 1979 I have advocated that there is one and one only solution to the categoric faults of the world’s privatized monetary systems. In part, my 1979 thesis of mathematically perfected economy? stems from a mathematic proof a)?that any purported economy subject to interest ultimately and inevitably terminates itself under insoluble debt; and b)?that there is one and one only integral 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.

The former (a) of course is the principal underlying cause of the present brink of world wide monetary failure; and, given the worthiness of mathematic proof, the latter (b) would be the only way out of the categoric issues which plague us.

If the people of the world therefore are to unite, the vital thing they need is not only a veritable solution, but to understand that there is one and one only veritable solution.

Because my work so far precedes recent authors’ contending propositions of solution; because the contending authors have not invalidated mathematically perfected economy?; and because I have already invalidated the contending, purported solutions, I therefore take great exception to the continued efforts of these authors to confuse the people.

What they do this for is obvious enough, even in their own words (or lack thereof). But so, in the interest of trying the prospective/purported solutions raised by so many, the present article responds to the evident professions of Ellen Hodgson Brown (recent author of “Web of Debt”), and, perhaps by extension, those of Mr. Stephen Zarlenga (recent author of “The Lost Science of Money,” and director of his “American Monetary Institute”).

Many of PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy?’s readers are already familiar with the controversy between the three of us. Mr. Zarlenga has never answered to the questions of mathematically perfected economy?, even as members of his “conferences” have insisted that I be invited as a most instrumental determinate of real solution; and even as he wrote me once, declaring that we were of like mind and asking that I help promote his book, “The Lost Science of Money.” I asked in reply to that appeal, how I should genuinely promote his book without even having seen a copy of it, and why he should have written it, unless he found fault with my long pre-existent material. I have never h