CITIZENS WEIGH THE MEAT OF THE SELECTION
The day after the October 7 presidential debate, I sent out an excerpt of a letter Mr. Obama sent to members of his email list:
I thought the differences between John McCain and me were pretty clear tonight.
I will fight for the middle class every day, and ??once again ??Senator McCain didn’t mention the middle class a single time during the debate.
The former certainly stretches the truth, as both candidates pandered tax breaks for votes, to only slightly different audiences. Neither is the latter true of course, as Mr. McCain at least obtusely referred to the middle class when he offered in virtually equal impotence, “Let’s not raise taxes on anybody today.”
Neither candidate demonstrated an aptitude for real solution. In fact as I was offended by Mr. Obama’s letter, and as both candidates so thoroughly evaded all the fundamental issues of real solution, I thus published my October 8 blog, “ABSOLUTE FAILING GRADES TO BOTH CANDIDATES,” and replied to Mr. Obama thus:
Dear Mr. Obama,
I have been in contact with your campaign offices, and I am very disappointed in two things: tonight’s debate (which failed to advance a single vital principle); and your Economic Policy Team’s failure to respond yet to my September 29 proposition of monetary solution (certified delivery, return receipt requested), as requested by your campaign staff.
Many of our readers are intimately aware of my proposition to Mr. Obama, that mathematically perfected economy? is not only the singular solution for the monumental probabilities of failure before us, but that mathematically perfected economy? provides to solve all of those issues immediately, and without cost.
While Mr. McCain may not even want to hear about such a thing, of course it would be equally embarrassing to the Obama Campaign if history discovers indeed one day that all this while there *was* one and one only immediate and 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: After all, Mr. Obama claims “change you can believe in.”
If he meant to serve his people, a man prepared and fit to occupy the office of the President of course could hardly dismiss as much as a proof of singular solution, or, failing that, inevitable failure. So yet, the fate of our country and the world may hinge on the far less edifying proof of Mr. Obama’s slogan, “I’m asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington… I’m asking you to believe in yours.”
As we wait in the waning eleventh hour for his answer to mathematically perfected economy?, I can only reply still to Mr. Obama’s campaign that unless those who pretend to serve us intend to persist in denying us representation, then by God, we’re about to have it. Where is a campaign that serves us then?
To ask such important questions of course doesn’t mean we will ever get a fitting answer. It is only days now to a vote which could well ensure world-wide monetary failure; and a proposition of mathematically perfected economy? must itself pass a policy team comprised of the very kinds of “educations” and disproven philosophies which got us here.
Many people have written, expressing their marginal commitments to either candidate. Obama may hold a slight lead in polls based on a futile perception that he “better” understands “economics.” The necessary ability to think critically at such a time however, is hardly exemplified by candidates or publics embracing still a pseudo-science, wholly bereft of formal proof or theorem. To understand crap which cannot serve us, and which can only engender the failure we have, is only to be able to serve us crap which cannot fix our problems.
From where I’m sitting, it is obvious there is a huge disjoin between the people and the candidates. Many people voice their concern, their doubts, and to a surprising extent, how much better they understand the issues than the candidates themselves.
Craig Alan Feinstein represents the general and substantial lack of faith in both candidates writes, “No real difference between the two. They both voted for the bailout. I’m not wasting my vote on either of them.” That is, a citizen so versant in the issues that he might have prevailed over either candidate’s debate, is so disgusted with both parties of betrayal, that he determines to throw a vote away, only to voice disgust that will likely never be heard.
I wrote Craig back, and he asked some of the questions we should all be asking. He kindly agreed to have his name attached to the following remarks between us (his in blue outlines, mine in red); and so his representative remarks and questions are as follows.
These are the kinds of questions our candidates should be answering absolutely for intelligent American citizens, if they are fit to fill the shoes they’re applying for:
Craig Alan Feinstein
Reply to Craig’s email:
Good to hear from you. That was quite disgusting last night alright. What are your leanings, if you aren’t going to vote for one of the “winnable” candidates?
PEOPLE IN POWER DON’T LISTEN TO WE THE PEOPLE
What upsets me the most is that the people in power don’t listen to We The People, and they’ll listen to the so-called experts that got us into this mess. Furthermore, there are experts who disagree with these experts. What about Austrian economics do you think would inhibit Libertarians who follow Austrian economics from governing properly? In my opinion, the problem is the Central Bank itself. It takes away liberty from The People.
Well, Ron Paul is an Austrian “economist,” and of course, you probably know they don’t believe math can be applied to “economics” (that is, in terms altogether of analysis, projection, or solution), claiming it cannot be validly so applied, because “economics” inherently involves mathematically indeterminable human decision.
Of course, that does not apply to relevant projection, in which we account not for indeterminable human “decisions,” but instead for their obligation to maintain a vital circulation.
So this is very dangerous “thinking.”
What does it amount to?
Of course, Austrians don’t agree with each other. But taking Ron Paul as an example of libertarian dogma, he advocates the disparities of a return to the gold standard, and “competing currencies,” left to solve the problems in what Austrians call “free markets.”
Of course, Austrians advocate interest. The only arguments against interest they recognize (so that they can defeat them without mathematics), is their assertion that the only arguments against interest which have ever been raised, are the sentimental disposition against interest advanced by the scriptures. You will see if you read some of the Austrian foundational literature I cite in my rebuttals of the Austrian positions:
(These are from my page, http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-fatal-flaw-of-austrian-economics-rejection-of-mathematics.html)
In any case, in preserving interest (however consolidated or independently), you still have multiplication of debt by interest and ultimately complete dispossession by interest. Furthermore of course, the markets are hardly “free,” because the monetary advantages of “the banks” to issue money, virtually without cost, circulate that to multiply profit further, and so forth… allow the banks always to assert their alpha power of predation. They can deny “the free markets” credit; they can make “money” more or less expensive; and they can readily create, in little time, all the monetary wealth to dispossess us of all the real wealth, which we have created.
So the Austrian “economist” does not advocate “economy” at all: they advocate predation and escalating dispossession which can only lead to failure.
FOREST FIRES IN MEXICO
I like to see it like this: In Mexico from what I have read, when there is a forest fire, they let it burn until to the little forest is burned down. In America, when there is a forest fire, they try to put it out as quickly as possible. After a while, the American strategy is going to backfire, as there will come a time when there will be a huge forest fire that will be impossible to put out because all of the little forests that should have burned down before will be there to fuel the large forest fire. The Central Bank is what the US government has created to put out the little forest fires. Now, it appears that we have a huge forest fire.
A FOREST FIRE ACROSS THE WORLD’S “MONETARY” SYSTEMS
Exactly. I’m working on a page now which I hoped to finish last weekend: “If I Were President…”
In one spot in the article I use the exact same analogy (which may be edited further of course). Here’s its present state:
“As surely as ever greater sums of insoluble debt multiply the sum of debt at an ever escalating rate, we can readily demonstrate that the day of that end will continue to approach now faster than ever, as even months will go by before our next officers of government would have a chance to throw futile rescue package after futile rescue package on a raging, wind-whipped forest fire which no few buckets of water can quench. Unless of course, the bucket we throw contains the solution to inherent multiplication of debt.“
If you don’t mind, Craig, yours is an excellent, timely and relevant question. With your permission, I’d like to credit it to you in today’s blog. It just works out well if I select good material and make it count twice. If you’d rather I not use your name, just let me know and I’ll make the question anonymous. I’ll wait for your answer before throwing the blog together.
Thanks so much, Craig, for being a thinker. We’re the ones who will have to pave the way out of this.
YOU MAY USE MY QUESTION IN YOUR BLOG
You may use my question in your blog. I think your answer is on target. Austrian economics only advocates decentralization of banking, but I think legalized banking naturally leads to centralized banking ??banks naturally want to form cartels and they naturally get richer with time so it gets easier to accomplish this.
WE HAVE ALREADY COMPLETED THAT CYCLE ONCE
Exactly. We have already completed that cycle once.
BANNING USURY ALTOGETHER
Banning usury altogether is the way to go. This is the only method that is “fire-proof” as I showed in the analogy. If you want to make money out of money, one must invest it. The payment for this is the unknown risk of the investment. There is a book on the internet “Risk Uncertainty and Profit” by Frank Knight that you might like to read which discusses this. I’m afraid that the politicians are incapable of implementing your common sense and will naturally listen to the people with the power and money to do the wrong thing. It appears to me that only God can help us now.
BANNING USURY ALL TOGETHER
Indeed. Through folks like you, He is trying.
Always a pleasure, Craig,
So of course while we may never hear from Mr. Obama, the question of usury is not off the table; and Americans do recognize what we have to do about it.
You’re probably going to be our next President, sir. You need to hear your people ??the ones not who report the consequences you should already understand, but who instead can make the vital difference.
“If you would just *lead us*, they would follow you; and so would I.”
- October 7, 2008 Debate Transcript (Commission on Presidential Debates)
- WHY DON?T THE DEMOCRATS REVERSE WILSON?S ERROR, AND REPEAL THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT?
- ABSOLUTE FAILING GRADES TO BOTH CANDIDATES
- IF I WERE PRESIDENT… HOW I WOULD FIX OUR MONETARY ISSUES IN SHORT ORDER, AND WITHOUT COST
“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:
DISCUSS THIS BLOG IN THE PFMPE? FORUM: