You are doing the right and good thing making this thoughtful accumulation of research readily available.
Best regards always,
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,
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.
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 heard from him since.
To her relatively great credit I would say (because she has at least engaged in correspondence), but to my disappointment in the interest of developing a broader authoratative agreement on veritable solution, Ellen Hodgson Brown has ultimately pardoned herself from answering the serious questions which would validate her proposed solution ??which critical questions, I assert, any bona fide author of a veritable solution would already have answered routinely in their works. Having done so of course, it is my expectation (and practice) that she could and would readily supply those vital, incontrovertible answers in response to any challenge to her asserted “solution.”
Because neither respond to these challenges in such a vital way; because I have taken extensive pains to advise them of the faults of their purported solution; and because yet Ellen Brown persists in advocating her preposterous scheme for taxation via interest is not even taxation… thus we have the impasse to which the present article necessarily responds.
For the people to resolve the issues, I therefore report what I can of the ongoing controversy.
Three days after I published my 30-year-old prescription (“If I Were President…”) for c)?how to arrest world wide monetary collapse in a day; and d)?how to establish real, sustainable economy in little longer, Global Research, a self described adversary to unassented globalization, published Ellen Hodgson Brown’s contrary proposition, essentially that taxation by interest is not even taxation; that this solves our problems; and that present events comprise a vital opportunity to do so now.
Obviously then, it is important that we, who should be weighing prospective solutions, distinguish the fact(s) of solution, if any. In that interest, I provide our recent dialog regarding the contending articles and the previous articles by which I had already apprised Ellen Hodgson Brown of the faults of her arguments and solution.
Ellen first responds to a private PFMPE? email list announcement of my offer that Global Research publish my article, “If I Were President…”. Hoping to encourage debate of the contending propositions, one of our readers had sent my email to her:
This is the online copy of my email to Global Research regarding the ongoing controversy of veritable, immediate monetary solution:
The linked blog topic of course points not only to the offered article, but to two previous articles which detail the faults of Ellen Hodgson Brown’s proposition. These articles were also offered to Global Research for publication.
To this, Ellen Hodgson Brown responds to myself, to private PFMPE? list members, and to the editor(s) of Global Research with virtually the very “answer” she had provided long before, to which I had submitted all the further questions and invalidations of the subsequent two articles:
Dear Mike and Michel:
My sources on the Pennsylvania land bank are:
Alvin Rabushka, ?The colonial roots of American taxation, 1607-1700: The low-tax beginnings of American prosperity,” Policy Review (Hoover Institution, Stanford University, August/September 2002); “Representation Without Taxation: The colonial roots of American taxation, 1700?1754,? ibid. (December 2003 & January 2004); Stephen Zarlenga, The Lost Science of Money.
The math works like this: you print $105, lend $100 at 5% interest and spend $5 into the economy on government salaries, projects, etc. $105 is now circulating in the economy, which comes back to the government bank as principal and interest on the $105 loan. You lend THE SAME $100 all over again and spend $5, which returns to the government as principal and interest; etc. The interest funds the government, replacing taxes. No inflation, no government debt, no taxes ??as proven by the Pennsylvania experience.
My reply to this repetition of the answer I had already so extensively questioned/disputed, likewise was addressed to the editors of Global Research:
It matters not who your sources are, because (again) it’s *your reasoning* regarding the matter which is in question; and it’s the many relevant questions I’ve submitted to you which you [purposely?] haven’t answered which purposefully explore the matters we must resolve. The only reasonable explanation for those lacking answers is that those questions expose the blatant faults of your reasoning:
Let me “just guess” then… *your sources too, absolutely do not claim the system you cite [even] solves inflation or deflation*, do they? Nor of course do they argue that the system was even intentionally engineered as a solution for inherent multiplication of debt by interest.
Even as you have deleted the claim I was apprised of by several of your readers, that by your account ? which fails to qualify such a splendid description in any way ? said system was the “most brilliant banking model” in our national history, you pretend yet to account for all the questions I’ve asked you, simply because you can cite a source on the Pennsylvania Currency?
Merely *citing* the source of course, doesn’t even establish the source’s claims or data concur with your deductions.
You claim over and over again that the Pennsylvania Currency (or some prospective further implementation of it) is a solution for things which were not even recorded to be perceived in the cited time. You still refuse to answer the questions which would qualify your assertions; and of course, your present retort hardly does so. You merely dream you have established a solution, where even the original authors of it did not even pretend to claim it was such a thing, and while the thinking of the time did not even suffice as a foundation for a whole, just solution for 1) inflation and deflation, 2) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and 3) inherent multiplication of debt into terminal debt, by interest. Who in the cited time even established how much money must be circulated? Where have you even recognized how much money *must* be circulated, that the “answer” you provide even now accounts even for inflation and deflation?
After all, the subject system was a “land bank.” It loaned money into circulation to purchase land. It could not itself therefore even rightly pretend to have provided a sufficient circulation to sustain all the rest of industry. There isn’t even a reason to lend “the same” money back into circulation again, once all land is purchased. Thus your claimed solution isn’t even perpetually sustainable.
Moreover, as I wrote you already, in Franklin’s whole paper on the nature and necessity of a paper currency (which assumably rounds out the purposes of the Pennsylvania Currency), he does not even mention the words inflation or deflation even once. Not even one incidence of basic terms which are absolutely vital to monetary solution. Could we trade all the production existent at any moment, no matter the quantity of that production, if all the circulation in existence only existed in quantities limited to the value of land?
Absolutely not; and particularly no matter how many times we loan your “same” circulation back into circulation again.
Just by nature of what the currency was loaned into circulation for then, we can only suffer a perpetually deflated/insufficient circulation!
Moreover then, Franklin’s postulates on how much currency should be circulated are all over the map, as are yours. Neither of you have argued conclusively how much currency must be circulated for all possible cases of trade… for all representations of ownership of production… etc.. Franklin merely makes obtuse guesses in his paper. He merely makes a casual try ? which he even apologizes for. You simply assume the primitive, early implementation *somehow* solved the matter, without any qualifying arguments whatsoever ? much less conclusive ones.
For instance, in providing the same simplistic *reply* (versus answer) to just one of the many questions I have submitted you, you simply state that, “You lend THE SAME $100 all over again.”
Tell us then, *if your math is indeed more than supposed to “work”*, what principle predicates *whether* the same currency is loaned into circulation again, and, presumably (despite its explicit disproof of your terrible over-simplification), further circulation might be introduced in such a way… that all this *solves anything*?
All of us simply know what un-cited rule prevails to establish the solution you refuse to further qualify?
We just “know” somehow that you are right… that yours is an implementation of mathematically perfected economy?
Absolutely not; and I’ll tell you why:
Obviously at least, on the contrary, more currency must be introduced to circulation as more land is funded; so at least your answer should have made that clear. You appear to state the opposite, with the only clue that you cannot mean what is so preposterous being its implausibility.
Obviously, further money must in many cases be loaned into circulation. Why would you answer at all then, that the same money is loaned back into circulation, however often?
But obviously further, once all the land is paid for, all the circulation would have to be retired (for a land bank lends on no other purpose). So (regardless how much we might even be disposed to loan the same money back into circulation) there is no provided method of maintaining a circulation beyond a point of eventual outright ownership of all land; *AND* neither is there a provided means of sustaining industry deprived of necessary circulation as the land is paid for.
It would be a huge, incongruous stretch then to presume your answer suffices in the least way to establish your purported solution is accountable to a single obligatory fundamental.
I suppose then, you are simply going to say you understood all this, all this while. But your answer ventures the opposite direction; and, if this were your understanding, then after all this, inherently you would have agreed then with the principles of mathematically perfected economy? ? citing as a model instead a mere land bank with no provisions for solving inflation and deflation whatever, as the embodiment of those principles.
So you’re wrong Ellen, no matter how all this shakes out.
Is your answer then actually intended to be the comprehensive formula I’ve asked for several times already?
If the formula even exists in your cited reference, why is it ? failing to be able to reconstruct the formula yourself ? neither do you cite it from the cited source/reference?
Obviously, your exalted, purported solution does not even itself pretend to solve the things it must, even to be sustainable.
In fact, how is it I know that such a formula doesn’t exist, even as you continue to cite your pretended “explanation” as sufficient proof that your fancied system is a solution of anything?
Because it’s mathematically impossible your purported solution even solves inflation and deflation *as would engender a circulation sufficient to sustain all industry*.
What’s more, as I have already informed you, your obfuscation of interest to account for taxation saves nothing, and obstructs us from placing the burden of taxation where it belongs.
Yet you pretend to fund government without taxation (which my long preceding and much borrowed *parable* of perfect economy itself introduces as a probable [differing] source of your invalid assertion); but in fact you save us nothing: the costs of government are paid by an obfuscated process beyond any reasonable definition of interest ? altogether which, of course, is hardly brilliant at all.
I have made substantial attempts to resolve these matters with you. You may now presume incorrectly that the matter is personal. But you may trust on the contrary that my disposition will remain (as it has since even before 1979) to distinguish the fact of real solution. For that, you can be assured I will be here to the end, and that so long as I am capable of fighting the fight, the chips will only fall where they should.
You obviously have never built a model of a sustainable system. Worse, you pretend expertise superior to the one model which answers for all these issues ? at expense to the general public’s potential understanding of solution.
It’s really simple, Ellen:
Given the definitions of inflation and deflation, there is one and one only solution of the both, which sustains all potential industry.
Given furthermore that conventional interest inherently and irreversibly multiplies debt in proportion to a circulation, there is one and one only integral solution for inherent multiplication of debt which further resolves inflation and deflation, and the separate issue of just taxation.
That integral solution is mathematically perfected economy?.
As to why/how your championed research could possibly be unaware of that long pre-existent prescription for absolute solution, and yet you merely persist in asserting an assessment regarding that subject Pennsylvania Currency which Jaikaran and others borrowed likewise only from my *parable* of perfect economy, is certainly apparent (as my previous answers to you establish).
Why otherwise did you remove the previous assertions from your article?
Trust therefore that so long as you or others assert purported facts of alternate solution, I will continue to respond as I do now to your invalid assertions.
This idea you have, that taxation via interest, irrespective of who should be taxed for whatever services they are provided, or whether that taxation is inherently proportional (or on the contrary, usually disproportionate) to the services they should be paying for in any just system of taxation, is utterly preposterous.
When and if you ever do straighten out the irregularities of that proposition Ellen, you will find the repairs you have to make finally concur with the prescription of mathematically perfected economy?.
Meanwhile, all my questions remain unanswered:
Thus your work is hardly finished. As I said before, if you had done the obligatory work which would have qualified any of your assertions of purported solution, you would already have the answers you haven’t produced; and we would already be in agreement.
The only difference I suppose is that you cannot claim the brilliance of having realized all that.
To this she replies as to the previous questions:
Sorry Mike, I just can’t engage in this debate right now. I have to get a revised edition ready that’s got a huge amount of outstanding orders and no books! I think we should agree to disagree. Best, Ellen
Because I never heard from her after her last evasion, I thus reply:
Not only does that not answer for the non-originality of “your research,” it hardly speaks well to your disposition or integrity.
FURTHER ANALYSIS ??PUTTING 2 AND 2 TOGETHER
Obviously, I am not a student of Zarlenga. However it does not take a rocket scientist to deduce that if he too claims the Pennsylvania or Franklin Currency was non-inflationary (and necessarily, non-deflationary, or capable of sustaining all the industry we are capable of), then unless he cites the formulas for design and the very periodic intentions by which this currency would have done so, then (because the currency/system neither financed all production, nor established such a prescription [which necessarily, would have instead to have been equivalent to mathematically perfected economy?]) he could only have borrowed those assessments from my Parable of Perfect Economy, which, merely for the sake of illustration, gives a non-historical implementation of near perfect economy ??and Benjamin Franklin himself ??non-existent properties/understandings for the time.
Then where else could he or Ellen Brown have gotten such an idea?
Well of course, Zarlenga couldn’t have granted me credit for those “ideas,” nor could he have claimed to author a veritable solution, if he only presented mine. Perhaps that does or does not explain both the faults in their arguments and “solution.” But if they are truly dedicated to solution ??and not something else ??why the evasion; and why the persistent advocation of their unqualifiable “solution,” without invalidation of mathematically perfected economy??
Deducing the answer to that is the easy part.
CONTENDING/PURPORTED SOLUTIONS ??ELLEN HODGSON BROWN’S AND MINE
- 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)
- ELLEN HODGSON BROWN’S OCTOBER 17 GLOBAL RESEARCH ARTICLE, “Financial Meltdown: The Greatest Transfer of Wealth in History ??How to Reverse the Tide and Democratize the US Monetary System” (Ellen Hodgson Brown, OCTOBER 17)
RELATED ARTICLES ALREADY APPRISING ELLEN HODGSON BROWN OF THE FAULTS OF HER PURPORTED SOLUTION (TO WHICH SHE LIKEWISE CEASED TO ANSWER)
- OPINION ON THE PENNSYLVANIA CURRENCY ADVOCATED BY ELLEN HODGSON BROWN IN ‘WEB OF DEBT’
- NO, ELLEN. IT’S NOT THE DERIVATIVES, STUPID (plays on her repetition of my earlier theme, ‘It’s the interest, stupid’)
“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 ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE? FORUM: