mathematically perfected economy™ (MPE™) 1 : the singular integral solution of 1) inflation and deflation, 2) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and 3) inherent, artificial multiplication of debt into terminal systemic failure; 2 : every prospective debtor's right to issue legitimate promises to pay, free of extrinsic manipulation, adulteration, or exploitation of those promises, or the natural opportunity to make good on them; 3 : our right to certify, to enforce, and to monetize industry and commerce by this one sustaining and truly economic process.
mike montagne's mathematically perfected economy™ BLOG
YOU ARE VIEWING ARTICLES IN THE FOLLOWING CATEGORY (SELECT CATEGORIES FROM THE DIRECTORY, RIGHT):
mike montagne’s mathematically perfected economy blog » 2008 » October
Because so many people are waiting for this article, I’m announcing here as well that I just posted “If I were President…” to the main PFMPE? site. This article explains how I would arrest world wide monetary collapse in a day, and establish real economy in little longer:
“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:
“Readers have been pressing for a solution to the financial crisis. But first it is necessary to understand the problem. Here is the problem as I see it. If my diagnosis is correct, the solution below might be appropriate.“
He doesn’t get any further than that before getting into trouble:
Let?s begin with the fact that the financial crisis is more or less worldwide. The mechanism that spread the American-made financial crisis abroad was the massive US trade deficit.
Only of course if there were no further cause for our decline from trade surpluses to perpetual escalating trade deficits, could we be raising here the primary cause which our solution must address. The incumbent and missing argument therefore must establish there is no further underlying cause. Finding that cause is always the first preparatory step of solution.
The proposition of a further fundamental cause is readily recognized, if not from my answer, from analysis of how industry has fared in markets entirely within the country.
Mr. Roberts then goes on to reason (in part quite correctly) that:
Does the US have the leadership to realize the problem and to deal with it?
Not if Bush, Cheney, Paulson, Bernanke, McCain and Obama are the best leadership that America can produce.
The Great Depression lasted a decade because the authorities were unable to comprehend that the Federal Reserve had allowed the supply of money to shrink. The shrunken money supply could not employ the same number of workers at the same wages, and it could not purchase the same amount of goods and service at the same prices. Thus, prices and employment fell.
The explanation of the Great Depression was not known until the 1960s when Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz published their Monetary History of the United States. Given the stupidity of our leadership and the stupidity of so many of our economists, we may learn what happened to us this year in 2038, three decades from now.
Now he’s hot on the trail of the cause here; he can’t just stop there. Yes, an inadequate money supply will itself bring an “economy” to ruin, because we won’t be able to service our obligations, and particularly therefore, whatever our debt.
But it is not only an inadequate money supply (circulation) which can render ruin. Ever greater dedication of the money supply to servicing debt leave ever less of the circulation to sustain the industry which (directly or indirectly) is obliged to service the sum of debt.
Thus we must ask at least how ever more of the circulation is dedicated to servicing a sum of debt; and the only immediate observation to be made in regard to that matter is that given any consistent rate of interest, the sum of debt must be increasing in relation to our finite capacity (or the circulation), with which we can service the debt so long as the escalating sum of debt does not exceed us.
Mr. Roberts therefore is hot on the trail of the problem; and I encourage he and others to finish the search.
But he thus concludes his article, to which I respond:
PFMPE?
I have no idea what cause of the First Great Depression Friedman could have published, for he certainly never advocated eradication of interest.
When you worked for President Reagan, I provided that Administration computer models which projected he would triple the national debt, and which accurately project, from 1980s numbers, the accumulation of debt to now.
Debt multiplies in proportion to a circulation as we are compelled to perpetually re-borrow interest and principal as subsequent sums of debt, increased so much as periodic interest. Thus the sum of debt increases at an inherently ever escalating rate, in proportion to our finite capacity to service debt, until a terminal sum of debt is engendered.
In 1929, the markets fell when the Federal Reserve refused to lend any more money for speculation financed by this process. As the short term debts were incurred at margin, the market had no option but to liquidate its holdings; and it could only sell them to a market deprived of the further capital necessary to buy them at previous prices, necessary to pay the resultant debts. Of course the market collapsed.
Today the market has been sustained falsely since even before the 1987 crash. While the powers that be have heralded expansion, we have seen our industry and jobs expatriated. Today, the market is collapsing because all the facades are coming down in the wake of the last of the general economy to withstand the multiplication of debt upon the whole ball of wax.
If the Fed had not terminated further credit in 1929, the markets would have crashed ultimately for the same reasons they are now.
So, unless Friedman advocated solution of inflation and deflation, systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and inherent multiplication of debt by interest, he hardly would have identified the cause we need to identify to solve our current problems.
As to the void of leadership, absolute and singular solution has been available for 30 years *before* the present specter of collapse.
I assert that I could stop the fall in a day and rectify the system in little more. The real problem may be that the American People (too many of them sleeping as they are in any case) might not be inclined to identify a real solution if it is staring them in the face.
We cannot save anything if we do not save “the economy” from the primary causes of its failure: 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 solution which has been waiting for the republic for 30 years ??and the only integral solution ??is 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 ??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:
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:
Dear mike,
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
mike montagne
Reply to Craig’s email:
Craig,
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.
AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS
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:
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,
m
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.”
“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:
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
John Kenneth Galbraith
THE OCTOBER 7th DEBATE: ABSOLUTE FAILING GRADES TO BOTH CANDIDATES
GALBRAITH
For the sake of edifying the substancelessness of the pretended debate, let me first be John Kenneth Galbraith’s editor:
Because the unjustifiable monetary system was imposed upon the people for the very purpose of unjustifiable and illimitable taking from them;
because it intentionally does so by attaching interest to our promises to pay *each other* (with no risk whatsoever therefore to a central bank which publishes money at virtually no cost);
because that unjustifiable imposition of interest perpetually multiplies debt in proportion to a circulation;
and because the process is irreversible so long as we can only maintain a vital circulation by re-borrowing interest and principal as subsequent sums of debt, perpetually increased so much as periodic interest… the dupes of either of the “two” parties are condemned to the most futile exercise in history, if they cannot and will not grasp the principles of solution.
The one side might seek unearned gain themselves (for that while, lending support to the offenses against us, to the detriment of all), only to lose all they might gain at our expense to the alpha parasite… for that ultimate loss is inevitable in the lifespan of a system which can only multiply debt into a terminal sum of debt.
Another side might swoon to the idea of rescue packages, while the alpha parasite’s takings inherently, inevitably exceed any possible benefit; and, in the end, under utter failure of a system which can only multiply debt into terminal failure, no benefit whatever is truly practical.
Of course, neither such *side* embraces solution; and so we have what we have today.
As to why Americans swoon or sleep-walk to such pathetic candidates as will purposely never raise a finger to real solution, I would leave that to you Mr. Galbraith to explain, except that I see they want a candidate who can and will solve these problems. The parties which exclude such a candidate from the process then are at the people’s jugular. Amidst all these kind words and seemingly gentle postures, they have the people by the throat.
And for the sake of usury, they don’t mean to let go.
As to the success of the people of a republic then, we can only remind them that until they can and will unite upon true solution, all they will have is pathetic, pretended philosophies which can never serve them.
THE “CANDIDATES”
Even from their demeanors, Joe Sixpack and Holy Housewife should be able to tell these two fellows are just pretenders, hoping a mere third-class catch-phrase or two is going to woo America into thinking wrongly that either one of them has prepared himself to rescue his country from obvious serious conditions, neither of them really even smelled coming.
But how could *any* presidential candidate (much less, two) speak on anything for such a while, and not once identify a governing principal, the *real* fundamental faults of government (of which they are both members), the principles of developing solution, or, more fittingly, a proof of actual solution which would perhaps have been the most remarkable political anomaly in our lifetimes?
The answer can only be that these are far lesser men than engineers of solution. They are not even men disposed to recognize solution, for in fact they carefully avoid critical principles in every matter they address.
The greatest minds and founders of our national history universally spoke out against privatization of the currency. Foremost among them of course were Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Andrew Jackson, and Abraham Lincoln.
What true patriot of the principles of our country would not think that at the brink of inevitable monetary failure, these quite distinct men would not be jumping and shouting still, louder than ever, about the one question we never hear: the question of the nature of the currency?
What is wrong with America therefore ladies and gentlemen, IS government ??and what is wrong with that government is its complete abandonment of principle.
The cause of the monetary failure before us is simple. But nothing less than veritable solution of its cause will avert failure; and our country has not even raised that cause, because the enemies of justice are the very people in power and seeking power.
Usury, ladies and gentlemen, is one of the oldest ruses in history. If you can impose usury upon a country, you can dispossess its people of their wealth. You can afford to usurp its government ??even that of a republic. You can afford to own all the media. You can afford to own its political parties.
As Thomas Jefferson told us so long ago,
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.
Those who render the production of the world are the true creditors in any monetary system, for it is they who must accept, risk, and depend upon the integrity of a currency. But of course, if true producers charged each other “interest” in trading equal measures of production among each other, all the interest in the world would merely cancel. There would be no justifiable purpose in concerning ourselves with interest.
When a “monetary system” instead is designed to steal from the people by pretending to be our creditor, and by claiming “risk” when it produces money at its whims and at virtually no cost whatsoever, what then is the consequence of “interest”?
As Jefferson told us,
we thus can only maintain a circulation by re-borrowing the principal and interest that we are obligated to pay out of a general circulation in servicing any sum of debt;
the circulation however is only comprised of the principal (and therefore is itself both perpetually deflated so as cannot service the sum of debt, and must be perpetually replenished, inherently by further borrowing, if we are to do so);
we therefore are compelled to maintain a vital circulation by further borrowing, to continue servicing monetary obligations which, across the limited lifespan of the system, inherently multiply, as perpetual re-borrowing of principal makes it impossible/impractical to pay the sum of debt down, and as re-borrowed interest payments therefore perpetually increase the sum of debt so much as periodic interest on the sum of debt;
the sum of debt thus inherently increases at an ever escalating rate of ever greater sums of periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt, until the system inherently and inevitably collapses under a terminal sum of debt.
So that’s your problem ladies and gentlemen.
Now, what candidate is even about to address that question of the integrity of a currency which can only dedicate ever more of the circulation to servicing debt, while of course leaving ever less of the circulation to sustain the industry which is obligated to service that ever escalating sum of debt?
Look around you. Why do you think all of these un-mysterious things are “happening”?
What puppet or rat will guard your hen house?
When Mr. Obama says, “The middle-class need a rescue package,” the very evasion of this pretended answer tells us he will not even touch the fundamental iniquity of the system which is causing the failure. You will expire while the inherent multiplication of debt of a currency you never assented to gives all the life juices of our country to the unmentionable parasite at a faster rate than Mr. Obama’s short-sighted “package” can make up for.
In the end, and just as soon as that end imposes itself upon us regardless of Mr. Obama’s “rescue package,” usury wins.
Even worse, when Mr. McCain says, “Let’s not raise taxes on anybody today,” what he’s telling us is, to get elected, he will promise to leave you in no worse a squeeze play than you are already in, so that you can lose while he tries to soften the blow to the more important constituents of the plutocracy he has always served.
In the end, and just as soon as that end imposes itself upon us regardless of however much Mr. McCain promises not to penalize you so that he can reward all the alpha takers who intend to continue gutting our republic to the acceleration of its very end, usury wins.
In the end then, usury can only win; and usury alone can win.
Nothing has been rescued; and particularly, none of you have been rescued. The fox, the puppet, the money changer… all get a free pass.
“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:
Real leadership means to correctly define the actual problem ??and then ??to correctly prescribe the actual solution.
Patrick Hedemark
RON PAUL CORRECTS HIMSELF REGARDING THE CAUSE OF MONETARY FAILURE
Saturday, October 4, 2008, 1:23 PM
In the wake of the meaningless and useless idea our problems have been engendered by “printing money out of thin air,” Ron Paul may evidently be correcting himself.
No fact of course has sustained his long term claim that we have suffered [circulatory] “inflation.” In fact, all the while he has attributed our precipitous decline and devaluation of the dollar to an inflation he has never shown exists or can be such a cause, we have only suffered from severe, perpetual deflation.
We have of course nonetheless, suffered price inflation. Yet the price inflation we suffer therefore can only be caused not by the inexpensiveness of the currency (for crying out loud) or excessive circulation (which doesn’t exist), but instead by inherent multiplication of debt by the nature of the currency: As the costs of servicing perpetually escalated sums of debt erode margins of solubility, of course industry has to increase its prices or move to countries which permit slave labor forces ??both of which are manifestations of inherent multiplication of debt by interest.
Perhaps we can all be encouraged then that in a recent interview with Alex Jones over the proposed bailout, Mr. Paul appears at least hypothetically to agree we need more money in “the economy.”
This of course would contradict his previous claims we suffer an excessive circulation, and that the present malaise is caused by that non-existent excessive circulation. Nonetheless he asserts in his first statement of the above YouTube interview, that if we had more money in circulation we would all be “a lot richer” (more solvent).
He says further that he “would permit the liquidation of debt to continue.”
Now we may ask of course, Why would that be, if it weren’t that some otherwise irreversible cause of escalating debt weren’t our problem? After all, we all recognize our problem is the privatized currency so deceptively called a “Federal Reserve System.” But what is the answer? Leaving “competing” private banks to charge interest for *our* promises to pay *each other* ??interest which will likewise multiply debt into insoluble, terminal sums of debt?
We already have that; and that very thing of course is the engine of the brink of failure under artificial sums of debt.
Thus Mr. Paul’s remarkable turnaround, in potentially acknowledging at least that it is for a lack of sufficient circulation (and an essential dedication of that circulation to servicing debt) that we suffer, could put us far closer to agreement and potential solution, because Mr. Paul and his supporters cannot have it both ways: Either we benefit from a circulation which a)?is sufficient to sustain production and trade of all the wealth we are capable of producing; and b)?is wholly dedicated to that purpose (versus servicing ever more unearned interest, collected by an uninterested, extrinsic party which produces and risks nothing, destroys the integrity of the currency, and ultimately collapses the whole system *by* a form of currency which can only multiply debt in proportion to the circulation); or c)?we somehow benefit from a restricted circulation (which is the very condition from which we are about to suffer collapse).
To answer this question with integrity, Mr. Paul will have to account for the ramifications of interest. Does [any practical implementation of] interest [for the purposes interest is generally imposed] inherently multiply debt in proportion to a vital circulation, eventually to inevitable collapse under terminal sums of debt? Is it even possible to solve inflation and deflation under any form of currency subject to interest?
Mr. Paul has never told us how so. But of course, the latter is impossible because interest requires us to pay out of the circulation, more than was introduced to represent the original value of financed wealth; and the very present accumulation of debt should suffice to compel serious evaluation of the former.
All Mr. Paul has to realize then is that:
Price *or* circulatory inflation and deflation can only be solved by maintaining a circulation which at all times is equal to the remaining value of the wealth it is intended to represent.
It is impossible then to do that if the circulation is subject to interest, because interest requires that we pay more out of the circulation than the remaining value of the wealth we intend to represent.
Only by paying off monetary obligations *equal* to the original value of the financed wealth then, and only by paying off those monetary obligations at the rate of depreciation or consumption, can we do so.
As any conventional implementation of interest (for the sake of unearned profit) can only multiply debt in proportion to a vital circulation (and the costs of all subject industry in proportion to a vital circulation), the only solution of price inflation and inherent multiplication of debt is eradication of interest.
As all other offenses of such a monetary system comprise systemic manipulations of the cost or value of money or property, and as all these offenses manifest only from any possible combination of the first and third offenses, then systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property can only be solved by a combination of the first and third aspects of solution.
All this of course comprises the very principles and prescription of mathematically perfected economy?; and this of course is why mathematically perfected economy? is the one integral solution for 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.
These are the things Mr. Paul should be thinking about. To fall short of this one integral solution is no less than to deny the people of the world should be able to pay for each others’ production with equal measures of their production.
In other words, to fall short of integral solution is to deny us the very opportunity to pay for a $100,000 home with a 100-year lifespan with an equal measure of our own production; or $1,000 per year; or $83.33 per month.
There would be no housing crisis; there would be no banking crisis; there would be no bailout at further taxpayer expense; there would be no bankrupt nation; and there would be no Second Great Depression under mathematically perfected economy?.
Trying to make some sense of it all,
But I can see that it makes no sense at all.
Is it cool to go to sleep on the floor?
‘Cause I don’t think I can take any more. Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right… Here I am, stuck in the middle with you.
THAT WAS A DEBATE?
Pundits are trying for all they are worth to stretch a distinguishing promise from the recent vice presidential “debate.”
But was that even a debate; and did it not in fact virtually guarantee that neither party will serve us?
If you think you have heard monetary resolution from any of the candidates of this 2008 campaign, it is not possible your thoughts are credible: We don’t have to look back but for the blink of an eye to find that all the darlings of the mainstream media (owned by the “financial” “industry” now multiplying its stealings from us), attested that the fundamentals of “our” (their) “economy” (ways of stealing from us) are “sound.”
That’s all the basis for credibility we have ever had: mere unqualified and unqualifiable assertions. Outright lies; the most stupid things any self-ruling public could ever swallow.
The credibility anyone attributes to the present candidates is no more veritable. We have before us some of the worst public servants in history; and the greatest enemies of representative government therefore are the sheeple who keep these betrayers in power.
So disturbing is the lack of credibility of those in power, that they continue to refer to our form of government as a “democracy,” when in fact we are a rule of law, a representative government, “a republic.”
Whenever you hear another leader apply the term “democracy” to our form of government, what does that tell you of their perception of their obligation to serve you?
If it doesn’t tell you they sought power without the least regard for the rule of law which comprises and which alone can preserve a true republic, then you yourself have no way to understand they came to power instead to gut and destroy the republic by the very system they have now “rescued” merely to continue their gutting of the republic. The very thing they have preserved is your worst enemy (unless you too are a thief).
The very thing they have sought to do under your very noses is to secure their power to steal from you forever. The very thing they have protected is the instrument of their stealing; and they have even done this by ensuring the inevitable failure of their instrument of stealing will only cost you further, even as the present failure is engendered by the fact you are already incapable of paying.
Worse of course then, they have rescued nothing, because they have preserved the very fundamental process of the failure. Any monetary system subject to interest inherently terminates itself, because merely to maintain a vital circulation subject to interest, to the degree it is necessary to re-borrow principal and interest paid out of the general circulation, debt is inherently and irreversibly multiplied in proportion to the circulation (or capacity to service debt) by ever greater increments of ever greater periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt.
Every such system was devised to steal from you; every such system can only impose complete collapse on itself over and over and over again. The present “debate” in fact carefully avoided discussion of that matter.
Why?
You know why: These are hardly foxes; but they are sooooooo… corrupt; and they are pretending to guard the chicken coop.
No less an icon of truth than Thomas Jefferson told us so long ago as well, that all these things would happen. He did not solve their fundamental causes, but he at least identified them; he did not mathematically perfect economy, but he came ever so close to doing so.
As Jefferson 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.”
But never in history has anyone proven usury served its subjects; and I myself provided the Reagan Administration with computer models in 1983, which, opposed to the purported (but never qualified) “soundness” of “our” “economic” fundamentals, predicted all this. Mere, basic calculations of the interest we would have to re-borrow to maintain a vital circulation projected not only the amassing of debt which will soon collapse “the economy,” but complete monetary failure at approximately 2010 AD.
The purported bailout or rescue has no power to avert that collapse, because it doesn’t even address the fundamental process which will *continue* to multiply debt into failure ??interest. In fact instead, the purported bailout or rescue *preserves* the very process which will continue to multiply debt into inevitable failure.
Thus what was debated?
By avoiding the one crucial issue, did not the two parties of betrayal, the two candidates of betrayal, and the mainstream media, owned by the very betrayers… did they not instead ensure your destruction?
On the street, no American with their head on half straight believes either party serves them. People are bracing for martial law; to lose everything they have; to eat for the next two weeks; for a decade of a Second Great Depression.
“Your” government?
The detention centers are ready. The same troops who have been sent after false claims of weapons of mass destruction will now be the weapon of mass, final destruction of the republic for which they ostensibly stood.
Your republic in fact is already all but gone; you gave it up to usurers long ago; and now, you have what you have wrought.
In the second lifespan of the private “Federal” “Reserve” System, the writing has been on the wall for decades: The exalted President Reagan claimed he would balance the budget; he denounced President Carter for 4 years of deficits in which Mr. Carter amassed the seeming pittance of $150 billion in federal debt ??less than $40 billion per year, while “your” Congress and President just gave $840 billion which you don’t have, away just yesterday.
But Reagan of course would soon multiply the federal debt of the entire previous history more than 3 times over; and the United States would plummet from “the greatest creditor nation” in the world to its lowliest debtor. That’s how long the writing has been on the wall.
As I warned President Reagan in 1980, and as I warn the American People now, the American People deserve ??and should demand ??a credible accounting for how, given the one underlying process of a monetary system which can only multiply debt into terminal debt, the purported policies before us *possibly* do *any* of the right things.
Americans aren’t going to get those answers, because the policies are unqualifiable, because the policies *intend* not to do the right thing for the people, and because the most corrupt are pretending to guard the chicken coop.
What you saw was a facade. Only a facade.
If the American People are to be served, a different set of questions must be answered. I’ve sent those questions to Jim Lehrer since he first began to moderate presidential debates. Here they are again, for whatever insistence you might give them; these are the bare rudiments ??just three questions ??regarding what we have to know to identify any candidate who *might* serve us:
Can you tell us, under any implementation of a currency subject to interest (for profit), how it is possible and practical to maintain a vital circulation without irreversibly multiplying debt in proportion to the circulation (or capacity to service debt), until we suffer artificial collapse under a terminal sum of debt?
Can you tell us how, if inflation and deflation are defined respectively as increases or decreases in circulation per whatever wealth the circulation is intended to represent, either a)?how inflation and/or deflation serve us; or b)?how it is possible to solve inflation and deflation where the currency is subject to interest?
Is there any reason you can give us why the people should be deprived of a currency which represents *only* the wealth they might intend to trade amongst each other?
Of course, there are infinite half baked answers to these questions. Nothing but solution however can serve the people; and there is one and only one 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.
What you saw was only a facade: Clowns to the left of us, Jokers to the right…
While 12,000 homes a day continue to go into foreclosure, mathematically perfected economy™ would re-finance a $100,000 home with a hundred-year lifespan at the overall rate of $1,000 per year or $83.33 per month. Without costing us anything, we would immediately become as much as 12 times as liquid on present revenue. Transitioning to MPE™ would apply all payments already made against existent debt toward principal. Many of us would be debt free. There would be no housing crisis, no credit crisis. Unlimited funding would immediately be available to sustain all the industry we are capable of.
There is no other solution. Regulation can only temper an inherently terminal process.
If you are not promoting mathematically perfected economy™, then you condemn us to monetary failure.
COPYRIGHT 1979-2009 by mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. TRADEMARKS: PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™, Mathematically Perfected Economy™, Mathematically Perfected Currency™, MPE™, and PFMPE™ are trademarks of mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™, perfecteconomy.com. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
RELATED MATERIAL
SUBSCRIBE to RSS FEED.
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.
BEST VIEWED WITH MOZILLA FIREFOX™.