As I wrote to Mike privately awhile ago, the essence of his solution, Mathematically Perfected Economy?, is at once an economic principle and an ethical one. The principle is that of non-intervention; a principle which is found at the heart of Democratic Theory. His conception appears to my mind as an economic analog to the conception of civil liberties which seeks to guarantee for each individual all those freedoms which are consistent with the same guarantee for every other individual. In its economic manifestation it can be stated as follows (Mike’s definition of MPE?): It is every prospective debtor’s right to issue their promise to pay, free of extrinsic manipulation, adulteration, or exploitation of that promise, or the natural opportunity to make good on it.
From this perspective it should be abundantly clear that bankers as legally sanctioned usurers and faux creditors have no place in a democratic society. They are neither desirable nor necessary. They should be no more welcome than slave owners, political dictators or murderers. They have no right to insinuate themselves into economic relations as the only legal arbiters of debt and credit. But having done so, they have impaired every other freedom inherent to the democratic ideal and continue to prevent a truly free market economy from taking shape.
Jim Eldon, responding to Ellen Hodgson Brown (Web of Debt)
FALSE IDEA OF ‘CORRECTIONS’ UNDER USURY
This blog topic responds to the Information Clearing House article, “What is to be Done? The End of the Washington Consensus,” by Michael Hudson and Jeffrey Sommers, which proposes among other things, the present system’s purported and often cited ability to self correct.
If you are digging for the truth Mr. Hudson and Mr. Sommers (and I hope you are), you are still at least a way short of your goal.
In the “potentially” fatal events around us, and certainly for instance in losses such as sustained foreclosure of more than 10,000 homes a day for more than a year, the so called markets or subjects of the imposed system are certainly not purposely “correcting” some anomalous behavior to its proper result, for in the end of what you and many others call a correction, those who produce nothing come to own our production. Is that the “correct” result?
All along the way to that purported correction yet, a constant, perpetual consequence is that those who produce are forced to pay many times their own production to those who do not produce; and all this yet, is only to procure their own production from each other in transactions conducted under a further obfuscation which requires us to maintain a vital circulation by perpetually re-borrowing so much as periodic principal and interest as subsequent sums of debt, perpetually increased so much as periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt. Obviously still, to inherently and irreversibly multiply artificial sums of debt in proportion to a vital circulation is inevitably terminal. But in fact then, unless all this perpetual, escalating, and inevitably terminal incongruity is both just and of use to the subjects of the imposed systems, no such thing as a correction to rectitude is even possible in what you still call “a correction.”
Altogether, on the contrary then, the very idea of such an ostensible result is neither defined nor then agreed upon, in whatever terms would make the consequences of such a process “a correction” ??or the imposed system itself, “self correcting.”
But we can also invalidate this dubious assertion on further obvious terms, for if we possibly understood the assertion, and if “the market” or subjects were self correcting, why then are they not always self correcting, instead of only intermittently?
How furthermore can we even say there is a rectitude in the result, if we cannot or have not determined it otherwise? What have you or anyone else determined at all in fact is “correct” about the result, other than that it is merely an eventual state amongst undetermined factors, which in all cases of your self-correcting system, simply takes off again from the spot “a correction” returns it to?
Nothing at all of course, or I’m sure you would be the first to say so.
No one then can truly claim to understand anyone’s unqualified expectation of a purported correction, in fact because there is nothing scientific or even logical about claiming an equally unqualified and readily invalidated magic power to “self correct,” in a system which can only heap an eventually terminal, artificial sum of debt upon us, merely by obstructing our right to issue our promises to pay each other, so that posing as “creditor,” it can falsely claim that our promises, which comprise virtually no cost whatever to a purported central bank, justify charging us interest (for our very own promises to pay, of all things) ??all of which itself of course disproves the pretended justification of interest by depriving the real creditor of interest ??who of course accepts our promises in exchange for their former property.
Thus without even resolving these critical questions of rightful creditor, purported justification of interest, rightful issuance of our promises, as well as the questions of any and all purported integrity thereof, none of us have determined that your consequence is a correction. Yet in fact too, to know what has corrected afterward, in the least is to be able to determine what a “self correcting” system would have done if indeed, all the while it were self correcting.
The thing you refer to as a correction then is instead merely a consequence like pushing something up which you cannot continue to push up, and which then falls down. Does it fall to its right spot? Or some other? If so, why push it up; or what ostensible systemic power pushes it up, but this artificial multiplication of debt itself ??particularly as a monetary system only has the power to regulate the volume and cost (or rate of multiplication) of the debt which comprises the currency? What are the principles of determining a thing’s right place in your alleged self correcting system? If said system is indeed self correcting as you expect, why does it not instead at all times keep things in all their right places, rather than escalating our rush to ruin?
I declare on the contrary, that we can readily demonstrate that there is one and one only way to achieve all the intended, natural, and necessary objects of order; and I add therefore that your said system has no power whatever to self correct, because it is an explicit and purposed violation of the one set of principles which keep all things in their right and usually intended order. But by all the usual aspects of applying terms still, your idea of self correcting is a misnomer even on its shallowest surface. If we look deeper yet, then what is it?
Certainly, it isn’t even possible under the imposed system to rectify commerce to the usual concept of the subjects ??that they should be able to trade their production for whatever they deem to be equal measures of the production of others. Is this a principle which an economy should uphold? Is it useful to the subjects of the system that they should be able to pay for a home with the work of producing the home? Or is it useful to the subjects of your system that they pay two or three times their production for their own production ??of course to unassented entities which produce nothing, and which only intervene on our affairs to publish our own promises to pay at such cost to us?
No matter how you answer, the stupefied concept of “correction” nonetheless cannot even be said to return to such a goal of just exchange, because in a system which can only inherently and irreversibly multiply debt into terminal debt, any eventual state of what you wrongly call a “correction” leaves ever greater unearned taking *from* the pool of wealth, to the mere publishers of *our* promises to pay each other.
Likewise, neither then are we restrained to the bounds of some ostensibly beneficial amplitudes of “correction” by some ostensibly beneficial regulation on our behalf, for on the contrary, what precludes the very desirable goal of trading our production for the equivalent production of others is the very system itself.
All you have here then, is the inevitable result of allowing a pretended creditor to usurp the role of the real creditor, imposing upon real creditor and debtor a form of currency which can only multiply debt in proportion to the circulation until we succumb to a terminal sum of debt. I can even show you how to calculate how long it will take for any given instance of such a system to terminate itself. You remark loosely about the consequences, and lament the failure to correct, when the real cause is so simple and rectifiable, if it weren’t for those who intend to preserve the iniquities of a system which from its very imposition was an intended vehicle of exploitation by multiplication of debt.
The real problem isn’t that we can’t identify the cause of this terminal multiplication, or solve it, because I did so thirty years ago. I also provided the first term of the Reagan Administration with computer models which projected that implemented rates of interest and growth would multiply debt in proportion to the circulation until we suffered a terminal sum of debt at approximately 2010 AD.
That was 25 years ago; and those models (which you can still download from our pages and run the same numbers to render the same projections) have accurately projected the accumulation of debt since, merely by replicating the very process the unassenting subjects of the system are required to meet, merely to maintain a vital circulation. That is, to maintain a vital circulation, the models simply borrow back principal and interest paid out of the general circulation, as subsequent sums of debt ??which of course perpetually increase by ever greater increments of periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt until the costs of servicing an eventual, terminal sum of debt exceed the entire circulation. The reason this sum of debt is terminal furthermore, is that the previous sum of debt already requires all it is possible to pay, and the resultant, terminal sum of debt (which we yet need to borrow further, to replenish the vital circulation) requires even more ??a cost of servicing debt which is impossible to meet.
Perhaps this inevitable juncture of terminal debt sounds familiar, even as you write of a wholly unqualified and impossible power of self correction. Perhaps in your unique obfuscations of “corrections” and the like, which obviously are not natural phenomena, but imposed, man made consequences of all the unearned taking… perhaps instead you fall among those who intend somehow to perpetuate this purportedly noble crime. If there weren’t so many of the latter obviously, we would have resolved these simple issues thirty years ago, that none of us would have cause to make these remarks.
The real end of an era then is only so certain as the rest of us are ready to account for the obvious. We have but few issues here, and specifically/categorically, those issues are 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.
As to the latter issue, which of course is the principal cause the present terminal conditions (and irreversible, escalating furtherance of those conditions to the worse), what we have to realize is that the producer is the real creditor, because they are forced to take a promise to pay (note) from the debtor. Ordinarily, in a system where the promise can be guaranteed (as in mathematically perfected economy?), the debtor issues their promise, because after all, it *is* *their* promise.
What we have effectively is a third party which intervenes upon this natural relationship, obstructing the debtor from issuing their promise to pay on their paper. This extrinsic party, which produces nothing, and which yet will eventually and quite injuriously acquire title to all property merely for the resultant obfuscation… this extrinsic, usurping party merely publishes the promise of the debtor at virtually no cost to the extrinsic party, claiming all the while that the costless promise is equivalent then (as it might later be, if we give scope to it) to the wealth we attempt to trade as that form of currency multiplies indebtedness until we succumb to a terminal sum of debt.
The exercise of your article then is hardly intellectual or scientific, because it carefully avoids recognizing these simple facts and their inevitable ramifications.
From the very beginning, the problem was the facades, corruption,, and escalating injustice of the very system which was imposed upon us despite political promises to the contrary. Now we attempt to perpetuate those arguments in favor of preserving the system, hoping for “corrections,” or justice ??against a stronger tide, sweeping justice away at an inherently escalating rate?
As surely as the imposed and unjustified system can only multiply debt into terminal debt so long as we maintain a vital circulation by perpetual, redundant borrowing, it is mathematically impossible that there’s a chance of succeeding in perpetuating that system. It can only produce a Second Great Depression after a First, a Third after a Second, and so forth ??all the while of each lifespan dispossessing its unwitting and unassenting subjects to an ever greater degree.
If we are on the other hand to keep all things in their right places, we must recognize and adopt a singular possible, 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 ??and because we can transform the present system to mathematically perfected economy? immediately, and without cost.
All that is required to establish mathematically perfected economy?, is to refinance our promises to pay without your “self correcting” (terminal) system’s imposed vehicle of exploitation, and to pay the resultant debts at the rate of depreciation or consumption (which are to be understood to be equivalent). How many homes, sirs, would be going into foreclosure if we paid only $1,000 per year or $83.33 per month for a $100,000 home with a hundred-year lifespan?
You ask us not to pay our debts, but the artificial, perpetually escalated, and inevitably terminal debts of mere usurers. And you call the consequence of that, “self correcting.”
- What is to be Done? The End of the Washington Consensus, by Michael Hudson and Jeffrey Sommers (ICH)
- [?KEY?]??THE PROBLEM IS NOT DEBT!
- [?KEY?]??IF I WERE PRESIDENT ??HOW TO ARREST WORLD WIDE MONETARY COLLAPSE IN A DAY
- SYNOPSIS ??MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY? REDUCED TO ITS BAREST THREAD
- PROBABILITY AND TIMELINE FOR WORLD-WIDE ECONOMIC COLLAPSE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF INTEREST
- EVALUATION OF JEFFERSON’S OPINION ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A NATIONAL BANK
- WHY DON’T THE DEMOCRATS REVERSE WILSON’S ERROR, AND REPEAL THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT?
“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(s), 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: