The first thing we have to get across is that the term, “debt,” cannot aptly distinguish the nature of the two compared currencies. There are monumental differences in the nature and ramifications of each purported debt; and we need to explore those ramifications thoroughly not only to understand them, but to realize that the simplistic term, “debt,” is powerless to distinguish actually opposed concepts.
In the case of mathematically perfected currency™, the circulation is indeed comprised of obligations which in every case equal only the principal and currency in circulation. The very integrity of all the resultant monetary obligations therefore is made possible by the fact the sum of debt is never greater than the circulation. Likewise, the integrity of the debt is only guaranteed by a schedule of payment in which the debtor pays for the related property at least at the rate of consumption or depreciation.
The currency of mathematically perfected economy™ therefore is not just an inert, un-multiplied debt which alone allows us to pay for each others’ production with equal measures of our own production. The currency of mathematically perfected economy™ furthermore comprises an inseparable obligation to pay at the rate of consumption or depreciation of the related property.
The unique nature of this combination of attributes alone therefore makes it possible to sustain all the production we are capable of (because there is no extrinsic cost), and maintains the only conditions which replicate direct trade without impediment or exploitation, and which preserve the nature and relative value of every unit of the circulation, clear to its retirement.
In the case of the present, imposed system on the other hand, the currency comprises “interest-bearing debts,” which introduce a whole further set, not of incidental or possible ramifications, but of inherent, inevitable, ever more destructive, and ultimately terminal ramifications. We must of course understand all the further manifestations of inherent multiplication of debt by interest to appreciate the differences between these two, greatly disparate classes of “debt.”
But as the previous and following arguments establish, in every aspect the integrity of mathematically perfected economy™ is in fact made impossible by the imposition of interest. Thus we are actually using the same terminology for extremely disparate things. We say wrongly for instance, regarding interest-bearing “debt,” that the debt is the principal, when the resultant monetary obligation is of course obviously the sum of principal and interest.
Worse then, this purposely obfuscated terminology obstructs understanding even the very magnitude of initial exploitation by needless multiplication of debt, imposed upon us merely by allowing an extrinsic, uninterested party publish our own promises to pay, at perpetual multiplication of cost to us. The obfuscated terminology perpetually disinforms us then that what we owe is only the principal, while every case makes the obligation/debt a sum of principal and interest which is far greater; and all this is comprised only of a said loan, which actually only involves publishing our promise to pay at virtually no cost whatever. It cannot be more obvious that this exploitation is intentional then, simply because solution is so resisted even at every juncture of purported representation. But the terms are a part of this resistance; and we are better advised to persist in more appropriate, explicit terminology, because to say that both currencies are simply debts is to play to the intended purpose of the disinformation.
So we do not simply have “debts” in the case of usury; and so it is because the integral obligation to pay principal and interest out of the general circulation (in servicing “debt”) at all times exceeds a circulation comprised of no more than the principal (and regularly even far less), that it is impossible or impractical even to continue servicing the resultant monetary obligations without perpetually replenishing the circulation of the interest and principal we are obliged to pay out of circulation in servicing whatever momentary sum of debt. Thus we are obliged by the nature of this distinct, opposed class of “debt,” to maintain a vital circulation, with this perpetual, unavoidable, and thus irreversible borrowing/maintenance perpetually increasing the sum of debt by ever greater sums of periodic interest on an ever greater, and eventually terminal sum of debt.
We are not even finished distinguishing this opposite pole of debt however, because we must understand how interest results in an inevitable, terminal sum of debt. The obligation to re-borrow interest as new debt above the former sum of debt ultimately produces a terminal sum of debt because the process perpetually multiplies the sum of debt in proportion to the related circulation. This not only inherently devalues the money by dedicating ever more of the circulation to servicing debt, it leaves ever less of the circulation to sustain the industry which is obligated to do so. Because the rate of multiplication inherently escalates, eventually the rate of multiplication of debt so outstrips the possible rates of industrial growth and consumption that an eventual sum of debt demands more of the circulation to service debt than leaves a remaining circulation capable of sustaining the industry which is obligated to do so.
At the inevitable terminus of an inherently finite lifespan then, not only can we no longer afford to fully service the escalated, artificial sum of debt, we cannot thus afford or qualify to borrow further, as is necessary still to maintain a vital circulation against what yet we are still paying out of the general circulation in servicing the terminal sum of debt to whatever extent we can.
Thus in the terminal phase of the finite lifespan, the circulation deflates at whatever rate we are servicing the sum of debt, with this manifesting in a potentially sudden and vast collapse of industry under the disappearance of circulation. At the same time of course, we remain so much as permanently unqualified to borrow further, because to do so is to assume further debt above a terminal sum of debt we already cannot afford to service.
This of course is the very present nature of the purported “credit crisis.” But it is not a crisis of credit, which is only the end state. All this is to be realized from the very disparate things we are calling debt. The crisis instead then is a crisis of the nature of a currency which can only produce these conditions, and which can only preserve them once the terminal phase of the finite lifespan is reached.
So these two highly disparate forms of “debt” are in fact so opposed, that not only is it impossible for a circulation subject to interest to achieve the natural, fundamental objectives of an economy; it is eventually impossible even to sustain industry or restore conditions which are necessary to do so. All the money you can pour on the terminal conditions will only disappear, and generally rapidly, in the persistent obligation to service an already terminal sum of debt which, along with the obligation to service it, can only be increased by the very adverse nature of further currency subject to interest.
On the surface then, not understanding the different natures of the two utterly separate classes of “debt,” we tend to take on a superstitious fear — as if “debt” itself comprises the fatal adversity.
But on the contrary, certifying and preserving our ability to pay for what we consume as we consume of it, paves the only way both to furtherance of industry to the full extent of our capacities, and to perpetually just and affordable costs of the resultant production. So these are principal reasons we are obligated to solve the issues which the “debt” of mathematically perfected economy™ alone solves, and which interest-bearing “debt” makes it impossible to solve.
WHY IT IS NECESSARY, AN ADVANTAGE, AND EVEN THE ONLY ACTUAL ALTERNATIVE THAT CURRENCY IS ISSUED AS AN OBLIGATION
Essentially, the minimal facet of a currency is representation. What does a currency represent; or what should/must it represent? This is the first question anyone must answer in certain terms before they can build an understanding of monetary rectitude, or a system embodying monetary rectitude.
Money inherently involves at least and possibly no more than one essential attribute: it must represent value.
How do we determine the desirable attribute(s)? By examining the ramifications of possible cases.
What for instance if the relative or practical value of money changes? In every case where the value of money does not perpetually represent the property it initially represented, one party is injured in the loss of earned gains when money is transferred, while the other benefits unjustly, without deserving an unearned gain. Not only does this introduce a “possibility” of injustice, the possibility of ostensibly lawful injustice sets in motion a quest to manipulate circumstances for unearned gain, further engendering a need all the more to defend the value of money or property, however possible. Worse, in the perpetual disappearance (deflation) and shortage of circulation which can be dedicated to sustaining industry/production subject to interest, the shortage is coercive to doing business or trade at loss, and particularly, to the ever greater undeserved advantage of whoever publishes the money at virtually no cost whatever. But if we are to achieve monetary justice, money must and must only represent consistent value across its lifespan.
In mathematically perfected economy™ alone yet, the value of the currency is preserved across the entire lifespan of every unit by a perpetual 1:1:1 ratio between the circulation, remaining debt/obligation, and remaining value of the related property. So here alone do we establish the desirable perpetuation of the value of every unit, as is impossible subject to interest.
But why must currency be issued as debt; or why is it most appropriate, or to any advantage to issue currency only as debt?
The two seeming alternative ways of issuing money into circulation of course are either to spend it into circulation, or to issue it as debt. What are the ramifications or differences, if any?
That we have no deficiency or fault in the justified debts or the integrity and perpetual value of mathematically perfected currency™ — all of which necessary virtues are impossible under interest — might convey that we have achieved all necessary objectives, except for the possible remaining question whether money should be introduced as debt, and/or, at least in a practical sense, whether money can only be introduced as debt.
Obviously, we can contend that we’re simply spending money into circulation, if we do so; but is it actually any different to do so? One further question gives us the answer to this question.
Suppose for instance we decided arbitrarily to spend taxation into circulation, even thinking thus that we are funding government without cost; and that we are getting away with funding government without cost?
To answer this question we have to examine cases which will give us the answer.
Consider a case for instance where perhaps a population and its industry diminished substantially, say each to ten-percent of previous extents which through some point of escalation had been perfectly sustained by spending a circulation into existence which related to the former industry perfectly. As a consequence in this post escalation era, far more circulation than production (true circulatory inflation) would be free to compete for the diminished production, because there is no 1:1:1 ratio between a remaining obligation, remaining value of related property, and the circulation available to serve either.
On the one hand then, the resultant circulation would diminish in value (negating all the assumable benefit and value of possessed circulation), or on the other hand, each of us having far more circulation than production, few of us would be compelled to engage in production.
This devaluation then, should it transpire without our vital, perpetual 1:1:1 relationship, naturally seeks the same equilibrium that a currency paid out of circulation would see, because the ratio of available circulation to the state and availability of production remains the determining factor. The only difference in the two systems is that in mathematically perfected economy™ we preserve the ratio across the lifespan of the circulation and related property.
But so the effect of finding that equilibrium is just the same as having paid away the circulation, as we consumed of the related property. In other words then, no benefit is actually achieved by not paying the circulation against whatever we consume of production.
Furthermore, by “simply” spending the currency into circulation, we have only attempted to achieve an impossible thing which we have not gotten away with, across the breadth of the system. That is, we may have employed people to build roads and bridges, and we paid them; but those who have consumed their production have not paid for their consumption directly, as would share the burden justly. All of us pay for the bridge through circulatory inflation; but those who do not use the bridge may thus be saddled with unjust costs.
In the end then, spending money into circulation does not at all avoid or eliminate the obligation to pay for what is consumed, and distributes the burden unjustly.
In other words still then, no mode whatever of issuing currency eliminates a resultant obligation to pay: there is in the issuance of all money an incumbent and inevitable act of paying. An obligation to pay exists — which is a debt.
By issuing currency as an explicit debt then, all we are doing is enforcing justice: we are ensuring that the consumer of the production pays for their consumption as they consume of it.
So this is the essential and vital, minimal nature of currency.