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 » VENEZUELA
Real leadership means to correctly define the actual problem ??and then ??to correctly prescribe the actual solution.
Patrick Hedemark
In economics, the majority are always wrong. [Less protectively, contemporary “economists” lie because the whole, purposed lie of usury and unearned taking is unsustainable in any practical implementation, and because therefore, no intelligent public would ever assent to the dispossession and usurpation which the lies are designed to impose upon them. Thus…] The study of “money,” above all other fields, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it.
John Kenneth Galbraith
BECAUSE HE HAS NO BETTER ANSWER…
PAUL KRUGMAN, NOBEL LAUREATE, IRRESPONSIBLY CALLS FOR CONTINUED FISCAL IRRESPONSIBILITY
With a bewildering magnitude of enthusiasm, an EducatorsForObama forum member writes:
[Princeton “Economist,” Paul] Krugman says Obama is correct on [the] Economy. [a] Government must SPEND now to save the Economy. The Deficit is not important right now. This must be the knockout blow to the McCain campaign!
This may be the most important article of this election. Paul Krugman just won the Nobel Prize in Economics a couple days ago and he was the sole winner ??very unusual. First US Economist to win in a long time. It sounds a little counter-intuitive, I know. But Obama is right, despite the rantings of McCain, Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan and the rest of the GOP. [b] To stimulate the economy and create jobs the Federal Government needs to spend money funding new public works projects like much needed bridges, roads, hospitals, schools, etc. This will create tons of jobs and it is helps the country in the long run because we are investing in our infrastructure. The dumb thing to do is to encourage people to go out and buy more junk.
[c] Remember McCain said he wants a spending freeze. This will DOOM the Economy and McCain just doesn’t understand! We can’t elect him. He will drive us further into the ditch! Please go NYT and email it to others so it gets more attention and make comments and send this to every media outlet and demand they discuss it. [sic]
Let’s Get Fiscal by Paul Krugman ??October 16, 2008
The Dow is surging! No, it’s plunging! No, it’s surging! No, it’s …
Nevermind [sic]. While the manic-depressive stock market is dominating the headlines, the more important story is the grim news coming in about the real economy. It’s now clear that rescuing the banks is just the beginning: the nonfinancial economy is also in desperate need of help.
And to provide that help, we’re going to have to put some prejudices aside. [1]?It’s politically fashionable to rant against government spending and demand fiscal responsibility. [2]?But right now, increased government spending is just what the doctor ordered, and concerns about the budget deficit should be put on hold.
Before I get there, let’s talk about the economic situation.
[3]?Just this week, we learned that retail sales have fallen off a cliff, and so has industrial production. Unemployment claims are at steep-recession levels, and the Philadelphia Fed’s manufacturing index is falling at the fastest pace in almost 20 years. All signs point to an economic slump that will be nasty, brutish ??and long.
How nasty? The unemployment rate is already above 6 percent (and broader measures of underemployment are in double digits). It’s now virtually certain that the unemployment rate will go above 7 percent, and quite possibly above 8 percent, making this the worst recession in a quarter-century.
[4]?And how long? It could be very long indeed.
[5]?[excluded trivia…]
[6]?In other words, there’s not much Ben Bernanke can do for the economy. [7]?He can and should cut interest rates even more ??but nobody expects this to do more than provide a slight economic boost.
On the other hand, there’s a lot the federal government can do for the economy. [8]?It can provide extended benefits to the unemployed, which will both help distressed families cope and put money in the hands of people likely to spend it. It can provide emergency aid to state and local governments, so that they aren’t forced into steep spending cuts that both degrade public services and destroy jobs. It can buy up mortgages (but not at face value, as John McCain has proposed) and restructure the terms to help families stay in their homes.
[9]?And this is also a good time to engage in some serious infrastructure spending, which the country badly needs in any case. [10]?The usual argument against public works as economic stimulus is that they take too long: by the time you get around to repairing that bridge and upgrading that rail line, the slump is over and the stimulus isn’t needed. Well, that argument has no force now, since the chances that this slump will be over anytime soon are virtually nil. So let’s get those projects rolling.
Will the next administration do what’s needed to deal with the economic slump? Not if Mr. McCain pulls off an upset. [11]?What we need right now is more government spending ??but when Mr. McCain was asked in one of the debates how he would deal with the economic crisis, he answered: “Well, the first thing we have to do is get spending under control.”
[12]?If Barack Obama becomes president, he won’t have the same knee-jerk opposition to spending. But he will face a chorus of inside-the-Beltway types telling him that he has to be responsible, that the big deficits the government will run next year if it does the right thing are unacceptable.
[13]?He should ignore that chorus. [14]?The responsible thing, right now, is to give the economy the help it needs. Now is not the time to worry about the deficit.
THE TEETH OF IRRESPONSIBILITY
True science of course is first and foremost to leave no premise unchallenged; no reasonable question unasked. Most of all, no solution in science perpetuates faults which are readily proven by the most plausible answers to obligatory questions.
Moreover, these are such routine customs of true science that anything less stands out like the proverbial sore thumb. The tests of such material are not merely academic. Intelligent readers of important matters always, always, always must know when they reach an ostensible conclusion: have all the relevant questions been asked?
A prospectively intelligent republic understands nothing, and has no tool to intelligently rule over itself, without an affirmative answer to that question ??or without an affirmative answer to the further question, does the prescribed course best account for all the matters at hand?
If the first question cannot be answered affirmatively and definitely, then the course does not even account for all the matters at hand ??much less can it justly be said to best account for them.
The latter, most crucial question on the further hand, depends on conclusive qualification not only of all the points certifying the propositions of the first question, it depends on conclusive, unerring development of the prescription in question. All material of such propositions lacking either, fails to meet the necessary standards which predicate intelligible, successful government.
Before we look for any teeth in Krugman’s unqualified propositions, let me ask, does anyone think they see absolute solution in them?
Already, the irresponsibility he proposes ??not only to continue, but possibly to exacerbate ??has engendered insoluble federal debt which at this moment has brought us to our knees, and will cripple us and worse forever. Is there a proof we will succeed by the continued irresponsibility he advocates? Is there a proof of no other alternative? Has he asked all the relevant questions? Has he even answered them, if he hasn’t asked them?
What can we rightly think then of his unqualified proposition?
Or on the contrary, does it beg the further questions, and a dialog developing real solution?
If we presume that Mr. Krugman has well prescribed our way, it would only be for never fully pursuing the answers ourselves, because one simple, routine question exposes the poverty and flaws of that disposition.
Because Mr. Krugman has no answer, or cares not to answer for the whole question, he purposely raises only a partial form of it. He points out a reasonable and obvious, customary reservation against timeliness. That is, he warns only that government investment in research such as the Obama Campaign proposes may well not produce sufficient benefits within a period in which the positives offset the negatives suffered across the same timespan (10).
An obvious flaw even of the attitude of this purposely narrowed scope, is that we are seeking only to offset negatives. Why is it right not to instead seek to eliminate all obstructions or encumbrances, particularly if any obstruction or encumbrance is unnatural, and itself has never been justified?
Is it right that we prosper to the full extent of our willingness and capability to incorporate available resources into production? Or is it right, that all the while we remain capable and willing to incorporate available resources into production, that some artificial irregularity unjustifiably obstructs the whole world from doing so?
In response nonetheless to the one mere facet he raises, Mr. Krugman reassures us that we don’t have to worry about falling short of an expiring time frame, because the present downturn will surely outlast fruition of eventual benefits, if any ??if we survive so long, if the eventual benefits are enough to offset the bad, and if we can even afford the products of those eventual developments after however much longer the failing monetary system further destroys our credit-worthiness.
These are just some of the further questions which Mr. Krugman’s and Mr. Obama’s propositions must answer for certainly, if Mr. Obama is to succeed not in delivering us from the ever escalating oppression of a system imposed for that very purpose, but prospectively, to merely succeed eventually, in treading water for a short while against inherent, irreversible, further escalation of indebtedness.
As I explain again and again throughout these pages, any purported economy subject to interest ultimately terminates itself by itself, irreversibly generating ever escalating sums of debt, until that system inevitably generates a terminal sum of insoluble debt.
In any such system, the real creditors remain the real producers of wealth, who are asked to accept a promise to pay for their production. A central bank merely creates the promise of the debtor at virtually no cost whatever to itself, and then, having intervened unjustly upon every such transaction, demands interest from the whole of the circulation. There is no risk whatever, because the promise to pay of the debtor is created without cost.
But because the whole monetary obligation [principal and interest] of all the currency [principal] so introduced to circulation therefore exceeds the circulation from the outset, it is mathematically impossible for the subjects of the system to continue servicing their obligations without re-borrowing what they pay against these obligations, out of the general circulation:
What they pay against the principal therefore must be re-borrowed; and, by the nature of the system of unearned profit, therefore whatever they pay against principal is re-borrowed as a subsequent sum of debt, equal to the previous.
Thus to whatever degree the subjects of the system are forced to re-borrow principal to maintain a vital circulation, it is mathematically impossible to pay down the sum of debt.
Whatever they pay against interest and must re-borrow [as new principal] to maintain a vital circulation therefore, increases the sum of debt.
Thus the sum of debt increases so much as periodic interest on the sum of debt.
Therefore, because they must maintain a vital circulation, the sum of debt inherently and irreversibly increases at an inherently escalating rate of ever greater increments of periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt.
Inevitably then, because this multiplication is in proportion to the sustaining circulation, and because ever more of the circulation is dedicated to servicing debt ??leaving ever less of the circulation to sustain the true industry which is obligated to do so ??inevitably, every such system terminates itself under an insoluble sum of debt it can no longer afford to service.
All the artificial sustention in the world cannot save that system from its own end then, particularly as the escalating rates of inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt become so monumental.
So then, do Mr. Krugman’s assertions prove the course of exacerbated, further deficit spending, itself increasing that multiplication of indebtedness?
After all, any certainty that we can accomplish any goals of research, development, or infrastructure repair, maintenance, or re-building, itself certifies that we are indeed capable in every other way to accomplish these things, but for the very obstructions imposed by the purported economy ??imposed then, and still existing for such illimitable profit of the privatization Mr. McCain and those he represents stand for.
There is no other preclusive factor but this illimitable multiplication of unearned taking by those whose unmitigated gutting of our republic assures its mortal end.
What should concern us is who stands in the way of solution, and why.
Of course, the very reason that we the people have not already succeeded in these very same (unoriginal) ventures ??now only proposed to ultimately succeed by artificial intervention ??is the artificial deterioration which “the economy” has already imposed upon us.
Truly free enterprise, free of this incredible predation, would long ago have solved these problems. In fact I myself am well aware of substantial technological innovations waiting already for many years to provide their benefits to us, which are stymied wholly and singularly by lack of funding, purposely denied those existent achievements only so that those who have not developed them can “own” them.
Nonetheless, while “investors” readily cheat innovation of every cent they can ??only because we the people ostensibly deny ourselves sustainable funding, free of usury and further predation ??now these same artificially “aided” developments, intentionally crippled by the other hand, are supposed to potentialize their success as the very underlying system further multiplies indebtedness upon us. Of course, if we even survive the while over which ownership of already existing capacities will merely be fought, in the end of that mere battle to take further earnings from us, the whole subject society will suffer a drastically diminished capacity to afford further costs, such as the eventual products of those existent developments.
No one then ??and particularly not Mr. Krugman ??has quantitatively established that those “developments” will eventually ??even for a short while ?? succeed in treading water against the inherent, escalating multiplication of indebtedness which those who claim now that they will represent us, refuse even to address.
In other words, if it were not for the very perpetual, inherently escalating artificial obstruction of our prosperity which both parties of betrayal intend to continue, we would already prosper so much as our willingness and capability to incorporate available resources into production would permit.
So we are intentionally not delivered our vital answer from Mr. Krugman or those who award him for excluding the very nature of the problem from the debate over rectitude. But to distinguish the difference, let us examine Mr. Krugman’s evasions, point by point:
“It’s politically fashionable to rant against government spending and demand fiscal responsibility.”
Advocating fiscal responsibility is not a matter of “fashion”; it is a sacred responsibility, the abuse of which comprises the whole substance of our perpetual failure to ascertain or establish solution.
Fiscal responsibility is a perpetual obligation. But it is emphatically a perpetual obligation as we are incurring debts we are not paying, and passing those off onto our progeny, ostensibly for our own undeserved “benefit.” The only beneficiary of this irresponsibility is the privatized monetary system, for which the subject republic can only suffer to ever greater degrees as that system purposely multiplies debt not only all the further, but at inherently escalating rates to inevitable, terminal sums of debt.
What is right about this artificial multiplication of debt? When did we give our assent to it? What is legal about that system? Why would we the people ever engineer such a thing? Why has it not been rectified, but that people like Mr. Krugman stand forever in the way?
What sane republic would forever refrain from perfecting this imposed systems mere two fatal faults ??inflation/deflation, and inherent multiplication of debt by interest ??the latter particularly of which is the very cause of the present, inevitable, near term monetary failure?
Particularly then, what sane republic would refrain from perfecting that imposed system, if the republic’s preservation only required removing that unearned, undeserved, unjustified, and terminal taking from the sane republic?
“But right now, increased government spending is just what the doctor ordered, and concerns about the budget deficit should be put on hold.”
Inadvertently here, Krugman himself testifies that the imposed system itself obstructs our success, for his unwarranted proposition asks for solubility which has been made impossible.
“Just this week, we learned that retail sales have fallen off a cliff, and so has industrial production. Unemployment claims are at steep-recession levels, and the Philadelphia Fed’s manufacturing index is falling at the fastest pace in almost 20 years. All signs point to an economic slump that will be nasty, brutish ??and long.”
These still are purposely down-scaled portraits, authored in houses which still claim present events might only engender a severe recession. Ten-thousand homes a day going into foreclosure is not a possibility of severe recession; it is the sign-post of an all-out world-wide monetary failure; and it is particularly a loud warning of that failure, when “appreciating” home “values” (which are further escalating costs, further multiplied by “interest”), just yesterday comprised an absolutely ludicrous avenue from inevitable failure.
From the very beginning, these deceptions of rectitude or possibility of avoiding failure were designed to multiply unearned taking from us, and our concurrent destruction.
“And how long? It could be very long indeed.”
This lie downplays the consequences as well, for a system which can only engender terminal indebtedness, itself destroys any veritable way whatever to resolve its ultimate state of collapse, amidst wholly destroyed credit-worthiness.
[excluded trivia…]
“In other words, there’s not much Ben Bernanke can do for the economy.”
Exactly.
So long as there is unearned profit in the imposed systems of dispossession and destruction, and so long as we the unassenting subjects maintain a vital circulation, this process of inherent multiplication of debt to terminal debt is irreversible.
When we can no longer maintain a vital circulation on the other hand, the day of failure is upon us.
Bernanke can only speed up or slow down this terminal process by raising or lowering interest, that we can afford to borrow as is necessary to maintain a vital circulation. All the while nonetheless, ever more of that circulation is inherently dedicated to servicing debt, while ever less thus remains to sustain the surviving industry which is obligated to do so.
“He can and should cut interest rates even more ??but nobody expects this to do more than provide a slight economic boost.”
Only because interest adjustments affect new debt; and existent debt is customarily “re-financed” at considerable further, immediate cost. The effects therefore are intentionally limited by the perpetrators.
Nonetheless, at best, the only power is to extend the date of inevitable failure, for the mere process of maintaining a vital circulation ensures the inevitable failure.
“It can provide extended benefits to the unemployed, which will both help distressed families cope and put money in the hands of people likely to spend it. It can provide emergency aid to state and local governments, so that they aren’t forced into steep spending cuts that both degrade public services and destroy jobs. It can buy up mortgages (but not at face value, as John McCain has proposed) and restructure the terms to help families stay in their homes.”
Each cited circumstance is a fault of the imposed system which can only be solved by rectifying the system.
We don’t have to “buy up” mortgages. We have to free debtors from usury: we have to re-finance all debt without interest (unassented, unjustifiable profit to the “central banking” system, which publishes the “money” at no cost whatever). This alone solves terminal multiplication of debt in proportion to possible sustenance.
To further solve inflation and deflation, we have to pay the resultant monetary obligations at the rate of consumption or depreciation. This, together with the previous solution of inherent multiplication of our promises to pay each other, alone makes it possible for our promises to pay to be what they promise to pay ??a capacity to procure the wealth each of us produce for whatever we deem to be equal measures of wealth produced by others.
What is the consequence of rectifying the imposed system? How could we possibly deteriorate further, if we eliminate multiplication of debt, and if the subjects of said mortgages are thus compelled only to pay $1,000 per year or $83.33 per month on every $100,000 of remaining equity of property originally having a 100-year lifespan?
The benefits of real solution, together with the real reasons that solution is obstructed, are not far to seek.
“And this is also a good time to engage in some serious infrastructure spending, which the country badly needs in any case.”
Only so, because to preserve all this unearned taking from us, abuse of power has resisted for so long our incontrovertible need and intent to rectify the imposed systems. What Krugman is asking for effectively, is a temporary return of some of the solubility destroyed by the system, while the system yet continues to destroy solubility at an inherently escalating rate.
The time to spend on infrastructure then, was the time to spend on infrastructure. The fact we have not done so, the fact we “badly need” to do so, further testifies to the obstruction so long comprised and multiplied by the very intentions of the unassented monetary systems.
“The usual argument against public works as economic stimulus is that they take too long: by the time you get around to repairing that bridge and upgrading that rail line, the slump is over and the stimulus isn’t needed. Well, that argument has no force now, since the chances that this slump will be over anytime soon are virtually nil. So let’s get those projects rolling.”
As Krugman himself has said, we are not confronted with “a slump.” But the real question is not just whether some ostensible benefit will be provided at some future time within the recession, depression, or utter failure. Neither are the real questions the further matters of whether we can survive to that future time; or whether at that future time, so much further diminished in our capacity to sustain further costs upon the further multiplication of debt which will ensue, we will even be able to afford the products of future developments, which the imposed system has already made us unable to afford.
The question is what can out-strip, inherent, irreversible, perpetual multiplication of debt at inherently escalating rates? What can out-perform inherent failure under inevitable, terminal indebtedness?
Particularly with the whole world at the brink of artificial failure imposed by unjustifiable, irreversible multiplication of indebtedness, the question is, why do we not establish ready solution? Who stands in the way of solution?
“What we need right now is more government spending ??but when Mr. McCain was asked in one of the debates how he would deal with the economic crisis, he answered: “Well, the first thing we have to do is get spending under control.”
Again, Krugman asks for temporary restoration of solubility which will, virtually immediately, be consumed by the alpha parasite, sucking us dry at far faster rates than Mr. Krugman’s band-aid can stave.
On the other hand, Mr. McCain can’t possibly advocate how to get spending under control either, without advocating mathematically perfected economy?.
“If Barack Obama becomes president, he won’t have the same knee-jerk opposition to spending.”
Krugman only proposes a knee-jerk reaction which will result in indistinguishably different further destruction.
“He should ignore that chorus.”
Thomas Jefferson said, “Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.”
But you, Mr. Krugman, too believe what is wrong; and you advocate we follow you off a cliff, that those who give you awards and false badges of authority can preserve usury forever.
Thomas Jefferson also 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 perpetuallyre-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.
Which is the very process I argue, is matched by a singular integral solution.
Jefferson also said:
The end of democracy and defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of the lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.
The Bank of the United States is one of the most deadly hostilities existing against the principles and form of our Constitution. The system of banking is a blot [defect] left in [unsolved by, and unfortunately tolerated by] all our Constitutions [state and federal], which if not covered [eventually solved and revoked] will end in their destruction. I sincerely believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity is but swindling futurity [on the greatest possible scale].
You Mr. Krugman then, would advocate the very destructive processes against which Mr. Jefferson so well intended to defend us.
“The responsible thing, right now, is to give the economy the help it needs. Now is not the time to worry about the deficit.”
On the contrary, nothing of course could be much more irresponsible: The “help” “the economy” needs Mr. Krugman, is solution.
Some day, probably long after tomorrow Mr. Krugman, when the system you help only to preserve finishes the failure it imposes upon us, at best, you will propose that we simply restart that system, artificially renewing the credit-worthiness which is artificially destroyed only by that imposed system’s inherent multiplication of debt.
You will say or at least imply with words equally bereft of genuine qualification, that the very same system is sustainable; and you will ask us to bow our heads yet still to yield to irreversible multiplication of unearned profit, at our ever greater cost and inevitable, cyclical destruction.
These however Mr. Krugman, are the only things standing right now in the way of our prosperity and our right to prosper to the full measure of our willingness and capability to render production from a conservative consumption of available resources. You Mr. Krugman are the problem; not the solution. What you propose is intellectually and morally bankrupt.
As I explain in “If I Were President…” (http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-if-i-were-president.html), how to arrest world wide monetary collapse in a day… the real solution here is to refinance all private debt under mathematically perfected economy?, where, as I have already explained in this page, the people will thus service their rectified debts on the scale of $1,000 per year or $83.33 per month for every $100,000 of debt against property having a hundred year lifespan.
Obviously then Mr. Krugman, without any irresponsible spending whatever, so much further liquidity would exist amongst us merely for eliminating unearned taking from the system, that we would not be losing our homes by the tens of thousands per day, we would not be losing our jobs. We would be employing ourselves far further; and we would readily accomplish the objects of programs you advocate require government aid, simply by eradicating the destruction and dispossession which unassented government all the same while imposes upon us.
The propositions laid on the table by both parties of betrayal persist only in two courses to the same dire consequences. Mr. Obama hopes the accomplishments we would otherwise be capable of will succeed if we heap more artificial debt upon us. True to the recent even more destructive thrust of the usurpers, Mr. McCain advocates “privatization,” which is a pretentious veil over further unearned taking, which of course is the present curse of our republic.
The hope of the American People, and even the world then, rests on a distant possibility.
Whether these are just words, history will tell. But Mr. Obama asks us to believe not just in his ability to fix Washington ??he asks us to believe in ours.
The only tangible thing on that table therefore, is that we can hold Mr. Obama accountable to his ostensible promise that given its own reign, our republic will choose the only road to solubility and sustainability.
That’s a pitiful chance at rectitude to bemuse, in a republic established by the likes of Mr. Jefferson.
“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:
You are doing the right and good thing making this thoughtful accumulation of research readily available.
Best regards always,
Sigrun
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,
Khomar
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.
Ron Boyer
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.
DIALOG
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:
PFMPE?
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.
Ellen
My reply to this repetition of the answer I had already so extensively questioned/disputed, likewise was addressed to the editors of Global Research:
PFMPE?
Dear Ellen,
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?.
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.
mike montagne
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:
PFMPE?
Not only does that not answer for the non-originality of “your research,” it hardly speaks well to your disposition or integrity.
mike montagne
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.
No?
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
“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:
Recent visitor stats show that with no advertising or promotion whatever, continually escalating PFMPE™ traffic is sustaining readership well upward of 50,000 page reads per month. Given present trends, we expect to top 100,000 page reads per month very soon.
We are fortunate to be receiving heavy traffic from all parts of the world, not only from oppressed countries such as Argentina; timely, periodic, dense traffic from diverse parts of the world sustains theoretical concentration on the emergence of mathematically perfected economy™ as a potentially predominate player in current and future world events.
In addition to steadily esalating traffic, the zipped, freely distributable version of our site has been downloaded more than 100,000 times, preserving a prescription of mathematically perfected economy™ to posterity.
“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)
As to solution, I hope we can agree on that some day, or for all the things which are not solution, this country is lost.
mike montagne (corresponding with Ellen Hodgson Brown)
OPEN LETTER TO GLOBAL RESEARCH ON THE CONTROVERSY WITH ELLEN HODGSON BROWN
The following email was written to Global Research regarding their promotion of Ellen Hodgson Brown’s purported solution of the present monetary crisis ??which proposition of hers she well knows has already been invalidated at the provided URLs:
PFMPE?
Saturday, October 18, 2008, 10:29 AM
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: ARTICLE SUBMISSION
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 10:28:43 -0700
From: mike montagne
Reply-To: Organization: PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy?
My October 14 article proposing a fact of singular, absolute solution (”how to arrest world wide monetary collapse in a day”) jumped to the top of our page visitation stats in less than 2 days:
I hereby grant Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) permission to reprint this article in whole or in part on your web pages. Further analysis and debate of its principles is also welcome.
Also, please be advised that I have already disputed and invalidated the principle of Ellen Hodgson Brown’s recent purported solution as published in your article, http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10589 (of which I am apprised by one of our most competent visitors). In this article, Ms. Brown asserts what amounts to a proposition of just taxation, levied in the form of interest upon those to whom no connection with consumption of particular government programs is established. Note that she formerly claimed wrongly this was a purpose of the colonial Pennsylvania Currency, co-authored by Benjamin Franklin. My article, “Opinion On The Pennsylvania Currency Advocated by Ellen Hodgson Brown in ‘Web of Debt’,” (http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-ellen-hodgson-brown-web-of-debt.html) thoroughly disproves her false assertions, and moreover points out the improprieties of levying taxes in such a way. Note further that not only was she unable to defend her assertions, she has gone on to pretend those assertions comprise solution in the very article you have just published.
Therefore I also grant you permission to publish both of my invalidations of Ellen Hodgson Brown’s assertions regarding the present monetary collapse:
I insist that you give these matters very serious attention, for it is the worst kind of distraction and it is the most irresponsible behavior in fact, to hear purported experts (whose only claimed expertise is not mathematics, modeling, or theory, but “research” [of existent propositions already disproven]) shouting again and again this or that is solution, particularly when they have already proven unable to answer for the critical flaws they propose.
In regard to the truth buried beneath that matter, I am the original author of the much copied or emulated thesis that any purported economy subject to interest ultimately terminates itself under insoluble debt. In fact I provided the Reagan Administration computer models capable of calculating the maximum possible lifespan of any economy subject to interest ? which models not only projected Mr. Reagan’s tripling of U.S. national (federal) debt over two terms, but which projected from 1983 numbers, a terminal accumulation of aggregate U.S. debt and plausible word-wide monetary failure (if the form of currency was to then retained across the world) at approximately 2010 AD.
You can still download those models, complete with source code, from our pages. You can examine the source for logical flaws… whatever. But in fact the projections concur with real accumulation of debt.
In 1979 furthermore, after speaking about mathematically perfected economy? for ten years prior, I published a mathematic proof that there is one and one only integral solution to the categoric faults imposed by contemporary, purported economies. Note also, that Ms. Brown (and no one else as well) has invalidated that singular 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 ? which, altogether, we call mathematically perfected economy?. Her crude attempts to kludge together unqualified and already invalidated purported solutions therefore is in my opinion (and that of our supporters) a most irresponsible continuation of mere pretension.
I understand that Global Research may therefore feel itself put in an awkward position if you were to publish the invalidations of Ms. Brown’s unqualified and unjustified late-coming theses. But I also trust you realize it would be far more awkward and irresponsible to fail to do so, knowing full well the unscientific behavior of such evasion/exclusion, and its consequences.
I therefore hope you will publish at least the first of these articles, if not all three.
Should you desire to discuss this matter with me, I can be reached at [telephone deleted for privacy] (Pacific Time), or at Skype ID, [Skype ID deleted for privacy]. I welcome your call by either method.
Warm regards,
mike montagne
founder, PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy?; author, mathematically perfected economy? (1979)
In truth, by the nature of the monetary obligations which have been imposed upon us, the central banking system *already* makes itself the real owners of all indebted production until the whole of an eventually impossible monetary obligation comprised of interest plus principal is completely fulfilled.
The dispossession we are presently suffering and about to suffer are actually therefore, merely a finalization of the original misappropriation of justice.
Her proposition of solution has already been invalidated by my cited articles. But moreover, no element of her proposal actually reverses damages suffered so far to now (and potentially beyond), as prescribed by my article, “If I Were President…”
Once again then, Ellen Hodgson Brown leads us astray from solution. Worse, she does so knowingly, because she has already been apprised in the discourse of the cited articles that her assertions were not solution. It is she in fact who failed to respond with any defense whatever for her disproven assertions, but for retracting certain invalidated elements.
Yet she persists in the very same effort to retain concepts of a central bank and obfuscated interest/taxation upon posterity, which only obstructs us from real solution.
If the reader will digest my cited articles then, I suggest it will be obvious that Ms. Brown has never constructed a reasonable working model of her thesis; and that you will know this from any of the many critical questions which she fails here as well still to answer.
“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:
When it’s a runaway country and there’s no steering wheel, anybody is qualified to drive it into whatever it runs into next.
NOT FIT TO RULE. NOT EVEN FIT TO PRETEND TO BE FIT.
mike montagne
SHOWDOWN OR LETDOWN BETWEEN LOSERS? NOT FIT TO RULE!
NOT EVEN FIT TO PRETEND TO BE FIT
They say one of these guys is going to “win” the election. Never saw a contest moreso to be decided by default ??or maybe worse. When it’s a runaway country and there’s no steering wheel, anybody is qualified to drive it into whatever it runs into next.
What were the highlights?
Where was that fact you saw, that principle which certified either one of these clowns knew the first thing about how “an economy” works?
After all, McCain got his spelling book a few weeks ago, and four syllable words are in next year’s course. Obama is a smart guy alright; change you can believe in is to return a requested proposition of mathematically perfected economy? so that tonight he could show you who the real author of solution is.
You think he really knows better? You really do?
Here’s some of the biggest jokes of the evening for you:
McCain is going to help Wall Street ??just some of the SOBs who are stealing from the country ??by giving them tax breaks on capital gains. Pretty smart huh? If they’re losing their posteriors, there’s no gain to tax.
Now Obama, he was really clever about that. He concentrated on the fine points of the differences between their tax plans.
Nothing fundamentally wrong with “the economy” at all.
Now McCain… there he went again… he tells us we’re going to be better off when our home prices go up again.
Sure, bud. That’s A COST you’re talking about there… the increasing of which has us paying lifetime after lifetime for our own production to jokers in power (like you) who print the money for next to nothing.
Hey, what did the clown have to say about that?
He just smiled.
Hey, if that got you excited… by golly, America’s right on track alright.
We really know where we’re going *now*.
Then we had the real show. Afterward, Romney declared a “clear” win for McCain. Based on exactly what? After all, McCain will be fine without a steering wheel, and so will Palin. For that matter, so is Romney.
“Clear turning point” for McCain he declared it. Way to go Mitt. Company man all the way. *A* party of betrayal shall prevail. Goin’ down with the ship, lyin’ thru your teeth. And so practiced at it, we can see.
Then we had Hillary. Not a principle of monetary rectitude, or anything else mind you. Still claims the dot-com boom which of course actually failed was the largest industrial expansion in modern history. The same false boom in which few companies in thousands ever made a penny of profit. You know, ninety percent of funding routinely spent on company celebrations. You remember the survivors. Amazon? YEARS TO THE FIRST PENNY! And every other book store in the country has never been the same since.
Because there wasn’t any tangible success or indication of mastery to speak of, she claimed so predictably, “the Democrats ‘are ready to lead.’”
That’s just what we can tell alright. Like to where; by what?
Goin’ down with the ship, lyin’ thru your teeth. And so practiced at it, we can see.
Beaming, Hillary says “the American people are yearning!”
No, Hillary. They’re urinating!
So then “The Truth Squad” came on, and thank goodness. Basically, the truth squad (a rare thing in America, and particularly American politics) proved that if either one of these fellow’s mouth is moving, they’re lying.
Ooops. Bad word. Not supposed to say that about Presidents ??and man-o-man are these guys presidential!
Remember when you were 3 or 4 and just had to argue about who called who the worst name?
I got a lot out of that part especially. Except it was hard to tell where it ended or where it started; or if it ended.
We’d be better off voting for that truth squad. They might not have a plan. But at least they aren’t committed to a wrong plan. And at least they demonstrated some interest in the truth.
The truth squad professes… that most experts agree… that in the budgets advocated by all this slipstream verbiage… that Obama is going to increase federal deficits to something like $737 billion; McCain to $1 trillion.
What the heck? That’s true leadership, right? We’re not going to pay it anyway, right? We’re in such deep doo-doo already we aren’t even going to be paying the interest even ??so what?
So sit tight. Take on that nice, comfortable feeling tonight, knowing you’ve placed your fate in the right hands ??if it even makes a difference.
A while later we had David Walker, formerly of GAO, give us just a piece of the truth. Sure “Wall Street” took the debt clock down. There weren’t enough digits.
He did mention that the $10 trillion presumed “national debt” is a false figure. He said there’s another $40+ trillion which is not even on the balance sheet.
Imagine that. Others estimate those “unfunded near term federal liabilities” are over $100 trillion. WELL over.
But as he said, just each failing household’s share of so much of JUST *the [REAL] FEDERAL* debt as he admitted, is $480,000.
It doesn’t matter. America, you haven’t seen the tip of the crisis that YOU are making. Not even the tip.
I absolutely refuse to vote for either one of these yo-yos.
Worst election ever… at the most critical time in most of our lifetimes ??that is of course, unless you failed to right the country’s path in and around the first Great Depression. Or maybe ever after.
The clown and the joker are not fit to rule. They’re not even fit to pretend to be fit.
Wake up, America. You’re a wreck already happening.
“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:
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:
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™.