OPEN (ONLINE) COPY OF MIKE MONTAGNE’S PROPOSITION OF SINGULAR MONETARY SOLUTION, AS REQUESTED BY OBAMA CAMPAIGN

Monday, September 29, 2008, 10:13 AM

To *all* whom it may concern,

As agreed in the invitation extended to me in this past Thursday afternoon’s telephone conversation with Jackie, I address the Economic Policy Team, offering as I explained in that discussion:

1. to prove absolutely that under the monetary faults it is irresponsibly, merely purported to be capable of surviving, the monetary program so far offered by the Obama campaign can only inevitably fail;

2. to prove absolutely that no contending political proposition addresses or solves the fundamental causes of the present failure; and that if I were President, I could arrest the present process of collapse in 1 day; and that I could reverse the processes of failure by implementing a singular solution which a prepared candidate could implement in 1 month; and

3. to prove absolutely that only under the already qualified solution that I propose, will it be possible for our country (or the world) to achieve true prosperity, to the full extents we are otherwise capable of.

This proposition therefore would already be delivered to the Economic Policy Team which has yet to respond. But in other words yet, I offer to prove I can prevent anyone further from losing their home or business, or all further deserved property at stake. I declare that only by mathematically perfected economy? can we preserve and restore our employment and industry. I offer to prove that I can ensure in so much as a month, that we would achieve a far more vast prosperity than you propose. I declare in fact that what I offer you is the one and only prescription by which not only Americans, but the world can prosper to the full degree that we the people are naturally capable of.

By demonstrating its adversity or even disinclination to this proposition, the McCain campaign can only prove an even more destructive propensity for disservice and failure. It is therefore that only by the Obama campaign’s remote expression of interest in this proposition, that a chance exists for this country to conquer its problems immediately.

Nonetheless, if I can indeed provide what I offer, or if the problems this appeal identifies to you are true, to ignore this proposition therefore could be to willingly participate in engendering one of the greatest potential catastrophes in human history.

I realize still of course that you may say or think at first in response to the possible seeming audacity of such an offer, that I must be out of my mind. But on the contrary, if you are qualified to serve our country, and if you will ever succeed in truly serving our country, the very terms of my explicit offer are exactly what you must be capable of, and prepared to do.

Moreover, it is not I or these propositions which have evaded accountability; and it is time for the American People (and the world) to realize that the present styles of evasion are the very factory of our demise, for all our institutions, our academic disposition, our media, and a most corrupt, degenerate political body which reigns over us altogether without true public mandate or comprehension, have so little understood the present issues all this while (or have so feigned a contrary, unqualifiable understanding), that only when the irreversible faults of the present, iniquitous monetary system proved those unattended faults could only engender monetary failure, have any of you only now stood up to announce you are the ones to save us from failure.

I remind you further however, that you have now done so without advocating absolute solution, or even a proposition of solution which can be demonstrated to be reasonably plausible against the reservations I raise.

Even in the brevity of this letter, I shall soon sufficiently demonstrate that those faults have existed for some 100 years; that they have already produced a First Great Depression; and that they can only produce, a Second, a third, and so forth.

Thus if you are to prevail in the current campaign for the exceptional fact that you yourself can prove solution, then my arguments are absolutely vital to the purpose of the American People truly perceiving that you and you alone can and will serve them.

As I meant for this appeal to be forwarded directly to Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden, and as I expect it to reach them one way or another, and in one form or another, I will therefore address the candidates directly in the remainder of this proposition:

You, Mr. Obama of course, made a now well known speech using the famous Hopi parable that “we are the ones we have been waiting for.” I submit this assertion will only be proven if you receive my appeal well; and that on the contrary, we are merely the ones who can afford to wait for an inept and corrupt government to solve our problems no longer. Your campaign slogan asserts (it does not prove) that you stand for “change we can believe in.” I submit that if either of your propositions are so, then I will hear from you at your earliest convenience.

Let us set the table:

4. Essentially, to fulfill the promises so far set forth, I must prove that quantitatively, your proposition of mere investment in technological advancements (which we may already be sufficiently capable of), will be defeated by the greater underlying processes which already have us at the brink of monetary failure.

5. You on the other hand, to prove the contrary, would have to prove:

   1. that the very modest scope of your program will be affordable all that while;

   2. that it will survive further, inevitable, and otherwise irreversible manifestation of the failure over a potentially extensive period, over which your program must, but is only presumed to mature;

   3. and that after whatever such period transpires for a potentially great while, the assumable results of your program will still be consumable (affordable) by an American and World Public which, to afford the further costs of implementation, must not only survive the continuing process which engenders failure ??but must further do so, preserving an unfathomable capability to afford costs which they cannot afford now, while further, inevitable multiplication of terminal debt upon us on the contrary, will only further destroy our present, insufficient capability to afford what we can now, all the further.

Even from this scant expression of requisites, reasonable people will understand that your proposition can and probably will be defeated on any of these critical counts.

But even in abstract terms Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden, the raw issues of our controversy comprise a tall order for you to meet, for first of all, to deny the opposing, degenerative processes of the system which have now produced the specter of an utter failure already capable of defeating all industry in the near term, is itself essentially to deny you have anything to solve. Obviously on the contrary, no such proposition or position could be more inept or irresponsible.

In fact nonetheless, I produced computer models which proved that disposition wrong (and which thus invalidate the mere assumed prospects of your program), way back in 1983.

So you will not be alone in failing to answer to the present appeal, because in fact every United States President since and including Gerald Ford has been apprised in detail of the fact of one and one only solution to the processes which can only engender the present failure before us.

But in 1983 as I say, I provided the Reagan Administration with:

6. mathematic proofs that any monetary system subject to a privatized currency of the present nature can only inherently and irreversibly multiply debt in proportion to a vital circulation, until the system fails under an inevitable sum of terminal insoluble debt which the system can no longer afford to service;

7. a mathematic proof there is one and one only 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;

8. further mathematic proofs that Reagan’s proposed three years reduction of federal tax rates, 10-percent-per-year, would either offset price inflation exceeding 10-percent per year, or of course solve its causes;

9. computer models, complete with source code (which was released to pre-internet bulletin boards), capable of forwardly projecting the inherent multiplication of debt by any purported economy subject to interest, and thus capable of calculating the maximum possible lifespan of any monetary system such as has been imposed upon us.

I may thus claim to have extensive experience with the disservice of our country; and I may further assert that the ensuing controversy ??his side of which Mr. Reagan never qualified, and because of which he failed all the while ??eventually resulted in the resignation of David Stockman, who of course was asked to mask the failure by prejudicing mathematic formulas to falsely depict prosperity in the face of the monumental debt the Reagan Administration in fact amassed. You may remember that Mr. Reagan ascended to the presidency after pronouncing the seemingly mere $150 b of federal debt accumulated by Mr. Carter in 4 years, as “unforgivable.”

But I can also tell you that those models, together with explanation as I now offer you, projected that converse to his own claims, Reagan would triple the national debt of the entire previous history of our nation. Those models, which no contrary model disproves, merely account for the underlying process which your “economic” program does not account for. They show that for political disservice which has purposely preserved this unwarranted destruction, the inherent and inseparable process of the present, pretended economy, if not rectified by mathematically perfected economy?, would result in world-wide monetary failure at approximately 2010 AD.

To test whether this is true in fact, you can still download the source code and working models from our web pages; you can still run 1980 numbers in those projection models; and you will still come up with that answer ??inevitable monetary failure at approximately 2010 AD ??the accumulation of debt in which in fact perfectly concurs with the actual accumulation of debt to now, because the projection merely replicates the process of multiplication by prescribed interest rates, and so forth.

Your “Economic” Policy Team of course may assert to you that this idea is preposterous. Disprove it then with a fitting and accountable invalidation of these models. Disprove it by invalidating the underlying thesis. On my web pages, you will find already existing invalidations of every class of attempt to disprove mathematically perfected economy? so far. So of course, unless you can exceed these attempts at disproof over the past 30 years, you therefore cannot even introduce any new material.

But no one has disproven mathematically perfected economy? is the singular integral solution for what it claims to solve; and so, unless you can find a flaw in the supporting arguments that no one else has, neither will you.

It would be a most dangerous and irresponsible thing therefore, to fail to respond to my proposition; and I don’t think the American People are going to put up with much more of that genre of ineptitude and abuse from a purported representative government. If they shall be asked to in fact, our Constitution, our republic, and the very rule of law and principles upon which each can only survive, are in fact usurped by mere pretenders, the likes of which we should rid from our country forever.

I remind you however, Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden, that I am not alone in my capability and intention to defend my country from its enemies, foreign and domestic. As I respected you, Mr. Biden recently, for informing General Petraeus that no one was buying the purported success of the “surge,” I submit that no person in their right mind can accept the present “economic” program of this campaign as a solution for the underlying problems which will defeat your program as surely as they are presently defeating the last of our surviving industry. Our country is already gutted by that process and its advocates’ further “privatization.” To further pursue the present, inevitably destructive course of those unwarranted and unassented processes, is nothing short of treason.

Our founding fathers indeed presented even to you the principles of which I now write. But they did not solve them, even if we can see each, Jefferson, Franklin, John Adams, Andrew Jackson, and Abraham Lincoln, were about to do just that. Many others ??including great, yet-unvindicated congressional leaders of past history such as Congressman Louis T. McFadden ??left a record pointing to the solution I advocate that you are bound irrevocably to implement, by all duty to the American People and their Constitution.

The history of our country is pervaded by a struggle against usury, in which, only by the abuse or usurpation of representation, the usurers have now prevailed.

Yet Thomas Jefferson told us long ago:

If the American people ever allow banks to issue their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, 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.

In submitting these observations, Jefferson of course replied to Alexander Hamilton and President Washington, who asked at Hamilton’s behest that Jefferson advise the President as to the constitutionality of a national bank. Despite the now proven quality of Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank, Mr. Washington, perhaps like you, favored the unfounded arguments of Mr. Hamilton, who of course served the interests of usury.

But what did Jefferson mean, “first by inflation and then by deflation”?

To interpret this potentially profound observation, we can only ourselves observe that by having to maintain a vital circulation by perpetually re-borrowing principal and interest as subsequent sums of debt, a purported monetary system such as we have been subjected to against our will and our Constitution can only perpetually increase the sum of debt until we suffer complete monetary failure.

After all, to maintain a vital circulation, we are compelled to re-borrow principal paid out of the general circulation as subsequent sums of debt, equal to the previous sum of debt it would otherwise resolve. To the degree that we must do this then, of course it is impossible to pay down the sum of debt.

But furthermore, to the degree that to replenish the circulation we are constantly compelled to re-borrow interest, this unassented system can only perpetually increase the sum of debt in proportion to a vital circulation, until the system succumbs to a terminal sum of debt which it can no longer afford to service.

I therefore submit that this is what Mr. Jefferson meant by a [simultaneous] combination of inflation and deflation, for in fact there is no more critical thing to understand about interest, but that regardless of any practical rate imposed for unearned profit, it is inherently usurious and inevitably terminal. I further tell you that in their time, it is understandable that the founders had not yet resolved these observations into a perfected solution; nor should we expect then that they left a perfected monetary prescription in the Constitution. Instead, to their eternal credit, they expressed in the one sentence of the Preamble, that it is our duty, whatever the state of the Constitution as amended, to perfect the union.

All the while of this process of inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt of course, ever more of the circulation is dedicated to servicing debt; ever less of the circulation is left to sustain the industry which is compelled to service the artificial multiplication of debt; the debt nonetheless increases at an ever escalating rate of ever greater sums of periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt; the costs of servicing debt infringe to ever greater degrees on margins of solubility; surviving industry is even expatriated; and we can only eventually suffer complete and even world-wide monetary failure so long as we persist in the unauthorized and unassented imposition of usury, which no “economist” *has ever* proven is sustainable.

So indeed further, the personnel who might so readily dismiss this proposition without even due courtesy, cannot even cite a single theorem or proof of the pseudo-science, “economics,” which is not only wholly bereft of any such thing, but is the very curse for which we suffer.

Nor then has the opposition modeled the ostensible sustainability they merely contend exists. In fact all history has refuted that opposing proposition.

Yet you hope to prevail in a modest program, the whole of which quantitatively is far less than the present rates of this multiplication of debt; and which only hopes to survive that process without solving it?

I dare say that would be quite preposterous, gentlemen!

With all due respect then, I offer to refute your program or any further, contrary assertions, and to further explain mathematically perfected economy? however it is necessary, that we can establish solution and preserve the objects every true republic in history will exist for.

Obviously, it would be an honor to serve you in that object of my country and the world; and so I hope somehow that our country can turn from its dark ways, that without ensuring any further progress of the present catastrophes, together we can instead achieve goals which humanity has long intended, and will forever intend.

I then am not the one we have been waiting for. In fact I have long been here, advocating and proving the singular possible solution many have long ignored.

If you want to end their wait in due course, I expect and hope, in perpetual faith to the truth of these matters, to hear from you at your earliest possible convenience.

On the other hand, if I do not hear from you just so soon, I inform you that you offer no change we can believe in, gentlemen. As an American citizen just the same, I mean to settle for nothing less.

With just that faith in principle,

“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)

In fact, if not a derivative ever existed, we would yet be at the brink of monetary failure right now. mike montagne

No, Ellen. It’s NOT the Derivatives, STUPID!

Ellen Hodgson Brown (”Web of Debt”) has quite a few questions still to answer as to how the colonial currency she referred to as “the most brilliant banking model in our national history,” possibly was even intended to solve inflation ??much less that it establishes solution or accounts for the further issues which, only if solved, would rectify a monetary system. Instead, Ellen (and now Ron Paul?) purports there’s a plurality of ways far more complicated than mathematically perfected economy?, all of which Simple Simon says fixes the tainted, private Federal Reserve System. Why heck, thanks to all the folks who suddenly understand “economy” so well, we’re in fine shape if we just learn “it’s the derivatives, stupid.” Which of course is the title of her recent article.

“Something extraordinary is going on with these government bailouts,” she writes; and as if she has put her finger on that “extraordinary” thing, she quotes “economist” Robert Chapman:

“The point everyone misses,” wrote economist Robert Chapman a decade ago, “is that buying derivatives is not investing. It is gambling, insurance and high stakes bookmaking. Derivatives create nothing.”

No Ellen, and Mr. Chapman as well, I have news for you: “Investing” isn’t “investing,” either. Nor (likewise) does it create or produce anything. On the contrary, the very “investing” you yourself miss is all about unearned taking; and so, because it takes from the pool of wealth (production) without like contribution, the only possible consequence of this purported “investing” is that real producers are deprived of just reward for their production.

After all, what is Wall Street itself, but gambling? Is anything produced there?

Except for the case of an IPO, how much of all the money wagered there is ever “invested” in real industry, actual production?

Wall Street in fact therefore is one of our greatest problems, because if the prosperity of “Wall Street” can only come at the expense of real producers, then we should understand that at every moment, the better “Wall Street” “does,” the worse free enterprise can possibly fare.

Why rescue Wall Street at all then? (Is the question, Ellen.)

So yet, Ellen complains,

“We the taxpayers are on the hook for the Fed’s “enhanced liquidity facilities,” meaning the loans it has been making to everyone in sight, bank or non-bank, exercising obscure provisions in the Federal Reserve Act that may or may not say they can do it. What’s going on here? Why not let the free market work?”

Well, it’s not a free market at all then, Ellen. The so called Federal Reserve System, like Wall Street, is an arena where our potential industry is plundered to death, to the obliteration of any reward to anyone who actually produces anything.

But since when is the Federal Reserve Act itself constitutional?

Why then would a lawyer cite it, or require confirmation from it, that we “may or may not” invoke a public bailout of something which a real “economist” would already understand, can only damage us?

No Ellen, the horse does not trail the cart. In fact, if not a derivative ever existed, we would yet be at the brink of monetary failure right now.

What’s more, neither is it “the quality” of the loans, for which we’re at the brink of failure.

Au contraire, it’s inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt by interest which alone can explain how we have owed far more than we have ever produced; and for which debt can only multiply further, as, just to maintain a vital circulation, we are compelled to re-borrow principal and interest, as subsequent sums of debt, perpetually increased so much as periodic interest.

Purported experts who tell us otherwise therefore ensure we falter further, for it is your very cherry-picking of unqualified solutions which neither you, or Stephen Zarlenga, or Ron Paul, or Edwin Vieira, or G. Edward Griffin, or Jaikaran will debate, which confuse the people from the one thing which will save them: mathematically perfected economy?.

How do you maintain a circulation subject to interest without engendering monetary failure Ellen, where any of that interest is profit and where any of the circulation must be maintained by perpetually re-borrowing principal and interest as a subsequent sum of debt, perpetually increased above the previous sum of debt by so much as periodic interest?

Isn’t that even exactly why you have come up with your ridiculous, unfounded explanation, asserting this is how the Pennsylvania Currency worked?

How do you otherwise service debt subject to interest without suffering the present consequences, as the interest and principal we must reborrow to maintain a vital circulation perpetually increases the sum of debt so much as periodic interest?

Did derivatives multiply debt; or did interest?

Do you deny this is what the very so called Federal Reserve System was imposed for? Do all your obfuscations of interest mean to deny that’s the very purpose of interest? Do you mean to retain interest, by obfuscating it as taxation in your miserable explanation the Pennsylvania Currency was the most brilliant banking model in our national history?

Since you claim now to account so well for these obvious quantities and processes, where did I go awry in the source code which predicted this failure in 1983 from the very inherent, irreversible process of multiplication of debt by interest?

Franklin himself disputed gold could claim all the things which Mr. Paul simply repeats again and again without qualification. How is it you and Mr. Paul are so opposed to an interest free economy ??the only real economy possible?

Why would you reject solution of the observations of Mr. Jefferson, who reportedly said, “If the American People *ever* allow the banks to issue their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, 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?”

Is this not the process I’ve outlined, in which we must maintain a vital circulation subject to interest by re-borrowing (re-inflation of) what we pay out of the general circulation (deflation)… is this not an inherently simultaneous process, just as Thomas Jefferson told us?

Moreover, did Thomas Jefferson look to Hamilton’s National Bank Bill to find its constitutionality; or did he look not only to the Constitution itself, but to the arguments which established it?

It’s really very simple, Ellen: As a privatized (or even public) currency subject to interest forces us (only by denying us any form of currency but an unconstitutional form of currency subject to interest) to any degree and in any instance(s) to maintain a vital circulation by re-borrowing interest, then the sum of debt multiplies at an ever escalating rate of ever greater increments of just so much periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt, until we collapse under an eventual, terminal sum of debt.

Why are *some* “banks” failing?

Well, you and I would find it impossible to fail, having taken the unauthorizable powers the private Federal Reserve System has taken.

But let’s just think just a moment what happens as the so called Federal Reserve System can only multiply debt:

Well now, hugely devious behavior alone could collapse a “federal” “reserve” “bank.” But what about all these other banks?

They’re just middlemen. They’re caught in the squeeze between the privatized currency’s publishers and the poor bastards who are forced to service the perpetually multiplying sum of debt. The Federal Reserve prints “the money” for nothing; but after that, though no risk is involved to the so called Federal Reserve Banks, it represents an obligation to the middle-men ??the subservient private banks in between.

As the sum of debt multiplies, more and more money has to be loaned back into circulation to replenish it of the deflation Mr. Jefferson has explained to you and Mr. Paul. All the while, ever more of a circulation is dedicated to servicing the escalating sum of debt, while ever less is left to sustain the commerce or industry which is obliged to service the debt. Margins of solubility are impossible to sustain, because the costs of servicing the debt eventually make sustainability impossible.

All the while, these middle institutions are required to produce collateral, and to paint pictures of themselves which falsely depict their own sustainability; for without the false portraits, they can’t loan the further money not only necessary for the subjects of involuntary servitude to survive, but for the middle banks themselves to survive by collecting for the central bank.

Well, naturally then, as the impossibility of sustaining the escalating sum of debt draws nigh, they devise lies which obfuscate whether they or their marginalized clients are so worthy to borrow further. They’re no longer really worthy. But they lie to tread water. That’s what derivatives are, Ellen. They’re the lies of the drowning victims, who in fact can only be saved by eradicating interest. Quite obviously, we the People cannot be saved by imposing the cost of the middle “bank’s” failures on we, the victims, whose failures already signify our inability even to bear such further burden.

So, telling the people so long after others that this is a Ponzi scheme Ellen just doesn’t convey the picture the people need. You have advocated a brilliant banking model, as if a banking model is what we require.

But in fact we need to rid ourselves not only of banking models, but of the very concept that banks or their proponents (such as yourself) have ever justified “interest.” The producer is the real creditor Ellen, because it is the producer who accepts the paper, ether, or whatever token of wealth (”money”), on the faith that media is forever redeemable in whatever it is purported to represent.

Your “banking models” just pave the way for an extrinsic, further party to intercede between the creditor and debtor, while the usurping creditor of course will only ever do so for profit ??and of course, unearned profit at that.

Of course then, granting them leeway toward unearned profit at all is folly, because maximimal unearned profit then becomes the quest of many, and many more, to whatever degree possible, in what you call a “free market.”

As I have shown in the response to you which has yet to receive a credible reply, one and one only monetary prescription at all times preserves the redeemability of the debtor’s obligation. Likewise, mathematically perfected economy? alone makes it possible in all cases to acquire for our production an equal measure of the production of others. Under mathematically perfected economy?, monetary obligations (debts free of interest) are at all times redeemable, both in like production and the remaining value of the very wealth the currency of mathematically perfected economy? alone represents.

So no Ellen, you’re wrong again: It’s not the derivatives, stupid, which either symbolize or are the cause of the present deterioration which for your fame’s sake we have neglected to now to the brink of collapse. Derivatives in fact preserved the system for yet another false day of artificial sustention, that even authorities such as yourself have that further day yet to realize no, it’s the interest, stupid!

It’s the interest; it’s the interest; it’s the interest…

RELATED MATERIAL

1. VOTE NO ON THE BAILOUT (votenobailout.org)
2. IT’S THE DERIVATIVES, STUPID! WHY FANNIE, FREDDIE AND AIG ALL HAD TO BE BAILED OUT, BY ELLEN HODGSON BROWN
3. Ron Paul News Quotes Ellen Hodgson Brown
4. my OPINION ON THE PENNSYLVANIA CURRENCY ADVOCATED BY ELLEN HODGSON BROWN IN ‘WEB OF DEBT’
5. ABOUT INTEREST, KEY TO THE CYCLE OF USURY: ‘IT’S THE INTEREST, STUPID, IT’S THE INTEREST’
6. Why Have Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Ron Paul, Edwin Vieira and So Many Others Failed to Deliver Solution?
7. EVALUATION OF JEFFERSON’S OPINION ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A NATIONAL BANK

“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)

HOW GREAT THE LIES — AN “UNPRECEDENTED” POLITICAL RESPONSE?

Today’s Washington Post article, “Credit Crisis Triggers Unprecedented U.S. Response” (David Cho and Neil Irwin), asserts an “unprecedented” coincidental peril and response to a crisis in debt. How little then we study history.

The first paragraph of the article introduces its proposition thus:

Of course, the so called credit crisis did not “erupt” a year ago.

On the contrary, the present circumstances are the product of a long-term process which can only multiply debt into terminal sums of insoluble debt; and the only reason the mainstream media has not constantly warned you of these inevitable consequences of this process all the while is they have actively cooperated in preventing you from understanding it.

Nor is “the government” really expanding into private lending, because the private Federal Reserve corporation issues the money; and the debts are owed the Federal Reserve Corporations.

All this therefore is an intentional deception.

All the government is really doing is pretending to take a role from which the tax payers might be convinced they have some incumbent responsibility to “rescue it,” should “the government” say so.

But what the taxpayer is really rescuing is not “the government”; on the contrary, what you are claimed to be obliged to rescue is the middlemen for the private Federal Reserve corporations who have been asked to collect the so called Federal Reserve’s ultimately impossible magnitude of dispossession from you.

What you are really being asked to rescue then is artificial debt — and your own artificial sum of debt which you already cannot rescue at that !

You are being asked to rescue the fact the unassented profit making process of the privatized circulation can only multiply debt in proportion to the circulation.

You are being asked to rescue a thing which is impossible to rescue, because it can only multiply debt into terminal debt, and because the whole present reason for concern is you already cannot service the present sum of debt.

You therefore are the party in need of rescue.

What the article is purposely mis-informing you of then is that rather than actually fix the causes and intended injustices of the imposed system, a government bent instead on endless abuse of power intends to forever protect the predatory system from you — it intends forever to retain upon you a system which can only plunder you to death again and again and again.

So while the mainstream media has been making a question of the certain fact you’re already in a recession, what you are seeing everywhere around you is the very purposed multiplication of artificial sums of debt which caused the first Great Depression:

You are simply the victims of a purposely irresponsive government which for its pitiful share of illimitable profit preserves a system which can only multiply debt upon us as we are forced perpetually to attempt to replenish a vital circulation by re-borrowing the interest and principal we are forced to pay out of the general circulation. This of course perpetually increases the sum of debt by ever greater increments of ever more periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt… and so inevitably, the ever increasing sum of debt is multiplied beyond our finite capacity to service it.

To understand how absurd the very idea of rescuing the middlemen for the central bank is, contemplate how it is impossible for the central bank [but to artificially] fail, because it is virtually impossible for it not to be profitable; it has negligible real costs; therefore it can only fail by artificial emptying of it.

The only reason the middle-men fail is they are forced to pay the central bank even for society’s impossible obligation to service debt by perpetually greater borrowing. The only reason there is a problem now (as we see), is that the irreversible process of multiplying debt has now exceeded the very possibility a credit-worthiness can remain, sufficient to justify further borrowing.

No moreso than the victims of the first Great Depression (you) could be made to rescue the “banks” which caused your failure however… will you now be able to rescue the “banks” which will cause your present failure.

You’re soon instead to be made street people.

No, the federal government is not exposing itself to any such risk; it is exposing the unassenting taxpayer, because it intends to compel the taxpayer to pay.

This is all a lie.

The real problem here is only that for providing us absolutely nothing we cannot provide ourselves entirely without such cost, the imposed monetary system can only multiply debt. Now that it has multiplied debt into a terminal sum of debt, on top of the fatal injury the usurpers intend for you to pay further consequences which are impossible to pay.

But that will never happen, if only because it will be impossible for you to pay those consequences as well.

What you are to do is recognize the enemy by their declared intent. The whole idea smells from its beginning to its near end.

The present circumstances are hardly “unprecedented,” because they concur with the first Great Depression.

That’s almost funny. I called it a “contagion” clear back in 1979. Unless the process just started yesterday, that hardly makes the “spread” “rapid.”

But what do the authors mean by “spread”?

Nothing has suddenly “spread.” Multiplication of indebtedness is spread from the very beginning of a monetary system which can only multiply all debt in proportion to the circulation. What the authors are really testifying to is the negligence for which they failed to recognize that debt was reaching terminal limits in all these areas. The like forces multiplying debt everywhere hardly make the near simultaneous reaching of the bounds of indebtedness “sudden.”

More utter bull. Unbelievable numbers of Americans have barely serviced their interest on short term debt for decades.

“We’ve never seen anything like that before?”

No way. They’ve seen it everywhere before; and if they get their way they will see it everywhere again only to tell you they’ve never seen it before, because after this lifespan ends they intend still to retain the very cause, which is the system by which they take illimitable profit from you via “interest.”

Two sentences later in fact they tell you they have seen “markets” (arenas of their predation) “hammered by such a variety of factors.”

Sure they have. They caused those factors in the first Depression. They have caused them all this while to now. They will continue to cause them now; and they will continue to cause them in the future, not because the false government they parade before you represents you, but because the government they raise before you is to preserve them.

It doesn’t matter that there weren’t credit cards then. The process of maintaining a circulation subject to interest affects everything subject to interest. Credit cards are not “new,” but in terms of a way to subject you and acclimatize you to dispossession via interest. Like the money they impose upon you, credit cards are mere vehicles to serve the greater cause of usury.

An utter lie.

They aren’t plugging leaks in the financial system ! If they were fixing the financial system, the fixed system would eradicate what multiplies debt to wholly unnecessary artificial sums of debt.

The fixed system therefore would have no power to impose a wholly artificial failure !

What they are doing is pretending that they’re fixing a system which can only multiply debt into a terminal sum of debt (a fix that is impossible without mathematically perfected economy™).

But all the while, when the system they know can only fail does fail, they’re hoping the facade prevents you from understanding who imposed that failure upon you to dispossess you.

That’s right. The truth is they’re planning on screwing you every which way you can be screwed.

But “tens of billions” “of dollars” my hind quarter. Didn’t they just tell us “the government” was putting itself to risk for *TRILLIONS*?

They have already told you they intend to screw you a thousand times “tens of billions” of “dollars”. They screw you out of more than that already every year.

The very article already guarantees your losses to be trillions — and that’s just what the sorry mainstream media is finally confessing to… because regardless of their earlier efforts to suppress what were not “probable” dire consequences, but certain, terminal ramifications… the magnitude of inevitable risks should have been anticipated by any and every citizen, right through the steady stream of lies.

From the very beginning the inherent risks of usury were inevitable and obvious.

So “tens of billions” “of dollars” is an obvious intended lie. It’s not even a sufficient sum to be concerned about.

In fact each of *many* imperiled “financial institutions” (middlemen for the central bank) is “at risk” (of certain death) far more than that.

So it’s all the most extensive, most concerted lie.

No, we have seen this before; and it’s all only the inevitable consequences of a process which can only inherently and irreversibly multiply debt in proportion to a circulation.

After all, it was just a lifetime ago that usury could only have caused the first Great Depression.

These are the few simple facts of usury; and from them we are to understand that usury indeed will cause a very avoidable second Great Depression.

Absolutely, we’ve seen all this before. There’s nothing unprecedented whatever, but that we know how to solve inherent multiplication of debt and (evidently) are less than a people who would do so.

We the republic which would not stand for itself, grant a government which only refuses to represent us free license to let the thieves get off scot free… because they are the thieves !

In the midst of the first Great Depression, testifying before the House of Representatives on June 10, 1932, Congressman Louis T. McFadden informed you what a government which serves the unassented central bank again intends to do:

So, no America, there’s nothing “unprecedented” about all this at all; and if you don’t start screaming for mathematically perfected economy™ now, you’re about to get a government which will ensure the singular fate of usury.

RELATED ARTICLES

1. “Credit Crisis Triggers Unprecedented U.S. Response” (David Cho and Neil Irwin, Washington Post)
2. Congressman Louis T. McFadden testifying before the House of Representatives on June 10, 1932

“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)

WHERE DID OUR INDUSTRY GO? WHY CAN’T WAGES KEEP PACE WITH PRICE INFLATION?

The present conditions are the long term culmination of a process which is intrinsic to a privatized currency subject to interest — an imposed system, to which none of us have ever assented.

Even just a year or so ago, although the present conditions were sufficiently obvious at the turn of the century and long before, you couldn’t convince an “economist” we had anything to be concerned about. Not even rising debt. Not even our vanished industry. Not even our rapid descent in education, health care, or infrastructures.

I’ve been formally warning of the consequences of this irreversible process since 1979; and less formally for 10 years before that.

Today, 40 years of obstructed and actually deteriorating prosperity later, governors are holding emergency meetings and proposing to sell off state highways to meet budget deficits. If they don’t fix the real problem, what will they do when all the highways are gone, or no one can afford to use any further infrastructures the states might betray us further by offering up to even higher costs, forever? We have paid for those highways. We created them. Now, what right does any state have to sell them from us, only to pay budget deficits engendered by their own ineptitude or allegiance to a system which can only multiply such debt and costliness upon us?

Now suddenly, it is fashionable for pretend “economists” to feign reaching for fundamental causes; and, like true shills of the central banking systems imposed upon the world, they’re purposely not reaching deep enough. They complain of symptoms as if they are on your side; but their work is presented both in volume and in context to deny you understanding of the causes at hand, that by your purposed obstruction of understanding, usury can be perpetuated upon you, hopefully forever.

Humanity inevitably will rise above this self-imposed scourge. We will repulse usury, because no good thing we can intend to do can survive in its presence. I can save your state’s highways and your homes if you will hear me out.

You reach for fundamental causes. But not deep enough.

The fundamental cause of all this is inherent multiplication of debt by interest; that we have tolerated a system which from its inception was purposed to take from us by multiplication of debt; and that this process of unearned taking from us can only drive up costs to us moreso than it is mathematically possible for our wages to keep pace.

All the things before you are to be expected; I’ll tell you why:

Any purported economy subject to interest can only multiply debt in proportion to the respective circulation, because such a form of circulation obligates us to maintain a circulation merely so that we can service debt; and because to maintain a circulation, we are compelled perpetually to re-borrow periodic principal and interest obligations paid out of the general circulation, as subsequent sums of debt perpetually increased so much as periodic interest on the ever escalating sum of debt.

To maintain margins of solubility, industry therefore is perpetually compelled to raise its prices to cover the rising costs of its obligations to directly or even to indirectly service the perpetually escalating sum of debt.

This is the real, fundamental cause of price inflation.

Why does industry leave?

When industry can no longer afford to raise its prices because the indebted market cannot bear the necessary increases, it is forced to leave.

And so “our” industry goes to countries where pretty young Chinese girls will work for 40 cents an hour, condemned to work on the streets if they ever violate the rules of the slave market, and lose their “license” to work.

Why can’t our wages keep pace with the rising costs of servicing the ever escalating sum of debt?

Our wages cannot keep pace with the rising costs of servicing the ever escalating sum of debt, because the nature of the process is to multiply debt in proportion to the related circulation.

What does is significant about a process which multiplies debt in proportion to the related circulation?

If maintaining a vital circulation inherently multiplies the sum of debt in proportion to the circulation, then ever more of the circulation is dedicated to servicing debt, leaving ever less to sustain the industry (wages, etc.) which are compelled to service the debt.

That’s really pretty simple, if you think about it.

So what else might happen if you perpetually and irreversibly multiply debt in proportion to the circulation?

Ultimately and inevitably you generate a sum of debt which the system can no longer afford to service.

And that day is here.

It’s time to wake up folks; it’s time to do something about it; and mathematically perfected economy™ is what you have to do.

As Larry Ward said, all the economic “solution” that any of the present lot of pretender candidates can promise you is a deck chair on the Titanic.

While these charlatans have proposed to be responsible for near perpetual “growth,” their falsely claimed growth has even banished practically *all* our industry. That’s quite a lie to pass off as an emperor’s robe.

If I were president (and of course I realize I would probably never be), I believe I could restore real prosperity in as little as a day by suspending all payments against debts to banking institutions. If I were president, I’d try Congress for treason if it wasted an hour in establishing mathematically perfected economy™. If I were president (that’s right, I don’t capitalize the title here), I would guide you through a painless, brief transition period, where, having your debts to financial institutions suspended, you would immediately have far more to spend than you can now; I would restore to you the savings you have been deprived by usury, that you can live the rest of your lives without social programs; I would refinance all your debt without interest; I would pay off your public debts with a like, irredeemable promise to pay; I would re-schedule your payment of debt to the rate of consumption of the related asset, that for instance a $100,000 home with a 100-year lifespan would be paid off at the overall rate of $1,000 per year, or $83.33 per month.

There is no reason why the candidates before you cannot do this, but that they serve your usurers. It’s getting late, folks. If you don’t want to lose your country forever, it’s time to assert your right to 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)

DOES EXECUTIVE ORDER 11110 ABOLISH THE FEDERAL RESERVE?

It has been asserted that John Fitzgerald Kennedy’s Executive Order 11110, issued June 4, 1963, effectively abolishes the so called Federal Reserve:

PFMPE™ used to maintain material regarding EO 11110. EO 11110 does not in fact try to abolish the Federal Reserve (which of course may be a weakness).

Much like Ron Paul and Edwin Vieira’s efforts to return to the gold standard, EO 11110 attempts to restore issuance of silver certificates by government — in effect circumventing the Federal Reserve only so much as silver monetary reserves might exist.

Like the proposition of returning to the gold standard, there is no power in EO 11110 whatever to resolve the insoluble sum of public and private debt; relieve us of interest on that debt; relieve us of further multiplication of that debt into terminal debt; solve price or circulatory inflation, or deflation; or restore damages inflicted by the usurious central banking systems which have been imposed upon us without public assent.

*Because* EO 11110 was only a first step toward such further rectifications, obviously the expectation of further rectification may explain the assassination and the subsequent refrain by all further presidents (shills of usury) from addressing the problem.

EO 11110 therefore is not enough. Nor is a return to the gold standard, or mere dissolution of the so called Federal Reserve.

If we are ever to achieve solution, the populace must understand solution.

Why?

The understanding of true solution alone proves we are denied representation; and therefore only a real, broad understanding of the perfection of economy comprises the immovable force against which no usurpation of representation can stand.

RELATED EXTERNAL ARTICLES

1. John Fitzgerald Kennedy’s Executive Order 11110

“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)

ANSWER TO A QUESTION FROM NEW YORK — HOW TO DETERMINE THE VALUE OF MONEY “EXACTLY”

Among many good questions, Patrick Hedemark of New York is concerned with how (or whether) to determine the value of money “exactly.” I explain that no such method really exists (not even in a precious metal monetary standard), and that it’s not critical that we lack such a method:

1. The first thing to remember is that until a perfect system of determining the value of productive efforts is ascertained, it cannot be a just object of a monetary system or a government to impose an imperfect method of evaluation.

   Even if you make the value of a unit of money ostensibly equal to a fixed quantity of a finite substance such as gold, the truth is that the costs and derived value of every produced unit of gold are not equal.

   Some period of conditions may justify producing gold as necessary. Others may not. Why not let a truly free market determine the relative value of gold?

   In some cases, the market might justify producing more expensive gold for instance, after the less expensive gold is occupied by existent consumption. Yet if some day we intended to justly determine that it generally requires at least so much cost or effort to produce an ounce of gold, and if we make that the “value” of “money,” then that money thus cannot be a market-determined token of value of all things; nor can it be a market-determined value of gold.

   But if we have fixed the value of gold below a later, higher cost of production, we will have made it un-cost-worthy to render the production the market may yet later need. Thus, even by fixing a value which once was just, later, more expensive conditions of production may preclude prospective producers from mining gold for a future market, simply because the fixed price is insufficient to cover the costs of production.

   Can the whole valuation system change so that the fixed price can be accommodated by the market for gold?

   It is pretentious to assert any system has such a capacity unless all values and monetary commitments are perpetually adjusted to all such developments. In fact, no system but mathematically perfected economy™ provides such a mechanism, because only mathematically perfected economy™ provides truly free markets, and because only mathematically perfected economy™ makes it possible for each market both to determine and to fetch just prices, without affecting the value bases of all other markets.

2. Nor is any reasonable method of evaluation critical to mathematically perfected economy™.

   If the cost of productive effort is justified to both the consumer and producer, MPE™ alone sustains (without inflation/deflation or multiplication of debt) not only the transaction, but the work necessary to repay the monetary obligation.

3. Thirdly then, because the development of expedient and comprehensive methods of evaluation is useful to all of us in every prospective endeavor or transaction, we can and should develop and debate ideas, and we can refine an agreeable concept by solving for our differences.

   But even then, unless our ultimate method of determining value is perfect, have we a right, or is it even necessarily useful, that we impose it?

Just about anyone on the planet has spent most of their adult years again and again conjuring how to conceive of the relative value of what we do, in respect to the value of whatever each of the rest of us does. This thinking is all that justifies any endeavor or transaction. Some of us take the thinking seriously. Sometimes casual consideration suffices.

We may have heard ridiculously uncomprehensive concepts which are purported to account for value. In a certain case, a claimed 400 or some odd “scientists” for instance have endorsed making “energy” the currency of trade, without the first explanation of how we would justly do so; and so, as the following arguments invalidate the proposition of making time the unit of currency, so to do they invalidate mere energy as a singular basis of value. In the least, we are to understand that both are inappropriate because they do not account for all the vital factors which comprise value or justify production.

You want to consider making *time* the unit of the currency. Why won’t that work?

Let’s say you have X number of children, and you need them to weed the back yard. Being a fair man, you do your best to divide the yard, despite its different numbers and kinds of weeds and terrain, into an equal task for each.

How would you do this so that the ostensible value of their labors is equal? How would you take into account the exact difficulty of the makeup of the soil and the mixture of weeds so that indeed you gave them each an equal job?

Suppose you gave me an answer to your quest for a method of “exactly” determining value. The first thing I would ask you then is how you measured each of these things exactly? Did you count the weeds? Did you divide the yard into areas where the borders of the areas explicitly included the intended weeds? Did you test the difficulty *and time* required to pull each *different* weed out, complete with the roots of each?

You would probably answer, No, of course not. Why?

Practically without exception, we don’t even ascertain or measure the criteria exactly as would be vital to determining value “exactly”; and so in fact, no matter what you had answered, the principle of an ostensibly “exact” method of determining the alloted tasks isn’t even applied to the units of area, varied matter or conditions, or even the number of weeds. Likewise, do we count the studs in a home we are about to buy?

There is a good enough reason we don’t even try to account for all things exactly: First of all, we regularly can’t; but if you did, the job of accounting exactly for exactly all factors might be far greater than actually pulling all the weeds yourself.

So, because you can’t divide the yard into X areas that result in *an equal effort* for each of your children, which in turn results, with ostensibly equal work, in your children all *finishing in the same time*, neither can you say that you have figured the job so that *time* spent on the different parts of the job is of equal value. After all, your X children, starting at the same time, will not finish at the same time, because you haven’t even determined a way to make their time spent at the job of equal value/volume. But neither too, unless the production of each is the same periodically, would they finish at the same time, even if you had divided “the job” “exactly,” because neither is the effort they spend across time of exactly equal value.

Using time as a standard therefore does not determine equal work. Only in the most exceptional case in fact does it determine equal work, because people rarely work at exactly the same rate, or render production of exactly the same quality.

A perfect system of evaluation must take all these things into consideration, and account for them “exactly.”

After all, if one welder puts 4 10-inch Schedule 40 joints together in a day’s work, and if a second welder puts together 20, and if 1 of the first welder’s daily welds generally fails an X-ray at the refinery in which every weld must prove worthy, the re-doing of the first welder’s one failure a day may be more costly than the sum of the rest of their work (3 welds). If no one else is working to that standard, to the contractor who has bid on the job, that welder’s work is worth nothing, or it may even be rightly considered to have a negative value.

If on the other hand everyone else but the second welder works to that standard however, then generally, as it may generally be necessary to do the work of 8 welds (2 days’ production) to get 4 good welds (1 days’ attempted production), that’s the price of the labor/production the contracting outfit may be forced, by the trials and tribulations of welding, to contend with.

But that means the second welder — who comprises the lone exception — is doing 40/4 days of the general volume of production of “work” every day (per time). For the productive volume of their efforts then, are we not to pay them 10 times the wages of the other welders, which is indeed the comparative value of what they are producing for the contractor?

Well, in certain even potentially prevalent cases, this might not happen because the *hour* might be a selective simplification which serves the employer to cheat labor from justified pay. By bidding jobs on the low end of labor costs, and not rewarding productive labor, contractors can take substantial unearned profit.

The quality of the second welder’s work might be 10x as great as the usual welder’s as well. Shall we pay them 100 times as much as the usual welder then?

If the quality of the work exceeds the requirements of the job spec, then the contractor is not justified in doing so. But the contractor *is* justified in at least rewarding the more productive second welder relative to how much work they perform daily — especially as this reduces the risks of weld failure, and potential later, consequent costs to the contractor. The second welder is valuable. Their time is worth far more to their employer.

The welders are also exposed to dangerous gases, and to asbestos. Do we simply give them the same wage per hour that we award a student who hands pre-packaged hamburgers thru a drive-up window?

Anyone therefore who tells you they account for all factors exactly, which determine the value of productive effort exactly, is yanking your leg. In fact, in any system such as this, where the relative value of one thing can only be known by the relative value of all other things, until we have a comprehensive system for determining the “exact” value of everything, we do not have a comprehensive system for determining the “exact” value of anything.

In fact, we find that given values often are rightly even in flux if we account for the difficulties of production, which comprise periodic differences in the job of production. Therefore a purportedly “exact” method of determining value must account for these differences in the job of production.

Personally, I figure I’ve given as much quality effort to determining the value of production as anyone; and what I’m about to tell you is I see little sense, or benefit in trying to determine value with purported exactitude, particularly because even determining all the vital factors of each instance becomes such an intensive job itself — making the necessary determination of the relative value of all things ever more elusive and costly.

Ballistics for instance is a relatively exacting science; but it is not perfectly exact. We *can* determine the relatively exact minimum velocity of a throw a third baseman might have to make to first base. But is it necessary or conducive for the third baseman to make that determination in the midst of the play? No. Instead, by experience and training, they recognize when they must hurry a throw, and thus how much routine carefulness they must forfeit to try to make the out.

There are for us likewise, rules or principles we should follow.

I dismiss the idea that we should account for supply and demand, because on the contrary, the idea of supply and demand is merely a tool of exploitation: It does not determine the value of production; instead it determines the stress it can impose on a market deprived of the opportunity to decide the value of the work of production. The concept of supply and demand determining “value” therefore is a destruction of the concept of determining the value of production. That destruction can and will usurp earnings from the deserving while multiplying unfair prices to whatever degree the market can stand.

Supply and demand therefore is utter corruption both of the idea of determining real value, and of appropriate distribution of wealth (or just reward for production).

Your question is pertinent, and it is a goal we should have, at least in some cases which I mention subsequently.

But in my estimation, at least 3 things will go awry in the best efforts we can reasonably make to determine “exact” value:

1. no way will we truly account for all things exactly;
2. nor will the other guy with whom we’re trading;
3. and finally then, neither will *we* have any real basis to determine equality in the other’s work.

All we can do then is the best we can, with reasonable dedication to determination of approximate value.

Largely in fact, we are best assisted in this effort by the integrity of the society.

Only in a society where no one is seeking unearned profit, and where instead everyone is conscientious about the relative value of their own work, can we trust in the price they ask of their work.

Integrity therefore is the most valuable and expedient tool for determining value as “exactly” as is practical.

For ages, except as compelled by usury to seek unearned gain ourselves, we’ve settled for integrity determining value, because it gives us the opportunity to forego repeating all that determination ourselves without access to the many vital facts which would determine value.

Where there is integrity, instead we can trust that suspicion will be raised by some clue that the principle of integrity is violated. *Then* we the buyer can roughly determine approximate value, in fact actually appraising the integrity of the price asked.

The more unearned gain usury demands of us on the contrary, the more the subjects of usury themselves are driven to corruption, and the more we can trust instead that price involves maximal possible unearned gain.

An obvious penalty of usury therefore is destruction of integrity, because integrity is least likely to survive the penalties of usury.

In mathematically perfected economy™ therefore, the only penalty we suffer is whatever errors we make in trying to determine equivalence.

In the end, just as in dividing the task of weeding your yard, as the extra effort we may make in *trying* to determine exact equal value may very well exceed the small difference we are trying to determine “exactly,” we do better in terms of the time we give up by taking the loss of our rough estimation. Let your kids pick or draw the lots, or determine them among themselves.

So we resolve the issue more effectively be settling for what we cannot determine exactly, but can determine roughly or to sufficient satisfaction by simple means.

We know for instance that carpenters and plumbers and electricians and dry-wallers and roofers and so forth are involved in building the home we want to buy. None of these are equivalent to our own trade; neither if they were, is our work worth exactly what these practitioners’ is. But perhaps we are that second welder; and although the many contractors who gladly employ us keep us working all we need, no, they don’t pay us but a pittance of what we’re worth to them but by giving us a few overtime hours here or there. We accept that or we don’t. But if we do, we’re not going to get equal production for our production, are we?

Absolutely not.

But because we are paid at least somewhat better for our demanding class of work, at least we can buy our house for substantially less *time* than the workers who produced it put into it; and we don’t have to pay the bankers 3 houses to get our 1… for publishing a promise to pay we should issue ourselves.

If you or anyone else in history has a better idea, I’m all ears. But it isn’t to make time the unit of currency.

It is not the job of an economic system therefore to impose a method of determining value. Nor are markets free to determine value, if they are subject to usury or market manipulation by cost and demand through vehicles such as commodities trading.

The only truly free market therefore is mathematically perfected economy™, because only mathematically perfected economy™ eliminates all the redundant, unearned factors which exploit price to the detriment of the producer and ultimate market.

It is hogwash for instance that Austrian Economists — who in fact advocate interest — assert that if we leave determination of price to markets which are subject to interest or buyers of futures, “the market” resolves value.

On the contrary, unnecessary cost is imposed by exploitation. Only a market free of predation, and subject only to the real costs of production, is free first to determine the value of production, and secondly to distribute wealth justly (to acquire just reward for its endeavors).

Thus I do believe we should leave it to truly free markets to determine value; and I’ll tell you why:

First of all, that’s what the market wants to do: it wants to be free of predation; and it wants to be free to determine value. So why not let it?

Secondly, what’s going to happen with our second welder?

Given the minimal costs of mathematically perfected economy™, with the opportunity to readily afford going into business for himself, he can tell each contractor he works for that he will settle for a wage say 8 times the going rate for his fellow welders (taking 80 percent of his demonstrated value to make the working situation quite comfortable to his employer); or, to base his wage on production, making it even more conducive to the sanctity of his employers, he can divide a day’s wages by the usual 2 effective welds per day, and offer to take something like 80 percent of that per weld. In either case, the contractor is making an extra 20% profit over usual wages, and our second welder can at least make 80 percent of what he’s worth in terms of volume of production.

On the other hand, if the contractors refuse to give him that, he can buy a welding truck for a pittance under mathematically perfected economy™ and compete with the contractors by under-bidding their welding costs by 20%, and they can’t touch him while he makes a due comparative fortune for the efforts which make him excel at his craft.

A truly free market can indeed determine just value.

But where contracts can be purchased by corruption, or the dollar is subject to interest, or futures traders might fix the value of his work without any consideration whatever for its costs or real value — or denying him the opportunity to acquire the value of his work — just value and reward are only made impossible.

So to summarize…

1. No one determines value exactly;
2. If we had to wait for a perfect method of determining “value,” we would never have mathematically perfected economy™;
3. Not only is that prospective delay unnecessary then, it would be quite pretentious of us to conceive it is even worthwhile to try to determine value “exactly,” given even the likely errors of the many who would have to correctly apply the method, and the even higher costs of just trying.

You and all the rest of us have made do in terms of determining the relative value of our money, even as that money can only multiply debt into terminal debt, and even as that money is constantly devalued by the process which does so.

The most real possible value of money which is strictly a token of wealth however, is still merely relative, and approximate.

The best we can do so that the approximate value of money we have decided to our relative satisfaction is enduring however, is to eliminate multiplication of debt in proportion to the money, and to maintain a circulation which at all times is as equivalent as we can rightly determine, with the remaining value of the property which, across time, we intend for it to represent. This is why these are goals of mathematically perfected economy™, which of course have long been recognized goals of real producers, even if they have been made impossible by ages of usury.

Shall we continue paying “bankers” 3 houses for printing *our* promise to pay on *their* paper until the sum of debt was terminal yesterday?

Or shall we cut our losses to the small inconsistencies we have so far found agreeable in determining approximately equivalent value… especially as there may not even be any overall benefit in the potentially impractical task of “determining value exactly”?

“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)

UPDATES ON BUSH IMPEACHMENT

Do you believe the ruler of any nation on earth should be allowed to lie, to deceive his people into killing millions for the ulterior objectives of a plutocratic elite who mean likewise to oppress our own country?

Bush Accused of Tyranny and Murder (Mathaba.net, Part 1)

Kucinich vs. The Establishment: Impeachment Hearing On Friday

BLACK MONDAY — AUSTRALIAN BANK TO SHOCK WALL STREET

EXCERPT, businessspectator.com.au, 12:40 PM, 25 Jul 2008:

We need to understand of course that the “smartest” banks will be compelled to cut obvious impending losses first, and that the rest of “world’s” banking system will have to follow. If we understand that “interest” inherently and irreversibly multiplies debt in proportion to a circulation to inevitably terminal sums of debt… then unless the “banking” system again succeeds across the whole world in propping up a facade of sustainability by pouring free money into the deflation usury engenders, the events soon to follow are an indirect testament to inherent failure, and the fact only mathematically perfected economy™ can save us.

Rest assured however, that the banksters are hedging their bets that they can retain usury, even if usury inherently terminates itself, and with it, the hopes of sheeple.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE.

Thanks again to Mario Sikorski, Poland.

RELATED EXTERNAL ARTICLES

1. AUSTRALIAN BANK TO SHOCK WALL STREET — BusinessSpectator.com
2. The entire US banking system is insolvent — MATHABA.NET
   

“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)

It often goes without understanding that monetary reform is *the* vital key to achieving true world justice, peace, representation, health, environmental quality, responsible media, true prosperity… all the things which are vital to us. In the least, this is because the monetary systems presently imposed about the world make all such things ever more unachievable by inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt in proportion to our potential means or capacity to service debt.

The driving force behind denied representation and purported globalism therefore is not mere thirst for power; on the contrary, usurpation of power is the necessary means to impose and extend usury, which in turn is the most powerful sustenance of further usurpation and denial of representation, to impose usury and unearned taking perpetually. The result is plutocratic rule, thinly veiled as representation, with the whole purpose being monopolization of vital production and infrastructures for the very preservation of unjust degrees of unearned gain. So the intended defects of inherently usurious monetary systems are intended; and it is this intention which obstructs us from representation on all fronts.

The vehicle for this vast unearned gain is the very “central banking” systems which have been imposed about the world. Under the dogma that we cannot create our own promises to pay without cost, and of course without discussion of the fact that the only way to preserve credit-worthiness and any manifestation of justice whatever is that we do in fact issue our own promises to pay without extrinsic, redundant cost… these systems inherently and irreversibly multiply debt upon us, as we are forced to maintain vital circulations by re-borrowing what we pay against principal and interest obligations as subsequent sums of debt, perpetually increased so much as periodic interest.

It is thus by inherently and irreversibly increasing the sum of debt, that these systems take from us to an ever greater degree by forcing us to service an ever greater sum of debt. The fatal fault of the imposed process however, is that it is irreversible, and can only multiply debt in proportion to a circulation. Thus every such system suffers a maximum possible lifespan at which the costs of servicing the irreversibly multiplying sum of debt eventually exceed the capacity of the system to give up so much wealth as the artificial sum of debt requires of them.

Thus at least at some regular interval of systemic collapse, usury begs its subjects to recognize the cause of its demise is usury.

But obviously, no intelligent public would design such a system to serve its purposes. Instead, it is these unjust costs which make justice impossible. In turn, it is the lack of possible justice which makes peace impossible, because all just costs are inherently multiplied perpetually, because the profit is unearned, and because the profit goes to ever greater degrees to those who produce nothing, at cost to anyone who does produce, and even to the obstruction of production. The whole natural and just order the world would otherwise realize, is perpetually undermined, overturned, and obstructed to an ever greater degree by usury.

And as it is the intention of usurpers to perpetuate and extend this criminal system which makes representation impossible, it is also this access to wealth which gives the perpetrators the media for the very purpose of disinforming us.

In the end, to serve monopolies such as oil for the exceeding, unjustifiable benefit of a few, we cannot even afford to implement vital alternatives such as alternate, clean energy sources — not even for the benefit of further monopolies, because artificial indebtedness itself makes it impossible for the usurpers to extract any further or more expensive unearned profit from a system which, in its last days, is already indebted to the maximal possible degree. Much less do usurers themselves *ever* need to find alternative, beneficial sources of revenue except to preserve their usurpation, for inherent, irreversible multiplication of indebtedness itself assures them they will take all that is possible from us.

Without mathematically perfected economy™ then, we can never restore to ourselves the real possibility, and even the immediate, natural probability, of achieving all the things which are vital to a truly healthy planet, prosperity, or the far vaster achievements mankind would already have under his belt, if not obstructed by usury.

Many people, and particularly many ostensible economists, presume to our peril that the First Great Depression was caused by the stock market crash.

The peril of this presumption is that in thinking a consequence is the cause, we fail to perceive the real cause, or its solution.

The stock market crashed in 1929 because of the same multiplying indebtedness per real value and potential capacity to service debt which spans the breadth of the pretended economy now.

Although the Great Depression precipitated from healthier statistics than plague us now, rather than saving, people were “investing” their spare money in so called securities on short term credit. The purported success of the market coerced the people to do so, because the temporary returns on “investment” far exceeded the returns for saving, and because devaluation of the dollar under multiplying indebtedness further reduced the relative value of savings.

But as is the present case, the dollar was not devalued by inflation. Rather, it was devalued by price inflation, resulting from multiplication of debt by interest and dedication of ever more of the circulation to servicing debt, versus sustaining the commerce which is obliged to service the debt. The underlying nature of the “money” therefore was the root cause of both erosion of the value of money, and the mounting probability that the subject commerce would fail under the unsustainable obligation to service a sum of debt which multiplies perpetually, as we necessarily replenish a circulation by re-borrowing interest and principal as ever greater sums of debt.

People therefore wagered their spare earnings in speculation. Having a small margin of typically say, 10 percent, they could borrow the remaining 90 percent to purchase “securities” on debts such as represented by 7, 10, 15-day promissory notes. At the conclusion of the short-term debt, they would sell the “securities,” and re-coup substantial unearned profit at the expense of the producers of wealth, as for instance if the artificially inflated value of the securities rose 10 percent, this would double the money they had invested.

We don’t have to be mathematic geniuses to see that in not long, this artificial inflation of the value of stocks/”securities” would create to the unwitting a deception that a magnitude of prosperity existed, while the prosperity itself was a small fraction of the debt the subject people had so multiplied upon themselves.

Seeing this disparity, or perhaps acting for the sake of their superior position to take, one day the private banks which comprise the so called Federal Reserve withdrew the further “credit” (perpetually self-multiplying debt) necessary to sustain the waiting “accident.” Oh, sure, in partnership with the so called Federal Reserve, the people had over-extended their credit-worthiness.

So suddenly having to market their “securities” to a market having only the margin in circulation… of course the market immediately crashed.

But why did it take down the rest of the purported economy with it? That’s the question.

The market crash took the rest of the purported economy down with it, because the whole system was so subject to debt. The collapse of this one sector, pushed the sector passed the brink of solubility; and so it was a collapse under excessive credit which brought the rest of the system down.

What are we to learn then from these combined conditions of falsely inflated values, sustained by perpetual excessive “credit”?

It is no more the sector which collapsed which signifies the probability of overall failure than it is a certain wave which crashed on the beach which caused the sun to set. No more can we find that wave to be the cause of sunsets the following day, than we can expect the pretended economy to fail but for any other reason than the nature of the currency, which inherently multiplies debt in proportion to the circulation.

Because a currency subject to interest multiplies debt in proportion to our potential to service debt, ultimately every such system fails under a mountain of insoluble debt it eventually can no longer service. And so, when any sector breaks, it may take all further sectors of a highly jeopardized system with it.

The peril of failing to understand the root cause is, that we may never be compelled to do anything about the nature of the currency.

We know for instance that the so called Federal Reserve has, for several decades, artificially buoyed stock prices — often even buying “government securities” with money these private banks publish at virtually no cost or risk whatever. Seeing this seems to sustain “markets,” we are lulled into a very false sense of security by this narrow range of “evidence,” for as we can readily see, behind the backs of those whose barometer is the “markets,” private and public debt both have multiplied to incredibly unsustainable magnitudes, to the detriment of the generations now and in the future, which are to pay the consequences.

If you were the first players to take turns at the Monopoly Board after the First Great Depression, you might think how wonderful all the unearned profit which can be taken by the first generation player, while the rest of us pay 50 prices just for rent, and while you might leave us too with all the public and private debt which has been accumulated to perpetuate the false, temporary proposition that the people benefit equally, generation after generation under usury.

Before or after the Second Great Depression then, we can finally come to understand that dispossession is the very purpose of the imposed, pretended economy; and that while “interest” inherently multiplies debt into terminal sums of debt, the reason the unassented systems are retained upon us is their original purpose — which is to take from us without justification, by perpetual multiplication of debt.

This Depression may or may not look like the last one to you. And you may think we have time because the so called markets are falsely sustained by infusions of cash. But the real issue is multiplying indebtedness.