HOME, FOREWORD, SITE DIRECTORY AMENDMENT BLOG FORUM GLOSSARY TESTIMONIALS FREE NEWSLETTER CONTACT JOIN PFMPE™

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.

MORPHALLAXIS, January 14, 1979.

mike montagne's mathematically perfected economy™ BLOG

mike montagne at iMac.

YOU ARE VIEWING ARTICLES IN THE FOLLOWING CATEGORY (SELECT CATEGORIES FROM THE DIRECTORY, RIGHT):

To browse all articles, select the mathematically perfected economy™ category from the directory (right). Top and bottom links to 'earlier' and 'more recent' blogs will then include all content.

Wednesday, October 28th, 2009

Alternate PFMPE? logo.

What should concern us is who stands in the way of solution, and why.

mike montagne

OBAMA IS ‘KENNEDY-ESQUE’?

I receive far more correspondence than I can reply to, but occasionally it may serve some of us at least to respond to a particular piece which reflects the disinformation and confusion we need to see our way through. I have no idea who Michael Gerson is, but I received and responded to this letter today:

EMAIL FROM “BILL” (2009 10 28)

Read and save………

Bill

Justice is what love looks like when it takes social form.

Giving democracy a dose of clarity

By Michael Gerson, Wednesday, October 28, 2009

There have been various attempts over the decades to bury moral philosophy ??to dismiss convictions about right and wrong as cultural prejudices, or secretions of the brain, or matters so personal they shouldn’t even affect our private lives.

But moral questions always return, as puzzles and as tragedies. Would we push a hefty man onto a railroad track to save the lives of five others? Should Petty Officer 1st Class Marcus Luttrell, in June of 2005, have executed a group of Afghan goatherds who, having stumbled on his position, might inform the enemy about his unit? (Luttrell let them go, the Taliban attacked, and three of his comrades died.)

These examples and others ??price-gouging after Hurricane Katrina, affirmative action, gay marriage ??are all grist for the teaching of Michael Sandel, perhaps the most prominent college professor in America. His popular class at Harvard ??Moral Reasoning 22: Justice ??attracts about a sixth of all undergraduates. For those lacking $49,000 a year in tuition and board, he has written “Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?” which has been further translated into a PBS series and a Web site, JusticeHarvard.org.

Sandel practices the best kind of academic populism, managing to simplify John Stuart Mill and John Rawls without being simplistic. His discussion of Immanuel Kant’s case against casual sex was almost enough to make me dig out my college copy of “Critique of Pure Reason.” Almost.

But Sandel is best at what he calls bringing “moral clarity to the alternatives we confront as democratic citizens.” In this cause, he outlines three attempts to define the meaning of justice, each with large public consequences.

Definition one is the maximization of social welfare ??the greatest happiness for the greatest number. But utilitarianism, in Sandel’s view, has glaring weaknesses. It allows no principled defense of individual rights. What if the sum of social happiness is increased by throwing a minority to the lions? And utilitarianism ultimately can make no distinction between fulfilling higher forms of happiness and degraded ones. Why should we prefer the pleasures of art museums to the pleasures of dog fighting?

A second definition of justice consists of respecting individual freedom. This approach can take the form of market-oriented libertarianism ??the belief that justice is identical to the free choices of consenting adults. Or it can have a more egalitarian expression, in which society is organized for the benefit of its least-advantaged members. But both of these views assume that government’s only job is to set fair rules and procedures; it is entirely up to free individuals to choose the best way to live.

Many Americans would find this view not only unobjectionable but also unassailable. Sandel assails it. “I do not think,” he says, “that freedom of choice ??even freedom of choice under fair conditions ??is an adequate basis for a just society.”

This equation of justice with freedom, he says, is unrealistic about the way human beings actually live. Our views of right and wrong, duty and betrayal, are not merely the result of individual free choice. All of us are born into institutions ??a family that involves our unconditional love, a community that elicits feelings of solidarity, a country that may demand a costly loyalty. Sandel argues that a liberal individualism cannot explain these deep attachments. We are “bound by some moral ties we haven’t chosen.”

Sandel, in the good company of Aristotle, contends that knowing “the right thing to do” in any of these institutions requires a determination of its purpose. And the purpose of government is not only to defend individual rights but also to honor and reward civic virtues ??patriotism, self-sacrifice and concern for our neighbor. This third definition of justice, by nature, is a moral enterprise.

Because Sandel is a progressive, he calls this approach “communitarian.” The stars of his political firmament are Robert Kennedy, for his call to vigorous citizenship, and Barack Obama, for his recognition that social justice is often based on moral ideals. But Sandel’s belief in family and community, his respect for religious motives and his defense of patriotism might also be called conservative, at least in an older sense of the term.

Sandel sets out to confront the most difficult moral issues in politics. He ends up clarifying a basic political divide ??not between left and right, but between those who recognize nothing greater than individual rights and choices, and those who affirm a “politics of the common good,” rooted in moral beliefs that can’t be ignored.

[Email omitted to preserve privacy of author.]

Dear Bill,

We live not in a democracy, but in a republic; and there are no “different kinds” of justice; there is one justice, which is defined by the bounds of liberty ??the actual maximum limits of liberty ??beyond which liberty would infringe upon and negate the equal liberties of others. As for the oxymoron of being “bound by moral ties we haven’t chosen…” since when do we not choose every such attachment? We have no control or perpetual choice in what we practice?

The divide Sandel must fail to clarify then is that a)?”those who recognize nothing greater than [but?] individual rights and choices” can only serve the purpose of breaching liberty, assumably hoping to attain and reserve for themselves the advantages of its excess (which are injustice); and b)?that “moral beliefs” therefore are no more (and no less) than to opine the natural bounds of liberty without regard for the qualifying arguments.

An example of both transgressions would be one generation claiming prosperity only by passing off criminal, insoluble, wholly artificial sums of debt to their own progeny ??likewise hoping to pass this off as justice, even as they would object to its double standard if they too were forced only by this irresponsibility, to bear an equal measure of its injustice. The generation claiming justice thus advocates injustice which is not merely “a moral or immoral ‘belief,’” but which further imposes an even ever diminishing possibility of prosperity, because what they call economy in fact merely presupposes (and does not justify) that we must borrow our own promises to pay at interest, which in turn makes it mathematically impossible even to maintain a vital circulation without perpetually re-borrowing principal and interest as ever greater and eventually terminal sums of debt. The assumed justice of the first generation, prospering relatively more under initial, far lesser sums of debt, certainly cannot be justified by the fact they refuse to acknowledge, much less to pay the public debt incurred by their time (and mere “moral belief”). On the contrary, to ask us to “believe” likewise is to ask us to accept the contradiction of purported prosperity which would be more than wiped out if the claiming generation *were* to pay the debts which are the only possible and terminal consequence of the system it presumes to justify by no more than claiming a “moral belief” which its very evasion of consequence of course invalidates.

The problem then with (or fault of) reducing the eternal and self evident bounds of liberty to mere “moral beliefs,” rather than facts of infringement, is that anyone wanting to breach the explicit bounds of liberty can argue against mere “moral beliefs,” because to express them only as such is to say only that this is what “I believe” versus what “you believe.” The very form of expression itself is completely (and usually intentionally) ignorant of the governing fact of infringement ??which even comprises the only possible prevailing arguments.

On the other hand, no one on the contrary can argue successfully against a case of exceeded bounds, because the compromising of the equivalent rights of others is always demonstrable. Worse then, the faults of “immoral beliefs” (asserting justice in exceeded/duplistic bounds) will always percolate to the fore, because their exercise can only compromise the equal liberties of others. In fact, this is the very reason we perceive and defend ourselves against injustice; and it is likewise the foremost governing principle which the design of a republic is in fact intended to preserve instead, in one, just liberty.

If it hasn’t already, time at least will prove who is right, even when whole generations hope for no more than to escape the consequences of their own undoings of liberty. But to call this morality only because it is an unqualified “belief” which can only serve that injustice ??that’s a stretch of truth which not only will never pass the ultimate scale of time, but the faults of which are unraveling before us in the very artificial, unnecessary, and unjust monetary failure before us.

Obama then can never rightly be considered a champion of liberty OR justice, so long as he serves the imposed systems of exploitation, which can only heap artificial debt upon us until we find nothing moral whatever in that preposterous pursuit which usurps a presumed authority to publish our promises to pay, not only to unjustifiably collect principal equal to all industry ever pretended to be “financed” by this obfuscation ??but further to multiply that artificial indebtedness until we are not only completely dispossessed by it, but can no longer afford either to produce, or to afford the artificial costliness of whatever little, unconsumed production might remain for some fast vanishing while.

If Obama is a saint for perpetuating that graft, then so are Geithner, Emanuel, Volker, Greenspan, and Alexander Hamilton ??against Jefferson, Adams, Monroe, Madison, Franklin, Jackson, and Lincoln. But the present men are hardly “Kennedy-esque” then either, for in fact JFK instead sought to remove this unassented and unwarrantable power from the so called Federal Reserve ??which of course, for the sake of its strictly adverse purposes, is neither federal nor an actual reserve of anything. Kennedy if you remember issued EO 11110, which at least sought to return us to a constitutional currency, even if it fell far short of a solution to the issues before us.

That famous EO, which so distinguishes Kennedy too from the current genre of men, of course has never been honored. And so, contrary to the pretended similarity of (a “Kennedy-esque”) intention, it is instead only in the same vein of corruption which of course ensued Kennedy’s assassination that, quite to the very opposite extreme, Obama has assembled all the very exploiters instead; and that instead, this is to preserve the unassented and unjustifiable system of exploitation, even as it works its final destruction.

Regards,

mike montagne

founder, PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy?; author, mathematically perfected economy? (1979).

RELATED MATERIAL

“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? (1968-1979)

? COPYRIGHT 2009, by mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy?.

http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2009/10/28/obama-is-kennedy-esque/

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE? FORUM:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewforum.php?f=22

[END PERMALINK(S)]

Wednesday, March 18th, 2009

What should concern us is who stands in the way of solution, and why.

mike montagne

NEW PFMPE™ VIDEO — MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY™ Versus USURY

We’re happy to announce release this morning of our new 2 1/2 hour video program, Mathematically Perfected Economy™ Versus Usury. To watch the 20-segment, 10-chapter program in high definition at YouTube, please visit the Mathematically Perfected Economy? Play List at http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=4F0FC0AC39B3086A. Use the Play All link to negotiate the whole program in sequence.

A free version of the program can also be watched from our page, PFMPE™ VIDEOS. Enjoy!

RELATED MATERIAL

“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 2009, by mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™.

Except for profit making ventures or entities otherwise granted explicit permission to publish this copyright material, this article may be distributed or reprinted in whole only, from and including any quotes preceding its title, through and inclusive of the following permalink(s), by email or otherwise. Visitors may also download our entire directory of regular/main site articles from our downloads page: http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-free-pfmpe-downloads.html. If you want to save your country, we encourage personal distribution of this material to all conducive recipients of your personal address books. Of course, you may also send only the following permalink:

http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2009/03/18/new-pfmpe-video-mathematically-perfected-economy-versus-usury/

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE™ FORUM:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewforum.php?f=22

[END PERMALINK(S)]

Tuesday, February 24th, 2009

What should concern us is who stands in the way of solution, and why.

mike montagne

DOES BANKRUPTCY EXTEND THE LIFESPAN OF A SYSTEM OF EXPLOITATION?

Kirk Jackson wrote:

Hi Mike,

Thanks again for your informational site. I have a question for you. Is it possible for the bankers to extend the lifespan of the system due to the bankruptcies that occur? In essence, the debt would be reduced because they would be forced to accept pennies on the dollar in cases. In effect they are plundering/stealing wealth from the people through usury and forced liquidations.

Is this not a way for them to extend the system?

Let me know your thoughts.

Thanks,

Kirk Jackson

Hi Kirk,

The first models I produced for the Reagan Administration (as well as all work since) accounted for bankruptcy and any other factors which prominently manifest in the terminal stages of the system. Two principal things happen as a consequence of bankruptcy: 1) as a consequence of the legal status of bankruptcy, debt and/or the costs of servicing debt are reduced; 2) as a consequence of the state which ultimately obliges bankruptcy, the abilities to service debt and re-borrow as necessary to maintain a vital circulation are destroyed.

The first, as you intuit, does effectively extend the lifespan in terms of what debt is serviced. The initiating/causative fact of the latter however expresses the present terminal state… and thus an inability to sustain a circulation… which further reduces the capacity to sustain further industry… in turn compromising that industry in its ability to service debt and sustain a circulation by re-borrowing principal and interest paid out of the general circulation in servicing the existent sum of debt. This inherent disappearance of the circulation of course comprises the present “credit crisis.” All these things together shorten the lifespan, and thus expedite systemic failure.

So yet, 30 years ago, my models accounted for the combination of these effects in determining a maximum possible/practical lifespan. Because so many people have a difficult time visualizing the ultimate consequence, I’ve just in the past few days added additional capabilities to my models/mathematics, to walk a person visually through the whole process.

At best, impractical expectations allow bankruptcy together with the present prospect of a bailout to moderately extend the lifespan of the system only 1 or 2 or 3 years. The necessary conditions to realize that modest extension are improbable; and yet the system still collapses — at best we only extend the term of exploitation so modestly.

That is the upward bound of potential “benefit” — which effectively is an improbable, artificial extension of a marginal, compromising state, only still to fail. At worst on the other hand (and a far more practical expectation), if *all* of the desired “benefits” of a “bailout”/”stimulus” do not reach *all* of the victims in ways which truly are required to realize the extension, the additional costs of the additional debt in fact, on the contrary, collapse the system even faster than it would collapse without a stimulus.

The video I’m working on will visually explain the bounds of either attempt to sustain the system of exploitation — and particularly, in regard to the ramifications of immediately adopting mathematically perfected economy?. Hopefully, I’ll be done with the video in a few days (but it’s quite a production).

RELATED MATERIAL

“To find the players in all the corruption of the world, ‘Follow the money.’ To find the captains of world corruption, follow the money all the way.”

mike montagne — founder, PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™, author/engineer of mathematically perfected economy™ (1979)

© COPYRIGHT 2008, by mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™.

Except for profit making ventures or entities otherwise granted explicit permission to publish this copyright material, this article may be distributed or reprinted in whole only, from and including any quotes preceding its title, through and inclusive of the following permalink(s), by email or otherwise. Visitors may also download our entire directory of regular/main site articles from our downloads page: http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-free-pfmpe-downloads.html. If you want to save your country, we encourage personal distribution of this material to all conducive recipients of your personal address books. Of course, you may also send only the following permalink:

http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2009/02/24/does-bankruptcy-extend-the-lifespan-of-a-system-of-exploitation/

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE™ FORUM:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewforum.php?f=22

[END PERMALINK(S)]

Wednesday, November 12th, 2008

What should concern us is who stands in the way of solution, and why.

mike montagne

WHY FOLLOWING BILL CLINTON WILL BE OBAMA’S ROAD TO FAILURE (TOO)

We have just witnessed a critical election in which none of the candidates proved they could solve critical monetary faults. We remain subject to an imposed monetary system which has only (already) engendered world wide monetary failure; and the inevitable cause of that failure and the next remain a form of currency which on the first hand requires us to maintain a vital circulation, and on the other requires us to do so by perpetually re-borrowing principal and interest as subsequent sums of debt, perpetually increased so much as periodic interest.

Because this process multiplies debt in proportion to the vital circulation, and because ever more of the vital circulation is inherently dedicated to servicing debt, versus sustaining the industry which is compelled to do so, the ultimate consequence of that process is catastrophic failure under terminal sums of debt.

Thomas Jefferson did not solve these issues, but he put the problem like this:

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.

Thus, along the road to dispossession by artificial multiplication of debt into terminal debt, the sum of debt increases at an inherently escalating rate of ever greater sums of periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt. And yet despite the ramifications of this imposed process; and despite the fact the Democrats established the so called Federal Reserve immediately on the heels of a 1912 party platform which explicitly promised not to create a central bank; essentially nonetheless, Barack Obama’s only considered course follows the model of Bill Clinton; and he is only hiring advocates and principal players of the very system which is the cause of the impending monetary failure. All the pieces falling into place therefore, are to preserve the ever more destructive system which has been imposed upon us.

The Clintons of course claim to have presided over what they tell us is the greatest industrial expansion of modern history.

But this claim is a lie. Starving for ways to replenish the circulatory deflation imposed by the debt which had been accumulated to Clinton’s terms in office, and with the public already rendered unable to afford sustaining a circulation itself, the false boom of Mr. Clinton’s claimed industrial expansion merely served as a temporary stop-gap to replenish the circulation.

How quickly we have forgotten that purported boom was a bust before it got out the gate. Company after company after company spent 90 percent of its revenue on celebrations and expensive cars for “key” executives. Not only are almost all of those companies gone, even by the time Mr. Clinton left office, few of them had made a penny of profit.

During the subsequent Bush regime, the circulation has been replenished by monumental borrowing, not just for war, but even for the oil you so much depend on.

All this while then indeed, debt has been multiplying at escalating rates toward inevitable failure, with no “representative” of the people advocating solution; and so, it will be against the further multiplication of the resultant, far greater sum of debt (already collapsing us), that Mr. Obama hopes to succeed.

The president-elect hopes to create millions of jobs. How are we going to sustain those jobs which we already cannot afford to sustain, saddled with all the further debt which will be incurred?

Even if we could sustain them for some while, further, perpetual, escalating multiplication of debt would soon swallow up any ostensible benefit.

He hopes to create those jobs by expediting technology we already have, to become energy independent. But the only real reason we cannot implement that technology is we are saddled with so much debt already.

So if our new President follows in Mr. Clinton’s footsteps, Mr. Obama can only succeed if we can afford that technology we already have, at considerable delay, and at the further cost to the public that short-sighted course condemns us to.

So how do we get there from here?

The answer has been here for 30 years; and in fact the powers that have been have only worked to keep it from you: mathematically perfected economy? makes all these things possible immediately, and without cost, simply by eliminating the unearned takings which the people Mr. Obama is installing in his cabinet are so accustomed to.

RELATED MATERIAL

“To find the players in all the corruption of the world, ‘Follow the money.’ To find the captains of world corruption, follow the money all the way.”

mike montagne ??founder, PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy?, author/engineer of mathematically perfected economy? (1979)

? COPYRIGHT 2008, by mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy?.

Except for profit making ventures or entities otherwise granted explicit permission to publish this copyright material, this article may be distributed or reprinted in whole only, from and including any quotes preceding its title, through and inclusive of the following permalink(s), by email or otherwise. Visitors may also download our entire directory of regular/main site articles from our downloads page: http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-free-pfmpe-downloads.html. If you want to save your country, we encourage personal distribution of this material to all conducive recipients of your personal address books. Of course, you may also send only the following permalink:

http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2008/11/12/why-following-bill-clinton-will-be-obamas-road-to-failure-too/

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE? FORUM:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewtopic.php?f=90&t=151

[END PERMALINK(S)]

Friday, November 7th, 2008

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 4 April 1819

OPEN LETTER TO THE OBAMA TRANSITION TEAM, RE: MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY?

Friday, November 7, 2008, 11:23 AM

Dear Mr. Obama,

You will not save our country by any means which perpetuates a purported economy which can only multiply debt in proportion to the obligated circulation.

I am mike montagne, founder of PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy? and author/engineer of mathematically perfected economy? (1979). In 1979 and 1980 I provided the Reagan Administration with mathematic proofs his policies would fail either to arrest price inflation or multiplication of debt (which he did not even recognize to be a problem). In the next few years, I further provided the Reagan people with computer models which not only projected the tripling of national debt his two terms suffered, but which further projected accurately all the accumulation of debt to now, and the specter of world wide monetary failure which we are now confronted with.

The purpose of the models I provided the Reagan Administration was to calculate the maximum possible lifespan of any pretended economy subject to interest. You can still download those models, complete with source code, from my web pages; and the rectitude of their elementary, fundamental principles is probably the principal reason David Stockman resigned from the Reagan Administration. As the failure manifested of course, Mr. Stockman was asked to prejudice mathematic formulae to cover the Reagan failures.

I write however to warn you, and I will write again and again to warn you, that it is impossible to find the answer to monetary failure in the pretended experts and practitioners of a system which can only fail because it can only multiply debt in proportion to a vital circulation.

That is, the present privatization of “our” monetary system compels us to maintain a circulation so that we can continue to service monetary obligations comprised of principal and interest ??which obligations therefore exceed a circulation comprised only of the principal.

As we are subject to a process of deflation greater than the potentially sustaining circulation, this arrangement is imposed upon us only by usurping the role of creditor, and subverting the laws of mathematically perfected economy?. That is, true producers are the real creditors, because, wherever further circulation is required, they must accept the promise to pay of the debtor.

In the system which has so wrongly been imposed upon us, and which can only multiply debt in proportion to a vital circulation until it imposes the present, terminal sums of debt upon us, a third party, pretending to serve us, tells us the paper/promise of the debtor is not good, unless this third party issues the promise on behalf of the debtor, and charges them interest for it. We presuppose that earned wealth is at stake, and that this justifies interest, but in fact that promise, like ours, is produced at no cost or risk whatever.

But the nature of this privatization, which thus obviously exists merely to serve this purpose of unearned and unjust taking from us, thus imposes a critical process ??that of a perpetual deflation which can only multiply the unearned and unjust taking further.

That is, merely to maintain the vital circulation which we are thus obligated to maintain, ultimately we can only re-borrow interest and principal paid out of the general circulation. This condition itself, however much it exists, makes it impossible to pay down the sum of debt, because the processes of replenishing the circulation require taking on new debt, equal to the former sum of debt.

When we re-borrow interest however, which of course counted none whatsoever against former debt, we are taking on new debt. Therefore, because of the unjust obfuscation and usurpation of the relationship between creditor (producer) and debtor, in the privatized systems which have been imposed upon the world for this obvious purpose, the sum of debt perpetually increases by so much as periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt.

Not only does this of course eventually and inevitably produce a terminal sum of debt which we can no longer afford to service (monetary/credit/”economic” failure), it does so even at an inherently escalating rate.

The greatest minds of our national history (Lincoln, Jackson, Jefferson…), foresaw this problem sir; but they did not solve it. Lincoln came very close.

I desire then Mr. Obama, to a degree impossible to express, to apprise you that if you choose to let the kind of men who perpetrate this crime upon us direct “our” “economy,” then you will only preserve the crime. I desire to have your audience, yourself, your wife, the vice president elect… by written word or discussion… that I can explain to you how *we can* arrest monetary failure in a day, and transform the present system of exploitation by usury into mathematically perfected economy? in little longer.

If I had your ear and your heart now, by the time you took office, we could be prepared to accomplish both in a day.

I trust however, that a man who will indeed lead us from the events upon us by the only principles which can take us where we have to go… that such a man will understand he has to give scope to the possibility I hereby present to you. Furthermore, I expect he will understand from the very terms of this letter, that those now around you sir are not pointed the right direction at all.

I therefore provide several links which I believe your transition team will be compelled to research:

http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-synopsis.html

http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-evaluation-of-jeffersons-opinion-on-the-constitutionality-of-a-national-bank.html

http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-if-i-were-president.html

We have great things to do ??things which in fact are the greatest things this country will ever accomplish.

Yours most sincerely,

“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:

http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2008/11/07/open-letter-to-the-obama-transition-team-re-mathematically-perfected-economy/ [END PERMALINK]

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE? FORUM:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewtopic.php?f=86&t=143

Thursday, November 6th, 2008

The first of these proofs identifies a cause of inevitable “financial” failure on a world wide scale, with the failure being avertible only by solution of a process which inherently and irreversibly multiplies debt in proportion to vital circulations.

Essentially, this proof thus recognizes how monetary systems subject to interest are obligated to maintain vital circulations comprised of principal, and perpetually deflated by servicing obligations comprised of principal and interest. The vital circulations of such systems therefore are ultimately sustained only by perpetually re-borrowing principal and interest as subsequent sums of debt ??with this process perpetually and irreversibly increasing the sum of debt so much as periodic interest.

So long as a vital circulation is necessarily maintained in this way, the process is irreversible; the rate of accumulation itself escalates at an inherently increasing rate of ever greater sums of periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt; and all the while, ever more of the circulation is dedicated to servicing debt ??driving up the cost of all subject production and leaving ever less of the circulation to sustain whatever surviving industry is obligated to the escalating sum of debt.

mike montagne ??pfmpe? Synopsis

MSNBC, WSJ, USUAL TALKING HEADS GET INTEREST, GREENSPAN WRONG AGAIN

Monday, November 3, 2008, 4:00 PM

Just days before “markets” approved further interest rate reductions by the private Federal Reserve, an MSNBC newscast largely blamed Alan Greenspan for the present credit crisis. The report blames Mr. Greenspan 1)?for his support of deregulation; and 2)?for suppressing interest rates for too long.

As chairman of this privatized system of exploitation, Mr. Greenspan’s direction of the exploitation certainly may be guilty of leading us into a terminal failure ??but if, and only if, within practical bounds, we can prove that the privatized system of multiplying exploitation is in fact sustainable.

For what then is he really guilty?

  1. If it can truly be said that he is guilty for supporting deregulation, it must be demonstrable that the abandoned forms of regulation would have averted the present crisis.

    But the very nature of the imposed currency inherently and irreversibly multiplies debt in proportion to the obligated circulation, because the irregularities of the currency force us to maintain a vital circulation by re-borrowing principal and interest as subsequent sums of debt. This of course perpetually increases the sum of debt so much as periodic interest, until the costs of servicing the ever escalating sum of debt are terminal.

    Thus:

    1. no form of regulation short of rectifying the nature of the currency would avert the present crisis; and,

    2. if any form of regulation would have forestalled the present crisis, that regulation would have to exercise the lower rates of interest for which Mr. Greenspan is said to be guilty, for only lower rates of interest moderate the rate at which debt is multiplied into terminal debt.

  2. He cannot be guilty either then for suppressing interest rates, because lower interest rates extend the maximum possible lifespan of any purported “economy” subject to interest.

Thus in why he did not defend himself with these arguments rests the facts of guilt, for the whole while of chairing a process which can only faster or slower multiply debt into terminal debt, the only thing for a board of “directors” to see is that they are generating ever more terminal, insoluble sums of debt. Moreover, they have nowhere but interest to look for the cause of that multiplication, because interest is the only process attached to a currency which has obviously been imposed for this purpose.

So they know this: they know that so long as the interest they intend to impose upon us perpetually multiplies profit as it is intended, debt will multiply in proportion to the obligated circulation, for this ever escalating sum of debt is the very means by which they intend to take ever escalating unearned profit.

Why then did Greenspan pretend to take blame, when, unless the so called “Federal” “Reserve” eradicated interest, then no matter how fast or more moderately Greenspan (or anyone before or since) multiplied debt, our present, terminal circumstances nonetheless were inevitable?

Shame on you, for not knowing the answer to that question:

The whole purpose of the system is multiplying exploitation by the vehicle of “interest” ??even if any rate of interest inherently and inevitably generates terminal sums of debt.

What Greenspan and the MSNBC talking heads are altogether to blame for then, is placing the blame in a false place, so that you might not perceive the terminal nature of their system.

Mr. Greenspan, if you remember, could not hold interest rates above the points he did, for his suppression of the rates all that while was to extend the lifespan of the pretended economy.

Why?

In the final stages of the finite lifespan of any purported economy subject to interest, reducing the rates of interest (perpetually) extends the lifespan (temporarily) by making it affordable to replenish the circulation (by, necessarily, re-borrowing further principal and interest, which results in a yet greater, otherwise less affordable sum of debt).

If the talking heads had their way with interest regulation, we would have collapsed long ago.

If they have their way with perpetuation of the system… well, we’re already spiraling out of control, with the only hope of substantial extension being impossible, because we have reached the limits of what debt we can afford to service.

This is the very failure which our computer models projected long ago; and it is the very failure which you can avert, and which you can avert immediately, only by adopting mathematically perfected economy?.

Today, because interest is the cause of failure, what do we have?

We have other countries following suit:

RELATED MATERIAL

“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:

http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2008/11/06/msnbc-wsj-usual-talking-heads-get-interest-greenspan-wrong-again/ [END PERMALINK]

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE? FORUM:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewtopic.php?f=85&t=142

Wednesday, October 22nd, 2008

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]

Discuss it we will.

The evident basis for this panicked appeal is Paul Krugman’s trivial October 16, 2008 New York Times article, “Let’s Get Fiscal,” which she sends in its entirety. Only critical faults/issues (still involving most of the article) are enumerated below. As you will see, her reiterated assertions actually represent Krugman well:

 

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:

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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:

  1. “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?

  2. “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.

  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.”

    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.

  4. “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.

  5. [excluded trivia…]

  6. “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.

  7. “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.

  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.”

    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.

  9. “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.

  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.”

    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?

  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.”

    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?.

  12. “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.

  13. “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 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.

    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.

  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.”

    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.

RELATED MATERIAL

“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:

http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2008/10/22/paul-krugman-nobel-laureate-irresponsibly-calls-for-continued-fiscal-irresponsibility/ [END PERMALINK]

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE? FORUM:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewtopic.php?f=81&t=94

Monday, October 20th, 2008

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:

http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2008/10/18/open-letter-to-global-research-on-the-controversy-with-ellen-hodgson-brown/

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?.

Meanwhile, all my questions remain unanswered:

http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-ellen-hodgson-brown-web-of-debt.html

http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-no-ellen-its-not-the-derivatives-stupid.html

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

RELATED ARTICLES ALREADY APPRISING ELLEN HODGSON BROWN OF THE FAULTS OF HER PURPORTED SOLUTION (TO WHICH SHE LIKEWISE CEASED 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:

http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2008/10/20/more-on-the-controversy-of-ellen-hodgson-browns-global-research-article/ [END PERMALINK]

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE? FORUM:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewtopic.php?f=79&t=79

Saturday, October 18th, 2008

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?

To: GLOBAL RESEARCH ARTICLE SUBMISSIONS [email deleted for privacy; CLICK HERE for Global Research CONTACT PAGE]

Greetings,

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:

http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-if-i-were-president.html

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:

http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-ellen-hodgson-brown-web-of-debt.html

http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-no-ellen-its-not-the-derivatives-stupid.html

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)

ADDENDUM

Even the very title of Ellen Hodgson Brown’s October 17 Global Research article, “Financial Meltdown: The Greatest Transfer of Wealth in History ??How to Reverse the Tide and Democratize the US Monetary System”, states 2 blatant mistruths (which is the total of its statements):

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

RELATED MATERIAL

“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:

http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2008/10/18/open-letter-to-global-research-on-the-controversy-with-ellen-hodgson-brown/ [END PERMALINK]

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE? FORUM:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewtopic.php?f=78&t=64

Tuesday, October 14th, 2008

OBAMA MONETARY PROPOSAL UPDATE

Incredibly, I was just returned today the package I was asked to send to the Obama Economic Policy Team, certified delivery, return receipt requested, September 29.

The package was simply returned with an apology sticker, in part explaining “Unfortunately, to enhance security and aid in compliance, we have adopted a package refusal policy.”

I immediately called campaign headquarters yet again, where a polite receptionist has attempted to forward a message and request to have Mr./Mrs. Obama or Mr. Biden call on the matters which just this morning were summarized in our new “If I Were President” page.

FURTHER UPDATE, 18:03 10/14/2008

I’ve had some people look at my innocent package, and (a bit to my surprise) the uniform response has been that they saw my logo and contact information, already know what PFMPE? is all about, and don’t want to be held accountable for having been apprised of solution, and failed/refused to do anything about it. That may seem a bit cynical… but then again, given Ron Paul and others’ evasion… maybe not.

RELATED MATERIAL

“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:

http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2008/10/14/obama-monetary-proposal-update/ [END PERMALINK]

mike montagne — PEOPLE For 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 — PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™

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.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.

Firefox™.BEST VIEWED WITH MOZILLA FIREFOX™.


Search perfecteconomy.com     Search Web