mathematically perfected economy™ (MPE™) 1 : the singular integral solution of 1) inflation and deflation, 2) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and 3) inherent, artificial multiplication of debt into terminal systemic failure; 2 : every prospective debtor's right to issue legitimate promises to pay, free of extrinsic manipulation, adulteration, or exploitation of those promises, or the natural opportunity to make good on them; 3 : our right to certify, to enforce, and to monetize industry and commerce by this one sustaining and truly economic process.
mike montagne's mathematically perfected economy™ BLOG
YOU ARE VIEWING ARTICLES IN THE FOLLOWING CATEGORY (SELECT CATEGORIES FROM THE DIRECTORY, RIGHT):
mike montagne’s mathematically perfected economy blog » BANKRUPTCY AND FORECLOSURE
Because so many people are waiting for this article, I’m announcing here as well that I just posted “If I were President…” to the main PFMPE? site. This article explains how I would arrest world wide monetary collapse in a day, and establish real economy in little longer:
“To find the players in all the corruption of the world, ‘Follow the money.’ To find the captains of world corruption, follow the money all the way.”
mike montagne ??founder, PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy?, author/engineer of mathematically perfected economy? (1979)
? COPYRIGHT 2008, by mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy?.
Except for profit making ventures or entities otherwise granted explicit permission to publish this copyright material, this article may be distributed or reprinted in whole only, from and including any quotes preceding its title, through and inclusive of the following permalink, by email or otherwise. Visitors may also download our entire directory of regular/main site articles from our downloads page: http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-free-pfmpe-downloads.html. If you want to save your country, we encourage personal distribution of this material to all conducive recipients of your personal address books. Of course, you may also send only the following permalink:
“Readers have been pressing for a solution to the financial crisis. But first it is necessary to understand the problem. Here is the problem as I see it. If my diagnosis is correct, the solution below might be appropriate.“
He doesn’t get any further than that before getting into trouble:
Let?s begin with the fact that the financial crisis is more or less worldwide. The mechanism that spread the American-made financial crisis abroad was the massive US trade deficit.
Only of course if there were no further cause for our decline from trade surpluses to perpetual escalating trade deficits, could we be raising here the primary cause which our solution must address. The incumbent and missing argument therefore must establish there is no further underlying cause. Finding that cause is always the first preparatory step of solution.
The proposition of a further fundamental cause is readily recognized, if not from my answer, from analysis of how industry has fared in markets entirely within the country.
Mr. Roberts then goes on to reason (in part quite correctly) that:
Does the US have the leadership to realize the problem and to deal with it?
Not if Bush, Cheney, Paulson, Bernanke, McCain and Obama are the best leadership that America can produce.
The Great Depression lasted a decade because the authorities were unable to comprehend that the Federal Reserve had allowed the supply of money to shrink. The shrunken money supply could not employ the same number of workers at the same wages, and it could not purchase the same amount of goods and service at the same prices. Thus, prices and employment fell.
The explanation of the Great Depression was not known until the 1960s when Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz published their Monetary History of the United States. Given the stupidity of our leadership and the stupidity of so many of our economists, we may learn what happened to us this year in 2038, three decades from now.
Now he’s hot on the trail of the cause here; he can’t just stop there. Yes, an inadequate money supply will itself bring an “economy” to ruin, because we won’t be able to service our obligations, and particularly therefore, whatever our debt.
But it is not only an inadequate money supply (circulation) which can render ruin. Ever greater dedication of the money supply to servicing debt leave ever less of the circulation to sustain the industry which (directly or indirectly) is obliged to service the sum of debt.
Thus we must ask at least how ever more of the circulation is dedicated to servicing a sum of debt; and the only immediate observation to be made in regard to that matter is that given any consistent rate of interest, the sum of debt must be increasing in relation to our finite capacity (or the circulation), with which we can service the debt so long as the escalating sum of debt does not exceed us.
Mr. Roberts therefore is hot on the trail of the problem; and I encourage he and others to finish the search.
But he thus concludes his article, to which I respond:
PFMPE?
I have no idea what cause of the First Great Depression Friedman could have published, for he certainly never advocated eradication of interest.
When you worked for President Reagan, I provided that Administration computer models which projected he would triple the national debt, and which accurately project, from 1980s numbers, the accumulation of debt to now.
Debt multiplies in proportion to a circulation as we are compelled to perpetually re-borrow interest and principal as subsequent sums of debt, increased so much as periodic interest. Thus the sum of debt increases at an inherently ever escalating rate, in proportion to our finite capacity to service debt, until a terminal sum of debt is engendered.
In 1929, the markets fell when the Federal Reserve refused to lend any more money for speculation financed by this process. As the short term debts were incurred at margin, the market had no option but to liquidate its holdings; and it could only sell them to a market deprived of the further capital necessary to buy them at previous prices, necessary to pay the resultant debts. Of course the market collapsed.
Today the market has been sustained falsely since even before the 1987 crash. While the powers that be have heralded expansion, we have seen our industry and jobs expatriated. Today, the market is collapsing because all the facades are coming down in the wake of the last of the general economy to withstand the multiplication of debt upon the whole ball of wax.
If the Fed had not terminated further credit in 1929, the markets would have crashed ultimately for the same reasons they are now.
So, unless Friedman advocated solution of inflation and deflation, systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and inherent multiplication of debt by interest, he hardly would have identified the cause we need to identify to solve our current problems.
As to the void of leadership, absolute and singular solution has been available for 30 years *before* the present specter of collapse.
I assert that I could stop the fall in a day and rectify the system in little more. The real problem may be that the American People (too many of them sleeping as they are in any case) might not be inclined to identify a real solution if it is staring them in the face.
We cannot save anything if we do not save “the economy” from the primary causes of its failure: 1)?inflation and deflation, 2)?systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and 3)?inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt in proportion to a circulation.
The solution which has been waiting for the republic for 30 years ??and the only integral solution ??is mathematically perfected economy?.
“To find the players in all the corruption of the world, ‘Follow the money.’ To find the captains of world corruption, follow the money all the way.”
mike montagne ??founder, PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy?, author/engineer of mathematically perfected economy? (1979)
? COPYRIGHT 2008, by mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy?.
Except for profit making ventures or entities otherwise granted explicit permission to publish this copyright material, this article may be distributed or reprinted in whole only, from and including any quotes preceding its title, through and inclusive of the following permalink, by email or otherwise. Visitors may also download our entire directory of regular/main site articles from our downloads page: http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-free-pfmpe-downloads.html. If you want to save your country, we encourage personal distribution of this material to all conducive recipients of your personal address books. Of course, you may also send only the following permalink:
The day after the October 7 presidential debate, I sent out an excerpt of a letter Mr. Obama sent to members of his email list:
Dear mike,
I thought the differences between John McCain and me were pretty clear tonight.
I will fight for the middle class every day, and ??once again ??Senator McCain didn’t mention the middle class a single time during the debate.
The former certainly stretches the truth, as both candidates pandered tax breaks for votes, to only slightly different audiences. Neither is the latter true of course, as Mr. McCain at least obtusely referred to the middle class when he offered in virtually equal impotence, “Let’s not raise taxes on anybody today.”
Neither candidate demonstrated an aptitude for real solution. In fact as I was offended by Mr. Obama’s letter, and as both candidates so thoroughly evaded all the fundamental issues of real solution, I thus published my October 8 blog, “ABSOLUTE FAILING GRADES TO BOTH CANDIDATES,” and replied to Mr. Obama thus:
Dear Mr. Obama,
I have been in contact with your campaign offices, and I am very disappointed in two things: tonight’s debate (which failed to advance a single vital principle); and your Economic Policy Team’s failure to respond yet to my September 29 proposition of monetary solution (certified delivery, return receipt requested), as requested by your campaign staff.
Many of our readers are intimately aware of my proposition to Mr. Obama, that mathematically perfected economy? is not only the singular solution for the monumental probabilities of failure before us, but that mathematically perfected economy? provides to solve all of those issues immediately, and without cost.
While Mr. McCain may not even want to hear about such a thing, of course it would be equally embarrassing to the Obama Campaign if history discovers indeed one day that all this while there *was* one and one only immediate and integral solution to 1)?inflation and deflation, 2)?systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and 3)?inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt in proportion to a circulation: After all, Mr. Obama claims “change you can believe in.”
If he meant to serve his people, a man prepared and fit to occupy the office of the President of course could hardly dismiss as much as a proof of singular solution, or, failing that, inevitable failure. So yet, the fate of our country and the world may hinge on the far less edifying proof of Mr. Obama’s slogan, “I’m asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington… I’m asking you to believe in yours.”
As we wait in the waning eleventh hour for his answer to mathematically perfected economy?, I can only reply still to Mr. Obama’s campaign that unless those who pretend to serve us intend to persist in denying us representation, then by God, we’re about to have it. Where is a campaign that serves us then?
To ask such important questions of course doesn’t mean we will ever get a fitting answer. It is only days now to a vote which could well ensure world-wide monetary failure; and a proposition of mathematically perfected economy? must itself pass a policy team comprised of the very kinds of “educations” and disproven philosophies which got us here.
Many people have written, expressing their marginal commitments to either candidate. Obama may hold a slight lead in polls based on a futile perception that he “better” understands “economics.” The necessary ability to think critically at such a time however, is hardly exemplified by candidates or publics embracing still a pseudo-science, wholly bereft of formal proof or theorem. To understand crap which cannot serve us, and which can only engender the failure we have, is only to be able to serve us crap which cannot fix our problems.
From where I’m sitting, it is obvious there is a huge disjoin between the people and the candidates. Many people voice their concern, their doubts, and to a surprising extent, how much better they understand the issues than the candidates themselves.
Craig Alan Feinstein represents the general and substantial lack of faith in both candidates writes, “No real difference between the two. They both voted for the bailout. I’m not wasting my vote on either of them.” That is, a citizen so versant in the issues that he might have prevailed over either candidate’s debate, is so disgusted with both parties of betrayal, that he determines to throw a vote away, only to voice disgust that will likely never be heard.
I wrote Craig back, and he asked some of the questions we should all be asking. He kindly agreed to have his name attached to the following remarks between us (his in blue outlines, mine in red); and so his representative remarks and questions are as follows.
These are the kinds of questions our candidates should be answering absolutely for intelligent American citizens, if they are fit to fill the shoes they’re applying for:
Craig Alan Feinstein
mike montagne
Reply to Craig’s email:
Craig,
Good to hear from you. That was quite disgusting last night alright. What are your leanings, if you aren’t going to vote for one of the “winnable” candidates?
PEOPLE IN POWER DON’T LISTEN TO WE THE PEOPLE
What upsets me the most is that the people in power don’t listen to We The People, and they’ll listen to the so-called experts that got us into this mess. Furthermore, there are experts who disagree with these experts. What about Austrian economics do you think would inhibit Libertarians who follow Austrian economics from governing properly? In my opinion, the problem is the Central Bank itself. It takes away liberty from The People.
AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS
Well, Ron Paul is an Austrian “economist,” and of course, you probably know they don’t believe math can be applied to “economics” (that is, in terms altogether of analysis, projection, or solution), claiming it cannot be validly so applied, because “economics” inherently involves mathematically indeterminable human decision.
Of course, that does not apply to relevant projection, in which we account not for indeterminable human “decisions,” but instead for their obligation to maintain a vital circulation.
So this is very dangerous “thinking.”
What does it amount to?
Of course, Austrians don’t agree with each other. But taking Ron Paul as an example of libertarian dogma, he advocates the disparities of a return to the gold standard, and “competing currencies,” left to solve the problems in what Austrians call “free markets.”
Of course, Austrians advocate interest. The only arguments against interest they recognize (so that they can defeat them without mathematics), is their assertion that the only arguments against interest which have ever been raised, are the sentimental disposition against interest advanced by the scriptures. You will see if you read some of the Austrian foundational literature I cite in my rebuttals of the Austrian positions:
In any case, in preserving interest (however consolidated or independently), you still have multiplication of debt by interest and ultimately complete dispossession by interest. Furthermore of course, the markets are hardly “free,” because the monetary advantages of “the banks” to issue money, virtually without cost, circulate that to multiply profit further, and so forth… allow the banks always to assert their alpha power of predation. They can deny “the free markets” credit; they can make “money” more or less expensive; and they can readily create, in little time, all the monetary wealth to dispossess us of all the real wealth, which we have created.
So the Austrian “economist” does not advocate “economy” at all: they advocate predation and escalating dispossession which can only lead to failure.
FOREST FIRES IN MEXICO
I like to see it like this: In Mexico from what I have read, when there is a forest fire, they let it burn until to the little forest is burned down. In America, when there is a forest fire, they try to put it out as quickly as possible. After a while, the American strategy is going to backfire, as there will come a time when there will be a huge forest fire that will be impossible to put out because all of the little forests that should have burned down before will be there to fuel the large forest fire. The Central Bank is what the US government has created to put out the little forest fires. Now, it appears that we have a huge forest fire.
A FOREST FIRE ACROSS THE WORLD’S “MONETARY” SYSTEMS
Exactly. I’m working on a page now which I hoped to finish last weekend: “If I Were President…”
In one spot in the article I use the exact same analogy (which may be edited further of course). Here’s its present state:
“As surely as ever greater sums of insoluble debt multiply the sum of debt at an ever escalating rate, we can readily demonstrate that the day of that end will continue to approach now faster than ever, as even months will go by before our next officers of government would have a chance to throw futile rescue package after futile rescue package on a raging, wind-whipped forest fire which no few buckets of water can quench. Unless of course, the bucket we throw contains the solution to inherent multiplication of debt.“
If you don’t mind, Craig, yours is an excellent, timely and relevant question. With your permission, I’d like to credit it to you in today’s blog. It just works out well if I select good material and make it count twice. If you’d rather I not use your name, just let me know and I’ll make the question anonymous. I’ll wait for your answer before throwing the blog together.
Thanks so much, Craig, for being a thinker. We’re the ones who will have to pave the way out of this.
YOU MAY USE MY QUESTION IN YOUR BLOG
You may use my question in your blog. I think your answer is on target. Austrian economics only advocates decentralization of banking, but I think legalized banking naturally leads to centralized banking ??banks naturally want to form cartels and they naturally get richer with time so it gets easier to accomplish this.
WE HAVE ALREADY COMPLETED THAT CYCLE ONCE
Exactly. We have already completed that cycle once.
BANNING USURY ALTOGETHER
Banning usury altogether is the way to go. This is the only method that is “fire-proof” as I showed in the analogy. If you want to make money out of money, one must invest it. The payment for this is the unknown risk of the investment. There is a book on the internet “Risk Uncertainty and Profit” by Frank Knight that you might like to read which discusses this. I’m afraid that the politicians are incapable of implementing your common sense and will naturally listen to the people with the power and money to do the wrong thing. It appears to me that only God can help us now.
BANNING USURY ALL TOGETHER
Indeed. Through folks like you, He is trying.
Always a pleasure, Craig,
m
So of course while we may never hear from Mr. Obama, the question of usury is not off the table; and Americans do recognize what we have to do about it.
You’re probably going to be our next President, sir. You need to hear your people ??the ones not who report the consequences you should already understand, but who instead can make the vital difference.
“If you would just *lead us*, they would follow you; and so would I.”
“To find the players in all the corruption of the world, ‘Follow the money.’ To find the captains of world corruption, follow the money all the way.”
mike montagne ??founder, PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy?, author/engineer of mathematically perfected economy? (1979)
? COPYRIGHT 2008, by mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy?.
Except for profit making ventures or entities otherwise granted explicit permission to publish this copyright material, this article may be distributed or reprinted in whole only, from and including any quotes preceding its title, through and inclusive of the following permalink, by email or otherwise. Visitors may also download our entire directory of regular/main site articles from our downloads page: http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-free-pfmpe-downloads.html. If you want to save your country, we encourage personal distribution of this material to all conducive recipients of your personal address books. Of course, you may also send only the following permalink:
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
John Kenneth Galbraith
THE OCTOBER 7th DEBATE: ABSOLUTE FAILING GRADES TO BOTH CANDIDATES
GALBRAITH
For the sake of edifying the substancelessness of the pretended debate, let me first be John Kenneth Galbraith’s editor:
Because the unjustifiable monetary system was imposed upon the people for the very purpose of unjustifiable and illimitable taking from them;
because it intentionally does so by attaching interest to our promises to pay *each other* (with no risk whatsoever therefore to a central bank which publishes money at virtually no cost);
because that unjustifiable imposition of interest perpetually multiplies debt in proportion to a circulation;
and because the process is irreversible so long as we can only maintain a vital circulation by re-borrowing interest and principal as subsequent sums of debt, perpetually increased so much as periodic interest… the dupes of either of the “two” parties are condemned to the most futile exercise in history, if they cannot and will not grasp the principles of solution.
The one side might seek unearned gain themselves (for that while, lending support to the offenses against us, to the detriment of all), only to lose all they might gain at our expense to the alpha parasite… for that ultimate loss is inevitable in the lifespan of a system which can only multiply debt into a terminal sum of debt.
Another side might swoon to the idea of rescue packages, while the alpha parasite’s takings inherently, inevitably exceed any possible benefit; and, in the end, under utter failure of a system which can only multiply debt into terminal failure, no benefit whatever is truly practical.
Of course, neither such *side* embraces solution; and so we have what we have today.
As to why Americans swoon or sleep-walk to such pathetic candidates as will purposely never raise a finger to real solution, I would leave that to you Mr. Galbraith to explain, except that I see they want a candidate who can and will solve these problems. The parties which exclude such a candidate from the process then are at the people’s jugular. Amidst all these kind words and seemingly gentle postures, they have the people by the throat.
And for the sake of usury, they don’t mean to let go.
As to the success of the people of a republic then, we can only remind them that until they can and will unite upon true solution, all they will have is pathetic, pretended philosophies which can never serve them.
THE “CANDIDATES”
Even from their demeanors, Joe Sixpack and Holy Housewife should be able to tell these two fellows are just pretenders, hoping a mere third-class catch-phrase or two is going to woo America into thinking wrongly that either one of them has prepared himself to rescue his country from obvious serious conditions, neither of them really even smelled coming.
But how could *any* presidential candidate (much less, two) speak on anything for such a while, and not once identify a governing principal, the *real* fundamental faults of government (of which they are both members), the principles of developing solution, or, more fittingly, a proof of actual solution which would perhaps have been the most remarkable political anomaly in our lifetimes?
The answer can only be that these are far lesser men than engineers of solution. They are not even men disposed to recognize solution, for in fact they carefully avoid critical principles in every matter they address.
The greatest minds and founders of our national history universally spoke out against privatization of the currency. Foremost among them of course were Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Andrew Jackson, and Abraham Lincoln.
What true patriot of the principles of our country would not think that at the brink of inevitable monetary failure, these quite distinct men would not be jumping and shouting still, louder than ever, about the one question we never hear: the question of the nature of the currency?
What is wrong with America therefore ladies and gentlemen, IS government ??and what is wrong with that government is its complete abandonment of principle.
The cause of the monetary failure before us is simple. But nothing less than veritable solution of its cause will avert failure; and our country has not even raised that cause, because the enemies of justice are the very people in power and seeking power.
Usury, ladies and gentlemen, is one of the oldest ruses in history. If you can impose usury upon a country, you can dispossess its people of their wealth. You can afford to usurp its government ??even that of a republic. You can afford to own all the media. You can afford to own its political parties.
As Thomas Jefferson told us so long ago,
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.
Those who render the production of the world are the true creditors in any monetary system, for it is they who must accept, risk, and depend upon the integrity of a currency. But of course, if true producers charged each other “interest” in trading equal measures of production among each other, all the interest in the world would merely cancel. There would be no justifiable purpose in concerning ourselves with interest.
When a “monetary system” instead is designed to steal from the people by pretending to be our creditor, and by claiming “risk” when it produces money at its whims and at virtually no cost whatsoever, what then is the consequence of “interest”?
As Jefferson told us,
we thus can only maintain a circulation by re-borrowing the principal and interest that we are obligated to pay out of a general circulation in servicing any sum of debt;
the circulation however is only comprised of the principal (and therefore is itself both perpetually deflated so as cannot service the sum of debt, and must be perpetually replenished, inherently by further borrowing, if we are to do so);
we therefore are compelled to maintain a vital circulation by further borrowing, to continue servicing monetary obligations which, across the limited lifespan of the system, inherently multiply, as perpetual re-borrowing of principal makes it impossible/impractical to pay the sum of debt down, and as re-borrowed interest payments therefore perpetually increase the sum of debt so much as periodic interest on the sum of debt;
the sum of debt thus inherently increases at an ever escalating rate of ever greater sums of periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt, until the system inherently and inevitably collapses under a terminal sum of debt.
So that’s your problem ladies and gentlemen.
Now, what candidate is even about to address that question of the integrity of a currency which can only dedicate ever more of the circulation to servicing debt, while of course leaving ever less of the circulation to sustain the industry which is obligated to service that ever escalating sum of debt?
Look around you. Why do you think all of these un-mysterious things are “happening”?
What puppet or rat will guard your hen house?
When Mr. Obama says, “The middle-class need a rescue package,” the very evasion of this pretended answer tells us he will not even touch the fundamental iniquity of the system which is causing the failure. You will expire while the inherent multiplication of debt of a currency you never assented to gives all the life juices of our country to the unmentionable parasite at a faster rate than Mr. Obama’s short-sighted “package” can make up for.
In the end, and just as soon as that end imposes itself upon us regardless of Mr. Obama’s “rescue package,” usury wins.
Even worse, when Mr. McCain says, “Let’s not raise taxes on anybody today,” what he’s telling us is, to get elected, he will promise to leave you in no worse a squeeze play than you are already in, so that you can lose while he tries to soften the blow to the more important constituents of the plutocracy he has always served.
In the end, and just as soon as that end imposes itself upon us regardless of however much Mr. McCain promises not to penalize you so that he can reward all the alpha takers who intend to continue gutting our republic to the acceleration of its very end, usury wins.
In the end then, usury can only win; and usury alone can win.
Nothing has been rescued; and particularly, none of you have been rescued. The fox, the puppet, the money changer… all get a free pass.
“To find the players in all the corruption of the world, ‘Follow the money.’ To find the captains of world corruption, follow the money all the way.”
mike montagne ??founder, PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy?, author/engineer of mathematically perfected economy? (1979)
? COPYRIGHT 2008, by mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy?.
Except for profit making ventures or entities otherwise granted explicit permission to publish this copyright material, this article may be distributed or reprinted in whole only, from and including any quotes preceding its title, through and inclusive of the following permalink, by email or otherwise. Visitors may also download our entire directory of regular/main site articles from our downloads page: http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-free-pfmpe-downloads.html. If you want to save your country, we encourage personal distribution of this material to all conducive recipients of your personal address books. Of course, you may also send only the following permalink:
Real leadership means to correctly define the actual problem ??and then ??to correctly prescribe the actual solution.
Patrick Hedemark
RON PAUL CORRECTS HIMSELF REGARDING THE CAUSE OF MONETARY FAILURE
Saturday, October 4, 2008, 1:23 PM
In the wake of the meaningless and useless idea our problems have been engendered by “printing money out of thin air,” Ron Paul may evidently be correcting himself.
No fact of course has sustained his long term claim that we have suffered [circulatory] “inflation.” In fact, all the while he has attributed our precipitous decline and devaluation of the dollar to an inflation he has never shown exists or can be such a cause, we have only suffered from severe, perpetual deflation.
We have of course nonetheless, suffered price inflation. Yet the price inflation we suffer therefore can only be caused not by the inexpensiveness of the currency (for crying out loud) or excessive circulation (which doesn’t exist), but instead by inherent multiplication of debt by the nature of the currency: As the costs of servicing perpetually escalated sums of debt erode margins of solubility, of course industry has to increase its prices or move to countries which permit slave labor forces ??both of which are manifestations of inherent multiplication of debt by interest.
Perhaps we can all be encouraged then that in a recent interview with Alex Jones over the proposed bailout, Mr. Paul appears at least hypothetically to agree we need more money in “the economy.”
This of course would contradict his previous claims we suffer an excessive circulation, and that the present malaise is caused by that non-existent excessive circulation. Nonetheless he asserts in his first statement of the above YouTube interview, that if we had more money in circulation we would all be “a lot richer” (more solvent).
He says further that he “would permit the liquidation of debt to continue.”
Now we may ask of course, Why would that be, if it weren’t that some otherwise irreversible cause of escalating debt weren’t our problem? After all, we all recognize our problem is the privatized currency so deceptively called a “Federal Reserve System.” But what is the answer? Leaving “competing” private banks to charge interest for *our* promises to pay *each other* ??interest which will likewise multiply debt into insoluble, terminal sums of debt?
We already have that; and that very thing of course is the engine of the brink of failure under artificial sums of debt.
Thus Mr. Paul’s remarkable turnaround, in potentially acknowledging at least that it is for a lack of sufficient circulation (and an essential dedication of that circulation to servicing debt) that we suffer, could put us far closer to agreement and potential solution, because Mr. Paul and his supporters cannot have it both ways: Either we benefit from a circulation which a)?is sufficient to sustain production and trade of all the wealth we are capable of producing; and b)?is wholly dedicated to that purpose (versus servicing ever more unearned interest, collected by an uninterested, extrinsic party which produces and risks nothing, destroys the integrity of the currency, and ultimately collapses the whole system *by* a form of currency which can only multiply debt in proportion to the circulation); or c)?we somehow benefit from a restricted circulation (which is the very condition from which we are about to suffer collapse).
To answer this question with integrity, Mr. Paul will have to account for the ramifications of interest. Does [any practical implementation of] interest [for the purposes interest is generally imposed] inherently multiply debt in proportion to a vital circulation, eventually to inevitable collapse under terminal sums of debt? Is it even possible to solve inflation and deflation under any form of currency subject to interest?
Mr. Paul has never told us how so. But of course, the latter is impossible because interest requires us to pay out of the circulation, more than was introduced to represent the original value of financed wealth; and the very present accumulation of debt should suffice to compel serious evaluation of the former.
All Mr. Paul has to realize then is that:
Price *or* circulatory inflation and deflation can only be solved by maintaining a circulation which at all times is equal to the remaining value of the wealth it is intended to represent.
It is impossible then to do that if the circulation is subject to interest, because interest requires that we pay more out of the circulation than the remaining value of the wealth we intend to represent.
Only by paying off monetary obligations *equal* to the original value of the financed wealth then, and only by paying off those monetary obligations at the rate of depreciation or consumption, can we do so.
As any conventional implementation of interest (for the sake of unearned profit) can only multiply debt in proportion to a vital circulation (and the costs of all subject industry in proportion to a vital circulation), the only solution of price inflation and inherent multiplication of debt is eradication of interest.
As all other offenses of such a monetary system comprise systemic manipulations of the cost or value of money or property, and as all these offenses manifest only from any possible combination of the first and third offenses, then systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property can only be solved by a combination of the first and third aspects of solution.
All this of course comprises the very principles and prescription of mathematically perfected economy?; and this of course is why mathematically perfected economy? is the one integral solution for 1)?inflation and deflation, 2)?systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and 3)?inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt in proportion to a circulation.
These are the things Mr. Paul should be thinking about. To fall short of this one integral solution is no less than to deny the people of the world should be able to pay for each others’ production with equal measures of their production.
In other words, to fall short of integral solution is to deny us the very opportunity to pay for a $100,000 home with a 100-year lifespan with an equal measure of our own production; or $1,000 per year; or $83.33 per month.
There would be no housing crisis; there would be no banking crisis; there would be no bailout at further taxpayer expense; there would be no bankrupt nation; and there would be no Second Great Depression under mathematically perfected economy?.
Trying to make some sense of it all,
But I can see that it makes no sense at all.
Is it cool to go to sleep on the floor?
‘Cause I don’t think I can take any more. Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right… Here I am, stuck in the middle with you.
THAT WAS A DEBATE?
Pundits are trying for all they are worth to stretch a distinguishing promise from the recent vice presidential “debate.”
But was that even a debate; and did it not in fact virtually guarantee that neither party will serve us?
If you think you have heard monetary resolution from any of the candidates of this 2008 campaign, it is not possible your thoughts are credible: We don’t have to look back but for the blink of an eye to find that all the darlings of the mainstream media (owned by the “financial” “industry” now multiplying its stealings from us), attested that the fundamentals of “our” (their) “economy” (ways of stealing from us) are “sound.”
That’s all the basis for credibility we have ever had: mere unqualified and unqualifiable assertions. Outright lies; the most stupid things any self-ruling public could ever swallow.
The credibility anyone attributes to the present candidates is no more veritable. We have before us some of the worst public servants in history; and the greatest enemies of representative government therefore are the sheeple who keep these betrayers in power.
So disturbing is the lack of credibility of those in power, that they continue to refer to our form of government as a “democracy,” when in fact we are a rule of law, a representative government, “a republic.”
Whenever you hear another leader apply the term “democracy” to our form of government, what does that tell you of their perception of their obligation to serve you?
If it doesn’t tell you they sought power without the least regard for the rule of law which comprises and which alone can preserve a true republic, then you yourself have no way to understand they came to power instead to gut and destroy the republic by the very system they have now “rescued” merely to continue their gutting of the republic. The very thing they have preserved is your worst enemy (unless you too are a thief).
The very thing they have sought to do under your very noses is to secure their power to steal from you forever. The very thing they have protected is the instrument of their stealing; and they have even done this by ensuring the inevitable failure of their instrument of stealing will only cost you further, even as the present failure is engendered by the fact you are already incapable of paying.
Worse of course then, they have rescued nothing, because they have preserved the very fundamental process of the failure. Any monetary system subject to interest inherently terminates itself, because merely to maintain a vital circulation subject to interest, to the degree it is necessary to re-borrow principal and interest paid out of the general circulation, debt is inherently and irreversibly multiplied in proportion to the circulation (or capacity to service debt) by ever greater increments of ever greater periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt.
Every such system was devised to steal from you; every such system can only impose complete collapse on itself over and over and over again. The present “debate” in fact carefully avoided discussion of that matter.
Why?
You know why: These are hardly foxes; but they are sooooooo… corrupt; and they are pretending to guard the chicken coop.
No less an icon of truth than Thomas Jefferson told us so long ago as well, that all these things would happen. He did not solve their fundamental causes, but he at least identified them; he did not mathematically perfect economy, but he came ever so close to doing so.
As Jefferson said, “If the American people ever allow banks to issue their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation [by having to maintain a vital circulation by perpetually re-borrowing principal and interest as subsequent sums of debt, increased perpetually so much as periodic interest], the banks and [bank owned] corporations which will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”
But never in history has anyone proven usury served its subjects; and I myself provided the Reagan Administration with computer models in 1983, which, opposed to the purported (but never qualified) “soundness” of “our” “economic” fundamentals, predicted all this. Mere, basic calculations of the interest we would have to re-borrow to maintain a vital circulation projected not only the amassing of debt which will soon collapse “the economy,” but complete monetary failure at approximately 2010 AD.
The purported bailout or rescue has no power to avert that collapse, because it doesn’t even address the fundamental process which will *continue* to multiply debt into failure ??interest. In fact instead, the purported bailout or rescue *preserves* the very process which will continue to multiply debt into inevitable failure.
Thus what was debated?
By avoiding the one crucial issue, did not the two parties of betrayal, the two candidates of betrayal, and the mainstream media, owned by the very betrayers… did they not instead ensure your destruction?
On the street, no American with their head on half straight believes either party serves them. People are bracing for martial law; to lose everything they have; to eat for the next two weeks; for a decade of a Second Great Depression.
“Your” government?
The detention centers are ready. The same troops who have been sent after false claims of weapons of mass destruction will now be the weapon of mass, final destruction of the republic for which they ostensibly stood.
Your republic in fact is already all but gone; you gave it up to usurers long ago; and now, you have what you have wrought.
In the second lifespan of the private “Federal” “Reserve” System, the writing has been on the wall for decades: The exalted President Reagan claimed he would balance the budget; he denounced President Carter for 4 years of deficits in which Mr. Carter amassed the seeming pittance of $150 billion in federal debt ??less than $40 billion per year, while “your” Congress and President just gave $840 billion which you don’t have, away just yesterday.
But Reagan of course would soon multiply the federal debt of the entire previous history more than 3 times over; and the United States would plummet from “the greatest creditor nation” in the world to its lowliest debtor. That’s how long the writing has been on the wall.
As I warned President Reagan in 1980, and as I warn the American People now, the American People deserve ??and should demand ??a credible accounting for how, given the one underlying process of a monetary system which can only multiply debt into terminal debt, the purported policies before us *possibly* do *any* of the right things.
Americans aren’t going to get those answers, because the policies are unqualifiable, because the policies *intend* not to do the right thing for the people, and because the most corrupt are pretending to guard the chicken coop.
What you saw was a facade. Only a facade.
If the American People are to be served, a different set of questions must be answered. I’ve sent those questions to Jim Lehrer since he first began to moderate presidential debates. Here they are again, for whatever insistence you might give them; these are the bare rudiments ??just three questions ??regarding what we have to know to identify any candidate who *might* serve us:
Can you tell us, under any implementation of a currency subject to interest (for profit), how it is possible and practical to maintain a vital circulation without irreversibly multiplying debt in proportion to the circulation (or capacity to service debt), until we suffer artificial collapse under a terminal sum of debt?
Can you tell us how, if inflation and deflation are defined respectively as increases or decreases in circulation per whatever wealth the circulation is intended to represent, either a)?how inflation and/or deflation serve us; or b)?how it is possible to solve inflation and deflation where the currency is subject to interest?
Is there any reason you can give us why the people should be deprived of a currency which represents *only* the wealth they might intend to trade amongst each other?
Of course, there are infinite half baked answers to these questions. Nothing but solution however can serve the people; and there is one and only one integral solution to 1)?inflation and deflation, 2)?systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and 3)?inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt in proportion to a circulation.
What you saw was only a facade: Clowns to the left of us, Jokers to the right…
OPEN (ONLINE) COPY OF MIKE MONTAGNE’S PROPOSITION OF SINGULAR MONETARY SOLUTION, AS REQUESTED BY OBAMA CAMPAIGN
Monday, September 29, 2008, 10:13 AM
To *all* whom it may concern,
As agreed in the invitation extended to me in this past Thursday afternoon’s telephone conversation with Jackie, I address the Economic Policy Team, offering as I explained in that discussion:
to prove absolutely that under the monetary faults it is irresponsibly, merely purported to be capable of surviving, the monetary program so far offered by the Obama campaign can only inevitably fail;
to prove absolutely that no contending political proposition addresses or solves the fundamental causes of the present failure; and that if I were President, I could arrest the present process of collapse in 1 day; and that I could reverse the processes of failure by implementing a singular solution which a prepared candidate could implement in 1 month; and
to prove absolutely that only under the already qualified solution that I propose, will it be possible for our country (or the world) to achieve true prosperity, to the full extents we are otherwise capable of.
This proposition therefore would already be delivered to the Economic Policy Team which has yet to respond. But in other words yet, I offer to prove I can prevent anyone further from losing their home or business, or all further deserved property at stake. I declare that only by mathematically perfected economy? can we preserve and restore our employment and industry. I offer to prove that I can ensure in so much as a month, that we would achieve a far more vast prosperity than you propose. I declare in fact that what I offer you is the one and only prescription by which not only Americans, but the world can prosper to the full degree that we the people are naturally capable of.
By demonstrating its adversity or even disinclination to this proposition, the McCain campaign can only prove an even more destructive propensity for disservice and failure. It is therefore that only by the Obama campaign’s remote expression of interest in this proposition, that a chance exists for this country to conquer its problems immediately.
Nonetheless, if I can indeed provide what I offer, or if the problems this appeal identifies to you are true, to ignore this proposition therefore could be to willingly participate in engendering one of the greatest potential catastrophes in human history.
I realize still of course that you may say or think at first in response to the possible seeming audacity of such an offer, that I must be out of my mind. But on the contrary, if you are qualified to serve our country, and if you will ever succeed in truly serving our country, the very terms of my explicit offer are exactly what you must be capable of, and prepared to do.
Moreover, it is not I or these propositions which have evaded accountability; and it is time for the American People (and the world) to realize that the present styles of evasion are the very factory of our demise, for all our institutions, our academic disposition, our media, and a most corrupt, degenerate political body which reigns over us altogether without true public mandate or comprehension, have so little understood the present issues all this while (or have so feigned a contrary, unqualifiable understanding), that only when the irreversible faults of the present, iniquitous monetary system proved those unattended faults could only engender monetary failure, have any of you only now stood up to announce you are the ones to save us from failure.
I remind you further however, that you have now done so without advocating absolute solution, or even a proposition of solution which can be demonstrated to be reasonably plausible against the reservations I raise.
Even in the brevity of this letter, I shall soon sufficiently demonstrate that those faults have existed for some 100 years; that they have already produced a First Great Depression; and that they can only produce, a Second, a third, and so forth.
Thus if you are to prevail in the current campaign for the exceptional fact that you yourself can prove solution, then my arguments are absolutely vital to the purpose of the American People truly perceiving that you and you alone can and will serve them.
As I meant for this appeal to be forwarded directly to Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden, and as I expect it to reach them one way or another, and in one form or another, I will therefore address the candidates directly in the remainder of this proposition:
You, Mr. Obama of course, made a now well known speech using the famous Hopi parable that “we are the ones we have been waiting for.” I submit this assertion will only be proven if you receive my appeal well; and that on the contrary, we are merely the ones who can afford to wait for an inept and corrupt government to solve our problems no longer. Your campaign slogan asserts (it does not prove) that you stand for “change we can believe in.” I submit that if either of your propositions are so, then I will hear from you at your earliest convenience.
Let us set the table:
Essentially, to fulfill the promises so far set forth, I must prove that quantitatively, your proposition of mere investment in technological advancements (which we may already be sufficiently capable of), will be defeated by the greater underlying processes which already have us at the brink of monetary failure.
You on the other hand, to prove the contrary, would have to prove:
that the very modest scope of your program will be affordable all that while;
that it will survive further, inevitable, and otherwise irreversible manifestation of the failure over a potentially extensive period, over which your program must, but is only presumed to mature;
and that after whatever such period transpires for a potentially great while, the assumable results of your program will still be consumable (affordable) by an American and World Public which, to afford the further costs of implementation, must not only survive the continuing process which engenders failure ??but must further do so, preserving an unfathomable capability to afford costs which they cannot afford now, while further, inevitable multiplication of terminal debt upon us on the contrary, will only further destroy our present, insufficient capability to afford what we can now, all the further.
Even from this scant expression of requisites, reasonable people will understand that your proposition can and probably will be defeated on any of these critical counts.
But even in abstract terms Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden, the raw issues of our controversy comprise a tall order for you to meet, for first of all, to deny the opposing, degenerative processes of the system which have now produced the specter of an utter failure already capable of defeating all industry in the near term, is itself essentially to deny you have anything to solve. Obviously on the contrary, no such proposition or position could be more inept or irresponsible.
In fact nonetheless, I produced computer models which proved that disposition wrong (and which thus invalidate the mere assumed prospects of your program), way back in 1983.
So you will not be alone in failing to answer to the present appeal, because in fact every United States President since and including Gerald Ford has been apprised in detail of the fact of one and one only solution to the processes which can only engender the present failure before us.
But in 1983 as I say, I provided the Reagan Administration with:
mathematic proofs that any monetary system subject to a privatized currency of the present nature can only inherently and irreversibly multiply debt in proportion to a vital circulation, until the system fails under an inevitable sum of terminal insoluble debt which the system can no longer afford to service;
a mathematic proof there is one and one only solution to 1)?inflation and deflation, 2)?systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and 3)?inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt in proportion to a circulation;
further mathematic proofs that Reagan’s proposed three years reduction of federal tax rates, 10-percent-per-year, would either offset price inflation exceeding 10-percent per year, or of course solve its causes;
computer models, complete with source code (which was released to pre-internet bulletin boards), capable of forwardly projecting the inherent multiplication of debt by any purported economy subject to interest, and thus capable of calculating the maximum possible lifespan of any monetary system such as has been imposed upon us.
I may thus claim to have extensive experience with the disservice of our country; and I may further assert that the ensuing controversy ??his side of which Mr. Reagan never qualified, and because of which he failed all the while ??eventually resulted in the resignation of David Stockman, who of course was asked to mask the failure by prejudicing mathematic formulas to falsely depict prosperity in the face of the monumental debt the Reagan Administration in fact amassed. You may remember that Mr. Reagan ascended to the presidency after pronouncing the seemingly mere $150 b of federal debt accumulated by Mr. Carter in 4 years, as “unforgivable.”
But I can also tell you that those models, together with explanation as I now offer you, projected that converse to his own claims, Reagan would triple the national debt of the entire previous history of our nation. Those models, which no contrary model disproves, merely account for the underlying process which your “economic” program does not account for. They show that for political disservice which has purposely preserved this unwarranted destruction, the inherent and inseparable process of the present, pretended economy, if not rectified by mathematically perfected economy?, would result in world-wide monetary failure at approximately 2010 AD.
To test whether this is true in fact, you can still download the source code and working models from our web pages; you can still run 1980 numbers in those projection models; and you will still come up with that answer ??inevitable monetary failure at approximately 2010 AD ??the accumulation of debt in which in fact perfectly concurs with the actual accumulation of debt to now, because the projection merely replicates the process of multiplication by prescribed interest rates, and so forth.
Your “Economic” Policy Team of course may assert to you that this idea is preposterous. Disprove it then with a fitting and accountable invalidation of these models. Disprove it by invalidating the underlying thesis. On my web pages, you will find already existing invalidations of every class of attempt to disprove mathematically perfected economy? so far. So of course, unless you can exceed these attempts at disproof over the past 30 years, you therefore cannot even introduce any new material.
But no one has disproven mathematically perfected economy? is the singular integral solution for what it claims to solve; and so, unless you can find a flaw in the supporting arguments that no one else has, neither will you.
It would be a most dangerous and irresponsible thing therefore, to fail to respond to my proposition; and I don’t think the American People are going to put up with much more of that genre of ineptitude and abuse from a purported representative government. If they shall be asked to in fact, our Constitution, our republic, and the very rule of law and principles upon which each can only survive, are in fact usurped by mere pretenders, the likes of which we should rid from our country forever.
I remind you however, Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden, that I am not alone in my capability and intention to defend my country from its enemies, foreign and domestic. As I respected you, Mr. Biden recently, for informing General Petraeus that no one was buying the purported success of the “surge,” I submit that no person in their right mind can accept the present “economic” program of this campaign as a solution for the underlying problems which will defeat your program as surely as they are presently defeating the last of our surviving industry. Our country is already gutted by that process and its advocates’ further “privatization.” To further pursue the present, inevitably destructive course of those unwarranted and unassented processes, is nothing short of treason.
Our founding fathers indeed presented even to you the principles of which I now write. But they did not solve them, even if we can see each, Jefferson, Franklin, John Adams, Andrew Jackson, and Abraham Lincoln, were about to do just that. Many others ??including great, yet-unvindicated congressional leaders of past history such as Congressman Louis T. McFadden ??left a record pointing to the solution I advocate that you are bound irrevocably to implement, by all duty to the American People and their Constitution.
The history of our country is pervaded by a struggle against usury, in which, only by the abuse or usurpation of representation, the usurers have now prevailed.
Yet Thomas Jefferson told us long ago:
If the American people ever allow banks to issue their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and [bank owned] corporations which will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.
In submitting these observations, Jefferson of course replied to Alexander Hamilton and President Washington, who asked at Hamilton’s behest that Jefferson advise the President as to the constitutionality of a national bank. Despite the now proven quality of Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank, Mr. Washington, perhaps like you, favored the unfounded arguments of Mr. Hamilton, who of course served the interests of usury.
But what did Jefferson mean, “first by inflation and then by deflation”?
To interpret this potentially profound observation, we can only ourselves observe that by having to maintain a vital circulation by perpetually re-borrowing principal and interest as subsequent sums of debt, a purported monetary system such as we have been subjected to against our will and our Constitution can only perpetually increase the sum of debt until we suffer complete monetary failure.
After all, to maintain a vital circulation, we are compelled to re-borrow principal paid out of the general circulation as subsequent sums of debt, equal to the previous sum of debt it would otherwise resolve. To the degree that we must do this then, of course it is impossible to pay down the sum of debt.
But furthermore, to the degree that to replenish the circulation we are constantly compelled to re-borrow interest, this unassented system can only perpetually increase the sum of debt in proportion to a vital circulation, until the system succumbs to a terminal sum of debt which it can no longer afford to service.
I therefore submit that this is what Mr. Jefferson meant by a [simultaneous] combination of inflation and deflation, for in fact there is no more critical thing to understand about interest, but that regardless of any practical rate imposed for unearned profit, it is inherently usurious and inevitably terminal. I further tell you that in their time, it is understandable that the founders had not yet resolved these observations into a perfected solution; nor should we expect then that they left a perfected monetary prescription in the Constitution. Instead, to their eternal credit, they expressed in the one sentence of the Preamble, that it is our duty, whatever the state of the Constitution as amended, to perfect the union.
All the while of this process of inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt of course, ever more of the circulation is dedicated to servicing debt; ever less of the circulation is left to sustain the industry which is compelled to service the artificial multiplication of debt; the debt nonetheless increases at an ever escalating rate of ever greater sums of periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt; the costs of servicing debt infringe to ever greater degrees on margins of solubility; surviving industry is even expatriated; and we can only eventually suffer complete and even world-wide monetary failure so long as we persist in the unauthorized and unassented imposition of usury, which no “economist” *has ever* proven is sustainable.
So indeed further, the personnel who might so readily dismiss this proposition without even due courtesy, cannot even cite a single theorem or proof of the pseudo-science, “economics,” which is not only wholly bereft of any such thing, but is the very curse for which we suffer.
Nor then has the opposition modeled the ostensible sustainability they merely contend exists. In fact all history has refuted that opposing proposition.
Yet you hope to prevail in a modest program, the whole of which quantitatively is far less than the present rates of this multiplication of debt; and which only hopes to survive that process without solving it?
I dare say that would be quite preposterous, gentlemen!
With all due respect then, I offer to refute your program or any further, contrary assertions, and to further explain mathematically perfected economy? however it is necessary, that we can establish solution and preserve the objects every true republic in history will exist for.
Obviously, it would be an honor to serve you in that object of my country and the world; and so I hope somehow that our country can turn from its dark ways, that without ensuring any further progress of the present catastrophes, together we can instead achieve goals which humanity has long intended, and will forever intend.
I then am not the one we have been waiting for. In fact I have long been here, advocating and proving the singular possible solution many have long ignored.
If you want to end their wait in due course, I expect and hope, in perpetual faith to the truth of these matters, to hear from you at your earliest possible convenience.
On the other hand, if I do not hear from you just so soon, I inform you that you offer no change we can believe in, gentlemen. As an American citizen just the same, I mean to settle for nothing less.
With just that faith in principle,
“To find the players in all the corruption of the world, ‘Follow the money.’ To find the captains of world corruption, follow the money all the way.”
mike montagne ??founder, PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy?, author/engineer of mathematically perfected economy? (1979)
In fact, if not a derivative ever existed, we would yet be at the brink of monetary failure right now.
mike montagne
No, Ellen. It’s NOT the Derivatives, STUPID!
Ellen Hodgson Brown (”Web of Debt”) has quite a few questions still to answer as to how the colonial currency she referred to as “the most brilliant banking model in our national history,” possibly was even intended to solve inflation ??much less that it establishes solution or accounts for the further issues which, only if solved, would rectify a monetary system. Instead, Ellen (and now Ron Paul?) purports there’s a plurality of ways far more complicated than mathematically perfected economy?, all of which Simple Simon says fixes the tainted, private Federal Reserve System. Why heck, thanks to all the folks who suddenly understand “economy” so well, we’re in fine shape if we just learn “it’s the derivatives, stupid.” Which of course is the title of her recent article.
“The point everyone misses,” wrote economist Robert Chapman a decade ago, “is that buying derivatives is not investing. It is gambling, insurance and high stakes bookmaking. Derivatives create nothing.”
No Ellen, and Mr. Chapman as well, I have news for you: “Investing” isn’t “investing,” either. Nor (likewise) does it create or produce anything. On the contrary, the very “investing” you yourself miss is all about unearned taking; and so, because it takes from the pool of wealth (production) without like contribution, the only possible consequence of this purported “investing” is that real producers are deprived of just reward for their production.
After all, what is Wall Street itself, but gambling? Is anything produced there?
Except for the case of an IPO, how much of all the money wagered there is ever “invested” in real industry, actual production?
Wall Street in fact therefore is one of our greatest problems, because if the prosperity of “Wall Street” can only come at the expense of real producers, then we should understand that at every moment, the better “Wall Street” “does,” the worse free enterprise can possibly fare.
Why rescue Wall Street at all then? (Is the question, Ellen.)
So yet, Ellen complains,
“We the taxpayers are on the hook for the Fed’s “enhanced liquidity facilities,” meaning the loans it has been making to everyone in sight, bank or non-bank, exercising obscure provisions in the Federal Reserve Act that may or may not say they can do it. What’s going on here? Why not let the free market work?”
Well, it’s not a free market at all then, Ellen. The so called Federal Reserve System, like Wall Street, is an arena where our potential industry is plundered to death, to the obliteration of any reward to anyone who actually produces anything.
But since when is the Federal Reserve Act itself constitutional?
Why then would a lawyer cite it, or require confirmation from it, that we “may or may not” invoke a public bailout of something which a real “economist” would already understand, can only damage us?
No Ellen, the horse does not trail the cart. In fact, if not a derivative ever existed, we would yet be at the brink of monetary failure right now.
What’s more, neither is it “the quality” of the loans, for which we’re at the brink of failure.
Au contraire, it’s inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt by interest which alone can explain how we have owed far more than we have ever produced; and for which debt can only multiply further, as, just to maintain a vital circulation, we are compelled to re-borrow principal and interest, as subsequent sums of debt, perpetually increased so much as periodic interest.
Purported experts who tell us otherwise therefore ensure we falter further, for it is your very cherry-picking of unqualified solutions which neither you, or Stephen Zarlenga, or Ron Paul, or Edwin Vieira, or G. Edward Griffin, or Jaikaran will debate, which confuse the people from the one thing which will save them: mathematically perfected economy?.
How do you maintain a circulation subject to interest without engendering monetary failure Ellen, where any of that interest is profit and where any of the circulation must be maintained by perpetually re-borrowing principal and interest as a subsequent sum of debt, perpetually increased above the previous sum of debt by so much as periodic interest?
Isn’t that even exactly why you have come up with your ridiculous, unfounded explanation, asserting this is how the Pennsylvania Currency worked?
How do you otherwise service debt subject to interest without suffering the present consequences, as the interest and principal we must reborrow to maintain a vital circulation perpetually increases the sum of debt so much as periodic interest?
Did derivatives multiply debt; or did interest?
Do you deny this is what the very so called Federal Reserve System was imposed for? Do all your obfuscations of interest mean to deny that’s the very purpose of interest? Do you mean to retain interest, by obfuscating it as taxation in your miserable explanation the Pennsylvania Currency was the most brilliant banking model in our national history?
Since you claim now to account so well for these obvious quantities and processes, where did I go awry in the source code which predicted this failure in 1983 from the very inherent, irreversible process of multiplication of debt by interest?
Why would you reject solution of the observations of Mr. Jefferson, who reportedly said, “If the American People *ever* allow the banks to issue their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks *and [bank owned] corporations* which *will* grow up around them *will* deprive the people of all property, until their children wake homeless on the continent their fathers conquered?”
Is this not the process I’ve outlined, in which we must maintain a vital circulation subject to interest by re-borrowing (re-inflation of) what we pay out of the general circulation (deflation)… is this not an inherently simultaneous process, just as Thomas Jefferson told us?
It’s really very simple, Ellen: As a privatized (or even public) currency subject to interest forces us (only by denying us any form of currency but an unconstitutional form of currency subject to interest) to any degree and in any instance(s) to maintain a vital circulation by re-borrowing interest, then the sum of debt multiplies at an ever escalating rate of ever greater increments of just so much periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt, until we collapse under an eventual, terminal sum of debt.
Why are *some* “banks” failing?
Well, you and I would find it impossible to fail, having taken the unauthorizable powers the private Federal Reserve System has taken.
But let’s just think just a moment what happens as the so called Federal Reserve System can only multiply debt:
Well now, hugely devious behavior alone could collapse a “federal” “reserve” “bank.” But what about all these other banks?
They’re just middlemen. They’re caught in the squeeze between the privatized currency’s publishers and the poor bastards who are forced to service the perpetually multiplying sum of debt. The Federal Reserve prints “the money” for nothing; but after that, though no risk is involved to the so called Federal Reserve Banks, it represents an obligation to the middle-men ??the subservient private banks in between.
As the sum of debt multiplies, more and more money has to be loaned back into circulation to replenish it of the deflation Mr. Jefferson has explained to you and Mr. Paul. All the while, ever more of a circulation is dedicated to servicing the escalating sum of debt, while ever less is left to sustain the commerce or industry which is obliged to service the debt. Margins of solubility are impossible to sustain, because the costs of servicing the debt eventually make sustainability impossible.
All the while, these middle institutions are required to produce collateral, and to paint pictures of themselves which falsely depict their own sustainability; for without the false portraits, they can’t loan the further money not only necessary for the subjects of involuntary servitude to survive, but for the middle banks themselves to survive by collecting for the central bank.
Well, naturally then, as the impossibility of sustaining the escalating sum of debt draws nigh, they devise lies which obfuscate whether they or their marginalized clients are so worthy to borrow further. They’re no longer really worthy. But they lie to tread water. That’s what derivatives are, Ellen. They’re the lies of the drowning victims, who in fact can only be saved by eradicating interest. Quite obviously, we the People cannot be saved by imposing the cost of the middle “bank’s” failures on we, the victims, whose failures already signify our inability even to bear such further burden.
So, telling the people so long after others that this is a Ponzi scheme Ellen just doesn’t convey the picture the people need. You have advocated a brilliant banking model, as if a banking model is what we require.
But in fact we need to rid ourselves not only of banking models, but of the very concept that banks or their proponents (such as yourself) have ever justified “interest.” The producer is the real creditor Ellen, because it is the producer who accepts the paper, ether, or whatever token of wealth (”money”), on the faith that media is forever redeemable in whatever it is purported to represent.
Your “banking models” just pave the way for an extrinsic, further party to intercede between the creditor and debtor, while the usurping creditor of course will only ever do so for profit ??and of course, unearned profit at that.
Of course then, granting them leeway toward unearned profit at all is folly, because maximimal unearned profit then becomes the quest of many, and many more, to whatever degree possible, in what you call a “free market.”
As I have shown in the response to you which has yet to receive a credible reply, one and one only monetary prescription at all times preserves the redeemability of the debtor’s obligation. Likewise, mathematically perfected economy? alone makes it possible in all cases to acquire for our production an equal measure of the production of others. Under mathematically perfected economy?, monetary obligations (debts free of interest) are at all times redeemable, both in like production and the remaining value of the very wealth the currency of mathematically perfected economy? alone represents.
So no Ellen, you’re wrong again: It’s not the derivatives, stupid, which either symbolize or are the cause of the present deterioration which for your fame’s sake we have neglected to now to the brink of collapse. Derivatives in fact preserved the system for yet another false day of artificial sustention, that even authorities such as yourself have that further day yet to realize no, it’s the interest, stupid!
It’s the interest; it’s the interest; it’s the interest…
Immitators of our pages are advocating how to fight foreclosure. I’ve been telling people what they need to do at this time since before I published a formal proof of inherent failure under interest and proof of mathematically perfected economy? in 1979.
What Americans have to do is contest the constitutionality of the currency. You need to assert that the imposed circulation can only impose the present conditions of failure upon us, and, that if a given private entity has such a right as to issue infinite irredeemable promises to pay, that as no private citizen/entity can have rights deprived to others, your creditors must therefore be bound at least to accept *your* irredeemable promise to pay infinity in solution of the monetary obligation which you have been coerced to accept.
Why?
Because the illegal and adverse form of the currency imposes multiplication of debt upon you; because multiplication of debt makes it ever more impossible, and eventually impossible, to service the debt; and because not even the federal government abides by its obligations to service the multiplying sum of debt.
While 12,000 homes a day continue to go into foreclosure, mathematically perfected economy™ would re-finance a $100,000 home with a hundred-year lifespan at the overall rate of $1,000 per year or $83.33 per month. Without costing us anything, we would immediately become as much as 12 times as liquid on present revenue. Transitioning to MPE™ would apply all payments already made against existent debt toward principal. Many of us would be debt free. There would be no housing crisis, no credit crisis. Unlimited funding would immediately be available to sustain all the industry we are capable of.
There is no other solution. Regulation can only temper an inherently terminal process.
If you are not promoting mathematically perfected economy™, then you condemn us to monetary failure.
COPYRIGHT 1979-2009 by mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. TRADEMARKS: PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™, Mathematically Perfected Economy™, Mathematically Perfected Currency™, MPE™, and PFMPE™ are trademarks of mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™, perfecteconomy.com. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
RELATED MATERIAL
SUBSCRIBE to RSS FEED.
COPYRIGHT 1979-2009 by mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. TRADEMARKS: PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™, Mathematically Perfected Economy™, Mathematically Perfected Currency™, MPE™, and PFMPE™ are trademarks of mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™, perfecteconomy.com. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
BEST VIEWED WITH MOZILLA FIREFOX™.