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)]

Thursday, February 5th, 2009

As I wrote to Mike privately awhile ago, the essence of his solution, Mathematically Perfected Economy, is at once an economic principle and an ethical one. The principle is that of non-intervention; a principle which is found at the heart of Democratic Theory. His conception appears to my mind as an economic analog to the conception of civil liberties which seeks to guarantee for each individual all those freedoms which are consistent with the same guarantee for every other individual. In its economic manifestation it can be stated as follows (Mike’s definition of MPE): It is every prospective debtor’s right to issue their promise to pay, free of extrinsic manipulation, adulteration, or exploitation of that promise, or the natural opportunity to make good on it.

From this perspective it should be abundantly clear that bankers as legally sanctioned usurers and faux creditors have no place in a democratic society. They are neither desirable nor necessary. They should be no more welcome than slave owners, political dictators or murderers. They have no right to insinuate themselves into economic relations as the only legal arbiters of debt and credit. But having done so, they have impaired every other freedom inherent to the democratic ideal and continue to prevent a truly free market economy from taking shape.

Jim Eldon, December 30, 2008 response to Ellen Hodgson Brown

LARRY LARKIN ASKS HOW AN ADEQUATE CIRCULATION IS MAINTAINED IN MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY™

Larry Larkin asks:

Larry Larkin wrote:

My understanding is that with the MPE™, [1] virtually all money comes into existence through debt, like our current system. [2] As the debts are repaid the money is retired from circulation. [3] What if the amount of new debt slows down, won’t the circulation begin to diminish?

[4] Money, or more specifically circulation, supports both commerce and debt — if the debt is fully extinguishable, then isn’t the circulation extinguishable too?

Larry

  1. The first thing we have to get across is that the term, “debt,” cannot aptly distinguish the nature of the two compared currencies. There are monumental differences in the nature and ramifications of each purported debt; and we need to explore those ramifications thoroughly not only to understand them, but to realize that the simplistic term, “debt,” is powerless to distinguish actually opposed concepts.

    In the case of mathematically perfected currency™, the circulation is indeed comprised of obligations which in every case equal only the principal and currency in circulation. The very integrity of all the resultant monetary obligations therefore is made possible by the fact the sum of debt is never greater than the circulation. Likewise, the integrity of the debt is only guaranteed by a schedule of payment in which the debtor pays for the related property at least at the rate of consumption or depreciation.

    The currency of mathematically perfected economy™ therefore is not just an inert, un-multiplied debt which alone allows us to pay for each others’ production with equal measures of our own production. The currency of mathematically perfected economy™ furthermore comprises an inseparable obligation to pay at the rate of consumption or depreciation of the related property.

    The unique nature of this combination of attributes alone therefore makes it possible to sustain all the production we are capable of (because there is no extrinsic cost), and maintains the only conditions which replicate direct trade without impediment or exploitation, and which preserve the nature and relative value of every unit of the circulation, clear to its retirement.

    In the case of the present, imposed system on the other hand, the currency comprises “interest-bearing debts,” which introduce a whole further set, not of incidental or possible ramifications, but of inherent, inevitable, ever more destructive, and ultimately terminal ramifications. We must of course understand all the further manifestations of inherent multiplication of debt by interest to appreciate the differences between these two, greatly disparate classes of “debt.”

    But as the previous and following arguments establish, in every aspect the integrity of mathematically perfected economy™ is in fact made impossible by the imposition of interest. Thus we are actually using the same terminology for extremely disparate things. We say wrongly for instance, regarding interest-bearing “debt,” that the debt is the principal, when the resultant monetary obligation is of course obviously the sum of principal and interest.

    Worse then, this purposely obfuscated terminology obstructs understanding even the very magnitude of initial exploitation by needless multiplication of debt, imposed upon us merely by allowing an extrinsic, uninterested party publish our own promises to pay, at perpetual multiplication of cost to us. The obfuscated terminology perpetually disinforms us then that what we owe is only the principal, while every case makes the obligation/debt a sum of principal and interest which is far greater; and all this is comprised only of a said loan, which actually only involves publishing our promise to pay at virtually no cost whatever. It cannot be more obvious that this exploitation is intentional then, simply because solution is so resisted even at every juncture of purported representation. But the terms are a part of this resistance; and we are better advised to persist in more appropriate, explicit terminology, because to say that both currencies are simply debts is to play to the intended purpose of the disinformation.

    So we do not simply have “debts” in the case of usury; and so it is because the integral obligation to pay principal and interest out of the general circulation (in servicing “debt”) at all times exceeds a circulation comprised of no more than the principal (and regularly even far less), that it is impossible or impractical even to continue servicing the resultant monetary obligations without perpetually replenishing the circulation of the interest and principal we are obliged to pay out of circulation in servicing whatever momentary sum of debt. Thus we are obliged by the nature of this distinct, opposed class of “debt,” to maintain a vital circulation, with this perpetual, unavoidable, and thus irreversible borrowing/maintenance perpetually increasing the sum of debt by ever greater sums of periodic interest on an ever greater, and eventually terminal sum of debt.

    We are not even finished distinguishing this opposite pole of debt however, because we must understand how interest results in an inevitable, terminal sum of debt. The obligation to re-borrow interest as new debt above the former sum of debt ultimately produces a terminal sum of debt because the process perpetually multiplies the sum of debt in proportion to the related circulation. This not only inherently devalues the money by dedicating ever more of the circulation to servicing debt, it leaves ever less of the circulation to sustain the industry which is obligated to do so. Because the rate of multiplication inherently escalates, eventually the rate of multiplication of debt so outstrips the possible rates of industrial growth and consumption that an eventual sum of debt demands more of the circulation to service debt than leaves a remaining circulation capable of sustaining the industry which is obligated to do so.

    At the inevitable terminus of an inherently finite lifespan then, not only can we no longer afford to fully service the escalated, artificial sum of debt, we cannot thus afford or qualify to borrow further, as is necessary still to maintain a vital circulation against what yet we are still paying out of the general circulation in servicing the terminal sum of debt to whatever extent we can.

    Thus in the terminal phase of the finite lifespan, the circulation deflates at whatever rate we are servicing the sum of debt, with this manifesting in a potentially sudden and vast collapse of industry under the disappearance of circulation. At the same time of course, we remain so much as permanently unqualified to borrow further, because to do so is to assume further debt above a terminal sum of debt we already cannot afford to service.

    This of course is the very present nature of the purported “credit crisis.” But it is not a crisis of credit, which is only the end state. All this is to be realized from the very disparate things we are calling debt. The crisis instead then is a crisis of the nature of a currency which can only produce these conditions, and which can only preserve them once the terminal phase of the finite lifespan is reached.

    So these two highly disparate forms of “debt” are in fact so opposed, that not only is it impossible for a circulation subject to interest to achieve the natural, fundamental objectives of an economy; it is eventually impossible even to sustain industry or restore conditions which are necessary to do so. All the money you can pour on the terminal conditions will only disappear, and generally rapidly, in the persistent obligation to service an already terminal sum of debt which, along with the obligation to service it, can only be increased by the very adverse nature of further currency subject to interest.

    On the surface then, not understanding the different natures of the two utterly separate classes of “debt,” we tend to take on a superstitious fear — as if “debt” itself comprises the fatal adversity.

    But on the contrary, certifying and preserving our ability to pay for what we consume as we consume of it, paves the only way both to furtherance of industry to the full extent of our capacities, and to perpetually just and affordable costs of the resultant production. So these are principal reasons we are obligated to solve the issues which the “debt” of mathematically perfected economy™ alone solves, and which interest-bearing “debt” makes it impossible to solve.

    WHY IT IS NECESSARY, AN ADVANTAGE, AND EVEN THE ONLY ACTUAL ALTERNATIVE THAT CURRENCY IS ISSUED AS AN OBLIGATION

    Essentially, the minimal facet of a currency is representation. What does a currency represent; or what should/must it represent? This is the first question anyone must answer in certain terms before they can build an understanding of monetary rectitude, or a system embodying monetary rectitude.

    Money inherently involves at least and possibly no more than one essential attribute: it must represent value.

    How do we determine the desirable attribute(s)? By examining the ramifications of possible cases.

    What for instance if the relative or practical value of money changes? In every case where the value of money does not perpetually represent the property it initially represented, one party is injured in the loss of earned gains when money is transferred, while the other benefits unjustly, without deserving an unearned gain. Not only does this introduce a “possibility” of injustice, the possibility of ostensibly lawful injustice sets in motion a quest to manipulate circumstances for unearned gain, further engendering a need all the more to defend the value of money or property, however possible. Worse, in the perpetual disappearance (deflation) and shortage of circulation which can be dedicated to sustaining industry/production subject to interest, the shortage is coercive to doing business or trade at loss, and particularly, to the ever greater undeserved advantage of whoever publishes the money at virtually no cost whatever. But if we are to achieve monetary justice, money must and must only represent consistent value across its lifespan.

    In mathematically perfected economy™ alone yet, the value of the currency is preserved across the entire lifespan of every unit by a perpetual 1:1:1 ratio between the circulation, remaining debt/obligation, and remaining value of the related property. So here alone do we establish the desirable perpetuation of the value of every unit, as is impossible subject to interest.

    But why must currency be issued as debt; or why is it most appropriate, or to any advantage to issue currency only as debt?

    The two seeming alternative ways of issuing money into circulation of course are either to spend it into circulation, or to issue it as debt. What are the ramifications or differences, if any?

    That we have no deficiency or fault in the justified debts or the integrity and perpetual value of mathematically perfected currency™ — all of which necessary virtues are impossible under interest — might convey that we have achieved all necessary objectives, except for the possible remaining question whether money should be introduced as debt, and/or, at least in a practical sense, whether money can only be introduced as debt.

    Obviously, we can contend that we’re simply spending money into circulation, if we do so; but is it actually any different to do so? One further question gives us the answer to this question.

    Suppose for instance we decided arbitrarily to spend taxation into circulation, even thinking thus that we are funding government without cost; and that we are getting away with funding government without cost?

    To answer this question we have to examine cases which will give us the answer.

    Consider a case for instance where perhaps a population and its industry diminished substantially, say each to ten-percent of previous extents which through some point of escalation had been perfectly sustained by spending a circulation into existence which related to the former industry perfectly. As a consequence in this post escalation era, far more circulation than production (true circulatory inflation) would be free to compete for the diminished production, because there is no 1:1:1 ratio between a remaining obligation, remaining value of related property, and the circulation available to serve either.

    On the one hand then, the resultant circulation would diminish in value (negating all the assumable benefit and value of possessed circulation), or on the other hand, each of us having far more circulation than production, few of us would be compelled to engage in production.

    This devaluation then, should it transpire without our vital, perpetual 1:1:1 relationship, naturally seeks the same equilibrium that a currency paid out of circulation would see, because the ratio of available circulation to the state and availability of production remains the determining factor. The only difference in the two systems is that in mathematically perfected economy™ we preserve the ratio across the lifespan of the circulation and related property.

    But so the effect of finding that equilibrium is just the same as having paid away the circulation, as we consumed of the related property. In other words then, no benefit is actually achieved by not paying the circulation against whatever we consume of production.

    Furthermore, by “simply” spending the currency into circulation, we have only attempted to achieve an impossible thing which we have not gotten away with, across the breadth of the system. That is, we may have employed people to build roads and bridges, and we paid them; but those who have consumed their production have not paid for their consumption directly, as would share the burden justly. All of us pay for the bridge through circulatory inflation; but those who do not use the bridge may thus be saddled with unjust costs.

    In the end then, spending money into circulation does not at all avoid or eliminate the obligation to pay for what is consumed, and distributes the burden unjustly.

    In other words still then, no mode whatever of issuing currency eliminates a resultant obligation to pay: there is in the issuance of all money an incumbent and inevitable act of paying. An obligation to pay exists — which is a debt.

    By issuing currency as an explicit debt then, all we are doing is enforcing justice: we are ensuring that the consumer of the production pays for their consumption as they consume of it.

    So this is the essential and vital, minimal nature of currency.

  2. Yes, and this is why as the debts are repaid, the circulation (payments) are retired: The lifespan and volume of currency are synchronized with the lifespan and remaining value of the related property. When the debtor pays as they consume, that very circulation that they pay out of circulation no longer represents anything of value, and must be retired from circulation accordingly (although it could be re-used in other, later instances of debt).

  3. Essentially, either a) existent circulation or production is traded for further production; or b) a lack of having produced and been rewarded comprises the alternate case, where a promise to pay is justified by being capable of paying.

    So there is never any unnatural or obstructive shortage of circulation. a circulation may dwindle even to zero with no adverse effect whatsoever, because a) mathematically perfected economy™ allows us to immediately convert equity into circulation; or b) wherever we are capable of paying as we consume of the desired property, we can issue our promise to do so through the common foundry, which certifies our credit-worthiness and maintains our accounts, not only of payments and remaining balances, but likewise of accumulated equity, at virtually no cost whatever.

  4. So while the circulation of either monetary system is extinguishable (and the consequence of interest is terminal debt), the volume of circulation in mathematically perfected economy™ naturally remains equivalent at least to the equity or remaining value of existent production; and rises naturally and without cost or impediment as will sustain further industry, just as actual conditions predicate. If a person has earned and can pay outright, they may do so. Yet wherever further trade requires further circulation, we are free to issue certified promises to pay which sustain that industry and trade by the one and only prescription which is sustainable; and we do so by no more than establishing how our industry will sustain our industry — which of course is the only natural requisite of 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/2009/02/05/larry-larkin-asks-how-an-adequate-circulation-is-maintained-in-mathematically-perfected-economy/

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE™ FORUM:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewtopic.php?f=102&t=365&p=956#p956

[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

Tuesday, October 28th, 2008

In the very same way, your understanding of interest is critical; and if the age we are seeing end has a purpose, that purpose is that you understand interest is usury, and that usury is a pattern which much like Kondratiev asserts, collapses every system of usury until we solve the simple fact usury is a process of inevitable collapse.

That’s why Kondratiev had a pattern to observe.

mike montagne ??in About Interest, Key To The Cycle Of Usury: ‘It’s the interest, stupid, it’s the interest.’”

Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience.

John Locke, 1690

THROWING DOWN THE GAUNTLET ON THE GOLD STANDARD (AGAIN)

In a former Ron Paul Meetup forum, a forum correspondent writes only:

Pass it on…

http://www.endthefed.us/

In a campaign of quantity versus quality, the so called Ron Paul Movement has bought up every conceivable domain name only implying whatever Mr. Paul and his family of “Austrian Economists” merely claim is “sound money.”

While even Benjamin Franklin long ago (at the age of 23) substantially invalidated the gold standard, and while my work for the last 30+ years emphatically invalidated Mr. Paul’s arguments long before he chose to persist in them, Mr. Paul himself of course has refused to answer once to these arguments in twenty years.

But so, twenty years of evasion therefore establish some unknown prospect or even possibility of returning to the gold standard?

To perpetually assert what is not solution is a perpetual affront to solution.

Thus I reply:

PFMPE?

In my opinion, these late comers to the anti-privatized currency movement, who keep advocating gold despite its obvious faults and impossibilities, are hugely at fault for perpetually infusing public confusion.

There’s a claimed $70 b of monetary gold on hand at the U.S. Treasury ??and China, who we owe many times that, has spent much of the last year going after it.

Thanks in fact to the improprieties which gold standard advocates will not answer to, in fact we presently owe many times all the gold in the world. The mere dream of a return to the gold standard therefore is no more than the brain child of the brain dead.

But even more to the discredit of its inept assertions, the “gold is money” movement has been for profit from the beginning ??to itself coin unconstitutional money.

Moreover, its ostensible premises were invalidated before it started: Ron Paul, Edwin Vieira, and its other heads were apprised so when some of them asked for my blessing from the very beginning.

All the monetary gold in all the world will not sustain but a fraction of present industry ??even of the relatively little industry surviving the present, monumental multiplication of artificial world debt.

Gold therefore will not even solve our debts, should we be so stupid as to further give up the world’s gold for those artificial debts; nor would a return to gold even allow us to continue servicing those artificial debts: Present commerce, obligated to continue servicing present sums of debt, would immediately collapse if the world’s circulations were immediately restricted to what is redeemable in the world’s monetary gold. This preposterous idea therefore ??already proven a failure a hundred years ago ??merely appeals to simpletons too lazy or self deluded to understand the real problem and rectify it.

Incredibly costly tokens of value are not a blessing: They instead are an incredible misconception which has not staved failure before, and will not stave failure again. It isn’t the cost of the currency which will save us from multiplying debt. It is rectifying the nature of the currency ??adopting the one form of currency which cannot and will not devalue.

So if instead we held fast to that principle, then there would not even be a need for the idea of a purported (invalid) capacity to redeem the currency with a finite quantity of a mere material, the quantity of which we have over and over again outgrown. When the music stopped playing under any gold standard ??none of which have staved failure ??just as it will tomorrow… there weren’t enough chairs.

Nor of course will gold arrest multiplication of debt by interest.

What you should study therefore is the people behind this movement, who are largely “Austrian Economists.”

They believe math cannot be applied to “economics,” not for analysis, not for solution, not for projection.

Instead of recognizing the inherent, irreversible consequences of “interest,” they advocate interest ??which multiplies debt in proportion to a vital circulation, as it compels us to replenish the circulation of interest and principal by perpetually re-borrowing interest and principal as subsequent sums of debt, perpetually increased so much as periodic interest.

What do they want then, but to be the private bankers collecting that interest, saying gold will save you from them?

Why won’t Ron Paul answer to the proposition of mathematically perfected economy?? Because he can prove anything else will solve inflation, deflation, and perpetual multiplication of dispossession and debt, by interest?

For crying out loud, [person’s name], usury on such a scale is perhaps the greatest possible crime on the scale it is presently exercised. The wars we are fighting, when it comes down to it, are fought over usury. The American Revolution was over usury. And these advocates of a gold standard which has never saved you and will never save you, want to preserve usury.

Think about that.

This is the solution:

These are the issues of Legality and Rectitude:

AND THESE ARTICLES LONG AGO INVALIDATED GOLD, THE ASSERTIONS OF GRIFFIN, ETC.:

“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/2008/10/28/throwing-down-the-gauntlet-on-the-gold-standard-again/ [END PERMALINK]

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE? FORUM:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewtopic.php?f=84&t=109

Tuesday, October 28th, 2008

“… if and only if truly free markets are liberated from predation.”

mike montagne ??explaining the nature of all such facades in If I Were President ??how to arrest world wide monetary collapse in a day.

NEW YORK TIMES FALSELY PROMOTES A FACADE OF GREENSPAN’S HUMILITY

On October 23, proving many years of false assertions itself, a New York Times article, “Greenspan Concedes Error on Regulation,” claimed:

WASHINGTON ??For years, a Congressional hearing with Alan Greenspan was a marquee event. Lawmakers doted on him as an economic sage. Markets jumped up or down depending on what he said. Politicians in both parties wanted the maestro on their side.

But on Thursday, almost three years after stepping down as chairman of the Federal Reserve, a humbled Mr. Greenspan admitted that he had put too much faith in the self-correcting power of free markets and had failed to anticipate the self-destructive power of wanton mortgage lending.

“Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity [versus sustainability], myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief,” he told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Of course, “markets” are hardly free if they are subject to a currency which can only multiply indebtedness into terminal sums of debt. In fact all along the way to terminal failure, true producers are deprived to ever greater degrees of just compensation for their production, until of course they are dispossessed even of the opportunity and their right to produce.

But the purported humility therefore is a lie. Greenspan isn’t about to support rectifying the system of its inherent faults. On the contrary, while he feigns apology, he means to ensure the perpetuation of that unjust system. Every president since and including Gerald Ford was offered the opportunity and way to resolve these issues via mathematically perfected economy?. None answered, and particularly Mr. Greenspan, not only because they all knew then that they were wrong, but because despite being wrong, they intended instead to perpetuate the irreversible multiplication of that unearned taking.

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/2008/10/28/new-york-times-falsely-promotes-a-facade-of-greenspan-humility/ [END PERMALINK]

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE? FORUM:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=108

Thursday, October 23rd, 2008

Speak your latent conviction, and it shall be the universal sense; for the inmost in due time becomes the outmost ??and our first thought is rendered back to us by the trumpets of the Last Judgment. Familiar as the voice of the mind is to each, the highest merit we ascribe to Moses, Plato, and Milton is that they set naught at books and traditions, and spoke not what men, but what they thought.

A man should learn to detect and watch that gleam of light which flashes across his mind from within, more than the lustre of the firmament of bards and sages. Yet he dismisses without notice his thought, because it is his. In every work of genius we recognize our own rejected thoughts: they come back to us with a certain alienated majesty.

Great works of art have no more affecting lesson for us than this. They teach us to abide by our own spontaneous impression with good-humored inflexibility then most, when the whole cry of voices is on the other side. Else, tomorrow a stranger will say with masterly good sense precisely what we have thought and felt all the time, and we shall be forced to take with shame our own opinion from another.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

RESPONSE TO CONSTITUTION’S DEFENDERS FOR OBAMA POST

This morning I responded to the following ConstitutionsDefendersForObama post:

Gadzooks! Money Lenders have invaded the Great American Temple of American Democracy! I Say, Let’s Throw the Bums Out Lads!

I’m with you, [previous poster]! Looking at what has happened since Bush and the U.S.. Republican-controlled Congress decided to include The People’s Republic of China in the current abomination of DARWINIAN “FREE TRADE” and “WTO”. Looking at the resulting massive explosion of cheap IMPORTS from China, even giving the Communist Giant “MOST FAVORED NATION” status. Looking at the resulting massive literal EXPLOSION of our TRADE DEFICIT with China..

Looking at the Massive OVERALL Trade Deficit and the Massive exporting of good-paying AMERICAN JOBS, because of the Neo-Con FAITH-BASED belief in “GLOBALIZATION”.

Looking at the Massive increase in BORROWING by both the Federal Gov’t. and the American CONSUMERS, to continue supporting a policy of “LIVING BEYONG OUR MEANS” — i.e. “Eat, Drink, Be Merry” and screw worrying about paying the Piper.

Looking at the Massive increase in borrowing from China & other Foreign Countries that are also investing money from their “SOVEREIGN WEALTH FUNDS” in buying or owning shares of Stock in American companies.

THEN add in the “CRAP SHOOT” on WALL STREET and all the corruption, fraud and MIND BOGGLING stupidity of the BUSH Administration throwing the “MONKEY WRENCH” into everything — screwing up literally everything they touch …

Well, the result of all this is that you and I, ordinary “John & Jane Joe” citizens are S.C.R.E.W.E.D., big-time! Whether NOT having a “Federal Reserve” would have made a DIFFERENCE, I have no idea, unlike HENRY or other “EXPERTS” on the Economy and Financial systems, I majored in FINE ART in College, not Economics!

Putting on my ART CRITIC’s hat, however, I will give my “Expert” Opinion: I look at the current Sub-Prime Mortgage Meltdown and Financial “CRISIS” and I might as well be looking at a Painting by SALVADOR DALI - like the one with the famous “melting clock” — if I were making a Surrealistic Painting of WALL STREET, I would paint the Building to look like it was MELTING, like in a Salvador Dali.

Trying to understand what’s going on is just FRUSTRATING AS HELL! Like trying to underrstand Nuclear Physics or why in the world Republicans are going bat-sh*t crazy over SARAH PALIN!

And “All the Gold in Fort Knox”, for all WE know, is just plain old BRICKS, painted to LOOK they are REAL Gold! That’s MY Theory.

PFMPE? RESPONSE

Dear [poster],

Having asked the questions you have, you are not far from the answer.

You are absolutely right as well that the real nature of the problem is purposely obfuscated. Realize for instance that what is called “economics” is certainly not economic if it produces the effects you point out; and that furthermore, not only is the pretended discipline fraught with internal controversy, it is wholly bereft of formal proof or theorem. That is, unlike any of the true sciences, “economics” doesn’t even have a first precept, giving it the object or purpose of engendering what is “economic.” There is not even a single theorem which establishes the present pseudo science is even sustainable.

While still he sustained himself largely by complying with that pseudo science, John Kenneth Galbraith put it like this:

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.

Ayn Rand said,

“Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men’s protection, and the base of a moral existence.”

You are an artist, and you would prefer not to have to understand all the false dogma the mainstream media feeds us; and of course you hardly have to understand it all.

But because we are a republic, if we are going to solve our problems, we do have to understand the core problem, that we can fix it above a government so corrupt as to be co-perpetrators of what amounts to a monumental crime against us. After all, we readily understand that in nature, we prosper however much our willingness and capability incorporate available resources into production. Without exhausting resources then, the very idea that the whole of the world’s “economies” (a lie from its beginning) should fail itself paints a portrait of a wholly unnecessary and artificial failure. That a renegade government refuses to rectify the problem when we can (and have) prescribed exactly how to do so, furthermore establishes a testament that the problem is intentionally imposed, for a purpose ? and that obvious purpose is the vast unearned taking from us, by artificial multiplication of debt.

If you and I were doing business together… perhaps I want to buy a painting from you… and I can’t pay you immediately, you might accept my promise to pay, particularly if it is based on certain conditions which absolutely guarantee that you will be paid.

Under the central banking systems which have been imposed upon the world, a third party, who produces nothing, intervenes on our arrangement. They say, “No, no, no, no, no… you cannot issue your own promises to pay each other: *only* promises to pay issued by the central bank have integrity, because they cost you *further* ? they are subject to interest.”

Now you, being the producer of the subject property, are the real creditor. In the first case, you accepted my promise to pay, which was guaranteed by conditions I have not yet stated but will get to in a few more sentences. In the second case, you accept my promise to pay, issued by a banker; and, while *we* might define money differently (and particularly, as an inert, indestructible, redeemable token of value), and while this particular form of money costs the central banker virtually nothing whatsoever to publish, yet we presume there is some risk involved to the false issuer of the promise, which justifies my paying *them* several paintings to acquire your one.

Obviously, you and I are going to engage in less “economic” activity as a consequence of this substantial further cost.

But there is a further problem with introduced by this imposed form of “money,” which is all you have to understand to get at the crux of the present monetary failure.

That is, this imposed form of “money” inherently and irreversibly multiplies debt in proportion to a circulation, so that ultimately the whole system collapses under a sum of debt it can no longer afford to service.

How does this happen?

Under this imposed system (it was never approved by an election; and in fact the prevailing side of the 1912 election voted *against* the creation of “a central bank”), the principal is introduced to circulation as a debt subject to interest. Because the resultant obligation is to pay both the principal (circulation) *plus* the interest (which exists beyond the sum of the circulation), therefore our payments against this monetary obligation of principal and interest perpetually deflate the circulation. That is, we are constantly paying principal *and* interest out of the general circulation, which exists only insofar as a remaining sum of principal. We are therefore perpetually depleting (”deflating”) the circulation moreso than what principal exists.

Furthermore, to continue servicing these monetary obligations, we must maintain a vital circulation.

Of course, because the money only comes from “the central bank,” and because we can only borrow this altered, purposed, artificial form of “money” into circulation, therefore we must borrow back into circulation the principal and interest we pay out of the circulation.

What does this mean?

First of all, it means that to whatever degree we must re-borrow principal, it is mathematically impossible to pay down the sum of debt: The principal we pay down must be re-borrowed, therefore as new debt, equal to the former debt. This aspect of our obligatory replenishing of the perpetual deflation of the system thus always retains the former sum of debt, however much we pay against it.

Secondly however, it means that interest payments too must be borrowed back into circulation; and therefore, because interest payments counted none at all toward the previous sum of debt, thus because we can only borrow them back as new debt… *therefore the sum of debt perpetually increases so much as we have to re-borrow interest back into the general circulation, to maintain a vital circulation*.

Finally then, therefore the sum of debt perpetually increases at inherently escalating rates, so much as the periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt.

Read it slowly, and you will understand it.

Thomas Jefferson, arguing against the creation of “our” first “national bank” (which Hamilton attempted to create *after* the Constitution was finalized [without a central bank], by *circumventing* the constitutional processes and regulations)… Jefferson put it this way:

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.

Of course, that day has come.

Jefferson also said:

“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].”

“The end of democracy and defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of the lending institutions and [their] moneyed incorporations.”

Some casually laugh at the idea we can perfect “an economy.” But as Kennedy said, as our [few simple] problems are man made, therefore we can [readily] solve them.

In the case of the present facade of “economy,” we have only two very basic issues to solve; multiplication of debt by interest, and inflation/deflation (how much money to circulate).

The first we can only solve by eradicating interest; and the second too, we can only solve by eradicating interest, because interest requires us to pay out of the general circulation, more than exists.

So, how do we solve inflation and deflation?

That problem is elementary: Because each are defined respectively as increases or decreases in circulation per the wealth the circulation is intended to represent, thus the *only* solution for inflation and deflation is to maintain a circulation which at all times is equal to the remaining value of the wealth it is intended to represent.

The only way to do that is to pay off debts which are not subject to interest (ever multiplying unearned profit, taken at no cost whatsoever, by a process which perpetually undermines the integrity of the currency, and ultimately engenders terminal sums of debt)… at the rate of consumption/depreciation of the related assets.

Thus the one and only solution is simple:

In the case of a $100,000 home with a hundred year lifespan, we pay off the home at an overall rate equal to its 100-year consumption or depreciation, which of course comprises an overall rate of $1,000 per year, or $83.33 per month.

Obviously, quite contrary to Mr. McCain’s bogus assertion that we need our house prices to come up (which, under the present system, results instead in our paying to “the central banking system,” lifetime after lifetime for the product of a few months of our own production), what we really need to do is to re-finance all debt immediately, under mathematically perfected economy?.

Here is my prescription for exactly how to do so ? how to arrest inherent, inevitable monetary failure under the present system in less than a day:

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

I also promised to explain how the artificial, imposed “money” of the central “banking” system inherently undermines the ability to pay off the resultant debts. Perhaps you already understand from my previous explanation, but of course, as the sum of debt is inherently and irreversibly multiplied in proportion to the vital circulation, ever more of the vital circulation is inherently and irreversibly dedicated to servicing an ever greater sum of debt. This of course leaves ever less of the circulation to sustain the surviving industry which is obligated to do so. Thus it is ever less possible to do so all the while of the inherently finite lifespan of every such system; and ultimately it is impossible to do so, because ultimately and inevitably, the entire circulation would be devoted to servicing debt.

Of course, however much further unearned taking is imposed upon us by further parasitic processes (by further entities which produce nothing or take unearned profit by extortion, coercion, subversion, usurpation…), it is the proximity of that final day of inherent, further multiplication of a terminal sum of debt which explains our present circumstance.

Of course, as [previous poster] says, the mainstream media isn’t about to proliferate the truth, because of course the mainstream media is owned by the very perpetrators of this crime against humanity.

As to the constitutionality of it, you should I would hope take some interest in the following evaluation of Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank, which he wrote for President Washington in response to Hamilton’s (successful) efforts to circumvent the new Constitution to create an entity the founders *purposely* themselves refrained from creating:

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

I will close then with one final quote from Jefferson:

Only lay down true principles, and adhere to them inflexibly. Do not be frightened into their surrender by the alarms of the timid or the croakings of the wealthy against the ascendancy of the people. The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property, and in their management.

In other words, no private “federal” central bank can be endowed with a power above us to publish ultimately irredeemable promises to pay, particularly to take involuntary servitude from us, based on the unqualifiable proposition that the promises, which are our promises, and which the unassented “central bank” produces for nothing, constitute some ostensible risk to the unassented, intervening entity.

Yes, industry prospers particularly well on circulations which can sustain all conscientious development; but under usury, as Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Jackson, Lincoln, McFadden, and many others told us… all that prosperity is soon swallowed up by the facade of justified “interest.”

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/2008/10/23/response-to-constitutions-defenders-for-obama-post/ [END PERMALINK]

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE? FORUM:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=95

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