Real leadership means to correctly define the actual problem ??and then ??to correctly prescribe the actual solution. Patrick Hedemark In economics, the majority are always wrong. [Less protectively, contemporary “economists” lie because the whole, purposed lie of usury and unearned taking is unsustainable in any practical implementation, and because therefore, no intelligent public would ever assent to the dispossession and usurpation which the lies are designed to impose upon them. Thus…] The study of “money,” above all other fields, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it. John Kenneth Galbraith

BECAUSE HE HAS NO BETTER ANSWER…

PAUL KRUGMAN, NOBEL LAUREATE, IRRESPONSIBLY CALLS FOR CONTINUED FISCAL IRRESPONSIBILITY

With a bewildering magnitude of enthusiasm, an EducatorsForObama forum member writes:

[Princeton “Economist,” Paul] Krugman says Obama is correct on [the] Economy. [a] Government must SPEND now to save the Economy. The Deficit is not important right now. This must be the knockout blow to the McCain campaign!

This may be the most important article of this election. Paul Krugman just won the Nobel Prize in Economics a couple days ago and he was the sole winner ??very unusual. First US Economist to win in a long time. It sounds a little counter-intuitive, I know. But Obama is right, despite the rantings of McCain, Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan and the rest of the GOP. [b] To stimulate the economy and create jobs the Federal Government needs to spend money funding new public works projects like much needed bridges, roads, hospitals, schools, etc. This will create tons of jobs and it is helps the country in the long run because we are investing in our infrastructure. The dumb thing to do is to encourage people to go out and buy more junk.

[c] Remember McCain said he wants a spending freeze. This will DOOM the Economy and McCain just doesn’t understand! We can’t elect him. He will drive us further into the ditch! Please go NYT and email it to others so it gets more attention and make comments and send this to every media outlet and demand they discuss it. [sic]

Discuss it we will.

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

Let’s Get Fiscal by Paul Krugman ??October 16, 2008

The Dow is surging! No, it’s plunging! No, it’s surging! No, it’s …

Nevermind [sic]. While the manic-depressive stock market is dominating the headlines, the more important story is the grim news coming in about the real economy. It’s now clear that rescuing the banks is just the beginning: the nonfinancial economy is also in desperate need of help.

And to provide that help, we’re going to have to put some prejudices aside. [1]?It’s politically fashionable to rant against government spending and demand fiscal responsibility. [2]?But right now, increased government spending is just what the doctor ordered, and concerns about the budget deficit should be put on hold.

Before I get there, let’s talk about the economic situation.

[3]?Just this week, we learned that retail sales have fallen off a cliff, and so has industrial production. Unemployment claims are at steep-recession levels, and the Philadelphia Fed’s manufacturing index is falling at the fastest pace in almost 20 years. All signs point to an economic slump that will be nasty, brutish ??and long.

How nasty? The unemployment rate is already above 6 percent (and broader measures of underemployment are in double digits). It’s now virtually certain that the unemployment rate will go above 7 percent, and quite possibly above 8 percent, making this the worst recession in a quarter-century.

[4]?And how long? It could be very long indeed.

[5]?[excluded trivia…]

[6]?In other words, there’s not much Ben Bernanke can do for the economy. [7]?He can and should cut interest rates even more ??but nobody expects this to do more than provide a slight economic boost.

On the other hand, there’s a lot the federal government can do for the economy. [8]?It can provide extended benefits to the unemployed, which will both help distressed families cope and put money in the hands of people likely to spend it. It can provide emergency aid to state and local governments, so that they aren’t forced into steep spending cuts that both degrade public services and destroy jobs. It can buy up mortgages (but not at face value, as John McCain has proposed) and restructure the terms to help families stay in their homes.

[9]?And this is also a good time to engage in some serious infrastructure spending, which the country badly needs in any case. [10]?The usual argument against public works as economic stimulus is that they take too long: by the time you get around to repairing that bridge and upgrading that rail line, the slump is over and the stimulus isn’t needed. Well, that argument has no force now, since the chances that this slump will be over anytime soon are virtually nil. So let’s get those projects rolling.

Will the next administration do what’s needed to deal with the economic slump? Not if Mr. McCain pulls off an upset. [11]?What we need right now is more government spending ??but when Mr. McCain was asked in one of the debates how he would deal with the economic crisis, he answered: “Well, the first thing we have to do is get spending under control.”

[12]?If Barack Obama becomes president, he won’t have the same knee-jerk opposition to spending. But he will face a chorus of inside-the-Beltway types telling him that he has to be responsible, that the big deficits the government will run next year if it does the right thing are unacceptable.

[13]?He should ignore that chorus. [14]?The responsible thing, right now, is to give the economy the help it needs. Now is not the time to worry about the deficit.

THE TEETH OF IRRESPONSIBILITY

True science of course is first and foremost to leave no premise unchallenged; no reasonable question unasked. Most of all, no solution in science perpetuates faults which are readily proven by the most plausible answers to obligatory questions.

Moreover, these are such routine customs of true science that anything less stands out like the proverbial sore thumb. The tests of such material are not merely academic. Intelligent readers of important matters always, always, always must know when they reach an ostensible conclusion: have all the relevant questions been asked?

A prospectively intelligent republic understands nothing, and has no tool to intelligently rule over itself, without an affirmative answer to that question ??or without an affirmative answer to the further question, does the prescribed course best account for all the matters at hand?

If the first question cannot be answered affirmatively and definitely, then the course does not even account for all the matters at hand ??much less can it justly be said to best account for them.

The latter, most crucial question on the further hand, depends on conclusive qualification not only of all the points certifying the propositions of the first question, it depends on conclusive, unerring development of the prescription in question. All material of such propositions lacking either, fails to meet the necessary standards which predicate intelligible, successful government.

Before we look for any teeth in Krugman’s unqualified propositions, let me ask, does anyone think they see absolute solution in them?

Already, the irresponsibility he proposes ??not only to continue, but possibly to exacerbate ??has engendered insoluble federal debt which at this moment has brought us to our knees, and will cripple us and worse forever. Is there a proof we will succeed by the continued irresponsibility he advocates? Is there a proof of no other alternative? Has he asked all the relevant questions? Has he even answered them, if he hasn’t asked them?

What can we rightly think then of his unqualified proposition?

Or on the contrary, does it beg the further questions, and a dialog developing real solution?

If we presume that Mr. Krugman has well prescribed our way, it would only be for never fully pursuing the answers ourselves, because one simple, routine question exposes the poverty and flaws of that disposition.

Because Mr. Krugman has no answer, or cares not to answer for the whole question, he purposely raises only a partial form of it. He points out a reasonable and obvious, customary reservation against timeliness. That is, he warns only that government investment in research such as the Obama Campaign proposes may well not produce sufficient benefits within a period in which the positives offset the negatives suffered across the same timespan (10).

An obvious flaw even of the attitude of this purposely narrowed scope, is that we are seeking only to offset negatives. Why is it right not to instead seek to eliminate all obstructions or encumbrances, particularly if any obstruction or encumbrance is unnatural, and itself has never been justified?

Is it right that we prosper to the full extent of our willingness and capability to incorporate available resources into production? Or is it right, that all the while we remain capable and willing to incorporate available resources into production, that some artificial irregularity unjustifiably obstructs the whole world from doing so?

In response nonetheless to the one mere facet he raises, Mr. Krugman reassures us that we don’t have to worry about falling short of an expiring time frame, because the present downturn will surely outlast fruition of eventual benefits, if any ??if we survive so long, if the eventual benefits are enough to offset the bad, and if we can even afford the products of those eventual developments after however much longer the failing monetary system further destroys our credit-worthiness.

These are just some of the further questions which Mr. Krugman’s and Mr. Obama’s propositions must answer for certainly, if Mr. Obama is to succeed not in delivering us from the ever escalating oppression of a system imposed for that very purpose, but prospectively, to merely succeed eventually, in treading water for a short while against inherent, irreversible, further escalation of indebtedness.

As I explain again and again throughout these pages, any purported economy subject to interest ultimately terminates itself by itself, irreversibly generating ever escalating sums of debt, until that system inevitably generates a terminal sum of insoluble debt.

In any such system, the real creditors remain the real producers of wealth, who are asked to accept a promise to pay for their production. A central bank merely creates the promise of the debtor at virtually no cost whatever to itself, and then, having intervened unjustly upon every such transaction, demands interest from the whole of the circulation. There is no risk whatever, because the promise to pay of the debtor is created without cost.

But because the whole monetary obligation [principal and interest] of all the currency [principal] so introduced to circulation therefore exceeds the circulation from the outset, it is mathematically impossible for the subjects of the system to continue servicing their obligations without re-borrowing what they pay against these obligations, out of the general circulation:

1. What they pay against the principal therefore must be re-borrowed; and, by the nature of the system of unearned profit, therefore whatever they pay against principal is re-borrowed as a subsequent sum of debt, equal to the previous.

   Thus to whatever degree the subjects of the system are forced to re-borrow principal to maintain a vital circulation, it is mathematically impossible to pay down the sum of debt.

2. Whatever they pay against interest and must re-borrow [as new principal] to maintain a vital circulation therefore, increases the sum of debt.

   Thus the sum of debt increases so much as periodic interest on the sum of debt.

3. Therefore, because they must maintain a vital circulation, the sum of debt inherently and irreversibly increases at an inherently escalating rate of ever greater increments of periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt.

   Inevitably then, because this multiplication is in proportion to the sustaining circulation, and because ever more of the circulation is dedicated to servicing debt ??leaving ever less of the circulation to sustain the true industry which is obligated to do so ??inevitably, every such system terminates itself under an insoluble sum of debt it can no longer afford to service.

   All the artificial sustention in the world cannot save that system from its own end then, particularly as the escalating rates of inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt become so monumental.

So then, do Mr. Krugman’s assertions prove the course of exacerbated, further deficit spending, itself increasing that multiplication of indebtedness?

After all, any certainty that we can accomplish any goals of research, development, or infrastructure repair, maintenance, or re-building, itself certifies that we are indeed capable in every other way to accomplish these things, but for the very obstructions imposed by the purported economy ??imposed then, and still existing for such illimitable profit of the privatization Mr. McCain and those he represents stand for.

There is no other preclusive factor but this illimitable multiplication of unearned taking by those whose unmitigated gutting of our republic assures its mortal end.

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

Of course, the very reason that we the people have not already succeeded in these very same (unoriginal) ventures ??now only proposed to ultimately succeed by artificial intervention ??is the artificial deterioration which “the economy” has already imposed upon us.

Truly free enterprise, free of this incredible predation, would long ago have solved these problems. In fact I myself am well aware of substantial technological innovations waiting already for many years to provide their benefits to us, which are stymied wholly and singularly by lack of funding, purposely denied those existent achievements only so that those who have not developed them can “own” them.

Nonetheless, while “investors” readily cheat innovation of every cent they can ??only because we the people ostensibly deny ourselves sustainable funding, free of usury and further predation ??now these same artificially “aided” developments, intentionally crippled by the other hand, are supposed to potentialize their success as the very underlying system further multiplies indebtedness upon us. Of course, if we even survive the while over which ownership of already existing capacities will merely be fought, in the end of that mere battle to take further earnings from us, the whole subject society will suffer a drastically diminished capacity to afford further costs, such as the eventual products of those existent developments.

No one then ??and particularly not Mr. Krugman ??has quantitatively established that those “developments” will eventually ??even for a short while ?? succeed in treading water against the inherent, escalating multiplication of indebtedness which those who claim now that they will represent us, refuse even to address.

In other words, if it were not for the very perpetual, inherently escalating artificial obstruction of our prosperity which both parties of betrayal intend to continue, we would already prosper so much as our willingness and capability to incorporate available resources into production would permit.

So we are intentionally not delivered our vital answer from Mr. Krugman or those who award him for excluding the very nature of the problem from the debate over rectitude. But to distinguish the difference, let us examine Mr. Krugman’s evasions, point by point:

1. “It’s politically fashionable to rant against government spending and demand fiscal responsibility.”

   Advocating fiscal responsibility is not a matter of “fashion”; it is a sacred responsibility, the abuse of which comprises the whole substance of our perpetual failure to ascertain or establish solution.

   Fiscal responsibility is a perpetual obligation. But it is emphatically a perpetual obligation as we are incurring debts we are not paying, and passing those off onto our progeny, ostensibly for our own undeserved “benefit.” The only beneficiary of this irresponsibility is the privatized monetary system, for which the subject republic can only suffer to ever greater degrees as that system purposely multiplies debt not only all the further, but at inherently escalating rates to inevitable, terminal sums of debt.

   What is right about this artificial multiplication of debt? When did we give our assent to it? What is legal about that system? Why would we the people ever engineer such a thing? Why has it not been rectified, but that people like Mr. Krugman stand forever in the way?

   What sane republic would forever refrain from perfecting this imposed systems mere two fatal faults ??inflation/deflation, and inherent multiplication of debt by interest ??the latter particularly of which is the very cause of the present, inevitable, near term monetary failure?

   Particularly then, what sane republic would refrain from perfecting that imposed system, if the republic’s preservation only required removing that unearned, undeserved, unjustified, and terminal taking from the sane republic?

2. “But right now, increased government spending is just what the doctor ordered, and concerns about the budget deficit should be put on hold.”

   Inadvertently here, Krugman himself testifies that the imposed system itself obstructs our success, for his unwarranted proposition asks for solubility which has been made impossible.

3. “Just this week, we learned that retail sales have fallen off a cliff, and so has industrial production. Unemployment claims are at steep-recession levels, and the Philadelphia Fed’s manufacturing index is falling at the fastest pace in almost 20 years. All signs point to an economic slump that will be nasty, brutish ??and long.”

   These still are purposely down-scaled portraits, authored in houses which still claim present events might only engender a severe recession. Ten-thousand homes a day going into foreclosure is not a possibility of severe recession; it is the sign-post of an all-out world-wide monetary failure; and it is particularly a loud warning of that failure, when “appreciating” home “values” (which are further escalating costs, further multiplied by “interest”), just yesterday comprised an absolutely ludicrous avenue from inevitable failure.

   From the very beginning, these deceptions of rectitude or possibility of avoiding failure were designed to multiply unearned taking from us, and our concurrent destruction.

4. “And how long? It could be very long indeed.”

   This lie downplays the consequences as well, for a system which can only engender terminal indebtedness, itself destroys any veritable way whatever to resolve its ultimate state of collapse, amidst wholly destroyed credit-worthiness.

5. [excluded trivia…]

6. “In other words, there’s not much Ben Bernanke can do for the economy.”

   Exactly.

   So long as there is unearned profit in the imposed systems of dispossession and destruction, and so long as we the unassenting subjects maintain a vital circulation, this process of inherent multiplication of debt to terminal debt is irreversible.

   When we can no longer maintain a vital circulation on the other hand, the day of failure is upon us.

   Bernanke can only speed up or slow down this terminal process by raising or lowering interest, that we can afford to borrow as is necessary to maintain a vital circulation. All the while nonetheless, ever more of that circulation is inherently dedicated to servicing debt, while ever less thus remains to sustain the surviving industry which is obligated to do so.

7. “He can and should cut interest rates even more ??but nobody expects this to do more than provide a slight economic boost.”

   Only because interest adjustments affect new debt; and existent debt is customarily “re-financed” at considerable further, immediate cost. The effects therefore are intentionally limited by the perpetrators.

   Nonetheless, at best, the only power is to extend the date of inevitable failure, for the mere process of maintaining a vital circulation ensures the inevitable failure.

8. “It can provide extended benefits to the unemployed, which will both help distressed families cope and put money in the hands of people likely to spend it. It can provide emergency aid to state and local governments, so that they aren’t forced into steep spending cuts that both degrade public services and destroy jobs. It can buy up mortgages (but not at face value, as John McCain has proposed) and restructure the terms to help families stay in their homes.”

   Each cited circumstance is a fault of the imposed system which can only be solved by rectifying the system.

   We don’t have to “buy up” mortgages. We have to free debtors from usury: we have to re-finance all debt without interest (unassented, unjustifiable profit to the “central banking” system, which publishes the “money” at no cost whatever). This alone solves terminal multiplication of debt in proportion to possible sustenance.

   To further solve inflation and deflation, we have to pay the resultant monetary obligations at the rate of consumption or depreciation. This, together with the previous solution of inherent multiplication of our promises to pay each other, alone makes it possible for our promises to pay to be what they promise to pay ??a capacity to procure the wealth each of us produce for whatever we deem to be equal measures of wealth produced by others.

   What is the consequence of rectifying the imposed system? How could we possibly deteriorate further, if we eliminate multiplication of debt, and if the subjects of said mortgages are thus compelled only to pay $1,000 per year or $83.33 per month on every $100,000 of remaining equity of property originally having a 100-year lifespan?

   The benefits of real solution, together with the real reasons that solution is obstructed, are not far to seek.

9. “And this is also a good time to engage in some serious infrastructure spending, which the country badly needs in any case.”

   Only so, because to preserve all this unearned taking from us, abuse of power has resisted for so long our incontrovertible need and intent to rectify the imposed systems. What Krugman is asking for effectively, is a temporary return of some of the solubility destroyed by the system, while the system yet continues to destroy solubility at an inherently escalating rate.

   The time to spend on infrastructure then, was the time to spend on infrastructure. The fact we have not done so, the fact we “badly need” to do so, further testifies to the obstruction so long comprised and multiplied by the very intentions of the unassented monetary systems.

10. “The usual argument against public works as economic stimulus is that they take too long: by the time you get around to repairing that bridge and upgrading that rail line, the slump is over and the stimulus isn’t needed. Well, that argument has no force now, since the chances that this slump will be over anytime soon are virtually nil. So let’s get those projects rolling.”

    As Krugman himself has said, we are not confronted with “a slump.” But the real question is not just whether some ostensible benefit will be provided at some future time within the recession, depression, or utter failure. Neither are the real questions the further matters of whether we can survive to that future time; or whether at that future time, so much further diminished in our capacity to sustain further costs upon the further multiplication of debt which will ensue, we will even be able to afford the products of future developments, which the imposed system has already made us unable to afford.

    The question is what can out-strip, inherent, irreversible, perpetual multiplication of debt at inherently escalating rates? What can out-perform inherent failure under inevitable, terminal indebtedness?

    Particularly with the whole world at the brink of artificial failure imposed by unjustifiable, irreversible multiplication of indebtedness, the question is, why do we not establish ready solution? Who stands in the way of solution?

11. “What we need right now is more government spending ??but when Mr. McCain was asked in one of the debates how he would deal with the economic crisis, he answered: “Well, the first thing we have to do is get spending under control.”

    Again, Krugman asks for temporary restoration of solubility which will, virtually immediately, be consumed by the alpha parasite, sucking us dry at far faster rates than Mr. Krugman’s band-aid can stave.

    On the other hand, Mr. McCain can’t possibly advocate how to get spending under control either, without advocating mathematically perfected economy?.

12. “If Barack Obama becomes president, he won’t have the same knee-jerk opposition to spending.”

    Krugman only proposes a knee-jerk reaction which will result in indistinguishably different further destruction.

13. “He should ignore that chorus.”

    Thomas Jefferson said, “Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.”

    But you, Mr. Krugman, too believe what is wrong; and you advocate we follow you off a cliff, that those who give you awards and false badges of authority can preserve usury forever.

    Thomas Jefferson also said:

     

    If the American people ever allow banks to issue their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation [by having to maintain a vital circulation by perpetually re-borrowing principal and interest as subsequent sums of debt, increased perpetually so much as periodic interest], the banks and [bank owned] corporations which will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

    Which is the very process I argue, is matched by a singular integral solution.

    Jefferson also said:

     

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

    The Bank of the United States is one of the most deadly hostilities existing against the principles and form of our Constitution. The system of banking is a blot [defect] left in [unsolved by, and unfortunately tolerated by] all our Constitutions [state and federal], which if not covered [eventually solved and revoked] will end in their destruction. I sincerely believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity is but swindling futurity [on the greatest possible scale].

    You Mr. Krugman then, would advocate the very destructive processes against which Mr. Jefferson so well intended to defend us.

14. “The responsible thing, right now, is to give the economy the help it needs. Now is not the time to worry about the deficit.”

    On the contrary, nothing of course could be much more irresponsible: The “help” “the economy” needs Mr. Krugman, is solution.

Some day, probably long after tomorrow Mr. Krugman, when the system you help only to preserve finishes the failure it imposes upon us, at best, you will propose that we simply restart that system, artificially renewing the credit-worthiness which is artificially destroyed only by that imposed system’s inherent multiplication of debt.

You will say or at least imply with words equally bereft of genuine qualification, that the very same system is sustainable; and you will ask us to bow our heads yet still to yield to irreversible multiplication of unearned profit, at our ever greater cost and inevitable, cyclical destruction.

These however Mr. Krugman, are the only things standing right now in the way of our prosperity and our right to prosper to the full measure of our willingness and capability to render production from a conservative consumption of available resources. You Mr. Krugman are the problem; not the solution. What you propose is intellectually and morally bankrupt.

As I explain in “If I Were President…” (http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-if-i-were-president.html), how to arrest world wide monetary collapse in a day… the real solution here is to refinance all private debt under mathematically perfected economy?, where, as I have already explained in this page, the people will thus service their rectified debts on the scale of $1,000 per year or $83.33 per month for every $100,000 of debt against property having a hundred year lifespan.

Obviously then Mr. Krugman, without any irresponsible spending whatever, so much further liquidity would exist amongst us merely for eliminating unearned taking from the system, that we would not be losing our homes by the tens of thousands per day, we would not be losing our jobs. We would be employing ourselves far further; and we would readily accomplish the objects of programs you advocate require government aid, simply by eradicating the destruction and dispossession which unassented government all the same while imposes upon us.

The propositions laid on the table by both parties of betrayal persist only in two courses to the same dire consequences. Mr. Obama hopes the accomplishments we would otherwise be capable of will succeed if we heap more artificial debt upon us. True to the recent even more destructive thrust of the usurpers, Mr. McCain advocates “privatization,” which is a pretentious veil over further unearned taking, which of course is the present curse of our republic.

The hope of the American People, and even the world then, rests on a distant possibility.

Whether these are just words, history will tell. But Mr. Obama asks us to believe not just in his ability to fix Washington ??he asks us to believe in ours.

The only tangible thing on that table therefore, is that we can hold Mr. Obama accountable to his ostensible promise that given its own reign, our republic will choose the only road to solubility and sustainability.

That’s a pitiful chance at rectitude to bemuse, in a republic established by the likes of Mr. Jefferson.

RELATED MATERIAL

1. IF I WERE PRESIDENT ??HOW TO ARREST WORLD WIDE MONETARY COLLAPSE IN A DAY, AND ESTABLISH REAL, SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY IN LITTLE LONGER (mike montagne, OCTOBER 14)
2. Paul Krugman’s October 16, 2008 New York Times article, “Let’s Get Fiscal”

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

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

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

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

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

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE? FORUM:

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

You are doing the right and good thing making this thoughtful accumulation of research readily available. Best regards always, Sigrun Thank you for taking the time to explain in so much detail. It could be the very fact that it takes work to read and understand that you come to understand more fully and give the knowledge more weight. In God’s Hands, Khomar I’m neither a mathematician nor an economist, two disciplines in which I fared rather poorly, to be truthful, but I am good enough with logic and number to see that you’re quite brilliant at economic theory and that you’re on to something big. Very big. I wouldn’t let the “theft” of some of your foundation work bother you; it’s a big kudo to you that they’ve borrowed from you, though their conclusions or motivations be false. Ron Boyer

MORE ON THE CONTROVERSY OF ELLEN HODGSON BROWN’S GLOBAL RESEARCH ARTICLE PRETENDING WORLD-WIDE MONETARY SOLUTION

Those of you who are familiar with these pages know that since 1979 I have advocated that there is one and one only solution to the categoric faults of the world’s privatized monetary systems. In part, my 1979 thesis of mathematically perfected economy? stems from a mathematic proof a)?that any purported economy subject to interest ultimately and inevitably terminates itself under insoluble debt; and b)?that there is one and one only integral solution to 1)?inflation and deflation, 2)?systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and 3)?inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt in proportion to a circulation.

The former (a) of course is the principal underlying cause of the present brink of world wide monetary failure; and, given the worthiness of mathematic proof, the latter (b) would be the only way out of the categoric issues which plague us.

If the people of the world therefore are to unite, the vital thing they need is not only a veritable solution, but to understand that there is one and one only veritable solution.

Because my work so far precedes recent authors’ contending propositions of solution; because the contending authors have not invalidated mathematically perfected economy?; and because I have already invalidated the contending, purported solutions, I therefore take great exception to the continued efforts of these authors to confuse the people.

What they do this for is obvious enough, even in their own words (or lack thereof). But so, in the interest of trying the prospective/purported solutions raised by so many, the present article responds to the evident professions of Ellen Hodgson Brown (recent author of “Web of Debt”), and, perhaps by extension, those of Mr. Stephen Zarlenga (recent author of “The Lost Science of Money,” and director of his “American Monetary Institute”).

Many of PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy?’s readers are already familiar with the controversy between the three of us. Mr. Zarlenga has never answered to the questions of mathematically perfected economy?, even as members of his “conferences” have insisted that I be invited as a most instrumental determinate of real solution; and even as he wrote me once, declaring that we were of like mind and asking that I help promote his book, “The Lost Science of Money.” I asked in reply to that appeal, how I should genuinely promote his book without even having seen a copy of it, and why he should have written it, unless he found fault with my long pre-existent material. I have never heard from him since.

To her relatively great credit I would say (because she has at least engaged in correspondence), but to my disappointment in the interest of developing a broader authoratative agreement on veritable solution, Ellen Hodgson Brown has ultimately pardoned herself from answering the serious questions which would validate her proposed solution ??which critical questions, I assert, any bona fide author of a veritable solution would already have answered routinely in their works. Having done so of course, it is my expectation (and practice) that she could and would readily supply those vital, incontrovertible answers in response to any challenge to her asserted “solution.”

Because neither respond to these challenges in such a vital way; because I have taken extensive pains to advise them of the faults of their purported solution; and because yet Ellen Brown persists in advocating her preposterous scheme for taxation via interest is not even taxation… thus we have the impasse to which the present article necessarily responds.

For the people to resolve the issues, I therefore report what I can of the ongoing controversy.

Three days after I published my 30-year-old prescription (“If I Were President…”) for c)?how to arrest world wide monetary collapse in a day; and d)?how to establish real, sustainable economy in little longer, Global Research, a self described adversary to unassented globalization, published Ellen Hodgson Brown’s contrary proposition, essentially that taxation by interest is not even taxation; that this solves our problems; and that present events comprise a vital opportunity to do so now.

Obviously then, it is important that we, who should be weighing prospective solutions, distinguish the fact(s) of solution, if any. In that interest, I provide our recent dialog regarding the contending articles and the previous articles by which I had already apprised Ellen Hodgson Brown of the faults of her arguments and solution.

DIALOG

Ellen first responds to a private PFMPE? email list announcement of my offer that Global Research publish my article, “If I Were President…”. Hoping to encourage debate of the contending propositions, one of our readers had sent my email to her:

PFMPE?

This is the online copy of my email to Global Research regarding the ongoing controversy of veritable, immediate monetary solution:

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

The linked blog topic of course points not only to the offered article, but to two previous articles which detail the faults of Ellen Hodgson Brown’s proposition. These articles were also offered to Global Research for publication.

To this, Ellen Hodgson Brown responds to myself, to private PFMPE? list members, and to the editor(s) of Global Research with virtually the very “answer” she had provided long before, to which I had submitted all the further questions and invalidations of the subsequent two articles:

Dear Mike and Michel:

My sources on the Pennsylvania land bank are:

Alvin Rabushka, ?The colonial roots of American taxation, 1607-1700: The low-tax beginnings of American prosperity,” Policy Review (Hoover Institution, Stanford University, August/September 2002); “Representation Without Taxation: The colonial roots of American taxation, 1700?1754,? ibid. (December 2003 & January 2004); Stephen Zarlenga, The Lost Science of Money.

The math works like this: you print $105, lend $100 at 5% interest and spend $5 into the economy on government salaries, projects, etc. $105 is now circulating in the economy, which comes back to the government bank as principal and interest on the $105 loan. You lend THE SAME $100 all over again and spend $5, which returns to the government as principal and interest; etc. The interest funds the government, replacing taxes. No inflation, no government debt, no taxes ??as proven by the Pennsylvania experience.

Ellen

My reply to this repetition of the answer I had already so extensively questioned/disputed, likewise was addressed to the editors of Global Research:

PFMPE?

Dear Ellen,

It matters not who your sources are, because (again) it’s *your reasoning* regarding the matter which is in question; and it’s the many relevant questions I’ve submitted to you which you [purposely?] haven’t answered which purposefully explore the matters we must resolve. The only reasonable explanation for those lacking answers is that those questions expose the blatant faults of your reasoning:

Let me “just guess” then… *your sources too, absolutely do not claim the system you cite [even] solves inflation or deflation*, do they? Nor of course do they argue that the system was even intentionally engineered as a solution for inherent multiplication of debt by interest.

Even as you have deleted the claim I was apprised of by several of your readers, that by your account ? which fails to qualify such a splendid description in any way ? said system was the “most brilliant banking model” in our national history, you pretend yet to account for all the questions I’ve asked you, simply because you can cite a source on the Pennsylvania Currency?

Merely *citing* the source of course, doesn’t even establish the source’s claims or data concur with your deductions.

You claim over and over again that the Pennsylvania Currency (or some prospective further implementation of it) is a solution for things which were not even recorded to be perceived in the cited time. You still refuse to answer the questions which would qualify your assertions; and of course, your present retort hardly does so. You merely dream you have established a solution, where even the original authors of it did not even pretend to claim it was such a thing, and while the thinking of the time did not even suffice as a foundation for a whole, just solution for 1) inflation and deflation, 2) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and 3) inherent multiplication of debt into terminal debt, by interest. Who in the cited time even established how much money must be circulated? Where have you even recognized how much money *must* be circulated, that the “answer” you provide even now accounts even for inflation and deflation?

After all, the subject system was a “land bank.” It loaned money into circulation to purchase land. It could not itself therefore even rightly pretend to have provided a sufficient circulation to sustain all the rest of industry. There isn’t even a reason to lend “the same” money back into circulation again, once all land is purchased. Thus your claimed solution isn’t even perpetually sustainable.

Moreover, as I wrote you already, in Franklin’s whole paper on the nature and necessity of a paper currency (which assumably rounds out the purposes of the Pennsylvania Currency), he does not even mention the words inflation or deflation even once. Not even one incidence of basic terms which are absolutely vital to monetary solution. Could we trade all the production existent at any moment, no matter the quantity of that production, if all the circulation in existence only existed in quantities limited to the value of land?

Absolutely not; and particularly no matter how many times we loan your “same” circulation back into circulation again.

Just by nature of what the currency was loaned into circulation for then, we can only suffer a perpetually deflated/insufficient circulation!

Moreover then, Franklin’s postulates on how much currency should be circulated are all over the map, as are yours. Neither of you have argued conclusively how much currency must be circulated for all possible cases of trade… for all representations of ownership of production… etc.. Franklin merely makes obtuse guesses in his paper. He merely makes a casual try ? which he even apologizes for. You simply assume the primitive, early implementation *somehow* solved the matter, without any qualifying arguments whatsoever ? much less conclusive ones.

For instance, in providing the same simplistic *reply* (versus answer) to just one of the many questions I have submitted you, you simply state that, “You lend THE SAME $100 all over again.”

Tell us then, *if your math is indeed more than supposed to “work”*, what principle predicates *whether* the same currency is loaned into circulation again, and, presumably (despite its explicit disproof of your terrible over-simplification), further circulation might be introduced in such a way… that all this *solves anything*?

All of us simply know what un-cited rule prevails to establish the solution you refuse to further qualify?

We just “know” somehow that you are right… that yours is an implementation of mathematically perfected economy?

Absolutely not; and I’ll tell you why:

Obviously at least, on the contrary, more currency must be introduced to circulation as more land is funded; so at least your answer should have made that clear. You appear to state the opposite, with the only clue that you cannot mean what is so preposterous being its implausibility.

Obviously, further money must in many cases be loaned into circulation. Why would you answer at all then, that the same money is loaned back into circulation, however often?

But obviously further, once all the land is paid for, all the circulation would have to be retired (for a land bank lends on no other purpose). So (regardless how much we might even be disposed to loan the same money back into circulation) there is no provided method of maintaining a circulation beyond a point of eventual outright ownership of all land; *AND* neither is there a provided means of sustaining industry deprived of necessary circulation as the land is paid for.

It would be a huge, incongruous stretch then to presume your answer suffices in the least way to establish your purported solution is accountable to a single obligatory fundamental.

I suppose then, you are simply going to say you understood all this, all this while. But your answer ventures the opposite direction; and, if this were your understanding, then after all this, inherently you would have agreed then with the principles of mathematically perfected economy? ? citing as a model instead a mere land bank with no provisions for solving inflation and deflation whatever, as the embodiment of those principles.

So you’re wrong Ellen, no matter how all this shakes out.

Is your answer then actually intended to be the comprehensive formula I’ve asked for several times already?

If the formula even exists in your cited reference, why is it ? failing to be able to reconstruct the formula yourself ? neither do you cite it from the cited source/reference?

Obviously, your exalted, purported solution does not even itself pretend to solve the things it must, even to be sustainable.

In fact, how is it I know that such a formula doesn’t exist, even as you continue to cite your pretended “explanation” as sufficient proof that your fancied system is a solution of anything?

Because it’s mathematically impossible your purported solution even solves inflation and deflation *as would engender a circulation sufficient to sustain all industry*.

What’s more, as I have already informed you, your obfuscation of interest to account for taxation saves nothing, and obstructs us from placing the burden of taxation where it belongs.

Yet you pretend to fund government without taxation (which my long preceding and much borrowed *parable* of perfect economy itself introduces as a probable [differing] source of your invalid assertion); but in fact you save us nothing: the costs of government are paid by an obfuscated process beyond any reasonable definition of interest ? altogether which, of course, is hardly brilliant at all.

I have made substantial attempts to resolve these matters with you. You may now presume incorrectly that the matter is personal. But you may trust on the contrary that my disposition will remain (as it has since even before 1979) to distinguish the fact of real solution. For that, you can be assured I will be here to the end, and that so long as I am capable of fighting the fight, the chips will only fall where they should.

You obviously have never built a model of a sustainable system. Worse, you pretend expertise superior to the one model which answers for all these issues ? at expense to the general public’s potential understanding of solution.

It’s really simple, Ellen:

Given the definitions of inflation and deflation, there is one and one only solution of the both, which sustains all potential industry.

Given furthermore that conventional interest inherently and irreversibly multiplies debt in proportion to a circulation, there is one and one only integral solution for inherent multiplication of debt which further resolves inflation and deflation, and the separate issue of just taxation.

That integral solution is mathematically perfected economy?.

As to why/how your championed research could possibly be unaware of that long pre-existent prescription for absolute solution, and yet you merely persist in asserting an assessment regarding that subject Pennsylvania Currency which Jaikaran and others borrowed likewise only from my *parable* of perfect economy, is certainly apparent (as my previous answers to you establish).

Why otherwise did you remove the previous assertions from your article?

Trust therefore that so long as you or others assert purported facts of alternate solution, I will continue to respond as I do now to your invalid assertions.

This idea you have, that taxation via interest, irrespective of who should be taxed for whatever services they are provided, or whether that taxation is inherently proportional (or on the contrary, usually disproportionate) to the services they should be paying for in any just system of taxation, is utterly preposterous.

When and if you ever do straighten out the irregularities of that proposition Ellen, you will find the repairs you have to make finally concur with the prescription of mathematically perfected economy?.

Meanwhile, all my questions remain unanswered:

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

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

Thus your work is hardly finished. As I said before, if you had done the obligatory work which would have qualified any of your assertions of purported solution, you would already have the answers you haven’t produced; and we would already be in agreement.

The only difference I suppose is that you cannot claim the brilliance of having realized all that.

mike montagne

To this she replies as to the previous questions:

Sorry Mike, I just can’t engage in this debate right now. I have to get a revised edition ready that’s got a huge amount of outstanding orders and no books! I think we should agree to disagree. Best, Ellen

Because I never heard from her after her last evasion, I thus reply:

PFMPE?

Not only does that not answer for the non-originality of “your research,” it hardly speaks well to your disposition or integrity.

mike montagne

FURTHER ANALYSIS ??PUTTING 2 AND 2 TOGETHER

Obviously, I am not a student of Zarlenga. However it does not take a rocket scientist to deduce that if he too claims the Pennsylvania or Franklin Currency was non-inflationary (and necessarily, non-deflationary, or capable of sustaining all the industry we are capable of), then unless he cites the formulas for design and the very periodic intentions by which this currency would have done so, then (because the currency/system neither financed all production, nor established such a prescription [which necessarily, would have instead to have been equivalent to mathematically perfected economy?]) he could only have borrowed those assessments from my Parable of Perfect Economy, which, merely for the sake of illustration, gives a non-historical implementation of near perfect economy ??and Benjamin Franklin himself ??non-existent properties/understandings for the time.

No?

Then where else could he or Ellen Brown have gotten such an idea?

Well of course, Zarlenga couldn’t have granted me credit for those “ideas,” nor could he have claimed to author a veritable solution, if he only presented mine. Perhaps that does or does not explain both the faults in their arguments and “solution.” But if they are truly dedicated to solution ??and not something else ??why the evasion; and why the persistent advocation of their unqualifiable “solution,” without invalidation of mathematically perfected economy??

Deducing the answer to that is the easy part.

CONTENDING/PURPORTED SOLUTIONS ??ELLEN HODGSON BROWN’S AND MINE

1. IF I WERE PRESIDENT ??HOW TO ARREST WORLD WIDE MONETARY COLLAPSE IN A DAY, AND ESTABLISH REAL, SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY IN LITTLE LONGER (mike montagne, OCTOBER 14)
2. ELLEN HODGSON BROWN’S OCTOBER 17 GLOBAL RESEARCH ARTICLE, “Financial Meltdown: The Greatest Transfer of Wealth in History ??How to Reverse the Tide and Democratize the US Monetary System” (Ellen Hodgson Brown, OCTOBER 17)

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

1. OPINION ON THE PENNSYLVANIA CURRENCY ADVOCATED BY ELLEN HODGSON BROWN IN ‘WEB OF DEBT’
2. NO, ELLEN. IT’S NOT THE DERIVATIVES, STUPID (plays on her repetition of my earlier theme, ‘It’s the interest, stupid’)

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

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

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

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

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

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE? FORUM:

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

OBAMA MONETARY PROPOSAL UPDATE

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

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

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

FURTHER UPDATE, 18:03 10/14/2008

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

RELATED MATERIAL

1. OPEN (ONLINE) COPY OF MIKE MONTAGNE’S PROPOSITION OF SINGULAR MONETARY SOLUTION, AS REQUESTED BY OBAMA CAMPAIGN
2. [?NEW?]??IF I WERE PRESIDENT ??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:

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

ANNOUNCING: IF I WERE PRESIDENT…

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:

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

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

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

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

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

http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2008/10/14/how-i-would-arrest-world-wide-monetary-collapse-in-a-day-and-establish-real-economy-in-little-longer/ [END PERMALINK]

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE? FORUM:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewtopic.php?f=76&t=61

PFMPE? RESPONSE TO PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS’S ARTICLE, “A SOLUTION?”

Paul Craig Roberts begins today’s article, “A Solution?” stating,

“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?.

RELATED MATERIAL

1. A Solution? Paul Craig Roberts at ICH
2. WHY DON?T THE DEMOCRATS REVERSE WILSON?S ERROR, AND REPEAL THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT?
3. ABSOLUTE FAILING GRADES TO BOTH CANDIDATES
4. IF I WERE PRESIDENT ??HOW I WOULD FIX OUR MONETARY ISSUES IN SHORT ORDER, AND WITHOUT COST

“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/2008/10/10/pfmpe-response-to-paul-craig-smiths-article-a-solution/ [END PERMALINK]

DISCUSS THIS BLOG IN THE PFMPE? FORUM:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewtopic.php?f=75&t=54

CITIZENS WEIGH THE MEAT OF THE SELECTION

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:

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.”

RELATED MATERIAL

1. October 7, 2008 Debate Transcript (Commission on Presidential Debates)
2. WHY DON?T THE DEMOCRATS REVERSE WILSON?S ERROR, AND REPEAL THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT?
3. ABSOLUTE FAILING GRADES TO BOTH CANDIDATES
4. IF I WERE PRESIDENT… HOW I WOULD FIX OUR MONETARY ISSUES IN SHORT ORDER, AND WITHOUT COST

“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/2008/10/10/citizens-weigh-the-meat-of-the-selection/ [END PERMALINK]

DISCUSS THIS BLOG IN THE PFMPE? FORUM:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=53

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:

1. Because the unjustifiable monetary system was imposed upon the people for the very purpose of unjustifiable and illimitable taking from them;

2. 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);

3. because that unjustifiable imposition of interest perpetually multiplies debt in proportion to a circulation;

4. 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,

5. 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;

6. 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);

7. 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;

8. 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.

RELATED MATERIAL

1. October 7, 2008 Debate Transcript (Commission on Presidential Debates)
2. WHY DON?T THE DEMOCRATS REVERSE WILSON?S ERROR, AND REPEAL THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT?
3. IF I WERE PRESIDENT… HOW I WOULD FIX OUR MONETARY ISSUES IN SHORT ORDER, AND WITHOUT COST

“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/2008/10/08/absolute-failing-grades-to-both-candidates/ [END PERMALINK]

DISCUSS THIS BLOG IN THE PFMPE? FORUM:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewtopic.php?f=73&t=52

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:

1. 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.

   1. 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.

   2. 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.

3. 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.

2. 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?.

RELATED MATERIAL

• [?NEW?]??IF I WERE PRESIDENT…
• PROBABILITY AND TIMELINE FOR WORLD-WIDE ECONOMIC COLLAPSE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF INTEREST
• [?KEY?]??ABOUT INTEREST, KEY TO THE CYCLE OF USURY: ‘IT’S THE INTEREST, STUPID, IT’S THE INTEREST’
• [?KEY?]??WHY AND HOW PRECIOUS METAL MONETARY STANDARDS [THE GOLD STANDARD] CAN ONLY FAIL. WHAT IS SOUND MONEY?
• [?KEY?]??DOES RISK JUSTIFY SUBJECTING THE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE TO INTEREST (USURY)?
• WHAT IS USURY?
• WHAT IS FREE ENTERPRISE?
• DETERMINING THE VALUE OF MONEY, PROPERTY, AND PRODUCTION
• [?KEY?]??’MPE? 102′ ??’FIAT CURRENCY.’ WHAT ABOUT IT?
• [?KEY?]??’MPE? 103′ ??HOW MUCH MONEY TO CIRCULATE ‘OUT OF THIN AIR’?

“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)

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:

1. 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?

2. 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?

3. 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…

RELATED ARTICLES

1. [?NEW?]??IF I WERE PRESIDENT…

“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)

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

Monday, September 29, 2008, 10:13 AM

To *all* whom it may concern,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let us set the table:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. a mathematic proof there is one and one only solution to 1)?inflation and deflation, 2)?systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and 3)?inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt in proportion to a circulation;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet Thomas Jefferson told us long ago:

If the American people ever allow banks to issue their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and [bank owned] corporations which will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I dare say that would be quite preposterous, gentlemen!

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

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

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

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

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

With just that faith in principle,

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

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