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

mathematically perfected economy™ (MPE™)    1  :   the singular integral solution of  1) inflation and deflation,  2) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and  3) inherent, artificial multiplication of debt into terminal systemic failure;    2  :  every prospective debtor's right to issue legitimate promises to pay, free of extrinsic manipulation, adulteration, or exploitation of those promises, or the natural opportunity to make good on them;    3  :  our right to certify, to enforce, and to monetize industry and commerce by this one sustaining and truly economic process.

MORPHALLAXIS, January 14, 1979.

mike montagne's mathematically perfected economy™ BLOG

mike montagne at iMac.

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

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

Wednesday, October 28th, 2009

Alternate PFMPE? logo.

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

mike montagne

OBAMA IS ‘KENNEDY-ESQUE’?

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

EMAIL FROM “BILL” (2009 10 28)

Read and save………

Bill

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

Giving democracy a dose of clarity

By Michael Gerson, Wednesday, October 28, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Email omitted to preserve privacy of author.]

Dear Bill,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

mike montagne

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

RELATED MATERIAL

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

mike montagne ??founder, PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy?, author/engineer of mathematically perfected economy? (1968-1979)

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

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

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE? FORUM:

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

[END PERMALINK(S)]

Wednesday, March 18th, 2009

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

mike montagne

NEW PFMPE™ VIDEO — MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY™ Versus USURY

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

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

RELATED MATERIAL

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

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

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

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

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

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE™ FORUM:

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

[END PERMALINK(S)]

Thursday, February 5th, 2009

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

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

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

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

Larry Larkin asks:

Larry Larkin wrote:

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

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

Larry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RELATED MATERIAL

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

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

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

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

http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2009/02/05/larry-larkin-asks-how-an-adequate-circulation-is-maintained-in-mathematically-perfected-economy/

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE™ FORUM:

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

[END PERMALINK(S)]

Saturday, October 4th, 2008

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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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

“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)

mike montagne — PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™.

"To find the players in all the corruption of the world, 'Follow the money.' To find the captains of world corruption, follow the money all the way."

mike montagne — PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™

While 12,000 homes a day continue to go into foreclosure, mathematically perfected economy™ would re-finance a $100,000 home with a hundred-year lifespan at the overall rate of $1,000 per year or $83.33 per month. Without costing us anything, we would immediately become as much as 12 times as liquid on present revenue. Transitioning to MPE™ would apply all payments already made against existent debt toward principal. Many of us would be debt free. There would be no housing crisis, no credit crisis. Unlimited funding would immediately be available to sustain all the industry we are capable of.

There is no other solution. Regulation can only temper an inherently terminal process.

If you are not promoting mathematically perfected economy™, then you condemn us to monetary failure.

© COPYRIGHT 1979-2009 by mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.COPYRIGHT 1979-2009 by mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. TRADEMARKS: PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™, Mathematically Perfected Economy™, Mathematically Perfected Currency™, MPE™, and PFMPE™ are trademarks of mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™, perfecteconomy.com. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Firefox™.BEST VIEWED WITH MOZILLA FIREFOX™.


Search perfecteconomy.com     Search Web