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

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

MORPHALLAXIS, January 14, 1979.

mike montagne's mathematically perfected economy™ BLOG

mike montagne at iMac.

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

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

Wednesday, October 28th, 2009

Alternate PFMPE? logo.

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

mike montagne

OBAMA IS ‘KENNEDY-ESQUE’?

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

EMAIL FROM “BILL” (2009 10 28)

Read and save………

Bill

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

Giving democracy a dose of clarity

By Michael Gerson, Wednesday, October 28, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Email omitted to preserve privacy of author.]

Dear Bill,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

mike montagne

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

RELATED MATERIAL

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

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

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

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

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE? FORUM:

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

[END PERMALINK(S)]

Wednesday, March 18th, 2009

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

mike montagne

NEW PFMPE™ VIDEO — MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY™ Versus USURY

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

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

RELATED MATERIAL

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

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

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

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

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

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE™ FORUM:

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

[END PERMALINK(S)]

Tuesday, February 24th, 2009

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

mike montagne

DOES BANKRUPTCY EXTEND THE LIFESPAN OF A SYSTEM OF EXPLOITATION?

Kirk Jackson wrote:

Hi Mike,

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

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

Let me know your thoughts.

Thanks,

Kirk Jackson

Hi Kirk,

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

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

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

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

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

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

RELATED MATERIAL

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

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

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

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

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

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE™ FORUM:

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

[END PERMALINK(S)]

Thursday, February 5th, 2009

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

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

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

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

Larry Larkin asks:

Larry Larkin wrote:

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

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

Larry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RELATED MATERIAL

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

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

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

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

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

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE™ FORUM:

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

[END PERMALINK(S)]

Tuesday, October 28th, 2008

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

That’s why Kondratiev had a pattern to observe.

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

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

John Locke, 1690

THROWING DOWN THE GAUNTLET ON THE GOLD STANDARD (AGAIN)

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

Pass it on…

http://www.endthefed.us/

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

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

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

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

Thus I reply:

PFMPE?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Think about that.

This is the solution:

These are the issues of Legality and Rectitude:

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

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

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

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

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

http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2008/10/28/throwing-down-the-gauntlet-on-the-gold-standard-again/ [END PERMALINK]

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE? FORUM:

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

Wednesday, October 22nd, 2008

Real leadership means to correctly define the actual problem ??and then ??to correctly prescribe the actual solution.

Patrick Hedemark

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

John Kenneth Galbraith

BECAUSE HE HAS NO BETTER ANSWER…

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

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

 

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

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

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

Discuss it we will.

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[5]?[excluded trivia…]

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE TEETH OF IRRESPONSIBILITY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What can we rightly think then of his unqualified proposition?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  5. [excluded trivia…]

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

    Exactly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  13. “He should ignore that chorus.”

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

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

    Thomas Jefferson also said:

     

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

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

    Jefferson also said:

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RELATED MATERIAL

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

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

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

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

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

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE? FORUM:

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

Tuesday, October 14th, 2008

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

Wednesday, October 8th, 2008

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,

  1. 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;

  2. 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);

  3. 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;

  4. 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

“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

Monday, September 29th, 2008

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:

  1. 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.

  2. 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:

  1. 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;

  2. 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;

  3. 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;

  4. 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)

Friday, July 4th, 2008

Immitators of our pages are advocating how to fight foreclosure. I’ve been telling people what they need to do at this time since before I published a formal proof of inherent failure under interest and proof of mathematically perfected economy? in 1979.

What Americans have to do is contest the constitutionality of the currency. You need to assert that the imposed circulation can only impose the present conditions of failure upon us, and, that if a given private entity has such a right as to issue infinite irredeemable promises to pay, that as no private citizen/entity can have rights deprived to others, your creditors must therefore be bound at least to accept *your* irredeemable promise to pay infinity in solution of the monetary obligation which you have been coerced to accept.

Why?

Because the illegal and adverse form of the currency imposes multiplication of debt upon you; because multiplication of debt makes it ever more impossible, and eventually impossible, to service the debt; and because not even the federal government abides by its obligations to service the multiplying sum of debt.

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