EMAIL EXCHANGE WITH ANDREW GRAZIANO REGARDING SOLUTION

I try to answer as many good questions or thoughts as I can. Members of my private list so much appreciated yesterday’s exchange between Andrew G. and myself that I was asked to publish it to the blog.

These are simple things to understand once you get your brain around the simple concepts of mathematically perfected economy™. We all are constantly refining our perceptions of realities; and the present material is as much as thinking out loud.

As we compose our perceptions (as opposed to opinions), what we are concerned with, if we are to succeed, is not to arrive at a mere opinion, but to refine our understanding into veritable engineering. Principles are the building blocks of engineering; and, as we say, real (true, incontrovertible) principles are only abandoned; they cannot be compromised, because that is to destroy the principle itself. This idea is key to wielding the issues before us in a way in which we will succeed.

Where then do we get confused in reacting to all the alternate opinions which are proposed?

The first thing to do is to question whether they observe the vital principles. After all, if an alternate proposition observes principles which ascertain a fact of singular solution, then there would be no alternate proposition — the observation arrives yet again, by whatever route, at the singular possible solution.

So, we ourselves become confused when, to whatever least degree even, we leave the principle. I say this only because if I were not here, that’s how we would find our way.

EXAMPLE EXCHANGE REGARDING THE FINE POINTS OF SOLUTION

PFMPE™ responses inserted as in original emails:

Andrew,

We will be helped by expansion; and I’m just responding in these few paragraphs to your one point. But let’s consider all the ramifications of how we expand, etc.:

Existent debt will continue to multiply debt in proportion to the circulation; so, unless we re-finance all debt under MPE, whatever further growth we engender by artificial help against this process (which expression itself tells you we need to solve the cause), the artificially helped growth will fail just as Clinton’s “greatest industrial expansion in modern history” failed.

1. So, we must re-finance all debt under MPE to sustain the benefit we are attempting to achieve.

2. We don’t need any such bailout under MPE, because MPE will just fund all the new small business as it needs funding.

But yes, then we can just let the “big banks” fail as the natural consequence of their process.

I think you might have a comma or two out of place in the last number.

With *purposed* federal and “federal reserve” distortions not only of the distress which they are using only to bail out the thieves, but of all the related stress (price inflation, unfunded near term federal liabilities, false asset inflation via derivatives… etc.), if you buy into the need for a bailout, you can only come up with impossible numbers to swallow. In any case, we cannot get veritable numbers from the keepers of the data, but we can estimate:

Let’s just start with federal debt (”national” debt): They tell us it’s 10 trillion. But it’s not just 10 trillion.

If it were, with a GDP of $1 trillion and no other costs whatsoever, if we could devote all our industrial revenue to pay off principal on “the” national debt, it would take us 10 years to do so — and, in my opinion, everyone neglecting this problem (perpetuating the present system) is obligated to do so, versus leaving this debt to future generations who will never be able to pay it.

But the real federal debt is far more than this.

Remember, Bill Clinton claimed to have balanced the federal budget.

No real industrial expansion — even by the time the entire dot com boom had collapsed, few ventures had made a penny of profit. All the “boom” really accomplished (and was needed for) was to replenish the circulation. (In fact, I explained this to Clinton when he was elected; and it is to my explanations which he replies falsely in his state-of-the-union address, that he had accomplished something which was to then thought “mathematically impossible.”)

No increase in tax rates or tax revenue.

And no commensurable reduction in federal expenditures.

Hmmmm. How did he “balance” the budget then?

Well, of course he didn’t!

He robbed from other dedicated funds such as social security; and I am told that there was a huge unpublished payment from Kuwait, which forgave us for tremendous pre-existing debt for saving them in the first Gulf War.

Let’s just consider the first of these irregularities, as the second cannot reliably be confirmed.

Several years ago, independent researchers estimated the robbing of other dedicated funds, primarily social security, left us with from 48 to 96 trillion in “unfunded near term federal liabilities” — an evasive term for debt. With interest, we can now estimate the upper end of that scale to be somewhere in the 110-120-trillion range. Let’s just build on that to accumulate an idea of how bad our situation *may* really be.

Add 10 trillion admitted federal debt to 120-trillion “unfunded federal liabilities,” and we have $130 trillion just to start with.

Thus if there were no interest paid to the privatization of the monetary system, with a GDP of $1 trillion that we “could” (we cannot) dedicate solely to principal, it would take us 130 years to pay off near term federal liabilities — *if* and only if we could forestall servicing private debt for so long.

Fat chance.

Some estimate the derivatives issue to conceal as much as 400 trillion in further liabilities.

Are “the markets” then not a pie in the sky?

Private debt is phenomenal as well.

So let’s just say that if we could just service the present principal of real debt we are presently oppressed by, it may take 500 years of GDP all of us now living to do so.

Of course, with interest further multiplying however much of this beyond our means, we can never do so.

But that’s why we must re-finance all debt under MPE — because in doing so, we will credit all debtors for whatever they have paid against the original principal… and this will erase these artificial multiplications of debt.

Funny.

In the last few weeks of 1978, I was researching a timeline which is supposed to be embodied in the Great Pyramid. It’s purported dates included the year of Exodus, the exact days of the birth, crucifixion, and resurrection of Christ, an unexplained 1914 date, and one or two concluding dates — the first of which may establish a beginning of the biblical “time of the end” in 1979.

By the amazing help of a librarian in California, I was able to acquire rare works of half-a-dozen of the most well known scientists to have measured the pyramid. These incredibly voluminous works pretty much correspond to their personal notes on how every measurement was taken. The usual accuracy ranged from at worst a thousandth of an inch, to as fine a granularity as a small part of a ten-thousandth.

This timeline is a theoretical system anchored at one end by two opposing inscribed lines in the descending passage. The purpose of these accurately aligned features was an obvious curiosity; and, given all the surrounding phenomena, it is natural to eventually suppose they may anchor a timeline, the dimensions/units of which would be given by the one symbol falling on the 1979 date.

The descending passage happens to align with the North Star Draconis at some specific moment in (if I recall correctly) 2121 BC. Hypothetically presuming the scribed lines thus anchor the datum point of the time line to this moment in time, engenders the prospect of the time line; and, to my surprise, all of the varied works concurred from this hypothesis indeed to give the dates given as the year of Exodus, and exact days of the birth, crucifixion and resurrection of Christ.

Quite phenomenal it was, to go over all the geometry and math and find these different works concurred.

At the resurrection of Christ however, a strange anomaly occurs in the data. All of the men whose works I was studying had come to the pyramid as confirmed agnostics. All of them left absolutely convinced that the Great Pyramid could be nothing less than the product of divine inspiration. And this may explain a very strange thing which, like your math, relates to the number 666.

The resurrection falls upon a dimension which quite oddly, is given uniformly as so many pyramid inches and “one third.”

I was attempting to determine the final event of the timeline; and, of course, encountering this hugely anomalous expression raised the prospect that there would be no credible further determination: what was the actual decimal expression? How many decimal places to account for or calculate by, thereafter? These were serious questions.

But the length of the Grand Gallery, which was to be added to this presumably “indeterminate” marker was *also* given as so many pyramid inches and a third!

So, all at once we had two dimensions which at first cast doubt that we could even calculate the final date(s).

The unexplained 1914 date however becomes a clue how to do the final calculations, if we take the number 666 to be a hermetic instruction to perform the calculations to three decimal places. (I had been carrying out my calculations on multiple parallel paths, with *a* path for the accuracy of every dimension given. [Thank goodness there were few critical dimensions.])

Of course, the idea I was exploring was that the timeline might indicate the moment of ultimate world monetary failure — a time which is said to begin a new order, not as planned by globalization of course, but as an end of a time of dogma and oppression as we now exist in.

In any case, you probably anticipate the incredible thing which the “unexplained” 1914.666 date “may” therefore indicate. The so called Federal Reserve of course was theoretically created in the eve of December 23, 1913. But it could not of course have been *put into operation* until the following year.

And I totally agree. The thing is, conversion to MPE not only provides your proposition of an alternate, superior answer to the attempted bailout… it does that in perpetuation, without cost to anyone; and furthermore resolves further multiplication of our existent debt.

By refinancing all debt under MPE, we immediately make something like 80% of our current income available to further prosperity. This itself would contribute substantially to creating and perpetually sustaining further employment and industry. But the further financing not only of that industry, but of its potential consumption — both without cost or multiplication of debt by interest — indicates the degree of prosperity which is immediately possible, with no cost or bailout whatever, under mathematically perfected economy.

So those are good points, Andrew.

RELATED MATERIAL

1. SYNOPSIS — MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY™ REDUCED TO ITS BAREST THREAD
2. [ KEY ]  IF I WERE PRESIDENT — HOW TO ARREST WORLD WIDE MONETARY COLLAPSE IN A DAY
3. PROBABILITY AND TIMELINE FOR WORLD-WIDE ECONOMIC COLLAPSE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF INTEREST
4. EVALUATION OF JEFFERSON’S OPINION ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A NATIONAL BANK

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

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

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

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

http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2008/11/11/email-exchange-with-andrew-graziano-regarding-solution/ [END PERMALINK]

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE™ FORUM:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewtopic.php?f=87&t=148

CONGRATULATIONS TO PRESIDENT ELECT BARACK OBAMA

Congratulations to President Elect Barack Obama, and to Mr. McCain for his fine and heartfelt concession speech. When the ecstasies and disappointments of this campaign wear off, we will need to focus on the meat of matters — not just our new President’s ability to change Washington. Our hope is that Mr. Obama’s presidency will indeed represent ours.

THROWING DOWN THE GAUNTLET ON THE GOLD STANDARD (AGAIN)

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

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:

“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

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

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

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

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

RELATED MATERIAL

0. Greenspan Concedes Error on Regulation
1. If I Were President — how to arrest world wide monetary collapse in a day
2. PROBABILITY AND TIMELINE FOR WORLD-WIDE ECONOMIC COLLAPSE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF INTEREST
   3. [ KEY ]  ABOUT INTEREST, KEY TO THE CYCLE OF USURY: ‘IT’S THE INTEREST, STUPID, IT’S THE INTEREST’

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

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

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

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

http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2008/10/28/new-york-times-falsely-promotes-a-facade-of-greenspan-humility/ [END PERMALINK]

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE™ FORUM:

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

RESPONSE TO CONSTITUTION’S DEFENDERS FOR OBAMA POST

This morning I responded to the following ConstitutionsDefendersForObama post:

PFMPE™ RESPONSE

Dear [poster],

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

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

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

Ayn Rand said,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How does this happen?

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

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

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

What does this mean?

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

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

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

Read it slowly, and you will understand it.

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

Of course, that day has come.

Jefferson also said:

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

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

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

So, how do we solve inflation and deflation?

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

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

Thus the one and only solution is simple:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will close then with one final quote from Jefferson:

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

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

RELATED MATERIAL

1. IF I WERE PRESIDENT — HOW TO ARREST WORLD WIDE MONETARY COLLAPSE IN A DAY
2. EVALUATION OF JEFFERSON’S OPINION ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A NATIONAL BANK

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

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

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

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

http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2008/10/23/response-to-constitutions-defenders-for-obama-post/ [END PERMALINK]

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE™ FORUM:

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

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:

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:

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