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)]

Sunday, January 25th, 2009

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

mike montagne

HOW MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY™ SHAKES OUT FOR GOLD

This article responds to Larry Larkin’s truly excellent questions in our PFMPE™ Forum. Larry writes in regard to mathematically perfected currency™:

I am still unsure as to whether some gold and silver coins are detrimental in some way to the application of the MPE™, or if it is merely an inconvenience [to issue them]. If it is simply an inconvenience [to issue or coexist with gold or silver coinage], then I request you revisit the issue.

Larry, asking from the disciplined mind of an engineer, regularly focuses relevant discussions on their potential faults or shortcomings, and on the matters which count. You can view or participate in this thread at:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=337&p=830#p830

Larry,

Excellent question (as always).

Let’s go over it a different way, and further endeavor to resolve the bounds of the future of gold holdings, should we transition to mathematically perfected economy™. These are the finer points of the several related issues:

Those coins are not at all impermissible items of trade, for they would be things of value themselves; but they are not mathematically perfected currency™; and, by nature, they cannot and would not serve the same objectives/purposes, or be issued on the same principles.

That does not mean they cannot coexist; in fact they can.

But we would be in error to think they could serve all the purposes of mathematically perfected currency™, or even that the value of the coins should be perceived in some permanent way in terms of value as to introduce any factor of stability whatever; and our misunderstandings on these counts (forgetting the limitations and faults of a gold standard) paves the way for forfeiting principles which are vital to sustaining all the industry we are capable of. Particularly then, the intellectual and further danger is that those misunderstandings pave a way of potentially reverting to some at least of the very faults which we now suffer. All they give you on the other hand is an expensive token of value, which in fact itself is not stable.

To this latter fault/fact then, I would insist the denomination of the coin not be defined in units of currency, but instead in units of weight and purity/substance. But none of this in then end, is altogether adverse to the holder of gold:

In other words, by nature, the implementation of a currency altogether derives from an immutable obligation to deliver value, the instantiation and whole need of which serves cases where a) for one reason or another there is insufficient circulation (which cases involve potentially [and probably] vast volumes of circulation which no substance such as gold can sustain); and where therefore, b) a person or persons thus assumes an obligation to pay for some further production or equity.

What mathematically perfected economy™ accomplishes therefore, in effect (in regard to the relevant senses), is c) in restoring to the individual or such persons collectively, their right to issue their promises to pay, free of extrinsic manipulation, adulteration, or exploitation of those promises, or the natural opportunity to make good on them… is mathematically perfected currency™ d) alleviates any need to “borrow” effectively from others (such as a central bank, or any other such “lending” entity); which in turn means e) there is never any shortage of money f) to sustain industry and g) to give the entire circulation permanent value from the point of its introduction onward, by virtue of the perpetual 1:1:1 relationship between the remaining circulation, remaining obligation, and remaining value of *all* represented property maintained by the obligatory schedule of payment of mathematically perfected economy™.

Gold, or any such relatively finite substance cannot accomplish these objectives, because the finite volume precludes maintaining the perpetual 1:1:1 relationship.

But of course, gold has value, and you can make it into a coin. Because this is a raw resource/material of relatively finite/limited supply and potentially vast demand, what you’re doing when you make it into a coin however is 1) you’re fixing its value if you do so in the conventional sense, even while 2) the demand *or other needs for it* may rise or fall; and 3) this itself cannot and should not imply consistency, or suggest (without qualification) 4) that we fix some ostensible value in terms of nominal units of currency to the coin. It *is represented* rightly in other words (and according to the intents of its holder), only by declaring its weight and substance.

All this then is actually the desire of most people who *want* to see gold coin issued. They do not want a preconceived value to be imposed upon it; in fact that itself conflicts with the “free market” principle they usually advocate in conjunction with gold. The two are mutually exclusive: that is, i) to pretend we can attach a fixed value to gold when its costs of acquisition/harvesting, demand, and advent of more important uses are further factors which will compete for gold (and even dictate better purposes for it, than very expensive coin)… all these things are in fact adverse to the other, usually desired purpose, ii) that gold coin realize its full potential value.

To be clear, I do not advocate the latter in the exploitative sense. In my opinion, the value of the resource should generally be determined by the cost of harvesting it (which of course may rise and fall itself, with a general tendency to rise, because of scarcity and difficulty of harvesting [as opposed to artificial appreciation or escalation of cost]).

In the end then, we don’t really accomplish anything with gold coin, especially if we remember to recognize the fact its actual costs naturally vacillate, and most probably, due to scarcity and ever more difficult harvesting… usually to the upside. Recognizing the very principles which most holders of gold are interested in then, serves the holder by preserving that value not by abstract/artificial restriction to a pre-conceived value, but by expressing the gold as what it is — so many ounces of such and such purity of substance (or so many ounces of gold in the resultant substance). This is the expression which actually preserves the value of the gold to its holder; and we can so evaluate how this value is affected further by the artificial failure of the present currency and further factors, as opposed to those same factors under mathematically perfected economy™ and its currency:

When or if you occupy all this gold unnecessarily as coin, you furthermore deprive the real markets and usages for gold of the supply they require, which further obfuscates cost if exploitation is involved (demand is leveraged into artificially high prices).

Remembering all this; and deciding to rid ourselves of exploitation (unearned profit in addition to the exploitation of a currency which can only multiply debt into collapse), we suffer no adverse effects of gold coin whatever.

But this is to observe then that the value or actual cost of that coin in one day is greater usually than so many days before, owing at least to the natural tendency for costs of extraction to be greater.

There should be no such thing then as a $20 coin; there can only right be an X oz, Y purity coin, of value rightly determined at any moment generally by the costs of harvesting. Further cost or purported value cannot be exalted to our advantage any moreso than it would be to our actual advantage that someone buy all the lumber produced or all the rice or corn produced, to exploit availability for unearned profit by their control of availability.

As an ostensible/purported form of money then, gold involves the extreme disadvantage of comprising an extremely expensive currency, with no benefit whatever; and with its greatest and most practical value being its natural value instead. Its value even on that plateau however is not stable, never has been, and never should be; and this is not even the desire of anyone usually holding gold, for if it were, their desire can only be preserved in mathematically perfected currency™.

But, observing these principles, can we circulate gold coin of a given weight and purity?

Surely. Absolutely. And with no damage but that such a circulation deprives us of other desirable and effective usages (which injury may be substantial).

After all, it is only in observing these principles that gold finds its natural value; and these principles alone therefore preserve the value of gold which rightly reward its holders.

The unfortunate thing then would be for its holders, wanting only the most they can possibly get (versus to preserve their wealth), to oppose actual solution of all the issues, only to hold out on their aspiration at our cost. They may and probably will on the other hand lose out if they pursue that goal without embracing the consequences, because a broken economy can hardly afford gold.

What is the natural and desirable value of gold?

We can probably estimate where the value of gold should go in today’s “dollar” (perception of the falsified dollar, the units of which we yet are subject to in the sense that they represent the parts of all cost which are dedicated to the value/cost of our production as distinct from whatever else is dedicated to serving artificial debt.

I happen to live in an area with substantial active or potentially active gold mining, sales of claims, and so forth. Much of all this is relatively dormant because of course the overall costs of mining don’t justify the rewards. With the upward trends and projections, there was a substantial resumption of mining activity until fuel prices hit their recent peak. This can be said or thought at least to indicate where the price of gold justifies its “production” (harvesting).

On its basic terms of justifying costs of production then, I would expect the *actual value* of gold to hold in the relative senses which are important to its holders at present, except that “if” the economy crashes, its value will probably actually fall, and maybe quite significantly, because you can’t eat gold, and because it sustains little vital industry.

It is ironic that gold holders are so often against rectifying the economy then (if the latter projections hold), as I would think they would realize on the other hand that yes, while gold may, during the initial parts of the fall, hold or increase its relative value against the escalating devaluation of the dollar, still, should we allow that escalating devaluation under multiplication of debt flower into full fledged collapse, gold will have little leverage to claim any stake in sustenance.

Of course, I don’t offer these ideas as opinions, but as projections of the very same principles that many gold buffs are counting on. I only project from those same facts that investment in gold will only work to the advantage of its holders against the falling dollar, until the back of the system is utterly broken. We’re getting pretty close to that now.

So what would I project on the other hand if the system is rescued by relatively immediate transition to mathematically perfected economy™?

This in fact is where I see the holder of gold to come out the best. Maintaining the current price, against reduction of all other costs seems to me to be the greatest coup possible for the gold bug.

In other words, I see our only way out to be the prices of our homes for instance falling to costs of production, from which are eradicated all along the line of harvesting resources and rendering them into production, all the costs of interest and artificial multiplication of debt. This of course not only eliminates the cost of interest on the principal loan for the home (for instance), it eliminates all such upstream costs as well, reducing the potential costs of homes to indeed our costs of production (work); and, in turn, making the wages of our work far more valuable insofar as how far they go.

Suppose then that the value of gold is sustained because miners determine to mine on the wage they can take, which is what remains after costs of operation/extraction are subtracted from the present value/price of gold? So let’s take this to be roughly $1,000/oz as further developing circumstances may soon determined.

At present then, an oz of gold pays perhaps a month or just more against a $100,000 home. If the costs of homes escalate by temporarily and artificially rescuing “the housing market,” the value of gold falls, and potentially dramatically, even ostensibly “holding” its current “price” (actual falling relative value).

If on the other hand we transitioned to mathematically perfected economy™ at some near term point, that $1,000 oz of gold pays for a full year of the same home ? something perhaps 10x what it does now.

So the greatest realization of the desires of the gold bug too are most plausible of course in the realization of mathematically perfected economy™.

This probability of greatest benefit again is just the potential or probable math, based on the bounds of where either direction are bound to go. In my opinion, weighing the plausibilities of the two potential courses, everything possible points to *by far* the greatest possible and probable advantage to the holder of gold to be realized by immediate adoption of mathematically perfected economy™.

Persistence in the present, imposed system (subject to further corruption/manipulation of “the value” of gold), has little potential upscale. If for instance, the dreams of the gold bug are realized in $2,000/oz prices, we see the near term potential doubled. Even not seeing that *potential* upside under the present system, the value of gold is immediately multiplied 10 fold. If the upside under present conditions is realized/manifested under mathematically perfected economy™ on the further hand, you see a 20 fold relative improvement in your investment.

So those are the basic bounds of how I see all this shaking out for the gold bug.

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/2009/01/25/how-mathematically-perfected-economy-shakes-out-for-gold/

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE™ FORUM:

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

[END PERMALINK(S)]

Friday, January 23rd, 2009

The very reason you did not present any solution courtesy of Zarlenga or Brown is because neither author has one.

You asked that “if my main points are in error lay out the reasons why the logic is faulty.”

There it is.

Jim Eldon, responding to Jere Hough in regard to Hough’s article, “What We Must Do to Fix the Economic Crisis”

JERE HOUGH PROMOTES CONFLICTING SOLUTIONS, ELLEN HODGSON BROWN, STEPHEN ZARLENGA, GRIFFIN, COOK

This article responds to Jere Hough’s OpEd News article, “What We Must Do to Fix the Economic Crisis,” in which Mr. Hough re-raises Ellen Hodgson Brown’s “Ponzi Scheme” metaphor, pleading, “A oppressive [sic] and destructive totalitarian world government run by the “Ponzi-Schemers” of our world awaits our failure to act swiftly and properly.” Advise Mr. Hough that no one more effectively impedes that than the authors he promotes.

I respond to Mr. Hough’s defense of Brown and Zarlenga to Jim Eldon, who defended himself perfectly well without my jumping into the fray. The reason is plain. Mr. Hough has obviously written me in the past; and if solution is to emerge from the perpetual stream of eleventh hour pretenders, of course we’re going to have to engage in all the battles, as follows.

Quotes of Mr. Hough’s response to Mr. Eldon are enclosed in the colored regions. The frame of reference is the original relationship as responded to Mr. Hough’s article at OpEd News.

Jere Hough wrote:

Andrew [sic (Jim?)],

Thanks for the comment, although I fail to see how contradicting my likening of our economy to a Ponzi Scheme contributes to an understanding of our most fundamental economic problem - our money.

Mr. Hough,

As we know each other well enough from your April 13 thru May 6, 2008 emails (which of course I am prepared to re-present here), and as you claim even here to be familiar with my work (only since then), I find it quite audacious that you claim further in your first of these emails to me, to have had many of the quotes from our quotes page on your computer for many years, while a prominent quote beneath your signature is an adulteration of a disputed Jefferson quote which originates from my pages (and 1979 work) and would concur in its most important observation with my 1979 thesis that any purported economy subject to interest ultimately terminates itself under insoluble debt. The very quote you borrow unknowingly from me then, itself implicitly disputes the unqualified assertions of your recommended authors.

Jefferson of course did not even loosely allude to any aspect of inevitable failure as a consequence of a purported necessity to “invest” in the economy. Nor did any of the founders but Hamilton advocate that “money” should be obfuscated into such a thing as would obviously make it a vehicle to exploit the whole of industry to its inevitable demise; and of course, the very quote under your signature was offered as an explicit invalidation of Hamilton’s proposal, which Jefferson recognized would dispossess the country just so.

Furthermore of course, you don’t have an original source for that quote (which comes from my pages and 1979 work), do you Mr. Hough? Well, would it be you acquired it from your friend Zarlenga then, who like Jaikaran, Brown, and so on, curiously pays no credit to my work whatever, but follows the very course of my same research without even turning up a further key fact or instance of logic resolving the problems at hand beyond what I did so long ago, and all this to raise a purported solution Zarlenga himself confesses does not solve all the involved matters (is not a solution)? Ms. Brown will not even answer vital questions of her purported solution; and she disqualifies the very essential process (like you?) by denying (outright in her case, on these very pages) that interest is the problem — while of course, it is the very one and only feature of the subject currency which distinguishes it from a neutral, inert token of value (as most of us would intend of it); and while of course it is this very feature of the currency which Jefferson meant to identify by accusing this property in its inherent association with banks, and therefore even as something he distinguished would not at all be in the interest of just government to do. Is it not incredibly odd in fact then, that if Zarlenga implicitly or explicitly denies my thesis of inherent failure, and that as you concur, you yet brandish the very words of Jefferson which sustain my thesis?

I find your copy of this disputed Jefferson quote a bit curious then in regard to your recommendation for further reading, and particularly in your implicit denial yet that my work demonstrates the fact of singular solution it has claimed for 30 years. As we both know, you have a personal problem with my rejection of your appeal to recognize these late comers, who saw opportunity in raising the issue for the sake of solution, even as none of them have invalidated the proposition of *singular* solution set forth 30 years ago. How many solutions to inflation and deflation are there, Mr. Hough? More than 1? How many solutions are there to inherent, irreversible, and terminal multiplication of debt by interest, Mr. Hough? More than 1? How many integral solutions are there then, Mr. Hough? More than 1? If you are familiar with my work, which you have never invalidated either, how yet is it you dispute the one and one only solution that work has, for 40 years, been all about?

Of course, the prophesy of today attributed to Mr. Jefferson and deriving from my work, has spread all across the internet for many years. But the first instances of it practically anyone can find is my 1979 work, and pre-web bulletin board documentation to the computer models I provided the Reagan Administration. Do you have an earlier source, Mr. Hough? No. The *disputed* quote then has only so circulated by so many others, who have likewise tweaked a word or two here or there to pretend originality (likewise without source of course), to claim the words without attribution likewise, and only to raise yet another half baked idea that derivatives or some other manifestation far downstream of fundamental cause is the underlying problem. Does “It’s the derivatives, stupid,” ring familiar in your recommended reading? Is it not even curious that title plays further from my far older article, “It’s the interest, stupid”?

You realize nonetheless Mr. Hough, that the integrity of your mere appeal on behalf of the unqualified and differing purported solutions of your eleventh hour author friends, hangs on whether your likening of the nature of the money to a Ponzi Scheme (like theirs) endows anyone with any capability to recognize (or understand) anything.

The first thing that smells about this proposition of a Ponzi Scheme (to anyone mindful of the vital differences), is that a person who deciphers the simple causes of the circumstances we now suffer is hardly disposed to use such careless terminology. On the contrary, a characteristic of revealing analysis is unwavering dedication to exacting terms which represent everything that is to be understood. People who seek to understand obscured, ambiguous things Mr. Hough, give every element and every process vital names, evoking exactly what must be understood about their role in what we are seeking to solve. The only adequate names of discovery are full, accountable expressions themselves. Upon realizing that a circulation subject to interest compels perpetual borrowing merely to maintain a vital circulation; and upon realizing that so much as we must re-borrow principal and interest paid out of the general circulation in servicing debt, this will inherently and irreversibly increase the sum of debt so much as ever greater periodic sums of interest on an ever greater sum of debt; and upon realizing that this inherent process therefore is terminal, the last thing the perceiver of the problem is going to do, Mr. Hough, is jump from their seat and shout, “Ponzi Scheme!”

Nor, understanding the process Jefferson was reaching for, would the perceiver or solver of the problem think to argue for their purported solution by dismissing the vital arguments. They wouldn’t dream they’ve done the world a favor by rejecting their own diligent ascertainment of the nuances which compel this manifestation of failure, by obfuscating prose. They wouldn’t dream furthermore that the prose for the described terminal process, which can only be understood in said terms, is your (and their) eleventh hour expression, “Ponzi Scheme.” The person who has carefully unraveled these things wouldn’t dream anyone at all could construct in their mind an actual understanding of the cause of failure from this extremely compromising obfuscation of their vital perceptions. Most prominently of all, they would know full well that no one but no one but no one could possibly understand or develop solution from this remarkably improbable expression, “Ponzi Scheme,” because in the least, the student of the idea of solution would have to re-construct the whole cause and in fact too invent the actual solution from a term which doesn’t even provide the first clue how to do so. Can you show us how to re-construct the cause and solution from your term, Ponzi Scheme, Mr. Hough?

Now, because you can cite some further pretender who cannot cite the real problem who also advocates such a futile description (and has no interest in solution), does that make your bankrupt expression right? Of course not. But that’s the only argument you offer, because there is nothing else to offer in defense of your eleventh hour term which no one is recognizing solution from.

Of course still, it would be plagiarism if your eleventh hour friends pretended to author an explanation that to maintain a vital circulation inevitably requires re-borrowing principal and interest as subsequent sums of debt, perpetually increased by so much as periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt, until the system succumbed to a terminal sum of debt which it could no longer afford to service, and which inability to service rendered it incapable of qualifying to assume further debt, as is necessary yet to continue replenishing the circulation. You say in your first email, that “Some of your [my] ideas seem pretty complex.” But tell me, does the sentence you just read not reduce the whole 600 pages Ms. Brown claims and whatever Zarlenga has ever written, to the fundamental cause of failure (in far less)? Is there some more simple explanation? Or is it that your friends can’t put that explanation into fewer, equally accurate and accountable terms, even after knowing my explanation, as they surely do?

I assert it’s yet another thing; and that their real goals (particularly as they dismiss my proposition of singular solution) are sufficiently obvious that I don’t even need to tell anyone here what makes these adversaries of solution tick, while they haven’t raised a further relevant issue, and refuse even to defend their eleventh hour propositions.

Nonetheless, the extinguishability/discountability of the vital terms/expressions you exalt is impermissible in any genuine discipline. Certainly neither I or any other person reads the essential meat of the matter from the definition of a Ponzi Scheme. As I wrote to Ellen in this ongoing controversy, “Ponzi Scheme” is no more useful than to call “bankers,” “bad men.” So I never called this inherently terminal process a Ponzi Scheme, not once since I authored the present explanation 30 years before your friends arrived to offer compromised adulterations and pretended solutions which neither you nor they have ever qualified.

How sloppy is all this? I note in your adulterated version of my quote of Jefferson that you capitalize your attribution, “THOMAS JEFFERSON.” What does that mean, Jere? That we should respect what Jefferson tells us? That you understand what he’s telling us, that a form of money multiplies indebtedness to complete dispossession? Or it is instead the right of government to issue that form of money, as you later assert in your article? Will that form produce a different consequence, if it is issued by the government? Absolutely not! Neither then was that what Jefferson was trying to tell us. So you accentuate the author, while academics attribute the quote to me, and while the whole of its content points not to who issues the currency, but the nature of the currency, which produces in those same words, an inevitable outcome: “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.”

Here is a perfect example of demeaning the vital issues:

Jere Hough wrote:

This money-monopoly essentially loans money into existence at usurious interest rates, usurping the money-creation powers granted to congress by our US Constitution: Article 1, Section 8.

As you know if you are really familiar with my work, I explained 30 years ago how there is no valid claim to alternate usurious or non-usurious rates of interest rates. Any practical rate of interest inherently and irreversibly multiplies debt in proportion to the vital circulation. By contemporary definition then (unless you agree with my work), rates currently being charged are explicitly non-usurious!. No ifs ands or buts about it!

Nor then is the problem your purportedly usurious rates (according to the conventional definition, or mine?). You, Zarlenga, and Brown of course advocate lower rates, which only multiply debt at a more moderate but equally terminal rate. Look around you. We’re suffering failure under “non-usurious” interest rates right now, and the reason is those rates multiply debt in proportion to a vital circulation.

Jere Hough wrote:

This corrupt system works exactly like an enormous “Ponzi Scheme”. If you have been following, or learning from, the current new stories of the Bernie Madoff “scandals”, you should be familiar with the term, Ponzi Scheme. Still, few people actually understand the mechanic’s of a “Ponzi Scheme” or fully comprehend what separates that form of complex fraud from a legitimate investment. In short, a Ponzi Scheme is a kind of “pyramid scheme” designed to enrich the early investors, those at the top of the pyramid, from the funds coming into the pyramid from new “investors” (victims) later. Little or no real product or valuable service is produced. Money is only transferred from new investors (victims) to earlier ones, so as to give the appearances of profitability.

“Exactly like.” Is that right?

If there were no Bernie Madoff at all, Mr. Hough, the purported economy would fail under a terminal sum of debt. The only parallel to a Ponzi Scheme you even draw here is a metaphorical position in a metaphorical pyramid. Oh sure, the scheme is designed to enrich the people in your metaphorical position. But actually, the whole vehicle of exploitation depends on an implicit and unavoidable obligation to maintain a vital circulation, sufficient to service original obligations comprised of principal and interest from a circulation comprised only of the principal. The exploiters however are not investors; and the method of exploitation is certainly not investment.

The method of the usurers is only to publish our promises to pay each other, at virtually no cost to themselves. Is that “exactly” how a Ponzi Scheme works, Mr. Hough?

Indeed they eventually “invest” some of our promises to pay which they multiply by interest — a thing in fact wholly absent from a Ponzi Scheme. But that isn’t the cause of the failure, is it Mr. Hough? Are we failing because “investors” own industry? Are the purported monetary systems of the world failing because the people have invested in the government when they borrow money? Hah! The systems of exploitation which have been imposed upon the world are failing Mr. Hough, because you have to borrow this form of money if you are denied mathematically perfected economy™; and because if you do borrow your own promise to pay from the usurer, you can only borrow more, and more, and more, and more, merely to maintain a circulation which will permit you to service the accumulating sum of debt until you suffer a terminal sum of debt. That’s the scheme, Mr. Hough. And sorry, Ponzi didn’t invent it. It existed for thousands of years before Ponzi.

And so the real problem here is the eleventh hour advocates who deny solution, or continue to raise false ones. Your eleventh hour literary champions haven’t even advocated that an economy allow us to pay for our production in every case, with an equal measure of our own production. Why not, Mr. Hough? Why not provide for the people to trade their production as they would otherwise see fit? Is it to any benefit at all that we let someone here or there take from them? Or is it a human right to issue our own promises to pay, free of extrinsic manipulation, adulteration, or exploitation of those promises, or the natural opportunity to make good on them?

If we take your paper at face value Mr. Hough, there is no solution. It would seem to me that if you can defend that implicit or explicit message, you are well prepared to invalidate that mathematically perfected economy™ is the singular (one and one only) integral solution to 1) inflation and deflation, 2) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and 3) inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt in proportion to a vital circulation, engendering inevitable systemic failure at a finite system lifespan defined by an inevitable, terminal sum of insoluble debt.

Which means inevitably that you can prove there is a better solution, and that it will be to our disadvantage, if we enable ourselves to pay for instance for a $100,000 home with a hundred year lifespan, at the overall rate of $1,000 per year, or $83.33 per month. Essentially then Mr. Hough, the arguments we are waiting for from you sustain 10,000-plus homes a day going into foreclosure, for the sake of reading Stephen Zarlenga or Ellen Brown, who have never produced a monetary model in their lives capable of projecting or solving the present issues. Much less were the models they never produced accurately projecting an inevitable collapse as explained in the aforesaid terms, to transpire (conservatively) at approximately 2010 AD. You can still download those models and run that projection from the pages you deny offer solution, Mr. Hough.

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/2009/01/23/jere-hough-promotes-conflicting-solutions-ellen-hodgson-brown-stephen-zarlenga-griffin-cook-part-1/

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE™ FORUM:

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

[END PERMALINK(S)]

Thursday, January 22nd, 2009

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

mike montagne

IS PROFIT DESTRUCTIVE TO INDUSTRIAL SUSTAINABILITY, AS IS INTEREST?

As the system crumbles under its inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt, more and more of us decry one irregularity or another as the cause of failure. We will never get beyond this if we don’t keep every irregularity in its rightful place. That means accountable development of assertions in all cases. This article responds to the recent assertion that profit in capitalism is as destructive as interest.

Industrial profit does not necessarily multiply itself indefinitely whether we have a want for the product or not; whereas a currency subject to interest obligates us perpetually to replenish a vital circulation of the costs of servicing debt which we pay out of the general circulation. Interest therefore perpetually multiplies the sum of debt in proportion to a vital circulation until we suffer a terminal sum of debt together with an inability to borrow further ??as remains necessary to maintain the vital circulation. All this of course is the nature of the present, so called “credit crisis.” But as you see then, it is certainly not industrial profit which can truly be accounted for inasmuch as being fatal to the system.

a)?Potentially legitimate “profit,” b)?illegitimate or unearned “profit” (which I assume you are referring to), and c)?inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt by interest, therefore are hugely disparate in both potential escalation and in related destructive consequence. Even if we depend on the product taking unearned profit, it has no irreversible and inherently self-escalating power to take from us, regardless even of what we can afford.

To be clear, “profit” can either be viewed as our wage for actual production; or, others view it as whatever can be taken, even above just wages. If you’re complaining about the latter, yes, this is destructive as well.

But the omnipotent destructive power is the nature of the currency, because it is to the mere publisher of the virtually costless currency in which our first and foremost obligation exists; because the process of multiplication of debt in proportion to the obligated circulation is irreversible so long as we maintain a vital circulation; and because the process therefore is inevitably terminal.

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/2009/01/22/is-profit-destructive-to-industrial-sustainability-as-is-interest/

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE? FORUM:

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

[END PERMALINK(S)]

Thursday, January 22nd, 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

RESPONSE TO PETER J. COOPER’S GOLD BUG WEBLOG

This page briefly responds to a gold bug’s anxious anticipation of a 2009 DOW “equaling” gold:

US ECONOMIC IMPLOSION

Obviously only a terrible implosion of the US and global economy could produce such a massive shift in asset values. But I fear that is what is coming in 2009 and the moment to prepare for it is now before it is too late.

Just look at those US auto figures for November, down 37 per cent, and that is the figure across the board - the Japanese and Korean manufacturers also got their sales walloped, albeit Chrysler took the biggest hit of 47 per cent.

No manufacturer on earth has profit margins big enough to absorb that sort of a sales collapse. That it is the largest consumer goods section of the world?s largest economy just sets the whole US economy up for a collapse. The only historical parallel is 1930.

The article to which we respond advocates buying gold.

Gold has no power to save us. You can’t eat it. Its finite quantity cannot sustain industry requiring a circulation far beyond the finite quantity. It cannot arrest multiplication of debt by interest, as we are compelled to maintain a vital circulation by re-borrowing principal and interest paid out of the general circulation to service the sum of debt… as an ever greater and eventually terminal sum of debt. This manifestation of the obfuscation of the role of creditor, which gold/silver have no power to rectify, of course is the cause of the so called “credit crisis” ??a sum of debt which we can no longer afford to service, which destroys our credit-worthiness to borrow further as we must to maintain a vital circulation, with the final payments against the existing sum of debt depleting the circulation and leaving us ever less capable of sustaining the industry which must collapse under the weight of the debt and vanishing circulation together.

Because they make themselves count on unearned gain themselves, those who buy gold or silver to hedge their positions against an inevitable failure soon enough become predisposed against solution. They become enemies of the one and one only manifestation of a truly free market, in which every prospective debtor can and would issue their promise to pay, free of extrinsic manipulation, adulteration, or exploitation of that promise, or the natural opportunity to make good on it.

Today, while unearned gain and hedging of wealth is championed in lieu of monetary solution, all the present problems ??even those of the hedger and secondary exploiter of the wastage of usury ??all the present problems descend from obfuscation of the role of creditor for the unbending purpose of exploitation. This is your real issue, and its solution is your only possible protection of your wealth, because if you do not rectify multiplication of debt by interest, you will, as Thomas Jefferson and so many others warned, you will be dispossessed of your wealth, your gold, your silver. A bar of gold may soon not buy a tomato.

As I say, it is impossible to maintain a vital circulation without re-borrowing principal and interest as ever greater sums of debt, with the sum of debt thus inherently and irreversibly increasing so much as ever greater periodic sums of interest on an ever greater and eventually fatal sum of debt. That day is here. But why is it here? It is here because you evade solution to your own demise, and to the demise of all the rest of us. The only reason you suffer this terminal multiplication of debt is because you allow exploiters to pretend the role of creditor, to merely publish the promises to pay of all debtors at virtually no cost whatever to the pretend creditor; and then, as if the costless promises of the debtor represented real, earned wealth of the pretend creditor, you allow that pretend creditor charge the debtor for their own promise to pay. This wholly unjustifiable intervention on the natural relationship of the real creditor (who gives up real wealth for the promise to pay) inevitably dispossesses the subject system of all wealth by the vehicle of exploitation, which is the obfuscated currency ??a currency which is the promise to pay of the debtor, published without cost by a pretend creditor, who thus denies the real creditor of “interest,” pretending further all the while, that the earned wealth being at stake justifies interest.

Of course, the real creditor is paid in full from the outset, and asks no interest. So the whole scam is bogus. But it inevitably destroys every subject nation.

Come to my garden after the curtain falls with your gold, and if I can figure something worthwhile to do with it, perhaps I’ll sell you a tomato.

ADDENDUM

I’m advised that while my post to Mr. Cooper’s Blog shows up on my system, it is not displayed on others’.

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/2009/01/22/response-to-peter-j-coopers-gold-bug-weblog/

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE? FORUM:

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

[END PERMALINK(S)]

Saturday, January 10th, 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, responding to Ellen Hodgson Brown (Web of Debt)

FALSE IDEA OF ‘CORRECTIONS’ UNDER USURY

This blog topic responds to the Information Clearing House article, “What is to be Done? The End of the Washington Consensus,” by Michael Hudson and Jeffrey Sommers, which proposes among other things, the present system’s purported and often cited ability to self correct.

If you are digging for the truth Mr. Hudson and Mr. Sommers (and I hope you are), you are still at least a way short of your goal.

In the “potentially” fatal events around us, and certainly for instance in losses such as sustained foreclosure of more than 10,000 homes a day for more than a year, the so called markets or subjects of the imposed system are certainly not purposely “correcting” some anomalous behavior to its proper result, for in the end of what you and many others call a correction, those who produce nothing come to own our production. Is that the “correct” result?

All along the way to that purported correction yet, a constant, perpetual consequence is that those who produce are forced to pay many times their own production to those who do not produce; and all this yet, is only to procure their own production from each other in transactions conducted under a further obfuscation which requires us to maintain a vital circulation by perpetually re-borrowing so much as periodic principal and interest as subsequent sums of debt, perpetually increased so much as periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt. Obviously still, to inherently and irreversibly multiply artificial sums of debt in proportion to a vital circulation is inevitably terminal. But in fact then, unless all this perpetual, escalating, and inevitably terminal incongruity is both just and of use to the subjects of the imposed systems, no such thing as a correction to rectitude is even possible in what you still call “a correction.”

Altogether, on the contrary then, the very idea of such an ostensible result is neither defined nor then agreed upon, in whatever terms would make the consequences of such a process “a correction” ??or the imposed system itself, “self correcting.”

But we can also invalidate this dubious assertion on further obvious terms, for if we possibly understood the assertion, and if “the market” or subjects were self correcting, why then are they not always self correcting, instead of only intermittently?

How furthermore can we even say there is a rectitude in the result, if we cannot or have not determined it otherwise? What have you or anyone else determined at all in fact is “correct” about the result, other than that it is merely an eventual state amongst undetermined factors, which in all cases of your self-correcting system, simply takes off again from the spot “a correction” returns it to?

Nothing at all of course, or I’m sure you would be the first to say so.

No one then can truly claim to understand anyone’s unqualified expectation of a purported correction, in fact because there is nothing scientific or even logical about claiming an equally unqualified and readily invalidated magic power to “self correct,” in a system which can only heap an eventually terminal, artificial sum of debt upon us, merely by obstructing our right to issue our promises to pay each other, so that posing as “creditor,” it can falsely claim that our promises, which comprise virtually no cost whatever to a purported central bank, justify charging us interest (for our very own promises to pay, of all things) ??all of which itself of course disproves the pretended justification of interest by depriving the real creditor of interest ??who of course accepts our promises in exchange for their former property.

Thus without even resolving these critical questions of rightful creditor, purported justification of interest, rightful issuance of our promises, as well as the questions of any and all purported integrity thereof, none of us have determined that your consequence is a correction. Yet in fact too, to know what has corrected afterward, in the least is to be able to determine what a “self correcting” system would have done if indeed, all the while it were self correcting.

The thing you refer to as a correction then is instead merely a consequence like pushing something up which you cannot continue to push up, and which then falls down. Does it fall to its right spot? Or some other? If so, why push it up; or what ostensible systemic power pushes it up, but this artificial multiplication of debt itself ??particularly as a monetary system only has the power to regulate the volume and cost (or rate of multiplication) of the debt which comprises the currency? What are the principles of determining a thing’s right place in your alleged self correcting system? If said system is indeed self correcting as you expect, why does it not instead at all times keep things in all their right places, rather than escalating our rush to ruin?

I declare on the contrary, that we can readily demonstrate that there is one and one only way to achieve all the intended, natural, and necessary objects of order; and I add therefore that your said system has no power whatever to self correct, because it is an explicit and purposed violation of the one set of principles which keep all things in their right and usually intended order. But by all the usual aspects of applying terms still, your idea of self correcting is a misnomer even on its shallowest surface. If we look deeper yet, then what is it?

Certainly, it isn’t even possible under the imposed system to rectify commerce to the usual concept of the subjects ??that they should be able to trade their production for whatever they deem to be equal measures of the production of others. Is this a principle which an economy should uphold? Is it useful to the subjects of the system that they should be able to pay for a home with the work of producing the home? Or is it useful to the subjects of your system that they pay two or three times their production for their own production ??of course to unassented entities which produce nothing, and which only intervene on our affairs to publish our own promises to pay at such cost to us?

No matter how you answer, the stupefied concept of “correction” nonetheless cannot even be said to return to such a goal of just exchange, because in a system which can only inherently and irreversibly multiply debt into terminal debt, any eventual state of what you wrongly call a “correction” leaves ever greater unearned taking *from* the pool of wealth, to the mere publishers of *our* promises to pay each other.

Likewise, neither then are we restrained to the bounds of some ostensibly beneficial amplitudes of “correction” by some ostensibly beneficial regulation on our behalf, for on the contrary, what precludes the very desirable goal of trading our production for the equivalent production of others is the very system itself.

All you have here then, is the inevitable result of allowing a pretended creditor to usurp the role of the real creditor, imposing upon real creditor and debtor a form of currency which can only multiply debt in proportion to the circulation until we succumb to a terminal sum of debt. I can even show you how to calculate how long it will take for any given instance of such a system to terminate itself. You remark loosely about the consequences, and lament the failure to correct, when the real cause is so simple and rectifiable, if it weren’t for those who intend to preserve the iniquities of a system which from its very imposition was an intended vehicle of exploitation by multiplication of debt.

The real problem isn’t that we can’t identify the cause of this terminal multiplication, or solve it, because I did so thirty years ago. I also provided the first term of the Reagan Administration with computer models which projected that implemented rates of interest and growth would multiply debt in proportion to the circulation until we suffered a terminal sum of debt at approximately 2010 AD.

That was 25 years ago; and those models (which you can still download from our pages and run the same numbers to render the same projections) have accurately projected the accumulation of debt since, merely by replicating the very process the unassenting subjects of the system are required to meet, merely to maintain a vital circulation. That is, to maintain a vital circulation, the models simply borrow back principal and interest paid out of the general circulation, as subsequent sums of debt ??which of course perpetually increase by ever greater increments of periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt until the costs of servicing an eventual, terminal sum of debt exceed the entire circulation. The reason this sum of debt is terminal furthermore, is that the previous sum of debt already requires all it is possible to pay, and the resultant, terminal sum of debt (which we yet need to borrow further, to replenish the vital circulation) requires even more ??a cost of servicing debt which is impossible to meet.

Perhaps this inevitable juncture of terminal debt sounds familiar, even as you write of a wholly unqualified and impossible power of self correction. Perhaps in your unique obfuscations of “corrections” and the like, which obviously are not natural phenomena, but imposed, man made consequences of all the unearned taking… perhaps instead you fall among those who intend somehow to perpetuate this purportedly noble crime. If there weren’t so many of the latter obviously, we would have resolved these simple issues thirty years ago, that none of us would have cause to make these remarks.

The real end of an era then is only so certain as the rest of us are ready to account for the obvious. We have but few issues here, and specifically/categorically, those issues are 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.

As to the latter issue, which of course is the principal cause the present terminal conditions (and irreversible, escalating furtherance of those conditions to the worse), what we have to realize is that the producer is the real creditor, because they are forced to take a promise to pay (note) from the debtor. Ordinarily, in a system where the promise can be guaranteed (as in mathematically perfected economy?), the debtor issues their promise, because after all, it *is* *their* promise.

What we have effectively is a third party which intervenes upon this natural relationship, obstructing the debtor from issuing their promise to pay on their paper. This extrinsic party, which produces nothing, and which yet will eventually and quite injuriously acquire title to all property merely for the resultant obfuscation… this extrinsic, usurping party merely publishes the promise of the debtor at virtually no cost to the extrinsic party, claiming all the while that the costless promise is equivalent then (as it might later be, if we give scope to it) to the wealth we attempt to trade as that form of currency multiplies indebtedness until we succumb to a terminal sum of debt.

The exercise of your article then is hardly intellectual or scientific, because it carefully avoids recognizing these simple facts and their inevitable ramifications.

From the very beginning, the problem was the facades, corruption,, and escalating injustice of the very system which was imposed upon us despite political promises to the contrary. Now we attempt to perpetuate those arguments in favor of preserving the system, hoping for “corrections,” or justice ??against a stronger tide, sweeping justice away at an inherently escalating rate?

As surely as the imposed and unjustified system can only multiply debt into terminal debt so long as we maintain a vital circulation by perpetual, redundant borrowing, it is mathematically impossible that there’s a chance of succeeding in perpetuating that system. It can only produce a Second Great Depression after a First, a Third after a Second, and so forth ??all the while of each lifespan dispossessing its unwitting and unassenting subjects to an ever greater degree.

If we are on the other hand to keep all things in their right places, we must recognize and adopt a singular possible, integral solution to 1)?inflation and deflation, 2)?systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and 3)?inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt in proportion to a circulation ??and because we can transform the present system to mathematically perfected economy? immediately, and without cost.

All that is required to establish mathematically perfected economy?, is to refinance our promises to pay without your “self correcting” (terminal) system’s imposed vehicle of exploitation, and to pay the resultant debts at the rate of depreciation or consumption (which are to be understood to be equivalent). How many homes, sirs, would be going into foreclosure if we paid only $1,000 per year or $83.33 per month for a $100,000 home with a hundred-year lifespan?

You ask us not to pay our debts, but the artificial, perpetually escalated, and inevitably terminal debts of mere usurers. And you call the consequence of that, “self correcting.”

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/2009/01/10/false-idea-of-corrections-under-usury/

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE? FORUM:

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

[END PERMALINK(S)]

Friday, January 9th, 2009

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

mike montagne

QUESTION FOR TIM KAINE, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN

This email was sent from Barack Obama, introducing Tim Kaine as the next DNC Chair:

mike ?

Yesterday, I had the honor of introducing Virginia Governor Tim Kaine as the next Chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

We’re in a strong position to build the Democratic Party, renew our commitment to the principles we share, and continue the outstanding work of Chairman Howard Dean.

Among his many achievements, Governor Dean launched a strategy to reach out to Americans in all 50 states ??north, south, east and west. This 50-state strategy helped Democrats compete in states where we hadn’t in years, including states like Virginia.

Governor Kaine has seen the power of the 50-state strategy firsthand, and under his leadership, Democrats will continue to organize and compete in every corner of our country.

Share your question for incoming Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine ??he’ll answer as many as possible in a video on Democrats.org:

http://www.democrats.org/welcomekaine

Tim is the ideal leader to grow and strengthen this party ??not by appealing to our divisions, but by appealing to our common hopes; not by pursuing policies that advance a specific dogma, but by pursuing policies that work for ordinary people.

As Governor of Virginia, Tim was known for his intelligence, integrity, and strong economic leadership.

In response to Obama’s email, I sent the following question to the DNC site:

Tim, why can’t the Democrat party represent the people of our country by advocating mathematically perfected economy? (perfecteconomy.com), the singular integral solution to 1)?inflation and deflation, 2)?systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and 3)?inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt in proportion to a vital circulation, engendering inevitable systemic failure at a finite system lifespan defined by an inevitable, terminal sum of insoluble debt? Why should the people of this country be the unassenting subjects of an imposed monetary system which can only multiply debt into terminal debt? Why instead, should we not be able to pay for our homes, our production, with equal measures of our own 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/2009/01/09/question-for-tim-kaine-democratic-national-committee-chairman/

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE? FORUM:

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

[END PERMALINK(S)]

Thursday, January 8th, 2009

“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].”

Thomas Jefferson

MIKE MONTAGNE RESPONDS TO OPED NEWS ARTICLE APPEALING FOR UNQUALIFIED “REGULATION”

This article responds this morning to the December 26 OpEd News piece, “Regulating the Economy,” by Ludwik Kowalski, advocating regulation as a modernization of economy, and as a path beyond impending monetary failure:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Regulating-the-Economy-by-Ludwik-Kowalski-081224-382.html

A “Modern Economy” WOULD REGULATE ITSELF!

[Responding to the author…]

Part of your self-admitted ignorance stems from your ignorance ??that is, that a prescription for mathematically perfected economy? and for transitioning to mathematically perfected economy? immediately and without cost, has existed for 30 years.

The problems you only hope to solve are so stupefyingly simple, it’s amazing anyone would read into all this evasion of solution but a few sentences. Why?

What can the imposed, purported economies of the world do?

They only have the fundamental powers to “regulate” (as you say) the volume of circulation, and what the circulation costs us. It’s incredible enough then that there are advocates of these systems amongst the subjects of the systems (versus the exploiters); but it is even more incredible that the advocates and principals of these systems actually assert (versus qualify) that the costs of the imposed systems benefit us!

I leave it to you to argue so if you like ??which will simplify my job in answering to the limitless dogma we might answer to. Our web pages answer by class or category, so we may just reply with a link or two. But your assertion that a modern economy must be regulated is the whole disproof of your pudding.

Why/how?

As the imposed systems can only regulate the volume of circulation, and whatever subsets of that volume will cost us (owing to interest at any given time), there are only two problems to solve:

  1. inflation/deflation; and

  2. whatever ramifications there are of interest.

It happens that potential combinations of these two irregularities also manifest in a categoric fault of:

  1. systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property.

While this may be considered a distinct class from the first and third categories, owing to its distinct cases of combination, nonetheless, as I introduce it to you, it is still the combination of the original fundamental powers (volume and cost) to engender irregularity by what you assert is a need to regulate.

*IF* however, there is a need to “regulate” these potentials as you assert, there is a target or goal of the regulation. That is, if “regulation” is to achieve an intended effect/goal, we have to define not only that goal, but how “regulation” is to achieve it, if we are to qualify even that “regulation” can serve us, much less that a certain not necessarily qualified process “of regulation” is “necessary.”

Your proposition of course determines none of these things.

But let’s go there.

What is the proper volume of circulation? And how do we solve/eradicate circulatory inflation and deflation then?

Well, obviously, if inflation and deflation are defined respectively as increases or decreases in circulation per remaining value of represented wealth, then the only actual solution of *both* inflation and deflation is to maintain a circulation which at all times is equal to the remaining value of the property the circulation is to represent.

Furthermore, if we lack a circulation sufficient to represent the current value of all property, then this deficiency would prevent us from trading all property at once, by way of currency.

So we have the necessary volume, and not an opportunity or need for regulation ??but a prescription which automatically provides your asserted regulation, without human administration, decision, error, cost, and so forth.

What is that?

In every case of financed wealth, a debt equal to the value of the property must be paid off at the rate of consumption or depreciation (which are to be understood to be equivalent).

Thus payment of debts at the obligated rate to solve inflation and deflation *automatically* eliminates the need for any regulation whatever:

  1. the resultant circulation in total is always equal to the remaining value of all represented property;

  2. debts can always be paid from the remaining circulation;

  3. the value of the money is preserved across the lifespan of the property, system, and related circulation by a perpetual 1:1 ratio between each;

  4. everyone pays for what they consume with equal measures of their own production;

  5. and there is no inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt by interest, as we are forced to maintain a vital circulation subject to interest by re-borrowing principal and interest paid out of the general circulation as subsequent sums of debt, perpetually increased so much as periodic interest (which is the fundamental cause of the present failure).

Furthermore then, we can’t solve inflation and deflation if we do not eradicate interest, because interest requires that we pay out of circulation more than the original/financed “value” of subject property.

So there *ISN’T EVEN A WAY* (!!!) to “regulate” the volume of circulation properly, unless you adopt the one and one only solution of inflation and deflation; and if you *DO* adopt that one and one only solution, the obligatory schedule of payment automatically performs the “regulation” for you.

At the same time of course, the necessary eradication of interest *eliminates* both the cost of the circulation and inherent, irreversible, and terminal multiplication of debt by interest ??which is the one systemic cause of price inflation, as subject industry/commerce must perpetually to raise its prices to maintain margins of solubility necessary to withstand the costs of servicing perpetual multiplication of debt.

So this is why and how we have solved our first and third categoric faults of the systems presently imposed upon the world; and it is furthermore how no regulation whatever is required to perfect economy.

How so?

Our one remaining categoric fault is the second ??systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property. So, we have already solved this categoric irregularity and your purported need for regulation in regard to this fault as well, because any and every case of it can only manifest from any of the possible combinations of the first and third categoric faults ??which we have already eliminated.

So mathematically perfected economy? requires no regulation whatever; and is the singular integral solution to 1)?inflation and deflation, 2)?systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and 3)?inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt in proportion to a vital circulation, engendering inevitable systemic failure at a finite system lifespan defined by an inevitable, terminal sum of insoluble debt. 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.

I have answered to many of the related issues in my comments/responses to Ellen Hodgson Brown in her OpEd News article, Borrowing from Peter to Pay Paul: The Wall Street Ponzi Scheme Called Fractional Reserve Banking.

I have also shown how to transition to mathematically perfected economy? immediately and without cost (which furthermore solves our issues/cases of insoluble debt) in my article, If I Were President….

How “would” mathematically perfected economy? work?

In the case of a $100,000 home with a hundred-year lifespan, we would pay for the home at the overall rate of $1,000 per year, or $83.33 per month.

See my comments to Ellen for answers to your certain questions, “Who would we borrow ‘money’ from if it were not subject to interest?” Anyone who wants to argue can take that up here.

So then, not only does solution vindicate Mr. Lutz’ reminder why the rights of the individual “trump” those “of society” (if there is a difference)… absolute achievement and preservation of the rights of the individual *are* the rights “of the society.” And so, no society is better than its preservation and achievement of the rights of each and every individual.

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/2009/01/08/mike-montagne-responds-to-oped-news-article-appealing-for-unqualified-regulation/

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE? FORUM:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewtopic.php?f=101&t=304

[END PERMALINK(S)]

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