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

RESPONSE TO ELLEN HODGSON BROWN’S CLAIM TO ANSWER TO THE CONTROVERSY

This article responds to Ellen Hodgson Brown’s claim to answer to our controversy (http://webofdebt.wordpress.com/questions-and-answers/response-to-mike-montagne-on-the-pennsylvania-provincial-bank/):

Mike Montagne has posted this on his website, concerning a “controversy” with me of which I was unaware until it was sent to me by someone else.

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

My sources on the Pennsylvania land bank are here:

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

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

Ellen

What you only call simplification is hardly a virtue if it fails to account for the issues at hand. It’s not complicated to account for those issues; nor is it an excessive complication to account for those vital issues, as your inability to account for those issues asserts.

You merely claim that the few aspects of the cycle you cite accounts for all issues. You’ve claimed that over and over again, without ever answering to the questions I’ve asked; and of course, you’ve pretended weak answers to others account for their questions, which they have asked (I’ll get to those next).

You don’t even explain for instance what you’re loaning “THE SAME $100 all over again,” assumably back into circulation for. So what simpleton can even truly pretend to understand your purportedly “simple” example? Tell us with necessary certainty, supporters of this proposition, what is she lending the $100 back into circulation for? And how is that this “simple” explanation determines a wholly accountable solution, which is non-inflationary, non-deflationary (able to sustain all industry or trade of all wealth), and so forth? There are no further questions, just because you prefer not to think of them?

In your purported account of accountability, you don’t even cite what the circulation should or must be, if it is to account for or sustain all the stresses which might be (and will be) imposed upon the circulation. Why loan the same $100 back into circulation, as does the present fractional reserve system? How is the same circulation to account for different purposes simultaneously, particularly if for instance we were to trade all wealth at once? How would that same $100 suffice to do that? How does your circulation sustain the possibility of such a transaction?

Worse, how do simpletons pretend to know it can, or that your “solution” is even “more simple,” *unless* they indeed understand that it can?

Do they understand that, Ellen?

It doesn’t of course, because there isn’t an effective circulation equal at all times to the remaining value of all represented wealth. That’s pretty simple. Just a “small” detail we don’t need to account for, or even explain?

Obviously, your purported circulation can only sustain the trade of all wealth if there is an effective circulation equivalent to all wealth. You don’t even understand that there’s a question of such an issue… so you merely reply that’s an unnecessary complication ??one which, of course, you don’t understand.

If you did understand it, you would not be giddy about the proposition or model of a land bank, which can only of course finance the purchase of land (as your earlier correspondence indicates).

Furthermore, obviously, there are further issues which make your proposition ??I’ll give you the simple version, since you prefer that ??”idiotic.” What would make it idiotic?

Because you’re doing two quite inept things here, and only pretending you have answered for these things.

First of all, the only assumable reason you have to spend interest back into circulation is so that it can be paid without re-borrowing it, to maintain a vital circulation (so that it can be paid). In other words, tacitly, your purported solution recognizes my principle that any currency subject to interest inherently multiplies debt in proportion to the obligated circulation, until this multiplication produces a terminal sum of debt.

So all you’re really doing, is paying taxation through what you still call interest (although this is neither its definition or consequence). And of course, you’re doing that only to avoid multiplication of debt by actual/conventional interest, even as you carefully avoid plagiarizing the vital reasons for that, which I provided so long ago ??and all the while since. Of course, neither can your readers possibly understand or appreciate that necessity but in veritable terms ??even as you merely describe the process as a Ponzi Scheme, which of course hardly reflects the need to re-borrow interest as subsequent increases in the sum of debt (to maintain the necessary circulation) ??a requisite and process which certainly is not defined by or incumbent to “Ponzi Schemes.”

While yet you deny this principle that conventional interest multiplies debt in proportion to the obligated circulation, you advocate an obfuscation of taxation, imposed in a form similar to interest, but with the further provision, to avoid the consequence of interest which I raise, of spending all interest payments back into circulation (so that these payments don’t have to be borrowed back into circulation, as is the case with the pattern of *conventional* *interest*).

At the same time, I’ve asked you how this properly administers taxation. How do you ??what is your formula for ??properly adjusting interest so that everyone might pay for instance, different rates of interest, which might properly distribute their burden of taxation, if particularly, it were the case that some or others of us not rightly bear the same proportion of taxation? Worse, how is it those who do not assume debts are taxed? Or what is the connection between government service and proper rates of taxation, which makes “interest” levied against debt the proper rate of taxation for all cases?

The idea that your arbitrary rate of interest answers to any of these issues is preposterous; and even the lowliest simpletons should realize this.

I’ll give you one clear example of how ludicrous this idea is: I’m paying the “right” amount of taxation for the degree to which government serves me. Then, without receiving any more service of the government, it is necessary for me to assume say 100 times my previous debt. Now I’m paying 100 times as much taxes through your obfuscation of interest. How is that right? Because it’s ostensibly “simple”?

To simply not answer the question, neither conveys a virtue of your proposition, or the purported simplicity you claim, for if you had accounted for these things, you would explain in sufficient detail all the more complicated processes by which interest rates might be adjusted upward or downward as more property per government service was financed (requiring lower interest rates for all), or individuals opted out of government programs (which requires lower interest rates for them), or further government spending on the accounts of some increased the share/interest of government costs for others, and so forth.

After all, once a person has paid their debts, or if a person assumes no debt, they are paying no taxes whatever, regardless however much their enjoyment of government services might stress the taxation system, placing the burden on others.

This is not solution. It’s preposterous pretension of solution. Nor is it simple, because it obviously places tremendous complications upon implementation, merely if we are to distribute the tax burden justly, for all logical cases.

Obviously, this is a far more complicated scheme than it needs to be; and I have already detailed some of the injustices it would impose. How do we resolve all these issues more simply?

We simply eradicate (real) interest to solve the adverse consequences of interest; and we impose taxation in the most straightforward, justly distributed manner.

How do we do that?

We restore to the individual the right to issue their own promises to pay. We aren’t taking “interest” from the real creditor, who is the producer of the subject property, who accepts the promise to pay as currency… for that producer is denied such “interest” now, by an extrinsic party, which produces the promise of the real debtor at virtually no cost whatever, pretends to loan that to the debtor (only by denying the debtor the right to issue their own promise), and, as if that freely (virtually costlessly) published, obfuscated promise represented earned wealth of the intervening publisher… we pay *the publisher* (of all parties!) the “interest,” instead of the actual creditor (producer of the subject property).

You too in fact are denying the true creditor interest, so what exactly is your justification of interest? (!)

So the simple answer is that mathematically perfected economy? alone sustains the whole necessary relationship of money to represented wealth, without multiplication of debt by interest, and while, the whole while, debtors pay for the wealth they consume, as they consume of it.

In other words, the simple solution is to pay for wealth, only the cost of the wealth, and to pay for taxation according to the separate rules which might determine however we should be paying for taxation. Otherwise, OF COURSE, you’re going to place ridiculous complications upon your preposterous notion of obfuscating a rate of interest to pay for government costs, the burdens of which obviously may never be JUSTLY distributed in any uniform rate of interest, applied yet to further disparate, individual volumes of debt.

The fact is, Ellen, if you sorted all that out, you’d come to the simplest implementation of all:

Should we be able to pay for a house, what the house itself should cost us? Of course, this is a just goal of economy, and therefore of solution.

Should we be able to pay for government services, what those services should cost *us*, regardless of however much we might or might not borrow? Of course as well.

So then, for all cases, there is one way to do this:

Pay for the property you acquire, only the costs of the property; and pay for the costs of government, only what you should have to pay as well ??which obviously, has no consistent, uniform *rate*, relative to however much debt we might assume in whatever we have to do.

When you were asked why not eradicate interest, you simply answered you thought it was too complicated to implement such a system. Of course, you didn’t say how; and I responded in detail how the (unanswered) complications and/or injustices which your proposition imposes comprise a greater set of (redundant) difficulties.

The simpler solution then, *IS* mathematically perfected economy?.

Why?

Because the subjects of the system *do*, in all cases, simply pay for the wealth they consume. If it is a $100,000 home with a 100-year lifespan, they’re paying for the home at the overall rate of $1,000 per year, or $83.33 per month ??the very rate they consume of it. They’re not paying taxes at the same time, for ostensible government services they may or may not consume, and which too, are not necessarily relative/proportional at all to however much the house *should* cost!

Likewise, in the case of *actual* government services they might *elect* to consume, and should pay for to some different proportion or relationship, they simply pay for those services by equally simple processes. How so?

If the usage of roads provided by government is decided to be levied proportional to gasoline consumption, the tax is levied in the cost of gasoline… which *alone* of course, with no complication whatever, determines just payment across the very duration of the consumption of the government service, as you propose to decide rightly by your uniform rate of taxation, instead applied to a wholly disproportionate sum of individual debt!

Not only have you not answered the questions then… the injustices of your system impose greater complication than mathematically perfected economy?.

The difference is not that your proposition is less complicated. The difference is, you don’t account for the further complications, by the simplest answer to all the requisites of a just implementation. The difference is, you don’t provide accountable arguments. You just fire off your idea, without ever establishing even to yourself, that it solves the things you pretend to solve.

RELATED MATERIAL

1. Ellen Hodgson Brown’s claim to answer to our controversy
2. OPINION ON THE PENNSYLVANIA CURRENCY ADVOCATED BY ELLEN HODGSON BROWN IN ‘WEB OF DEBT’
3. NO, ELLEN. ‘IT’S NOT THE DERIVATIVES, STUPID’
4. OPEN LETTER TO GLOBAL RESEARCH ON THE CONTROVERSY WITH ELLEN HODGSON BROWN
5. MORE ON THE CONTROVERSY OF ELLEN HODGSON BROWN?S GLOBAL RESEARCH ARTICLE
6. [?KEY?]??THE PROBLEM IS NOT DEBT!
7. [?KEY?]??IF I WERE PRESIDENT ??HOW TO ARREST WORLD WIDE MONETARY COLLAPSE IN A DAY
8. SYNOPSIS ??MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY? REDUCED TO ITS BAREST THREAD
9. PROBABILITY AND TIMELINE FOR WORLD-WIDE ECONOMIC COLLAPSE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF INTEREST
10. EVALUATION OF JEFFERSON’S OPINION ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A NATIONAL BANK
11. WHY DON’T THE DEMOCRATS REVERSE WILSON’S ERROR, AND REPEAL THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT?

“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/2008/12/22/response-to-ellen-hodgson-browns-claim-to-answer-to-the-controversy/

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE? FORUM:

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

[END PERMALINK(S)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DIALOG

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

PFMPE?

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

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

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

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

Dear Mike and Michel:

My sources on the Pennsylvania land bank are:

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

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

Ellen

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

PFMPE?

Dear Ellen,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absolutely not; and I’ll tell you why:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s really simple, Ellen:

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

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

That integral solution is mathematically perfected economy?.

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

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

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

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

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

Meanwhile, all my questions remain unanswered:

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

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

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

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

mike montagne

To this she replies as to the previous questions:

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

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

PFMPE?

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

mike montagne

FURTHER ANALYSIS ??PUTTING 2 AND 2 TOGETHER

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

No?

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

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

Deducing the answer to that is the easy part.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE? FORUM:

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

As to solution, I hope we can agree on that some day, or for all the things which are not solution, this country is lost. mike montagne (corresponding with Ellen Hodgson Brown)

OPEN LETTER TO GLOBAL RESEARCH ON THE CONTROVERSY WITH ELLEN HODGSON BROWN

The following email was written to Global Research regarding their promotion of Ellen Hodgson Brown’s purported solution of the present monetary crisis ??which proposition of hers she well knows has already been invalidated at the provided URLs:

PFMPE?

Saturday, October 18, 2008, 10:29 AM

——– Original Message ——–

Subject: ARTICLE SUBMISSION

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 10:28:43 -0700

From: mike montagne

Reply-To: Organization: PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy?

To: GLOBAL RESEARCH ARTICLE SUBMISSIONS [email deleted for privacy; CLICK HERE for Global Research CONTACT PAGE]

Greetings,

My October 14 article proposing a fact of singular, absolute solution (”how to arrest world wide monetary collapse in a day”) jumped to the top of our page visitation stats in less than 2 days:

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

I hereby grant Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) permission to reprint this article in whole or in part on your web pages. Further analysis and debate of its principles is also welcome.

Also, please be advised that I have already disputed and invalidated the principle of Ellen Hodgson Brown’s recent purported solution as published in your article, http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10589 (of which I am apprised by one of our most competent visitors). In this article, Ms. Brown asserts what amounts to a proposition of just taxation, levied in the form of interest upon those to whom no connection with consumption of particular government programs is established. Note that she formerly claimed wrongly this was a purpose of the colonial Pennsylvania Currency, co-authored by Benjamin Franklin. My article, “Opinion On The Pennsylvania Currency Advocated by Ellen Hodgson Brown in ‘Web of Debt’,” (http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-ellen-hodgson-brown-web-of-debt.html) thoroughly disproves her false assertions, and moreover points out the improprieties of levying taxes in such a way. Note further that not only was she unable to defend her assertions, she has gone on to pretend those assertions comprise solution in the very article you have just published.

Therefore I also grant you permission to publish both of my invalidations of Ellen Hodgson Brown’s assertions regarding the present monetary collapse:

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

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

I insist that you give these matters very serious attention, for it is the worst kind of distraction and it is the most irresponsible behavior in fact, to hear purported experts (whose only claimed expertise is not mathematics, modeling, or theory, but “research” [of existent propositions already disproven]) shouting again and again this or that is solution, particularly when they have already proven unable to answer for the critical flaws they propose.

In regard to the truth buried beneath that matter, I am the original author of the much copied or emulated thesis that any purported economy subject to interest ultimately terminates itself under insoluble debt. In fact I provided the Reagan Administration computer models capable of calculating the maximum possible lifespan of any economy subject to interest ? which models not only projected Mr. Reagan’s tripling of U.S. national (federal) debt over two terms, but which projected from 1983 numbers, a terminal accumulation of aggregate U.S. debt and plausible word-wide monetary failure (if the form of currency was to then retained across the world) at approximately 2010 AD.

You can still download those models, complete with source code, from our pages. You can examine the source for logical flaws… whatever. But in fact the projections concur with real accumulation of debt.

In 1979 furthermore, after speaking about mathematically perfected economy? for ten years prior, I published a mathematic proof that there is one and one only integral solution to the categoric faults imposed by contemporary, purported economies. Note also, that Ms. Brown (and no one else as well) has invalidated that singular solution for 1) inflation and deflation, 2) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and 3) inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt in proportion to a circulation ? which, altogether, we call mathematically perfected economy?. Her crude attempts to kludge together unqualified and already invalidated purported solutions therefore is in my opinion (and that of our supporters) a most irresponsible continuation of mere pretension.

I understand that Global Research may therefore feel itself put in an awkward position if you were to publish the invalidations of Ms. Brown’s unqualified and unjustified late-coming theses. But I also trust you realize it would be far more awkward and irresponsible to fail to do so, knowing full well the unscientific behavior of such evasion/exclusion, and its consequences.

I therefore hope you will publish at least the first of these articles, if not all three.

Should you desire to discuss this matter with me, I can be reached at [telephone deleted for privacy] (Pacific Time), or at Skype ID, [Skype ID deleted for privacy]. I welcome your call by either method.

Warm regards,

mike montagne

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

ADDENDUM

Even the very title of Ellen Hodgson Brown’s October 17 Global Research article, “Financial Meltdown: The Greatest Transfer of Wealth in History ??How to Reverse the Tide and Democratize the US Monetary System”, states 2 blatant mistruths (which is the total of its statements):

1. In truth, by the nature of the monetary obligations which have been imposed upon us, the central banking system *already* makes itself the real owners of all indebted production until the whole of an eventually impossible monetary obligation comprised of interest plus principal is completely fulfilled.

   The dispossession we are presently suffering and about to suffer are actually therefore, merely a finalization of the original misappropriation of justice.

2. Her proposition of solution has already been invalidated by my cited articles. But moreover, no element of her proposal actually reverses damages suffered so far to now (and potentially beyond), as prescribed by my article, “If I Were President…”

Once again then, Ellen Hodgson Brown leads us astray from solution. Worse, she does so knowingly, because she has already been apprised in the discourse of the cited articles that her assertions were not solution. It is she in fact who failed to respond with any defense whatever for her disproven assertions, but for retracting certain invalidated elements.

Yet she persists in the very same effort to retain concepts of a central bank and obfuscated interest/taxation upon posterity, which only obstructs us from real solution.

If the reader will digest my cited articles then, I suggest it will be obvious that Ms. Brown has never constructed a reasonable working model of her thesis; and that you will know this from any of the many critical questions which she fails here as well still to answer.

RELATED MATERIAL

1. [?NEW?]??IF I WERE PRESIDENT ??HOW TO ARREST WORLD WIDE MONETARY COLLAPSE IN A DAY, AND ESTABLISH REAL, SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY IN LITTLE LONGER (OCTOBER 14)
2. OPINION ON THE PENNSYLVANIA CURRENCY ADVOCATED BY ELLEN HODGSON BROWN IN ‘WEB OF DEBT’
3. [?NEW?]??NO, ELLEN. IT’S NOT THE DERIVATIVES, STUPID!
4. ELLEN HODGSON BROWN’S OCTOBER 17 GLOBAL RESEARCH ARTICLE, “Financial Meltdown: The Greatest Transfer of Wealth in History ??How to Reverse the Tide and Democratize the US Monetary System” (OCTOBER 17)

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

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

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

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

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

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE? FORUM:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewtopic.php?f=78&t=64

In fact, if not a derivative ever existed, we would yet be at the brink of monetary failure right now. mike montagne

No, Ellen. It’s NOT the Derivatives, STUPID!

Ellen Hodgson Brown (”Web of Debt”) has quite a few questions still to answer as to how the colonial currency she referred to as “the most brilliant banking model in our national history,” possibly was even intended to solve inflation ??much less that it establishes solution or accounts for the further issues which, only if solved, would rectify a monetary system. Instead, Ellen (and now Ron Paul?) purports there’s a plurality of ways far more complicated than mathematically perfected economy?, all of which Simple Simon says fixes the tainted, private Federal Reserve System. Why heck, thanks to all the folks who suddenly understand “economy” so well, we’re in fine shape if we just learn “it’s the derivatives, stupid.” Which of course is the title of her recent article.

“Something extraordinary is going on with these government bailouts,” she writes; and as if she has put her finger on that “extraordinary” thing, she quotes “economist” Robert Chapman:

“The point everyone misses,” wrote economist Robert Chapman a decade ago, “is that buying derivatives is not investing. It is gambling, insurance and high stakes bookmaking. Derivatives create nothing.”

No Ellen, and Mr. Chapman as well, I have news for you: “Investing” isn’t “investing,” either. Nor (likewise) does it create or produce anything. On the contrary, the very “investing” you yourself miss is all about unearned taking; and so, because it takes from the pool of wealth (production) without like contribution, the only possible consequence of this purported “investing” is that real producers are deprived of just reward for their production.

After all, what is Wall Street itself, but gambling? Is anything produced there?

Except for the case of an IPO, how much of all the money wagered there is ever “invested” in real industry, actual production?

Wall Street in fact therefore is one of our greatest problems, because if the prosperity of “Wall Street” can only come at the expense of real producers, then we should understand that at every moment, the better “Wall Street” “does,” the worse free enterprise can possibly fare.

Why rescue Wall Street at all then? (Is the question, Ellen.)

So yet, Ellen complains,

“We the taxpayers are on the hook for the Fed’s “enhanced liquidity facilities,” meaning the loans it has been making to everyone in sight, bank or non-bank, exercising obscure provisions in the Federal Reserve Act that may or may not say they can do it. What’s going on here? Why not let the free market work?”

Well, it’s not a free market at all then, Ellen. The so called Federal Reserve System, like Wall Street, is an arena where our potential industry is plundered to death, to the obliteration of any reward to anyone who actually produces anything.

But since when is the Federal Reserve Act itself constitutional?

Why then would a lawyer cite it, or require confirmation from it, that we “may or may not” invoke a public bailout of something which a real “economist” would already understand, can only damage us?

No Ellen, the horse does not trail the cart. In fact, if not a derivative ever existed, we would yet be at the brink of monetary failure right now.

What’s more, neither is it “the quality” of the loans, for which we’re at the brink of failure.

Au contraire, it’s inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt by interest which alone can explain how we have owed far more than we have ever produced; and for which debt can only multiply further, as, just to maintain a vital circulation, we are compelled to re-borrow principal and interest, as subsequent sums of debt, perpetually increased so much as periodic interest.

Purported experts who tell us otherwise therefore ensure we falter further, for it is your very cherry-picking of unqualified solutions which neither you, or Stephen Zarlenga, or Ron Paul, or Edwin Vieira, or G. Edward Griffin, or Jaikaran will debate, which confuse the people from the one thing which will save them: mathematically perfected economy?.

How do you maintain a circulation subject to interest without engendering monetary failure Ellen, where any of that interest is profit and where any of the circulation must be maintained by perpetually re-borrowing principal and interest as a subsequent sum of debt, perpetually increased above the previous sum of debt by so much as periodic interest?

Isn’t that even exactly why you have come up with your ridiculous, unfounded explanation, asserting this is how the Pennsylvania Currency worked?

How do you otherwise service debt subject to interest without suffering the present consequences, as the interest and principal we must reborrow to maintain a vital circulation perpetually increases the sum of debt so much as periodic interest?

Did derivatives multiply debt; or did interest?

Do you deny this is what the very so called Federal Reserve System was imposed for? Do all your obfuscations of interest mean to deny that’s the very purpose of interest? Do you mean to retain interest, by obfuscating it as taxation in your miserable explanation the Pennsylvania Currency was the most brilliant banking model in our national history?

Since you claim now to account so well for these obvious quantities and processes, where did I go awry in the source code which predicted this failure in 1983 from the very inherent, irreversible process of multiplication of debt by interest?

Franklin himself disputed gold could claim all the things which Mr. Paul simply repeats again and again without qualification. How is it you and Mr. Paul are so opposed to an interest free economy ??the only real economy possible?

Why would you reject solution of the observations of Mr. Jefferson, who reportedly said, “If the American People *ever* allow the banks to issue their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks *and [bank owned] corporations* which *will* grow up around them *will* deprive the people of all property, until their children wake homeless on the continent their fathers conquered?”

Is this not the process I’ve outlined, in which we must maintain a vital circulation subject to interest by re-borrowing (re-inflation of) what we pay out of the general circulation (deflation)… is this not an inherently simultaneous process, just as Thomas Jefferson told us?

Moreover, did Thomas Jefferson look to Hamilton’s National Bank Bill to find its constitutionality; or did he look not only to the Constitution itself, but to the arguments which established it?

It’s really very simple, Ellen: As a privatized (or even public) currency subject to interest forces us (only by denying us any form of currency but an unconstitutional form of currency subject to interest) to any degree and in any instance(s) to maintain a vital circulation by re-borrowing interest, then the sum of debt multiplies at an ever escalating rate of ever greater increments of just so much periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt, until we collapse under an eventual, terminal sum of debt.

Why are *some* “banks” failing?

Well, you and I would find it impossible to fail, having taken the unauthorizable powers the private Federal Reserve System has taken.

But let’s just think just a moment what happens as the so called Federal Reserve System can only multiply debt:

Well now, hugely devious behavior alone could collapse a “federal” “reserve” “bank.” But what about all these other banks?

They’re just middlemen. They’re caught in the squeeze between the privatized currency’s publishers and the poor bastards who are forced to service the perpetually multiplying sum of debt. The Federal Reserve prints “the money” for nothing; but after that, though no risk is involved to the so called Federal Reserve Banks, it represents an obligation to the middle-men ??the subservient private banks in between.

As the sum of debt multiplies, more and more money has to be loaned back into circulation to replenish it of the deflation Mr. Jefferson has explained to you and Mr. Paul. All the while, ever more of a circulation is dedicated to servicing the escalating sum of debt, while ever less is left to sustain the commerce or industry which is obliged to service the debt. Margins of solubility are impossible to sustain, because the costs of servicing the debt eventually make sustainability impossible.

All the while, these middle institutions are required to produce collateral, and to paint pictures of themselves which falsely depict their own sustainability; for without the false portraits, they can’t loan the further money not only necessary for the subjects of involuntary servitude to survive, but for the middle banks themselves to survive by collecting for the central bank.

Well, naturally then, as the impossibility of sustaining the escalating sum of debt draws nigh, they devise lies which obfuscate whether they or their marginalized clients are so worthy to borrow further. They’re no longer really worthy. But they lie to tread water. That’s what derivatives are, Ellen. They’re the lies of the drowning victims, who in fact can only be saved by eradicating interest. Quite obviously, we the People cannot be saved by imposing the cost of the middle “bank’s” failures on we, the victims, whose failures already signify our inability even to bear such further burden.

So, telling the people so long after others that this is a Ponzi scheme Ellen just doesn’t convey the picture the people need. You have advocated a brilliant banking model, as if a banking model is what we require.

But in fact we need to rid ourselves not only of banking models, but of the very concept that banks or their proponents (such as yourself) have ever justified “interest.” The producer is the real creditor Ellen, because it is the producer who accepts the paper, ether, or whatever token of wealth (”money”), on the faith that media is forever redeemable in whatever it is purported to represent.

Your “banking models” just pave the way for an extrinsic, further party to intercede between the creditor and debtor, while the usurping creditor of course will only ever do so for profit ??and of course, unearned profit at that.

Of course then, granting them leeway toward unearned profit at all is folly, because maximimal unearned profit then becomes the quest of many, and many more, to whatever degree possible, in what you call a “free market.”

As I have shown in the response to you which has yet to receive a credible reply, one and one only monetary prescription at all times preserves the redeemability of the debtor’s obligation. Likewise, mathematically perfected economy? alone makes it possible in all cases to acquire for our production an equal measure of the production of others. Under mathematically perfected economy?, monetary obligations (debts free of interest) are at all times redeemable, both in like production and the remaining value of the very wealth the currency of mathematically perfected economy? alone represents.

So no Ellen, you’re wrong again: It’s not the derivatives, stupid, which either symbolize or are the cause of the present deterioration which for your fame’s sake we have neglected to now to the brink of collapse. Derivatives in fact preserved the system for yet another false day of artificial sustention, that even authorities such as yourself have that further day yet to realize no, it’s the interest, stupid!

It’s the interest; it’s the interest; it’s the interest…

RELATED MATERIAL

1. VOTE NO ON THE BAILOUT (votenobailout.org)
2. IT’S THE DERIVATIVES, STUPID! WHY FANNIE, FREDDIE AND AIG ALL HAD TO BE BAILED OUT, BY ELLEN HODGSON BROWN
3. Ron Paul News Quotes Ellen Hodgson Brown
4. my OPINION ON THE PENNSYLVANIA CURRENCY ADVOCATED BY ELLEN HODGSON BROWN IN ‘WEB OF DEBT’
5. ABOUT INTEREST, KEY TO THE CYCLE OF USURY: ‘IT’S THE INTEREST, STUPID, IT’S THE INTEREST’
6. Why Have Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Ron Paul, Edwin Vieira and So Many Others Failed to Deliver Solution?
7. EVALUATION OF JEFFERSON’S OPINION ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A NATIONAL BANK

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

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