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)]

Thursday, February 5th, 2009

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

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

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

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

Larry Larkin asks:

Larry Larkin wrote:

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

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

Larry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RELATED MATERIAL

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

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

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

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

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

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE™ FORUM:

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

[END PERMALINK(S)]

Monday, January 26th, 2009

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

mike montagne

September 29, 2008 proposition to immediately arrest monetary failure without cost by transitioning to mathematically perfected economy?, requested by Obama Campaign regulars as sent, and simply returned by the so called Obama Economic Policy Team.

REGARDING OBAMA’S REFUSAL TO SECOND GUESS THE FED

The most disturbing thing about a President who says he “won’t second guess the Fed” is, if you understand the nature of their obfuscation of money, you’re way above second guessing them: you know all they can do is a) make incoming publications of our own promises to pay (”money”) more or less expensive (raise/lower interest), and/or b) loosen or tighten restrictions, “hoping” that can increase the volume sufficiently in that way, while the inherent multiplication of debt “may” “or may not” have increased the sum of debt already to a terminal sum of debt, itself disqualifying us from borrowing further as remains necessary to maintain a vital circulation of what we’re perpetually compelled to pay out of it to service the existing, escalating sum of debt.

There’s no “second guessing” involved in where that’s going; you know it’s all wrong and you know it’s all heading *only* the wrong way if you know the first thing about their obfuscation of “money.”

The next most disturbing thing is that once the sum of debt reaches terminal stature from the artificial obligation to maintain a vital circulation by perpetually re-borrowing so much as all the principal and interest we pay out of the general circulation in servicing a sum of debt which thus increases by ever greater periodic sums of interest on an ever greater sum of debt… they can only maintain a vital circulation by accumulating debt we cannot service. That means federal overspending… issuing themselves free money to buy our production from us without producing… all that sort of thing (artificial sustention).

The latter can only work so far as it sustains every sector of “the economy” (purposed system of exploitation), with the tumbling of certain sectors having the mass and inertia to bring down anything and everything dependent upon it.

So are housing, the auto industry, airlines, transportation infrastructures, industry, and even our expatriated industry failing elsewhere… are all those things sufficient mass?

If they weren’t, then they wouldn’t be tumbling.

And tumbling far they do not have to go.

So what does a President mean when he “won’t second guess the Fed?”

He means his singular approach is to let rats attempt every trick, deception and futility to sustain their imposed system of exploitation, so they can continue to exploit us to the maximal degree possible.

If he meant something else, he’d be speaking to us about mathematically perfected economy?. If he waits much longer, and has half a good monetary bone in his body, he’ll only have eleventh hour pretenders who by the dozens now are lining up on the side of “interest-free monetary” systems, proposing “their own” solutions, which of course can only compromise a 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 vital circulation, engendering inevitable systemic failure at a finite system lifespan defined by an inevitable, terminal sum of insoluble debt.

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/2009/01/26/regarding-obamas-refusal-to-second-guess-the-fed/

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)]

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)]

Thursday, November 13th, 2008

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

mike montagne

MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY? AND GLOBAL WARMING

A politician who shall remain un-named, writes:

A former global warming denier should not be in charge of the fight against climate change.

Global climate change is perhaps the greatest challenge of our generation. What we do (or don’t do) affects not only our nation but the world.

You might think that, with a new president poised to take office, we’re in a great position to take serious action to address climate change. Unfortunately, a grizzled legislator named John Dingell, known as the “Congressman from General Motors,” is standing in our way.

[end of excerpt]

Obviously, the author is about to tell on his foes within government ??that we are leaving foxes/rats in charge of the hen house.

Of course, because we can only know a tree by its fruit, it matters little that we may swap foxes for rats or vice versa. So my reply means to test this by raising what we do and do not know yet that we may or may not have to solve (which is to determine explicitly what we have to solve); the costs of doing whatever we must; and whatever then, altogether, is vital to accomplishing whatever we must.

This of course is standard procedure for engineering/accomplishing solution of any issue; and these of course are the real issues of accomplishing the author’s common initiative. But thus these few vital aspects determine whether the author himself is a fox or rat, because they pose the very test whether the author will take on even one readily solved and even artificial obstruction to his own initiative. After all, his mere one of many problems is an issue we can and would readily solve, if government itself were not our principal obstruction.

In other words, the ostensible representative cannot have and eat his cake too: if he indeed intends to succeed in his initiative, he cannot be parcel to the very thing which obstructs us from succeeding in all such initiatives.

PFMPE? REPLY

This was my reply to his appeal:

Your points are well taken; and while I’m not certain exactly what the gravity of the global warming crisis is, I am well aware it is taking place; in fact friends and I were warning of signs of it before others were.

My proposition to you however is this:

Whether or not we can trace warming to specific emissions/gasses of whatever quantities and sorts, we need to throw credible science at this right away ? not biases from one side or the other of credible arguments, but concrete, certain science. From that of course, we have to draw credible, immediate plans. At the end of an expedited such process, we should have a concrete perspective of where man-caused warming falls within a whole, potentially even larger scheme of global pollution.

What I’m getting at is this:

We have technology and capacities to treat many of our problems already. But for one reason or another, we are not willing or we are not able to implement that technology.

Furthermore, we have some unexercised capacity to develop and deploy further technology; and likewise, we are either not willing or we are not able to implement that technology.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist then, to ascertain how we have to go about this.

Why might we not be able to implement present and further technology?

Whatever our actual, natural limits, the only reason we “cannot” achieve what we are even prepared to do, is we can’t afford to.

Now, why are a people who even presently demonstrate they are capable of achieving something in all other necessary respects, simply obstructed from doing so by such exceedingly unnatural events as paying lifetime after lifetime for homes the same people produced by but a few months of work?

There is one and one reason only of course; and that is the purposed irregularities which have been imposed upon them for the purpose of their exploitation.

Even more critical however, is the fact that system of exploitation accomplishes its purposes by irreversible multiplication of debt *in proportion* to the potential for us to service debt: merely to maintain a vital circulation, we are compelled to perpetually re-borrow principal and interest as subsequent sums of debt, with the sum of debt thus inherently increasing at escalating rates of ever greater sums of periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt.

In other words, Mr. [politician’s name], tomorrow, for a wholly artificial process of exploitation, we will be less “able” to afford the things we must do than we are today.

So, Mr. [politician’s name], I tell you that if you are not ready to advocate mathematically perfected economy?, the fact of what we cannot afford to do already demonstrates you are neglecting a key piece.

Promote mathematically perfected economy? on the other hand, and we *will* succeed in everything we can and should succeed in, because only mathematically perfected economy? can and will sustain our capabilities.

After all, we are faced with the artificial specter of world-wide monetary failure, while we *will* remain as capable and willing to render production from available resources as we were the day before the curtain fell ??and you’re the very people dropping the curtain.

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/2008/11/13/mathematically-perfected-economy-and-global-warming/

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE? FORUM:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewtopic.php?f=91&t=157

[END PERMALINK(S)]

Wednesday, November 12th, 2008

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

mike montagne

WHY NOT NATIONALIZE THE PRIVATE FEDERAL RESERVE?

For many years, many people have asked, why not nationalize the so called Federal Reserve?

The principle fault of this notion is that nationalizing the pretended public institution would not eradicate its principal fault. That is, a currency subject to interest will still multiply debt into terminal debt.

Nationalization further carries with it a connotation akin to socialism. Even as the central banks of the world have never produced anything, and therefore have earned no wealth, nationalization (wrongly or rightly) implies confiscation of duly earned wealth, and subsequent ownership of vital processes by the state.

In mathematically perfected economy?, there is no such ownership; there is only the obligation of the state to maintain consistent accounts as is now performed by private banks. No currency is ever owned by the state via mathematically perfected economy?; on the contrary, the circulation is merely retired, and passes out of existence, when the obligations of debtors are fulfilled. Even as it might accumulate reservoirs of taxation (extrinsic to the economy), the state holds the same position as each individual in mathematically perfected economy?; it, like the individual, can only own currency it effectively earns (unless we allow the state to confiscate wealth it does not deserve, which is not a function of the economy).

Effectively, converse to the obfuscated concept of “privatization” of the currency by a private central bank pretending to be a federal institution, mathematically perfected economy? is a privatization of the currency in which the currency is comprised of the very promises to pay of each debtor. In other words, mathematically perfected economy? merely replicates the natural situation, in which debtors issue promises to pay to their actual creditors, who are the producers of the subject wealth.

Usury on the other hand is an usurpation of this arrangement, wherein a “central bank” pretends to be the creditor, issuing the promises to pay of all debtors, to the real creditors (producers), at virtually no cost to itself, and yet charging us interest, as if the promises represented earned wealth of the central bank. By this obfuscation that purported risk justifies interest, we are forced in turn to maintain a vital circulation by perpetually re-borrowing principal and interest as subsequent sums of debt, with the sum of debt thus perpetually increased by periodic interest, in proportion to our means, until the sum of debt is terminal.

As none of the meager, actual apparatus of the private Federal Reserve therefore is implemented in an eventual, just economy, there is no need whatever to take over its assets, except to restore to the people what has been taken from them via usurpation, and this means of exploitation.

So this is the only reason to nationalize the private Federal Reserve; and the great danger of the coarse idea of simply nationalizing these many private entities is, that this preserves an inherently terminal process which is only solved by mathematically perfected economy?.

We only need to do two things to solve all the issues of the imposed, pretended monetary systems; and these are 1)?to eradicate interest, and 2)?to schedule payment of debt by the rate of consumption/depreciation of the related property.

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/2008/11/12/why-not-nationalize-the-private-federal-reserve/

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE? FORUM:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewtopic.php?f=89&t=150

[END PERMALINK(S)]

Sunday, July 27th, 2008

RESPONSE TO BLACK MONDAY — Business Spectator’s ARTICLE, AUSTRALIAN BANK TO SHOCK WALL STREET

While on some accounts it is wise of National Australia Bank to cut losses ahead of other world banks, obviously, as NAB is in the same business, and as that business can only multiply debt in proportion to a circulation as we are forced to maintain a circulation by re-borrowing principal and interest as subsequent sums of debt, perpetually increased so much as periodic interest… just the same then, National Australia Bank’s business engenders the same consequences within Australia.

Because interest multiplies debt in proportion to a circulation, any purported economy subject to interest ultimately terminates itself under insoluble debt. As we saw from the beginning, the issue in the United States is not “sub-prime mortgages,” but that “interest” inherently and irreversibly destroys credit-worthiness by imposing ever more unserviceable sums of debt.

Which then is the horse; and which is the cart?

The only solution to inherent multiplication of debt in proportion to a circulation is mathematically perfected economy: See our article, Probability and Timeline for World-Wide Economic Collapse as a Consequence of Interest.

RELATED EXTERNAL ARTICLES

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

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

Friday, July 11th, 2008

Ron Paul supporters are after the problem; but they have yet to round out the principles of solution. Here’s to that objective.

An Alex Jones article, “How to stop the Great Crash of ‘08” (Spengler / Asia Times | July 1, 2008), reiterates the fatal errors of the Ron Paul spiel.

The article tries to draw together a probability of failure by observations of consequences, rather than unraveling the root cause in the nature of the currency. To support Mr. Paul’s drumming that circulatory inflation is the cause devaluing the dollar, the article tells us largely that monetary movements/creations are responsible for an “excess” of circulation:

The oil price has doubled in the past year because the US Federal Reserve panicked over risks to the over-leveraged financial system and flooded markets with excess liquidity.

In the pattern that Mr. Paul has followed, the article doesn’t even cite relevant data which would necessarily, by definition, demonstrate that the years of such purportedly inflationary increases in circulation have rendered a circulation exceeding the value of the wealth we have produced. In other words, we do not have inflation; we suffer deflation, because the circulation is far less than the remaining value of the wealth we have produced. Yet the article harkens back to the dawn of the Reagan failures, falsely claiming their success as a model of solution:

Under parallel circumstances, then Fed chairman Paul Volcker did precisely that [raise interest] in 1979, bringing the central bank’s lending rate up to 20% over two years of tightening. Inflation under the Carter regime had run out of control, the dollar collapsed, and the price of oil rose to a then menacing $40 per barrel. After Volcker tightened monetary policy the dollar’s trade-weighted exchange rate doubled and the price of oil fell sharply.

At the same time, the Ronald Reagan administration cut marginal tax rates sharply, and the American economy began a quarter-century growth cycle.

Whatever “growth” an “economy” subject to usury succeeds in, essentially prevails only over the redundant costs of interest. What the article hails as a success refers in fact to a prevailing over 7 years that saw us descend from “the greatest creditor nation” in the world to its lowliest debtor ? a position from which we have sunk further ever since.

Interest obstructs growth and success, because it makes either more expensive. Elevated interest rates thus are more preclusive than more tolerable rates.

The article yet draws from its misperceptions of the past to advocate saving the purported economy by raising interest.

Nonetheless, the reason why you can’t raise interest in the later stages of the lifespan of any purported economy subject to interest is simple:

A circulation is only maintained by re-borrowing principal and interest paid out of the circulation in the process of servicing debt. The re-borrowing necessary to replenish the circulation of its perpetual deflation thus preserves the previous sum of debt in the principal which is re-borrowed, and converts what periodic interest is re-borrowed into new debt. The sum of debt under interest therefore grows at an inherently escalating rate of ever greater sums of periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt. The higher the rate of interest, the faster the multiplication of debt, and the greater the cost of servicing debt.

In the later stages of the finite lifespan, as far greater debt exists in relationship to the circulation, to extend the lifespan against the prospect of near term failure (as would be evident in present housing foreclosures), it is necessary to relax interest rates so that the heavily burdened system can sustain itself against the weight of servicing a far greater mountain of ever growing debt than before.

But the proposition that price inflation is controlled by interest was always a lie.

Rather than Mr. Paul’s non-existent or non-attributable “inflation,” it is interest which multiplies the cost of all things as industry is forced to account for the costs of ever greater debt in preserving necessary margins of solubility. The degree to which elevated interest purportedly exceeds in holding prices down is only by making money so expensive to the market that the market cannot afford the price increases which are necessary to maintain margins of solubility. Moreover, there is no real benefit at all: the cost which would have manifested in increased prices instead manifests in an equally damaging increase in the unearned profit of usurers, in the form of unearned “interest.”

After all, we are claiming a benefit from an imposed cost, only by suffering at least an equal magnitude of cost somewhere else!

So, not only is the whole idea an intended deception; the least conducive time to try to return to this facade of rectitude is a time when the system is so marginalized that the market can least afford a higher cost of money and faster multiplication of debt, while the little industry which has survived multiplication of debt too is so marginalized, that it can least afford not to maintain margins of solublility.

Under the present mountain of far greater debt, and under the very prospect of catastrophic failure the article purports to address, we have exactly those dubious conditions ? against which to weigh the prospects of the damaging facade of the past.

Obviously then, unless someone can refute these facts of detriment, we would be quite ill advised to follow the advice of the article.

Because there is one solution only, I left the following post:

You have us further treating consequences without treating the cause. I suppose, because Alex rubs elbows with so many Austrians, that nobody here accepts the fact that interest multiplies debt in proportion to a circulation. Thus you can have households putting away whatever you want to let them for retirement, but if you can’t protect the value of the dollar, why should they put the first cent there?

There is one way only to solve this mess, and that’s mathematically perfected economy?:

Alex believes the dollar is devalued by “inflation.” If we have inflation, then everywhere you look, the circulation exceeds the remaining value of the related assets. But au contraire, everywhere you look, nobody has any money.

Why is that?

Because there is a constant deflationary phase to the cycle of money, in which we are perpetually paying interest and principal out of the general circulation in the process of servicing debt.

What drives up the costs of all things then?

Servicing an ever greater sum of debt. Worse, as ever more of the circulation is dedicated to servicing debt, ever less remains to sustain the commerce which is obligated to service the debt.

This is the systemic cause of price inflation. We don’t have circulatory inflation.

Beyond systemic price inflation, we have artificial multiplication of cost by every conceivable form of unearned gain ? commodities trading for instance. Either one can kill us. But systemic multiplication of debt in proportion to potential means of servicing debt *inevitably* kills us, because multiplication of debt in proportion to a circulation is irreversible so long as we maintain a circulation, and the banking system consumes less of our production than we pay periodic interest on debt.

But make no mistake then Alex; the cause of the collapse is inherent multiplication of debt by interest; and the only thing that will save us is eradication of interest.

Furthermore, if you want to preserve the value of the dollar so that we can succeed in all other directions, then you have to solve inflation and deflation; and the only way to do that is to introduce so much circulation as the original value of the related asset; and to pay off a monetary obligation equal to no more than that at the rate of depreciation or consumption. Thus neither can we solve inflation or deflation or achieve that abstract goal that Ron Paul and Alex call “sound money” if we pay interest as well, because then (as now) the deflationary cycle exceeds the replenishing cycle.

Only mathematically perfected economy? achieves these goals.

Or maybe you’d like to debate otherwise on your show, Alex?

RELATED EXTERNAL ARTICLES

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