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)]

Sunday, January 25th, 2009

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

mike montagne

HOW MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY™ SHAKES OUT FOR GOLD

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

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

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

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

Larry,

Excellent question (as always).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the natural and desirable value of gold?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RELATED MATERIAL

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

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

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

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

http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2009/01/25/how-mathematically-perfected-economy-shakes-out-for-gold/

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE™ FORUM:

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

[END PERMALINK(S)]

Friday, January 23rd, 2009

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

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

There it is.

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

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

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

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

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

Jere Hough wrote:

Andrew [sic (Jim?)],

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

Mr. Hough,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How sloppy is all this? I note in your adulterated version of my quote of Jefferson that you capitalize your attribution, “THOMAS JEFFERSON.” What does that mean, Jere? That we should respect what Jefferson tells us? That you understand what he’s telling us, that a form of money multiplies indebtedness to complete dispossession? Or it is instead the right of government to issue that form of money, as you later assert in your article? Will that form produce a different consequence, if it is issued by the government? Absolutely not! Neither then was that what Jefferson was trying to tell us. So you accentuate the author, while academics attribute the quote to me, and while the whole of its content points not to who issues the currency, but the nature of the currency, which produces in those same words, an inevitable outcome: “first by inflation and then by deflation [by having to maintain a vital circulation by perpetually re-borrowing principal and interest as subsequent sums of debt, increased perpetually so much as periodic interest], the banks and [bank owned] corporations which will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

Here is a perfect example of demeaning the vital issues:

Jere Hough wrote:

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

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

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

Jere Hough wrote:

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

“Exactly like.” Is that right?

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

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

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

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

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

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

RELATED MATERIAL

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

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

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

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

http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2009/01/23/jere-hough-promotes-conflicting-solutions-ellen-hodgson-brown-stephen-zarlenga-griffin-cook-part-1/

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE™ FORUM:

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

[END PERMALINK(S)]

Thursday, January 22nd, 2009

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

mike montagne

IS PROFIT DESTRUCTIVE TO INDUSTRIAL SUSTAINABILITY, AS IS INTEREST?

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

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

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

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

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

RELATED MATERIAL

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

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

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

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

http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2009/01/22/is-profit-destructive-to-industrial-sustainability-as-is-interest/

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE? FORUM:

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

[END PERMALINK(S)]

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, January 8th, 2009

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

Thomas Jefferson

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

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

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

A “Modern Economy” WOULD REGULATE ITSELF!

[Responding to the author…]

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

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

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

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

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

Why/how?

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

  1. inflation/deflation; and

  2. whatever ramifications there are of interest.

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

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

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

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

Your proposition of course determines none of these things.

But let’s go there.

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

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

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

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

What is that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How so?

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

So mathematically perfected economy? requires no regulation whatever; and is the singular integral solution to 1)?inflation and deflation, 2)?systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and 3)?inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt in proportion to a vital circulation, engendering inevitable systemic failure at a finite system lifespan defined by an inevitable, terminal sum of insoluble debt. It is every prospective debtor’s right to issue their promise to pay, free of extrinsic manipulation, adulteration, or exploitation of that promise, or the natural opportunity to make good on it.

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

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

How “would” mathematically perfected economy? work?

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

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

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

RELATED MATERIAL

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

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

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

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

http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2009/01/08/mike-montagne-responds-to-oped-news-article-appealing-for-unqualified-regulation/

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE? FORUM:

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

[END PERMALINK(S)]

Monday, December 22nd, 2008

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

mike montagne

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

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

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

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

My sources on the Pennsylvania land bank are here:

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

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

Ellen

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

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

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

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

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

Do they understand that, Ellen?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do we do that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

RELATED MATERIAL

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

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

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

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

http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2008/12/22/response-to-ellen-hodgson-browns-claim-to-answer-to-the-controversy/

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE? FORUM:

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

[END PERMALINK(S)]

Sunday, December 21st, 2008

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

mike montagne

mike montagne REBUTS HYPERINFLATION AS A CAUSE OF AN INEVITABLE, SECOND GREAT DEPRESSION

The idea of national or world-wide monetary failure as a consequence of some ostensible, dramatic manifestation of inflation, conflicts with an eleventh hour, ever growing array of further assertions, submitted likewise without conclusive argument. The conditions we are presently combating, and which are the cause of the mounting failure, on the contrary embody a scarcity of circulation respective to a growing sum of debt, with the resultant collapse being a consequence of a resultant inability to service debt.

As the failure mounted prior to the recent efforts to purportedly rescue the system with increasing artificial infusions of capital, in fact then neither inflation nor hyperinflation can be truly said to be causative, for at best now (both being absent), either can only eventually manifest in the wake of the onset of failure. Thus it is only in understanding the actual, previous causative forces, that we can accurately project further consequences (which may ultimately include inflation). Likewise, it is only by understanding those previous causes that we can develop or identify solution, responding to actual cause (versus the said, eventual consequences).

What is obviously contradictory to a mere assertion of hyperinflation as a present cause then, is that the basic reasons for the present rush to resume sufficient “credit” as will maintain a vital circulation, speaks instead to a perpetual, prevailing deflation of the circulation by present obligations to service the most monumental sums of debt in history. It is this escalating obligation to service an inherent, irreversible, and terminal multiplication of debt then, which in fact is the only present cause of the downturn. Thus the mounting failure is instead manifested from a starvation for sufficient circulation to sustain a diminishing industry, which in fact too, is already largely expatriated by the previous stress of ever escalating indebtedness upon markets and producers alike.

On top of this systemic stress of inherent multiplication of debt, certainly we suffer further stress of downstream exploitation. But the monumental primary obligation to service multiplying indebtedness comprises an escalating deflation, in which servicing the escalating debt perpetually and ever more dramatically depletes the circulation in such a way as can only require ever more borrowing, to replenish the circulation.

The fact of this escalating deflationary process thus obligates any assertion of circulatory inflation as a potential cause of failure, to prove first that the necessarily escalating act of borrowing further, so much as may or may not even replenish the circulation of the deflation, actually prevails in a purported increase in circulation. Secondly, such unqualified assertions are obligated to prove that it is the increasing circulation which actually causes failure, versus the underlying, singular disposition of the imposed system to perpetually multiply debt in proportion to a finite potential to service illimitable debt.

On the contrary then, artificial inflation of the circulation is not a cause of failure at all. Ultimately instead, artificial inflation is the only possible, eventual, systemic recourse against an irreversible systemic process, which, in perpetually re-borrowing so much as would replenish a vital circulation of ever escalating depletion, inherently transforms interest and principal paid out of the general circulation into the very escalating sums of debt which ultimately impose failure. But inflation of any kind or magnitude then is not causative. On the contrary, the very need for artificial inflation, rescues, and so forth, testifies to the cause of failure being irreversible, inherently escalating multiplication of debt. Eventual inflation of any eventual magnitude is a consequence of preserving the system of exploitation, versus establishing mathematically perfected economy?.

The subject currency of course was privatized (versus rectified) for a purpose; and the very disposition of the imposed system therefor is a device to take unearned profit, multiplied at inherently escalating rates. Only because the device of taking is itself irreversible so long as it exists, does the usually (but not necessarily) privatized system ultimately impose such a sum of debt that the subjects cannot afford to borrow further as would otherwise enable them to replenish the circulation against its perpetually escalating deflation.

Failure therefore is an inevitable culmination of this systemic, irreversible multiplication of debt in proportion to the obligated circulation; with ever more massive inflation being a consequence both of inherent systemic failure, and a public which fails to recognize and adopt solution.

The system of exploitation thus fails for a simple combination of inevitable events:

  1. Merely to maintain a vital circulation, the subjects are inevitably compelled to perpetually re-borrow principal and interest paid out of the general circulation, as subsequent sums of debt, perpetually increased so much as periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt.

  2. The sum of debt thus multiplies at an ever escalating rate, requiring ever more monumental further borrowing, merely to maintain a circulation.

  3. All the while, ever more of the obligated circulation is dedicated to servicing debt, leaving ever less of the circulation to sustain the industry which is obligated to do so.

  4. Ultimately then, an eventual sum of debt exceeds the finite capacity of industry to service it, which in turn exceeds a limit of credit-worthiness which the artificially indebted public can in fact service.

  5. Because they can service no further debt, they cannot borrow further, as remains necessary to replenish the circulation of the deflation ??which in turn results in depletion of the circulation across their final days of servicing the existent sum of debt.

  6. With the inability to borrow further to replenish the circulation, and with the primary obligation being to service debt (versus sustain industry), this depletion further makes it impossible to sustain the industry which is obligated to service the debt.

  7. As failing sectors quickly take down multiple dependent sectors, the failure of the first important sectors soon escalate into complete failure, in which the falling subjects are only further compromised to maintain a sustainable circulation by taking on the further debt which they are already proven unable to afford.

Thus opposed to this proposition that hyperinflation will cause the present failure, the nature of the currency which Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Madison, Jackson, Lincoln, McFadden and so many others of this caliber warned against, is the cause of a sudden and inevitable depletion, in which a mortal, final period of servicing a terminal sum of debt deflates the circulation, leaving the subjects unworthy of borrowing further, simply because the fatal sum of debt can only multiply their obligations above what they already cannot service.

If anything then, hyperinflation will only eventually manifest from artificial attempts to preserve a process which still, will continue to inherently and irreversibly multiply debt in proportion to the obligated circulation, as will only allow pathetic subjects to marginally tread water against the eventual culmination in failure.

All this of course was projected thirty years ago, not only in my proposition of mathematically perfected economy?, but in computer models I provided the Reagan Administration which projected the accumulation of this debt, manifesting in potential world wide failure at approximately 2010 AD. Now curiously, even those who argued most against this idea of inevitable failure and singular solution, lay claim to eleventh hour projections which still yet deny recognition of what they argued against, both as the inevitable cause of failure and singular basis solution ??and the only veritable thing therefore from which anyone can truly predict the failure they boast only now of predicting.

There is one and one integral solution only for 1)?inflation and deflation, 2)?systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and 3)?inherent, irreversible, and inevitably terminal multiplication of debt in proportion to the vital, obligated circulation ??and the only reason you won’t have that solution is the very pretended representatives you have chosen, remain the very people most dedicated to your exploitation.

Visit http://www.change.gov/page/s/yourvision to pressure the Obama Transition Team to adopt mathematically perfected economy?. I’m aware the president-elect is hiring all the wrong people; but the fact you demanded representation when you could draws the line between the bad guys ??and the rest. Make sure you mention mathematically perfected economy? explicitly (maybe even providing a link to these pages), or your appeal may be lost in the ever escalating number of late comers who pretend to advocate a solution which existed long before them.

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/2008/12/21/mike-montagne-rebuts-hyperinflation-as-a-cause-of-an-inevitable-second-great-depression/

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE? FORUM:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewtopic.php?f=80&t=202&p=489#p489

[END PERMALINK(S)]

Friday, December 19th, 2008

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

mike montagne

CREDO ACTION CLAIMS BUSH MUST ACT TO STOP PLANT CLOSINGS

President Bush is turning a blind eye to our crumbling economy.
http://act.credoaction.com/r/?r=2545&id=1919-960205-FzxbQ0x&t=8

Stand up for working families.
http://act.credoaction.com/r/?r=2545&id=1919-960205-FzxbQ0x&t=9
Chrysler and GM have already laid off thousands of workers while President Bush sits on his hands. We need swift, decisive action to save our economy — January 20th is just too late.

The Bush Administration has invested almost $300 billion in Wall Street with little to show for it. Last week, after Republicans in the Senate blocked temporary assistance for General Motors and Chrysler, Mr. Bush said he would step in to help. Since then, he has been busy visiting Iraq and Afghanistan, and signing special midnight regulations that harm the public interest. Somehow, he has not had time to work out a way to help the hundreds of thousands of auto workers. He is still “weighing his options”.

So this week, both General Motors and Chrysler have announced that they are shutting down just about all of their factories for the next month. With foreclosures, bankruptcies, and layoff announcements at levels not seen since the Depression, it is time for Mr. Bush to act. We all know that the management of the auto companies has been just about the worst of any American industry. We know that Detroit has to start making fuel efficient cars that every day people want to buy. And we know that Detroit should not use any assistance to lobby against clean air or fuel efficiency laws.

A new administration will take office in a little over a month. The economy simply cannot wait that long.

Click here to send an e-mail to President Bush right now. Tell him that working families need his help, and turning a blind eye isn’t getting the job done.
http://act.credoaction.com/r/?r=2545&id=1919-960205-FzxbQ0x&t=11

Thank you for working to build a better world.

Kate Stayman-London, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action
http://act.credoaction.com/r/?r=10&id=1919-960205-FzxbQ0x&t=12
from Working Assets

Kate Stayman-London, Campaign Manager for CREDO Action, emails us that Bush must act to avoid auto plant closings. What you need to understand Kate, is that the way Bush (or Obama) will “act,” is to charge us beyond what we already cannot afford to pay, with even yourself presuming this is sustainable. What you really need to understand and to promote then, Kate, is the immediate adoption of mathematically perfected economy?.

Since it’s a foregone conclusion that in the interest of preserving the system of exploitation, Obama and Bush are going to stand in the way of mathematically perfected economy?, you might at least use these links to urge Kate to advocate a real solution.

Visit http://www.change.gov/page/s/yourvision to pressure the Obama Transition Team to adopt mathematically perfected economy?. I’m aware the president-elect is hiring all the wrong people; but the fact you demanded representation when you could draws the line between the bad guys ??and the rest. Make sure you mention mathematically perfected economy? explicitly (maybe even providing a link to these pages), or your appeal may be lost in the ever escalating number of late comers who pretend to advocate a solution which existed long before them.

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/2008/12/19/credo-action-claims-bush-must-act-to-stop-plant-closings/

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE? FORUM:

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

[END PERMALINK(S)]

mike montagne — PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™.

"To find the players in all the corruption of the world, 'Follow the money.' To find the captains of world corruption, follow the money all the way."

mike montagne — PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™

While 12,000 homes a day continue to go into foreclosure, mathematically perfected economy™ would re-finance a $100,000 home with a hundred-year lifespan at the overall rate of $1,000 per year or $83.33 per month. Without costing us anything, we would immediately become as much as 12 times as liquid on present revenue. Transitioning to MPE™ would apply all payments already made against existent debt toward principal. Many of us would be debt free. There would be no housing crisis, no credit crisis. Unlimited funding would immediately be available to sustain all the industry we are capable of.

There is no other solution. Regulation can only temper an inherently terminal process.

If you are not promoting mathematically perfected economy™, then you condemn us to monetary failure.

© COPYRIGHT 1979-2009 by mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.COPYRIGHT 1979-2009 by mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. TRADEMARKS: PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™, Mathematically Perfected Economy™, Mathematically Perfected Currency™, MPE™, and PFMPE™ are trademarks of mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™, perfecteconomy.com. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Firefox™.BEST VIEWED WITH MOZILLA FIREFOX™.


Search perfecteconomy.com     Search Web