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

NYT ??FED CUTS KEY RATE TO RECORD LOW, VALIDATES MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY?

The Federal Reserve entered a new era on Tuesday, lowering its benchmark interest rate virtually to zero and declaring that it would now fight the recession by pumping out vast amounts of money to businesses and consumers through an expanding array of new lending programs.

Yesterday, the private “Federal” “Reserve” “Banks” lowered the lending rate for new/further money to a new/record low. Except that this action preserves the system of exploitation, and the majority of the monumental debt and interest obligations already accumulated under it, this curious minimalization of interest rates unmysteriously replicates to the greatest degree otherwise possible, the principles I advocated in my 1979 prescription for saving a pretended economy subject to such a currency, and most recently in the PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy? page, If I Were President ??how to arrest world wide monetary collapse in a day.

In other words, recognizing that perpetual multiplication of debt by interest has indeed manifested in terminal sums of debt as the thesis of mathematically perfected economy? projected 30 years ago, the publishers of the unconstitutional, privatized currency are seeking to preserve their system of exploitation a while longer, by effectively refinancing as much debt as possible at near zero interest rates. The fact this unassented, imposed system has produced such terminal sums of debt therefore validates our original thesis a)?that any pretended economy subject to interest ultimately terminates itself under insoluble debt, and b)?that there is one and one only integral solution to 1)?inflation and deflation, 2)?systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and 3)?inherent, irreversible, and inevitably terminal multiplication of debt in proportion to the vital, obligated circulation.

What the so called federal reserve banks are doing therefore is purposely refraining from saving the demise of our prosperity to the full degree that they could; with the sole purpose of this pretended service being to preserve the system of exploitation, so that should we rise to our knees during the onset of depression, they preserve to themselves (likewise without our assent) the power to drum us into the ground with a healthy dose of “interest.”

Of course, the monumental sums of debt which will not be relieved of previous interest obligations will nonetheless require still escalating (and sustained) rates of borrowing (just as this development does), merely to maintain a vital circulation as we pay the costs of servicing the terminal sum of debt out of circulation.

Likewise, interest will continue to multiply debt in proportion to the obligated circulation, albeit at slower rates, which will expand the duration of the collapse. Moreover, the so called federal reserve banks remain closed to restoring to us all that we have lost not just in the recent manifestation of the failure, but all along the way. There is no recognition of injustice, nor any intention to establish full justice. All we have is preservation of the system of exploitation, at whatever further cost these unassented, usurious institutions intend to impose upon us.

Why then does the so called Federal Reserve, which is not even an authorized branch of government, not save “the economy” to the full degree that is possible?

The so called federal reserve does not save “the economy” to the full degree that is possible, because it is strictly a parasite, the purpose of which has always been and will always be to prey upon “the economy” to the fullest degree possible.

As surely as its recent actions validate mathematically perfected economy? then, nonetheless, the parasite will resume its taking as soon as its subject shows sufficient signs of life ??marginalizing the host as it always has and always will.

After all, if that weren’t its intention, it would give us mathematically perfected economy?, wouldn’t it?

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

1. Fed Cuts Key Rate to a Record Low ??NYT
2. [?KEY?]??THE PROBLEM IS NOT DEBT!
3. [?KEY?]??IF I WERE PRESIDENT ??HOW TO ARREST WORLD WIDE MONETARY COLLAPSE IN A DAY
4. SYNOPSIS ??MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY? REDUCED TO ITS BAREST THREAD
5. PROBABILITY AND TIMELINE FOR WORLD-WIDE ECONOMIC COLLAPSE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF INTEREST
6. EVALUATION OF JEFFERSON’S OPINION ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A NATIONAL BANK
7. WHY DON’T THE DEMOCRATS REVERSE WILSON’S ERROR, AND REPEAL THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT?

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

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

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

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

http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2008/12/18/nyt-fed-cuts-key-rate-to-record-low-validates-mathematically-perfected-economy/

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE? FORUM:

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

[END PERMALINK(S)]

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

CURSORY RESPONSE TO ZEITGEIST ADDENDUM

I was asked the other day to respond to the so called Zeitgeist Addendum.

The Zeitgeist drama of course is no more than an eleventh-hour, pretended entry into the monetary reform arena. It will never be rightly exalted for advancing the idea of a singular solution for inflation and deflation, systemic manipulation and dispossession of industry, or inherent multiplication of debt into terminal debt. What does Zeitgeist even intend to accomplish? Zeitgeist does not even recognize the idea a privatized currency can and should be issued by the people, who are the real creditors wherever tokens intended to represent the value of their production are to convey their commerce.

Like anything else, the actual value of the Zeitgeist plea can be no greater than the degree to which it stresses effect and style over conclusive argument and solution. We cannot even rightly pretend to understand it points the way to solution, because Zeitgeist only affirms a few observations which were raised long ago, and because it concludes no further, conclusive understanding whatever from those observations. The initial version of Zeitgeist doesn’t even address the nature of money moreso than to dig up the very superficial definitions which for so long have failed to serve us. But thus, building upon those flawed definitions as if flawed definitions are a fitting foundation for anything further, what can and does Zeitgeist introduce to the development of solution?

Both the so called Addendum and its previous version merely repeat research from decades earlier, which I myself presented on the contrary as a basis for developing the critical arguments of solution, and which of course require defining/ascertaining not only what “money” can and must represent, but exactly how any obfuscations of that necessary definition result in the present crisis.

In 1979, that work developed the thesis that any pretended monetary system based on interest-bearing debt ultimately terminates itself under insoluble debt; and this thirty-year-old thesis itself and alone explains anything which Zeitgeist can complain about. Yet does Zeitgeist tie its complaints to this critical fault of the pretended monetary system? Absolutely not; and even if it did, it would only pretend further to be the author of the justification of that complaint.

But it is impossible then for Zeitgeist to certify any purported solution, because it doesn’t even identify the cause of the problem it must solve.

Neither then does Zeitgeist build a decisive analysis of the same history. Likewise, it neither disproves mathematically perfected economy? or recognizes whether there is one and one only solution to inflation and deflation, systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and inherent, irreversible, and terminal multiplication of debt by interest. It neither identifies the role of real creditor, or the usurpation of that role to impose usury. Thus for all its mere drama, it only affirms that the consequences of that usurpation are offenses against us, but only to turn us somewhere other than solution, and only as the thesis of mathematically perfected economy? far more clearly demonstrated thirty years ago. Why then does Zeitgeist jump into the way of solution?

Thus Zeitgeist merely splinters a critical movement from what it has to understand and where it has to go. It neither proves alternate solutions for inflation and deflation, systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, or inherent multiplication of debt by interest; nor does it raise any fact of complaint which cannot be attributed to these injustices, and the need for actual solution.

I was asked nonetheless in particular to reply to the proposed, “resource-based” industrial system. I’m still wondering why. There isn’t even a proposed method of transitioning to such a thing. There can’t be, because there isn’t even a substantial definition of it. The Zeitgeist drama comprises so many obvious faults and deficiencies that it no more warrants reply than viewing. The real question in my opinion is why watch this in lieu of studying solution?

Only because I was asked, did I watch the drama to its end, and so, do I give sufficient examples of its critical faults:

Since when for instance, is the monetary system “labor based”? It is based instead not only on debts subject to interest which can only multiply the sum of debt, but on intervention to pretend the role of creditor, that artificial multiplication of artificial debt is made the very instrument which multiplies exploitation into terminal exploitation.

But even if the monetary system were “labor based,” what is the fault of reward for labor? Worse, what is the alternative? Reward without labor/effort? That proposed alternative is the very subversion which is responsible for what you have now.

Anyone who dreams we will ever ??or even should ever ??seek to simply eliminate repetitive tasks ??a thing which is impractical ??is merely glossing over the real issues with pretended intellectualism. If you have ever developed a product which is the pinnacle of its class, you have repeated *every* step in fact often enough to perfect them above all others. If you have built machines to do the work better than ever before, you know you will do far more untoward work on machineS than can ever be justified, if you don’t first toil over every aspect of the process so that the first machine you will build will be as close to the ultimate as possible.

Repetition is not a fault of the monetary system, nor is repetition or other pathetic complaints of Zeitgeist responsible for the present crisis. Nor are these things what obstructs us from building the proposed trains of the future ??a thing many of us have envisioned and discussed for many years. The problem is the imposed monetary system, because only if you solve its intended faults do you free yourself to build whatever you determine. Why can’t we do that now? Because the usurer, who merely usurps the role of creditor, determines where the money goes, and what “industry” (or obstruction of *other* industry) is to prevail.

Once they own that dominant process, all they have to do and all they want to do is sit on it, because it is accomplishing what men who do nothing want to accomplish.

The answer therefore is not to follow them, supposing we all can do nothing, or dedicating ever more effort to doing the least; supposing that repetitive tasks can simply be eliminated or must be eliminated ??or even that this is a new idea. It is no new idea, and it is not even germane to monetary solution, that we can build the most sophisticated wood-working machines which have ever been built ??producing perfect surfaces and steering down crooked bamboo strips, producing compound tapered bevels to tolerances of three ten-thousandths of an inch. We do this when and how we have to, if we can, and only if the monetary system does not obstruct us from doing so. If and whenever we do so however, mechanization follows in the wake of sufficient repetition and deliberation, so that in the building of one eventual machine to do the job right, we minimize work there as well.

So there is a rule which all industrial entrepreneurs either follow or fail to follow which dictates when to build that machine: You build it when you can see you have a repetitive process; and when you have the necessary vision for the machine which establishes how much labor you will save over the need to do the intended work.

That’s the balance of usual facts, not new facts, which give the machine the nod. There is no failure to realize this which prevents us from building the machine; the problems which prevent you from building the machine are necessary finances, and/or a monetary system which would deprive the prospective market of the ability to afford the product of the machine, even if you build it.

So then, if you really want to free labor from unnecessary repetitive tasks, and if you really want to free the whole of us of unnecessary labor in producing what we want or need, you eradicate whatever subversions of commercial trade and industrial development preclude this natural objective.

Until Zeitgeist or anyone else proves otherwise, the one effective manifestation of that necessary eradication is mathematically perfected economy?.

RELATED MATERIAL

1. [?KEY?]??THE PROBLEM IS NOT DEBT!
2. [?KEY?]??IF I WERE PRESIDENT ??HOW TO ARREST WORLD WIDE MONETARY COLLAPSE IN A DAY
3. SYNOPSIS ??MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY? REDUCED TO ITS BAREST THREAD
4. PROBABILITY AND TIMELINE FOR WORLD-WIDE ECONOMIC COLLAPSE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF INTEREST
5. EVALUATION OF JEFFERSON’S OPINION ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A NATIONAL BANK
6. WHY DON’T THE DEMOCRATS REVERSE WILSON’S ERROR, AND REPEAL THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT?

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

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

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

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

http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2008/12/05/cursory-response-to-zeitgeist-addendum/

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE? FORUM:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewtopic.php?f=97&t=225

[END PERMALINK(S)]

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

RE: REUTERS ??OBAMA SAYS AIDING ECONOMY TRUMPS BUDGET DEFICIT

A Reuters article today, “Obama says aiding economy trumps budget deficit,” also responds to 60 Minutes’ Obama interview, quoting the president-elect to state “we’re going to have to spend money now to stimulate the economy.” In other words, a perpetual effort to save the pretended economy will (in each successive phase) cost us far more, and far more again, than it would to rectify it (which would cost us nothing):

By Jeff Mason

CHICAGO (Reuters) ??The United States government should not worry about deficits over the next two years while spending money to jumpstart the ailing economy, President-elect Barack Obama said in a television interview that aired on Sunday.

Obama, a Democrat who takes over from President George W. Bush, a Republican, on January 20, said consensus had emerged between economists in both major U.S. political parties that expensive measures were necessary to avoid a deep recession.

“The consensus is this, that we have to do whatever it takes to get this economy moving again, that we have to ??we’re going to have to spend money now to stimulate the economy,” he told the CBS television network’s 60 Minutes news program.

“And (consensus is) that we shouldn’t worry about the deficit next year or even the year after; that short term, the most important thing is that we avoid a deepening recession.”

The “consensus” of which Mr. Obama speaks of course is comprised solely of practitioners of a pseudo-science, which, without conclusive or even qualified argument, and without accountability, itself simply steadfastly supports perpetuation of a process which can only multiply artificial sums of debt all the further, until we succumb to a terminal sum of debt.

Obama’s campaign slogan pledged that he wanted us to believe in his ability to change Washington, he wanted us to believe, under his presidency, in ours.

There is of course no more appropriate or vital area of concern than the people’s right and ability to solve the present monetary issues. Where then will we see the manifestation of this pledge?

I frankly don’t know what would compel the man to pursue real solution. All evidence regarding my attempts to convey solution to the Obama Campaign and Transition team may be obstructed by “economic” insiders, who obviously can stand no challenge to the course they will stay, particularly if real solution is upheld by irrefutable arguments.

There is but one solution nonetheless to inflation, deflation, and inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt by interest. Given that solution either cannot reach our president to be, or that he cannot or will not assimilate it, let’s do the math of his proposed course.

The Gross Domestic Product is supposed to be $1 trillion. The federal government is already piling up a $1 trillion in deficits. So the prospect of “bailing out” a system which can only multiply debt ever further, is to increase the deficits, accumulating yet further debt on the federal side of the ledger. So, at the eleventh hour of the finite lifespan of an “economy” which, for the unearned benefit of a few, can only multiply debt in proportion to the sustaining circulation, we are going to contribute to the rate of multiplication.

Smart move? Absolutely not. What are the ramifications?

The whole reason “credit is drying up” however, is the system of exploitation inherently comprises two simultaneous processes, one of deflation, and one of replenishing the circulation of the deflationary process.

When the replenishing aspect cannot be performed to the equivalent of the deflationary aspect, “credit dries up,” and we go under. How does this happen; and is it even possible to recover from a terminal manifestation of conditions which make it impractical to loan sufficiently to maintain a vital circulation?

First of all, what are these necessarily simultaneous deflationary and replenishing aspects?

A central banking system principally usurps the role of real creditor, to impose a currency in which the central bank issues the debtor’s promise to pay, and charges the debtor and subject system infinitely, for the issuance of those promises. Not only does this not contribute to the integrity of the promises, the arrangement itself guarantees the promises eventually cannot be fulfilled.

The currency of such a system thus is introduced to circulation as a debt subject to interest. With the full obligation of every such “debt” thus being comprised of principal and interest, there is a perpetual deflationary aspect of the circulation in which more than exists in circulation as principal is paid out of circulation in the way of principal and interest. Thus the constant deflationary aspect depletes the circulation of more circulation than exists, and so, because the principal and interest both must exist at some time if the resultant obligations are to be repaid altogether, and because it is not even possible to service the resultant obligations if a vital circulation is not maintained, an equal replenishing aspect must exist, with this being comprised of re-borrowing whatever principal and interest is paid out of the general circulation; and with this re-borrowing thus perpetually increasing the sum of debt so much as periodic interest on the ever greater sum of debt.

Thus the sum of debt increases at an inherently escalating rate, until such a sum exists that even the entire circulation would be dedicated singularly to servicing debt. None then remains to sustain the industry; but as industry has obligatory costs as well, the maximum practical lifespan of every such system falls short of a maximum possible lifespan, in which the whole circulation would be dedicated to servicing debt.

Thus it is in these final stages of the finite lifespan of every such system that the replenishing aspect cannot be performed to the equivalent of the deflationary aspect. Why not? Because, to maintain the circulation to that point in the lifespan, we have borrowed so much that the sum of debt already taxes us to our limits.

Obama and his “consensus” of exploitation are hoping instead that imposing further debt upon you will serve you. But at the brink of failure under already terminal sums of debt, you either rectify the system, or you suffer collapse.

Transforming the present system into mathematically perfected economy? on the other hand will a)?cost us nothing; b)?apply interest paid so far against principal (vastly reducing the sum of debt); c)?refinance all debt without interest and to a schedule of payment equal to the rate of depreciation/consumption (reducing payments against existent debt approximately 12 fold, and eliminating inflation/deflation); and d)?make illimitable funding available to sustain further industry, versus continuing the expatriation and destruction of existing industry.

The only question is rhetorical: whether our true power to rectify Washington still exists.

RELATED MATERIAL

1. Obama says aiding economy trumps budget deficit (Reuters, Jeff Mason)
2. SYNOPSIS ??MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY? REDUCED TO ITS BAREST THREAD
3. [?KEY?]??IF I WERE PRESIDENT ??HOW TO ARREST WORLD WIDE MONETARY COLLAPSE IN A DAY
4. PROBABILITY AND TIMELINE FOR WORLD-WIDE ECONOMIC COLLAPSE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF INTEREST
5. EVALUATION OF JEFFERSON’S OPINION ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A NATIONAL BANK

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

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

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

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

http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2008/11/17/re-reuters-obama-says-aiding-economy-trumps-budget-deficit/

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE? FORUM:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewtopic.php?f=93&t=161

[END PERMALINK(S)]

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

MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY? AND GLOBAL WARMING

A politician who shall remain un-named, writes:

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

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

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

[end of excerpt]

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

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

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

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

PFMPE? REPLY

This was my reply to his appeal:

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

My proposition to you however is this:

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

What I’m getting at is this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RELATED MATERIAL

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

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

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

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

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

http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2008/11/13/mathematically-perfected-economy-and-global-warming/

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE? FORUM:

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

[END PERMALINK(S)]

Those who claim regulation is the issue have no leg to stand on. There is of course no reasonable dream of regulating away the iniquities of inherently multiplying debt, without eradicating the very thing we might regulate. So long as the primary process takes unearned profit, terminal culmination of the process is ensured by the fact that either by greater increments or by lesser, irreversible multiplication of debt in proportion to the obligated circulation eventually exceeds the finite potential of the circulation to service debt. mike montagne

BASIC EFFECT OF MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY? ON STOCK MARKETS

One of the facades we are forced to strive against is the unqualifiable proposition that money multiplies wealth.

By drawing the masses to the superficial allure of this false appeal, in fact their wealth is thus exposed to the most omnipotent means of exploitation, to which it is eventually lost. Accepting the lie even as a principle, and pitted against the escalated exploitation of a pretended monetary system which inherently multiplies debt at escalating rates, so the masses in turn engage in exploiting each other at escalating rates, for it is impractical either to out-exploit or so otherwise defeat privatization of pretended monetary systems, which of course are imposed for the very purpose of multiplying debt in proportion to the circulation, to our ever greater disadvantage, and ultimate ruin.

But so, for the escalation of the underlying, omnipotent process (served first), the people are compelled to compete against a greater, perpetually escalating thing which can only defeat them, however much they might exploit each other.

Against a process which can only multiply debt in proportion to the circulation, and which can only leave ever less of the circulation to sustain the industry which is obligated to service a multiplication of debt ever farther beyond our means or even potential means, a vain people thus hope to exploit themselves, to ostensibly prosper by actually making themselves a drain on prosperity. Yet the greatest drain, and the drain which will be served first and to the dispossession of all, is the privatization of the currency.

The religion of a duped people thus not only becomes exploitation, but a perpetual escalation of exploitation. Committed to this process, they become in fact committed to produce nothing; and so, to an ever greater degree, their escalated exploitation is pitted against itself, competing for proportionately less, and eventually competing then even the nothing which can eventually survive the escalating multiplication of debt, which from the beginning, they wrongly presumed to comprise a worthy foundation for justice.

In the zeal they must engage in so long as they hold to their first mistake, thus at least some of them presume to take from all the rest, to the greatest degrees possible, by whatever advantages serve no more than exploitation. In the only possible manifestation of this zeal then, the principle of free enterprise itself is destroyed, as greater portions of finite tokens of wealth are distributed not to real industry, but to those who can take the fruit of our doings by whatever means they can simply devise.

From the very beginning then, respect for law and principle fell by the wayside, while in the end, the inevitable failure of the omnipotent process which multiplies debt upon the whole of us poses the simple, fundamental question still, “Do we survive by exploitation, or do we survive by production ??and thus, only by a system which sustains and rightly distributes all the production we are capable of?”

These of course are opposing propositions; and so, as a consequence of the first, purposed obfuscation, we dispose ourselves to failure.

In all the ineptitude which is built upon the first wrong principle, the dupes of this facade further presume wrongly, that the survival of the arenas of exploitation is vital to their survival. They believe wrongly in other words, only so far as they are committed to participate in this exploitation, that the survival of their exploitation is vital to perpetuation. When “the markets” prosper; they prosper; and when “the markets” tumble, they too fall from Humpty Dumpty’s wall.

We cannot have that, they say: the arenas of predation must be preserved from their collapse; and we must preserve against the same collapse, the institutions which impose a currency upon us which can only multiply debt into collapse.

Thus, nothing is more self destructive than the simple lie that wealth can be multiplied, for it engenders all the false beliefs which turn from the underlying, omnipotent fact that a form of currency which can only multiply debt into terminal debt will prevail over all the less monumental ways we can exploit each other to death.

The “economies” of the world are not failing because they are just, or right. They are not dispossessing the people of their own production because they serve the people. Governments across the world are not evading debate of mathematically perfected economy? because those governments represent the people. All this exists because we tolerate privatization of the currency for the very purpose of exploitation, and because the process of exploitation irreversibly multiplies debt in proportion to vital circulations, until it imposes terminal sums of debt.

The process and the usurpations which serve it therefore are terminal; and so it would be the greatest disgrace to intelligent, truly self ruling publics, that while they remain capable and willing as ever to render production from available resources, “the world’s” “economies” fail.

In the spirit of the first lie, we call all this “finance,” and “investment.” But it is neither. “Finance” is to impose a form of currency which can only impose disposition all along the short way to terminal debt. “Investment” is a mere gambling arena, which reflects not the health of the subject industry, but its very destruction, and the destruction of those who must depend on sustainable industry.

In all this purposed confusion, there are an incredible many who oppose even discussing the mathematic perfection of economy, because of course they anticipate it would be the end of their wrong way. Merely hoping, to the deepest stages of collapse even, to evade the inevitable consequences of unassented “monetary systems” which can only impose collapse, they want to preserve exploitation to the demise of all, only because they intend only to depend on exploitation.

The idea of preserving both the underlying system of exploitation by the imposed subversion of the currency, and the subservient systems of exploitation which remain subject to that, appeals to them ??particularly as they hope not to pay the far greater, further costs of preserving each, but to pass those costs on to their very progeny.

So they resist solution, even ambitiously; and they do so even to their own destruction.

As we can only truly understand from all this however, the so-called markets must collapse when the imposed currency eventually generates sums of debt which we can no longer afford to service. Thus by taking from the true producers, on the backs of whom the sum of debt is serviced, the advocates of exploitation seal our fate.

Many of us nonetheless have our fates cast to the subject arenas insofar as retirement funds, insurance, and shares in company stock are concerned; and a general tendency is to presume here too that mathematically perfected economy? would destroy the falsely inflated values of these things, because mathematically perfected economy? provides alternate ways of funding which make the traditional corporation in fact a far less efficient or competitive way of “finance,” because dividends perpetually inflate the costs of production, and this cost is eliminated by mathematically perfected economy?.

It is true that mathematically perfected economy? eliminates those perpetual costs while providing unlimited capacities to finance all the industry we are capable of.

But inasmuch as the survival of the markets of exploitation is concerned, the tremendous liquidity which mathematically perfected economy? would immediately make available merely from re-financing existent debt without interest (under present, limited industry and income), would sustain “the markets” far better than a currency which can only engender near term, terminal debt.

So in fact, absolutely nothing can save us from present losses in these areas of concern as mathematically perfected economy?.

Moreover, because a transition to mathematically perfected economy? costs us nothing, and can be accomplished immediately, it is the only just course, which avoids imposing our ineptitude upon eternity.

RELATED MATERIAL

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

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

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

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

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

http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2008/11/12/basic-effect-of-mathematically-perfected-economy-on-stock-markets/ [END PERMALINK]

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE PFMPE? FORUM:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewtopic.php?f=88&t=149

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So yet, Ellen complains,

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

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

But since when is the Federal Reserve Act itself constitutional?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did derivatives multiply debt; or did interest?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are *some* “banks” failing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RELATED MATERIAL

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

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

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

ANSWER TO A QUESTION FROM NEW YORK — HOW TO DETERMINE THE VALUE OF MONEY “EXACTLY”

Among many good questions, Patrick Hedemark of New York is concerned with how (or whether) to determine the value of money “exactly.” I explain that no such method really exists (not even in a precious metal monetary standard), and that it’s not critical that we lack such a method:

1. The first thing to remember is that until a perfect system of determining the value of productive efforts is ascertained, it cannot be a just object of a monetary system or a government to impose an imperfect method of evaluation.

   Even if you make the value of a unit of money ostensibly equal to a fixed quantity of a finite substance such as gold, the truth is that the costs and derived value of every produced unit of gold are not equal.

   Some period of conditions may justify producing gold as necessary. Others may not. Why not let a truly free market determine the relative value of gold?

   In some cases, the market might justify producing more expensive gold for instance, after the less expensive gold is occupied by existent consumption. Yet if some day we intended to justly determine that it generally requires at least so much cost or effort to produce an ounce of gold, and if we make that the “value” of “money,” then that money thus cannot be a market-determined token of value of all things; nor can it be a market-determined value of gold.

   But if we have fixed the value of gold below a later, higher cost of production, we will have made it un-cost-worthy to render the production the market may yet later need. Thus, even by fixing a value which once was just, later, more expensive conditions of production may preclude prospective producers from mining gold for a future market, simply because the fixed price is insufficient to cover the costs of production.

   Can the whole valuation system change so that the fixed price can be accommodated by the market for gold?

   It is pretentious to assert any system has such a capacity unless all values and monetary commitments are perpetually adjusted to all such developments. In fact, no system but mathematically perfected economy™ provides such a mechanism, because only mathematically perfected economy™ provides truly free markets, and because only mathematically perfected economy™ makes it possible for each market both to determine and to fetch just prices, without affecting the value bases of all other markets.

2. Nor is any reasonable method of evaluation critical to mathematically perfected economy™.

   If the cost of productive effort is justified to both the consumer and producer, MPE™ alone sustains (without inflation/deflation or multiplication of debt) not only the transaction, but the work necessary to repay the monetary obligation.

3. Thirdly then, because the development of expedient and comprehensive methods of evaluation is useful to all of us in every prospective endeavor or transaction, we can and should develop and debate ideas, and we can refine an agreeable concept by solving for our differences.

   But even then, unless our ultimate method of determining value is perfect, have we a right, or is it even necessarily useful, that we impose it?

Just about anyone on the planet has spent most of their adult years again and again conjuring how to conceive of the relative value of what we do, in respect to the value of whatever each of the rest of us does. This thinking is all that justifies any endeavor or transaction. Some of us take the thinking seriously. Sometimes casual consideration suffices.

We may have heard ridiculously uncomprehensive concepts which are purported to account for value. In a certain case, a claimed 400 or some odd “scientists” for instance have endorsed making “energy” the currency of trade, without the first explanation of how we would justly do so; and so, as the following arguments invalidate the proposition of making time the unit of currency, so to do they invalidate mere energy as a singular basis of value. In the least, we are to understand that both are inappropriate because they do not account for all the vital factors which comprise value or justify production.

You want to consider making *time* the unit of the currency. Why won’t that work?

Let’s say you have X number of children, and you need them to weed the back yard. Being a fair man, you do your best to divide the yard, despite its different numbers and kinds of weeds and terrain, into an equal task for each.

How would you do this so that the ostensible value of their labors is equal? How would you take into account the exact difficulty of the makeup of the soil and the mixture of weeds so that indeed you gave them each an equal job?

Suppose you gave me an answer to your quest for a method of “exactly” determining value. The first thing I would ask you then is how you measured each of these things exactly? Did you count the weeds? Did you divide the yard into areas where the borders of the areas explicitly included the intended weeds? Did you test the difficulty *and time* required to pull each *different* weed out, complete with the roots of each?

You would probably answer, No, of course not. Why?

Practically without exception, we don’t even ascertain or measure the criteria exactly as would be vital to determining value “exactly”; and so in fact, no matter what you had answered, the principle of an ostensibly “exact” method of determining the alloted tasks isn’t even applied to the units of area, varied matter or conditions, or even the number of weeds. Likewise, do we count the studs in a home we are about to buy?

There is a good enough reason we don’t even try to account for all things exactly: First of all, we regularly can’t; but if you did, the job of accounting exactly for exactly all factors might be far greater than actually pulling all the weeds yourself.

So, because you can’t divide the yard into X areas that result in *an equal effort* for each of your children, which in turn results, with ostensibly equal work, in your children all *finishing in the same time*, neither can you say that you have figured the job so that *time* spent on the different parts of the job is of equal value. After all, your X children, starting at the same time, will not finish at the same time, because you haven’t even determined a way to make their time spent at the job of equal value/volume. But neither too, unless the production of each is the same periodically, would they finish at the same time, even if you had divided “the job” “exactly,” because neither is the effort they spend across time of exactly equal value.

Using time as a standard therefore does not determine equal work. Only in the most exceptional case in fact does it determine equal work, because people rarely work at exactly the same rate, or render production of exactly the same quality.

A perfect system of evaluation must take all these things into consideration, and account for them “exactly.”

After all, if one welder puts 4 10-inch Schedule 40 joints together in a day’s work, and if a second welder puts together 20, and if 1 of the first welder’s daily welds generally fails an X-ray at the refinery in which every weld must prove worthy, the re-doing of the first welder’s one failure a day may be more costly than the sum of the rest of their work (3 welds). If no one else is working to that standard, to the contractor who has bid on the job, that welder’s work is worth nothing, or it may even be rightly considered to have a negative value.

If on the other hand everyone else but the second welder works to that standard however, then generally, as it may generally be necessary to do the work of 8 welds (2 days’ production) to get 4 good welds (1 days’ attempted production), that’s the price of the labor/production the contracting outfit may be forced, by the trials and tribulations of welding, to contend with.

But that means the second welder — who comprises the lone exception — is doing 40/4 days of the general volume of production of “work” every day (per time). For the productive volume of their efforts then, are we not to pay them 10 times the wages of the other welders, which is indeed the comparative value of what they are producing for the contractor?

Well, in certain even potentially prevalent cases, this might not happen because the *hour* might be a selective simplification which serves the employer to cheat labor from justified pay. By bidding jobs on the low end of labor costs, and not rewarding productive labor, contractors can take substantial unearned profit.

The quality of the second welder’s work might be 10x as great as the usual welder’s as well. Shall we pay them 100 times as much as the usual welder then?

If the quality of the work exceeds the requirements of the job spec, then the contractor is not justified in doing so. But the contractor *is* justified in at least rewarding the more productive second welder relative to how much work they perform daily — especially as this reduces the risks of weld failure, and potential later, consequent costs to the contractor. The second welder is valuable. Their time is worth far more to their employer.

The welders are also exposed to dangerous gases, and to asbestos. Do we simply give them the same wage per hour that we award a student who hands pre-packaged hamburgers thru a drive-up window?

Anyone therefore who tells you they account for all factors exactly, which determine the value of productive effort exactly, is yanking your leg. In fact, in any system such as this, where the relative value of one thing can only be known by the relative value of all other things, until we have a comprehensive system for determining the “exact” value of everything, we do not have a comprehensive system for determining the “exact” value of anything.

In fact, we find that given values often are rightly even in flux if we account for the difficulties of production, which comprise periodic differences in the job of production. Therefore a purportedly “exact” method of determining value must account for these differences in the job of production.

Personally, I figure I’ve given as much quality effort to determining the value of production as anyone; and what I’m about to tell you is I see little sense, or benefit in trying to determine value with purported exactitude, particularly because even determining all the vital factors of each instance becomes such an intensive job itself — making the necessary determination of the relative value of all things ever more elusive and costly.

Ballistics for instance is a relatively exacting science; but it is not perfectly exact. We *can* determine the relatively exact minimum velocity of a throw a third baseman might have to make to first base. But is it necessary or conducive for the third baseman to make that determination in the midst of the play? No. Instead, by experience and training, they recognize when they must hurry a throw, and thus how much routine carefulness they must forfeit to try to make the out.

There are for us likewise, rules or principles we should follow.

I dismiss the idea that we should account for supply and demand, because on the contrary, the idea of supply and demand is merely a tool of exploitation: It does not determine the value of production; instead it determines the stress it can impose on a market deprived of the opportunity to decide the value of the work of production. The concept of supply and demand determining “value” therefore is a destruction of the concept of determining the value of production. That destruction can and will usurp earnings from the deserving while multiplying unfair prices to whatever degree the market can stand.

Supply and demand therefore is utter corruption both of the idea of determining real value, and of appropriate distribution of wealth (or just reward for production).

Your question is pertinent, and it is a goal we should have, at least in some cases which I mention subsequently.

But in my estimation, at least 3 things will go awry in the best efforts we can reasonably make to determine “exact” value:

1. no way will we truly account for all things exactly;
2. nor will the other guy with whom we’re trading;
3. and finally then, neither will *we* have any real basis to determine equality in the other’s work.

All we can do then is the best we can, with reasonable dedication to determination of approximate value.

Largely in fact, we are best assisted in this effort by the integrity of the society.

Only in a society where no one is seeking unearned profit, and where instead everyone is conscientious about the relative value of their own work, can we trust in the price they ask of their work.

Integrity therefore is the most valuable and expedient tool for determining value as “exactly” as is practical.

For ages, except as compelled by usury to seek unearned gain ourselves, we’ve settled for integrity determining value, because it gives us the opportunity to forego repeating all that determination ourselves without access to the many vital facts which would determine value.

Where there is integrity, instead we can trust that suspicion will be raised by some clue that the principle of integrity is violated. *Then* we the buyer can roughly determine approximate value, in fact actually appraising the integrity of the price asked.

The more unearned gain usury demands of us on the contrary, the more the subjects of usury themselves are driven to corruption, and the more we can trust instead that price involves maximal possible unearned gain.

An obvious penalty of usury therefore is destruction of integrity, because integrity is least likely to survive the penalties of usury.

In mathematically perfected economy™ therefore, the only penalty we suffer is whatever errors we make in trying to determine equivalence.

In the end, just as in dividing the task of weeding your yard, as the extra effort we may make in *trying* to determine exact equal value may very well exceed the small difference we are trying to determine “exactly,” we do better in terms of the time we give up by taking the loss of our rough estimation. Let your kids pick or draw the lots, or determine them among themselves.

So we resolve the issue more effectively be settling for what we cannot determine exactly, but can determine roughly or to sufficient satisfaction by simple means.

We know for instance that carpenters and plumbers and electricians and dry-wallers and roofers and so forth are involved in building the home we want to buy. None of these are equivalent to our own trade; neither if they were, is our work worth exactly what these practitioners’ is. But perhaps we are that second welder; and although the many contractors who gladly employ us keep us working all we need, no, they don’t pay us but a pittance of what we’re worth to them but by giving us a few overtime hours here or there. We accept that or we don’t. But if we do, we’re not going to get equal production for our production, are we?

Absolutely not.

But because we are paid at least somewhat better for our demanding class of work, at least we can buy our house for substantially less *time* than the workers who produced it put into it; and we don’t have to pay the bankers 3 houses to get our 1… for publishing a promise to pay we should issue ourselves.

If you or anyone else in history has a better idea, I’m all ears. But it isn’t to make time the unit of currency.

It is not the job of an economic system therefore to impose a method of determining value. Nor are markets free to determine value, if they are subject to usury or market manipulation by cost and demand through vehicles such as commodities trading.

The only truly free market therefore is mathematically perfected economy™, because only mathematically perfected economy™ eliminates all the redundant, unearned factors which exploit price to the detriment of the producer and ultimate market.

It is hogwash for instance that Austrian Economists — who in fact advocate interest — assert that if we leave determination of price to markets which are subject to interest or buyers of futures, “the market” resolves value.

On the contrary, unnecessary cost is imposed by exploitation. Only a market free of predation, and subject only to the real costs of production, is free first to determine the value of production, and secondly to distribute wealth justly (to acquire just reward for its endeavors).

Thus I do believe we should leave it to truly free markets to determine value; and I’ll tell you why:

First of all, that’s what the market wants to do: it wants to be free of predation; and it wants to be free to determine value. So why not let it?

Secondly, what’s going to happen with our second welder?

Given the minimal costs of mathematically perfected economy™, with the opportunity to readily afford going into business for himself, he can tell each contractor he works for that he will settle for a wage say 8 times the going rate for his fellow welders (taking 80 percent of his demonstrated value to make the working situation quite comfortable to his employer); or, to base his wage on production, making it even more conducive to the sanctity of his employers, he can divide a day’s wages by the usual 2 effective welds per day, and offer to take something like 80 percent of that per weld. In either case, the contractor is making an extra 20% profit over usual wages, and our second welder can at least make 80 percent of what he’s worth in terms of volume of production.

On the other hand, if the contractors refuse to give him that, he can buy a welding truck for a pittance under mathematically perfected economy™ and compete with the contractors by under-bidding their welding costs by 20%, and they can’t touch him while he makes a due comparative fortune for the efforts which make him excel at his craft.

A truly free market can indeed determine just value.

But where contracts can be purchased by corruption, or the dollar is subject to interest, or futures traders might fix the value of his work without any consideration whatever for its costs or real value — or denying him the opportunity to acquire the value of his work — just value and reward are only made impossible.

So to summarize…

1. No one determines value exactly;
2. If we had to wait for a perfect method of determining “value,” we would never have mathematically perfected economy™;
3. Not only is that prospective delay unnecessary then, it would be quite pretentious of us to conceive it is even worthwhile to try to determine value “exactly,” given even the likely errors of the many who would have to correctly apply the method, and the even higher costs of just trying.

You and all the rest of us have made do in terms of determining the relative value of our money, even as that money can only multiply debt into terminal debt, and even as that money is constantly devalued by the process which does so.

The most real possible value of money which is strictly a token of wealth however, is still merely relative, and approximate.

The best we can do so that the approximate value of money we have decided to our relative satisfaction is enduring however, is to eliminate multiplication of debt in proportion to the money, and to maintain a circulation which at all times is as equivalent as we can rightly determine, with the remaining value of the property which, across time, we intend for it to represent. This is why these are goals of mathematically perfected economy™, which of course have long been recognized goals of real producers, even if they have been made impossible by ages of usury.

Shall we continue paying “bankers” 3 houses for printing *our* promise to pay on *their* paper until the sum of debt was terminal yesterday?

Or shall we cut our losses to the small inconsistencies we have so far found agreeable in determining approximately equivalent value… especially as there may not even be any overall benefit in the potentially impractical task of “determining value exactly”?

“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)

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

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

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

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

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

RELATED EXTERNAL ARTICLES

1. businessspectator.com.au, NAB will shock Wall Street, 12:40 PM, 25 Jul 2008

“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)

Many people, and particularly many ostensible economists, presume to our peril that the First Great Depression was caused by the stock market crash.

The peril of this presumption is that in thinking a consequence is the cause, we fail to perceive the real cause, or its solution.

The stock market crashed in 1929 because of the same multiplying indebtedness per real value and potential capacity to service debt which spans the breadth of the pretended economy now.

Although the Great Depression precipitated from healthier statistics than plague us now, rather than saving, people were “investing” their spare money in so called securities on short term credit. The purported success of the market coerced the people to do so, because the temporary returns on “investment” far exceeded the returns for saving, and because devaluation of the dollar under multiplying indebtedness further reduced the relative value of savings.

But as is the present case, the dollar was not devalued by inflation. Rather, it was devalued by price inflation, resulting from multiplication of debt by interest and dedication of ever more of the circulation to servicing debt, versus sustaining the commerce which is obliged to service the debt. The underlying nature of the “money” therefore was the root cause of both erosion of the value of money, and the mounting probability that the subject commerce would fail under the unsustainable obligation to service a sum of debt which multiplies perpetually, as we necessarily replenish a circulation by re-borrowing interest and principal as ever greater sums of debt.

People therefore wagered their spare earnings in speculation. Having a small margin of typically say, 10 percent, they could borrow the remaining 90 percent to purchase “securities” on debts such as represented by 7, 10, 15-day promissory notes. At the conclusion of the short-term debt, they would sell the “securities,” and re-coup substantial unearned profit at the expense of the producers of wealth, as for instance if the artificially inflated value of the securities rose 10 percent, this would double the money they had invested.

We don’t have to be mathematic geniuses to see that in not long, this artificial inflation of the value of stocks/”securities” would create to the unwitting a deception that a magnitude of prosperity existed, while the prosperity itself was a small fraction of the debt the subject people had so multiplied upon themselves.

Seeing this disparity, or perhaps acting for the sake of their superior position to take, one day the private banks which comprise the so called Federal Reserve withdrew the further “credit” (perpetually self-multiplying debt) necessary to sustain the waiting “accident.” Oh, sure, in partnership with the so called Federal Reserve, the people had over-extended their credit-worthiness.

So suddenly having to market their “securities” to a market having only the margin in circulation… of course the market immediately crashed.

But why did it take down the rest of the purported economy with it? That’s the question.

The market crash took the rest of the purported economy down with it, because the whole system was so subject to debt. The collapse of this one sector, pushed the sector passed the brink of solubility; and so it was a collapse under excessive credit which brought the rest of the system down.

What are we to learn then from these combined conditions of falsely inflated values, sustained by perpetual excessive “credit”?

It is no more the sector which collapsed which signifies the probability of overall failure than it is a certain wave which crashed on the beach which caused the sun to set. No more can we find that wave to be the cause of sunsets the following day, than we can expect the pretended economy to fail but for any other reason than the nature of the currency, which inherently multiplies debt in proportion to the circulation.

Because a currency subject to interest multiplies debt in proportion to our potential to service debt, ultimately every such system fails under a mountain of insoluble debt it eventually can no longer service. And so, when any sector breaks, it may take all further sectors of a highly jeopardized system with it.

The peril of failing to understand the root cause is, that we may never be compelled to do anything about the nature of the currency.

We know for instance that the so called Federal Reserve has, for several decades, artificially buoyed stock prices — often even buying “government securities” with money these private banks publish at virtually no cost or risk whatever. Seeing this seems to sustain “markets,” we are lulled into a very false sense of security by this narrow range of “evidence,” for as we can readily see, behind the backs of those whose barometer is the “markets,” private and public debt both have multiplied to incredibly unsustainable magnitudes, to the detriment of the generations now and in the future, which are to pay the consequences.

If you were the first players to take turns at the Monopoly Board after the First Great Depression, you might think how wonderful all the unearned profit which can be taken by the first generation player, while the rest of us pay 50 prices just for rent, and while you might leave us too with all the public and private debt which has been accumulated to perpetuate the false, temporary proposition that the people benefit equally, generation after generation under usury.

Before or after the Second Great Depression then, we can finally come to understand that dispossession is the very purpose of the imposed, pretended economy; and that while “interest” inherently multiplies debt into terminal sums of debt, the reason the unassented systems are retained upon us is their original purpose — which is to take from us without justification, by perpetual multiplication of debt.

This Depression may or may not look like the last one to you. And you may think we have time because the so called markets are falsely sustained by infusions of cash. But the real issue is multiplying indebtedness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is that?

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

What drives up the costs of all things then?

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

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

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

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

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

Only mathematically perfected economy? achieves these goals.

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

RELATED EXTERNAL ARTICLES

1. How to stop the Great Crash of ‘08