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)

BLACK MONDAY — AUSTRALIAN BANK TO SHOCK WALL STREET

EXCERPT, businessspectator.com.au, 12:40 PM, 25 Jul 2008:

We need to understand of course that the “smartest” banks will be compelled to cut obvious impending losses first, and that the rest of “world’s” banking system will have to follow. If we understand that “interest” inherently and irreversibly multiplies debt in proportion to a circulation to inevitably terminal sums of debt… then unless the “banking” system again succeeds across the whole world in propping up a facade of sustainability by pouring free money into the deflation usury engenders, the events soon to follow are an indirect testament to inherent failure, and the fact only mathematically perfected economy™ can save us.

Rest assured however, that the banksters are hedging their bets that they can retain usury, even if usury inherently terminates itself, and with it, the hopes of sheeple.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE.

Thanks again to Mario Sikorski, Poland.

RELATED EXTERNAL ARTICLES

1. AUSTRALIAN BANK TO SHOCK WALL STREET — BusinessSpectator.com
2. The entire US banking system is insolvent — MATHABA.NET
   

“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)

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

The new nation was faced with obfuscations of how to pay the debts of the revolution. Alexander Hamilton proposed to concentrate otherwise undue power in a central government, which he asserted should “establish credit” by going into sufficiently impressive further sums of debt to private banks of foreign nations.

Never elaborating on the consequences of usury, or invalidating the plausibility of the people or government issuing its own, unsubjugated promises to pay… Alexander Hamilton simply insisted that “establishing credit” was necessary, particularly to acquire further “credit” to prepare for and engage in further conflicts.

Wisdom will immediately see the danger in this arrangement then; that vast wealth would be perpetually and exhaustively multiplied to certain private, foreign banks, which are simply forfeited the people’s right to contract between each other (which is all that money is); thus that by imposing involuntary servitude together with interest’s obligation to maintain a vital circulation, and particularly then, together with the power to withhold the further credit necessary to sustention at ever greater cost, these unassented “banks” are endowed outside and averse to any regular vehicle of representation, with the vast, unaccountable, limitlessly manufacturable power to dictate altogether the disposition, might, and therefore even the prevalence and failure of oppositions. The power so carelessly given then, is even the power to destroy all resistance to the untethered purposes of the power to perpetuate itself against us.

This illimitable, unassented access to power and wealth is what Hamilton’s so called Federalists actually wanted by his advocations that we borrow with the purported ambition of establishing credit.

But of course, because there is but one consequence of a currency subject to interest, Hamilton’s insisted course would make it ever more impossible to sustain the form of debt under which he sought to subjugate us. There would be practically nothing important eventually which such banks would not own or control, directly or indirectly.

Because Hamilton’s course could never compete with a truly representative monetary system… so, under the intentional guise of “necessary credit,” Hamilton misleadingly advocated what actually amounted to multiplying indebtedness, which he sought by simply evading the prospective fact of a singular genre of perpetually redeemable, representative, and readily available money. By the designs of this evasion, Hamilton promoted a tunnel vision disposed to self-multiplying indebtedness, with its attendant subversions of representation and deteriorations of social infrastructure. Pretending to understand himself that credit subject to usury is an advantage, Hamilton further sought to deceive us of the ever more destructive further proposition of actually seeking indebtedness, to the purported advantage of the impossible and destructive goal of proving a capacity to sustain ever greater self-multiplying debt.

In the pattern of all servants of usury and its attendant forms of unearned gain… Hamilton thus sought, by simply evading any genuine consideration of the one rectified design of money, to sell us to a form of debt which could only compel us to perpetually re-borrow interest and principal as ever greater sums of debt, merely to maintain a circulation. In the end, as Jefferson would project truly, this illegitimate and unassentable power above all others would make the banks the direct or indirect owners of all industry; would indebt our progeny to bankruptcy — and so, by the process of dispossession inherent to an inherently usurious currency… would ultimately leave our children homeless on the continent their forefathers had conquered in a revolution dedicated actually to liberation from all those attendant forms of unearned gain.

Fortunately then, Thomas Jefferson resisted these ulterior intentions, asserted by Hamilton on behalf of “banking” interests who hoped only to gut a sufficiently naive or un-united nation.

Because the intellectual challenges of Hamilton’s evasion and obfuscation were largely beyond President Washington and Vice President John Adams, Jefferson was the light by which to see, dragging along the weight of others, who, walking in their sleep, represented the naivete Hamilton hoped to exploit. But so, we might not have been a country long if President Washington had tended to any greater degree to reinforce Hamilton’s intended monetary miscarriages, even as Hamilton dedicated much effort to gaining and preserving not only Washington’s favor, but putrifying Washington’s and Adams’ cabinets until President Adams fired Hamilton’s relentless and probably well rewarded lackeys.

A hundred years later, we would see this same kind of effort succeed by betrayal of political promises, acting outside the intended channels of representation within the formation of the naive Wilson Administration. The later subversion of course would result in the creation of the falsely named “Federal Reserve” System — even exceeding Hamilton’s vehicle as a confederation of 12 private banks which are neither federal nor real reserves of anything.

Amidst these similar, earlier events, the back-stabbing, traitorous Hamilton would eventually be mortally shot in a duel with Jefferson’s Vice President, Aaron Burr — but not until Hamilton so succeeded in discouraging Jefferson from further enduring his relentlessly unjust assaults, that with Jefferson so much as retired from the senseless public bickering, Hamilton had his first “national bank” — the very kind of vehicle necessary to the destruction of the fledgling nation.

That bank of course soon failed under its intended, relatively unrestrained offenses against the people. But Hamilton sought, and to a substantial degree succeeded, in a triangle of evils: to indebt us, to militarize us, and to involve us in foreign conflicts which the record shows would have preserved the interest of the usurers he served.

Had Hamilton had his way across eternity, we would never understand that the people are the ostensible final authority, only instrument, and most deserving beneficiary of the one possible design for a perpetually redeemable currency. Hamilton instead would have had private, extrinsic parties issue our promises to pay each other — as Jefferson warned, at the perpetual cost of escalating dispossession, ensurance of usurpation, and gravest probability of ulterior strife.

How then should we have paid our debts to France?

The answer to this question rests not in perfect hindsight, but in principle: If in separating ourselves from subjugation to the Bank of England, we had re-financed all debt without interest and scheduled its payment according to the depreciation or consumption of the related assets, then not only could we alone in the world have guaranteed our creditor repayment, protected from devaluation by inflation, deflation, or multiplication of debt by usury… at the same time, at virtually no cost whatever, we could have financed all the industry and prosperity we were capable of, that we could have repaid our debt by retiring our additional promises to France from circulation with the least taxation of a perfectly sustainable, far superior volume of industry.

We would also of course have precluded private banks from multiplying their wealth all the further at our equally great cost, into the usurpation which eventually manifested in the so called Federal Reserve System.

In other words still, if mathematically perfected economy™ had emerged with the revolution, there would have been no actual monetary debt to France, because we would have paid for whatever we needed by issuing promises which would have been perpetually redeemable in the products of our industry — the integrity of which notes would have co-survived with the emergence of our nation.

As history therefore attests, the only solvent principle before us was to issue promises to pay to France; allow those promises to pay to be naturally redeemed in terms of our industry/wealth wherever those promises to pay would be honored; and to retire the notes from the circulation by taxation, to apply the costs of war justly, without redundant cost, and ultimately, without inflation.

At the end of Adams’ term, the country was deadlocked over the ensuing election. As he had already assaulted the character of many others for his masters’ ulterior purposes, Hamilton published a broadly read letter laced with rude ad hominems to discredit Adams, hoping the so called Federalists too would prevail over usury’s greatest rival, Jefferson. By a slim margin, Adams, the sitting incumbent, would not be re-elected.

Despite Hamilton’s vicious disinformation campaign, Jefferson achieved a tie of the electoral vote, and the decision between the eventual President Jefferson and Vice President Burr fell to Congress. Jefferson privately warned Adams that if the “Federalist conspirators” prevailed, violence would erupt. After thirty-three consecutively tied votes, hoping only to appease or disarm Hamilton’s destructive following, President Adams asked the popular Jefferson to honor a national debt subject to usury, asserting what they both knew — that this would defuse the ulterior thrust for unearned gain championed by Hamilton’s intended obfuscation, that the government would fall not to Hamilton’s “Federalists,” but to the ever honorable Mr. Jefferson.

Yet even to this reassurance Jefferson replied, “I will not enter office with imperfect freedom to follow the dictates of my own judgment.”

Immitators of our pages are advocating how to fight foreclosure. I’ve been telling people what they need to do at this time since before I published a formal proof of inherent failure under interest and proof of mathematically perfected economy™ in 1979.

What Americans have to do is contest the constitutionality of the currency. You need to assert that the imposed circulation can only impose the present conditions of failure upon us, and, that if a given private entity has such a right as to issue infinite irredeemable promises to pay, that as no private citizen/entity can have rights deprived to others, your creditors must therefore be bound at least to accept *your* irredeemable promise to pay infinity in solution of the monetary obligation which you have been coerced to accept.

Why?

Because the illegal and adverse form of the currency imposes multiplication of debt upon you; because multiplication of debt makes it ever more impossible, and eventually impossible, to service the debt; and because not even the federal government abides by its obligations to service the multiplying sum of debt.

According to a Telegraph.co.uk article by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Germany and India have engaged in a vital, world leading position against commodities trading.

Why is this development vital and ground-breaking?

The article has diverse political entities responding to a doubling of oil prices over the past year:

The regrettable thing is that a principle is not recognized until “trading” results in millions starving until the food they produce fetches the required unearned profit from them, or artificial escalation of fuel prices drive us to the brink of bankruptcy.

The facts however are simple:

1. On the one hand, the world is subject to imposed monetary systems which multiply debt in proportion to possible means to service debt, so much as we are forced to maintain vital circulations by re-borrowing principal and interest obligations as an ever escalating sum of debt.
2. On the other hand, we have “commodities traders” finding the most extreme excesses of unearned profit imaginable, which from the finite profit reaped from anything, leaves all the less to be realized by those who deserve just profit from their work.

Rather than solve the problem by eradicating unearned profit, the cited Democrats are asking only to place hurdles in front of most extreme and broadly damaging cases. But if those are unjust, why not eliminate all the injustices by outlawing the crime afflicting us everywhere? Is the crime only a crime in the most extreme cases?

No. It is the same crime in every case. Is stealing not a crime if we do it once, but only if we do it 50 times over, or against everyone so much that we engender “economic” failure, or the starvation of millions?

It is important for us to understand in the present times that Franklin Roosevelt did not solve the causes of the First Great Depression.

The First Great Depression was precipitated on the heels of the 1929 stock market crash, which itself was brought about by loaning vast, ever greater sums into circulation for market speculation, and then, under the multiplication of debt in proportion to real value which this inflation engendered, one day determining that the speculators had exceeded the bounds of credit-worthiness.

The whole of the problems to which Roosevelt never even replied therefore (because he had no solution), are soluble: ostensible market values were artificially bloated by inflation, which itself was sustained only by multiplying artificial debt. Because the continual escalation of purported value was only sustained by continuous availability of short term credit, *the market could only fail when the Federal Reserve withdrew the availability of further credit*.

The facts of the matter then are that the private banks which comprise the so called Federal Reserve caused the First Great Depression; and that because the privatized currency can only multiply debt in proportion to a circulation, termination is inevitable under an eventual terminal sum of debt, whether the private banks prematurely determine they have destroyed credit-worthiness or not.

Roosevelt did not solve the underlying problems. He simply resurrected the failed system by restoring credit (overriding inherent destruction of credit-worthiness by the system) and by initiating programs which were sustained by introduction of circulation. He left the form of the privatized circulation intact; and therefore, he so much as initiated the second lifespan of the same system, to be concluded yet again when, to maintain a circulation, we have re-borrowed so much interest that the sum of debt once again exceeds us.

All three major religions drawing from the Old Testament, renounce unearned gain. Yet at the hand of a monetary system which itself purposely devalues the currency for unearned gain, many of us are at least defensively driven to a perpetual battle competing for unearned profit at cost to all the rest, even as in the end, only the monetary system can profit when the music ultimately stops.

All the while, perpetual devaluation of the currency through perpetual multiplication of debt will not only ultimately stop the music, but, for the subjects of the system, will reduce the prospects, both of earned and unearned profit, eventually to nil. Thus in the monetary obligations which are left, the usurpers of the authority to publish a virtually costless “money” subject to “interest,” make themselves the collectors of all the chips which must be forfeited to them when we cave in under the perpetual escalation of their unearned takings.

So, we are driven to this battle for unearned gain, even by the fatality of it.

This morning, Mario Sikorski sent a post which well projects from current trends what many correspondents have been telling us for decades. We should know these things of course, because inherent multiplication of debt by interest can only engender the wild vacillation we are about to see described as if it is a mundane and even advantageous process. But why should we know the adverse consequences of all these forms of unearned taking? Because interest-bearing monetary systems inherently and irreversibly multiply debt in proportion to a circulation. Their maximum practical lifespans therefore are readily projected by accumulating the interest we must re-borrow into circulation to maintain a circulation, until we find the day when the sum of debt they inevitably multiply exceeds the very possibility of sustaining the commerce which is obligated to further service it. So, the death throes actually and accurately described by the following post are foreseeable.

In the end, the whole point of drawing a perception of these simple process together however, is to understand that any practical/intrinsic rate of interest multiplies debt into a terminal sum of insoluble debt. From this, we understand that no practical rate of interest is exempt from producing termination, because in the least, the very intention of imposing such systems is to impose such rates of interest as inherently multiply debt in proportion to the circulation. This is the intended vehicle of unearned profit, and whole raison de etre of every such system. And so we understand ultimately that for all the subjects of the system, unearned taking is ultimately self defeating, because to engage in it versus eradicate it is to perpetually fail to address a problem which will defeat all the combatants but the usurer of the circulation. The only way to solve the problem which will defeat all of us therefore, is to eradicate not only interest, but any other manifestation of unearned gain — any and all forms of which defeat the very idea of just reward for actual production of wealth.

While the following post of course is exemplary regarding the potential determinability of this kind of projection, it even matters not whether its figures are accurate. What matters is the cycle of strife and cost it well and succinctly depicts, because every ostensible gain is in fact balanced by the very loss the information only hopes to avoid. Yes, it can succeed in a relative sense to what losses are imposed upon the whole subject system. But it can succeed only to a relative, diminishing degree of suffering less of the overall loss; and only so long as the outer system has not finally destroyed the *practical* value of the intended vehicle. Some day soon enough for instance, leaving the outer process to prevail over all such unproductive, eventually futile defensive efforts, an ounce of gold may not be “worth” a tomato, or half-ounce of lead. So, it is the very inconsistencies and instability of the underlying usury system which engender all the resultant and otherwise redundant study, activity, competition, and perpetual unaccounted re-evaluation of all things… all to the ultimately self destructive process of never ending all this waste and self destruction, by instead asserting solution:

How self destructive is it for us to focus on out-competing a system which itself can only extinguish all competitors?

The answer to that question is not so difficult as you might imagine, because, as its destruction is self escalating, *how long we allow it to afflict us* determines the degree to which we shall suffer further.

In the tunnel vision which is dedicated only to cannibalism, for the ever more temporary sake of ever fewer, we only escalate the end. Before you know it, gold bugs are insisting we return to the gold standard, hoping to “make” a fortune; or “investors” in nuclear technology are arguing against clean solar or wind implementations, not on the real overall merits of either, but on costs established by temporary and artificial conditions which make the right choices impossible only because the undesirable choices serve the few who will so ambitiously undermine representation to preserve their unearned taking.

If we mature beyond this such self destructive short-sightedness, it will only be because we finally realize that all unearned taking is destructive to earnings. All unearned taking disposes us not to solution, but to self destruction.

If we ever allow ourselves to deliver monetary justice, then alone will truly free markets determine a fitting value of gold. Then alone too would we have long ago embarked on the course of energy independence which yes, would have avoided wars fought on the unnecessary behalf of big oil. Only under monetary independence, free of unearned taking, do we restore to ourselves even the option of making the right decisions, because then alone are those decisions determined by natural, relevant factors, versus who particularly is satisfied with their conduit of unearned take.

So a caveat should be reserved against the last assertion. What if “recovery” involves processes which are sufficiently deterred or delayed, that the survival of the vehicle is impossible?

That question however is far too narrow, because it is necessary for us to preserve so many further things to even sustain ourselves; and because even all the vehicles at our disposal have no power to sustain even minimal industry against a monetary system which inherently culminates in systemic bankruptcy.

The oddest thing about this question however is that the respondent will usually say, “But gold cannot be destroyed.”

Ay, it can’t. But so many other things can; and still, only a just monetary system can preserve a reasonable value of gold, by preserving a reasonable value of all other things, so that value of gold can itself be preserved.

In his FortBendNow article, “Paul Calls For Hearings On Falling Dollar’s Impact On Oil,” John Pape sustains our cause by reporting that “In the face of $4 per gallon gasoline and predictions the price will rise to $7 by the end of summer, Congressman Ron Paul (R-Lake Jackson) is calling on Congress to explore how the weakened value of the dollar may be contributing to the rise in oil prices.”

To his credit of course, Mr. Paul is nearly a lone congressional voice against the escalating foul play of our day. I agree with Congressman Paul, who according to Pape says that, “Congress should be examining *all* factors contributing to the high cost of oil, and monetary policy is one of the key factors in the run-up in price.” I would hope even to testify at such a hearing, not just regarding monetary policy, but to provide the theoretical background by which we can understand further vital factors, such as so called commodities trading, explicitly because, given that we can perfect monetary policy so that the monetary system itself will not drive up prices or devalue the currency, the vast potential unearned profits of trading for instance have the potential as well to inflict artificial damages even exceeding a captive market’s resilience.

If we’re to have such hearings then, are they merely to inadvertently pick the alternate poison, merely for not even considering it?

What we really need to do today is decide the principles on which we can sustain all the prosperity we are capable of; and the people should be fully educated and involved in that process. A public mandate exists already, not to be cast to a different wolf by default; but to eradicate unearned profit so that decent, respectable work can be rewarded to the extent it deserves.

In the interests of that need, although we do need both to hold these hearings and host the full breadth of relevant issues, we need too to recognize that if we project from the last 100 years the rate at which Congress has progressed toward mastering the breadth of related issues… it may be that the principal reason to hold those hearings is to prove the incompetence and disservice of Congress to follow the original course prescribed by the Declaration of Independence.

But so indeed, let’s get that done as well.