PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™ : the singular integral solution to 1) inflation and deflation, 2) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and 3) inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt in proportion to a circulation.
mike montagne's mathematically perfected economy™ BLOG
YOU ARE VIEWING ARTICLES IN THE FOLLOWING CATEGORY (SELECT CATEGORIES FROM THE DIRECTORY, RIGHT):
mike montagne’s mathematically perfected economy blog » theory and implementation
The suggested method of browsing the articles of this blog is to select the mathematically perfected economy™ category from the blog directory (right). All articles are included in this category. Each page (top and bottom) will provide links to earlier sets of articles, which will allow you, page by page, to browse all content.
ARCHIVE FOR THE ‘theory and implementation’ CATEGORY
As to solution, I hope we can agree on that some day, or for all the things which are not solution, this country is lost.
mike montagne (corresponding with Ellen Hodgson Brown)
OPEN LETTER TO GLOBAL RESEARCH ON THE CONTROVERSY WITH ELLEN HODGSON BROWN
The following email was written to Global Research regarding their promotion of Ellen Hodgson Brown’s purported solution of the present monetary crisis — which proposition of hers she well knows has already been invalidated at the provided URLs:
PFMPE™
Saturday, October 18, 2008, 10:29 AM
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: ARTICLE SUBMISSION
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 10:28:43 -0700
From: mike montagne
Reply-To: Organization: PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™
My October 14 article proposing a fact of singular, absolute solution (”how to arrest world wide monetary collapse in a day”) jumped to the top of our page visitation stats in less than 2 days:
I hereby grant Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) permission to reprint this article in whole or in part on your web pages. Further analysis and debate of its principles is also welcome.
Also, please be advised that I have already disputed and invalidated the principle of Ellen Hodgson Brown’s recent purported solution as published in your article, http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10589 (of which I am apprised by one of our most competent visitors). In this article, Ms. Brown asserts what amounts to a proposition of just taxation, levied in the form of interest upon those to whom no connection with consumption of particular government programs is established. Note that she formerly claimed wrongly this was a purpose of the colonial Pennsylvania Currency, co-authored by Benjamin Franklin. My article, “Opinion On The Pennsylvania Currency Advocated by Ellen Hodgson Brown in ‘Web of Debt’,” (http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-ellen-hodgson-brown-web-of-debt.html) thoroughly disproves her false assertions, and moreover points out the improprieties of levying taxes in such a way. Note further that not only was she unable to defend her assertions, she has gone on to pretend those assertions comprise solution in the very article you have just published.
Therefore I also grant you permission to publish both of my invalidations of Ellen Hodgson Brown’s assertions regarding the present monetary collapse:
I insist that you give these matters very serious attention, for it is the worst kind of distraction and it is the most irresponsible behavior in fact, to hear purported experts (whose only claimed expertise is not mathematics, modeling, or theory, but “research” [of existent propositions already disproven]) shouting again and again this or that is solution, particularly when they have already proven unable to answer for the critical flaws they propose.
In regard to the truth buried beneath that matter, I am the original author of the much copied or emulated thesis that any purported economy subject to interest ultimately terminates itself under insoluble debt. In fact I provided the Reagan Administration computer models capable of calculating the maximum possible lifespan of any economy subject to interest ? which models not only projected Mr. Reagan’s tripling of U.S. national (federal) debt over two terms, but which projected from 1983 numbers, a terminal accumulation of aggregate U.S. debt and plausible word-wide monetary failure (if the form of currency was to then retained across the world) at approximately 2010 AD.
You can still download those models, complete with source code, from our pages. You can examine the source for logical flaws… whatever. But in fact the projections concur with real accumulation of debt.
In 1979 furthermore, after speaking about mathematically perfected economy™ for ten years prior, I published a mathematic proof that there is one and one only integral solution to the categoric faults imposed by contemporary, purported economies. Note also, that Ms. Brown (and no one else as well) has invalidated that singular solution for 1) inflation and deflation, 2) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and 3) inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt in proportion to a circulation ? which, altogether, we call mathematically perfected economy™. Her crude attempts to kludge together unqualified and already invalidated purported solutions therefore is in my opinion (and that of our supporters) a most irresponsible continuation of mere pretension.
I understand that Global Research may therefore feel itself put in an awkward position if you were to publish the invalidations of Ms. Brown’s unqualified and unjustified late-coming theses. But I also trust you realize it would be far more awkward and irresponsible to fail to do so, knowing full well the unscientific behavior of such evasion/exclusion, and its consequences.
I therefore hope you will publish at least the first of these articles, if not all three.
Should you desire to discuss this matter with me, I can be reached at [telephone deleted for privacy] (Pacific Time), or at Skype ID, [Skype ID deleted for privacy]. I welcome your call by either method.
Warm regards,
mike montagne
founder, PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™; author, mathematically perfected economy™ (1979)
In truth, by the nature of the monetary obligations which have been imposed upon us, the central banking system *already* makes itself the real owners of all indebted production until the whole of an eventually impossible monetary obligation comprised of interest plus principal is completely fulfilled.
The dispossession we are presently suffering and about to suffer are actually therefore, merely a finalization of the original misappropriation of justice.
Her proposition of solution has already been invalidated by my cited articles. But moreover, no element of her proposal actually reverses damages suffered so far to now (and potentially beyond), as prescribed by my article, “If I Were President…”
Once again then, Ellen Hodgson Brown leads us astray from solution. Worse, she does so knowingly, because she has already been apprised in the discourse of the cited articles that her assertions were not solution. It is she in fact who failed to respond with any defense whatever for her disproven assertions, but for retracting certain invalidated elements.
Yet she persists in the very same effort to retain concepts of a central bank and obfuscated interest/taxation upon posterity, which only obstructs us from real solution.
If the reader will digest my cited articles then, I suggest it will be obvious that Ms. Brown has never constructed a reasonable working model of her thesis; and that you will know this from any of the many critical questions which she fails here as well still to answer.
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:
Because so many people are waiting for this article, I’m announcing here as well that I just posted “If I were President…” to the main PFMPE™ site. This article explains how I would arrest world wide monetary collapse in a day, and establish real economy in little longer:
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:
Real leadership means to correctly define the actual problem — and then — to correctly prescribe the actual solution.
Patrick Hedemark
RON PAUL CORRECTS HIMSELF REGARDING THE CAUSE OF MONETARY FAILURE
Saturday, October 4, 2008, 1:23 PM
In the wake of the meaningless and useless idea our problems have been engendered by “printing money out of thin air,” Ron Paul may evidently be correcting himself.
No fact of course has sustained his long term claim that we have suffered [circulatory] “inflation.” In fact, all the while he has attributed our precipitous decline and devaluation of the dollar to an inflation he has never shown exists or can be such a cause, we have only suffered from severe, perpetual deflation.
We have of course nonetheless, suffered price inflation. Yet the price inflation we suffer therefore can only be caused not by the inexpensiveness of the currency (for crying out loud) or excessive circulation (which doesn’t exist), but instead by inherent multiplication of debt by the nature of the currency: As the costs of servicing perpetually escalated sums of debt erode margins of solubility, of course industry has to increase its prices or move to countries which permit slave labor forces — both of which are manifestations of inherent multiplication of debt by interest.
Perhaps we can all be encouraged then that in a recent interview with Alex Jones over the proposed bailout, Mr. Paul appears at least hypothetically to agree we need more money in “the economy.”
This of course would contradict his previous claims we suffer an excessive circulation, and that the present malaise is caused by that non-existent excessive circulation. Nonetheless he asserts in his first statement of the above YouTube interview, that if we had more money in circulation we would all be “a lot richer” (more solvent).
He says further that he “would permit the liquidation of debt to continue.”
Now we may ask of course, Why would that be, if it weren’t that some otherwise irreversible cause of escalating debt weren’t our problem? After all, we all recognize our problem is the privatized currency so deceptively called a “Federal Reserve System.” But what is the answer? Leaving “competing” private banks to charge interest for *our* promises to pay *each other* — interest which will likewise multiply debt into insoluble, terminal sums of debt?
We already have that; and that very thing of course is the engine of the brink of failure under artificial sums of debt.
Thus Mr. Paul’s remarkable turnaround, in potentially acknowledging at least that it is for a lack of sufficient circulation (and an essential dedication of that circulation to servicing debt) that we suffer, could put us far closer to agreement and potential solution, because Mr. Paul and his supporters cannot have it both ways: Either we benefit from a circulation which a) is sufficient to sustain production and trade of all the wealth we are capable of producing; and b) is wholly dedicated to that purpose (versus servicing ever more unearned interest, collected by an uninterested, extrinsic party which produces and risks nothing, destroys the integrity of the currency, and ultimately collapses the whole system *by* a form of currency which can only multiply debt in proportion to the circulation); or c) we somehow benefit from a restricted circulation (which is the very condition from which we are about to suffer collapse).
To answer this question with integrity, Mr. Paul will have to account for the ramifications of interest. Does [any practical implementation of] interest [for the purposes interest is generally imposed] inherently multiply debt in proportion to a vital circulation, eventually to inevitable collapse under terminal sums of debt? Is it even possible to solve inflation and deflation under any form of currency subject to interest?
Mr. Paul has never told us how so. But of course, the latter is impossible because interest requires us to pay out of the circulation, more than was introduced to represent the original value of financed wealth; and the very present accumulation of debt should suffice to compel serious evaluation of the former.
All Mr. Paul has to realize then is that:
Price *or* circulatory inflation and deflation can only be solved by maintaining a circulation which at all times is equal to the remaining value of the wealth it is intended to represent.
It is impossible then to do that if the circulation is subject to interest, because interest requires that we pay more out of the circulation than the remaining value of the wealth we intend to represent.
Only by paying off monetary obligations *equal* to the original value of the financed wealth then, and only by paying off those monetary obligations at the rate of depreciation or consumption, can we do so.
As any conventional implementation of interest (for the sake of unearned profit) can only multiply debt in proportion to a vital circulation (and the costs of all subject industry in proportion to a vital circulation), the only solution of price inflation and inherent multiplication of debt is eradication of interest.
As all other offenses of such a monetary system comprise systemic manipulations of the cost or value of money or property, and as all these offenses manifest only from any possible combination of the first and third offenses, then systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property can only be solved by a combination of the first and third aspects of solution.
All this of course comprises the very principles and prescription of mathematically perfected economy™; and this of course is why mathematically perfected economy&trade is the one integral solution for 1) inflation and deflation, 2) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and 3) inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt in proportion to a circulation.
These are the things Mr. Paul should be thinking about. To fall short of this one integral solution is no less than to deny the people of the world should be able to pay for each others’ production with equal measures of their production.
In other words, to fall short of integral solution is to deny us the very opportunity to pay for a $100,000 home with a 100-year lifespan with an equal measure of our own production; or $1,000 per year; or $83.33 per month.
There would be no housing crisis; there would be no banking crisis; there would be no bailout at further taxpayer expense; there would be no bankrupt nation; and there would be no Second Great Depression under mathematically perfected economy™.
Trying to make some sense of it all,
But I can see that it makes no sense at all.
Is it cool to go to sleep on the floor?
‘Cause I don’t think I can take any more. Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right… Here I am, stuck in the middle with you.
THAT WAS A DEBATE?
Pundits are trying for all they are worth to stretch a distinguishing promise from the recent vice presidential “debate.”
But was that even a debate; and did it not in fact virtually guarantee that neither party will serve us?
If you think you have heard monetary resolution from any of the candidates of this 2008 campaign, it is not possible your thoughts are credible: We don’t have to look back but for the blink of an eye to find that all the darlings of the mainstream media (owned by the “financial” “industry” now multiplying its stealings from us), attested that the fundamentals of “our” (their) “economy” (ways of stealing from us) are “sound.”
That’s all the basis for credibility we have ever had: mere unqualified and unqualifiable assertions. Outright lies; the most stupid things any self-ruling public could ever swallow.
The credibility anyone attributes to the present candidates is no more veritable. We have before us some of the worst public servants in history; and the greatest enemies of representative government therefore are the sheeple who keep these betrayers in power.
So disturbing is the lack of credibility of those in power, that they continue to refer to our form of government as a “democracy,” when in fact we are a rule of law, a representative government, “a republic.”
Whenever you hear another leader apply the term “democracy” to our form of government, what does that tell you of their perception of their obligation to serve you?
If it doesn’t tell you they sought power without the least regard for the rule of law which comprises and which alone can preserve a true republic, then you yourself have no way to understand they came to power instead to gut and destroy the republic by the very system they have now “rescued” merely to continue their gutting of the republic. The very thing they have preserved is your worst enemy (unless you too are a thief).
The very thing they have sought to do under your very noses is to secure their power to steal from you forever. The very thing they have protected is the instrument of their stealing; and they have even done this by ensuring the inevitable failure of their instrument of stealing will only cost you further, even as the present failure is engendered by the fact you are already incapable of paying.
Worse of course then, they have rescued nothing, because they have preserved the very fundamental process of the failure. Any monetary system subject to interest inherently terminates itself, because merely to maintain a vital circulation subject to interest, to the degree it is necessary to re-borrow principal and interest paid out of the general circulation, debt is inherently and irreversibly multiplied in proportion to the circulation (or capacity to service debt) by ever greater increments of ever greater periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt.
Every such system was devised to steal from you; every such system can only impose complete collapse on itself over and over and over again. The present “debate” in fact carefully avoided discussion of that matter.
Why?
You know why: These are hardly foxes; but they are sooooooo… corrupt; and they are pretending to guard the chicken coop.
No less an icon of truth than Thomas Jefferson told us so long ago as well, that all these things would happen. He did not solve their fundamental causes, but he at least identified them; he did not mathematically perfect economy, but he came ever so close to doing so.
As Jefferson said, “If the American people ever allow banks to issue their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation [by having to maintain a vital circulation by perpetually re-borrowing principal and interest as subsequent sums of debt, increased perpetually so much as periodic interest], the banks and [bank owned] corporations which will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”
But never in history has anyone proven usury served its subjects; and I myself provided the Reagan Administration with computer models in 1983, which, opposed to the purported (but never qualified) “soundness” of “our” “economic” fundamentals, predicted all this. Mere, basic calculations of the interest we would have to re-borrow to maintain a vital circulation projected not only the amassing of debt which will soon collapse “the economy,” but complete monetary failure at approximately 2010 AD.
The purported bailout or rescue has no power to avert that collapse, because it doesn’t even address the fundamental process which will *continue* to multiply debt into failure — interest. In fact instead, the purported bailout or rescue *preserves* the very process which will continue to multiply debt into inevitable failure.
Thus what was debated?
By avoiding the one crucial issue, did not the two parties of betrayal, the two candidates of betrayal, and the mainstream media, owned by the very betrayers… did they not instead ensure your destruction?
On the street, no American with their head on half straight believes either party serves them. People are bracing for martial law; to lose everything they have; to eat for the next two weeks; for a decade of a Second Great Depression.
“Your” government?
The detention centers are ready. The same troops who have been sent after false claims of weapons of mass destruction will now be the weapon of mass, final destruction of the republic for which they ostensibly stood.
Your republic in fact is already all but gone; you gave it up to usurers long ago; and now, you have what you have wrought.
In the second lifespan of the private “Federal” “Reserve” System, the writing has been on the wall for decades: The exalted President Reagan claimed he would balance the budget; he denounced President Carter for 4 years of deficits in which Mr. Carter amassed the seeming pittance of $150 billion in federal debt — less than $40 billion per year, while “your” Congress and President just gave $840 billion which you don’t have, away just yesterday.
But Reagan of course would soon multiply the federal debt of the entire previous history more than 3 times over; and the United States would plummet from “the greatest creditor nation” in the world to its lowliest debtor. That’s how long the writing has been on the wall.
As I warned President Reagan in 1980, and as I warn the American People now, the American People deserve — and should demand — a credible accounting for how, given the one underlying process of a monetary system which can only multiply debt into terminal debt, the purported policies before us *possibly* do *any* of the right things.
Americans aren’t going to get those answers, because the policies are unqualifiable, because the policies *intend* not to do the right thing for the people, and because the most corrupt are pretending to guard the chicken coop.
What you saw was a facade. Only a facade.
If the American People are to be served, a different set of questions must be answered. I’ve sent those questions to Jim Lehrer since he first began to moderate presidential debates. Here they are again, for whatever insistence you might give them; these are the bare rudiments — just three questions — regarding what we have to know to identify any candidate who *might* serve us:
Can you tell us, under any implementation of a currency subject to interest (for profit), how it is possible and practical to maintain a vital circulation without irreversibly multiplying debt in proportion to the circulation (or capacity to service debt), until we suffer artificial collapse under a terminal sum of debt?
Can you tell us how, if inflation and deflation are defined respectively as increases or decreases in circulation per whatever wealth the circulation is intended to represent, either a) how inflation and/or deflation serve us; or b) how it is possible to solve inflation and deflation where the currency is subject to interest?
Is there any reason you can give us why the people should be deprived of a currency which represents *only* the wealth they might intend to trade amongst each other?
Of course, there are infinite half baked answers to these questions. Nothing but solution however can serve the people; and there is one and only one integral solution to 1) inflation and deflation, 2) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and 3) inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt in proportion to a circulation.
What you saw was only a facade: Clowns to the left of us, Jokers to the right…
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:
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.
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.
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:
no way will we truly account for all things exactly;
nor will the other guy with whom we’re trading;
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…
No one determines value exactly;
If we had to wait for a perfect method of determining “value,” we would never have mathematically perfected economy™;
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)
“The National Australia Bank’s decision to write off 90 per cent of its US conduit loans will have dramatic repercussions around the world. Wall Street will be deeply shocked when they understand the repercussions of what NAB has done. It is clear global banks have nowhere near provided for their exposures to US housing loans which in the words of John Stewart are experiencing a ?meltdown?.
We are now way beyond sub-prime. NAB says that it is suffering a 55 per cent loss on American housing loans ? an event that has never happened in the history of a developed country in recent memory. This is an unprecedented event and means that the cost of bailing out the US financial system is now far beyond the highest estimates. A US recession is now locked in, but more alarmingly, 55 per cent loan losses point to the possibility of a depression.
It means the cost of bailing out housing exposures to the two mortgage insurers will be so great that it will leave no room to bail out anything else, and there are several US banks that are now in big trouble. NAB says that the dislocation in the residential market is separate from the corporate market, but the flow on is inevitable.
While global banks have been writing down their balance sheet assets, few have tackled their conduit exposures which are off balance sheet, but to which they are ultimately liable.”
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.
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.
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.
RELATED MATERIAL
del.icio.us
FaceBook
NewsVine
reddit
