LDS Freedom Forum

The trouble is, Ron Paul doesn't have the answer.

We can readily prove that; and we can readily prove what the answer is.

Most of us thought that Ron Paul's long term integrity would find the answer, or be open to the answer, or would receive the answer laid on his doorstep. But in the true mold of Austrian "economists," evidently he disdains math and mathematic solution, even as they are indispensable both to finding and to demonstrating our way.

People have been jumping up and down for more than 200 years in this country over the controversy between usury and free enterprise. Those two mutually exclusive things are what we're really dealing with here.

The founders hoped to perfect economy, and tried to perfect economy. Jefferson particularly realized that they had fallen short of that vital goal, and so he pointed to the monetary defects of the Constitution in such a way that we were to realize the answer to monetary perfection laid not in the Constitution, but in our responsibility to achieve a future perfection before it was too late.

To his great credit, and like many others, Jefferson realized that usury comprised the most dangerous power to usurp the country.

What Ron Paul and his followers do not understand is that a process which multiplies debt *in proportion* to our means or capacity to service debt, inherently imposes the culminating events we now face. Thus to jump up and down and shout "inflation," or a return to Constitutionality is not even to engage in fruitful dialog regarding real solution.

The *only* thing which can truly save us is a proof of solution. If we can't deal with simple mathematic problems by proof of solution, there isn't even any reason to take encouragement then from Fox News' prospective awakening [regarding the forwarded material's urging that Fox revisit Ron Paul's advocations].

Few Americans understand what caused the first Great Depression. Fewer still can put their finger on a singular prescription which would have avoided not just the ultimate consequence of the First Great Depression, but even every minute degree of inequity which, having inevitably accumulated over the first mere 15 years of the so called Federal Reserve System, could *only* result in an event which again we are approaching at a like, inherently escalating rate.

There are nonetheless the most concrete reasons these things happen as they do; and if we are not ready ourselves to face those reasons, there is no hope for us.

It is easy now to predict another world-wide Depression, for it almost seems that no one can answer for the sums of artificial debt which continue to multiply at inherently escalating rates. But someone has answered; and who has heard them?

It is easy too to look at our fellow citizens and see that they and their run amuck government haven't the least disposition to solve their problems, for the answers are simple, and sitting right in front of their faces. It is for their own iniquities that we are not solving the simple issues which threaten or even ensure our destruction.

But let's face it. So it is too for a candidate who only jumped up and down shouting about *some* of the consequences of this mal-designed system — and who never once has burrowed for us into the necessarily exhaustive, mechanical explanation which would convey to us a *true* understanding of solution.

How do I know?

Because I have attempted since even before Mr. Paul's first campaign for the presidency to engage him on these issues. Because my own work disproved Mr. Paul's notions before even the mid 1970s when Mr. Paul claims he took an interest in "Austrian Economics" — a purported discipline which itself does not even claim to solve the problems before us, and which in fact advocates the very things which are the cause of our problems... namely, "interest," and unearned gain.

Mr. Paul uses the words of Mullins and others to shout to us that money is created out of thin air; that our issue is fiat currency; that government over-spending (my term) is destroying us.

These things indeed speak of vast, run amuck corruption; and have a ring which has appealed to a few of the jeopardized masses. But they are not even meaningful expressions which deliver terms on which we can build solution.

Mr. Paul claims nonetheless that we need therefore to reduce the circulation. But he hasn't even proven that what we suffer from is truly inflation.

Let me ask everyone something:

"Inflation" and "deflation" are defined respectively as increases or decreases in circulation per related production. That is, the proper/traditional definition of inflation is an increase in circulation per the very things for which so much currency was introduced to circulation. It has *always* *only been theoretical* that "inflation" *caused* increasing prices. In all the pseudo sciences of purported "economics," there is no proof and no formal theorem which establishes that "inflation" engenders increasing costs.

So, before I ask my question, let me say first that I can and have proved this unqualified proposition wrong; and that the story of my first spewing forth of the inadvertent contrarian proposition best puts the questions at hand in their deserved context, because they are the very questions every student, the teacher, and their teacher before and so forth should have asked.

I enjoyed the benefits of an advanced mathematics education as a young child — college algebra at age 7, calculus as I turned 10. Years down the road, in high school actually, I was required to take a course which exposed forever to me the falsifications which are presently leading us down the road to disaster. I of course have reservations about asserting this childhood qualification; but I have greater reservation about its plausible omission, because otherwise this high school event circa 1968 might be stripped of the weight it deserves.

Having moved from the place of my earlier, discontinued education, in effect I retraced much of my earlier education in high school, where I enjoyed certain respect for a gift of seeing the answers to problems.

I will not dwell on that long. But as a generic understanding of mathematics does not generally suffice in its observation of formal proof and theorem, it is important at least to some degree to build a case that the style and stature of the teaching we received even so early in our lives was substantially disciplined. As a consequence of that early discipline, I was the only student my two difficult high school math teachers ever gave an A+; and I was the only student in either of their careers to take them up on an offer to forego turning in homework. I did mine according to my own schedule and habits, forfeiting a throw out test and never missing a single mathematic problem on a test in my high school career.

I considered myself very fortunate to have both these teachers, Jane Luks and Richard Herman, because they were both exceedingly astute, and taught solely by formal proofs of the theorems which distinguish and comprise a true discipline. It is this distinguishing aspect of mathematics and geometry which I feel compelled to concentrate on briefly, because it is an appreciation for proof and theorem alone which can put the weight of a singular proposition of mathematically perfected economy™ into perspective.

That is, there is one "and one only solution" (as Jane Luks used to say) to our present problems, and we are about to demonstrate so much in general, literal terms.

Thus our small, seemingly insignificant story is actually a case of the pseudo science, "economics," versus the bona fide science of mathematics; and really it is important for you to be delivered it in those terms to weigh its full meaning. The math of it, as you will see, is simple — as elementary and incontrovertible as elementary and incontrovertible can be.

In high school — actually I did not know it at the time of the present story, but my gifts for problem solving were privately celebrated by a number of the faculty. One day for instance, as my Trig/Geometry teacher Jane Luks was about to teach the so called Pythagorean Theorem (which I later learned he was actually taught in Egypt), she asked if anyone thought they could prove the square of the hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares of the two right sides.

The idea of the necessary proof immediately formed in my head; but it wasn't my custom to overly involve myself in answering; and so I didn't raise my hand. Two fellow students, did. As we listened to them meticulously give the challenge a try, I was gently shaking my head no, understanding they were off in futile directions. Noticing my private gesture, Mrs. Luks then asked me, and I produced a whole proof directly off the top of my head. The story of the event, which Mrs. Luks evidently considered somewhat remarkable, circulated in the faculty lunch room to the economics teacher, Mr. Otto, of the subsequent story.

I would not say my business/economics teacher was intimidated by my mathematic intuition. But one day long after the present story unfolds, he did tell me it came pretty close to that. What was most great about our controversies, is that we were always able to discuss them as gentlemen. To his great credit, he never once defended the great lie.

So not long into his business/economics course, Mr. Otto cited the traditional definitions of inflation and deflation, merely saying then (much like Mr. Paul), that inflation caused increasing prices.

I tried in my own busy head to perceive how said ramification was engendered; and I came up with quite the opposite proposition.

To the present point it is also fitting and timely to say that already (very early in the course) I was quite frustrated with the purported discipline, because even as I had scanned the whole text book, I didn't find *a single* formal proof or theorem. In fact, though my disposition toward the course remained relatively positive, it would be truthful and even rather polite to say that already I had come to think the whole body of propositions were utter crap. To this very day, no one has demonstrated to my satisfaction otherwise.

So I immediately raised my hand, and to the best of my recollection the discourse between Mr. Otto and myself regarding inflation, deflation, and purported price inflation went something like this:

"If all the money is loaned into circulation as debt, and the debts are subject to interest, and if we cannot borrow more than the value of whatever we are borrowing the money for, it is unclear first of all how it is even possible to suffer what you define to be "inflation."

"In other words, if we can't borrow $50,000 to buy a $35,000 home or $50 to buy a $20 tire, how can we possibly *ever* suffer 'inflation'?"

Mr. Otto turned a bit red, rubbed his head, and agreed that was a pretty good question. He didn't know. I tell you now (40 years of intensive testing of the idea later), that neither does Mr. Paul; and that there is a better and more deserving perception of the issue than Mr. Paul advocates in the pattern of many others who have never solved the present issues.

My first proposition was only an introduction to the several refutations I intended to make. I then presented Mr. Otto the postulate I intended:

"But I don't understand then, even if it were possible to suffer inflation, that an increase in circulation per goods and services would engender increasing prices."

"In other words, I understand that *if* we somehow *could* be subjected to a circulation greater than the value of all the things for which we had borrowed the money into circulation, *seemingly* that greater circulation which we do not even know can exist might only at first provide a capacity to *pay* higher prices; but as to why or how it would cause them, there is no connection whatsoever, for how does a factory say for instance first detect that one day the circulation we do not know can even increase in such a way has somehow increased... are you saying that in these potentially non-existent circumstances that nonetheless the factory simply raises prices one day, to take greater profit from 'inflation'?"

"This doesn't seem plausible. I'll tell you why:"

"If money is introduced to circulation as debt subject to interest, then merely to maintain a vital circulation, we have to perpetually re-borrow whatever we pay against principal and interest obligations. Payments against the previous sum of principal thus are re-assumed as new principal, equal to the old — making it impossible to pay down the sum of debt. But as payments against interest obligations do not count against the previous principal, our perpetual re-borrowing of interest to replenish a circulation means therefore that the sum of debt will perpetually increase so much as periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt. Not only would this mean that there is ever less of a given circulation to devote to prices, much less increasing prices ostensibly tolerated by the non-existent "inflation," it would mean that as a consequence of this multiplication of debt in proportion to the circulation, that the system inherently, ultimately collapses under a sum of debt it can no longer afford to service."

"So we have several things here — not just some purported 'inflation,' which we don't know even can exist:"

"We have an inherently, irreversibly multiplying sum of debt, which ultimately engenders collapse, and which, all along the irreversible path to that collapse, imposes ever greater costs of servicing ever greater debt. While I can understand that *these costs* manifest in ever greater prices as industry has to account for their erosion of profit margins, it is also true that ever less of the circulation can be devoted to commerce, as ever more of the circulation is inherently devoted instead to servicing debt. Eventually, even *ALL* of the circulation is devoted to servicing debt."

"So it would not be an increase in circulation per goods and services which engenders perpetually increasing prices; it would be the nature of the money; it would be that all the money is subject to interest which inherently engenders perpetually increasing prices by imposing ever greater debt upon the people. And so in fact, while industry can survive this irreversible multiplication of debt, it would be the ever greater costs of servicing this inherently ever escalating multiplication of debt which actually even requires prices to inherently increase at an equivalent, ever greater rate."

Mr. Otto grew a few shades deeper red the whole while; and in the end stood there rubbing his head. Finally he said, "By God, I think you're right again."

This was my inadvertent self initiation into the monetary reform movement — a wholly independent one.

I had never read Mullins or any meaningful "economics" literature; and even though a good supporter of mathematically perfected economy™ has recently furnished me a copy of Mullins' most well known work, I regret to say I still haven't read it. "None Dare Call It Conspiracy" wouldn't be written for a decade. I did not know yet that the so called Federal Reserve System was privately owned, or the extremely shady dealings which created it for the very purpose I had just explained to Mr. Otto.

I was just a boy, so they say, and nonetheless the idea I'd just had could never leave my head. There was no exaggeration of its importance. If anything, quite the contrary was so. But certainly a proposition of inherently escalating costliness, dispossession, and inevitable collapse as a consequence of interest still seemed even so important as to be absolutely critical, even at the time. I pondered the relevant questions day and night then, because of their obvious prospective importance.

Even as this process began, I understood there was an explicit, qualifiable solution — and even a bona fide science which would comprise an opposed, true form of economy, for the topic of discussion had related instead to what amounted to a method of stupendous mass dispossession (quite striking to a potential subject of such an imposed process), ostensibly justified by risk comprised in a money which because it cost nothing to produce, and didn't even represent earned wealth which could not be restored to such an issuer but by the stroke of a pen, comprised no risk whatever.

Not only so; in the identified process laid the proof of Jefferson's postulate of usurpation — something I also already understood, intuitively.

In my original postulates then were both the proof of the terminal injuries of usury, and the very foundation of true economy, because it is *interest* which inherently multiplies debt in proportion to a circulation, or the commerce which must service debt on the ever diminishing portion of the circulation which can be devoted to sustaining commerce. A system comprised of usury therefore is unsustainable, and simply a means of dispossessing the subject society of its wealth. Already, we had informally proven this.

So I was inclined at the time to believe we had simple, finite issues which could be solved readily, for to solve inherent multiplication of debt and its ramifications a) we only have to eradicate interest.

Moreover, while the initial questions understood it may not even be practical to suffer "inflation" as defined, nonetheless a formal prescription for eradicating inflation and deflation was warranted, and so perhaps over the next day's thinking I realized the answer to this too was conclusive and exceedingly simple: The only solution to inflation and deflation in fact is b.1) to pay off debts *equal to* the original value of the related production at the rate of the related production's depreciation or consumption (which are to be understood to be equal). Only this schedule and limitation of the original obligation eliminates inflation and deflation.

Thus too, to solve inflation and deflation, b.2) the circulation cannot be subject to interest, because if it is, more is paid out of circulation than originally introduced — or in other words, we inherently suffer deflation.

It was some while further before I put the rest of the puzzle together.

First of all, much like Mr. Paul and others, even as I couldn't put my finger on explicit detriments, I was originally uncomfortable with the idea of debt at all, and so I spent some while considering just about every conceivable alternate way to introduce money into circulation to avoid indebtedness before I realized finally that debt is not an undue or unnatural circumstance; and that it in fact represents the very opportunity and means of necessary economic expansion.

Any other way of introducing circulation engendered inflation or deflation at some point or another, and deprived us of the instances of assuming debt we can take advantage of. There was nothing wrong with young people buying homes with work they would eventually render for instance, particularly as it enabled the home builder too to deploy their capacities immediately, for deserved reward.

Only a system thus which allows people to pay only debts which are equivalent to what they receive in fact enables us to achieve our full potentials, for only in such a system can we pay for the work of others with whatever we deem to be an equal measure of our own work. The money of mathematically perfected economy™ frees us of the costs, escalating risks, and ultimately terminal consequences of interest, or self multiplying, ever escalating unearned dispossession to inevitable collapse.

The other issues could be reduced to a *class* of problem, namely systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property. In other words, to deliver a form of money with perpetually consistent value, it was necessary first to directly link the circulation with the remaining value of the property for which it was introduced; and to eliminate all ways by which the system itself could manipulate or affect the value of money. The former [unsolved] need to directly link the circulation with the remaining value of related assets was already accomplished by eradicating interest and the predicated schedule of payment which eliminated inflation and deflation: only by this combination of attributes is the resultant sum of circulation, and only that resultant sum of circulation, at all times equal to the remaining value of the assets in which it is redeemable.

In other words then, only in mathematically perfected economy™ is the value of money constant and perpetuated, by a fixed, direct linkage between the circulation and very remaining value of whatever things it was originally issued.

How else however might the cost or value of money or property be manipulated?

I labored over solving effectively infinite individual instances of potential manipulation before I realized almost humorously, that all these things were in fact one thing, and that in fact I *already had* solved them. Because the cost or value of money or property are only systematically manipulated by interest, inflation, and/or deflation, we had already taken care of all these issues. Except if we were ever to obstruct necessary finance (which is the obstructive form of deflation), mathematically perfected economy™ alone therefore isn't even endowed with any power to manipulate the cost or value of money or property (while obstructive deflation of course isn't even necessarily detrimental).

Thus mathematically perfected economy™ is the singular integral solution to 1) inflation and deflation, 2) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and 3) inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt by interest. It is simply a system then where our promises to pay are issued without the costs and consequences of interest imposed by the present privatized currencies, where debts equal to the original value of the property for which the circulation is issued are paid off at the rate of depreciation or consumption of the property.

Notably then, mathematically perfected economy™ alone does not require an alternate monetary standard, because only in mathematically perfected economy™ is the value of the currency always redeemable in the remaining value of the property to which from the beginning, the whole circulation and every instance of the circulation are both equal and redeemable.

So this is practically all there is to the mathematic perfection of economy.

1. There is one and one only solution to inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt by interest; this being eradication of interest.
2. There is one and one only solution to inflation and deflation; this being maintenance of a circulation which is at all times equal to the remaining value of the very assets for which the circulation was issued.
1. A schedule of payment equivalent to the rate of depreciation or consumption is key then not only to implementation of mathematically perfected economy™, but to the very economic justice of receiving for an equal measure of our own work, the equivalent work of others.
3. There is one and one only solution/eradication of systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property; this itself being the union of the singular solutions of inflation, deflation, and inherent multiplication of debt by interest.

Mathematically Perfected Economy™ therefore is the one and only system by which we can prosper to the full measure of our capacities, as limited only by available resources.

For some reason, even as I authored these ideas as a high school student, I brought them up constantly in refutation of the further propositions of the pseudo-science, "economics" — a pseudo-science which is not even about justice, eliminating injury, minimizing cost, or what is "economic" — a pseudo science which openly defies even the very thing it is called. Realizing all this so long ago, I've constantly raised these questions and the alternative proposition of mathematically perfected economy™ to this very day.

In the course of all that discourse, I used to visit regularly with a neighbor with whom we shared a back porch; and we regularly discussed the topic which I had come to call "mathematically perfected economy." MPE™ of course was not an internal or intrinsic discipline of what we call modern "economics." It was in fact a wholly foreign refutation and singular solution.

I had forgotten that one day my friend and neighbor Jacques McPhee had asked me if he could write his father about my ideas; and I had also forgotten that he had explained that his father was the head of the math staff of the University of Colorado.

A few years down the road, after Jacques and Liza had moved away, I was invited to their wedding in Colorado.

I changed after the wedding ceremony, and, arriving at the reception only a few minutes late, decided to sneak in by a back way, suddenly thinking myself quite out of place in jeans and a wool shirt, after arriving at a surprisingly splendid mansion entered by hundreds of guests in suits and tuxedos.

I followed others to a back door, and so entered the kitchen where just a step inside magically, were Jacques and Liza, beaming bride and groom dressed much like myself. No sooner had we engaged in congratulations than Jacques said, "Mike, I'd like to introduce you to my father."

Standing but a good step away was a very distinguished gentleman in a tux, and though he was engaged in discussion with several professors, no sooner did he hear my name than he turned to me with an outstretched hand, saying, "You're the one with the economic ideas!"

A tad shyly I suppose, I answered as I dimly recalled the casual question Jacques had asked me years earlier, "Well, yes. I suppose that's true."

In some 40 years now, I'd say still I think that no one, not a soul, has ever asked such intelligent questions in such a well conceived pattern. Will McPhee desired to understand the truth. Before you knew it, I was quoting Jefferson, Lincoln, Franklin... telling what on our current pages I only call "Parable of Perfect Economy," and tracing the history of economy back to ancient Egypt. We conversed intensely for hours, standing in the very same spot. Different professors joined us for hours at a time.

Then Mr. McPhee asked me how long I was going to be in Colorado Springs; and I told him I was leaving in the morning. With a frown, he said, "That's too bad. I want to introduce you to some people. Would that be OK?"

"Certainly," I replied.

So he escorted me from room to room and I was quite impressed with the respect he commanded. Everywhere, people stopped their discussions, and he was easily able to introduce me then to the whole room at once, asking everyone to assemble in the Ball Room in an hour from the beginnings of our tour of the building. To my surprise, there they all were, hundreds of professors, assembled suddenly to hear us speak.

Will then re-conducted me through the original pattern of questions; and I answered them as I had before.

I will not try here to recount that whole set of events; but my principal point I will simply say now is that we haven't *had* that public, relevant, and crucial discussion; and that Mr. Paul's propositions are in fact quite dangerous to the very prospect we *will* have it before it is too late.

Two things about this event amazed me:

1. I will not tell how late it was before we were finished; but in the whole evening only one threesome excused themselves after a gentleman raised his hand to tell us at a late hour of the morning that his daughter had been married the previous day as well, and that while the present discussion was extremely important and exceedingly interesting, they had yet to make their daughter's reception, and simply had to go.
2. The other thing was that there was not a dissenting opinion.

The latter was not amazing in and of itself, because when a teacher expands upon a matter by proof and theorem, that is what you expect of disciplined practitioners.

What impressed me that there was not a dissenting opinion instead was this: That while there assumably were a number of "economics" professors present (or at least many who were versant in purported economics), not a person raised the least objection either to my proof that any purported economy subject to interest ultimately terminates itself under insoluble debt; or that there is one and one only integral solution to 1) inflation and deflation, 2) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and 3) inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt to inevitable collapse, by interest.

So seemingly fabulous was the reception, that I expected after almost a decade already of speaking informally about mathematically perfected economy™, I had finally done my deed. I expected to hear about mathematically perfected economy in papers across the country, because in my naivete I thought government intended to be just. I had no idea what corruption, as Jefferson had told, had been wrought by the power of "central banking," which of necessity, would even have to own the mainstream media.

But so Mr. Paul's assertions of "inflation" do no just come into question; they stand in the way of solution if he usurps the attention of a movement *desiring* effectual monetary reform, by proposing non-solution, and even by mis-identifying cause. Worse still it would be, if a purported return to Constitutionality eventually was blamed for the inherent systemic failure which Ron Paul's propositions do not even address.

An example of this potential calamity is evident in Mr. Paul's attention to government over-spending. He addresses over-spending as a cause of potential failure, versus a symptom of the cause of inevitable failure — the latter of which we have already proven.

That is, government over-spending is an inevitable consequence of reaching the later stages of the limited lifespan of any purported economic system subject to interest.

As we maintain a circulation subject to interest by re-borrowing what we pay against principal and interest obligations as subsequent sums of debt, the sum of artificial debt we are forced to service increases by ever escalating increments of periodic interest on the growing sum of debt. As we can less and less afford to service private debt, two things therefore arise as consequences:

1. We can ever less afford to service an escalating sum of federal/public debt (which the usurpers will willingly defer to preserve their graft); and
2. We are ever less credit-worthy to replenish the circulation of what we pay against our inescapable private debts, by re-borrowing further.

The latter introduces a need to find a way — any way — to sustain the circulation by introducing a stream of capital sufficient to maintain a circulation against the constant deflation which is transpiring — in other words *our* payments, predominately against private principal and interest obligations (which is the side of their graft which the usurpers are not so willing to defer).

Particularly in the later stages of the limited lifespan of any such purported "economy," "financiers" (mere publishers of money), need to be ever more "creative"[/subversive] to establish a return stream of "capital" (currency, produced at virtually no cost whatever) sufficient to maintain a circulation against the inherent destruction of credit-worthiness by the system. In other words, as we are made ever less fit to service debts multiplied ever more beyond us, to sustain the graft, "financiers," have to leak ever greater quantities of "money" into the system so that we can continue to service private debts from a sufficiently replenished circulation.

Thus as collapse approached in the events which led to the election of the Clinton Administration, during Clinton's two terms the usurers necessarily poured money into a wholly bogus "technology boom." Thousands of enterprises fell by the wayside. But most of them could only have fallen by the wayside, because there was no product or service, and because in truth the few which offered either were competing for shares of the existent market, which was already taxed to its limits by servicing existent debt.

This was the reason so much costless "money" was poured into the system that most of these "ventures" could *party* with 90% of their budget: We had to replenish the circulation to continue servicing existent, multiplying debt, that we could push back the Second Great Depression a while longer. The extremes of the artificial measures themselves testify to the proximity of collapse, just as the present "sub prime" "mortgage crisis" truly testifies to the underlying cause *of so much present, ***artificial*** debt*.

How desperate are we now?

With the inevitable collapse of that bogus, claimed prosperity, to sustain the circulation during the recent Bush Administration they've re-financed all the equity in our homes, or "reverse" financed their homes, to fuel a bogus "housing boom" — which in the end could only have forced us to pay all that we are capable of paying and more, if its adverse escalation of artificial "value"/"appreciation" were to be sustained.

In other words, the latter lie only forces us to pay lifetime after lifetime for production we alone rendered by but a mere few months of work. All along the course of this purported "economist's" "boom," all we can get for a $1,250,000 home built for $35,000 in 1963 is another $1,250,000 home built for $35,000 in 1963 — or the present equivalent of a $15,000 home built in 1963, built in 2007 for $300,000.

Like federal over-spending, these false booms were compelled by the need to replenish the circulation of perpetual, escalating "deflation," comprised of our obligation to service multiplying private debt.

Like government over-spending, artificial industry "successes" comprised only by the initial availability of money are only bound to failure, because they have no capacity to arrest multiplication of debt in proportion to the circulation and commerce which can be sustained by the ever diminishing proportion of the circulation which can be devoted to sustaining commerce.

These phenomena have already driven the real industry from our country, and the false prosperity or industry of these "booms" as well, only because our real industry cannot be sustained here under the significantly advanced multiplication of debt we suffer from the earlier beginnings within the present limited lifespan of "our" implementation of a system which, for every country, can only engender collapse.

Ron Paul tells us that rectifying these issues will be painful; but I can show how truly rectifying them would not be painful at all.

He advocates returning to the gold standard and dramatically reducing the present over-"inflated" circulation.

But such a system as is imposed upon us suffers a deflated circulation; and the gold standard can neither a) save us from perpetual multiplication of debt by interest; nor b) can it sustain prosperity exceeding relatively minuscule monetary reserves.

Perhaps even more hideous, c) students of the monetary gold situation are aware we probably don't even have the gold some of us we think we do; d) not only is there no binding linkage between the value of a purported precious metal monetary standard and the value of a circulation and prosperity limited to monetary reserves; the limited circulation itself therefore manipulates the value and availability of money (which thus must manifest in disadvantage or obstruction of prosperity); and e) the historically demonstrated encumbrance of the limited circulation is not only demonstrated and demonstrable, the calamities imposed by this defect have thus already served well as a principal argument to abandon the encumbrances of the faulty standard.

Even if none of these things inspired the perfection of economy, they indelibly register the shortcomings and present potentially catastrophic consequences of re-invoking the gold standard.

While the worst obvious consequence is dramatic immediate deflation, these questions have to be answered conclusively if any of us are to pretend well that this one ill contrived thread of purported monetary reform has a chance in Hades of serving us.

But of course federal over-spending otherwise is a crime; and particularly it is a gargantuan, unconscionable crime against our very progeny, because *we* who incurred most of that debt cannot ourselves either pay it, or even service it — and yet "we" who commit the present and future to its terminal course expect our progeny to suffer servicing this gargantuan sum of irresponsibility from an ever more disadvantaged position, which might even tomorrow impose the inevitable collapse on us.

So what would happen if Ron Paul simply terminated federal spending, which covertly, in the subversion necessary to all these abominations, has in fact become necessary to maintain a circulation against so much escalating deflation?

Of course, we would suffer instant deflation of the circulation; and an instant Second Great Depression. The same thing that happened before would simply happen again.

We will get that Second Great Depression anyway, so what are we going to do about it? Is it a product of Ron Paul's [potentially non-existent] "inflation?"

Or is it a product of the inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt which mathematically perfected economy™ alone solves?

*If* in fact it *is* impossible or impractical to maintain a circulation subject to interest without multiplying debt in proportion to the circulation; and if there is one and one only solution to real inflation and deflation (as no one has proven otherwise for either case), then we know at least this:

1. Unless Ron Paul advocates eradicating interest,
1. he cannot solve inherent multiplication of debt all the further;
2. therefore neither can he avert inevitable collapse under an eventual sum of insoluble debt.
2. Unless Ron Paul *also* advocates paying our debts at a schedule equivalent to their consumption or depreciation, neither can he solve *real* inflation and deflation.

Notably then, not only does he advocate neither; his precious "Austrian Economics" actually advocates *interest*, and even itself argues against a constant value of money!!!

All this of course means we will never solve our problems under Mr. Paul or his precious Austrian pseudo-science.

Alternatively then, what would mathematically perfected economy™ entail?

In the case of a $100,000 home with a hundred year lifespan, we would pay for the home/debt at the overall rate of $1,000 per year or $83.33 per month — a mere fraction of present costs.

Simply by re-financing all debt under mathematically perfected economy, we would immediately achieve full employment and *multiples* of our present "prosperity," because so much *existent* cash could be devoted to commerce, versus its present dedication to servicing debt.

By financing all further possible prosperity under mathematically perfected economy™, we would leave the consequences of usury in the dust.

The problem is not "the strength" of "the dollar", because the present dollar is not only a facade, it is a process which can only multiply debt to collapse. It is not that the dollar is "weak;" it is that the dollar *inherently* weakens itself, as ever more of every dollar is inherently dedicated to servicing an ever greater sum of debt, versus sustaining the commerce which must pay for that debt.

The problem is the nature of the dollar, that it is a purposed method of dispossessing us in a system where unearned gain is championed at the inevitable cost and destruction of earned gain. The problem is the nature of the dollar is mutually exclusive to true free enterprise; that usury is an inherent tragedy involving a role where the principles of real prosperity are inherently slain. The problem is no purported provision or reparation can change or avert the consequences of that, so long as "the dollar" or any other currency remains subject to "interest."

The problem thus is there is no solution to the (orchestrated) failure of the dollar but to perfect the dollar of inflation, deflation, and inherent multiplication of debt by interest.

No then; it's not time to listen to Texas Congressman Ron Paul, who at least to my knowledge, and as well seemingly to that of any of his supporters, has never even tried to present a full qualification of his now disqualified propositions. It's time to conduct the dialog Mr. Paul has avoided.

It's time to hear THE solution.

- mike montagne, perfecteconomy.com

Original_Intent wrote:Ron Paul doesn't advocate a gold standard. I see you are going to start this thread off as misinformed as all of your posts in the other one.
And even if it is proved to you, you won't admit you were wrong, or you will accuse of splitting hairs, or you will say "cut the rhetoric".

ithink wrote:

Original_Intent wrote:Ron Paul doesn't advocate a gold standard. I see you are going to start this thread off as misinformed as all of your posts in the other one.
And even if it is proved to you, you won't admit you were wrong, or you will accuse of splitting hairs, or you will say "cut the rhetoric".

Did I say Paul was for the gold standard? Sir: can you read? No, seriously! I said "He doesn't have the answer". Did you read the post? Did I write it? Wow!

Speaking of rhetoric, if you mean rhetoric as "insincere or grandiloquent language", then that would be your post right here, and it would honestly reflect the statements by loveistruth when he finishes virtually every statement with his testimony of the gold standard, which he argued for for 3 pages on the other thread, but which I am now informed is not what he or Ron Paul is advocating. So correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds, by strict definition, like rhetoric to me.

Now read the post and comment intelligently and debunk it if you can. I'm waiting. If not, buzz off and let someone else comment intelligently to the post.

Oh, and BTW, grandiloquent is by definition "a lofty, extravagantly colorful, pompous, or bombastic style, manner, or quality especially in language." Pompous? Extravagant? Bombastic? Insincere? Sounds like the other thread for sure, soon to be this one if you keep it up.

Now could you please comment on this theme? "There is one and one only solution to inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt by interest; this being eradication of interest. " Do you agree or not, and if not, why not?

This thread will be dedicated to all the Ron Paul lovers, who love Dr. Paul and his gold standard more than the truth standard.

Original_Intent wrote:

ithink wrote:

Original_Intent wrote:Ron Paul doesn't advocate a gold standard. I see you are going to start this thread off as misinformed as all of your posts in the other one.
And even if it is proved to you, you won't admit you were wrong, or you will accuse of splitting hairs, or you will say "cut the rhetoric".

Did I say Paul was for the gold standard? Sir: can you read? No, seriously! I said "He doesn't have the answer". Did you read the post? Did I write it? Wow!

Speaking of rhetoric, if you mean rhetoric as "insincere or grandiloquent language", then that would be your post right here, and it would honestly reflect the statements by loveistruth when he finishes virtually every statement with his testimony of the gold standard, which he argued for for 3 pages on the other thread, but which I am now informed is not what he or Ron Paul is advocating. So correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds, by strict definition, like rhetoric to me.

Now read the post and comment intelligently and debunk it if you can. I'm waiting. If not, buzz off and let someone else comment intelligently to the post.

Oh, and BTW, grandiloquent is by definition "a lofty, extravagantly colorful, pompous, or bombastic style, manner, or quality especially in language." Pompous? Extravagant? Bombastic? Insincere? Sounds like the other thread for sure, soon to be this one if you keep it up.

Now could you please comment on this theme? "There is one and one only solution to inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt by interest; this being eradication of interest. " Do you agree or not, and if not, why not?

This thread will be dedicated to all the Ron Paul lovers, who love Dr. Paul and his gold standard more than the truth standard.

So yes, you did say Ron Paul was for the gold standard. Yes, I can read. Yes I read the post. Yes I assume you wrote it, although if you get any sense you will claim that a random 5 year old wandered into your house and started typing at your computer.

ithink wrote:

The trouble is, Ron Paul doesn't have the answer.

We can readily prove that; and we can readily prove what the answer is.

Most of us thought that Ron Paul's long term integrity would find the answer, or be open to the answer, or would receive the answer laid on his doorstep. But in the true mold of Austrian "economists," evidently he disdains math and mathematic solution, even as they are indispensable both to finding and to demonstrating our way.

cjex wrote:ithink... who then do you purpose as a fit knowing leader? Mike Montagne?... Liberty is the key to Dr. Paul's great appeal not distain for inflation... it was a good article (Mike can't even tell me what a Dollar is either (right CHH) so the whole thing is pointless.) Ron Paul wants to dismantle the control of the FED... thats the key and yes that is a fight against usury not inflation. So in the end Ron Paul does have the answer, Mike and you by reposting his writing have just asked the wrong question. lol

JMarsigli wrote:

ithink wrote:

The trouble is, Ron Paul doesn't have the answer.

We can readily prove that; and we can readily prove what the answer is.

Most of us thought that Ron Paul's long term integrity would find the answer, or be open to the answer, or would receive the answer laid on his doorstep. But in the true mold of Austrian "economists," evidently he disdains math and mathematic solution, even as they are indispensable both to finding and to demonstrating our way.

(emphasis mine.)

Does anyone else tire of this false prophet's grandstanding and this general all-knowing demeanor? Let me interpret the words of your precious deceiver: "Ron Paul should have come to my conclusion because I know everything and everyone else is wrong if they disagree with me. I. KNOW. EVERYTHING!"

Mike Montange, the MPE author, is a serial deceiver who refuses to answer basic questions.

Brian, how long are you going to put up with the crazies on here and your website's poor reflection of the Church through their words? I don't see how allowing this constant barrage of nonsense doesn't hurt missionary efforts. It's appalling.

Mosby wrote:I'll never get those 5 minutes back that it took me to read that article.......


sorry to say but: Mike Montange is an arrogant blowhard that really doesn't know quite as much about "economics" as he thinks.

........but what do I know, I never "enjoyed the benefits of higher mathematics at an early age"-or did algebra at age 7

Mosby wrote:Yeah - it's easy, spend a few days on this website:

http://www.lewrockwell.com

search for economics, money, Austrian economics,....... see you and the truth in a few days

Did I read this correctly? Is he stating that for a workable economy we need to give loans with no interest and the payments are disbursed over the lifetime of the asset? That's insane. There are so many problems with that idea that I can't believe anyone would propose that. OTOH, I do agree with him that usury is a bad thing, especially the out of control rates we've got today; but his solution is not even remotely feasible. Ron Paul gets similar criticism, and Ron's ideas are far more realistic.

Sorry but, but I was an Austrian about 10 years ago. Been there, done that, and I don't buy all of it.

Rensai wrote:Did I read this correctly? Is he stating that for a workable economy we need to give loans with no interest and the payments are disbursed over the lifetime of the asset? That's insane. There are so many problems with that idea that I can't believe anyone would propose that. OTOH, I do agree with him that usury is a bad thing, especially the out of control rates we've got today; but his solution is not even remotely feasible. Ron Paul gets similar criticism, and Ron's ideas are far more realistic.

Rensai wrote:Did I read this correctly? Is he stating that for a workable economy we need to give loans with no interest and the payments are disbursed over the lifetime of the asset? That's insane. There are so many problems with that idea that I can't believe anyone would propose that. OTOH, I do agree with him that usury is a bad thing, especially the out of control rates we've got today; but his solution is not even remotely feasible. Ron Paul gets similar criticism, and Ron's ideas are far more realistic.

Mosby wrote:

Sorry but, but I was an Austrian about 10 years ago. Been there, done that, and I don't buy all of it.

If you honestly went from being Austrian economics to "Mike Montange" economics- the only thing that comes to mind is "ever learning, but never coming to a knowledge"

ithink wrote:And the abolition of the Fed, even if it happened, would do nothing to combat compound interest, and the point Mike makes which I agree with, is if you don't deal with compound interest, then that system is doomed. Mike has shown this with his math. What do you think of the math?

JMarsigli wrote:

ithink wrote:And the abolition of the Fed, even if it happened, would do nothing to combat compound interest, and the point Mike makes which I agree with, is if you don't deal with compound interest, then that system is doomed. Mike has shown this with his math. What do you think of the math?

I've dealt with the math with you on here before. I'm sure you're going to get right back into deflecting the meat of it all, avoiding imperative points, and getting into "yeah but's" again, but here it is again in the case you're actually asking sincerely...

1. We don't live in a structured mathematical formula. Mike's formula does not fit the real world. Mike's math may not have holes, but that's as long as only Mike's rules are applied to it. It fails miserably in real terms when reality is applied. Mikes starting hole is appreciation, which Mike refuses to acknowledge (that appreciation even exists), and which you to deflected when I previously pointed out this gaping hole. Mike's entire formula is based on the concept of depreciating value, with principle paid back at the rate of depreciation. Obviously this idea is absurd to apply in the real world as a) Mike doesn't know the depreciation rate of everything, let alone any single item, and b) some things depreciate, some appreciate, and most oscillate in between. Is The Federal Bank of Mike going to write a check to everyone and anyone at any time the asset appreciates (which Mike denies will happen in his psychobabbling nonsense)? If not then MIKE VIOLATES HIS OWN "PERFECT" FORMULA.

2. Compound interest is only a problem when wealth is concentrated too highly. I've already elaborated on this as well, but it seems there are those too caught up in some of these crazy notions to see the forest for the trees. If you believe the P + I paradox is unsolvable then do a simple simulation where money is circulated and you will clearly see this is fallacious.

Let's put these debunked ideas to bed and get on to better uses of time.

Yet of course, no mathematic process can be validated without accounting for its mathematic ramifications; and, as we see in the present spreadsheets, the relevant calculations of those critical ramifications require no more than to determine interest on debt. To defend this unqualified disposition yet, the Austrian simply further dismisses the very idea we can make this simple calculation, saying that mathematics cannot account for indeterminable human behavior, while of course, no human behavior whatever is accounted for, but the fact that the imposition of interest forces the subject humans to maintain a vital circulation, at cost of the very calculable ramifications of interest.

While our multiplication of debt spreadsheets have been downloaded scores of thousands of times over the years, it's remarkable that while no one has proven a refutation of the math (attempts are cited), certain simpletons simply dismiss the propositions that a) any purported economy subject to interest ultimately terminates itself under insoluble debt; or b) that we can perfect an economy of inflation, deflation, systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, or inherent multiplication of debt by interest. As if any mathematic process could truly be validated without even measuring the ramifications of the process, a worst possible example of abandoned discipline is regularly asserted by Austrian School "economists," who in fact advocate interest while regularly claiming we can't account for interest mathematically.

the process of being compelled to maintain a vital circulation by re-borrowing principal and interest paid out of the general circulation obviously, perpetually increases the sum of debt so much as periodic interest on the sum of debt. Thus, both existent data and accountable analysis of the underlying process concur, and project such a sum of debt increasing in proportion to a circulation, that the costs of servicing an eventual sum of debt will impose systemic failure, in that at least the entire circulation will eventually be dedicated to servicing debt. In fact, recent St. Louis Branch Federal Reserve Data shows that for the first time ever, since October 2007, "non-borrowed reserves" (owned reserves) of depository institutions (banks) have not only gone negative, but have gone negative to a greater degree than positive owned reserves ever existed in the history of the data. http://perfecteconomy.com/img-federal-r ... data-2.png

ithink wrote: I am not sure Mike has "the" answer, and I question the payments over the lifetime of the asset. But I do understand why he is asking for that. He's pretty astute to even mention it.

ithink wrote: I would prefer a system like ours right now, but without the compound interest.

ithink wrote: I posted Mike here because I'm not aware of anyone else pointing out the problems with compound interest the way he is. Removing compound interest from the current system would be extremely simple, and the benefits would be colossal.

Rensai wrote:

ithink wrote: I am not sure Mike has "the" answer, and I question the payments over the lifetime of the asset. But I do understand why he is asking for that. He's pretty astute to even mention it.

I think he is the opposite of astute to mention it. Do you also understand all the reasons why it would never work? I'll use his example to point out a few of the more obvious problems. In his example he uses a house at 100 years for the loan payments. The first problem. Some houses are ruined after just a few years of abuse, while some have lasted well over 100 years. How does he know what the life of the asset is? In reality, that number is unknown, and his formula already breaks down. But say we arbitrarily set the lifetime of a home at 100 years. Will you loan me money knowing you and I will be dead before its paid off? At no interest whatsoever? That's not a loan, that's charity. Realistically, no one would ever make that kind of loan no matter how good Mike says it is on paper. It would be a terrible return on investment. So again, his idea fails. If the government stepped in and offered such welfare (thats what it would be), we'd be bankrupt almost immediately.

His idea lacks any connection with reality whatsoever. He completely ignores the big problem with his idea, that no one would ever offer such loans. There is nothing stopping him from opening a bank and loaning money out based on his ideas..... except that no one with money would willingly invest in such a bank.

ithink wrote: I would prefer a system like ours right now, but without the compound interest.

You realize of course, that nothing in our system is forcing you to take a loan with compound interest right? If you want a system like ours, but with no compound interest.... don't sign any loans that use compound interest. There ya go. Problem solved. Somehow I don't think that's what you really wanted though.

ithink wrote: I posted Mike here because I'm not aware of anyone else pointing out the problems with compound interest the way he is. Removing compound interest from the current system would be extremely simple, and the benefits would be colossal.

I think plenty of people understand the problems with compound interest, but getting rid of it is not simple. Maybe I'm missing something. How would you get rid of it?

ithink wrote:

Rensai wrote:Did I read this correctly? Is he stating that for a workable economy we need to give loans with no interest and the payments are disbursed over the lifetime of the asset? That's insane. There are so many problems with that idea that I can't believe anyone would propose that. OTOH, I do agree with him that usury is a bad thing, especially the out of control rates we've got today; but his solution is not even remotely feasible. Ron Paul gets similar criticism, and Ron's ideas are far more realistic.

I am actually in agreement (I am on the fence) on the payments over the lifetime of the asset -- yes it is hard to swallow. So thanks for at least posting. But I am looking for other solid reasons as to why that would not work. I would prefer to just see the compound interest banned. At least then there is no market pressure to get another loan to finance to other loans out there that are not paid off yet.

But I haven't been able to determine why Mike didn't just stop at banning interest -- why spread the payments out? Why not just pick an arbitrary 5, 10, or 20 years?

ithink wrote:2. Compound interest sir, always concentrates wealth too highly. That is what it does. You say you have elaborated, but I have not seen it.

ithink wrote:Furthermore, Mike says "the present sum of existent debt far exceeds both the currency in circulation, and the remaining value of represented property" Is this true of false, sir?

the process of being compelled to maintain a vital circulation by re-borrowing principal and interest paid out of the general circulation obviously, perpetually increases the sum of debt so much as periodic interest on the sum of debt. Thus, both existent data and accountable analysis of the underlying process concur, and project such a sum of debt increasing in proportion to a circulation, that the costs of servicing an eventual sum of debt will impose systemic failure, in that at least the entire circulation will eventually be dedicated to servicing debt.

ithink wrote: Regarding getting rid of compound interest, yes, I would like to get rid of it, but I think it is just way too cumbersome to switch to a system like Mike's. What I'm saying that could be done is what would happen to the economy if the principal issued by the bank on day one equaled exactly the loan payed back at year 5. I'm saying just do the math, whatever it works out to be, and force the banks to issue the entire debt up front as the loan. I think that without the increasing pressure on the system from the demand to take out another loan to pay the "missing interest payments", you could sustain a static economy rather than one that was mandated to grow constantly, which of course puts massive pressure on all the resources involved, including working fathers, mothers, and the planet itself.