Mathematically Perfected Economy...

Thanks for the many kind words, and for voicing your perceptions where those who intend to deny what we can readily see hope instead for the dark side to prevail.

My refutation of Griffin answers to the "economist's" "explanation" that we can earn that third egg, and that the eggs of interest do not multiply debt. I wish more people would cite my work instead of trying to come up with examples which they often don't explain so conclusively, because weaknesses in the arguments reflect poorly on the original principles. You can see from our pages how many people try to refute mathematically perfected economy by equally wrongly addressing PFMPE propositions which have been improperly paraphrased (usually by invention of the purported refutation):

http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-invalidation-of-griffin-creatur...

Another article to see is William B. Ryan's presumed refutation of MPE:

http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-william-b-ryan-ad-hominems-disp...

Another thing which is wrong with fractional reserve implementations is that the same money can be required to sustain multiple instances of industry, while the first instance of the same circulation is justified and capable of sustaining only the first, to which it should be strictly related.

This is another problem MPE solves, because you have ready circulation to sustain each and every instance of industry.

You may download the source to the models I provided Reagan from our pages; and, if you do the download, you'll find there's a compiled version of the application as well... so you can run the numbers (I can no longer tell you off the top of my head what they were exactly). A reason for writing the model at the time which I might not have mentioned within easy reach of this thread is that we suffered double-digit prime rates, which, to anyone with reasonable mathematic skills, made the proposition of near-term collapse obvious and plausible at the time. In fact, under those rates, we were headed for near term collapse; and, even while it conflicted with declared policies and false principles of combating price inflation with elevated interest rates, you see the so called Federal Reserve relaxed interest rates, in compliance with my own observations and the principles I asserted.

The Excel Spreadsheets run as well on the Mac, and you have the same basic mathematic process (except that if you want to account for issues such as debt dissolved by bankruptcy, you need to plug in what you want [but of course the spreadsheets provide a working framework to do that, and even to study for instance to what magnitudes/extents we would have to perform Griffin's example to avoid multiplication of debt by interest]).

[I believe the Federal Reserve knows when it is going to happen.]

I have been informed by insiders that with certainty, the Fed is in possession of my models. There is also a considerable litany of evidence that they heed and respond to my observations; and that their current philosophy of maintaining a circulation by federal over-spending is a manifestation of that practice, intended of course to extend the lifespan of the present cycle of taking. In other words, they realize there is one and one only solution; and much of the media control, concerted disinformation, and so forth is an extension of the intent that their system of dispossessing us prevail even by extinguishing the potential for public apprehension.

[I think that is why we will go to an electronic money system at some point that could be "reset" as necessary. The question of who will end up taking the loss comes to mind.]

I would implement MPE electronically; and as a consequence of course, many credit/plastic/credit-authorization and so forth firms would oppose MPE.

As to who takes the loss, the current pattern of course is that the losses will be imposed upon us. If I were president, I have a plan for immediate reversal of our losses, which even eliminates all public debt and reduces the differences between the present money changers and the people to a court battle they cannot win, and probably would not even try to oppose.

[As far as your comment that there is no proof that inflation causes an increase in prices, would you agree that there is a correlation?]

Theoretically, it is not really even possible for circulatory inflation (a PFMPE term) to exist in the introductory phase of the form of monetary system we currently have imposed upon us, because we can never borrow more than the value of the related asset. Even federal overspending follows this observation, because it funds something of purportedly equal value to the currency.

This itself refutes the "inflation" argument, which of course focuses on the introductory phase of circulation.

As our home page makes clear, first of all, the problem should be referred to as something like "price inflation" (which is the expression I've come to use), because they are separate phenomena, the latter of which is ostensibly engendered by the former. So the question is, does this ostensibly impossible/impractical/implausible thing, an increase in money per related wealth (circulatory inflation) engender rising prices (price inflation)?

Well, even on the surface that's pretty hard to swallow, because in effect it tells us that the people detect something which theoretically can't exist in the introductory phase of circulation; and then they uniformly punish themselves by raising prices and making life damagingly expensive.

That's a pretty ridiculous, and perhaps even hysterical proposition, if you think about it.

What really happens?

What really happens is the costs of our production or sustenance increase, and, hoping, and necessarily, to maintain required margins of solubility, we contemplate or even try to raise our prices accordingly.

In the real world, what's happening is people judge their market's ability to bear that necessary increase in prices, and instead abstain from increasing their prices the full measure that they need to, to maintain margins of solubility.

For example, fuel prices are raised (in this case for reasons which instead comprise a form of unearned taking which is independent from monetary usury) against the private trucker; and, realizing their market cannot bear the full brunt of the rising costs, the trucker may or may not even raise their fees. But if they do, they cannot succeed in doing so to the full extent necessary to maintain their solubility; and so, after cycle after cycle of this abuse, eventually one day the trucker is obliged to abandon his truck on the freeway.

So, under perpetually increasing costs of any form which likewise marginalizes our markets, our margins of solubility continually erode; and there's a reason they erode as a consequence of this (instead of price increases manifesting in a benefit). They erode because costs imposed upon the market jeopardize the market's ability to afford all producers increasing their prices to account for whatever increasing cost was the initial stimulus for the wave of marginalizing price increases.

The real world scenario itself then suggests that we the people are subjected to a squeeze play, where the original stimulus (which is an increasing cost passed to us) is the only possible beneficiary of a phenomena which does not work out for the rest of us. So all real observations do not themselves concur with the unqualified proposition that circulatory inflation results in price inflation.

But even more implausible is the proposition that we "simply" engender such disadvantages to ourselves by ineptly *trying* to take advantage of circulatory inflation in such a self destructive way.

So there is a concrete explanation for all this; and to find it, we return to the analytical process anyone would pursue to find the answer, versus generate a deception intended to justify the iniquities of the system.

We look for the truth by analyzing the system; and so, given my proposition that interest inherently multiplies debt in proportion to a circulation, we focus on the very underlying, fundamental process of the imposed "monetary" system; and we see immediately that the mere act of maintaining a circulation multiplies debt in proportion to the circulation; dedicates ever more of the circulation to servicing debt versus sustaining the commerce which must service the debt; and all this thus imposes ever greater costs of servicing an ever greater debt.

These observations also explain why the circulation has to be increased; why an impossible rate of perpetually escalating growth is necessary to the eventually impossible task of keeping pace; and so forth.

But there is no direct connection between the increasing circulation and price inflation. On the contrary, the only direct connection we can draw is between the perpetually increasing costs of servicing an ever greater sum of debt, and the transmission of these costs as they are imposed upon the commerce which is required to service the debt.

[I think it would help people understand if you made a computer model.]

You can take the same spreadsheets and input ZERO for the value of "interest," and illustrate for yourself that MPE is the only sustainable system.

What you find of course is that any non-zero rate of interest (any imposition of actual interest) ultimately terminates a system under insoluble debt.

Those who in the vein of Griffin try to justify the system, imply that a system can grow enough to offset the damages of unearned profit taken through the vehicle of the currency (interest). Of course, this technique of disinformation doesn't even try to justify interest to the least iota, because of course an object of disinformants is to distract us from those central and vital issues: no reasonable people would desire an unjust "economy" which of course is not even "economic" at all -- it only imposes redundant cost, and in fact, ever multiplying redundant costs, even to collapse.

So they try to appeal to the simpleton, who instead will just walk away "thinking," "OK, I guess such an 'economy' doesn't collapse itself after all. Big deal."

The idea of the scope of this obviously engineered disinformation technique is to work on the lazy -- those who want so much *not* to think out the problem before us, that to offer them a ground level escape in the form of "growth solves the collapse issue [and therefore purportedly eliminates the collapse issue]."

The technique counts on sheep to short-circuit at that point, never to think not only that infinite growth is itself impossible on a finite planet, but that the necessary ever escalating rates of growth are all for naught -- they're all for the benefit of the usurer -- and further that we inherently are already falling so far short of the *necessary* ever escalating rates of growth for naught that... here we are, right now, at the brink of failure -- with no way to further, perpetual escalation of growth.

So they appeal to sheep with just the right, minimal disinformation, that the sheep will never even blink at the proposition they subject the rest of us to -- of perpetually paying lifetime after lifetime for our own production (such as homes), produced by perhaps just a few months of work.

The object of a monetary system which serves the people of course is to pay for the home with an equal few months of work.

What a world we would live in, if the sheep would wake.

Regards,

mike montagne -- founder of PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy, and author of mathematically perfected economy (1979)

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/

Nice post.

Chris Athanas didn't have any economics pages. He liked mine so much he published copies of mine so many times (including the original copyright notices) that he eventually climbed above me on search engine visibility and a supporter notified me.

For a while he posted links to my pages; then folks wrote articles with my material -- I suppose so he could claim he had an original bone in his body.

Regards,

mike montagne -- founder of PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy, and author of mathematically perfected economy (1979)

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/

This guy needs to be exposed to the fire of debate.

Someone should expose his statist-economic theory over at www.cagematchdebates.com when that site is up and running.

Here's the answer you claim doesn't exist.

http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-question-of-who-should-issue-th...

There are many related pages.

You say we *require* usurers and "investors" who know nothing of our industry or vendures, and contribute nothing to them, but take dearly. We have that; and contrary to your unqualified assertions, the reason most of us are here is what you advocate retaining is not only failing, but engenders inevitable failure.

You just make counter-claims, which you say are more worth our time, while the evidence of your deception is everywhere a person can look.

Regards,

mike montagne -- founder of PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy, and author of mathematically perfected economy (1979)

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/

Oh, if we can get them to come out from hiding behind their math can't be applied facades and all... this should be fun.

Only 4 posts, and nothing relevant. I just joined.

:-)

Regards,

mike montagne -- founder of PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy, and author of mathematically perfected economy (1979)

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/