Mathematically Perfected Economy...
Wow...
I came across a reference to this site in (I think) a dailypaul thread. I started reading the first page (it is a rather awkward site), but spent the rest of the day eagerly reading every word...
I must say, it is an eye-opener. I have no relation (or associated gain) whatsoever to the owner, but am simply posting the url for the enlightenment of others.
I am still trying to imagine an $83/month mortgage payment, and how the money that currently goes to the bankers could make the economy go into overdrive (and with no inflation!)...
This is just my excited first take on Mike's ideas - I have lots of thinking to do yet... Food for thought if you have the time...
I would love to hear what others think about his ideas...
Yours in Liberty,
Shovel
output
UPDATE
Two issues to update on:
1. Ron Paul still evidently refuses to answer to the proposition of mathematically perfected economy. We can all deduce what that means, unless there are multiple solutions for inflation/deflation, systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and inherent multiplication of debt by interest. I've been immersed in this for 40 years; and no such alternative has emerged in response to proof of singular solution. I expect that explains the evasion.
2. My recent blog yet again attends to related issues in response to Ron Paul's recent article, in which he links the war in Iraq to the economy, and particularly to his unqualified claims of inflation:
http://perfecteconomy.com...
Regards,
mike montagne -- founder of PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy, and author of mathematically perfected economy (1979)
http://www.perfecteconomy...
Open Letter to Bob Shulz/WTP RE Ron Paul and MPE
Many of you may have received Bob Shulz's givemeliberty.org letter raising the prospect of denying McCain the nomination at RNC on constitutional grounds. Because this matter is relevant to this thread, I share my response to Bob Shulz (We The People), further extending the open invitation to discuss mathematically perfected economy:
Bob,
I'd gladly salute Mr. Paul prevailing over Mr. McCain on the stated grounds; and even while I have reservations about hijacking the representation which has been intended by the prevailing public vote, I lean toward any exercising of the Constitution to prevail wherever representation needs to be preserved.
Representation of course then must be our object.
The one problem I have with the Paul movement is it will not answer: it refuses to demonstrate representation itself. The gold standard will not save us; nor are Mr. Paul and Mr. Vieira's monetary efforts in line with the Constitution (the states are not allowed to coin money for instance, as advocated by their New Hampshire HB 1342).
In short, I adamantly confirm my deduction from so many unanswered appeals, that if Mr. Paul will not answer to the proposition of mathematically perfected economy — that if he for so many years persistently resists even uttering a word either to refute MPE or engage in fruitful discussion — then Mr. Paul himself gives me no reason to think he intends to represent us in the vital area of necessary monetary reform.
The silence from the Paul camp is stunning. As Congressman Louis T. McFadden intimated, I assert that mathematically perfected economy is the strongest issue by which a candidate who will represent the people can and should prevail in the present election. I do not choose enmity with Mr. Paul; on the contrary, the regularly vicious, baseless defenses of the Austrian School, together with Mr. Paul's long term evasion of mathematically perfected economy put us at the greatest odds.
Why not unite us?
After all, who of you can prove that if inflation and deflation are defined respectively as increases/decreases in circulation per the wealth the circulation is intended to represent; or that if interest multiplies debt in proportion to a circulation (see my refutation of Griffin, http://perfecteconomy.com...)... who of you can prove that there is but one integral solution, which *is* mathematically perfected economy?
Until we are presented that veritable refutation, Bob, then the American People are denied representation by the very people who pretend to represent the Constitution.
Unite us. Engage in genuine discussion; and I'll gladly give Ron back the green light I had freely granted him, thinking (wrongly, evidently) that he would warmly engage in discussion of mathematically perfected economy.
Best regards,
mike montagne
founder of PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy, and author of mathematically perfected economy (1979)
http://www.perfecteconomy...
PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy UPDATE
Thanks to the conscientious attention to this thread, we have 14 new articles and a glossary of terms up at PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy (http://www.perfecteconomy...). As older new pages have been unmarked, the new material (much of it brief) can readily be identified by the [NEW] indicators in the site directory. Much of this answers formally to issues raised here, and further to the collectivism/individualism issues introduced here and elsewhere. The nature of money in MPE may be the most important article for dissenters.
Thanks again to everyone, and to the many who have written us privately over these matters.
Best regards,
mike montagne -- founder of PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy, and author of mathematically perfected economy (1979)
http://www.perfecteconomy...
Mike
I really enjoyed reading "People for Mathematically Perfected Economy". It is very interesting. It also gets you to think about solutions to the current problems we are having. I agree with you that interest will eventually cause collapse. Someone on the DP once posted a forum called something like "How can you pay back 3 eggs on a 2 egg loan?" Really if we all took out a loan for 2 eggs, where does the 3rd egg come from? It doesn't exist to begin with. With all the fractional banking going on, we a headed to collapse at an extraordinary speed. How can a bank lend the same money out 10x and collect interest as if it has 10x more money than it has? We are in for it. I would like the see the computer program that shows when the collapse is expected to occur. I believe the Federal Reserve knows when it is going to happen. 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.
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?
I was at a loss to figure out how some of your theory would work out. I think it would help people understand if you made a computer model. It would be nice to see how this would work out in the real world. Is it even possible? You might discover some problems with the theory if you had to work it out over a long period of time.
Again, I really enjoyed your thought provoking theory.
Price Inflation Explained
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...
Another article to see is William B. Ryan's presumed refutation of MPE:
http://perfecteconomy.com...
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...
Understanding the Damaging Consequences of Deflation
Many people have trouble clearly perceiving the damaging consequences of deflation, which is a circulation less than the related value it is intended to represent.
How do we get our arms around a clear understanding of deflation?
In effect, deflation means that at least someone somewhere has not received the full measure of payment for their work. In real world situations, deflation affects all the subjects of the system.
Here's a simple real world example of how deflation affects you:
Suppose first there is a balanced circulation (no deflation or inflation), where there are 10,000 of us, and for each of us, there is $10 in circulation, representing full payment for the value of wealth we have created.
We are all facing the center of a circle we are standing in, and we do business by turning to our left and passing the person next to us our $10, and receiving our income from the person to our right.
The first person in the circle passes their money to their left, and likewise about the circle, and we readily complete the necessary transactions across the entire system without impediment.
Now suppose that every tenth person is denied their $10, and we attempt to perform the same transaction.
What happens? The whole transaction stops everywhere deflation is suffered. To complete the transaction, the person suffering the deflation must first earn their unpaid earnings yet again, from other subjects of the system -- who then too will be deprived of the due circulation necessary to sustain the intended, ongoing transaction.
Deflation is highly undesirable, because it is highly damaging to commerce we would otherwise sustain.
Deflation is akin to having no money or wealth, where instead we deserve perhaps to have much.
The subjects of any purported monetary system can readily determine themselves whether they suffer a deflated circulation, by comparing the general money they have on hand, compared to the value of the wealth they likewise have on hand (however indebted). Where the value of the wealth around us exceeds the money we have, we suffer deflation.
Making this comparison, we readily see that we suffer deflation, rather than inflation; and so it is impossible that circulatory inflation results in price inflation.
Moreover, we can make some very critical observations.
If the lending institutions quit lending money into circulation, what will happen then as we yet are compelled to pay against principal and interest obligations on existent debt?
We will quickly pay our circulation out of the general circulation, making collapse all the more imminent.
The same thing of course would happen in servicing so much debt with a circulation limited to the equivalent of gold monetary reserves.
These are reasons why we have to instead make the wealth represented by the money serve the purposes of monetary reserves -- it's the only thing and the most appropriate thing to serve as the redeemable substance, because it is the very substance the money is intended to represent.
We cannot do this of course if the money is subject to interest, because interest precludes redeeming the money in the wealth it is intended to represent -- it compels us instead to spend the money servicing perpetually multiplying debt.
Regards,
mike montagne -- founder of PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy, and author of mathematically perfected economy (1979)
http://www.perfecteconomy...
More on Biblical Concurrence
Actually then, you can readily see why eradication of interest and solution of inflation and deflation align with Biblical teaching, because failure to solve these simple issues imposes vast manifestations which completely undermine any intention of justice.
In effect today, we have the advocates of unearned taking versus the few remaining advocates of true free enterprise, with the former imposing their system of unearned taking on the latter, without even the assent of the latter.
The result is usurpation, and all the other things we have today.
So the real issue is unearned taking, of which usury or interest is just one manifestation.
(Which further explains the ire/contempt of those who oppose MPE.)
Regards,
mike montagne -- founder of PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy, and author of mathematically perfected economy (1979)
http://www.perfecteconomy...
Interesting
The thing I find most fascinating about this theory is that it actually lines up with Biblical teaching and usury is evil and must be abolished. This had been taught in both Jewish and Christian circles until just a few hundred years ago as interest was seen as improper gain.
In the book of Ezekiel, notice what else is on the list of evils to get a view of how bad this practice was considered:
So charging interest was akin to rape, adultery, and murder.
It would not surprise to find that this theory is completely correct. There often very good reasons behind the commandments of God.
Indeed...
Indeed, you are *SO* right.
Should we suppose God charges interest? Should we suppose creation required "investment" and "capitalism"?
Usury/interest are forbidden to all three major religions deriving from the Old Testament. And all through history, the consequences of violating the law were proven just as they are today.
Regards,
mike montagne -- founder of PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy, and author of mathematically perfected economy (1979)
http://www.perfecteconomy...
Ok, I'm not
going in to detail about the website you posted, nor I'm going to comment on the comments below. More than anything I feel compelled to share this website page that I have been reading for a couple of days. http://www.apfn.org/apfn/... From my prespective it puts the whole current economy in perspective to our current situatiuon, why we are where we are and what is possiblily going to come out of it.
Enjoy.
APFN
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...
Just out of curiosity
and somewhat off topic.
How do you know Chris Athanas?
He was one of the ones who woke me up several years ago.
He used to have a show called "reality expander" in cable access TV here in Austin,Tx.
He was very active in the patriot community here, and then just disappeared.
Any news on him?
Athanas
I quit getting email from him many years ago. A supporter of our early site informed me I "might want to look into" a provided URL which must have set a record for stolen material. You might say the extent of the theft was even flattering, even as its remnants and descendants cut off and even compete with truly original work.
I buried the hatchet quickly, maybe too quickly, but evidently he was after ownership of material for whatever [reasons we might expect].
As to what's become of him since, I have no idea. But I dissent from the proposition that patriotism is to cloud the issues, to claim them as your own.
Regards,
mike montagne -- founder of PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy, and author of mathematically perfected economy (1979)
http://www.perfecteconomy...
And... there you go...
And there you go... G. Edward Griffin again, claiming interest doesn't multiply debt:
http://perfecteconomy.com...
You know who first introduced the material of "Griffin's" book? Eustace Mullins. You think Griffin doesn't borrow from me either (to make the wrong conclusions)? Amazon.com has an excerpt of "his" book. Most histories offered before mine just leave all the stories to be interpreted for good or bad. I made a case; and because I was making a case, my observation was expressed in the terms that the Federal Reserve "is neither federal, nor a reserve of anything."
Note that Amazon's *featured excerpt* is as close as you can come without plagiarism; and yet in disputing that interest multiplies debt, Griffin negates the principal reason to write such a book.
There's a few deductions to make there.
Regards,
mike montagne -- founder of PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy, and author of mathematically perfected economy (1979)
http://www.perfecteconomy...
Bogus
This economic model is bogus.
Human economic progress depends on deferring consumption (saving), and investing the savings into improving the means of production. Without investment in improvement of the means of production, you will have a subsistence economy.
Each individual can defer his own consumption and invest it in his own productive activity. For example, the shoe maker can set aside some of his profits and eventually buy a better sewing machine and thereby increase his productivity and improve his profits. But he will NEVER be able to save enough on his own to buy a shoe-making factory that would multiply his productivity a thousand times over. If capital investment in the means of production is limited to each individual investing their own savings in their own enterprise, then no large factories, research facilities, power plants, cargo ships, etc. could ever be built. Furthermore, not every individual has a means of using their savings to improve their own productivity. A man who works as a helper in someone else's business, for example, can't invest his savings in the means of production because he doesn't own any.
The answer to both these huge limitations on the growth of production lies in the ability of many people to pool their savings and loan them to someone who knows how to invest it. This gives everyone, regardless of their employment situation, an opportunity to invest in improving the means of production. And it makes possible the aggregation of amounts of capital large enough to make large investments in the means of production. This process of aggregating and loaning out savings is critical to the growth of productivity and the prosperity that follows.
But this process of aggregating and loaning capital ONLY comes into being because the lenders can charge interest. The interest charged on the loaned capital is the lenders' payment for the inconvenience of postponing their consumtion. It is the way the market gives them a share of the increased productivy their savings made possible. In the absence of interest, there would be no incentive to save, except by those who could increase their own productivity modestly by investing in their own business. Or, perhaps, as a hedge against future hardship.
Because this economic model precludes charging interest, it essentially eliminates one of the critical requirements for the increase in productivity - captial investment. If you look back in this thread, you can see that the proponent of this model has no answer for this fundamental flaw.
Don't waste your time.
I agree...his economics idea is drivel
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.
Drivel
If you yourself could ascend above your own drivel, then you might be disposed not to talk stupidly or childishly.
Can you prove there is no solution to inflation and deflation? Multiplication of debt by interest? Can you disprove anything?
If you could, I presume you would *show* how it is drivel, instead of condemning yourself to merely making the claim.
We don't need to solve inflation and deflation, systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, or inherent multiplication of debt by interest?
Download the math; refute the math. If you know what you're saying, why do you need a "cagematchdebates" site to speak for you? Is it a foregone conclusion that you would prevail?
Trolls are trolls. They don't come here to learn. They don't come to debate. They come to call names, because that's all they have; and because there's so many of them, it's no wonder the country is fallen to what it has.
You are part of the solution? You're part of the necessary vision?
No. You're the very core of the destruction of this country.
Regards,
mike montagne -- founder of PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy, and author of mathematically perfected economy (1979)
http://www.perfecteconomy...
Bull
Here's the answer you claim doesn't exist.
http://perfecteconomy.com...
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...
Explain
Explain in a simple, straightforward manner how substantial capital can be accumulated for investment in production without interest. Simple question, answer it!
Explain BACK...
So you advocate financing further industry with the same money, already existing to sustain other industry; and illimitable profit from the currency.
While you're getting ugly, why don't you explain why it's appropriate that an existing circulation, ostensibly already justified by its need to sustain other industry... be used to sustain further industry without an inherently deflationary effect.
And why don't you explain why my promise to pay someone else should, without my approval, be subject to your profiting from my promise, merely to have it written on your paper instead of mine, particularly when to maintain the circulation, inherent multiplication of debt in proportion to the circulation will only make all such promises eventually impossible to fulfill?
Who in America right now for instance would not benefit if their home were re-financed under mathematically perfected economy, at the rate of $1,000 per year per $100,000 of value, and hundred years of lifespan?
We would be worse off to be paying $83/month for our homes?
Your "interest" gives money its proper value? Your paper serves us better than our own?
"Simple questions, answer them!"
:-)
Regards,
mike montagne -- founder of PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy, and author of mathematically perfected economy (1979)
http://www.perfecteconomy...
Here you go...
http://perfecteconomy.com...
In mathematically perfected economy, you just issue it; however much is needed; it's all issued without inflation or deflation; without multiplication of debt; and without.
Enough of your selfish, immediate demands. If you were a thinking person, you would answer your question yourself; and if you weren't too lazy to read, or if you were interested in learning rather than being an impediment to learning and solution, you would have found the link yourself.
Your ever humble servant,
mike montagne -- founder of PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy, and author of mathematically perfected economy (1979)
http://www.perfecteconomy...
PS. HOW ABOUT PROVING YOUR CLAIMS?
PS.
How about proving your claim the model is bogus?
Interest doesn't multiply debt?
So said Griffin:
http://perfecteconomy.com...
We can't solve inflation and deflation?
Tell us how such a thing can be impossible, or you haven't seen the proof plastered all over the web pages you say in which it doesn't even exist.
Regards,
mike montagne -- founder of PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy, and author of mathematically perfected economy (1979)
http://www.perfecteconomy...
"Oh, where are my answers?!
"Oh, where are my answers?! Where are my answers?!"
It's remarkable how uniformly, trolls advocate there is no answer, cannot disprove a real answer, and neither offer any real positive alternative.
Things were fine here before those demanding answers and providing none arrived.
"Simple question, answer it!"
Did you guys ever think of quoting Jefferson or Franklin to support your negativity?
:-)
Regards,
mike montagne -- founder of PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy, and author of mathematically perfected economy (1979)
http://www.perfecteconomy...
i wish
this thread would go away
And why would that
And why would that be?
Regards,
mike montagne -- founder of PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy, and author of mathematically perfected economy (1979)
http://www.perfecteconomy...
Looks like someone decided
Looks like someone decided to post on this on the mises forums- http://mises.org/Communit...
OH, Fun
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...
UPDATE ON MISES
I could sit around and tell you folks stories all day long. But instead I'm going to give a personal observation. If you visit the Austrian/Mises forum, you'll see how quickly these folks jump on you; and I say it's because they can't stand an idea that's better than theirs. Moreover, you'll see why: They immediately abandon rules, definitions, everything; they even pretend superior expertise to your field of endeavor -- one they could never practice (software engineering) by their mere pomp -- and they resort to all this *characteristically* as a way, which is sufficient among *themselves*, to discredit the foreign idea.
No one can know anything; no one can even analyze or perfect an economy; because "human decisions are involved."
I'm sorry, but these people are as whacked as whacked gets.
Regards,
mike montagne -- founder of PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy, and author of mathematically perfected economy (1979)
http://www.perfecteconomy...
Well I can see why you were
Well I can see why you were turned off by the initial posters- there are some people that resort to name calling wherever you go(and I am assuming you get called names a lot whenever you bring about the MPE, so insulting back is understandable).
But I'd say that you continue to keep that debate up instead of just dropping it- especially since a lot of ron paul supporters get their economic ideas from that type of community. There are very reasonable people to talk to there if you continue to look at the thread- brushing people off that don't accept your ideas right away is never going to accomplish anything. And if anything, these are the type of people that'll pay attention to what your saying moreso than others(as long as you know how to distinguish the emotional ones with the logical ones)
An unfortunate source of ideas...
You presume this is my first experience with Austrians, and that I might not be sufficiently aware of their ideas that my observations of their lack of manners hold. Their ideas are bankrupt. They routinely dismiss all logic. They have no arguments; they merely cite one another as if they're a coalition which has agreed not to step on each others' toes so they can all pretend expertise.
Even conventional "economics," which is itself a facade, rejects Austrian School dogma; and so routinely do they abort logic, that over my 20 years experience with them, logic, courtesy, discipline, true critical thinking, and an interest in the truth... if any of these fly out the window... it's a strong sign there may be Austrians around.
See all the Austrian works on interest, if you don't believe me, which are cited by my invalidations of Austrian dogma. There isn't word of principle in the whole of their treatises on interest. By "free market" they mean "arena of predation" as much as any other enemy of the people.
Maybe I didn't drop the debate in time for you, but if you have a principle in mind which would have pleased you more than stirring their potty back for fun, lay it on me. That's a pretty damn wicked place for a purported economic institute. I have no faith in their works, and have yet to behold any even worth knowing of.
What's more, I see no reason to take the quality of the posts as examples of the quality of the school of thought, for no one there asked for the standards to be raised.
What they're up to is obvious.
Regards,
mike montagne -- founder of PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy, and author of mathematically perfected economy (1979)
http://www.perfecteconomy...
The ideas are very interesting
But the criticism I have has nothing to do with the subject but more on your website design. I'd just suggest to change it to be much more easily readable, its way too messy.
Messy
That doesn't tell me enough to make any changes.
One of the design decisions I made requires desktops at least 1280 pixels wide. Even that is tight, and some pages might not display "right" unless you have 1450 pixels of width or greater. Otherwise, the layout follows standards, which I'm seeing observed in these very pages; so I have no way of interpreting what your problems are without more information.
If your desktop is 1450 pixels or greater; and if your browser window occupies your whole desktop and is not infringed upon by an open history or favorites column, the width you're leaving the site will force some column content to drop down the page until sufficient width (by absence of competing content) exists to display it.
Most people understand that; and because we have to make design decisions such as are necessary to accommodate the natural content of a site, you just can't please everyone, or display as they would like, on substandard hardware.
Theres a screen resolution notice at the bottom of each page, in the copyright material. Firefox is the preferred user agent (browser), because it best adheres to CSS standards. It has become just too costly and self defeating to design for the purposed anomalies of MS IE; and in fact statistics are dropping so low for IE that... well, this has gotten to be quite the universal and practical perception. So if you're not running Firefox, you might want to use the link at the bottom of our pages to download and try FF without cost. It's been my standard browser for years; and you just can't beat it.
PS.
SO THAT WE DON'T WASTE OTHERS' TIME WITH DISCUSSION OFF THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD, PERHAPS PEOPLE SHOULD USE OUR SITE EMAIL FORMS TO MAIL ME ABOUT SITE DESIGN ISSUES.
AS FOR WRITING/COMPREHENSION, THAT MIGHT BE RELEVANT TO THIS THREAD, ESPECIALLY AS OTHERS CAN REACT IN CONCERT TO CONSTRUCTIVE CRIT ON STYLE/PRESENTATION/WHATEVER.
Regards,
mike montagne -- founder of PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy, and author of mathematically perfected economy (1979)
http://www.perfecteconomy...
gold-standard = socialism as well
The government fixes the convertibility rate! That is just as socialist as any other policy!
Money is always whatever the government makes it. This is an unavoidable conclusion and only true anarchy can avoid this.
?
I don't think I can quite agree, when there is no real ownership by the state as separate from the people (being as the people are the intended core of republican/representative government), although I appreciate your relative point.
I will agree however that by the liberal interpretations of the term socialism which have recently been exercised in this forum, that you're completely right: *then* gold is equally socialist.
So you're right in defeating the argument that the one thing is socialist (and therefore ostensibly less preferred), *versus* others.
But I think all things which *truly* (of course) come from representative/republican processes, which can be shown to serve the purposes of the people, simply do not concur with the connotation or even the intended meaning of socialism: representation and representative government are distinct from socialism, even if for instance both might adopt mathematically perfected economy.
On the one hand, the prescription might operate within the domain of a socialist implementation; on the other, a free, represented republic. MPE might also be imposed by a benevolent dictator; but it certainly would not serve the purposes of an oppressive one.
In fact, interest is usury, and each are the very instruments of oppression, from which a gold standard cannot save us.
Coexistence of gold with interest therefore is just a holy grail, even if gold *could* otherwise sustain industry quantitatively exceeding it by practically infinite and vacillating margins. But gold falls down on the other counts as well, because it cannot preserve the value of a circulation exceeded by varying and potentially vast margins of industry.
MPE overcomes this limitation by *making* the circulation at all times equal to the value of the very assets the currency is intended to represent. Because the currency is always redeemable in what it represents, there is not even a need for the (albeit faulty) "protections" of the gold standard, which have already failed. Even in the control of the price of gold Mr. Paul complains about, we see the failure of gold to overcome forces of the very "free markets" Mr. Paul too often claims without qualification, achieve the purposes we can only achieve by the monetary prescription of mathematically perfected economy.
Regards,
mike montagne -- founder of PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy, and author of mathematically perfected economy (1979)
http://www.perfecteconomy...
I agree
I am fully sympathetic with your cause and agree that we need a full-reserve government-issued currency that gets rid of the usury problem.
I was just pointing out to our detractors that the gold-standard as Ron Paul envisions it is NO MORE free-market than what we propose.
I am not an anarchist, but I believe that true anarchy is the only free market for gold and silver. But this is just not realistic.
I also disagree with Ron Paul's assertion that the Constitution forbids bills of credit. It forbids STATE ISSUES of bills of credit but is silent on the Federal Govt issue of it. But there is precedent for it, and without bills of credit the US doesn't even exist!
Exactly
Exactly, and I apoligize if I might be misunderstood to disagree with you on that, because you're indeed exactly right.
People without arguments resort to name calling. If all of us were still playing in sandboxes, we might appreciate the names too for the definitions they haven't bothered to learn yet.
I appreciate your remarks very much.
Regards,
mike montagne -- founder of PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy, and author of mathematically perfected economy (1979)
http://www.perfecteconomy...
Correct
I have been aware of the Mathematically Perfected Economy (MPE) for many years now, even corresponded with Mike, and the underlying principles are correct. The "details" of how such a system would be implemented and function are not obvious to everyone who has been indoctrinated under the current interest-based central banking system, but if you take the time to study and learn about it, the details become clear (as do the shortcomings of our present system).
That being said, I think the MPE needs to fine-tune its message and make it more understandable to a wider range of people. Perhaps I can work with Mike on that. Go Mike, go Ron Paul. Remember, NO ONE is 100% correct all of the time, and no one person is going to have all the answers. :)
OPEN TO YOUR CRIT
Thank you for your gracious comments. If you have constructive crit to offer, please be advised that I am *all ears*.
Regards,
mike montagne -- founder of PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy, and author of mathematically perfected economy (1979)
http://www.perfecteconomy...
exactly
I tried to read this site 3 times and was only able to process a small fraction of this idea. I would like to know more because I agree that there probably isn't enough gold in the world for the current population and the exponential growth. I like that gold is a finite resource and it would cause limits in spending.
Mike and others that get it - could you make a better website so that the common person could understand? Or produce a youtube that would outline the basic ideas. I think I've learned more from the DP threads than I did the website.
Mike - stick with it and don't give up! I think it's just hard for people to understand right now. You are on the right website for thinkers and if you can do a good job of making your point and backing it up, we will listen. There's a lot of good people here who always want to know more. There are trolls, but overall most are smart and good.
OPEN TO YOUR CRIT AND RESERVATIONS AS WELL
Yes. Then you *ARE* good.
Write me. Post here. Tell me what you would like. There's a Synopsis page. There are many efforts to reach you. I take input all the time, and certainly am receptive to your good suggestions.
Just let them flow. I'm *listening*!!!
Regards,
mike montagne -- founder of PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy, and author of mathematically perfected economy (1979)
http://www.perfecteconomy...
Here's what Gary North has to say about this author's idea:
"It's an old idea. It had its origin in America's greenback movement in the late 19th century. The bottom line is that the person says the government should issue money; banks must be prohibited from doing so. Conclusion: we can safely trust the government.
The one thing we can never trust to the government is the creation of money."
http://www.garynorth.com/...
Baloney
Gary North probably can't even cite what MPE is. He wrote me years ago when he was a nobody looking for ways to make money off other people's work. His site claims to be Gary North's "Specific Answers." (Wealth building strategies, etc.)
Where's the specifics of his answer? Just outright claims, without a fact to back it up.
He knows better than claiming my ideas originate in a purported Greenback movement. What was the transition, what was the formative process?
My ideas neither originate in Lincoln's concept any more than Jefferson's. Neither completed their postulates -- and I only discovered their thinking (which is far from equivalent, minus every one of the three aspects of solution which comprise MPE) afterward. I came to Lincoln's defense for approaching or reaching the direction of MPE, but I'm not even aware that Lincoln himself defended or established his work on the same grounds -- not that Gary North is even intellectually fit to tell the difference.
Lincoln, or a purported Greenback movement ostensibly sought to solve inflation and deflation, systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt by interest?
Gary North is full of it.
Completely.
Even if he *could* show us qualifying citations, my ideas certainly didn't come from there. Gary North won't even tell you his "specific answer." He wants you to pay for it.
Pay for what, the false claims of a pretended expert? He has no more business saying where my ideas originate than I would saying where his do. That's just plain bull. You heard me right, Gary.
So to pretend to be an expert, like the poster, he avoids even trying to invalidate the solution; and pretends his expertise should prevail on the principle that a republican government is better off forfeiting the principle of representation and control it was conceived to retain.
All Gary North and his supporter are telling me is they don't believe in representative government.
When the people forsake accountability and representation, government is given free reign to screw up anything. Every other kind of government, as well as privatization of the currency, give you what you have now. We're better off with a different privatization? We'll have any more control, representation, or chance for rectification than we do now? "Free markets" which are arenas of predation will determine what is best for us, when they've already failed?
I'll debate Gary North right here and now on any of this. Care to crawl out from under the covers Gary, or is a Gary North page going to go up at PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy tomorrow?
Regards,
mike montagne -- founder of PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy, and author of mathematically perfected economy (1979)
http://www.perfecteconomy...
You have a very naive view of government...
as some kind and friendly entity that can be trusted to perform the "will of the people."
I think Rand got it right:
"The world conflict of today is the conflict of the individual against the State, the same conflict that has been fought throughout mankind's history."
UPDATE ON GARY NORTH
Evidently you don't believe in representative/republican government, even as it was designed by individuals to ensure that a responsible populace would not lose control of a government bound to accountability in all its activities.
I do believe representative government can be further ensured by a variety of measures; but evidently you yourself don't see fit either to recommend a better form of government, even as our chance is now, and occurs under the present usurpation.
GARY NORTH UPDATE
I just a while ago sent Gary North this letter through his email form:
Gary,
I see you claim to be an expert on the origins of mathematically perfected economy(TM).
I invite you to debate your purported expertise; and should you refuse or fail to respond, be advised that we will respond to your false assertions at PFMPE.
Regards,
mike montagne -- founder of PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy, and author of mathematically perfected economy (1979)
http://www.perfecteconomy...
This idea is about montery socialism?
Ahh, I (and I think most people here) have had enough socialism!
Balderdash Mr. Montagne!
Accusations of Socialism
What most free people want is a monetary system which imposes no extrinsic unassented cost on them; which maintains the value of the currency; and which is always redeemable in the.
If the one thing which relieves them of all offenses against these things is socialism, that ought to be news to everyone here. When "people" (a very kind word for the likes of you) don't have arguments, they call names; they make unqualified assertions.
In a country where those things stand as equals to qualified argument, there is no wonder how the country disappears down its toilet.
Regards,
mike montagne -- founder of PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy, and author of mathematically perfected economy (1979)
http://www.perfecteconomy...
coercive socialism vs. voluntary socialism
I don't have any problem with socialism as long as it is completely voluntary.
Socialism performed by a government, on the other hand, is always inherently violent.
That's why I oppose your monetary socialism.
Trolling away
MPE, established by representative government is both voluntary, and no form of socialism. It is merely the one monetary prescription by which the promises of one person to pay another can always be certified, and can always be redeemed in the very thing of value the currency is from the beginning intended to represent.
To accomplish that goal, it is necessary to eradicate interest and to adhere to the one monetary cycle which eliminates inflation and deflation, and guarantees the money is redeemable in the very thing of value it is intended to represent.
Obviously, you haven't given the least attention to material at the site, or you are just trolling. Here is Answers.com's definition of socialism as you pretentiously assign to mathematically perfected economy:
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
http://www.answers.com/to...
So, obviously, you just throw around "big words" which sound good enough to you to effectively dis the very proofs of a theory you neither cite or even understand.
NOTHING WHATEVER preserves freedom moreso than eliminating unearned gain taken from the production of the entire world, by *imposed* currencies subject to interest.
If you stand against that, then you stand against humanity; and even to do so, you resort to mere name calling which to any intelligent person is transparent as transparent can be.
Regards,
mike montagne -- founder of PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy, and author of mathematically perfected economy (1979)
http://www.perfecteconomy...
Quite interesting
Just a note on navigation...read the articles on the table on the right, from top to bottom to get the story. I agree...poorly laid out website, but thought provoking stuff.
I'm not sure this is a perfect system...perhaps with some type of insurance on unpaid debts...what if I sell you a house and you trash it in 3 months...I get a much lower value with only a few hundred bucks in income. I now owe lots of materials suppliers and subcontractors money for building this house, and have not a lot to pay them with.
Figure out a way to offer insurance, and I think it may make a little more sense.
I don't agree that this is a perfect system...but this is exactly what we need if we're going to get to honest money. It will be a tough system to dismantle, and we need some great ideas on what to change to.
If we're going to convince people that we should switch from fiat, fractional reserve, and deficit spending...we have to be able to offer a system that's bullet proof and works better.
Bravo on this site...please check it out for yourself. I'm going back to reading it.
I like the insurance angle.
I like the insurance angle. But then again, isn't ownership a kind of insurance in and of itself? If I bought a house from you for x number dollars, I will do my best to insure that the property stays in excellent condition, as I can only sell it to another for what he/she will pay for it. There would be no hidden incentive for me to trash the place, then call the assessor out to revaluate the property in hopes of lowering my mortgage payment. I've been pondering this MPE for a few days now. To be sure. If we can put men on the moon, we ought to be able to figure out an economic system that doesn't put all the wealth in the hands of a few.
Parker Brothers tried to warn us about that over 50 years ago.
Things are only impossible until they are not.
-- Jean Luc Picard