HOME, SYNOPSIS, SITE DIRECTORIES AMENDMENT BLOG FORUM GLOSSARY TESTIMONIALS FREE NEWSLETTER CONTACT JOIN PFMPE™

mathematically perfected economy™ (MPE™)    1  :   the singular integral solution of  1) inflation and deflation,  2) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and  3) inherent, artificial multiplication of debt into terminal systemic failure;    2  :  every prospective debtor's right to issue legitimate promises to pay, free of extrinsic manipulation, adulteration, or exploitation of those promises, or the natural opportunity to make good on them;    3  :  our right to certify, to enforce, and to monetize industry and commerce by this one sustaining and truly economic process.

MORPHALLAXIS, January 14, 1979.

Mathematically Perfected Economy™ FORUMS, DISCUSSION

Forum rules


Posts must be polite, constructive, and on topic. No unsupported claims, no unqualified assertions. Spam is reported to the offending IP, with loss of posting privileges. You may post links to *related*, constructive material meeting these standards only.



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
Print view Previous topic | Next topic
Author Message
 Post subject: RESPONSE TO ELLEN BROWN'S CLAIM TO ANSWER THE CONTROVERSY
PostPosted: 22 Dec 2008, 1:02 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2008, 8:33 pm
Posts: 492
This article responds to Ellen Hodgson Brown's claim to answer to our controversy:

Quote:
Mike Montagne has posted this on his website, concerning a “controversy” with me of which I was unaware until it was sent to me by someone else.

http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2008/10/18/open-letter-to-global-research-on-the-controversy-with-ellen-hodgson-brown/

My sources on the Pennsylvania land bank are here:

Alvin Rabushka, “The colonial roots of American taxation, 1607-1700: The low-tax beginnings of American prosperity,“ Policy Review (Hoover Institution, Stanford University, August/September 2002); “Representation without taxation: The colonial roots of American taxation, 1700–1754,” ibid. (December 2003 & January 2004); Stephen Zarlenga, The Lost Science of Money.

The math works like this: you print $105, lend $100 at 5% interest and spend $5 into the economy on government salaries, projects, etc. $105 is now circulating in the economy, which comes back to the government bank as principal and interest on the $105 loan. You lend THE SAME $100 all over again and spend $5, which returns to the government as principal and interest; etc. The interest funds the government, replacing taxes. No inflation, no government debt, no taxes — as proven by the Pennsylvania experience.

Ellen


What you only call simplification is hardly a virtue if it fails to account for the issues at hand. It's not complicated to account for those issues; nor is it an excessive complication to account for those vital issues, as your inability to account for those issues asserts.

You merely claim that the few aspects of the cycle you cite accounts for all issues. You've claimed that over and over again, without ever answering to the questions I've asked; and of course, you've pretended weak answers to others account for their questions, which they have asked (I'll get to those next).

You don't even explain for instance what you're loaning "THE SAME $100 all over again," assumably back into circulation for. So what simpleton can even truly pretend to understand your purportedly "simple" example? Tell us with necessary certainty, supporters of this proposition, what is she lending the $100 back into circulation for? And how is that this "simple" explanation determines a wholly accountable solution, which is non-inflationary, non-deflationary (able to sustain all industry or trade of all wealth), and so forth? There are no further questions, just because you prefer not to think of them?

In your purported account of accountability, you don't even cite what the circulation should or must be, if it is to account for or sustain all the stresses which might be (and will be) imposed upon the circulation. Why loan the same $100 back into circulation, as does the present fractional reserve system? How is the same circulation to account for different purposes simultaneously, particularly if for instance we were to trade all wealth at once? How would that same $100 suffice to do that? How does your circulation sustain the possibility of such a transaction?

Worse, how do simpletons pretend to know it can, or that your "solution" is even "more simple," *unless* they indeed understand that it can?

Do they understand that, Ellen?

It doesn't of course, because there isn't an effective circulation equal at all times to the remaining value of all represented wealth. That's pretty simple. Just a "small" detail we don't need to account for, or even explain?

Obviously, your purported circulation can only sustain the trade of all wealth if there is an effective circulation equivalent to all wealth. You don't even understand that there's a question of such an issue... so you merely reply that's an unnecessary complication -- one which, of course, you don't understand.

If you did understand it, you would not be giddy about the proposition or model of a land bank, which can only of course finance the purchase of land (as your earlier correspondence indicates).

Furthermore, obviously, there are further issues which make your proposition -- I'll give you the simple version, since you prefer that -- "idiotic." What would make it idiotic?

Because you're doing two quite inept things here, and only pretending you have answered for these things.

First of all, the only assumable reason you have to spend interest back into circulation is so that it can be paid without re-borrowing it, to maintain a vital circulation (so that it can be paid). In other words, tacitly, your purported solution recognizes my principle that any currency subject to interest inherently multiplies debt in proportion to the obligated circulation, until this multiplication produces a terminal sum of debt.

So all you're really doing, is paying taxation through what you still call interest (although this is neither its definition or consequence). And of course, you're doing that only to avoid multiplication of debt by actual/conventional interest, even as you carefully avoid plagiarizing the vital reasons for that, which I provided so long ago -- and all the while since. Of course, neither can your readers possibly understand or appreciate that necessity but in veritable terms -- even as you merely describe the process as a Ponzi Scheme, which of course hardly reflects the need to re-borrow interest as subsequent increases in the sum of debt (to maintain the necessary circulation) -- a requisite and process which certainly is not defined by or incumbent to "Ponzi Schemes."

While yet you deny this principle that conventional interest multiplies debt in proportion to the obligated circulation, you advocate an obfuscation of taxation, imposed in a form similar to interest, but with the further provision, to avoid the consequence of interest which I raise, of spending all interest payments back into circulation (so that these payments don't have to be borrowed back into circulation, as is the case with the pattern of *conventional* *interest*).

At the same time, I've asked you how this properly administers taxation. How do you -- what is your formula for -- properly adjusting interest so that everyone might pay for instance, different rates of interest, which might properly distribute their burden of taxation, if particularly, it were the case that some or others of us not rightly bear the same proportion of taxation? Worse, how is it those who do not assume debts are taxed? Or what is the connection between government service and proper rates of taxation, which makes "interest" levied against debt the proper rate of taxation for all cases?

The idea that your arbitrary rate of interest answers to any of these issues is preposterous; and even the lowliest simpletons should realize this.

I'll give you one clear example of how ludicrous this idea is: I'm paying the "right" amount of taxation for the degree to which government serves me. Then, without receiving any more service of the government, it is necessary for me to assume say 100 times my previous debt. Now I'm paying 100 times as much taxes through your obfuscation of interest. How is that right? Because it's ostensibly "simple"?

To simply not answer the question, neither conveys a virtue of your proposition, or the purported simplicity you claim, for if you had accounted for these things, you would explain in sufficient detail all the more complicated processes by which interest rates might be adjusted upward or downward as more property per government service was financed (requiring lower interest rates for all), or individuals opted out of government programs (which requires lower interest rates for them), or further government spending on the accounts of some increased the share/interest of government costs for others, and so forth.

After all, once a person has paid their debts, or if a person assumes no debt, they are paying no taxes whatever, regardless however much their enjoyment of government services might stress the taxation system, placing the burden on others.

This is not solution. It's preposterous pretension of solution. Nor is it simple, because it obviously places tremendous complications upon implementation, merely if we are to distribute the tax burden justly, for all logical cases.

Obviously, this is a far more complicated scheme than it needs to be; and I have already detailed some of the injustices it would impose. How do we resolve all these issues more simply?

We simply eradicate (real) interest to solve the adverse consequences of interest; and we impose taxation in the most straightforward, justly distributed manner.

How do we do that?

We restore to the individual the right to issue their own promises to pay. We aren't taking "interest" from the real creditor, who is the producer of the subject property, who accepts the promise to pay as currency... for that producer is denied such "interest" now, by an extrinsic party, which produces the promise of the real debtor at virtually no cost whatever, pretends to loan that to the debtor (only by denying the debtor the right to issue their own promise), and, as if that freely (virtually costlessly) published, obfuscated promise represented earned wealth of the intervening publisher... we pay *the publisher* (of all parties!) the "interest," instead of the actual creditor (producer of the subject property).

You too in fact are denying the true creditor interest, so what exactly is your justification of interest? (!)

So the simple answer is that mathematically perfected economy™ alone sustains the whole necessary relationship of money to represented wealth, without multiplication of debt by interest, and while, the whole while, debtors pay for the wealth they consume, as they consume of it.

In other words, the simple solution is to pay for wealth, only the cost of the wealth, and to pay for taxation according to the separate rules which might determine however we should be paying for taxation. Otherwise, OF COURSE, you're going to place ridiculous complications upon your preposterous notion of obfuscating a rate of interest to pay for government costs, the burdens of which obviously may never be JUSTLY distributed in any uniform rate of interest, applied yet to further disparate, individual volumes of debt.

The fact is, Ellen, if you sorted all that out, you'd come to the simplest implementation of all:

Should we be able to pay for a house, what the house itself should cost us? Of course, this is a just goal of economy, and therefore of solution.

Should we be able to pay for government services, what those services should cost *us*, regardless of however much we might or might not borrow? Of course as well.

So then, for all cases, there is one way to do this:

Pay for the property you acquire, only the costs of the property; and pay for the costs of government, only what you should have to pay as well -- which obviously, has no consistent, uniform *rate*, relative to however much debt we might assume in whatever we have to do.

When you were asked why not eradicate interest, you simply answered you thought it was too complicated to implement such a system. Of course, you didn't say how; and I responded in detail how the (unanswered) complications and/or injustices which your proposition imposes comprise a greater set of (redundant) difficulties.

The simpler solution then, *IS* mathematically perfected economy™.

Why?

Because the subjects of the system *do*, in all cases, simply pay for the wealth they consume. If it is a $100,000 home with a 100-year lifespan, they're paying for the home at the overall rate of $1,000 per year, or $83.33 per month -- the very rate they consume of it. They're not paying taxes at the same time, for ostensible government services they may or may not consume, and which too, are not necessarily relative/proportional at all to however much the house *should* cost!

Likewise, in the case of *actual* government services they might *elect* to consume, and should pay for to some different proportion or relationship, they simply pay for those services by equally simple processes. How so?

If the usage of roads provided by government is decided to be levied proportional to gasoline consumption, the tax is levied in the cost of gasoline... which *alone* of course, with no complication whatever, determines just payment across the very duration of the consumption of the government service, as you propose to decide rightly by your uniform rate of taxation, instead applied to a wholly disproportionate sum of individual debt!

Not only have you not answered the questions then... the injustices of your system impose greater complication than mathematically perfected economy™.

The difference is not that your proposition is less complicated. The difference is, you don't account for the further complications, by the simplest answer to all the requisites of a just implementation. The difference is, you don't provide accountable arguments. You just fire off your idea, without ever establishing even to yourself, that it solves the things you pretend to solve.

http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2008/12/22/response-to-ellen-hodgson-browns-claim-to-answer-to-the-controversy/




mike


Image


"When the freedom they wished for most was the freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free, and never was free again."



Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: RESPONSE TO ELLEN BROWN'S CLAIM TO ANSWER THE CONTROVERSY
PostPosted: 22 Dec 2008, 3:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: 08 Oct 2008, 4:49 pm
Posts: 4
It seems to me that if only $105 existed then there would be no advance in production or jobs. That theory may have worked in Rockefeller's mines , where the slave labor worked in his mines for money he printed , rented his housing and bought form his stores. It seems that everyone wants to remain ignorant to the fact that the federal reserve act was conned on the American people who fell pawns to the international bankers.
If I could print "money" for the price of the paper and loan it out so workers could pay taxes on the "money" they earned , before and after they spend it to buy already inflated articles I think I would be called a loan shark. And because the federal reserve is a monopoly that's exactly what they are.
Ignorant American's (taught in government schools) were scared by bankers like JP Morgan that the banks could fail at anytime and there was nothing they could do about it , except lose everything. Hocus , pocus here comes the federal reserve act which had already been tried under different names thoughout American history. So these international bankers (who made Rockefeller) find a worm like Wilson who will sign the act , get Teddy to join the race to break up the other party , and once again another puppet had been put in the Whore House.
The international banker's rep was Paul Warburg (Daddy Warbucks) who was the main architech of the federal reserve act.He was in Washington DC to make sure they got what they wanted. Which being a monopoly would be a choke hold on America. Well at this time there were American's who had balls and stood against this oppression. Warburg had his puppets tell the opposition to the act that there were over 40 differences that needed to be settled , which would take weeks so everyone should just go home to their families and things would be settled after the holiday's. The next day the federal reserve act was passed without opposition and the American people have paid the price ever since.
Mike Montagne has a great idea. It would put American's back on their feet , it would keep our government accountable for their spending and keep the budget balanced.
Piss on the working class bailing out the billionaires for their wreckless loans , let them deal with their own problems like we are forced to.
The federal reserve is not part of our government , which we haven't been able to call our government since 1913. The IRS is their collection agent and they can take everything from YOU. They never lose , our taxes go higher and our jobs are lost to American corporations that they helped move to other countries with OUR TAXES!
Anyone that can make an excuse for this robbery is either a fool or benefits from the system!




Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: RESPONSE TO ELLEN BROWN'S CLAIM TO ANSWER THE CONTROVERSY
PostPosted: 23 Dec 2008, 10:14 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2008, 8:33 pm
Posts: 492
The author, and her followers as well, represent a faction which does not believe we have to ask or answer these obvious questions, or perfect the many cited faults. Like her friend Zarlenga, they claim to be resurrecting a "lost science of money," even as Zarlenga wrote his book knowing of my work, and even wrote me afterward, saying we are of like mind, and asking me to help him promote it without even showing me a copy!

So I would suppose these "authors" are out (even quite carelessly) for attention, especially as, despite the many faults they cannot answer for, they're succeeding most in *getting* attention. They're certainly not teaching anything new; and certainly, her obfuscation of interest (as Zarlenga's claims of a "lost science of money") recognizes the fault of interest I raised so long ago (which she too, evidently, denies exists as can/should be attributed to me), only yet needs to exist to solve the very most important problem I raised so long ago — that if the subjects of the system have to borrow [real/conventional] interest back into circulation to maintain the vital circulation, this perpetually increases the sum of debt so much as periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt, until we suffer terminal debt. So her needless complications, and purportedly excellent research only dredge up the same history, to deny me the reason and solution of all these issues, so that, to avoid plagiarism, she can re-introduce the smallest part she understands of that, as hers, in an obfuscation which doesn't even account for all the issues — and therefore cannot be understood to be solution.

She (and Zarlenga? [who she rubs elbows with, without protest?]) claims her "solution" is not "inflationary" in this way. BUT OF COURSE, NEITHER IS THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM!!!

AND, if you were to solve all the issues, and even to render that solution in the simplest possible form, what would you have?

mathematically perfected economy™.


Belying her lack of sufficient expertise (or thinking), she doesn't even want to answer the first question of solution (from which all the others I ask arise): "Why shouldn't the subjects of the system, be able in every case, to pay for just what they consume, with no extrinsic or possibly inappropriate or redundant further cost whatsoever?"

Yet she and Zarlenga (who raises no protest?) claim to resurrect a "lost science of money" so long after I did?

Garbage.

The only reason I even know about the garbage is so many of our followers are writing me of it, reporting their writings and postings to her, along of course with her perpetually evasive, absolutely unsatisfactory answers.

Ten thousand homes a day are going into foreclosure still, so that her little blip of fame or whatever she's after (she certainly isn't busy trying to include my ideas/solution[!] in a dialog/debate of solution) further divides the sheep amidst the wolves. Later yesterday yet, she wrote that she doesn't understand my questions.

Then why not write that first, if even *the number* of your answers doesn't match the number of the questions?

And why haven't you asked and answered the questions yourself, in your lamented 500+ pages, which evidently don't answer the questions she never realized existed, either?

So, if you don't understand the obvious remaining questions, certainly you aren't the kind of author who produces solution. Claiming to teach, she's only offering the same histories over again; obfuscating explanations so that we would never even understand the nature of the problem we have to solve; and then, swerving us from solution, to her pathetic plea for a "non-inflationary" method of taxation, which yet she calls interest, as if she's solved the inherent multiplication of debt which she [mis-] "explains" as a "Ponzi Scheme" — all of which pretended teaching is an offense to an intelligent country... that is, a country better than mere sheep.

(Which is a further question itself, as she evidently has readers who believe she and they understand "her work" to comprise solution.)




mike


Image


"When the freedom they wished for most was the freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free, and never was free again."



Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous  Sort by   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron

While 12,000 homes a day continue to go into foreclosure, mathematically perfected economy™ would re-finance a $100,000 home with a hundred-year lifespan at the overall rate of $1,000 per year or $83.33 per month. Without costing us anything, we would immediately become as much as 12 times as liquid on present revenue. Transitioning to MPE™ would apply all payments already made against existent debt toward principal. Many of us would be debt free. There would be no housing crisis, no credit crisis. Unlimited funding would immediately be available to sustain all the industry we are capable of.

There is no other solution. Regulation can only temper an inherently terminal process.

If you are not promoting mathematically perfected economy™, then you condemn us to monetary failure.



Powered by phpBB3 © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.

© COPYRIGHT 1979-2009 by mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.COPYRIGHT 1979-2009 by mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. TRADEMARKS: PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™, Mathematically Perfected Economy™, Mathematically Perfected Currency™, MPE™, and PFMPE™ are trademarks of mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™, perfecteconomy.com. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Firefox™.BEST VIEWED WITH MOZILLA FIREFOX™.


Search perfecteconomy.com     Search Web