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  [ 47 posts ] 
Print view Previous topic | Next topic
Author Message
 Post subject: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 30 Dec 2008, 3:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: 30 Dec 2008, 3:16 pm
Posts: 22
I have been looking at PFMPE™ now for only a few days, but have been discussing it online with others who are familiar with the corruption of the banking system.

The main point that has been brought up is that the system would appear to discourage lending and therefore would seem to reduce production of high quality durable goods or new inventions which could be very beneficial but require large amounts of money to produce. Also, since the longer the lifespan the lower the loan payments, what about items like land which has a lifespan of thousands or years? It was also stated that the system would seem to favor quick-to-market consumables but that the producers of the consumables would eventually have difficulty replenishing their equipment or supplies because of lack of incentive for necessary loans.

I would appreciate whatever responses to these points.




Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 03 Jan 2009, 12:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: 08 Nov 2008, 8:21 pm
Posts: 248
Let me take a stab at answering your questions.

Quote:
The main point that has been brought up is that the system would appear to discourage lending and therefore would seem to reduce production of high quality durable goods or new inventions which could be very beneficial but require large amounts of money to produce.


Actually, borrowing would be easier since you are only paying back the principal. A mortgage for example, typically requires the borrower to repay 2.5 times the loan amount when interest is applied. This effectively reduces the periodic payments by more than 50%.

As far as lending, under the MPE, private individuals and banks would not need to loan their money since the money may be created and endowed with the value of the asset purchased. For example, if an automobile is purchased, it serves as the collateral in which the loan is secured.

An important detail I should mention is that with the Mathematically Perfected Economy™; only secured loans are available. That is that every loan requires collateral. You would not for example, be able to borrow money expressly to make a speculative investment. Of course, if you have accumulated some equity, you would be able borrow against it.

Quote:
Also, since the longer the lifespan the lower the loan payments, what about items like land which has a lifespan of thousands or years?


This is a great question and I have asked a similar one myself. Let me share Mike's answer:

Quote:
"...it is right then to consider the *effective* lifespan of the subject property to be *the effective, remaining lifespan of the debtor*!"


Back to your questions:

Quote:
It was also stated that the system would seem to favor quick-to-market consumables but that the producers of the consumables would eventually have difficulty replenishing their equipment or supplies because of lack of incentive for necessary loans.


In eliminating all interest charges, the Mathematically Perfected Economy™ would make more money available since the savings would be very significant. People would have more purchasing and savings power. In borrowing money, the rate of consumption, or deprecation, determines the duration of the loan.

Hopefully this has been helpful...

Larry




Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 03 Jan 2009, 2:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: 30 Dec 2008, 3:16 pm
Posts: 22
Thank you, Larry. That is helpful.

Is the borrower then creating his own money as a promise to pay?

If so, how is this done?

Would the government regulate it?

Would all money then be a promise to pay always fully secured by goods/real property?

And would the terms of payment for a loan on land be based upon the estimated life span of the borrower so that the land would be paid in full at the end of that estimated life spa?

What would happen in the case of an invention with great promise for humanity which would require large amounts of money to develop, far more than the value of any equipment or materials or collateral involved?

Is it correct that there would be no fractional reserve banking under this system?

Does Mike also see fractional reserve banking, in addition to interest, as a major cause of the pending collapse of the economy?

If it becomes clear to me that the MPE system is the most optimum, I may be able to help towards getting it implemented...




Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 03 Jan 2009, 10:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: 08 Nov 2008, 8:21 pm
Posts: 248
Great questions...hopefully I'll be able to answer.

Quote:
Is the borrower then creating his own money as a promise to pay? If so, how is this done? Would the government regulate it?


The Government, through the Treasury, would create the money while the borrower establishes the value by the purchase of an asset. But first a credit check and the verification of the information would need to be completed. This could be done by an authorized bank that would be compensated through transaction/service fees.

The approval process doesn't have to be done by a bank, for example, car dealers now routinely provide these services and other industries do as well. The government would be responsible for authorizing money distribution agents and making sure the transactions comply.

Quote:
Would all money then be a promise to pay always fully secured by goods/real property?

And would the terms of payment for a loan on land be based upon the estimated life span of the borrower so that the land would be paid in full at the end of that estimated life span?


The value of the money is derived from the assets it represents. You picked up a subtle but important detail - that is that all loans would be secured in order to protect the system.

Quote:
And would the terms of payment for a loan on land be based upon the estimated life span of the borrower so that the land would be paid in full at the end of that estimated life span?


Land is a rather unique asset for the reasons you have stated, and yes, the borrowers life expectancy would establish a maximum loan duration.

Quote:
What would happen in the case of an invention with great promise for humanity which would require large amounts of money to develop, far more than the value of any equipment or materials or collateral involved?


The Mathematically Perfected Economy™ would be very similar to the way these things are handled now. The inventor would either sell the idea or they may seek venture capital by attracting private investors. The great thing about the MPE is that venture capital would be much more plentiful for two reasons. First, people would have much more money since interest payments would be eliminated. Second, people would invest in more productive enterprises since interest bearing bonds would not exist.

Quote:
Does Mike also see fractional reserve banking, in addition to interest, as a major cause of the pending collapse of the economy?


I can't answer for Mike but I can give you my interpretation. No doubt fractional lending has contributed to our current problems as over-leveraging makes banks more fragile. That said, even if the banks would carry 100% reserves, the multiplication of debt/interest would occur.

Quote:
If it becomes clear to me that the MPE system is the most optimum, I may be able to help towards getting it implemented...


This is great news indeed as any help would be greatly appreciated.

Larry




Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 04 Jan 2009, 9:05 am 
Offline

Joined: 30 Dec 2008, 3:16 pm
Posts: 22
Thank you again, Larry.

The picture is becoming clearer.

Would all money then come into being from loans all 100% backed by physical collateral?

And would there be a government prohibition against any and all forms of interest?

What sort of penalties might be imposed?

And is there a very simple mathematical model, understandable by almost any semi-literate person, which clearly demonstrates that interest of any kind, whether compounded or not, would eventually lead to economic collapse?

Also, interest has existed for at least two centuries in the United States and I think far longer in Europe. Is there a reason the economy of the U.S. has not yet collapsed? Is it because of being parasitic upon the wealth of other nations? And also, I believe that England's economy has not collapsed. Is that because of being parasitic upon the wealth of various colonies for so long?

How could investors be compensated for their investment? I suppose they would not be allowed to receive interest, correct? Would it be as a percentage of the profit earned?

Is it also correct that there would be no fractional reserve in a MPE because all loans would be 100% backed by goods and property?

Regarding the possibility of my helping, I am the Director of Media Relations for the most published industrial and high tech PR firm in the U.S. I also edit most of the articles we write. I'm not sure how that would translate into helping MPE expand, but there might be some possibilities.

I also have a connection to a person who is working towards setting up local economies including local money systems. Would MPE be applicable to localized money systems?

Looking forward to hearing from you...

Dave




Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 04 Jan 2009, 10:30 am 
Offline

Joined: 08 Nov 2008, 8:21 pm
Posts: 248
I'm glad the picture is becoming clearer. The Mathematically Perfected Economy™ is not really that complicated but the hard part, at least for me, was to let go of so many things that I held as "practical" necessities. For example, at first it is inconceivable that interest might be eliminated. The exciting part is that as you come to realize that there is a viable solution, you begin to see the prosperous and free society that may emerge.

Quote:
Would all money then come into being from loans all 100% backed by physical collateral?


Yes, this allows infinite growth. Under the Mathematically Perfected Economy™ people would be free to reach their aspirations, anything that is physically possible and desirable, is possible under the MPE. In our current system money is controlled by private banks who profit greatly through our efforts while adding nothing to the production.

Quote:
And would there be a government prohibition against any and all forms of interest?


Loan sharking would continue to be illegal. The difference would be that institutionalized loan sharking would also be illegal. We have statutes and laws now that would probably suffice but should be reviewed. Criminals do great damage to a society and this must not be allowed. Credit card companies for example are charging over 25% in many cases - this is ruining lives as much as any other addiction.

Quote:
And is there a very simple mathematical model, understandable by almost any semi-literate person, which clearly demonstrates that interest of any kind, whether compounded or not, would eventually lead to economic collapse?


I suggest you check out the spreadsheet and explanation which may be found at:
http://www.perfecteconomy.com/pg-math-walking.html

You may download the spreadsheet for free at:
http://www.perfecteconomy.com/pg-free-pfmpe-downloads.html

As a quick primer, let me give you a simple example:

Let's say there are only three people in the world, a banker and two others that we'll call Jack and Jill. The banker sets up a monetary - exactly like ours.

Let's say Jack wants to borrow $100 to buy services and production from Jill. The banker charges 10% simple interest. $100 is created but Jack will have to repay $110 ($100 principal + $10 interest). Since only $100 has been created where does the extra $10 come from?

Let's continue and say that Jill now wants to borrow $100. Again, there will be $10 interest applied so now we have a total of $200 in circulation but the total amount owed is $220.

As you can see the debt may never be fully repaid and worse, Jack and Jill must continuously borrow in order to make the payments on the past debt. Eventually, the system must fail with all money and property inevitably going to the bank.

Quote:
How could investors be compensated for their investment? I suppose they would not be allowed to receive interest, correct? Would it be as a percentage of the profit earned?

Is it also correct that there would be no fractional reserve in a MPE because all loans would be 100% backed by goods and property?


People would continue to have many instruments in which to invest. For example, the stock market would continue with more funding available since people would have more to invest. The instruments that would be available would more directly lead to production since the usury of interest would be eliminated. For example, in an earlier example you correctly stated the need for venture capital to be available for new inventions that benefit society.

Under the Mathematically Perfected Economy™ people would be more inclined to invest in their own lives. For example, a geothermal heat pump might become an investment since the relatively low; non-interest bearing repayments would enable a positive cash flow from the loan since the energy costs saved would more readily exceed the periodic payment. The loan payment might be $84/month while the energy savings might be $100/month!

Quote:
Regarding the possibility of my helping, I am the Director of Media Relations for the most published industrial and high tech PR firm in the U.S. I also edit most of the articles we write. I'm not sure how that would translate into helping MPE expand, but there might be some possibilities.

I also have a connection to a person who is working towards setting up local economies including local money systems. Would MPE be applicable to localized money systems?

Looking forward to hearing from you...


I will refer this to Mike Montagne as he is the guy. From my perspective, I can see many ways in which your skills could greatly help the cause. Thanks - we will hopefully continue to talk!




Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 04 Jan 2009, 9:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: 30 Dec 2008, 3:16 pm
Posts: 22
Thank you again, Larry.

Am I correct that individuals would be allowed to loan at interest but that institutions and companies and businesses would not?

Would this be enforced similarly to the way loan sharking laws are currently enforced?

And would investors be restricted in any way as to how they could be compensated for their investments? Would the rules regarding that be more or less the same as they are now?

And banks would get a fair exchange from fees rather than through interest?

I think these questions may provide the answers I wanted.

I expect to have more questions from others with whom I am in communication.

I appreciate your help.

Dave




Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 04 Jan 2009, 9:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: 29 Jan 2008, 6:06 pm
Posts: 731
Mr. David
Mr. DrKrbyLuv


Quote:
"Issue of currency should be lodged with the government and be protected from domination by Wall Street. We are opposed to...provisions [which] would place our currency and credit system in private hands." - Theodore Roosevelt

"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws." - Mayer Amschel Rothschild

"I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire, ...The man that controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire. And I control the money supply." - Nathan Rothschild

"There is but one power in Europe, and that is Rothschild." - Werner Sombart 1841, French Journalist

"Who controls money controls the world." - Henry Kissinger

"The refusal of King George III to allow the colonies to operate an honest money system, which freed the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators was probably the prime cause of the revolution." - Benjamin Franklin

"The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction. The inability of the colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III was the prime reason for the Revolutionary War." - Benjamin Franklin

"This Act (the Federal Reserve Act, Dec. 23rd 1913) establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President (Woodrow Wilson) signs the Bill, the invisible government of the Monetary Power will be legalized... The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency Bill." - Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr.

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world—no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men." - Woodrow Wilson, reflecting on passage of the Federal Reserve Act


I light of those quotes gentlemen, if I may suggest, as I understand that You would like or wish to help with spreading/exposing the-only-solution-mpe-news, on much broader scale, please consider my suggestion.

Quote:
2. American higher education is civic education. While we Americans may disagree about the nature of our values, most of us see our schools as vehicles for inculcating them. No one in the culture wars thinks of himself as working for a foreign power. But the aim of any liberal education worthy of the name is to transport students out of the world they live in, making them less certain about what is valuable in life. It does not seek to overcome alienation, it tries to induce it. Genuine liberal education is, of necessity, an un-American activity.
Source:
http://www.slate.com/id/2130326/


- great majority - over 98 percent of world population has no college education.
- less then 7 percent of US/EU population are 2 + years of college grads.
- less than 2 percent of US/EU population are 4 years of college grads.

Those numbers are (plus-minus) pretty much across UN. For the UN is making those numbers to be so.

Here is ms suggestion.
To put Mikes words/writings in a flash/MP3 format
http://osflash.org/projects/arp for i-Phone & other G5 mobile platforms with a cool music background, So the music is indirectly driving force to re view the MPE 101 etc course. Classical music & music with no words attached, no lyrics non. Music from public domain copy rights free, preferably of the beat 2/4

One more thing - the following will be a separate entry.
This is how the Fractional Reserve Banking System will always end up. The Fractional Re-serve BS only works as long as the greed of the gate keepers is in check. They lost it & so the FRBS is lost & gone for ever too. In time past the bankers would start/sabotage circumpstances into a great confilict leading into a war in order to kill the 'knowledge of how they operate'. MPE also will eliminate the boom & bust industrial cycles out of economic life of intelligent society.

To consume = to destroy & exhaust, waste, dissipate, throw away!

Another prof that MPE can work & is the best way to go!
By Edmund Conway & Myra Butterworth wrote:

Savers facing accounts with no interest - ZERO INTEREST RATES-
Millions of savers are braced for zero per cent accounts within days as the Bank of England is poised to cut interest rates to the lowest level in its 315-year history.
Last Updated: 1:44PM GMT 03 Jan 2009

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/savings/4077360/Savers-facing-accounts-with-no-interest.html




Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2009, 11:15 am 
Offline

Joined: 18 Dec 2008, 10:47 am
Posts: 10
Hello,
From what i understand there is no profit in MPE. Just the creation of wealth which is then depreciated
Quote:
If we were to devise a currency which — just as in the union we sought for uninjured barter — represented only the wealth we produced and no other thing or process...

then that currency would have to be of a supply always capable of representing the whole of our production;
it would have to come and pass to and from existence in parallel with creation and consumption;
the circulation therefore would perpetually represent the remaining value of the assets for which it was issued;
[by virtue of the first and second attributes, the currency would neither appreciate or depreciate]

and its whole resultant lack of power/process to damage us itself therefore would eradicate whatever evils can rightly otherwise be attributed to contending forms of "money."
http://www.perfecteconomy.com/pg-what-is-mathematically-perfected-economy.html




Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2009, 3:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: 08 Nov 2008, 8:21 pm
Posts: 248
Quote:
Am I correct that individuals would be allowed to loan at interest but that institutions and companies and businesses would not?

Would this be enforced similarly to the way loan sharking laws are currently enforced?


If for example, a friend loaned you money with interest charged (probably not a good friend) I don't think the police would bother even if they knew. At least here in Pittsburgh, the police look the other way when people are committing small crimes that aren't worth their while. For example, scalping tickets at sporting events is very common and done out in the open but I've never seen the police bother or even give any notice. But if you set up a kiosk at a local mall - yea, I think the police would either tell you to stop or arrest you, as would be done now.

Quote:
And would investors be restricted in any way as to how they could be compensated for their investments? Would the rules regarding that be more or less the same as they are now?


The stock market, commodities, precious metals, stamp & coin collectors, et al, would probably love the MPE since there would be more money available to invest. I suspect that companies that issue stock would change for the better in that the pressure to meet or beat our perpetual inflation would be removed. This would enable more companies to pay periodic dividends since they too would be able to secure loans for less money. Dividends require that companies retain a minimum amount of earnings that makes companies stronger financially.

The good thing about being paid a dividend is that it is your decision to keep the money or to reinvest it as opposed to simply having your stock increase in value - the money stays in the stock. In the US, the number of companies paying dividends has been decreasing for a number of years now as companies have been heavily leveraged and retain less earnings.

Quote:
And banks would get a fair exchange from fees rather than through interest?


I suggest that the interest they are receiving now is unfair to the lender since they are not lending their money, they are simply operating off a spread (difference between cost of money and the lend rate). Banks and Financial Institutions have become the biggest and most profitable (17% return versus manufacturing at 5%) sector of our economy while they are arguably the least productive.

I guarantee banks wouldn't like the MPE one bit since their monopoly on our money would be taken back. I don't know how many would be content to become just another business that must earn their profit by providing goods and services.

Hope this helps!




Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2009, 3:22 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2008, 8:33 pm
Posts: 492
Hi, Jim.

Larry I'm sure has done a good job answering to your question. I'm afraid I'm going to rush through this thread, just pointing out what I think needs attention, fine points... whatever tends to give us the accurate understanding of issues we require.


Quote:
The main point that has been brought up is that the system would appear to discourage lending

Actually, the opponents of mathematically perfected economy™ of course are generally advocates of exploitation. The whole reason we believe we need "to borrow money" from others is the imposed system deprives us of our right to issue our own promises to pay, free of extrinsic manipulation, adulteration, or exploitation of that promise, or the natural opportunity to make good on it.

There is no need to lend under mathematically perfected economy™, because we are free to issue our own promises to pay, and because the schedule of payment and eradication of interest which comprise mathematically perfected economy™ alone make it possible at all times to pay for the production of others with no more than equal measures of our own production (at whatever price we agree to pay).


Quote:
and therefore would seem to reduce production of high quality durable goods or new inventions which could be very beneficial but require large amounts of money to produce.

As to why such an alleged reduction of production would transpire, I have no idea what basis the allegation ostensibly stands on. After all, we've made it *least* expensive to render all possible production, by eradicating the costs and terminal consequences of interest. At no time than now therefore is it more obvious how far more readily we would afford real and potential production under mathematically perfected economy™.


Quote:
what about items like land which has a lifespan of thousands or years?

The costs or purported value of land would certainly not rise. The concept of ownership of land (which is not production) is a separate, non-monetary issue.

Personally, I would like to see the idea emerge that land too be free of exploitation (via price escalation); that we have rights to so much land; and that contrary to the idea of "ownership", that possession is a responsibility, and any degradation of the original state of land comprises a responsibility to restore the land to its pre-possessed state.

But whatever the subjects of a monetary system intend, mathematically perfected economy™ nonetheless is the singular prescription for monetarily sustaining the principle — however qualified, justifiable, or sustainable the principle is.


Quote:
It was also stated that the system would seem to favor quick-to-market consumables but that the producers of the consumables would eventually have difficulty replenishing their equipment or supplies because of lack of incentive for necessary loans.

The folks making these assertions should be qualifying them. Where possible bearing for instance can the lack of incentive for necessary loans have? The form of loan any advocate of "profit"-making (exploitative) loans of course is ultimately terminal. These folks have to make up their minds -- do we or do we not have the right to issue our own promises to pay, free of extrinsic manipulation, adulteration, or exploitation of that promise, or the natural opportunity to make good on it?

Only if we do, do we have no difficulty at all replenishing our equipment or supplies, because there is no artificial compulsion to only "borrow" our promise to pay from an artificial creditor, who merely publishes our promises at no cost to the publisher, and who imposes interest upon the resultant debt, claiming this endows integrity, and that it is justified by risk, when neither have ever been true.

Not only is there no such alleged shortage of funding under mathematically perfected economy™ then, only the currency of mathematically perfected economy™ strips our costs of production across the entire system, to the very natural costs of anything and everything we may desire to do.




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: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2009, 3:42 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2008, 8:33 pm
Posts: 492
freedave wrote:
Does Mike also see fractional reserve banking, in addition to interest, as a major cause of the pending collapse of the economy?

Not quite. Here's what I posted earlier today in response to a similar question:

mike montagne wrote:
Peter Duveen at OpEd News wrote:
"It was congress which basically removed gold reserve requirements in the 1960s, paving the way for the current monetary regime where there is no fixed convertablility between dollar-denominated federal reserve notes and gold."

Actually, Nixon did that; Congress legitimized it... but no matter... the very *inception* of a fractional reserve policy exists all at once a) because of a fault of the gold/silver standard -- that it cannot sustain necessary circulations exceeding monetary reserves; and b) thus from the very beginning, a fractional reserve policy, made necessary for this critical fault of the standard, *also* makes it impossible, from the very beginning, to honor the standard -- and the very purported principle for which it exists.

In other words, if it weren't for the enumerated faults of the monetary system, it wouldn't be necessary to assume an alternate standard of redeemability. In mathematically perfected economy™ alone, the entire circulation can *always* be redeemed in the very remaining value of the very thing of value which the remaining circulation represents. Thus there is no need for an alternate standard of redeemability; and mathematically perfected economy™ can sustain industry of any conceivable or possible magnitude/extent.

On the further hand, it is only because we fail to perfect an economy that we dream an alternate standard provides a safety net (for recognized faults); and, at the same time, it is the fatal fault of the standard (that it cannot sustain the industry we are capable of) which invalidates the prospect of honoring the standard from the very outset.

In other words, the faults of the gold standard, errantly attended to, engender the so called fractional reserve policy which makes the gold standard impossible to honor. Fractional reserve policy therefore is part of a consequential comedy of errors which is impossible to avoid if we are stuck on a standard which can neither be sustained, or serve us.




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: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2009, 3:46 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2008, 8:33 pm
Posts: 492
By the way, the previous post to OpEd News can be found under the subject/subtitle, "RE: Just a few observations," at:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Borrowing-from-Peter-to-Pa-by-Ellen-Brown-081229-255.html

Many of my further posts to this thread will probably answer a lot of questions for you, as the arguments basically shoot down all contending propositions, and mean to account for mathematically perfected economy™ in the very terms which are necessary to do so.




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: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2009, 8:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: 30 Dec 2008, 3:16 pm
Posts: 22
These answers are all helpful.

I would like to know exactly how money would be created and by whom, how it would be backed, and how it would be regulated.

If I understand Mike correctly there should be no need for lending, but I thought that Larry indicated that all money would originate from loans.

And if individuals issue their own promises to pay would that not be lending?

I would like to know more about individuals issuing their own promises to pay. How would that work?

And where would the value of the originally issued money come from?

Dave




Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2009, 9:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: 08 Nov 2008, 8:21 pm
Posts: 248
That's why there's a website - check it out.




Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2009, 11:30 am 
Offline

Joined: 30 Dec 2008, 3:16 pm
Posts: 22
Yes, I understand that's why there's a website.

Perhaps if it is not entirely practical to answer my latest questions, someone might consider the possibility of indicating which specific sections of the site might contain the answers.

As I indicated earlier, I could potentially be of some possible assistance...

Dave Kushin
Director, Media Relations
Zebra Communications
America's Most Published Industrial and High-Tech PR Firm
[not only Industrial and High-Tech]
Phone: (727)443-2782
email: dave.kushin@zebracom.net
http://www.zebracom.net




Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2009, 3:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: 08 Nov 2008, 8:21 pm
Posts: 248
Here are some good things to look at:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/pg-what-is-mathematically-perfected-economy.html

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/pg-synopsis.html

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/pg-math-walking.html

Let me know what you think

Larry




Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2009, 6:47 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2008, 8:33 pm
Posts: 492
Hi, Dave.

freedave wrote:
I would like to know exactly how money would be created and by whom, how it would be backed, and how it would be regulated.

If I understand Mike correctly there should be no need for lending, but I thought that Larry indicated that all money would originate from loans.

Money of course generally comes into circulation as debts, the promise to pay of which is no better than the credit-worthiness of the debtor, under whatever conditions credit-worthiness is subject. The concepts you're having trouble with are lending, versus issuing a promise to pay. Both result in a debt, but in the latter there is no borrowing or lending involved.


WHERE DOES THIS CONCEPT OF "LENDING" COME FROM?

Of course, before the creation of "money" is "centralized," the only possible form of "notes" (promises to pay) would be those issued by private parties (government would be "centralized") or businesses. The measure of the integrity of the system nonetheless is the integrity of the promises. If they can be collected always (as from the available circulation, without further multiplication of debt into terminal debt, and impossible fulfillment), and even in the case of natural default, the separate, private issuance of promises to pay (notes), and the circulation of these notes imposes no issue whatever on the subjects of the system, if a rate of payment is observed which is non-inflationary/deflationary.

So how and why would such a system be centralized?

Well, if it were centralized for the sake of the subjects, things would remain as they are basically; we would standardize the process of certifying credit-worthiness; we would impose a schedule of payment equal to the rate of consumption or depreciation of the related property; and we would enforce the obligation even in cases of default so as protects creditors (who accept the promises to pay in exchange for valuable property or services) and the integrity of the currency in all cases. This of course is mathematically perfected economy™.

In each case, the creditor is anyone who accepts a promise to pay in exchange for their own production; and they can do so with confidence, only in a system which guarantees the redeemability of the promise in all cases.

Now of course, the promises cost us nothing to issue; and effectively guarantee their value in the very thing they promise. So it is obvious why anyone would come along, insisting that they issue our promises at no cost to themselves, to charge us interest for their costless publication of promises, and not only providing no benefit that we are not already providing ourselves, but from thereon, perpetually multiplying the sum of indebtedness in our obligation to maintain a vital circulation.

A principal reason for centralization here of course is to distribute these published promises through middle banks, with these satellite banks having to borrow the freely published promises to pay, and this lending to the deception that "the money" represents value, at risk to the banking system. The only risk is that you can't pay the debt you promise to pay, which is not just the principal, but all the obligated interest as well. Thus as it is necessary to maintain a vital circulation all the while you are obligated to pay an obligation which exceeds (by interest) the related circulation (principal only) by which you must do so... the sum of debt multiplies by ever greater increments of ever greater periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt, until the system collapses. All the while, it is less possible to repay "the debt"; and in the end, it is impossible.

So of course, this form of centralization has the sole purpose of exploitation; and must be imposed by deceptions which must be sustained across the lifespan(s) over which it may be subject to self ruling peoples.

Nonetheless, this obfuscation of "lending" actually only involves publishing our promises to pay; and, rather than lending integrity to the arrangement, destroying it.


freedave wrote:
And if individuals issue their own promises to pay would that not be lending?

So, I think you'll probably see from the previous answer, the difference between issuing our promises to pay, or tolerating their issuance at the costs of perpetual multiplication of indebtedness, and respective compromising of integrity. In neither case actually is there lending; you have the central bank merely issuing our promises to pay, and creating the deception of lending by requiring that you acquire your promise to pay from a satellite "bank" (quite different than a "central" bank), which of course is forced to borrow it at cost from the central bank.

Of course, furthermore, the only reason we might encounter to borrow under such a system is this perpetual shortage/deflation of the circulation. By centralizing our issuance of promises to pay, we, under a branch of government, simply standardize the aforesaid process so that the integrity of the currency is guaranteed across all cases. This merely involves eradication of interest, and a schedule of payment which eradicates inflation and deflation.

A further problem of borrowing private funds (again, and again), is that you require the subject commerce/industry to survive on a compromised/deflated circulation. Thus in terms of just liquidity, it is also incumbent upon a fully sustainable commerce system to issue new money into existence, to sustain the commerce/industry we are capable of. To maintain a proper circulation as well then, you want to issue further promises to pay to sustain new/expanding industry, rather than borrow the same circulation, dedicating it to multiple purposes it cannot truly serve simultaneously.


freedave wrote:
I would like to know more about individuals issuing their own promises to pay. How would that work?

So we do this by replacing the central banks of the world with what amounts to a people's foundry of promises to pay, which certifies the credit-worthiness of each debtor by standardized principles -- the same kind of thing we have to do now. That foundry may exist as a branch of government, or it could even exist as a private enterprise, subject to a restricted nature, that it does not operate for profit. All that comprises it is an accounting system, the legal strictures for certifying credit-worthiness, and printing presses for issuing the money (if any). We could operate on plastic, at virtually no cost whatever. (See other threads between Larry and I and you'll see we discussed this.)


freedave wrote:
And where would the value of the originally issued money come from?

Dave

The value of the money, under the prescription of mathematically perfected economy™, comes from the original property, and is always redeemable in the remaining value of the related property, which (owing to the schedule of payment) is always equal to the remaining circulation. It is this constant 1:1 ratio which ensures the value of the money and the property both (measured in the terms of either) throughout the life of both, and therefore across the life of the entire system. It is also this constant ratio which ensures (because it is accomplished by the rate of payment) that we pay for the production of others with equal measures of our own production. No one gets anything for nothing. They (truly free markets, relieved of usury) determine value. And the systemically imposed cost of all industry/commerce is no more too than whatever natural costs are involved.

So, when you buy a $100,000 home with a hundred-year lifespan, to eradicate multiplication of indebtedness, your promise to pay is not subject to interest. To eradicate inflation and deflation, and to maintain the value of "the money" (your promise to pay) across the life of the property or promise to pay (related circulation), you pay at the over all rate of $100,000 divided by the hundred year lifespan, or $1,000 per year, or $83.33 per month. All that while, the remaining circulation at all times equals the remaining value of the home, which gives the currency (your promise) the enduring value we all benefit from reinforcing as is only possible by this integral arrangement (mathematically perfected economy™).




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: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2009, 6:49 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2008, 8:33 pm
Posts: 492
PS. A good page to see related to your questions is:

http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-determining-the-value-of-money-property-and-production.html




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: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2009, 9:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: 30 Dec 2008, 3:16 pm
Posts: 22
Thank you Larry and Mike.

This is helping to further clarify MPE.

According to my present understanding currency would consist only of promises to pay originated by individuals and businesses.

These promises to pay would be standardized and regulated either by government or privately.

This would essentially be an accounting system which would be fairly compensated as such.

Am I correct so far?

If so, would these promises to pay be promises to provide specific goods like a certain number of eggs or a certain number of gallons of gasoline?

Or would the promises to pay be promises to pay the currency which is backed by those things?

Also, apparently after 1935, debt as percent of GDP fell back down to previous levels. Can you tell me why that happened?

This is really opening my eyes to the fact that Ron Paul and others are advocating false or at best partial and temporary solutions.

Dave




Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2009, 12:20 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2008, 8:33 pm
Posts: 492
freedave wrote:
According to my present understanding currency would consist only of promises to pay originated by individuals and businesses.

Government of course, however authorized, may also be granted powers to assume promises to pay (obligations to pay debt, which are likewise circulated as currency). For instance, to build a bridge, the costs of the bridge would be assumed as such a debt, and circulated by paying the builder/contractor. Most ideally, the method of paying the debt of the bridge off at the rate of depreciation/consumption over its lifespan, would be to integrate the costs of the bridge with fuel taxes dedicated to such infrastructure. No toll stops; minimal overhead.


freedave wrote:
These promises to pay would be standardized and regulated either by government or privately.

Note however that mathematically perfected economy™ is the prescription for regulation. That is, there is no human decision involved in administrating the prescription. The public decides what form of depreciation to deploy — that is, linear or regressive (and whatever rate of regression); and that one rate of depreciation, or whatever classes of depreciation for classes of property, is applied by automated systems.

In other words, the people's accounts and foundry of issuance (probably deployed as a non-profit branch of government) is largely only a computer system and data warehouse, maintaining the accounts of the people and certifying credit-worthiness by simple, automated processes, applied to the data on hand by publicly approved rules.

In other words, say a given republic decided to free its people from the vulnerabilities, overhead, and potential injuries and unsustainability of socialized retirement programs; so it compels its citizens for example to save half their earnings over half their working, adult lifespan. Person A then wants to buy a $100,000 home with a hundred-year lifespan from their $4,000/month salary, from which $2,000 is deducted for a dedicated personal retirement fund. They have a pattern of $1,000/month of further expenses (automatically tracked and maintained by software), leaving $1,000 for further spending. They see the house; want it; submit their personal debit card to seal the deal; a software application automatically examines the requisite criteria, and in seconds, not only is their deal approved at no cost, but payments are deducted automatically for the life of the account and debt. Paychecks are automatically deposited electronically. For those who prefer to use cash, electronic teller machines could respond to cards — all of this being accomplished at practically no cost whatever, and relieving us of substantial present overhead or attendance.


freedave wrote:
This would essentially be an accounting system which would be fairly compensated as such.

Yes. With well implemented systems having negligible and potentially "negative" costs overall, given present requirements, costs, and overhead.


freedave wrote:
Am I correct so far?

If so, would these promises to pay be promises to provide specific goods like a certain number of eggs or a certain number of gallons of gasoline?

Or would the promises to pay be promises to pay the currency which is backed by those things?

The promises to pay exist in the exact same units that they do now. In other words, "a dollar" (however it is otherwise *attempted* to be defined in law) is actually an abstract unit, which, deployed anywhere as such, essentially gives all other things some relative/relational value, based on whatever such thing we compare it to, by whatever processes any of us freely determine comparative value. When you agree to buy a thing in so many of those units ("dollars"), your note to buy a home, automobile, business equipment — whatever — is essentially translated (in *any* system) from an expression $X = automobile. Those $X circulate in relation to that automobile, and, in mathematically perfected economy™, are retired from circulation by the automated accounting system at the rate of depreciation. So, if the sum of depreciation at any moment is Dm, and the remaining value is Vr, the circulation, in relation to any and all things across the system at all times is $X - $Dm = $Vr. This constant ratio, perpetually maintained automatically by the rate of payment always leaves a circulation which is equal to the remaining value of all represented property — thus guaranteeing the value of the money is redeemable in just that much as well. Because the circulation retires with the value which retires, the ratio maintains the value of the money across the lifespan of the system as only such a ratio can. All debts can always be repaid from the remaining circulation, because the remaining circulation always equals the remaining debt. No further borrowing is required, as obligated by interest, which of course in turn perpetually multiplies the sum of debt in proportion to the obligated circulation, as we are forced under usury to re-borrow whatever we pay against principal and interest (in servicing debt), as subsequent sums of debt, perpetually increased so much as periodic interest on an ever greater and eventually terminal sum of debt.

Under mathematically perfected economy™ then, everyone pays for what they consume with an equal measure of their own production. Debts can be paid off ahead of schedule without damage to the circulation likewise, as mathematically perfected economy™ further allows equity in any property to be re-financed into immediate liquidity (which process would also be managed by the automated accounting system).


freedave wrote:
Also, apparently after 1935, debt as percent of GDP fell back down to previous levels. Can you tell me why that happened?

When a "central banking system" collapses, its artificial, terminal sums of debt can no longer be serviced; and, the resultant destruction of credit-worthiness precludes further borrowing as is necessary not only to maintain a vital circulation, but to sustain further prices. Because no one can borrow further because they are [generally] not qualified to borrow further (owing to the artificial conditions and collapse of the system), when bankruptcies and failures occur (negating debt), re-sale of foreclosed/defaulted property is offered to markets which can afford but a fraction of former costs, or artificially inflated "value." The resultant sum of debt of course is dramatically diminished by these further inevitable processes/consequences of terminal failure.

freedave wrote:
This is really opening my eyes to the fact that Ron Paul and others are advocating false or at best partial and temporary solutions.

Yes. And since this solution was here so long ago (even prior to the official emergence of the Web), and as most of the advocates of unqualified alternate "solutions" visited, here, contacted me about these things, and then went on to assert divisive purported solutions which cannot serve us, they are guilty of substantial crimes against those the pretend to come to save. I laid out how the gold standard had no power to save us 30 years ago (almost to the day — January 14, 1979). So folks like Edwin Vieira (Ron Paul's asserted "foremost authority on Constitutional money") came here, borrowed the research, even emulated redundant and conflicting material to their purposes (such as my *original* explanation that interest is usury [the all had articles about usury, even as they denied my thesis that any purported economy subject to interest ultimately terminates itself]), and then, simply evading unrefuted and obvious arguments establishing for instance that gold has no power to arrest multiplication of debt by interest... they went on to exalt gold.

So we can understand how and why, even as we don't like to think so negatively... but you may recall how Ron Paul's friends who publish gold coin (at substantial profit) were arrested during the 2008 campaign — their gold was confiscated, etc. His followers are hardly wanting a return to a "Constitutional" value of gold, either: they want their investments in gold to skyrocket. So all of this is a sham and a shame; and their God of "Austrian economics," Hayek, tells us so himself! Hayek declares the purpose of Ron Paul's "competing banks," which of course can only likewise multiply debt into terminal sums of debt — even at faster rates of higher interest, which the "Austrian economists" advocate.

In any case, Hayek tells us explicitly what the object of such privatizations of currency is:

Friedrich A. Hayek, at Ludwig von Mises Institute wrote:
I am more convinced than ever that if we ever again are going to have a decent money, it will not come from government: it will be issued by private enterprise, because providing the public with good money which it can trust and use can not only be an extremely profitable business; it imposes on the issuer a discipline to which the government has never been and cannot be subject.

(http://mises.org/story/3204)

Note that nowhere does he tell us how that money can be trusted; nowhere does he identify or answer to the question of sustainability — even as profit, multiplied from the circulation as a matter of multiplying deb is certainly not sustainable; and he further errs in blaming the flawed currencies on the government, when even as Hayek made his speech, the currency he denounced *was the very same currency we have now, issued by the very same kinds of private banks he advocates*!

Could you have it all more backward?

Then you have Ron Paul, advocating to tear down one set of private banks and their purposed, ever more destructive, criminal currency, only to give further private banks the same power; never telling us how "competition" ostensibly between them can or will serve us; crying about the cost of issuing the money, when it is the very nature of the money he continues to advocate which *is the whole problem*; crying about the material, as if material comprised the nature; constantly making false claims of a purported stability inherent to gold (without ever discussing a single incumbent principle); advocating higher rates of interest (!); advocating reductions of circulation (even inherently less capable of sustaining the industry which is obligated to service present artificial levels of debt); not even submitting a plausible plan for returning to the gold standard; not even answering any questions how we could possibly afford returning to the gold standard; crying that price inflation is a consequence of circulatory inflation (which I disproved 40 years ago); and crying, of all things, that the increasing introduction of circulation is resulting in circulatory inflation, when we are suffering in fact from a critical shortage of money.

The latter of course proves my thesis of inherent failure, because as the sum of debt multiplies even at an inherently escalating rate, of course the constant deflation of the system transpires at maximum withstandable rates. No credible authority can simply decry or claim [circulatory] inflation then without duly accounting for what is going out of circulation — not of course, just what has to come back in.

G. Edward Griffin disclaims my thesis of inevitable failure, of course not even attributing/crediting it to me, for you would find my work and further refutation of his attempt to invalidate that thesis makes a fool of the man. Yet he and Mr. Paul are close, and both evade the issue.

The same thing goes for Dennis Kucinich. I've appealed to Kucinich's people dozens of times over the past year. In the last, I have been waiting for a promised appointment with Mr. Kucinich. No reply. Why not? Although way back in the 2008 presidential campaign, I called his offices and spoke to a Mr. David Bright who warmly received the idea (and willingly joked about all other propositions), he asked that I send a formal proposition, which he would forward to an undisclosed destination in Chicago — "the Chicago people."

He wouldn't tell me who those folks are... but if you check the "American Monetary Institute" pages of one Stephen Zarlenga, you'll find a video in which Mr. Kucinich claims to have learned everything he knows about monetary principle from Zarlenga — the same Stephen Zarlenga whose material simply follows the pattern of mine (including references to usury which only apply if my proof that any rate of interest inherently engenders usurious sums of debt... and including my long previous observation that modern "economics" is entirely bereft of formal proof and theorem), to advocate a false and self-admittedly "imperfect" solution, yet recommending it over its known imperfections, *and advocating to retain interest*!

Now, how could you do that, understanding that the actual problem can only emanate from the only powers of modern pretended economies, which are to regulate the volume of circulation (circulatory inflation/deflation), and the cost of the money (interest). After all, if there was just "too much" interest, why not just advocate reducing the ceiling? Well, you'd have to argue with mike montagne then that the reduced ceiling would only multiply debt into terminal debt at a de-escalated rate. Some solution. Mostly just a lot of theft and false claims, to pretend to offer solution.

Small wonder then that Kucinich won't answer to me either, because mathematically perfected economy™ *also died* at Kucinich's campaign headquarters — in Chicago (Zarlenga).

So, from Jaikaran, who was the first prominent theft of my work (and obfuscation of the problem), to Ellen Hodgson Brown, you have ever multiplying purported solutions in the wake of a 1979 proof of singular solution. Singular solution. Singular solution. It just doesn't register with pretenders somehow.

To her credit, at least Ellen has answered to me (often evasively, see our pages at http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-ellen-hodgson-brown-web-of-debt.html, etc., and http://www.opednews.com/articles/Borrowing-from-Peter-to-Pa-by-Ellen-Brown-081229-255.html); and at most, compared to the others, she can only be faulted for exposing the faults of all the others (however great a crime that is, when, by false assertion after false assertion, it divides a republic from solution). As for myself, I think the rest of them realize they are wrong. Why else all the years of evasion?

I mean, it's just stupid to think there is more than one solution to inflation and deflation, because it is just second grade math to understand that only a circulation which is at all times equal to the remaining value of represented wealth is the only possible solution. Ditto for inherent multiplication of debt by interest; and so we have so easily solved the only two possible faults of a monetary system having only the two powers, to regulate the volume of circulation, and the costs of it (which, by virtue of the implemented process, inherently multiplies debt into a terminal sum of debt).

What other question is there?

Should "an economy" not eradicate all redundant cost? Should we not be able to pay for each others' production with equal measures of our own?

Or should we embrace our own exploitation, even inherently to our destruction?

Those are simple questions, solved by second grade math; and only by mathematically perfected economy™.

So it's a small world; and it's some mighty small people obstructing solution for a mighty long time for some mighty small, selfish reasons.

In the end, the credit they want is not the credit they're going to get.




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: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2009, 9:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: 30 Dec 2008, 3:16 pm
Posts: 22
Hello Mike,

Thank you very much for your in-depth answers.

I am studying them.

As far as I can tell thus far, you certainly do seem to be 100% right.

I have two more questions:

1. Could MPE be implemented as a local currency system?

2. Has MPE or anything approaching MPE ever been implemented?

Dave




Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2009, 11:04 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2008, 8:33 pm
Posts: 492
Hi Dave,

When we all look back on this, and see it's second grade math... we won't be putting any feathers in our caps over it. It's more a wonder why it took so long for enough of us to catch on. But as you see, there are more contending "solutions" every day.

freedave wrote:
1. Could MPE be implemented as a local currency system?

The problem there is that even if we "have" a mathematically perfected currency, if that currency must coexist with currency subject to interest, any vital (retained) circulation subject to interest produces the same effect of multiplying debt in proportion to that vital circulation, whereupon of course, it further consumes the circulation free of interest in maintaining the circulation subject to interest, and the whole thing comes down the same way.

If you had a local currency, it would have to be treated as a national currency must, which is to perpetually segregate and devalue interest-bearing currencies. It is not really likely that a local currency could survive intrusions upon these requisites, at least because, in most cases, unless we rid ourselves of the exploiters, they're going to devise some way to retain their imposed, purposed currencies (albeit against knowledgeable public disposition).

freedave wrote:
2. Has MPE or anything approaching MPE ever been implemented?

If you're asking about a model which might prove the concept, the best model is the present system, because its faults are eradicated. Effectively, it proves mathematically perfected economy™ by proving failure as a consequence of anything less than complete solution.

I expect on the contrary you're asking about an historic case. Even the colonial currencies didn't get there. There is no known historic case then, because there was no prescription to now. Effectively, we are arriving at the end of a short era in which the imperfections of monetary systems which were never even designed to solve the problems we have and would suffer under them have proven those faults. Stupidly, we have allowed scoundrels to subvert political apparatus designed to protect us from such designs, to impose systems of exploitation in the name of economy. That's the era that is coming to a close. To keep the horses in the corral, they have to hope none of us jumps the pathetic little fence they've hoped will obstruct us forever from realizing freedom is just a short jump away. They don't really have a chance if you think about it. Not if just a few more of us wake up. And that's inevitable, as the corral rolls down the hill, and is about to smash on the bottom. Before you know it, we'll be running under the fence and every which-way, the oppression of central banking and interest over forever.




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: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2009, 11:08 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2008, 8:33 pm
Posts: 492
PS.

I would say however that mathematically perfected economy™ was on the tip of Jefferson's tongue so to speak. Probably of other founders as well.

Now, Lincoln... Lincoln came so close to getting there. Without necessarily defining solution as such, at least he realized the better thing to do was to issue the promise yourself. He needed to retire the circulation he issued according to the rate of consumption to perfect his implementation. The only further matter would have been articulating that as solution.

That's pretty darn close. Perhaps our greatest President ever.




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: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 08 Jan 2009, 8:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: 30 Dec 2008, 3:16 pm
Posts: 22
Thank you very much Mike.

This is extremely interesting.

I thought "Money Masters" and "Money As Debt" were really good.

But now it seems that they have only partial and temporary solutions.

I'll be discussing this with some friends and expect to have more questions and/or ideas soon...

Dave




Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 08 Jan 2009, 9:29 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2008, 8:33 pm
Posts: 492
We'll be gratified to answer your questions for you, Dave.

The idea of "money as debt," I'm afraid is going to engender problems. Somehow, in the wake of Jaikaran, people started coming away with the idea that debt is the problem, whereas the issue is really multiplication of debt, or perpetual, irreversible multiplication of debt. In the wake of this misunderstanding, people and sites all over the web have sprung up attempting to exalt purported forms of money which would not be issued as debt. Larry (DrKrby) posted a Canadian site's material just yesterday advocating such a thing. Note in your study that these people don't even describe the preposterous cycle of such a money, or how it might be supposed to solve inflation and deflation. That may seem only mildly serious or mysterious at first, but their desire or advocation has a major flaw in it. If none of their currency ever exists as debt, as they claim, then it can only be spent into and out of circulation. That means, ultimately, that you can't buy your $100,000 home with a hundred year lifespan *until you earn and save a spare $100,000*. There are other problems (I went through all this 40 years ago); but that's sufficiently fatal to dismiss the idea, especially when you recognize further that *they aren't saving you anything over mathematically perfected economy™, either!

Pretty serious flaws if you think about it. So the absence of debt is not a virtue; it is a critical encumbrance. An advantage of mathematically perfected economy™ is that you can take on debt to pay for your possessions as you consume of them. You can't get into that home until you're an old man, otherwise.

Here's an article some of our supporters advocate on that issue:

http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2008/11/17/response-to-ich-the-problem-is-not-debt/




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: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 10 Jan 2009, 10:50 am 
Offline

Joined: 30 Dec 2008, 3:16 pm
Posts: 22
Yes, this makes sense.

According to what I have read, currency originated with goldsmiths issuing receipts for deposited gold.

These receipts were supposed to be be redeemable at any time for the gold that had been deposited.

At the point when the receipts were also redeemable by others, they could then be circulated as a medium of exchange.

It also seems to me that these receipts could be viewed as promises to pay.

And a goldsmith's obligation to redeem would constitute a debt.

If one expands this principle to other goods and property, every unit of currency would be an obligation to provide a certain value of goods or property.

This is also expanded to included services, whose values are agreed to be equal to values of goods or property.

Therefore every unit of currency would intrinsically be a debt instrument.

Do you find any flaws in any of the above?

Dave




Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 10 Jan 2009, 2:05 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2008, 8:33 pm
Posts: 492
freedave wrote:
[1] According to what I have read, currency originated with goldsmiths issuing receipts for deposited gold. These receipts were supposed to be be redeemable at any time for the gold that had been deposited. At the point when the receipts were also redeemable by others, they could then be circulated as a medium of exchange.

[2] It also seems to me that these receipts could be viewed as promises to pay.

[3] And a goldsmith's obligation to redeem would constitute a debt. If one expands this principle to other goods and property, every unit of currency would be an obligation to provide a certain value of goods or property. This is also expanded to included services, whose values are agreed to be equal to values of goods or property. Therefore every unit of currency would intrinsically be a debt instrument.


Dave,

I used to maintain articles about the theoretical development of "money." That work was so plagiarized and further confused by others' errant explanations and introduction of irrelevant factors, that the issue became confusing for many people. Because it isn't even necessary to understand these arguable stories, I decided it was more a distraction, and took my original material down. Much of what remains is poor copies of my original arguments, which instead built the cases for how money would have had to have been created for various purposes. The gold example you cite is just one case; and to answer your question, I'll have to re-introduce a different, more prevalent case, which is necessary to account for the present conditions we have to understand.

The original development of money or promises to pay is not readily fathomed unless you first understand the nature of a natural promise to pay between one of us (the debtor), to another of us (the creditor, who gives up property for the promise to pay), because only from this right, just, and natural arrangement, can you understand the role of a pretended creditor, who intervenes upon the natural arrangement, providing nothing actually, and imposing interest as a vehicle to exploit the whole subject system. This is the thing we have to understand.

Your reference to the falsified receipts for gold actually raises a whole different issue, that of the so called "fractional reserve" policy, which allows the issuers of otherwise irredeemable promises to pay (which can only be redeemed by the issuer in gold/silver for instance), to issue a volume of promises which exceeds the volume of monetary reserves (gold/silver).

People who copied my original work on this misleadingly introduced the further proposition that just because "the bankers" or money changers who did this discovered that not all the gold was required by those who actually owned it, they *could* issue more receipts than they had gold. This is how you know the author who stole original work, because this idea of mere discovery inspiring a method of theft is not the historic case at all of why the original idea of a precious metal monetary standard has to be given up. Benjamin Franklin practically tells us otherwise himself, in his "Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency." But we can come to the same conclusion as Franklin ourselves, simply by following the course of the conception and adoption of a precious metal monetary standard. As you try to follow my explanation, realize the difference between the falsified story of the authors you cite and the actual obligations you are faced with if you attempt to sustain industry under a precious metal monetary standard. In other words, according to these pretended authors, these early banks who held a merchant's gold merely issued more promises to return gold than they were provided gold. You know this is is a lie or at least an idiotic assertion, because there was only one purpose of the receipts issued in that day; it was for the merchant to retrieve the gold that they had stored in a safe-keeping house ("bank"). Now, the banker wasn't going about claiming (buying) property with false promises to pay in gold, because the very moment they "bought" something, the offering merchant was to receive the gold. No opportunity to obfuscate exists. Which isn't either to say that it wasn't tried, even as such attempted crimes would have been quickly found out, because the falsified promise did not circulate as a formal currency; on the contrary, it served as a temporary proof of the necessary wealth to make a purchase in that wealth (gold), which was immediately delivered. It is only when you make such receipts a formal currency, used across such breadth and duration that the receipts are rarely if ever used to claim the redeemability, that you can deploy the claimed obfuscation.

The thing to look for in the latter case, is not that a "fractional reserve" (which of course is a modern phenomenon, versus an ancient one) is merely an opportunity to steal, as is claimed of ancient instances without due diligence. On the contrary, a fractional reserve policy *becomes an inevitable recourse* to a fault of the precious metal monetary standard itself. This fault is recognizable before such a system is imposed, for it is impossible to sustain industry requiring a circulation exceeding a circulation equal to and redeemable in finite monetary reserves. Nor then is any purported stability provided, because whatever volume of industry must compete for a disaparate volume of circulation, with this unnatural and unnecessary competition for a finite volume of circulation making it necessary to attempt to sustain the further industry without a sufficient circulation. *This* is why the original (false/invalid) concept of the standard must be given up, or compromised by resorting to disintegration of the standard into a "fractional reserve." It's also just one reason that mathematically perfected economy™ is the one and one only integral solution for all the involved issues, because the only way you can ensure that a circulation is redeemable, is if you perpetually preserve a 1:1 ratio between the remaining circulation and the wealth it is intended to represent (and be redeemable in). You can only do that if resultant debts never exceed the remaining value of the related property; and you can only do that if you pay off the debts at the rate of depreciation/consumption; which you can only do if you eradicate interest.

These are good questions however; so let's clear up the fine points so all this is plain as can be:

1. As I have replied, no evidence exists, or at least it is unreasonable to presume that these receipts actually substantially circulated as currency. They would generally be redeemed immediately, for their only purpose really was to protect the owner of the gold from robbery, carrying it around to conduct trade. If they bought something with some of their gold, they would perhaps issue a promise against their receipt; but in any case, the whole lack of further protection for anyone involved would compel the merchant to immediately redeem the receipt in the gold. After all, what proof did he have the gold existed? How was he certain there was no forgery? If he waited to collect the gold, did he not thus leave opportunity for his gold/payment too to be stolen? Chances are, the merchant accepting a receipt for gold would have gone with the buyer to the bank for each to pledge the sanctity of the transaction, that the banker would deliver the gold to the merchant (creditor), marking down at the same time the receipt of the original possessor of the gold. You couldn't have administered these receipts otherwise.

So I believe the idea that has been introduced to you is a false one. It is doubtful that such receipts were circulated further, substantially at all, if at all. Nor is this a logical explanation for the inception of a fractional reserve.

2. You're absolutely right nonetheless that they *are* promises to pay: they're promises to pay or redeem the receipt in so much gold. But it is a matter of low grade plagiarism or invention that this receipt was substantially circulated; and so the story hardly suffices to explain the attempted development of modern currency.

3. Now here you're thinking about all the issues we need to be resolving, but the poor story you're depending on the further thinking fitting into isn't going to mesh, because it asserts the fractional reserve principle is an original intention of a larger scheme, and that the fractional reserve principle is the method of stealing. But is it?

What you're attempting to reconcile, because of the preposterous story which was thrown in your way, is that we resort to a fractional reserve to steal. If that were the case, even as our thoughts so far dismember that case, hardly could we expect an intelligent representative government or populace of a republic, to be so stymied by some convoluted argument (however falsified, etc.) that we would simply accept a fractional reserve to compromise the original principle of a truly redeemable standard. Why would we do that?

The only concrete answer is that the absolute inability of a finite "standard" to sustain growing industry, requiring a circulation exceeding the volume of the "standard" (reserves).

In my earlier work, I cited cases where currency naturally arose amidst an environment of barter. This idea comprises a whole different approach to the development of currency, which is practically certain to have occurred, for the very faults of barter — that is, you don't necessarily have what the vendor wants for what you want from that vendor. So I advocated that a different form of currency would have arisen naturally in this way, because a *more* universal currency alone solves this fault or limitation of barter. The next logical step of providing a verbal or certified/written/etc. promise to deliver property you were in possession of, is to equate the property to so many relative units of abstract value. This is the idea which was plagiarized; and in getting carried away with their own musings, so the dubious story of circulation receipts for gold was introduced in your way, even as the more distant those receipts circulated, only made them more certain to be no good whatever.

4. So now, you are in turn trying to fit into the dubious obfuscation of plagiarists, how money *generally* comes into circulation as a debt.

I'm not going to answer that part of your question here, in part because it is not necessary to understand it, and in part because my answer will certainly be plagiarized (one of our supporters and myself yesterday spent hours tracing obvious, provable plagiarism from one domain only, which even included a claim to have used my solution of usury in a 1992 speech -- I have the very email from the person who claimed to make that speech, in which he asks for the solution years after the claimed speech).

The point you/we do have to understand however, is if "money" does come into circulation as a debt, what are the consequences of the debt being subject to interest, versus being free of interest, as in mathematically perfected economy™?

Here is another place you recognize the plagiarists, because they introduce the idea that the problem is debt itself, versus attachment of a process to the currency (interest) which perpetually multiplies debt in proportion to the circulation. So here as well the plagiarists (who cannot claim my thesis that interest inherently multiplies debt into terminal debt, and most of whom do not sufficiently understand it, or they would not expose themselves by claiming a fault in debt, where there is no fault whatever)... the plagiarists again stray you away from understanding solution.

Money of course does not have to come into circulation as a debt, but there is a fatal flaw of all claims to account for money which is spent into circulation; and that flaw distinguishes the pretenders of solution. On the other hand, when new money comes into circulation as a debt, we can readily project the resultant cycles of life for a currency subject to interest, versus the currency of mathematically perfected economy™, the volume of which at all times is equal to the remaining value of the very wealth it is intended to represent; the volume of which therefore can at all times be redeemed in the very wealth the circulation is intended to represent, even in the event of default — all of which of course make it wholly unnecessary to attempt to maintain a finite "standard," which itself precludes issuing the very volumes of circulation which are necessary to sustain industry requiring those further volumes of circulation.

The first thing we can be sure of then in regard to the prospects of precious metal monetary standards and the eventual compromising/forfeiting of those standards to a fractional reserve, is that the very inability of the standard to sustain the industry we are capable of is the one certain fault which ensures we have to give up the standard to sustain the vital industry.

The second thing we can be sure of is that interest likewise compels us to give the standard, because its multiplication of debt in proportion to the circulation likewise requires expansion of the circulation in the later stages of the finite lifespan, which negates the assumed integrity of the standard a) by devaluing "the money," and b) by requiring circulations which exceed the standard.

The third thing we can be sure of then is that subject to interest, the standard is no good; and after eradicating interest (and inflation and deflation), an alternate purported standard not only serves no purpose, but can only preclude sustaining circulations which sustain industry exceeding the reserves of the standard.

In other words again, only mathematically perfected economy™ can ensure the integrity and redeemability of any necessary circulation.

But so these are the only certain, determinable reasons we are obliged to give up precious metal monetary standards. They simply *cannot* work across all of the conditions they are subject to, a) if they are to coexist with interest, or b) if the volume of industry exceeds the standard; and of course they are not even necessary if the currency is ensured at all times to be redeemable in the very wealth it is intended to represent, as is only possible under mathematically perfected economy™.

Effectively then, mathematically perfected economy™ perfects the concept of an alternate monetary standard the only way it is possible to do so: a) it perfects the volume of the effective wealth the currency must be redeemed in by using the only perfect representation of that volume — the wealth itself; and it perfects the representational aspect of the currency by its obligatory schedule of payment, which itself likewise maintains a circulation which is always, at all times, equivalent in volume to the remaining value of the wealth it is intended to represent.




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: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 10 Jan 2009, 2:26 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2008, 8:33 pm
Posts: 492
Jim,

I'm not sure your question got answered (sorry).

jimdk wrote:
Hello,
From what i understand there is no profit in MPE. Just the creation of wealth which is then depreciated
Quote:
If we were to devise a currency which — just as in the union we sought for uninjured barter — represented only the wealth we produced and no other thing or process... then that currency would have to be of a supply always capable of representing the whole of our production; it would have to come and pass to and from existence in parallel with creation and consumption; the circulation therefore would perpetually represent the remaining value of the assets for which it was issued; [by virtue of the first and second attributes, the currency would neither appreciate or depreciate] and its whole resultant lack of power/process to damage us itself therefore would eradicate whatever evils can rightly otherwise be attributed to contending forms of "money."

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/pg-what-is-mathematically-perfected-economy.html

Where we are eradicating "profit" is the unearned profit taken by exploiting the currency. Otherwise, it's the same as a conventional "economy."

The difference therefore is that in restoring to ourselves our right to issue our own promises to pay (through a common foundry which certifies our credit-worthiness and issues a standard, universal currency), in which arrangement we further recognize that the real creditor, who gives up property for such a promise to pay, is deprived of "interest" by the obfuscations necessary to usury... we free ourselves of all the ramifications of unearned profit taken in the form of interest, which ramifications are: 1) inflation and deflation, 2) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and 3) inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt in proportion to a vital circulation, engendering inevitable systemic failure at a finite system lifespan defined by an inevitable, terminal sum of insoluble debt.

Mathematically Perfected Economy™ therefore is every prospective debtor's right to issue their promise to pay, free of extrinsic manipulation, adulteration, or exploitation of that promise, or the natural opportunity to make good on it.

MPE™ does not prevent the subjects of the system from taking profit. On the contrary, it is the only truly free market, because it freely sustains all the industry we are capable of without cost, because it eradicates all extrinsic, systemic cost, and because it is the only monetary prescription possible, which perpetually preserves the value of the units of currency.




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: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 10 Jan 2009, 5:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: 30 Dec 2008, 3:16 pm
Posts: 22
Thank you again, Mike.

Your comments on the story of the goldsmiths are very interesting.

I feel my understanding growing.

You wrote, "Money of course does not have to come into circulation as a debt, but there is a fatal flaw of all claims to account for money which is spent into circulation."

Is it correct that money which is spent into circulation, rather than comes into being as a debt, does not represent actual wealth or goods and would therefore alter the necessary 1:1 ratio between money and goods? Is that the fatal flaw?

The following is from a person with whom I have been discussing the money system and MPE, "If I hand out more receipts than I have bushels of wheat, I am now 'lending' money or 'investing' money based on NO goods on deposit, but intending that the goods will be produced in the future and will make me 'right' about having given out those pieces of paper. And, I will at that point OWN the production represented by those pieces of paper, even though I didn't create anything myself. This is fractional reserve banking. This activity CAN create tremendous real wealth by enabling creative and competent people to create production capacity and operate it or make people more creative and competent so they expand production capacity and operation."

Would you care to comment upon her statement?

Dave




Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 10 Jan 2009, 7:06 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2008, 8:33 pm
Posts: 492
freedave wrote:
You wrote, "Money of course does not have to come into circulation as a debt, but there is a fatal flaw of all claims to account for money which is spent into circulation."

Is it correct that money which is spent into circulation, rather than comes into being as a debt, does not represent actual wealth or goods and would therefore alter the necessary 1:1 ratio between money and goods? Is that the fatal flaw?

Not necessarily, but it depends on the nuances of the implementation; and this isn't necessarily the problem at all.

There's one way for me to express part of the fatal flaw, and that is that all these fine pretended, eleventh hour experts who never understood the problem in the first place, are claiming virtues of money coming into circulation *not* as debt. That is, they purport some advantage of purportedly debt free circulations (which they never qualify), but there is actually a huge disadvantage of monetary systems without debt; and furthermore, *if they are solving any of the other issues*, *they can't possibly be saving you a penny* (!). What they're doing when they advocate this ineptitude, is they're never describing the full cycle of money, either because they can't do that without exposing the fault they haven't even thought about yet (because they've never traced out the lifespan of such a currency across all natural conditions/stresses); or because they haven't the slightest idea what deep water they're getting into (something like Ellen Brown's claim to have answered my questions). In any case, the essence of the fatal flaw is they prove they're a nobody, and usually a thief, because they advocate "debt free" systems, while this not only cannot be any advantage at all, but actually imposes a critical disadvantage.

In other words, an obvious aspect of the fatal fault of this proposition of "debt free economies" is that these pretend, eleventh hour theorists haven't even spent a good 15 minutes on the problem yet — and the banality of this ever more prevalent proposition readily exposes the ineptitude of everything which follows, that they may pretend further to build upon that faulty idea.


freedave wrote:
The following is from a person with whom I have been discussing the money system and MPE, "[1] If I hand out more receipts than I have bushels of wheat, I am now 'lending' money or 'investing' money based on NO goods on deposit, [2] but intending that the goods will be produced in the future and will make me 'right' about having given out those pieces of paper. [3] And, I will at that point OWN the production represented by those pieces of paper, even though I didn't create anything myself. [4] This is fractional reserve banking. [5] This activity CAN create tremendous real wealth by enabling creative and competent people to create production capacity and operate it or make people more creative and competent so they expand production capacity and operation."

Would you care to comment upon her statement?

1. She is right so far.

2. Here however, she appears to be answering as if she were a bank, versus a private entity issuing its promise to pay for goods which exist. There's a huge difference. Her argument hinges on eventual production comprising "the money," or promise to pay, whereas in mathematically perfected economy™, the promise to pay is comprise of an obligation to pay for *existent* production; with sufficient, related circulation to do so; with a debt no more than the production itself; and with credit-worthiness (a pattern of earnings) indicating a capability to do so. Nothing can be more sound than to finance future consumption of existing production according instead to this pattern.

3. So, when she gets to this point, where she says "And, I will at that point OWN the production represented by those pieces of paper, even though I didn't create anything myself," this is not true at all. You may indeed take possession of the property; but you no more own it than you do when you take on a debt under a central banking system (fractional reserve or not). You don't own it until you pay for it; and if you fall too far behind on your payments, likewise you loose possession (which is different than ownership). what you're doing under mathematically perfected economy™ is you are paying for the property *at least* at the rate at which you consume of it. Because of this, you are never getting anything for nothing. You don't own the future right, extending beyond the present, to consume that property, but by paying for it further, as you consume of it.

4. So here indeed, we see she is responding to fractional reserve banking, which is a far different thing from issuing our own promises to pay, and paying the resultant debt (equal only to the value of the property/principal) at the rate of consumption.

5. Fractional reserve banking however *creates no wealth at all*! WE create the wealth; THEY merely deny us our right to issue our own promises to pay by pretending to be the creditor (who gives up property for the promise to pay, and by the central banking systems of the world is denied interest [if the purported risk justifies interest]), and yet charges us interest for a currency which costs them nothing and comprises no risk... with all of this imposing a system which can only multiply debt in proportion to the circulation, as we are compelled to maintain a vital circulation by perpetually re-borrowing principal and interest as subsequent sums of debt, perpetually increased so much as periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt, until we succumb to a terminal sum of debt (the present conditions).

BANKS DO NOT CREATE WEALTH. THEY EXPLOIT IT, TO THE EVER GREATER DISADVANTAGE OF THE SUBJECTS OF INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.

That's Hamilton's famous lie — that he was "an industrialist." What he was, was the agent of those who sought to exploit industry by pretending to enable it with our very promises to pay, which of course we can only regulate properly, if we issue them ourselves.

There is no risk to a central banking system justifying interest; and there is no bank which produces anything.




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: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 10 Jan 2009, 9:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: 30 Dec 2008, 3:16 pm
Posts: 22
Hello Mike,

I found your response to the section of my friend's email on the fractional reserve very enlightening.

However, I am still not entirely clear on the fatal flaw or huge disadvantage to money not created as a promise to pay or spent into existence.

Dave




Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 11 Jan 2009, 12:17 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2008, 8:33 pm
Posts: 492
Dave,

My work has been plagiarized so much, you have to understand I have to keep a few things to myself to distinguish solution, should I do a major economics work. Nobody else is authoring the substance of the posts here... but mark my words, there will be imitators.


For now, all you need to understand is that if everyone has to pay for whatever they consume, the advocates of purported debt free monetary systems can't possibly save you anything by spending the money into circulation, because somebody has to pay for the production (still); so there isn't any virtue whatever of a purportedly "debt free" monetary system.

Moreover, by not accommodating the assumption of debt, as would allow a young couple to buy a home for instance, the advocates of purportedly debt free monetary systems force you to save until you can eventually buy property outright, in whole, even as you might then for instance only be able to consume a small fraction of the lifespan of the home.

Thus of course, there is no advantage in the purported debt free monetary system whatever; and so, particularly as a debt free monetary system has no power whatever to provide any other advantage (there are none), those two counts alone are fatal enough to shoot the purported debt free monetary system down.


After all, what are these people pretending to solve? Debt? Or multiplication of debt? Which is the problem? Is it a problem to be able to assume a debt, which you can pay and will pay, and which, even if you don't, will readily be settled with the remaining value of the property; particularly when this assimilation of debt alone will provide for you to readily pay for a home across your whole life with no more than a measure of your own work, equal to the work which created the home?

Even the subjects of usury suffer that advantage at the cost of usury. What makes it wholly an advantage however is only the eradication of interest.




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: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 11 Jan 2009, 10:02 am 
Offline

Joined: 30 Dec 2008, 3:16 pm
Posts: 22
Hello Mike,

Yes, I understand.

Do the advocates of a purported debt free monetary systems advocate no lending at all or just that the currency be spent rather than lent into circulation?

Do they advocate that after it has been spent into circulation that it should not be lent?

Below are my friend's responses (in all capital letters) to your responses:

"[1] If I hand out more receipts than I have bushels of wheat, I am now 'lending' money or 'investing' money based on NO goods on deposit, [2] but intending that the goods will be produced in the future and will make me 'right' about having given out those pieces of paper. [3] And, I will at that point OWN the production represented by those pieces of paper, even though I didn't create anything myself. [4] This is fractional reserve banking. [5] This activity CAN create tremendous real wealth by enabling creative and competent people to create production capacity and operate it or make people more creative and competent so they expand production capacity and operation."

1. She is right so far.

2. Here however, she appears to be answering as if she were a bank, versus a private entity issuing its promise to pay for goods which exist. There's a huge difference. Her argument hinges on eventual production comprising "the money," or promise to pay, whereas in mathematically perfected economy™, the promise to pay is comprised of an obligation to pay for *existent* production; with sufficient, related circulation to do so; with a debt no more than the production itself; and with credit-worthiness (a pattern of earnings) indicating a capability to do so. Nothing can be more sound than to finance future consumption of existing production according instead to this pattern.

YES--I'M TALKING ABOUT THE PATTERN OF BANKING CURRENTLY, WHERE MORE MONEY IS ISSUED THAN THERE IS PRODUCTION ON DEPOSIT, AND THE PERSON GETTING THESE "RECEIPTS" FOR GOODS THAT AREN'T IN THE POSSESSION OF THE BANK IS NOW REQUIRED TO GIVE THAT PRODUCTION IN THE FUTURE TO THE BANK TO PAY BACK THE "LOAN" OR "INVESTMENT." SO, THE BANK GETS MANY MORE TIMES WHAT IT HAD, PLUS IT CHARGES "INTEREST"

3. So, when she gets to this point, where she says "And, I will at that point OWN the production represented by those pieces of paper, even though I didn't create anything myself," this is not true at all. You may indeed take possession of the property; but you no more own it than you do when you take on a debt under a central banking system (fractional reserve or not). You don't own it until you pay for it; and if you fall too far behind on your payments, likewise you loose possession (which is different than ownership). what you're doing under mathematically perfected economy™ is you are paying for the property *at least* at the rate at which you consume of it. Because of this, you are never getting anything for nothing. You don't own the future right, extending beyond the present, to consume that property, but by paying for it further, as you consume of it.

IN THE CURRENT SYSTEM, THE BANK WILL OWN THE FUTURE PRODUCTION THAT PAYS BACK THE LOAN WITHOUT HAVING PRODUCED ANYTHING. I'M NOT TALKING HERE ABOUT HIS SYSTEM, BUT THE CURRENT PATTERN.

4. So here indeed, we see she is responding to fractional reserve banking, which is a far different thing from issuing our own promises to pay, and paying the resultant debt (equal only to the value of the property/principal) at the rate of consumption.

THIS IS THE CASE.

5. Fractional reserve banking however *creates no wealth at all*! WE create the wealth; THEY merely deny us our right to issue our own promises to pay by pretending to be the creditor[s]... and yet charge us interest for a currency which costs them nothing and comprises no risk... [and] imposing a system which can only multiply debt in proportion to the circulation, as we are compelled to maintain a vital circulation [currency] by perpetually re-borrowing principal and interest as subsequent sums of debt, perpetually increased [by] periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt, until we succumb to a terminal sum of debt (the present conditions).

BANKS DO NOT CREATE WEALTH. THEY EXPLOIT IT, TO THE EVER GREATER DISADVANTAGE OF THE SUBJECTS OF INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.

That's Hamilton's famous lie — that he was "an industrialist." What he was, was the agent of those who sought to exploit industry by pretending to enable it with our very promises to pay, which of course [only] we... can regulate properly, if we issue them ourselves.

There is no risk to a central banking system justifying interest...
HAVING AN ORGANIZED FUNCTION IN THE SOCIETY THAT CAN "LOAN MONEY," MEANING GIVE A PERSON THE RIGHT TO HAVE OR USE SOME OF THE GOODS OR SERVICES OR PROPERTY THAT EXISTS NOW WITHOUT HAVING PRODUCED SOMETHING TO EXCHANGE FOR IT NOW--THIS HAS HELPED PEOPLE CREATE WEALTH.

UNFORTUNATELY, WITH THE CURRENT FRACTIONAL BANKING SYSTEM AND INTEREST PAYMENTS GOING TO THE BANK THAT CREATES THE MONEY OUT OF THE AIR, THE BANKS END UP ENSLAVING THE PEOPLE AND HAVING THE ABILITY TO "BUY UP" MORE AND MORE OF THE PRODUCTION.

I HAVEN'T THOROUGHLY STUDIED THE MPE, SO I CAN'T COMMENT ON HOW THE MPE WOULD FOSTER THE CREATION OF PRODUCTIVE FACILITIES AND RAISING THE PRODUCTIVE ABILITIES OF INDIVIDUALS. I ALSO DON'T KNOW HOW IT WOULD FINANCE OR VALUE SERVICES, AS OPPOSED TO GOODS AND PROPERTY, OR HOW THESE WOULD BE FACTORED INTO THE CURRENCY SUPPLY.

IT IS CLEAR THAT SERVICE PEOPLE AND FACILITIES ARE NEEDED TO SUPPORT THOSE WHO DIRECTLY PRODUCE EXCHANGEABLE PRODUCTS. A SYSTEM THAT OMITS THESE WON'T WORK IN THE LONG RUN, EITHER.

IN THE MPE, IS THE CURRENCY SUPPLIED BY EACH INDIVIDUAL, AS HIS PERSONAL PROMISE TO PAY, OR IS THERE TO BE SOME AGREED-UPON CURRENCY? IF SO, WHO ISSUES IT AND HOW IS THAT REGULATED OR DECIDED?

THANK YOU.

CASSANDRA

Dave




Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 11 Jan 2009, 5:42 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2008, 8:33 pm
Posts: 492
freedave wrote:
Do the advocates of a purported debt free monetary systems advocate no lending at all or just that the currency be spent rather than lent into circulation?

Do they advocate that after it has been spent into circulation that it should not be lent?

What I'm getting at is they probably haven't even thought much about this yet. They've just said in their head that if the debts we suffer are "bad," that we should advocate a debt free monetary system. They haven't thought that out at all, or they'd recognize immediately that they're imposing the problems I've pointed out.

So you're going to get wishy-washy answers from folks who stutter when asked, thinking all of a sudden, what kind of credibility trouble is this going to get me into? But if there is no debt, there can't be any lending. If credit (versus lending) is an advantage, mathematically perfected economy™ perfected that 30 years ago. There is no cost, no multiplication of debt, and every object of a monetary system is upheld. In fact it's the only way to accomplish all the objects. So they've shot themselves in the foot every which way by claiming "debt free" is a virtue — particularly in terms of credibility. How many prescriptions for the full cycle of the currency are you finding, accounting for any or all other issues? Even a Bank of Canada site is claiming debt free, showing *interest* of all things. There's no credibility whatsoever.

your friend wrote:
YES--I'M TALKING ABOUT THE PATTERN OF BANKING CURRENTLY, WHERE MORE MONEY IS ISSUED THAN THERE IS PRODUCTION ON DEPOSIT, AND THE PERSON GETTING THESE "RECEIPTS" FOR GOODS THAT AREN'T IN THE POSSESSION OF THE BANK IS NOW REQUIRED TO GIVE THAT PRODUCTION IN THE FUTURE TO THE BANK TO PAY BACK THE "LOAN" OR "INVESTMENT." SO, THE BANK GETS MANY MORE TIMES WHAT IT HAD, PLUS IT CHARGES "INTEREST"

I'm the original author of this much borrowed and adulterated thesis (1979). She's not perfectly right here, but close, and I appreciate her mastering this so well from wherever she has.

The problem is not that there is more money issued than there is production on deposit. The problem is that the nature of the particular obfuscation of money — that it is subject to interest — requires perpetual re-borrowing of principal and interest (paid out of the general circulation in servicing the sum of debt). Most of the principal and interest we pay in the way of servicing the existent sum of debt are reborrowed to maintain a vital circulation.

To the extent that we pay principal and re-borrow that, it is impossible to pay the sum of debt down, because the subsequent sum of debt equals the previous sum. To the extent that we pay interest and re-borrow that however, we are accumulating new debt — all of this merely to maintain an obligated circulation.

It is true then that the person who assumes the debt is obligated to pay the interest in their future production, but she has the sum a bit wrong, because she's forgetting that the central bank published the money at virtually no cost whatever. The debtor therefore is also paying the principal in terms of their future production, to entities which produced nothing.

It is not wrong or injurious to pay the principal in future production (thus our complaint is not about payment with future production). But it is wrong to pay it to a banking system, which neither produced or gave up anything for it.

It is wrong to pay the interest to the banking system as well, because the real creditor is the party which gives up their property in exchange for the promise to pay (notes). Obviously then, because the imposed "banking system" denies interest to the real creditor, and because the real creditor does not risk anything if within the system, the debtor *can* repay [just] *the* debt [principal] (which too is all the real creditor asks)... these twin facts disprove all the purported principles of usury, which presume to justify interest. But certainly neither does the banking system earn the interest, or risk anything itself.

But the sum that the pretended creditor gets in a central banking system is principal plus interest, plus all the further principal and interest paid in maintaining a vital circulation, ever after... not only to continue servicing and eventually paying off the first debt, but all the incidental principal and interest thereafter.

In mathematically perfected economy™, the debt and/or costs are limited to the original principal of the original debt. You pay just the value of the thing which you finance.


your friend wrote:
IN THE CURRENT SYSTEM, THE BANK WILL OWN THE FUTURE PRODUCTION THAT PAYS BACK THE LOAN WITHOUT HAVING PRODUCED ANYTHING. I'M NOT TALKING HERE ABOUT HIS SYSTEM, BUT THE CURRENT PATTERN.

Exactly — except don't forget that they get to own the equivalent of the principal as well.

In other words, being as they publish our promises to pay at virtually no cost whatever, if they were to collect just the principal back, they would always collect a house for "financing" a house.


your friend wrote:
HAVING AN ORGANIZED FUNCTION IN THE SOCIETY THAT CAN "LOAN MONEY," MEANING GIVE A PERSON THE RIGHT TO HAVE OR USE SOME OF THE GOODS OR SERVICES OR PROPERTY THAT EXISTS NOW WITHOUT HAVING PRODUCED SOMETHING TO EXCHANGE FOR IT NOW--THIS HAS HELPED PEOPLE CREATE WEALTH.

We already have that power; and that was our original power. In other words, the only thing involved here *IS STILL OUR PROMISES TO PAY*. To make the aforesaid assertion that allowing someone else to issue our promises "has helped" is not true at all. In fact, it's incredibly foolish. The reason it is incredibly foolish is that this isn't done to help at all. Obviously we can and should issue our own promises ourselves. The reason this particular obfuscation of our promises (charging us interest for them) was *imposed* upon us was not to help, but to exploit us forever if possible.

Take two cases:

1. We issue our own promises to pay (of course, at no cost to ourselves).

Now, how can the second case "help us" at all?

2. We allow someone else to issue our promises for us.

Now, if we ascribe to the second case (which involves some overhead even which even makes it less expeditious), if this extrinsic issuer of our promises withheld circulation, would that be of "help"? Suppose there was no principal which even compelled them to maintain sufficient such "credit" that we could sustain all the industry we are capable of? Is that a help?

Suppose then that amidst long periods or perpetual restriction of the circulation below such desirable levels, they increased the circulation? Is that "helping"? Or is that relieving us only to some small degree of the artificial, adverse restraint they impose upon us?

You see what I'm saying... they're not helping us at all, because this is what we should be doing for ourselves, because they're not saving us any cost, because they're not providing any integrity to the currency or our debts or the sustainability of the system, and because we're giving them the opportunity to meddle with desirable circulation, which itself gives them the opportunity to manipulate the cost or value of money or property.

These things are not help. They are grave dangers — already proven by present events.

Now, this is all without even allowing them to charge interest or collect the principal!!!


CASSANDRA wrote:
[1] UNFORTUNATELY, WITH THE CURRENT FRACTIONAL BANKING SYSTEM AND INTEREST PAYMENTS GOING TO THE BANK THAT CREATES THE MONEY OUT OF THE AIR, THE BANKS END UP ENSLAVING THE PEOPLE AND HAVING THE ABILITY TO "BUY UP" MORE AND MORE OF THE PRODUCTION.

[2] I HAVEN'T THOROUGHLY STUDIED THE MPE, SO I CAN'T COMMENT ON HOW THE MPE WOULD FOSTER THE CREATION OF PRODUCTIVE FACILITIES AND RAISING THE PRODUCTIVE ABILITIES OF INDIVIDUALS. I ALSO DON'T KNOW HOW IT WOULD FINANCE OR VALUE SERVICES, AS OPPOSED TO GOODS AND PROPERTY, OR HOW THESE WOULD BE FACTORED INTO THE CURRENCY SUPPLY.

[3] IT IS CLEAR THAT SERVICE PEOPLE AND FACILITIES ARE NEEDED TO SUPPORT THOSE WHO DIRECTLY PRODUCE EXCHANGEABLE PRODUCTS. A SYSTEM THAT OMITS THESE WON'T WORK IN THE LONG RUN, EITHER.

[4] IN THE MPE, IS THE CURRENCY SUPPLIED BY EACH INDIVIDUAL, AS HIS PERSONAL PROMISE TO PAY, OR IS THERE TO BE SOME AGREED-UPON CURRENCY? IF SO, WHO ISSUES IT AND HOW IS THAT REGULATED OR DECIDED?

1. Ron Paul and the Austrians are running this expression, "out of thin air" into the ground. But that the tokens of value cost nothing is an advantage, as opposed to the purported virtues of an extremely costly and limited currency, such as one purportedly stabilized by gold. Neither Mr. Paul or the Austrians or anyone else qualify the supposed stability of gold; and of course Benjamin Franklin himself refuted that proposition long ago, in his "Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency."

What's more, Cassandra should realize that Mr. Paul and the Austrians *advocate* interest. Not only so, they advocate even higher rates of interest. (Without qualification.)

2. mathematically perfected economy™ fosters all endeavors to many times the present or previous capacity, by eliminating all the costs of interest, and by schedules of payment drawn out across the lifespan of the subject property. The latter of course substantially reduces periodic cost (if not overall cost, except for eradication of interest). mathematically perfected economy™ furthermore eliminates all the further costs and instabilities of inherent multiplication of debt.

3. Obviously. But there is no more that you can do than eliminate all redundant costs, stretch actual, incumbent costs out across the whole lifespan of the subject property, and make illimitable, costless funding available to the credit-worthy, who are obliged to pay no more than they consume of the related, subject property. All that is achieved only by mathematically perfected economy™.

4. You can answer this one. The currency is effectively issued upon demands predicated by private parties assuming an obligation to pay (equivalent to the need to borrow, but actually a restoration of the power/right to issue our own promises to pay, free of extrinsic manipulation, adulteration, or exploitation of that promise, or the natural opportunity to make good on it); whereupon qualifying to assume the debt by standardized criteria, a universal, standardized form of the currency (just as now) is actually issued by a common foundry (just as now, but held or controlled in common by the people). There is no regulation whatever by this foundry. It merely responds to the demands to certify credit-worthiness, to issue circulation to the actual creditor (who gives up property for the promise to pay), and to maintain payment against the resultant debt at the standardized rate of depreciation/consumption for the subject property. No assets or money are ever owned by the state, which actually retires whatever circulation is made defunct upon payment of the resultant obligations.

Cassandra should study our pages. Maybe start with the Synopsis:

http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-synopsis.html




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: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 11 Jan 2009, 9:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: 30 Dec 2008, 3:16 pm
Posts: 22
Hello Mike,

That helps regarding the "debt free" issue.

I have forwarded your responses to Cassandra.

You're right that I could have answered her last question.

I think I have a basic understand now.

I just responded to another friend's comments - I think I did well.

It seems to me that many otherwise intelligent people havn't a clue as to what money should ideally be.

More soon...

Dave




Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 12 Jan 2009, 12:05 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2008, 8:33 pm
Posts: 492
freedave wrote:
It seems to me that many otherwise intelligent people havn't a clue as to what money should ideally be.

You're absolutely right. "Intelligence" in this world is too often the latter of two very disparate things. We either "know" things by how they work; or we memorize the answers others give us which are only ostensibly "right."

Few are the people then who sit down and truly figure it out from basis to termination of all possible (categoric) cycles. When we learned about interest, did we sit down and try to work that out in the terms it would affect a purported economy? Or when we "learned" about interest, were we spoon fed the least dogma that might satisfy us?

My idea of understanding was modeling the proposition, which resulted in challenging the teacher.




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: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 12 Jan 2009, 5:50 am 
Offline

Joined: 30 Dec 2008, 3:16 pm
Posts: 22
Yes, very true.

The first barrier to learning is the assumption that one already knows.

Dave




Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 12 Jan 2009, 10:18 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2008, 8:33 pm
Posts: 492
Yep... and the second is all those who only pretend to know, who are recognized by their aversion to qualifying knowledge, but are just dieing to prove their assertions wrong... by "teaching" them.




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: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 12 Jan 2009, 2:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: 30 Dec 2008, 3:16 pm
Posts: 22
Yes, people who are stating untruths unknowingly but purposely set things up so that their lies will be exposed.

But it can sometimes take a very long time for these lies to be exposed.

Dave




Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 14 Jan 2009, 2:00 am 
Offline

Joined: 29 Jan 2008, 6:06 pm
Posts: 731
The Fed's "designed to have a built-in lack of a future"


mm wrote:
Yep... and the second is all those who only pretend to know, who are recognized by their aversion to qualifying knowledge, but are just dieing to prove their assertions wrong... by "teaching" them.


This article appears in the January 9, 2009 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
Why the Academicians Have Usually Failed in Economics
by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
December 19, 2008

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. wrote:
There is rising consternation stirring within the international press, in leading circles of governments from the U.S.A., in western & central Europe, in Russia, in China, and from around the world generally. Reluctantly, it now dawns upon these circles, that virtually nothing which is essentially crucial has occurred in those patterns in the world's economy generally, which I had not forecast in my international webcast of July 25th, 2007.

Among the powers of evil which still appear to control some of the governing powers in the world, there is now a creeping sense that if it were possible they might destroy the prophet, but, then, be destroyed, themselves, by the prophecy.

What I had forecast, on July 25, 2007, was a general breakdown-crisis, which I had warned, was to unfold by about the close of that July. Three days after that webcast, the actual breakdown of the world's present monetary system began exactly as I had warned it would. Since then, the tocsin of a spreading, global tragedy of the nations of this planet, were heard here, then there, and then beyond, louder and louder, with a growing resonance, a resonance taking the planet as whole into its grip.

From that moment on, the ongoing, global, general, physical breakdown-crisis of the entire world's present monetary-financial system, has never ceased to worsen. It grows uglier and uglier, wider, deeper and deeper, and, for those who had deemed themselves the reigning powers of our planet, seemingly more hopeless, than what it had been a bare moment before.

There has been nothing like this, as I had repeatedly forewarned, since the U.S.A.'s 2000 Presidential primary campaign. There has been nothing comparable to this in the history of European civilization since the outbreak of medieval Europe's mid-Fourteenth-Century collapse of the House of Bardi into a Europe-wide "new dark age." It comes on as a planetary tragedy. As I had repeatedly forewarned since that time, what has been oncoming, is a general breakdown-crisis of the presently doomed financial-monetary system of every part of this planet as a whole.

One senses an approaching moment, like that silence heard by those either in the life-boats, or swimming in the chilling Atlantic ocean waters, in that moment when the S.S. Titanic had vanished under the waves.

So, since July 25, 2007, almost as soon as leading circles in any nation's government, in the Americas, Europe, Asia, and elsewhere, attempted to deny the possibility of a condition against which I had warned, exactly that kind of sign of an oncoming general, planetary breakdown-crisis had erupted. Essentially, not only have events around the world proceeded according to the pattern which I detailed in that webcast, but each such development had erupted seemingly moments after fresh, emphatic denials, by leading governments in the world, and others, denials that such a development as I had forecast had been possible.

So, now, in the oncoming, January 20 inauguration of a new U.S. Presidency, the crisis accelerates, building up like a rising, terrible storm. Yet, for a moment, there is an awful stillness, while this legendary Titanic is sinking into the deep, where it would lie under all the waters of the world.

Yet, ironically, at the same time, still today, even after the clear accumulation of proof of the accuracy of my July 25, 2007 warning, leading opinion often responds with a curious kind of effort at stubborn denial. In a moment when the virtual Titanic of today is already sinking. Yet, as absurd as it is for them to say, leading press and governmental circles attempt, again, to deny what is happening, by reassuring one another, that I am not a certified product of the economics department of virtually any university.

I can proudly confirm their view that I refuse to associate myself with anything as provably silly as that which passes for academic qualifications in economics among the usual academics of today. Meanwhile, they, each time, hearing their own voices on this subject, appear to be much more frightened, this time, by hearing the reverberations of their own attempted denials, than when they had uttered them a moment or so before.

Suddenly, in these moments, the threats to me from my would-be critics, appear as less ominous than tragically silly. This is a coming moment in my world, not a triumphant moment, but a moment like that experienced by a Noah floating on a vast, silent sea. So, the ominous, oncoming global tragedy, has now overtaken the world—for those who are willing to hear, and act accordingly.

I am no wizard. There is no uncanny miracle involved in my repeated, uniquely exceptional record of successes as a long-range forecaster. There is only science. As I had already emphasized back during the last four months of 1971, what had been taught as economics in most of the known universities, even then, was simply the result of the increasing rates of incompetence in what has been usually taught as economics at leading universities, since Harry S Truman was inaugurated as President.

Look back to the time and place at which the presently unfolding tragedy actually began.
My Experience

The tragedy began in that moment that the right-wing Wall Street choice for Vice-President, Harry S Truman, would seize the opportunity of President Franklin Roosevelt's death, to sabotage Roosevelt's Hamiltonian, post-war intentions. What Truman would introduce, instead of Secretary Hamilton's American System of political economy, is the intrinsic incompetence of sometime pro-Nazi economist John Maynard Keynes.[1] The widely practiced methods of statistical forecasting today, are the worst existing on this account up to the present date. Otherwise, generally, the incompetence of my academic rivals' failure as forecasters, lies presently in the way in which they define the subject itself. They have employed a method of forecasting which might be compared to the zeal of a passenger searching to upgrade his stateroom assignment on a sinking ship.[2]

This downward trend in quality of thinking about economies, a downwardness against which I have warned, as a forecaster, over the interval of two generations past, has been the principal source of the failure of the leading academic economists, and also leaders of corporate finance more or less world-wide, today. This has been a trend to be seen more clearly, more ominously, since the ousters of the last great post-World War II leaders of Europe's post-war resurrection, such as President Charles de Gaulle and Chancellor Konrad Adenauer.

This subject of widespread academic incompetence in the teaching of economics has been a recurring issue of my memorable, 1971 and later debates with spokesmen for leading academic economists. It came up yet once more, in a press conference which I held at Strasbourg this past Wednesday, (Dec. 17, 2008) In a press report on that subject, by Corriere della Sera during the same and the following day, notably, Corriere wrote: "LaRouche goes back to the XVIII century and to the [first] Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton," as, in fact, did U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Corriere was correct on precisely this point.

Looking back toward the fateful inauguration of President Harry Truman, we must recognize that the U.S. government's fiscal year 1967-1968, is notable as the point in the history of the post-President Franklin Roosevelt U.S. economy, at which the U.S. economy reached a net down-turn in physical, as distinct from merely monetary output per capita and per square kilometer, a downturn which has not merely persisted, but accelerated, from that time to the present day. An earlier, but less severe decline had been characteristic of the post-Franklin Roosevelt U.S.A., a decline in rate of growth caused by the policies under Presidents Harry S Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, as reflected in what I had forecast, in Summer-Autumn 1956, as an oncoming deep recession to hit approximately February 1957.

Later, there had been a partial, even promising resurgence of the economy under President John F. Kennedy, a resurgence which ended with the assassination of that President, and the consequent, fraudulent decision to send the U.S.A. to a war in the region of Indo-China. However, although the long, useless, wasting warfare in Indo-China, did contribute significantly to the ruin of the U.S. economy, it was not the actual cause of that collapse of the U.S. economy which has continued up to the present point of a global, general, chain-reaction mode of physical breakdown-crisis which brings the world as a whole to the brink of a threatened, prolonged, planet-wide "new dark age" now.

During most of my adult lifetime's experience since what is called World War II, there has been a dwindling, now tiny fraction of professed economists who have been competent; but, in each such latter case, the competence was gained despite, not because of the teaching of that subject for which graduates in economics from leading universities of the post-Franklin Roosevelt decades had been awarded their professional titles.

This crisis is not a U.S. failure, but a global one, despite those exceptional, known, or little known figures who have been of relevance for understanding the unfolding character of our presently looming global tragedy. For example, the incompetence which the Soviet and other Marxists have shared with their academic and political rivals in Europe and the Americas, is a direct outcome of the influence on scientific thinking of the foolish followers of the Seventeenth Century's Rene Descartes, and the Eighteenth Century's radical reductionists David Hume, Abraham de Moivre, Jean le Rond D'Alembert, and Leonhard Euler, et al. This was the characteristic incompetence of such followers of the British East India Company's Haileybury school as the plagiarist of A.R.J. Turgot, Adam Smith, as of Smith's avowed follower Karl Marx, or as the standpoint of Immanuel Kant who dared not publish his famous Critiques until the great Moses Mendelssohn was, from Kant's standpoint, safely dead.[3]

The world did not fail us. The examples of competent heroes, variously prominent or little recognized, are evidence of the contrary, willful sources of our presently looming threat of a planetary tragedy.

Economics As Science

What might have been taught as a competent approach to the subject of economy, would be essentially a branch of physical science, specifically the viewpoint of physical science from the vantage-point of the discoveries of Gottfried Leibniz & Bernhard Riemann, or, a refined view of that work of Leibniz & Riemann provided by considering the discovery of the concepts of Biosphere & Noösphere by Academician V.I. Vernadsky.

To wit: There is nothing mysterious in this bit of irony. The only science of economy which has existed in any part of modern European civilization, is that which was introduced by Gottfried Leibniz, which was an explicitly anti-Cartesian science of the dynamics of physical economy (rather than monetarist varieties of economy). Thus, simply said, the incompetence prevailing among most of the nations' so-called "economics experts" today, is a product of that on which they, and misguided governments, have premised their stated academic claims to competence in this field.

Despite the numerous, important, and even great achievements within the work of physical science generally, these individual achievements have become, more and more, notable exceptions to the more general trend launched by the replacement of such leaders of France's Ecole Polytechnique as Gaspard Monge and Lazare Carnot, by the British-appointed charlatans Laplace and Cauchy. Despite the circles of Alexander von Humboldt, Carl F. Gauss, Lejeune Dirichlet, Bernhard Riemann, Max Planck, and Albert Einstein, the Twentieth Century's science emerged as dominated, as a current trend, by a succession of hoaxsters typified by, first, the mechanistic nonsense of Ernst Mach and, soon after that, the psychotic numerology of the evil Bertrand Russell and such among his typical dupes as Professor Norbert Wiener, John von Neumann, and the Russellite Cambridge school of systems analysis.[4]

The marker of this long trend in corruption of the teaching of Anglophile "science" has been that cult of the practitioner of black magic, Isaac Newton (who, probably, to his credit, actually discovered nothing), but who has been credited with the discovery of the mathematical expression for gravitation which was known, on published record, and in massive detail, by Johannes Kepler from whom Newton's boosters pilfered that mathematical formulation.

Competent instruction in economics will reappear in universities and kindred institutions, only if, or when what passes currently for competence in such institutions, today, has been suitably replaced.

I explain the nature of the widespread incompetence of the economic departments of universities and kindred institutions. My emphasis is upon economics; but, it can not be competently overlooked, especially after considering the wreckage of the world's economy now, that competent economics is a branch of physical science, not the childish witchcraft of mere monetary and related statistics.

Let us therefore resolve to learn this lesson before it comes too late to rescue the planet from the present lurch at the brink of a planetary new dark age.
I. Prince Philip: Man or Beast?

The current trend in substitutes for competent economic models, is typified by the Nazi-like, pro-genocidal policies of Britain's Prince Philip's and the late Prince Bernhard's World Wildlife Fund (WWF), policies which are a lawful outcome of the views which they share with Prince Philip's lackey, the silly, but nasty former U.S. Vice-President, Al Gore.

Notably, prior to his marriage to a Dutch princess, Bernhard had been a member of the Nazi Waffen-SS, from which he had resigned, with a salutary "Heil Hitler!"on the day of that wedding. Prince Philip, for his part in the world-wildlife duo of Princes Philip and Bernhard, has speckled the literary record with references to related affinities in his own family background. No matter how much some of this pair's professed admirers attempt disclaimers of their pro-Nazi connections, the essential fact remains, that the population policies of the World Wildlife Fund are an echo of the beliefs and practices which the pair share, axiomatically, as the tradition of their predecessor, Adolf Hitler.

Thus, similarly, when we look back with opened eyes to the relevant U.S. anglophiles of the 1920s and 1930s, we can not ignore the systemic implications, then, and for today, of the record of the history of homicidal race and population dogmas of the family of the same Averell Harriman whose firm, Brown Brothers Harriman, played a crucial role, together with the Bank of England's Montagu Norman, in putting Adolf Hitler into power in Germany.[5]

To get inside the morally deranged mind of a Prince Philip or his virtual spotted clown, the former U.S. Vice-President Al "Bozo" Gore, today, we must come to grips with the essential point of principle underlying these connections: that Soros, Prince Philip, and Al Gore, as judged by pattern of the effects of their practice, regard ordinary people not as actually human, but as cattle who might be drugged by the likes of George Soros, slaughtered, or simply starved to death, on the whim of the feudal ownership over a mass of people treated as a virtual form of human cattle. Since these modern oligarchs deny the efficiently principled distinction between man and beast, despite being men themselves, they behave toward mankind as predatory beasts do, and proclaim their behavior properly ethical because they have "the bully pulpit" from which to say so.

Unfortunately for mankind, the evil which a Prince Philip, Prince Charles, Prince Bernhard, or Gore typify, is not unusual in history. Look beyond the case of the Roman Empire's treatment of gladiators or targeted ethnic groups. Take the case of the Pantheonic depravity of that Julian the Apostate whom Lord Shelburne selected as his model for the role of the British Empire. This is a model which has been kept up to date in British practices against Africa's Sudan, Zimbabwe, Congo, and so forth. Look back to the 1790s, to the cases of the British Empire's, and the New England followers of the British East India Company's Judge Lowell, in the matter of opium policy, from that time to the role of the depraved British imperial asset and dope-pusher George Soros today. Take the case of the British agents who served as leaders of the Confederate States of America, or the British use of the Nineteenth-Century Spanish monarchy to run the African slave-trade in the interest, and under the protection of the British monarchy.

These issues, thus posed summarily, are more often seen as moral issues, rather than scientific ones. It follows that the idea of a sovereign freedom of choice in defining governmental power, prompts the credulous to degrade the discussion of the apparent moral issue to the sophistry of a "legitimate" debate over ethics among differing cultures, rather than an absolute matter of difference between what are properly seen, scientifically, as universal scientific standards, rather than a merely "differences in tastes among the chosen cultures of a pluralist world."
Vernadsky & Leibniz's Dynamics

A certain question is thus posed by my immediately preceding remarks: is there a strictly scientific standard of truthfulness to be applied to these cases? Examine that question from the vantage-point to which I shall return repeatedly in this report, that of Academician V.I. Vernadsky's distinction of the dynamics of the animal ecology of the Biosphere, from those of the Noösphere. The immediate suggestion is, that we might begin that examination by contrasting the animal ecological potentials of the higher apes generally with those of human populations generally.

Therefore, let us follow the trail of implications posed as a challenge to us, by what had been the experience of the emergence of modern European civilization from a Fourteenth-Century "new dark age." This had been a Renaissance pivoted on the great ecumenical Council of Florence and the related launching of all competent modern science from the work of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa's De Docta Ignorantia. Examine the consequences of Cusa's own part in this work, as traced through the discovery of universal gravitation by a follower of Cusa, Johannes Kepler, that in a process leading to, and through the defining of the Biosphere and Noösphere by Academician V. I. Vernadsky.

Conduct this exploration from the pivotal standpoint of Gottfried Leibniz's revival of the principles of the ancient Classical dynamis of the Pythagoreans and Plato in their expression as modern dynamics. The essential difference between the two ancient and modern, but, otherwise, equivalent notions, lies in the actual revival of the concept of dynamis in works founding modern science by Nicholas of Cusa, starting from his De Docta Ignorantia, but with the difference, as expressed by Leibniz's work from the 1690s onward, which was based on Kepler's uniquely original discovery of the universal principle of gravitation, as in Kepler's The Harmonies of the World. The significance of Kepler's uniquely original discovery of universal gravitation, as Albert Einstein emphasized this connection, is the first experimental demonstration of the self-enclosure of the universe by a discovered universal physical principle, Leibniz's revival of the Classical Greek notion of dynamis as modern dynamics.

The principal obstacle to recognizing the importance of Cusa's, Kepler's, Leibniz's, Riemann's, and Einstein's work on this account, has been the utterly fraudulent efforts by the followers of both the Aristoteleans and Paolo Sarpi's empiricists, to deny the existence of such a discovery as that by Kepler.

This poses the question. Since a detailed account of the relevant process of discovery of universal gravitation, by Johannes Kepler, is fully on record, why did the lackeys of Paolo Sarpi, such as Galileo, take such a hearty risk as they did, in their efforts to falsify one of the greatest, and most clearly elaborated cases of a discovery of a universal physical principle? What existential interest could have driven the followers of Sarpi to take the risk inhering in the fraud of attributing the discovery of gravitation to a silly wretch like Isaac Newton? Why do men and women who are otherwise credible scientists today, still defend the fraud of attributing the discovery of gravitation to silly, "black magic" specialist Isaac Newton?

Once the clearly, original, proven proof of principle in Kepler's work is acknowledged, the essential nature of the fraud perpetrated against modern science by the Newtonians and their positivist followers, becomes clear. Since no truly rational proof against Kepler's discovery is possible, all empiricism and its positivist or Aristotelean corollaries have resorted to what have been simply outright lies, to supply the basis for their general arguments. Why did they take that risk, for which I, for one, am quite eager to hold them to account? If one understands Paolo Sarpi and his legacy, the answer to this question is elementary.
II. Liberalism: the Case of Paolo Sarpi

Given such contributions to modern science as Filippo Brunelleschi's discovery of that principle of the catenary which he employed for crafting the cupola of Florence's Santa Maria del Fiori, the principled establishment of modern physical science was the accomplishment of a series of works by Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa beginning his De Docta Ignorantia. Cusa, who inspired Christopher Columbus' voyage to discover lands and people on the other side of the Atlantic, encountered strong, continuing, Venetian financier resistance to the launching of both physical science and the modern sovereign form of nation-state, a resistance focused in the role of the Habsburg oligarchy's grab of imperial power in both Austro-Hungary and the Spanish monarchy. The religious warfare launched in the form of the Spanish Inquisition, opened up successive waves of religious warfare, launched by that Inquisition, which continued through Europe and beyond, until the 1648 Peace of Westphalia. This continuing warfare reached a critical turning-point in a combination of developments during the span of the reign of England's Henry VIII through the conclusion of the religious Council of Trent.

The significance of this turning point, is best defined by examining the crucial roles of two Venetian gentlemen: first, Francesco Zorzi (a.k.a. Giorgi), and, later, Paolo Sarpi. Those who remain ignorant of that crucial role of these two gentlemen, in all modern history to date, deny themselves any effective comprehension of the most characteristic features of all modern world history up through the experience of the global crisis of the present day.

Zorzi has two principal claims to continuing fame. On the one account, he launched an attack on Nicholas of Cusa's De Docta Ignorantia which has continued to serve as the model attack on the fundamental principles of modern science to the present day. On the second account, Zorzi, ranking as virtually the chief of the Venetian intelligence service at that time, also appeared in England in the adopted, fateful role as marriage-counsellor to King Henry VIII. Zorzi, working with such Venetian-controlled scoundrels as Plantagenet heir Cardinal Pole and Thomas Cromwell, orchestrated the onset of the series of Henry VIII's bloody divorces which caused the breaking of what had been the relatively peaceful relations of the Spanish, French, and English monarchies. Thus, Zorzi, through his conversion of Henry VIII, defined the continuing direction of the protracted warfare of northern, Atlantic-based, Protestant, forces, against the Mediterranean-based, nominally Catholic, European peoples. This was a period of warfare which continued until it was ended by that 1648 Peace of Westphalia which was orchestrated by the Cardinal Mazarin who had been deployed into France, as an intended successor to Richelieu, by his own sponsor, the Pope.

In the meantime, following the Council of Trent, a new Venetian master-mind, Paolo Sarpi, emerged to rally a leading section of Venetian financier interests into the northern Protestant Europe which had been united by Francesco Zorzi's manipulation of England's Henry VIII. Hence, Sarpi played a key role in pre-orchestrating a successor, the so-called Thirty Years War, to that phase of the continuing religious warfare which had been organized around the marriages of England's Henry VIII. The Sarpi who virtually pre-orchestrated that Thirty Years War, was actually continuing the strategic mission of Francesco Zorzi, but under slightly altered pre-conditions. So, sometimes in history, as from 1492 until 1648, the more things change, the more they remain the same.

But, then, suddenly, a long-reaching new phase of history emerges, a new phase reaching out as if to encompass the planet as a whole.

For an adequate appreciation of what had been the 1492-1648 religious warfare considered as a whole, we must look ahead from those developments of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth centuries' tradition of Zorzi and Sarpi, to the contrasting shift of power to the British monarchy of Britain's George I, but, more emphatically, to the February 1763 emergence of a private, Anglo-Dutch Liberal financier's empire, the British empire, which established a long period of history, to the present day, one launched under the leading direction of the British East India Company's Lord Shelburne. Between the folly of France's Louis XIV and the launching of the so-called Seven Years War, a new long wave in world history had begun.

Dupes of contrary opinions aside, the only actually existing world empire today, is still what is known, nominally, as the British empire, an empire ruled by financial speculators gathered around international financier interests, including speculative U.S. Wall Street interests. This is an empire centered in London, based presently on those Anglo-Dutch and Saudi oligarchies which have come to dominate the world at large since the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy and, more obviously, the set of international financial and social crises of 1968-1973 leading into the imperial role of what became the central axis of international terrorism today, the Anglo-Dutch-Saudi petroleum "spot market" and its traditionally Anglo-Dutch Liberal drug-trafficking of Britain's leading world drug trafficker of today, the consummately evil drug-pusher, George Soros.
Why Paolo Sarpi?

I see no essential difference between the intentions of Francesco Zorzi and his most notable successor Paolo Sarpi. The intention of the two was broadly the same. It was the issues of the Council of Trent which prompted the appearance of an essentially merely apparent, circumstantial difference in intention between the two. To grasp this aspect of the matter, one must turn attention to the impact of Niccolo Macchiavelli's founding of what became modern military strategy.

Two great documents authored by Nicholas of Cusa, his Concordancia Catholica (the ecumenical concept of the modern sovereign form of nation-state) and his later founding of modern science, De Docta Ignorantia, had led into such relatively durable outcomes as the establishment of the French monarchy under Louis XI, and the great English reform inspired by Louis XI's reforms, under England's Henry VII. The combined effect of the work of Brunelleschi, Cusa, and such among their followers as Luca Pacioli, Leonardo da Vinci, and Raphael Sanzio, had set into motion a great revolution in science, economy, and Classical artistic composition, a set of achievements whose outcomes had been greatly enhanced in the political, social, and economic reforms expressed in Louis XI's France and England under Henry VII. Macchiavelli, who had been a secondary leading figure in the republic of Florence associated with the influence of Leonardo da Vinci, emerged, under "house arrest," as the prophetic historian who, in fact, launched modern military science. It was the implications of Macchiavelli's founding of modern military science, which define what provoked the Venetian faction of Paolo Sarpi to react with its break with Aristotle. It was on this break, that modern, imperial, Anglo-Dutch Liberalism has been founded, by Sarpi and his followers, up through the present moment.[6]

The unifying principle among the oligarchical opposition to Cusa and to the great ecumenical Council of Florence, had been the oligarchical principle centered in the controlling role of Venice-centered international financier interests. The Council of Florence, which had been influenced by Nicholas of Cusa's conception of an ecumenical community among modern sovereign nation-states, was an anathema to the oligarchical factions in general, and to that Venetian usurers' interest which had not only dominated feudal Europe with the decline of Byzantine power, but whose practice of usury had plunged all of Europe into the mid-Fourteenth-Century "new dark age" which had reduced the population of Europe by about one-third.

The Fifteenth-Century Renaissance's increase of the productive powers of labor, which had been set into motion by the work of such as Brunelleschi (A.D. 1377-1446), Cusa (A.D. 1401-1464), et al., and Louis XI's reforms, had transformed the characteristics of the urban populations, moving society in a systemically Promethean direction of scientific & technological progress. The included effect of this was a change in the conditions of warfare & economy within Europe.

This change in social relations in Europe, created a new kind of difficulty for the pro-feudal traditions in their attempts to revive the use of medieval forms of warfare waged against the new sentiments among the people generally, especially in the emerging developments in and around the cities. The revolutionary economic reforms in Louis XI's France and Henry VII's England, are typical. The depraved Spanish Habsburgs never recovered from the ruin they inflicted upon themselves, and the relative power of the Austrian Habsburgs proved unable to breach the Eighteenth-Century defenses of a France which had been developed as a heritage of Mazarin and his protégé Jean-Baptiste Colbert.[7] The uniquely original discovery of the principle of Solar-systemic gravitation, by Johannes Kepler, was a persisting, central feature of this continued revolution in science and economy. Macchiavelli had defined the nature of this challenge to modern European strategic practice.

It was against this new political-economic strategic factor of progressively changing scientific and related progress, that Paolo Sarpi, a true heir of Francesco Zorzi, mobilized his revolutionary doctrine of Liberalism. It was the action by Sarpi's faction, to allow some innovation, but deny the existence of any actual principle of the universe, which was the motive, launched by agents of Sarpi's faction such as Galileo, against acknowledging the well-documented discovery of gravitation by Kepler. Hence, the political birth of the myth of Isaac "science for dummies" Newton.

If we are to grasp the underlying, axiomatic presumptions on which the creation of the Anglo-Dutch-Saudi financier empire of today has been built, we must grasp the lesson taught by Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound, and read that against the background of the Iliad. To build and maintain an empire, it is essential to stupefy the great mass of the subject populations in a certain way. The essential thing is to degrade the mass of the population by what pass for certain religious, or anti-religious beliefs, as in the pantheonic model of the Byzantine Julian the Apostate, on which the actual British empire has been premised, from its outset under Lord Shelburne, Jeremy Bentham, et al. The anti-nuclear-energy ideology of the relevant, virtually mentally deranged unfortunates of today, is typical of the way in which weird, pagan superstitions have been used to lead the nation of a once-great people into bestializing themselves. The essential principle of all empires has been the aim to suppress scientific and comparable development of the human mind in the manner which Aeschylus exposed in his Prometheus Bound.

Thus, from such a reading of Prometheus Bound, we must recognize the way in which that form of moral degeneracy which became post-Charlemagne feudalism, had led itself into the Fourteenth Century's ruinous "New Dark Age." This new degeneracy had been revived against the influence of the great ecumenical Council of Florence, as revived under Venice's direction of the conquest of Constantinople, in an effort to ruin the revolutionary accomplishment associated with the role of Nicholas of Cusa, this as expressed by Cusa's role in the continuing, great ecumenical Council of Florence. This was an echo of a long wave in the history of European civilization, one dated since the aftermath of the Peloponnesian war, a very long wave of struggle between the oligarchical principle of the cult of Delphi, and the contrary, humanist impulses associated with the legacy of the Pythagoreans and Plato.

Thus, the European oligarchy typified by the case of the alleged whisperings of the evil gods and demi-gods of the Homeric Iliad and the subsequent Classical Greek tragedies of the pro-Satanic, Apollo-Dionysian cult-traditions, has been situated in a kind of see-saw conflict between European culture's oligarchical and humanist traditions. In these conflicts, the oligarchy has always come to understand that its most deadly adversary is those creative powers of individual human reason which are expressed in the practiced discoveries of universal principles of physical-scientific and Classical-artistic progress. These are the principles which define mankind, as in Genesis 1, as unique among living species, as an implicitly sacred species distinct from all forms of animal life.

The tradition of oligarchism has always been the forceful suppression of the creative powers of discovery of higher principles, discovery which is expressed typically in such forms as fundamental scientific progress. This suppression of the creative powers of the members of society, is usually expressed in the mode of the popularized cultural backwardness of what might be misnamed "human nature," against the contrary, allegedly "aggressive" impulses of human scientific or Classical artistic creativity. The foe which Satan fears the most, is the Promethean soul which sets the human individual apart from, and above that bestiality which fools call "human nature."

Thus, the Fourteenth Century "New Dark Age," was brought on by the predatory practice of usury by that Venetian interest behind the Lombard bankers of that time, which, like the pro-Satanic usurers of the financial-derivatives swindles of today, have always been the typical expressions of the witting, man-eats-mankind, adversaries of the most essential interests and characteristics of our human species, that within us, which sets us, categorically, apart from the beasts.

Culture & Human Immortality

However, this reality of human, as distinct from animal nature, becomes difficult for some people to grasp, as long as they cling to the delusion that the meaning of human life begins with the individual's birth, and ends with that individual's death. The truth of the matter lies in evidence bearing upon that uniqueness of human progress, as distinct from all other living creatures, progress through a process embodied, as if in principle, in a meaningful succession of generations, from distant ancestor to distant generations to come. The distinction of mankind from beast lies, essentially, in those creative powers of the human mind which are not manifest in any form of animal life, creative powers typified by Johannes Kepler's uniquely original discovery of the principle of a universe self-encompassed by a universal principle of gravitation, and other, discoverable principles of that ontological significance.

For the moment, in this present chapter, it is sufficient to emphasize that crucial point, that our ability to replicate the experience of progress as defined in terms of valid discoveries of new universal principles, expresses a quality of human immortality which does not exist among beasts.

There is nothing essentially novel in my outlook on this point, if, and when matters are considered from the standpoint of the history of ancient through modern astronomy and science generally.

The issues of physical-scientific principle posed here are to be located as on two levels:

First, more immediately, the view of the physical domain of our experience from the standpoint of the products of experimental physics as such, as our subject of investigation.

Second, the reverse view of the distinctively human powers; this time, we are focused on discovering the nature of the creative powers of the mind of the human individual in society, themselves, that from the standpoint of discovering the provable principles of discovery of the human mind, as such, as these powers have been presented to us, as a subject themselves, as by the evidence of the practical achievements of experimental physics.

The first challenge is that which is more readily understood by the development of the mind for scientific work generally. The second, more profound, most important challenge, is the unique significance of the individual human mind's creative potential, as this becomes discoverable knowledge, through which the work of that mind is illuminated by attention to the creative powers of the human mind which are made known to us only through considering not only the human mind's role in the act of discovery of such principles, but the discovery of such principles as itself dependent upon what appears to us as the spiritual vantage-point—continuing development accomplished across successive generations—of the sovereign individual human mind's power for successive discovery, a continuing process across generations, of higher outcomes in the generation of such physical principles.
III. Kepler's Principle, and Mine

There are two crucial comments which have been supplied by me, which must be now stated again, and also emphasized, if we are to grasp the deeper implications of that which Albert Einstein recognized, and expressed in his retrospective view of Kepler's discovery.

In that view, Einstein emphasized that all competent modern physical science must be located in the implications, from the standpoint of Bernhard Riemann's method, of Kepler's uniquely original discovery of the principle of universal gravitation. These implications are, first, his comment that the physical space-time implicitly defined by Kepler's discovery, is implicitly Riemannian, and, second, the comment, that this view of Kepler's discovery of that principle of universal gravitation specific to the organization of the Solar System as a whole, is that, which, when considered from the vantage-point of Riemann's discoveries, defines the universe as, in first approximation, a self-bounded unit, without any external limits but those contained within, and expressed by the universe's own, intrinsically anti-entropic, universal physical space-time.

The intersection of these heretofore almost unknown implications, is the indispensable foundation for any thorough identification of that feature of human behavior which is uniquely human, the principle of the Noösphere as such, and thus locates the essential principle of any competently scientific view of economy.

I develop the needed elaboration of that argument in the following successive steps.

To begin: the crucial feature of Kepler's own uniquely original discovery of the Solar system's universal principle of gravitation, was Kepler's locating the experience of that principle's existence, outside the perception of sight or sound as such. That is to say, that Kepler departed from the popular, but foolish assumption, that reality is located in the kind of sense-certainty attributable to the a-priori presumptions of a Euclid or Aristotle. In place of sense-certainty, Kepler treated the human senses as, in practice, comparable to the inherently imperfect scientific instruments crafted for the purpose of adducing the significance of a phenomenon located experimentally beyond an astronomical or a microscopic, or sub-microscopic scale.

Restate that just-stated crucial point as follows.

Treat the human sense-perceptions as presenting us with virtual shadows, shadows cast upon the sense-perceptual medium, by an action which, itself, is not actually seen directly. As I have stated this in earlier locations, this means, that we should take the case of Helen Keller, who was blind and deaf, but, who developed a powerful social insight into the world, that of the humanity which she could neither see or hear. What the senses provide the human mind, is merely shadows; the mind must, then, craft, and test, experimentally, an image of the actual process which casts those shadows which we know as sense-perceptions. So, in the case of Kepler's discovery of the composition of the Solar orbits, the image of sight, and the image of harmonically ordered hearing, were both contrasted and combined, by Kepler, to enable the experienced, but unseen, unheard mind, to adduce the physical reality of the "unseen" evidence as that which had cast the sense-perceptual shadows.

To sum up this point thus far: What Kepler's discovery of gravitation proved, is that what our senses induce us to perceive, are not the substance of reality, but the shadows which reality casts in the form of sense-perceptions. What unsensed, Leibnizian, "ontologically infinitesimal" object, then, generated those shadows known as such perceptions? That is the crucial ontological question, on which all competent modern science depends. Albert Einstein, using Bernhard Riemann's discovery as a pivotal point of reference, makes those matters clear, as follows.

This view of Kepler's work by Einstein, holds up, as we trace the pathway of discoveries from Cusa's De Docta Ignorantia, through those of Kepler, Fermat, Leibniz, and the Nineteenth-Century treatments of the subject of elliptical functions, and through the added, crucial, original discoveries by Riemann.

The most significant type of such effects of reading of the sense-perceptual shadows, is the experimental proof of principle of the efficient existence of a concept, which, while proven as a matter of experimental principle, actually exists for the human mind, but, whose existence is merely reflected in the shadows cast as sense-perceptions. These experimentally proven, merely adumbrated existences of principles, are expressed as the attributable, ontologically, rather than sensory, existences of those Leibnizian infinitesimals which correspond to the presence of efficiently universal physical principles.

These existences whose presence is reflected as such kinds of shadows, such as the infinitesimal of Kepler's elliptical function for gravitation in the planetary orbit, as in his The New Astronomy, are not mathematically, but only ontologically infinitesimal; they are not a quantity of space, but the location of an ontologically infinitesimal moment of a universal principle of action in space-time, an infinitesimal place which corresponds to the immediate shadow cast by a universal principle of action expressed in its efficient existence as what is apparently the infinitesimally small.[8]

The relevant experiment is presented in the LaRouche Youth Movement's (LYM) web-site account of the unique choice of successful method through which Kepler defined what is reflected as his general formulation for the harmonic ordering of the composition of the Solar planetary system, as the discovery-process is elaborated in his The Harmonies of the World.

However, the first giant step in that direction, is that which Kepler took in his The New Astronomy. Once he had recognized the elliptical character of the Earth's orbit, and also the significance of that elliptical form of physical function, that from the standpoint of equal-sectors/equal times, Kepler had already, thus, discovered the kernel of the concept of an ontologically, rather than mathematically infinitesimal, as characteristic of the elliptical orbit.[9]

This proved crucial when Kepler turned to the composition of the Solar System as such, as in The Harmonies. So, he proceeded, pedagogically, from an early emphasis on the Pythagorean-Platonic concept of a lawful progress in the universe, to an harmonic principle of action underlying the Platonic form of effect among the determined relationships as stated, in first approximation, in an ironical juxtaposition of sight and harmonically ordered sound. Thus, we have Einstein considering the matter of the Kepler-Riemann relationship from the standpoint which Einstein shared with Max Planck, in common with their case against the positivist reductionists who appeared in the wake of the moral depravities of the quantum "mechanics" of the followers of Ernst Mach and Bertrand Russell.

It is the role of harmonics in that experimental configuration, which prompts the banshee-howls of protest from reductionists such as the empiricists generally, or the positivists such as the Machians and dupes of Bertrand Russell. Like the fundamentalist parson who wrote in his Bible, "Text unclear, shout like Hell!," the physicist who is a dupe of empiricism or its like, does not argue rationally, but, as I have frequently observed this directly, simply screams like a banshee, when the discussion turns to subjects comparable to Kepler's actual discovery of universal gravitation.

However, my principal subject here is not the apparent physics of Kepler; I reference Kepler's discovery, to indicate the relevant insight this contributes to recognition of the essential nature of the creative powers inherent in the distinction of the human individual from the beasts: the categorical distinction of Noösphere from Biosphere. The urgent problem which I am considering in this report, is not the human being looking at a physical subject-matter, but, instead, seeing into the nature of that within that nature of the human individual which enables that individual to muster the processes through which such discoveries of physical principle are actually made.

In the case of Kepler's discovery of the general principle of Solar gravitation, it is the harmonic "wave function," as opposed to particle function, which, when expressed in the quality of an ontological, rather than a merely mathematical infinitesimal, expresses the distinction between perception and knowledge. We do not sense such infinitesimals as being known as particles; we know them as the efficient causes which cast those shadows which universal physical principles express in respect to the truly universal principles by which the experienced universe is ruled. Here lies the essential distinction between mechanics, as by the followers of Ernst Mach or Bertrand Russell, and physical scientific principles. Here, there is no science without morality, and no morality without this view of the mission of science.

The nature and importance of this distinction is made clear through comparison of such experiences from the domain of physical science to those of truly Classical artistic composition. In my own experience, this became clear to me from my reflections on the concluding paragraph of Percy B. Shelley's In Defence of Poetry, a reflection which I was aided in clarifying, by looking at Shelley's work (for example) from the vantage-point of applying Shelley's argument there to the domain of the type of empirical materials presented to me in 1947, in the second edition of William Empson's Seven Types of Ambiguity. The implicit content of Shelley's work, as the point is summarized in his In Defence of Poetry, is implicitly way beyond Empson, but the application of Shelley's argument to the domain of irony as presented by Empson, aids us in grasping, as in Shelley's argument, the principle of humanity which subsumes the creative side of both scientific discovery and man's mastery of the social processes of human progress effected through the aid of what we know as the fundamentals of physical-scientific progress. Scientific truth, is, in this way, that which guides us to fulfilling the moral purpose of mankind's existence in service of his Creator.

At this juncture, all valid Classical artistic composition leaps upon the stage of the mind. Shelley's principle of Classical artistic composition, as summarized in the concluding paragraph of his In Defence of Poetry, points to the key to all expressed forms of great Classical artistic composition on stage, whether poetry, drama, or music, or simply human creativity in general.

This brings us, in Academician Vernadsky's terms, to the principled nature of the fundamental distinction between man and beast, between Biosphere and Noösphere.
The Meaning of 'Physical Principle'

At this point in the account, let us now proceed directly to the crucial issue here. The "spiritual" implications of the systemic form of existential distinction of mankind from all lower forms of life. The nagging question still to be more fully clarified here, is, is mankind a form of animal life, or rather an entirely different quality of existence which is delivered as "packaged" in the apparent form of a higher type of animal life? Is there, in other words, an absolute, physical-scientific distinction of all animal species from the characteristic of the human species? If so, how do we demonstrate that distinction categorically, as presented for our consideration by such relevant figures as Academician Vernadsky?

The essential, experimental form of categorical distinction of the animal kingdom (which Vernadsky locates in the Biosphere) and humanity (which Vernadsky locates in the Noösphere) is to be made from the vantage-point of the dynamics appropriate to the subject-matter of animal ecology. I signify dynamics as defined, repeatedly, against Descartes, by Leibniz during the 1690s, and as elaborated further from the standpoint of Leibniz's follower on this account, Bernhard Riemann.

Now, before proceeding further in that direction, let us pause to make clear what I am saying, by means of putting emphasis on what I am not saying.
Lying Galileo & Silly Descartes

In the method of the follower of Sarpi and Galileo, Rene Descartes, there are no principles, but only either mathematical formulas, or something like that, as this is illustrated in essential respects by Leibniz's exposure of the fraud of Descartes' neo-Euclidean method. These Cartesian, or comparable formulations are characteristically Sarpian; they are mathematical, or mathematical-like substitutes for identifying what is purported to be an actual physical, or comparable to physical principle. They represent, at their least worst, the shadow which might have been cast as a shadow on the screen of the ontologically imaginary mathematical domain. There is no physics in the work of Descartes, but, as for whatever passed for Isaac Newton, only mathematics. Implicitly, all Cartesian and related method, locates action within a form of space which, as such, is, axiomatically, in itself, a priori, perfectly empty, Euclidean space-time.

In competent physical science, the Cartesian, or similar method, mere mathematics, is swept aside by physical considerations, as by Cusa and Leibniz. The real universe is presented to us, experimentally, as a set of overlapping/interacting, physical phase-spaces, each defined experimentally as action expressed among a set of principles. Each such phase-space is defined, ontologically, as a certain combination of not geometries as such, but physical geometries, as Leibniz makes that argument in his 1690s papers on the subject of dynamics, and as his collaboration with Jean Bernouilli defines the notion of a universal physical principle of least action. Thus, each such subject-matter is defined by its characteristic, distinctive boundaries, rather than by merely pair-wise, or kindred, mathematical interactions. These functional boundaries are the expression, in a science of physical economy, of the relevant physical principles.

That much said, now compare the dynamical characteristics of the Biosphere (non-human ecology) with those of the Noösphere (human ecology). Look at the result from the vantage-point of Vernadsky.

The phase-space presently known to us as being represented by the Earth as a whole, is composed of three principal dynamics: a.) The abiotic domain; b.) The Biosphere; c.) The Noösphere. Consider the relevant changes in the total relative mass of each. That is, putting to one side, for the moment, the addition or lessening of the total mass of planet Earth, positive evolution involves a transfer of mass from the abiotic domain, to the Biosphere, and, comparably, transfer of mass from the Biosphere to the Noösphere. This is complicated by the fact, that the only way in which the Biosphere of the planet is increased, is through the action of a principle, life, absent in the abiotic domain, in converting abiotic material to material which is either living, or has the inhering quality of being a product of a living process. Similarly, the increase of the mass of the Noösphere occurs through a mode of action not otherwise found in merely living material, but only through the transformation of the quality of the substance of the Biosphere, which transforms living material into human cognitive being and its products.
........

[10] Euler's going over, as in his Berlin period, into the camp of the Eighteenth-Century empiricists, is a fact; but, exactly how and why he departed the camp of Leibniz & Jean Bernouilli has not been made clear as in his witty treatment of the knight's move in chess, but, at the same time, the worst also comes out. But, after all, chess itself, even as Kriegsspiel, was designed to have a built-in lack of a future.


Source: Full Text
http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2009/3601academicians_failed.html




Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 20 Jan 2009, 10:33 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2008, 8:33 pm
Posts: 492
Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. wrote:
Reluctantly, it now dawns upon these circles, that virtually nothing which is essentially crucial has occurred in those patterns in the world's economy generally, which I had not forecast in my international webcast of July 25th, 2007.

What I had forecast, on July 25, 2007, was a general breakdown-crisis, which I had warned, was to unfold by about the close of that July. Three days after that webcast, the actual breakdown of the world's present monetary system began exactly as I had warned it would.

I'm afraid Mr. LaRouche is just a hypocrite. He claims to have predicted himself all these things; but I have written him for years myself and he has never answered. Why did he never answer if he thought these things would come to pass too? As has been the case for Mr. Paul (who also falsely claims powers to have predicted these things), others have written Mr. LaRouche on my behalf; and there too he has never answered. Where was Mr. LaRouche when my work predicted these very things and exactly how they would break down, clear back in 1979 when no one else would dream these things, and yet the writing was right on the wall? How in fact does he predict these things at all, unless he concurs in my 1979 thesis that any purported economy subject to interest inevitably terminates itself under insoluble debt? He does not even explain the failure in its singular inevitable terms even now. How would he have projected the failure but by models as I produced for the Reagan Administration in the early 80s? There is absolutely no other way to calculate the failure! And now, at the eleventh hour, Mr. LaRouche calls himself a prophet?




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: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 20 Jan 2009, 8:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: 30 Dec 2008, 3:16 pm
Posts: 22
I just want to let you know I have been busy engaging in discussions with several people on two forums and on own email list from an MPE-based viewpoint.

More later...

Dave




Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 20 Jan 2009, 10:08 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2008, 8:33 pm
Posts: 492
Hopefully that will make us a country again, Dave.

THANKS!




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: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 20 Jan 2009, 10:13 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2008, 8:33 pm
Posts: 492
PS. I moved your topic to a Newbie forum because many folks ask the same questions you have. I was hoping that would make an obvious stopping point for visitors to catch up.

A not so desirable ramification of the re-organization is that (at least for me so far) email notification links are not opening up on the intended pages. I hope that doesn't hold for new threads as well, but you might keep that in mind when you send anyone to a thread. Maybe indicate the title of the thread and copy the URL out of your address bar into any emails you send.


OOOPS. CORRECTION: YOUR MAIL DID OPEN UP WHERE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO. I'm trying to figure out what's gone wrong with this other notificaton.




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: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 21 Jan 2009, 10:44 am 
Offline

Joined: 08 Nov 2008, 8:21 pm
Posts: 248
Quote:
Mario said:

The Fed's [central banking plan] "designed to have a built-in lack of a future"


This is the core issue confronting humanity. The needs, wants, freedoms, prosperity and scientific progress of the people are trumped by the powerful international bankers desire to maintain their rule and exploitation. From my perspective, any future plan that includes central banks (in our case the Federal Reserve) is a continuation and acceleration of usury.

The elimination of the central banking scheme should become a key tenet to all who espouse reform and a greater society for us and future generations. It is the glue that will hold separate, sometimes competing factions together - from feminists to religious clerics, from LaRouche to Ron Paul, from environmentalists to industry.

Quote:
Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. wrote:

Why the Academicians Have Usually Failed in Economics

From that moment on, the ongoing, global, general, physical breakdown-crisis of the entire world's present monetary-financial system, has never ceased to worsen. It grows uglier and uglier, wider, deeper and deeper, and, for those who had deemed themselves the reigning powers of our planet, seemingly more hopeless, than what it had been a bare moment before.

There has been nothing comparable to this in the history of European civilization since the outbreak of medieval Europe's mid-Fourteenth-Century collapse of the House of Bardi into a Europe-wide "new dark age." It comes on as a planetary tragedy. As I had repeatedly forewarned since that time, what has been oncoming, is a general breakdown-crisis of the presently doomed financial-monetary system of every part of this planet as a whole.

One senses an approaching moment, like that silence heard by those either in the life-boats, or swimming in the chilling Atlantic ocean waters, in that moment when the S.S. Titanic had vanished under the waves.

I can proudly confirm their view that I refuse to associate myself with anything as provably silly as that which passes for academic qualifications in economics among the usual academics of today. Meanwhile, they, each time, hearing their own voices on this subject, appear to be much more frightened, this time, by hearing the reverberations of their own attempted denials, than when they had uttered them a moment or so before.

The tragedy began in that moment that the right-wing Wall Street choice for Vice-President, Harry S Truman, would seize the opportunity of President Franklin Roosevelt's death, to sabotage Roosevelt's Hamiltonian, post-war intentions. What Truman would introduce, instead of Secretary Hamilton's American System of political economy, is the intrinsic incompetence of sometime pro-Nazi economist John Maynard Keynes.[1] The widely practiced methods of statistical forecasting today, are the worst existing on this account up to the present date.

To get inside the morally deranged mind of a Prince Philip or his virtual spotted clown, the former U.S. Vice-President Al "Bozo" Gore, today, we must come to grips with the essential point of principle underlying these connections: that Soros, Prince Philip, and Al Gore, as judged by pattern of the effects of their practice, regard ordinary people not as actually human, but as cattle who might be drugged by the likes of George Soros, slaughtered, or simply starved to death, on the whim of the feudal ownership over a mass of people treated as a virtual form of human cattle. Since these modern oligarchs deny the efficiently principled distinction between man and beast, despite being men themselves, they behave toward mankind as predatory beasts do, and proclaim their behavior properly ethical because they have "the bully pulpit" from which to say so.

The tradition of oligarchism has always been the forceful suppression of the creative powers of discovery of higher principles, discovery which is expressed typically in such forms as fundamental scientific progress. This suppression of the creative powers of the members of society, is usually expressed in the mode of the popularized cultural backwardness of what might be misnamed "human nature," against the contrary, allegedly "aggressive" impulses of human scientific or Classical artistic creativity. The foe which Satan fears the most, is the Promethean soul which sets the human individual apart from, and above that bestiality which fools call "human nature."

Culture & Human Immortality

However, this reality of human, as distinct from animal nature, becomes difficult for some people to grasp, as long as they cling to the delusion that the meaning of human life begins with the individual's birth, and ends with that individual's death. The truth of the matter lies in evidence bearing upon that uniqueness of human progress, as distinct from all other living creatures, progress through a process embodied, as if in principle, in a meaningful succession of generations, from distant ancestor to distant generations to come. The distinction of mankind from beast lies, essentially, in those creative powers of the human mind which are not manifest in any form of animal life, creative powers typified by Johannes Kepler's uniquely original discovery of the principle of a universe self-encompassed by a universal principle of gravitation, and other, discoverable principles of that ontological significance.

Treat the human sense-perceptions as presenting us with virtual shadows, shadows cast upon the sense-perceptual medium, by an action which, itself, is not actually seen directly. As I have stated this in earlier locations, this means, that we should take the case of Helen Keller, who was blind and deaf, but, who developed a powerful social insight into the world, that of the humanity which she could neither see or hear. What the senses provide the human mind, is merely shadows; the mind must, then, craft, and test, experimentally, an image of the actual process which casts those shadows which we know as sense-perceptions. So, in the case of Kepler's discovery of the composition of the Solar orbits, the image of sight, and the image of harmonically ordered hearing, were both contrasted and combined, by Kepler, to enable the experienced, but unseen, unheard mind, to adduce the physical reality of the "unseen" evidence as that which had cast the sense-perceptual shadows.


This is really good stuff as it speaks eloquently to the corruption of science, including economic science, perpetrated by the parasitic and immoral ruling elites. They have corrupted our history, our economy and our societal morality. This cancer must be removed.

The harmony, simplicity and fairness of the Mathematically Perfected Economy™ is the engine that can propel mankind to be free and prosperous; limited only by our aspirations, ingenuity and physical possibilities. We, here, who have come to understand the Mathematically Perfected Economy™, have an obligation to get the word out to others.




Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: NEW TO PFMPE™
PostPosted: 21 Jan 2009, 12:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: 30 Dec 2008, 3:16 pm
Posts: 22
Yes, I intend to get our country back.

More soon...

Dave




Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous  Sort by   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 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