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  [ 1 post ] 
Print view Previous topic | Next topic
Author Message
PostPosted: 02 May 2009, 2:47 pm 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2008, 8:33 pm
Posts: 492
I've been getting substantial email since announcing our amendment draft at midnight this past evening. All of the correspondence so far has been positive except for one email which I will answer to in more detail in a separate negative feedback thread. some reservations have been raised, largely by people who haven't finished the amendment page yet.

I anticipated that most people would email rather than voice their thoughts in the forum here, but I think the process is more open if we share what others are saying, asking, and so forth. This should give all of us a better idea where we stand on all this.

Much of this is just immediate thoughts, but what I'm going to do here is post some of the more representative questions anonymously. If you shared the same thought, hopefully my answer will either give you more cause to take your questions further, or, on the other hand, if the answer can then be seen to be sufficiently evident in the amendment, we should be OK. If not, we have some wordsmithing to do. In any case, what we're after here is going over this document with a fine toothed comb. The language must be legal and definite... but let's face it, for decades we've been leaving the fixing of the chicken coup to the fox. The fox/rats aren't going to do that job; and so only a document such as this has any chance of achieving our objectives.

Questions or comments are given in quotes; red formatted text is actual text from the document:

There is tremendous material here. But will the Amendment read in a short sentence?

The title of the article/page is the title of the amendment — and your short sentence:


I'm about half way through and I like it. There are parts that are over my head but they would be easily explained:

"No quorum, regardless of ostensible authority, shall be deemed to have passed any government act; and no legislative passage shall exist without a lawful majority of no less than half of the total possible legislative vote, with unexercised votes always counting against election or passage."

Yes, a quorum (minimum necessary voter presence) passed the Federal Reserve Act. This document absolutely puts an end to all such subversive strategies, as obviously, no legitimate attempt to rule by consent of the people would desire to avoid counting *all* legislative votes; and no legitimate legislation either would desire to avoid submission to public affirmation — either of which would have eliminated passage of the Federal Reserve Act under the conditions it did pass.

"unexercised votes always counting against election or passage" meaning a NO vote?

Exactly. Neither your legislator or yourself are compelled to show up to vote "no." A non vote therefore is a no vote.

This is a lenient way of making voting as much as mandatory, and of eliminating the present pretension of integrity, in which for instance candidate after candidate can be fielded who will never serve the people (by for instance advocating or supporting solution of the present system of exploitation). We don't have to turn out; and the non vote means *no* candidate passes a majority of the total required count of *all* votes (whether we show up or not).

No longer then will it be legitimate to say "I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils." Now you only vote for the candidate who will get the job done. Anything less can't succeed to office.

I think representatives should be available to vote unless sick or family illness keeps them home. Otherwise not all of us are counted except as a NO vote, which could swing the vote against the majorities wants or needs.

No: In that case, it only means the majority has to show up if it's important enough to; only a real majority can prevail; and nothing less than that can legislate or administer *anything*.

What we've had on the other hand is free passage of illimitable acts of the poorest conception, and illimitable ascendancy to office by the unworthy. This amendment forces fielding candidates who can win a true majority, or no one fills the office. Not only so, we can readily get rid of them for a host of offenses with punitive measures so steep that any officer or agent of government will be *made* concerned to err always to the favor not just of the people, but to the further consent of the people.

But another thing we're doing here is we are denying them still, even after ascending to office, to do *anything* which cannot and has not yet passed public affirmation. Their hands are tied, and woe to the officer/agent who seeks to breach these requirements.

So of course, the present system of exploitation would never have succeeded in its 100-year reign, because:

1. those who imposed it upon us promised not to do so (triggering immediate ejection from office by this amendment);

2. the "law" was never subjected to public consent (in fact it had failed public consent according to the 1912 vote), so the Federal Reserve Act would never have become law under the public disposition of the time;

3. and even if it did, our amendment requires it to be subject to periodic re-affirmation. Thus if falls from the grace of law if it fails to pass a subsequent submission to the consent of the people.

Now, what do you think an intelligent public would have done when, but 15 years into its history of crime, it imposed the world's first Great Depression, having so recently promised to protect the people from all the things it was actually the cause of?

4. even more detrimental to the idea of passing such a law, we've made it a high crime to do so; and we've made it possible for one person to invalidate it on any count. Among those rich avenues of invalidation in this case are the purposes we require to be stated explicitly: not only did it fail them; it could be shown from the beginning that *it could only* fail them. Then there are the means: it too fails the tests of means. Then there is our requirement it be demonstrated to *best* serve the purposes of the people: it can't even be shown *to* serve the people — it's a system of exploitation! And further, to any degree it can be shown to have any shortcoming in any of these respects, its faults are *required* to be rectified immediately.

So, who is going to try to run such legislation by an intelligent public, with the penalty for failing being to hang from the nearest tree — with every friend of their cause?

Effectively yet, our amendment only gets as serious as history *has demonstrated it needs to be. There is nothing radical then in this response; it is simply to eradicate crimes against us by all the necessary measures of prevention. No one does these things by accident; they *are* crimes; they are crimes of the most serious nature; and they are crimes which *essentially*, wholly destroy the possibility of representation.

This is something I believe happens many times in our government now artificially disguising a special interest votes. Watching the representatives on television and seeing only 12 or less representatives even present makes the whole thing look like a joke.

If voters have to vote then representatives have to represent.

You're absolutely right — this is nothing short of incredible nonchalance of responsibility.

But note why no one is there: what they're really about once they ascend to the offices of government is representing the special interests who put them there. But under our amendment, there is no point in the special interests providing their support to push this genre of rat into office. Why not? *Everything the rats do* in office is subject to public affirmation, and even periodic re-affirmation. Worse, they aren't even *allowed* to make *the kinds of laws they're making*. A dozen legislators are attending because the rest are interested in pushing through their own favoritisms; and they all show up to please *each other* by passing each ally's transgressions against the people. Now, all this has to get by us... so they're wasting their time *altogether*, unless the public really wants all this transgression.

I'm only half way through but I like it. I see the accountability there of all responsible parties voters/representatives.

Great, but Sections 10 and 11 are the coup de grace. I'll expect another email shortly.



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

 Profile E-mail  
Display posts from previous  Sort by   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

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:  

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.


Search perfecteconomy.com     Search Web