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  [ 12 posts ] 
Print view Previous topic | Next topic
Author Message
 Post subject: Nationalize Money Supplies by Zarlenga
PostPosted: 09 Jul 2009, 10:29 am 
Offline

Joined: 29 Jan 2008, 6:06 pm
Posts: 731
There is a lot of mathematically perfected economy principles in Zarlenga's economic remedy.
But only nationalizing money supplies will not solve the problem.

Nationalizing money supplies and abolishing usury will solve the problem.

Zarlenga Stephen wrote:
...Friends, we are all under pressure in this environment. Stress will cause illness unless you act. Action will destroy fear! Good action towards truth will change the world. Join with us to understand the nature of our money system, how it should be structured and how we
citizens can effect such change. That's what our country's founders would be doing now if they were of our time. That's what men and women of good will, can be doing now!

Source:http://www.monetary.org (free monetary CDs can be ordered there)


http://www.henrymakow.com/by_stephen_zarlenga_american_m.html




Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nationalize Money Supplies by Zarlenga
PostPosted: 27 Jan 2010, 6:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: 21 Aug 2009, 8:01 pm
Posts: 90
I do not believe that Zarlenga understands even his own B.S.

For example, he says that debt-free money is "real money". Which means
that he likes the idea of printing money which will become PERMANENT.

PERMANENT government-introduced money is, after all, THE VERY DEFENITION
of debt-free money.

But his American Monetary Act (correctly) calls for the eventual
retirement of the printed money from the circulation.

Which means that the American Monetary Act DOES NOT call for debt-free
money. And debt-free money is what Zarlenga calls "real money".

Huh?

So which one is it? Zarlenga.

In fact, the American Monetary Act calls for $1.5 Trillion in government
spending on needed stuff like roads, bridges, and the like.

I agree.

But the problem is this: if the money is not retired from the circulation
in a time-based way which mirror-images the loss in value of the roads and
bridges, then price-stability WILL NOT and CAN NOT BE achieved.

The American Monetary Act, in fact, would retire the money from the
circulation far too quickly. And that would create DEFLATIONARY pressures.

Morever, Zarlenga laughibly claims that inflation should be near zero,
without EVER saying how to do this!

And since goverment spending is the ONLY way to introduce new money into
the circulation under Zarlenga's crazy scheme...and since government
spending "only" accounts for 25% of yearly dollar-demand...how is this
going to make ANY difference in our plight?

Is the government going to buy the whole country? The government shoe
store? The Goverment McDonalds? The Government Car company? excetera excetera excetara?

How laughable!

Finally, since Zarlenga, like Brown, DOES NOT propose the writing off of
debt which is the result of interest/usery...his plan could only FAIL.

And miserably so.

No other possible outcome is possible.

And where is his math?

What a clown.




Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nationalize Money Supplies by Zarlenga
PostPosted: 01 Mar 2010, 5:01 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2008, 8:33 pm
Posts: 492
Terry Hnanicek wrote:
I do not believe that Zarlenga understands even his own B.S.

For example, he says that debt-free money is "real money". Which means that he likes the idea of printing money which will become PERMANENT.

PERMANENT government-introduced money is, after all, THE VERY DEFINITION of debt-free money.

But his American Monetary Act (correctly) calls for the eventual retirement of the printed money from the circulation.

Which means that the American Monetary Act DOES NOT call for debt-free money. And debt-free money is what Zarlenga calls "real money".

Huh?

So which one is it? Zarlenga.


Well, you have well covered these bases already. But maybe I can add a few outside facts to stir the pot even moreso.

Zarlenga is a plagiarist; and when he wrote me, asking me to help promote "his" book, "The Lost Science of Money," saying "we are of like mind..." I asked him, if he knew we are of like mind, then he knows that I have advocated since 1979 that there is one and one only integral solution to 1) inflation and deflation; 2) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property; and 3) inherent, irreversible, and therefore terminal multiplication of artificial indebtedness by interest; and since he knows that, how can he possibly claim to have re-invented the "lost" science of money, unless he can prove an alternate solution?

Of course, he never answered.

Worse, his own disciples have insisted for years that he include me in his annual monetary reform conferences. He couldn't stand the competition of course. Yet his pretended solutions morph, bit by bit to mine, whereas his original proposition of a "Chicago Plan" only advocated lowering interest rates, while of course interest rates have now been lowered below the ceiling proposed by his "Chicago Plan." Even "his" Chicago Plan was no more than depression era emergency provisions which neither brought us out of the Great Depression, nor even attempted to solve the fundamental cause of the Great Depression (or any other fundamental/categoric fault of the responsible system.

Worse still, Zarlenga himself is largely responsible for preventing mathematically perfected economy from seeing the light of day. During the past presidential campaign for instance, a David Bright asked me to send a comprehensive proposal to the Dennis Kucinich Campaign. I was to send it immediately to Bright; Bright was to forward it to the secret address of their "Chicago people."

Guess who their Chicago people turned out to be?

None other than the infamous Stephen Zarlenga, plagiarist, himself.

Oh, and Kucinich?

Zarlenga proudly displays a video in which Kucinich praises Zarlenga for teaching him everything he "knows" about monetary reform.


But you're spot on in your observations: He is proposing two mutually exclusive things; and in the idea of necessarily retiring the circulation in concert with consumption/depreciation of the related property, he is (errantly) disassociating the resultant debt with the thing which has to be paid for.

The only reason for him to do this of course is to avoid plagiarism. He knows I exist; and he can't even express my ideas in his own words. Likewise, he knows he's about to be challenged; and (confused as he obviously is) meanwhile, all he's done (for attention) is lay down a trail which proves he hasn't the least skill to recognize solution, much less claim original development of solution.

You can tell all the plagiarists by two things: 1) they never mention me, even as they know well of me, because the whole purpose of their work is to lay claim to discovery of faults which they must obfuscate to tread only so near as they dare to blatant plagiarism; and 2) there are faults in all their work, which expose the fact they never developed solution.

You have spotted some of those faults. Yes, and this is pathetically ridiculous. Its distractions are perpetuating 10,000 homes a day going into foreclosure. Zarlenga's distractions are keeping a hundred-thousand children under the age of 12, homeless on the streets of just Los Angeles.


Terry Hnanicek wrote:
In fact, the American Monetary Act calls for $1.5 Trillion in government spending on needed stuff like roads, bridges, and the like.

I agree.

But the problem is this: if the money is not retired from the circulation in a time-based way which mirror-images the loss in value of the roads and bridges, then price-stability WILL NOT and CAN NOT BE achieved.


Absolutely. So Zarlenga is no authority at all (nor Ellen Hodgson Brown, who ventures a parallel error), because he dis-associates the thing to be paid for from those who should pay for it and from the rate at which it should be paid -- all in the FALSE name of eradicating debt, which is not the problem: perpetual multiplication of artificial debt into inevitably terminal debt is the problem. It is AN ADVANTAGE to assume debt, not just to the debtor, but to the real creditor (who gives up property for a promissory note), because otherwise the debtor cannot consume the property; and likewise, we deny the creditor their greatest potential market.

It is no adversity that a newlywed couple be able to assume a $100,000 debt to buy a $100,000 home with a hundred-year lifespan, because if they cannot do that, they might only be able to buy the home at perhaps the end of their own life spans. Likewise, we deny the builder a market. we don't injure ourselves by allowing this couple to issue legitimate evidence of enforceable credit!

It's interest that's the problem; and if Zarlenga realized that, he would never have advocated his idiotic "Chicago Plan." Nor would Ellen Hodgson Brown have denied in our debates between each other, that interest is the problem.


Terry Hnanicek wrote:
The American Monetary Act, in fact, would retire the money from the circulation far too quickly. And that would create DEFLATIONARY pressures.

Moreover, Zarlenga laughably claims that inflation should be near zero, without EVER saying how to do this!


That's right!

Well... you know as well as I do, what the next step is. He merely made a claim, as if that is solution; and the fact is, the next step would have resolved the claim into mathematically perfected economy, because when you associate the debt with who should pay it and with the vital rate of payment, you come up with something which was proven thirty years ago -- decades before he wrote his first word in his lost, "Lost Science of Money."

Zarlenga is as phony as phony can get.


Terry Hnanicek wrote:
And since government spending is the ONLY way to introduce new money into the circulation under Zarlenga's crazy scheme...and since government spending "only" accounts for 25% of yearly dollar-demand...how is this going to make ANY difference in our plight?


Exactly. It can't make the difference, because unless you eradicate the artificial indebtedness (the artificial magnitude to which artificial monetary obligations have been multiplied, and because unless you restore to the people what they have lost under usury, you can't even establish a sustainable state.

Obviously, second grade math is beyond Zarlenga, because a trillion and a half isn't even going to resolve Obama's first year budget deficit! Who is going to pay that, and why?


Terry Hnanicek wrote:
Is the government going to buy the whole country? The government shoe store? The Government McDonalds? The Government Car company? et cetera, et cetera, et cetera?

How laughable!

Finally, since Zarlenga, like Brown, DOES NOT propose the writing off of debt which is the result of interest/usury...his plan could only FAIL.

And miserably so.

No other possible outcome is possible.

And where is his math?

What a clown.


Well, that pretty much hits the nails on their heads.

Stephen and Ellen have a public undressing coming to them. They're cashing in on this, at the expense of the people, and at the extreme further offense of yours truly.




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: Nationalize Money Supplies by Zarlenga
PostPosted: 03 Mar 2010, 12:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: 21 Aug 2009, 8:01 pm
Posts: 90
Oh, I get it!

And thanks, Mike, for giving me some history on all this.

So Zarlenga had to, at first, produce a "solution" which was far different
from MPE in order to avoid plagurism.

But as time goes on, in order to aquire/userp credability, his "solution"
has to get closer and closer to MPE.

But he can't go all the way...or he gets busted for plagury.

Which means that he's painted himself into a corner.


Hilariously, Zarlenga always shows two different pictures of himself:

The first one is when he was young. And he looked young.

The second one is what he looks like now, after decades of having to put
up with the intense psychological stress that comes with living in
constant FEAR of being discovered as one who exagerates ones importance.

Hahaha! Those 2 pictures tell a story of their own!




Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nationalize Money Supplies by Zarlenga
PostPosted: 04 Mar 2010, 5:53 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2008, 8:33 pm
Posts: 492
Terry Hnanicek wrote:
So Zarlenga had to, at first, produce a "solution" which was far different
from MPE in order to avoid plagurism.

But as time goes on, in order to aquire/userp credability, his "solution"
has to get closer and closer to MPE.

But he can't go all the way...or he gets busted for plagury.

Which means that he's painted himself into a corner.


Sure. Same thing with Ellen Hodgson Brown. Why, after solving the circulatory obfuscation of the present currency, would you simply call it a Ponzi scheme, and tell us, without explaining how, that if we spend the interest into circulation with the principal, that there's no problem?

Yep. Ellen is my age too, and... [whatever]!

But the really funny one is Jaikaran and "his" "Debt Virus":

Jaikaran wrote me BEFORE he wrote his book; and I should have all that in old email many hard drives ago, because I keep all this stuff. Millions of emails.

Anyway, Jaikaran does quite a transparent job of plagiarizing my "Parable of Perfect Economy" — a ***STORY*** with NO HISTORIC PROOF OF FACT.

The story behind that is sort of interesting. I had re-produced a second hand account which had been given to me as accurately as possible, by a person who didn't even understand that their story almost solved inflation and deflation, inherent multiplication of debt into terminal debt, and systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property. I had been invited to their 1979 Valdez, Alaska lecture after speaking on mathematically perfected economy™.

At the end of their lecture, questions were taken and I asked mine first: Did the lecturer (Jacques Walker) understand that the colonial currency (what Brown now refers to as "the Pennsylvania Currency") he had described was nearly a mathematic perfection of economy?

He didn't have the slightest idea what I was talking about; and as I began to explain from the back of a huge auditorium, he took such interest that he asked me to join him at the podium to explain. So I explained mathematically perfected economy™, and how the described colonial economy solved all of the issues (inadvertently then?), except for some problems with how taxation was or was not levied.

The discussion which ensued lasted much longer than the original lecture.

Anyway, I found this story to be a tremendous tool for teaching. Great way to break into explaining how an economy is perfected mathematically, with a seeming actual example.

Losing track of Walker, and finding no source, I published it in 1979 as a Parable, trying to keep it accurate to its original telling. Trouble is, I find no documentation for the cited event — and I looked pretty damned hard.

So down the road, this professor guy writes me, all irate about "my story." Seems he can't find any proof of the event either. Worse, he's insisting I destroy my credibility unless I withdraw the story.

I understand what he's saying of course. But that's not the end of the story. If I recall (as I'm related to Thomas McKean, second President under the Articles of Confederation), our family has letters between Thomas McKean, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and others. Because no documentation of an event may exist in accredited bodies of evidence doesn't mean an event never took place. I do things every day of which either no proof exists, or which it would take exhaustive work to deduce.

Anyway, it matters not if the event never took place. It matters not that Lincoln ever lived, or that he went so far as issuing "greenbacks." What matters is the principle. Did Lincoln have a predecessor? Maybe. But we know not who; and it mattered not even so: if he didn't he was the first; but the principle still remains the same; and will succeed on its merits or fail on its faults. History just ostensibly proves or disproves the principle to those who can't tell otherwise — or account for mitigating circumstances.

So I wanted to preserve the story for its value as a teaching tool. It put the principles into a real life like event.

So what I did to resolve all this was to preserve the story in a PARABLE. That is, a story told as if it is history, whether it was history or not. Our professor fellow probably wasn't too happy about this, but nonetheless, I explained the fact it was just a story in an initial paragraph.

I further took the liberty however to embellish the story. A parable is a telling of a story for teaching purposes; and I made it the best vehicle then that I could — ISSUING FROM BENJAMIN FRANKLIN'S MOUTH, THE WORDS OF MIKE MONTAGNE, WHICH EXPLAIN THE VIRTUES OF THE STORY (!).

Well, so many low lifes were plagiarizing it, that I decided to take the introductory paragraph down, so that whoever had a version of it on their pages (folks like Tommy Usury Free repeated it in their own words)... well, they were caught red handed. (Tommy has since taken his down.)

So, along comes Jaikaran just about then... fifteen or twenty years down the road. And he BEGINS "his" "Debt Virus" work — on the very first page — thoroughly plagiarizing my STORY. An event which never happened.

Zarlenga followed the same pattern, telling for instance how money would have been invented by re-writing stories I used to explain these things — all original stories of course. The Money Masters, Ellen Hodgson Brown — they expand to negligible usefulness on the core history I provided instead to lay a pattern of how and why "money" has been obfuscated as it has. Of course, G. Edward Griffin of "The Money Masters" denied the ramifications of interest I demonstrated so long ago; and he too has changed his tune over the past 15 years, "perhaps" owing to an article I've maintained, readily invalidating his arguments. So the new "Money Masters" ditty likewise is morphing into a thesis I produced 40 years ago. This goes on and on. The Alex Jones radio show erases posts about mathematically perfected economy™as soon as they are made on his pages. Listeners inform me how he's morphing his pro Ron Paul (raise interest to keep people from borrowing too much!!!) stance to an identification of interest as the problem (as if he doesn't already know about me). Hell, hand treated images from my pages (alone!) are used in Ron Paul videos!

Anyway, these people are really so pathetic... and it is pretty funny if you're above it all. What a bunch of pompous creeps.

So down the road further (after she denied that interest is the problem in an OpEd News debate we were having), Ellen Hodgson Brown exalts "the Pennsylvania Currency" as "the most brilliant banking model in our nation's history.

While you ruminate on that, think about this too.

She claims it is brilliant because it is non-inflationary. I asked her to explain how it in fact solved inflation as she had explained it (setting a trap, because as she had explained it, it WOULD have engendered inflation); and further asking why she didn't require likewise that it solve DEFLATION?

She couldn't/wouldn't answer either question!

Of course, it was the very words out of MY mouth, which IN THE PARABLE come out of Benjamin Franklin's, which explained how MY STORY solved BOTH INFLATION AND DEFLATION.

Evidently (take your pick), either both concepts were beyond her, or she couldn't even provide MY explanation IN HER OWN WORDS!


Yep. That's what you call painted into a corner. Love the other stuff she comes up with, too. Laying a permanent trail she's not five percent of the analytical authority she pretends to be.

Frankly, I wish everyone every day would demand Zarlenga, Brown, RON PAUL!!! and all the rest of these phonies engage in one good fight-to-the-death debate.

You wonder how many would agree with me then?




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: Nationalize Money Supplies by Zarlenga
PostPosted: 04 Mar 2010, 9:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: 21 Aug 2009, 8:01 pm
Posts: 90
I was just on Ms. Brown's website.

She wants borrowers to pay 100% of US Federal taxes!

Well, I'm sure that they'll be happier than a bug in a rug, Ellen.

And printing permanent fiat whenever a loan is made, and giving that
money to the government, and letting them spend it in any such way
as they choose...some people might say that's a wee bit inflationary.

Jackels. All of them.

She wants to print $12.5 Trillion of permanent fiat, aka greenbacks,
and hand it over to the U.S. Government's creditors as it comes due.

Including the over $1.5 Trillion we "owe" to the "Fed".

Fair enough, Ellen. They did, after all, print our money.

So what the heck?

She also wants the taxpayers to loan tons of money to the states for
clean-energy stuff.

Why can't market actors pay for that themselves?

She also wants to print a bunch of global money...and start passing
it out.

(And I thought Richard C. Cook was over the top)

Sure thing, Ellen.

After filling the skies with helicopters, and throwing out all the
money...she expects the rest of the World to hard-peg their
currencies to the dollar.

Of course, Ellen. They'll be on their knees begging us.

And controls on capital flows, under a hard-peg, won't be needed
because "the impossible trinity" is just a ferry tale, Ellen.

Yep.

So what's on the agenda for tomorrow? Ellen. Will we be turning
off the gravity for an hour?

You know how everybody gets a kick out of that one.




Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nationalize Money Supplies by Zarlenga
PostPosted: 05 Mar 2010, 1:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: 21 Aug 2009, 8:01 pm
Posts: 90
I just checked out the Monetary Reform Act on Money Masters website.

They don't seem to do any math.

But They'd like to print $11 Trillion of permanent fiat and hand
it over to the government's creditors.

Except for the "Fed".

But to compensate for that, they'd like to shrink the monetary base
by $11 Trillion. So the money supply stays the same.

Which will reduce the monetary base to $1.3 Trillion.

Fractional lending by banks would be outlawed.

But they would still be allowed to charge interest.

They would limit money supply growth to between 3% and 5%.

SO THE BANKS CAN'T LEND OUT MORE THAN $1.3 Trillion in year 1.

But debt payments in year 1, from remaining $46 Trillion, are $4 Trillion.


No wonder they never do any math!




Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nationalize Money Supplies by Zarlenga
PostPosted: 05 Mar 2010, 4:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: 21 Aug 2009, 8:01 pm
Posts: 90
Most people who've been spending time on this website for
years---I've been here less than 1 year---don't realize what
a long, aganizing journey it is to find this place.

The money-printer's 1st, and most powerful line of defense,
is our collective cultural taboos.

And we are all at the mercy of those taboos.

The public shall NEVER discuss monetary theory!

This is reinforced by the idiot box, the tabloids...and most
of the internet.

But now that the economy is lighting up the stink-o-meter, the
money-printers have to parade these 5-Star Generals of economics,
complete with their Nobel Prizes, and their Bates Clark Metals
of Infinite Honor, in front of us to give us the bad news:

Those Wall Street jackels did this. It will take 20 years to
fix this. So stop your whining and plant a garden. Suckers.

But as the pain from their shock-therapy grows deeper, skeptisism
within the masses outgrows belief.

Which means that as the ground continues to shake below us, the
increasingly skeptical and dissatisfied masses will make it through
that line of defense, too.

Which will bring them to the money-printer's last line of defense:

These clownish goalies---Steve Zarlenga, Ellen Brown, Ron Paul, Alex
Jones, Edwin Griffen---who are frantically trying to run out the
clock on humanity.

And get rich along the way.

Because these clownish goalies have all painted themselves into a
corner, the gap that exists between what needs to be done, and what
they propose to do, will grow ever wider.

Their impotancy will become ever more obvious for all to see.

They will thus become increasingly erratic. And disoriented.

In the end, they will ALL meet the same end as the increasingly
erratic and disoriented Oracle at Delphi, after the Roman Emperor
Julianus gave her 1 last chance:

They will make 1 final prophesy:

They will prophesize that they will never prophesize again.

And the prophesy will come true.

Again.




Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nationalize Money Supplies by Zarlenga
PostPosted: 09 Mar 2010, 9:42 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2008, 8:33 pm
Posts: 492
Quote:
I was just on Ms. Brown's website.

She wants borrowers to pay 100% of US Federal taxes!

Well, I'm sure that they'll be happier than a bug in a rug, Ellen.

And printing permanent fiat whenever a loan is made, and giving that
money to the government, and letting them spend it in any such way
as they choose...some people might say that's a wee bit inflationary.

Jackels. All of them.



Good eye.

She has exited our debates when I've tried to hold her accountable for her "math" (which she obviously has never done). She's claiming (claimed) all at once that the interest for our debts has to be created and introduced *with* the debt; she's claimed this is not inflationary; and yet when I hold her accountable to explain the lifespan/cycle of the currency so as would demonstrate her claim of solving inflation, to escape accounting for the vital details each time, she exits the discussion, sometimes saying she has already explained this.

That is (on her website as well), she has claimed she already explained her concept of an ostensibly non-inflationary cycle to me. In fact she has not. YES, she DID reply to an email in which I asked her to explain how some of her (preposterous) claims amounted to a cycle which is in fact non-inflationary. Rather than answer my question, she simply repeated the same claim to which I asked! On her website, she claims she answered me, and that I only failed to post her final reply. Yes, I did not post her final reply, because it made for boring reading (mere redundant repetition); and because it only repeated the original statements to which I inquired.

Of course, I'm perfectly happy to post the whole series of emails, which prove there's no answer there at all; and, in the first place, my question was rhetorical; I only meant to get her to clearly state what in fact IS a cycle of inflation. As her original claim ambiguously defined her purportedly non-inflationary prescription; I meant to get a clear answer from her, so that she couldn't run (which is her pattern). In fact, I hold that she purposely evades crediting my thesis of inevitable failure; and that she wouldn't even have gotten this idea of introducing the "interest" (taxation!) without taking from my vital analysis. I hold that I can prove that. And I hold therefore (being as she advocates no solution whatever) that Ellen Hodgson Brown is as phony as phony gets.

A number of our supporters have tried to hold her accountable for her assertions as well. She flicks an ambiguous answer their way; then, when they press her for an accountable explanation, she ceases to reply.

No surprise there, either.

At the same time, others who have the time to follow her radio interviews and so forth tell me "her solution" is morphing into mine —  that she's even claimed, oh, say since six months to a year ago, that our problems "can even be solved by eliminating interest."

Hmmm... why EXACTLY would that be, Ellen, if, as you have said, "Interest is not the problem"?


On her obfuscation of interest into taxation (as you have noted), she waffles just as dramatically. When I ask her how her proposition of transforming "interest" into taxation (and still calling it interest, versus a property tax) justly levies the costs of government, there's just no answer.

Of course, the method of taxation proposed by mathematically perfected economy™ perfectly distributes the costs to the consumer of the program, proportional to consumption.

Now, why would anyone depart from a singular prescription for just taxation? Why, to make bucks, obfuscating good ideas, to promote yourself as an "analyst" with good (stolen) ideas; which, to take unrightful credit for that too, she purposely fails to give credit for the author of the thesis she steals from — proving her discredit as a purported "researcher" as well.

Most people don't understand the real offense to which I complain. If I were as lowly as Ellen Hodgson Brown, I'd already have dragged her, Zarlenga, Jaikaran, Stills and many others into court over this. What people don't understand is that while so many plagiarists take all of us down the wrong roads; and while they mislead us both from what the problem and what THE solution are; ten thousand homes a day continue to go into foreclosure; a hundred-thousand children under the age of 12 roam the streets of Los Angeles, homeless.

Each of these criminals have done this for undeserved fame and financial gain. At best, they only repeated history which I gave to illuminate the fact of singular solution; and they've done that to the ever greater obscurity of the fact of singular solution which I proved 30-40 years ago. They haven't even done the math. ANY of them.

As far as I'm concerned, every one of them is a traitor to we the people.




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: Nationalize Money Supplies by Zarlenga
PostPosted: 09 Mar 2010, 12:13 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2008, 8:33 pm
Posts: 492
Terry Hnanicek wrote:
I just checked out the Monetary Reform Act on Money Masters website.

They don't seem to do any math.

But They'd like to print $11 Trillion of permanent fiat and hand
it over to the government's creditors.

Except for the "Fed".

But to compensate for that, they'd like to shrink the monetary base
by $11 Trillion.
So the money supply stays the same.

Which will reduce the monetary base to $1.3 Trillion.

Fractional lending by banks would be outlawed.
But they would still be allowed to charge interest.


They would limit money supply growth to between 3% and 5%.

SO THE BANKS CAN'T LEND OUT MORE THAN $1.3 Trillion in year 1.

But debt payments in year 1, from remaining $46 Trillion, are $4 Trillion.


No wonder they never do any math!



EXACTLY.

The first problem here is that they saw someone else's work which PROVED any economy subject to interest engenders its own inevitable failure; then, the went out to claim authority to pronounce the failure, not only not understanding the explained fundamental cause, but actually advocating that cause — and proving the falacy of their purported authority.

Secondly, it is mathematically impossible for interest to coexist with an eradication of fractional reserve policy: Wherever the currency is comprised of debt subject to interest, any [obviously evident] dependency upon the circulation forces the subjects to maintain a vital circulation by perpetually borrowing back into circulation the principal and interest they pay out of circulation. While this process inherently and irreversibly multiplies debt in proportion to the circulation (and capacity to pay); and while this multiplication of cost in proportion to capacity to pay of course is the fundamental cause of inevitable failure; the fact we must borrow ever more and ever more, merely to maintain a vital circulation, ITSELF means that abiding by a gold standard or refraining from fractional reserve lending is mathematically impossible, BECAUSE THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN EVEN MAINTAIN A VITAL CIRCULATION IS BY ACCUMULATING EVER MORE AND EVER MORE DEBT. It's mathematically impossible to do otherwise.

Thirdly, to prove how utterly inept these purported authorities are, they propose limiting the circulation. No one can solve inflation and deflation by limiting a circulation: they are solved only by maintaining a circulation which at all times EQUALS the remaining value of represented property; and the only way to do that is mathematically perfected economy™, in which eradication of interest makes it possible to pay off promissory obligations comprised only of principal, at the rate of consumption or depreciation of the represented property.

Much less wonder then, they cannot (and do not even attempt) a fully accountable explanation for how their proposition could accomplish its objects. We've as much as proven its means impossible by just these few words and observations (and all that inherently relates to them).

The followers of the gynecologist candidate (who has never done the math either) praise these false promises for no more "reason" than so many others (particularly "Austrian economists") tell exactly the same lie. It appeals not to intellect, but a lack thereof — for it is impossible even to construct a model which demonstrates we need to limit circulation.

While Ron Paul claims "inflation" is the cause of our failure, his dupes thoughtlessly follow, hoping a few bucks "worth" of gold will save them; claiming they want a return to [unqualified] "honest," "constitutional" "money"; and actually wanting the price of gold to go through the roof.

The humor of this is, that if we proclaimed them right (without qualification of course), and advocated an IMMEDIATE reversion to the constitutional definition of the value of the dollar and the value of gold IN "DOLLARS"...

Well, we'd find out right quick how "honest" all the gynecologist's followers are.


BY THEIR OWN YARDSTICK!




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: Nationalize Money Supplies by Zarlenga
PostPosted: 09 Mar 2010, 5:22 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2008, 8:33 pm
Posts: 492
Terry Hnanicek wrote:
Most people who've been spending time on this website for
years---I've been here less than 1 year---don't realize what
a long, aganizing journey it is to find this place.

The money-printer's 1st, and most powerful line of defense,
is our collective cultural taboos.

And we are all at the mercy of those taboos.

The public shall NEVER discuss monetary theory!

This is reinforced by the idiot box, the tabloids...and most
of the internet.

But now that the economy is lighting up the stink-o-meter, the
money-printers have to parade these 5-Star Generals of economics,
complete with their Nobel Prizes, and their Bates Clark Metals
of Infinite Honor, in front of us to give us the bad news:

Those Wall Street jackels did this. It will take 20 years to
fix this. So stop your whining and plant a garden. Suckers.

But as the pain from their shock-therapy grows deeper, skeptisism
within the masses outgrows belief.

Which means that as the ground continues to shake below us, the
increasingly skeptical and dissatisfied masses will make it through
that line of defense, too.

Which will bring them to the money-printer's last line of defense:

These clownish goalies---Steve Zarlenga, Ellen Brown, Ron Paul, Alex
Jones, Edwin Griffen---who are frantically trying to run out the
clock on humanity.

And get rich along the way.

Because these clownish goalies have all painted themselves into a
corner, the gap that exists between what needs to be done, and what
they propose to do, will grow ever wider.

Their impotancy will become ever more obvious for all to see.

They will thus become increasingly erratic. And disoriented.

In the end, they will ALL meet the same end as the increasingly
erratic and disoriented Oracle at Delphi, after the Roman Emperor
Julianus gave her 1 last chance:

They will make 1 final prophesy:

They will prophesize that they will never prophesize again.

And the prophesy will come true.

Again.



I have to hand it to you. You're one of the few to see this on your own. We discuss this in every kind of forum. Most people just don't get it — that there's anything to be concerned about. But all you have to do is go back so many years. In the first days of the internet, if you searched for "Federal Reserve," the first spot on your query would be PFMPE. These pages appeared above the Federal Reserve itself. Then one day, a fellow named Chris Athanas (of yes, his radio show), posted a dozen-and-a-half THOUSAND copies of my own pages, complete with copyright notices, in his domain, to rank above me in the search engines. He did take those pages down; but he replaced them with plagiarisms of every one of my basic articles. So did Edwin Vieira (Ron Paul's "foremost authority on constitutional money").

These people came here to realize I was paving the way to a monumental accomplishment; and left to usurp that accomplishment if at all possible. Alex Jones? His web manager, Paul Joseph Watson has been on our email list for what (?), maybe ten years? Yep, Jones promotes "THE Money Masters," who thoroughly plagiarized JUST THE HISTORY I presented for a different purpose. Their own listeners inform me they've been tempted for the past year to claim the problem is the interest. Of course, Jones isn't about to do that unless he's going to claim he or his people discovered this thirty years after the fact. I can guarantee you he will read this very post.

Even so, like everyone else, does he have the integrity to grant credit where credit is due? Only answering will prove so; and of course, it hasn't happened so far, because Jones and his troop of twenty year old rats have but one thing on their minds and egos — and that's to prove they're on the way to leading us from this mess single handed, by advocating Ron Paul and higher interest rates. Painted into a corner alright. Ron Paul and actual solution are not only mutually exclusive — anyone like Mr. Jones has all this while, only proven they didn't even understand the problem all this while, if ever they come out and recognize that it's the interest which is terminal.

What a stupid SOB. But worse, what an enemy of solution, parading instead to be a hero of solution — when all this while, he's heading millions in the opposite direction.




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: Nationalize Money Supplies by Zarlenga
PostPosted: 10 Mar 2010, 12:26 am 
Offline

Joined: 21 Aug 2009, 8:01 pm
Posts: 90
I was on Ms. Brown's website again. And she's definately MORPHING.

Near the end of her monetary proposal, she says something new:

Quote:
--The elimination of burdonsome and unfair international debts.
This could be done by simply writing the debts off the books of the
issuing bank, reversing the sleight of hand by which the loan money
was created in the first place.


So there's a new one.

After reading that, I clicked her link entitled "My response to Mike
Montagne" so I could point out to her that she's MORPHING.

But she destroyed all the evidence to cover her tracks!

I read that whole thing last summer. I know what I saw.

I let her hear about it anyway. I made the following comment:

Quote:
I noticed that ellen is putting her foot in the door when
it comes to a debt write-off.

Good news, indeed.

If you've been paying interest to the bankers for lending you money
that they do not have, but instead, PRINT...then you deserve to get
your money back.

But there are, I think, many systematic faults to what she is proposing:

(1) Making borrowers pay all the taxes is not fair.
(2) Printing permanent-fiat to cover the interest when a loan
is made is inflationary.
(3) Charging interest on IOU-money isn't fair.
(4) Charging interest on IOU-money isn't practical.
(5) I've never seen anybody peg a currency without
capital controls---you know, "impossible trinity".
(6) Big government where everybody pays for that road,
bridge, school, creates market-distortions and split
responsabilities.
(7) Having a government bank means that the Morgans and
the Rockefellers get to continue to be the Kremlin.
(8) And the Kremlin likes collusion and price-gauging.
(9) All money should be IOU-money which is, over time,
RETIRED from the circulation.
(10) If somebody wants to borrow money to buy your car,
or whatever, then the government should only provide a
credit-check. If the buyer is credit-worthy, then the
government would print the IOU-money.
(11) Then, as the loan is repaid, the IOU-money is RETIRED
from the circulation.
(12) So long as the IOU-money is free of interest, and
the loan is repaid on a scheduel that mirror-images the
time-based consumption of the product...no inflation,
deflation, or business-cycle could ever exist.

I thus conclude that Ellen proposes madness.


My comment is currently awaiting moderation.

And Zarlenga's crazy scheme has lots of those same faults, too.

The ONLY good thing that I will say about those 2 traitors is:

At least they tell us BANKS DO NOT LEND MONEY OUT OF THEIR VAULTS.

That's mor than I can say about people like Victor Aguilar, Alex
Jones, and Ron Paul.

In fact, if I had a nickle for every time that I saw a picture of
Andrew Jackson next to a picture of Ron Paul, I'd be a millionare
by now.

But if Jackson were alive today, he'd challenge Ron Paul to a duel!




Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous  Sort by   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 

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:  
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