PEOPLE For  Mathematically Perfected Economy™ (PFMPE™)  :  mathematically perfected economy™ (MPE™) is the singular integral solution to 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™ 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.

MORPHALLAXIS, January 14, 1979.

OPINION ON THE PENNSYLVANIA CURRENCY ADVOCATED BY ELLEN HODGSON BROWN IN 'WEB OF DEBT'

Only lay down true principles, and adhere to them inflexibly.

Thomas Jefferson

Real leadership means to correctly define the actual problem — and then — to correctly prescribe the actual solution.

Patrick Hedemark

As to solution, I hope we can agree on that some day, or for all the things which are not solution, this country is lost.

mike montagne (corresponding with Ellen Hodgson Brown)

Saturday, September 20, 2008

OPINION ON THE PENNSYLVANIA CURRENCY ADVOCATED BY ELLEN HODGSON BROWN IN 'WEB OF DEBT'

INTRODUCTION — THE CONTROVERSY OF A SINGULARITY OR PLURALITY OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS

After so long ago concluding arguments that there is one *and one only* integral solution to categoric monetary faults of 1) inflation and deflation, 2) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and 3) inherent multiplication of debt by interest, I've yet been asked twice recently for my opinion on Ellen Hodgson Brown's contradictory assertion of a further, "most brilliant banking model in our national history." A paragraph of her recent book, "Web of Debt," (together perhaps with further material, however qualified) has been interpreted by her readers to advance an alternate and even somehow superior ("most brilliant") solution, which I presume, because I am asked, at least in the potential minds of some of her readers, ostensibly disproves my proposition of a singular integral solution.

Why or how does her assertion comprise a solution; and on what account, if any, would it be preferable to mathematically perfected economy™?

In the formal disciplines which are usually justified by such important matters, and where an audience is distinguished by appreciation of the difference, the contradicting assertion would prevail only on deciding arguments to which I would more reasonably have been asked to answer. By nature, without even necessarily knowing of the preceding postulate, the prevailing arguments of a further prospective solution would fundamentally invalidate the preceding deduction of a singular solution, and prove a successor by better answering for wrong conclusions. Yet the arguments of my proposition are so elementary that any conceivable fault should hardly escape quality disputation:

  1. if the terms are defined respectively as increases or decreases in circulation per wealth which the circulation is intended to represent, then there is one and one only solution to inflation and deflation — this being to maintain a circulation which is perpetually equal to the remaining value of the wealth it is intended to represent — with the singular corresponding process of that being to introduce only such circulation as represents the wealth, and to retire that circulation as the wealth is consumed or depreciated;

  2. if the cost or value of money or property are only systemically manipulated by inflation, deflation, and/or interest (which too are the only tools to do so), then systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property is only solved by the combined, inseparable solutions of inflation and deflation (1), and inherent multiplication of debt by interest (3, which eradicates interest);

  3. if debt is inherently multiplied by interest, then inherent multiplication of debt can only be solved by eradication of interest.

Rather than purporting a different "solution" for all of these potential faults, the assertion I have been given by Ellen Hodgson Brown's readers purports only to be non "inflationary," except that she asserts the Pennsylvania System accomplished the object of perpetual equivalence (1) by different means. Whether said means in fact were implemented, whether she has even stipulated what formula would accomplish the virtue she alleges, and whether in fact either the implemented or said means accomplished the object of perpetual equivalence are the primary questions raised.

Further questions arise whether Ellen's allegedly brilliant model answers to the further requisites of solution. Does it on the contrary introduce further issues which can and potentially should be solved — the faults of which would negate the claim of solution (which the offered paragraph does not make)?

As I have further explained or meant to show in sufficient cases throughout these pages, the categoric issues solved by mathematically perfected economy™ manifest in further faults from which the categories were distilled for the purpose of ascertaining a complete solution. Among the extended faults so linked to the underlying causes of circulatory inflation, deflation, and the processes of interest, are escalating devaluation of the currency; escalating costs of industry; expatriation of industry, technology, and competitive advantage; impossibility of acquiring the production of others for equal measures of our own production; escalating destruction of free enterprise; and even eventual collapse under terminal sums of debt.

Further still, converse to the proposition we simply borrow excessively to our own destruction, integral observations of the underlying processes establish that it is the iniquitous, perpetual, and intended deflation of the imposed systems which compels escalated borrowing, merely to maintain circulations which can sustain inherently limited lifespans.

To be clear, I therefore consider these enumerated categories from which further irregularities emanate, to be the core faults of contemporary, imposed monetary systems. The eradication of these core faults is the very measure of veritable solution of systems subject to interest; and the understandable uniformity of these particular core faults is no substantial mystery, because they are merely characteristic to the usual, age old scheme to subvert an economy, and inherently its government, by usury.

Of course then, the contemporary faults are not necessarily the only irregularities we may introduce in an intentionally or inadvertently imperfect monetary system, or in integral or separate taxation schemes, even as their solution largely secures the ostensible ideals of economy. I have intended to address further, extended issues therefore, directly or indirectly. Further forms of unearned gain for instance make just reward for production impossible; and particularly as unearned gain is driven to extremes, it is capable itself of precipitating terminal failure.

In a society which extensively champions unearned gain, it may be no more than politically expedient to refrain from attempting to outlaw such abusable purposes. Nonetheless, mathematically perfected economy™ at least enables production to eliminate extrinsic unearned gain, while competition under mathematically perfected economy™ can rule out intrinsic manifestations, even if unearned gain is not made unlawful (which would injure no just cause).

Taxation likewise introduces additional vital concerns to which monetary solution is accountable. Critical standards for taxation for instance include minimizing overhead and linking payment to the proportional distribution of ostensible services — or just taxation and even accountable representation are impossible. Under mathematically perfected economy™, government programs are financed as is private commerce, allowing the just distribution of costs minimized by interest free processes, and eradicating inflation and deflation by paying off the resultant monetary obligations at the rate of depreciation or consumption.

Nonetheless, the allegedly brilliant alternative to which Ellen Hodgson Brown evidently refers is no less than the colonial Pennsylvania Currency, which in its various forms, my Parable of Perfect Economy made accessible to the early Web (in pre Web bulletin boards) since the mid 1980s. While speaking on this colonial currency since 1975, I had in my official January 1979 thesis of mathematically perfected economy™ published initial assessments of the colonial Pennsylvania Currency which I still hold — explicitly, that opposed to Ellen Hodgson Brown's asserted brilliance, the Pennsylvania System was quite imperfect.

But neither to my knowledge at least do historic accounts of the development or implementation of the Pennsylvania System suggest that even its authors considered it to so perfect even just any particular monetary respect, as to establish veritable solution of so much as that. These pages therefore assess the very paper provided to his co-authors by Benjamin Franklin, ostensibly upon which the resultant system was founded.

While none other than Benjamin Franklin co-authored the currency and system of taxation to which this document pertains, nonetheless the fact therefore remains: not only is the Pennsylvania System not equivalent to mathematically perfected economy™; there are vast, critical areas in which the two contending solutions do not even overlap. Because both do not accomplish exactly the same things therefore, then unless their differences matter not, both cannot claim solution.

WHAT IS A SOLUTION?

A fact of solution is not arbitrary.

If we determine a common object of a monetary system must be to make it possible without exception for us to pay for each other's production with no more than an equal measure of our own production, then nothing which does not do so is a solution.

Solutions account for all the vital requisites of a set of problems, whether declared, recognized, or not, because of course, anything which falls short of a complete accounting leaves a wake of problems to be solved and evils to be suffered. If for instance your light switch failed sometimes to close or open a circuit to a light, then the solution is not to install some complicated, expensive apparatus which might detect the failure and supply electricity from somewhere else.

Why is this not a solution, even if it accomplishes the intended purpose of the switch?

It is not a solution because it imposes redundant costs which are potentially substantial, and because it may introduce further possibilities for failure which are not accounted for, and which simply replacing the switch would have itself eliminated. A properly working switch costs practically nothing; and so it is with an accountable prescription for economy.

The differences therefore are not merely academic:

If we pretend to solve one monetary problem by creating another which taxes unnecessarily; or which requires constant revision or administration which might even later unfairly exceed the respondent's limited capacity to pay; or which taxes those who should not be taxed; or which paves the way for abuse of power by obfuscating who should be taxed and how much is taxed for given purposes, then we pave the way for government to easily abuse its authority to tax beneath a veil of obfuscation.

Some day then for instance, amidst a vast unsustainable web of irregularities existing altogether because we allowed deviation from this ever-binding principle, a corrupt government might falsely claim to serve us by balancing an impossible federal budget, when the fact of the matter instead will be that they robbed from an already poorly engineered program such as "Social Security," merely to claim they made ends meet, when in fact there was no increase in revenues or tax rates, nor such a reduction in irresponsible, excessive expenditures which could possibly qualify the lie that a history of reckless accumulation of debt had been staved.

When and if we ever allow ourselves to purportedly be taxed for one thing, and a cent of that taxation can be spent on anything else, we abandon the first definition to pave the way for abuse by any and every conceivable obfuscation.

The only way to eliminate that obfuscation is to explicitly levy just and permanently distinct taxations, clearly proportioned as they should be upon those who are served and should be saddled with their costs. As this alone deprives government of the opportunity and temptation of such abuse, then in this regard alone the differences between a fully accountable solution and anything less are potentially huge — however unperceived, ambiguous, or unaccounted the disparities. After all, holding to this principle alone forces the engineers of government programs to render sustainability.

But these in fact are just some of the faults imposed by Ellen Hodgson Brown's heralded Franklin or Pennsylvania Currency.

THE ALLEGEDLY BRILLIANT SOLUTION OF THE FRANKLIN OR PENNSYLVANIA CURRENCY

BACKGROUND

From a limited correspondence in which I've been provided no more comprehensive explanation, Ellen asserts that whatever monetary problems she recognizes and meant to address could be solved either by eradicating interest, or by the colonial monetary scheme which this document will continue to refer to as the Franklin or Pennsylvania Currency or System. While Ellen Hodgson Brown may neither declare the scope of intended solution, nor prescribe how to solve that scope with regard to eradication of interest, a quote said to be from her book nonetheless calls the Franklin monetary scheme, "the most brilliant banking model in our national history." It is the paragraph containing this quote to which I have been asked twice just recently to respond.

At the same time that she has indicated to me that one possible avenue of solution is eradication of interest, I see her web pages simply assert that money will *never* be loaned into circulation without interest.

The very context of this assertion not only begs critical thinking; it marks the avoided thinking which precludes a recognizable fact of solution, in the least because it precludes accountability. What are we to understand that she understands that we can't possibly know from this mere assertion? Do we give this assertion a free pass?

The processes of solution — and thus the processes of perceiving solution — on the contrary *never* give assertion a free pass, simply because then we can only pretend to know solution. In a bona fide discipline, every bona fide theorem or proposition is hard-coded within its incontrovertible proof.

The two agricultural producers of my Parable write each other notes. Neither charges the other interest, for at least we know the interest would cancel, as would all interest, if we charged interest for all our production — every time we exchanged like production for like production, the interest we would receive would be equal to what we would pay, negating any ostensible purpose (if there is a just one).

Are we to accept and to say then that the issuance and acceptance of our own notes is unnatural; that the producer of the subject wealth is not the real creditor; and that their note for some entirely undeclared and unjustified reasons, is to be issued by a third, in fact uninterested party, who produces nothing, produces the money at virtually no cost whatever, risks nothing, and destroys the integrity of the promise by multiply the costs of our own production to us not only many times over, but perpetually, over and over again, for no benefit, reason, or justice whatever?

Are we to so subject ourselves to interest commanded by such an uninterested, extrinsic party, that to procure the very house we build, each and every one of us is to give up to a handful of usurers, several houses now, multiplied forever?

I say on the contrary that only thieves charge interest; that they do so only as imposters; and that in fact then it is incredibly foolish to subject ourselves to such even terminal thievery, particularly given that it is imposed upon us by so few, in such irreverence for the remaining facade of a republic.

The path to solution is not a cherry-picking contest in which we answer what we just think we can or have, ever without qualification.

The first responsibility of solution is to ascertain all the things we need to solve for. The process of solution then details those things so that we reveal to ourselves everything about them which might be important to solution. We then organize the prospective solutions of each element of the problem until the common solution of all emerges from that process. Solution is no more difficult, ambiguous, or unqualifiable than that.

There is no place for mere assertion in that process, any moreso than any possible omission of fact yet retains some ostensible power to determine credibility — or that a fact therefore can even be perceived without qualification. What exactly is the fact, we are always asking — always leaving a trail which comprises how well we perceived all of them. When we consider ourselves done therefore, the solution and the process are marked by an inseparable attempt at qualification which is the very testament to the quality of what we have just done.

It is altogether then because unqualified assertion marks the contrary, because solution is more arduous, because we pitted ourselves against those difficulties for the real value of resolution, and because the existent terms of qualification are the very necessary vehicle of conveying what the work teaches, that the characteristic presentation of solution returns to the very terms of qualification which convey it.

So to respond to the controversial assertion of a plurality of solutions, we return again to the very questions and arguments of solution, testing if they hold and responding to whatever further questions they may raise.

THE POTENTIALLY CONTROVERSIAL ALTERNATE SOLUTION

Here then is the contradictory paragraph of "Web of Debt" to which I have been asked to answer, in which, to her readers' mistake, Ellen Hodgson Brown in fact merely asserts one virtue of the Franklin Currency or Pennsylvania System:

The most brilliant [1] banking model in our national history was established in the first half of the eighteenth century, in Benjamin Franklin's home province of Pennsylvania. The local government created its own bank, which issued money and [2] lent it to farmers at a modest interest. The provincial government created enough extra money to cover the interest not created in the original loans, [3] spending it into the economy on public services. [4] The bank was publicly owned, and [5] the bankers it employed were public servants. [6] The interest generated on its loans was sufficient to fund the government without taxes; [7] and because the newly issued money came back to the government, the result was not inflationary. The Pennsylvania banking scheme was a sensible and highly workable system that was a product of American ingenuity but that never got a chance to prove itself after the colonies became a nation.

As we see, the paragraph merely claims (7) that the described rigamarole (1...6) is "not inflationary." Perhaps then it is the misunderstanding of her readers that the claimed "banking model" is pretended to stand as a bona fide solution for the related matters addressed by mathematically perfected economy™ (although the term "brilliant," would seem to suggest at least the same, incumbent standard of accountability).

But unless Franklin and his co-authors had intended to solve inflation and deflation, then if the resultant system accomplishes the presently claimed purpose — which question we shall soon address and answer — the Franklin Currency or Pennsylvania System certainly does so by a questionable and unnecessarily convoluted process which draws into question not only what is claimed to be solved, but how the process ostensibly solves even the little that is claimed.

How then do we understand that process was "not inflationary"?

In fact, the paragraph only asks us to take this for granted; and we can deduce the improbability of the assertion from the further obvious, unanswered irregularities, which themselves demote the described system from prospective monetary solution:

If for instance this currency was only loaned into circulation to purchase land, then only land-owners who had to borrow money to purchase land would be saddled with taxation, regardless whoever enjoyed the benefits of government, and regardless further of the proportional distribution of those ostensible benefits.

Furthermore, is it possible in all cases of the described scenario for us to procure production with no more than an equal measure of our own production? Absolutely not: We can only acquire agricultural production or land at the further cost of taxation which might not even serve us.

Was the entire population thus compelled to buy agricultural land, that it bear whatever its rightful burden of taxation? Were the rates of purported interest on each loan adjusted according to the benefits of government enjoyed by the particular land owner, regardless even of how much land they purchased under such potentially disproportionate debts?

Where is the evidence of the necessary, regulating formula which would rule out relative inflation? How can such a formula even exist, if instead there was one rate of interest for all?

Even if this currency was further loaned into circulation to finance agricultural production, no mention of a formula for retiring the circulation at the rate of consumption is mentioned, and no provision whatever for financing all other industry is even mentioned to exist. Are arbitrary rates of payment and interest then sufficient to solve inflation and deflation?

Moreover, how is further commerce to be sustained on a circulation which is only dedicated, and which accordingly might only suffice to sustain agricultural production? The resultant circulation might indeed not suffer inflation upon its subjects; but not as a virtue of solution: Instead it effectively imposes a potentially exceedingly restrictive degree of deflation as an artifact of failing to finance but such a narrow, preclusive scope of industry.

Why then would any reasonable architect combine taxation with the very different need to monetize industry which might not even benefit from the government programs for which it might thus nonetheless be taxed — and not even in proportion to veritable service, but to some irrespective range of indebtedness?

How can we truly even concede at all then, much less understand, that the claimed "banking model" was "brilliant" in any essential respect whatsoever?

Still, according to the present assertion, the system would necessarily have to attempt to maintain a circulation which is *not only* no more than the remaining value of the related asset, but no more than the remaining value of rendered government services as well. *If* anything is solved then, any and every cent of the process is accountable to these very governing principles.

Thus we can neither demonstrate intended or even inadvertent solution unless we have a formula at least for adjusting the whole of interest upward or downward as further land is purchased, as land is paid off, as government costs increase or decrease, and as rendered government services are consumed. *If* there ever was such a formula as substantiates the paragraph's claim then, not only am I unaware and doubtful of it, I hardly think such accredited authors would have overlooked the fact that they only imposed extremes of administrative tedium and potential injustice by unnecessarily imposing extrinsic and redundant costs on our promises to pay, instead of the more reasonable process of taxing us as we consume of government programs (as in mathematically perfected economy™).

But there isn't even a reference to the essential formula for retiring currency as the subject wealth is consumed: No formula for determining and adjusting interest rates accordingly; not even a justification of the consequences to debtors, should rates of interest necessarily be adjusted upward, beyond budgeted capacities to pay.

Where even are the qualifications and justifications of all these ramifications?

On the contrary, if the real creditor is the producer who accepts a promise to pay subject to whatever conditions may preclude redeeming the promise, then is it not their risk alone which would justify interest?

If then our exchange of production for equal production required monetization subject to equal interest, then the sum of interest in every exchange would not only cancel; a singular form of currency free of interest, inflation and deflation alone would make it possible at all times to finance all possible production of wealth with no extrinsic cost whatsoever; would alone make it possible to pay and to guarantee payment of all resultant monetary obligations; and would alone make it possible to *always* redeem the circulation or the remaining monetary obligations in the very remaining value of the wealth each are intended to represent.

Not only does the [thus] seemingly arbitrary Franklin Currency or Pennsylvania System meet none of these requisites; even if it delivers the presently claimed solution of inflation, it imposes its injustices and limited capacity to sustain prosperity at the cost of exceeding, unnecessary administrative complications which are automatically avoided altogether by mathematically perfected economy™.

At the same time, no cited record of accounting for inflation in the schedules of payment exists; and the system's failure altogether to sustain further industry suggests both that a) instead of solving inflation, its shortcomings imposed deflation; and that b) its authors therefore were hardly even meaning, or at least equipped, to attempt such a comprehensive solution. As we will subsequently show from the very paper Franklin presented to his fellow architects for all their explicit purposes, history indicates on the contrary that monetary thinking was hardly so refined as to perfect a monetary system even of inflation at that time. On the contrary, Franklin merely wonders aloud how much currency should be circulated.

Finally then, rather than achieving the seeming or implicitly claimed benefit of saving its subjects taxation, instead the Pennsylvania System simply imposes the very same taxation in a way which is only similar to the usual connotation of "interest."

So in the end, for all its redundant complications and obfuscation, the purportedly brilliant "banking model" saves its subjects nothing whatever.

FURTHER REMARKS ON THE CITED PARAGRAPH

The following remarks summarize or expand upon these thoughts:

  1. "banking model"

    As we scan the paragraph, we quickly spy the terms "banking," "bank," "bankers."

    But even if as Ellen claims, said rigamarole solved inflation related to production, this would only be by retiring the circulation as the principal and interest are paid off. Unless they are distinguished from the present connotations which represent usury, the choice of terms related to "banking" as we presently know it then are quite poor, if not contradictory and misleading, because there isn't even a need for a storehouse of retired circulation in either the accounts of the government or private citizens — certainly not at least in the present sense of "a bank."

  2. "lent it to farmers at a modest interest."

    1. If I am not mistaken, this form of currency was lent into circulation only to finance land (versus fund agricultural production). To determine whether the resultant system therefore was "not inflationary," we have to answer the further questions of how or whether to retire circulation related to the ostensible value of land. As land does not depreciate, and as it is neither consumed (although it may be to any degree destroyed for further purposes), not only is there no evidence the architects of the Pennsylvania System intended to account for such issues; it is further odd, if not utterly contradictory, that Franklin's "Modest Enquiry Into The Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency" advocates value predicated on the labors of production, whereas the circulation instead may have been dedicated only to a resource (land), the original purported value of which involved no human production whatever. This itself hardly suggests solution, for on the contrary, it is not even to ask whether such "ownership" should instead be considered a right, a responsibility, or both — much less have we resolved how to distribute either.

    2. Architects of a perfected currency cannot limit the scope of introduction to a particular sector or product of industry.

      Effectively, any such currency would be deflationary, because it only provides to sustain the particular scope of industry; it does not sustain all others. A steel mill cannot for instance be built with a form of money which can only be introduced to fund the purchase of agricultural land, particularly as that money will be paid out of circulation, and, once all agricultural land has been paid for, no more such circulation can even exist.

    3. If I asked you what interest is, would you answer that it is a form of taxation, charged at potentially any necessary rate against remaining debt, to pay for government services or programs which may not even be rendered in such proportions to remaining debt whatever?

      Would you call it "brilliant" to do so?

      It seems then that the assertion of "brilliance" only intends to marvel at an obfuscated definition of "interest," which "somehow" miraculously does not multiply debt, but which in the particular case of usage is quite potentially unjust taxation, affixed and proportional to debt. It is certainly not the process of "interest" to which my thesis refers; nor is it the process imposed by usury; nor is it an accepted definition of "interest." All we have is the rather ludicrous integration of taxation with indebtedness, while restricting the circulation from what would sustain all potential commerce, together with the further recklessness of presuming that multiplying taxation against just those cases of indebtedness determines a just burden of the taxation.

  3. "spending it into the economy on public services."

    Unless the necessary formulas are provided and veritable, we do not even have a historical record the necessary relationship was even recognized which would have solved relative inflation.

  4. "The bank was publicly owned,"

    It matters not who owns a "bank," except for how it might be controlled (outside the intended conduits of representation), and what processes it imposes (as conventional "interest" multiplies debt in proportion to a circulation). A "public" bank charging conventional interest (exceeding what it can possibly consume or justly consume from industry) has the same effect as a private one.

    Being deprived the circulation to sustain all potential and desirable industry, must the subject commerce not borrow from elsewhere at interest?

    If only money subject to interest is made available to make up the deficiency, then of course the subject populace must do so; and of course then, *that* interest will perpetually multiply indebtedness so long as they maintain a vital circulation, until industry succumbs to terminal sums of insoluble debt.

    Unless the Franklin Currency provided to sustain all industry then, and unless all other currencies subject to interest were eradicated, the very deficiency of the Franklin Currency would itself have engendered failure under insoluble debt, not necessarily of course for its own properties, but for the properties of the currencies which would be required to fill in for its shortcomings.

  5. "the bankers it employed were public servants."

    Again, the role is not incumbent on ostensible private or "public" "service," but instead on what regulations bind the role to actual service. Moreover, it matters neither way, if private currencies subject to interest were required to fill in for the circulatory shortcomings of the Pennsylvania System.

  6. "The interest generated on its loans was sufficient to fund the government without taxes;"

    Absolutely false... a huge misrepresentation of fact.

    On the contrary, indebted subjects are simply obliged to pay all government costs through a form of taxation which is simply called "interest" for the one shared attribute which makes it an improper method of levying taxation — a rate of cost, related to remaining debt, imposed only upon the indebted.

    All we're really doing in the Pennsylvania System is charging the taxes through a more complex thing simply called "interest," and so, in the reckless distribution of these costs, we are further obfuscating not only the various purposes of taxation, but who should justly bear the costs of government.

  7. "and because the newly issued money came back to the government, the result was not inflationary."

    On the contrary, if the money paid against debts incurred for production merely "came back to the government," then the result would have been perpetually inflationary: only if the money were instead retired upon payment; and only if the rates of payment equated to the rates of consumption or depreciation of the production and government programs both, could the result not have been inflationary. But as land does not even depreciate, so there could not have been such a formula if the currency was loaned into circulation to finance the acquisition of land.

    On the other hand, if the money was lent into circulation to finance the acquisition of land which cannot rightly be said to depreciate (although it can be ruined for further purposes), then the circulation cannot rightly be retired, but may or may not exceed the volume of further production, and so may not be rightly said to solve inflation. If the government is to spend this too back into circulation (so that we can use it for further purposes), no mention is made of such a provision, nor is any argument provided how this cannot engender inflation, particularly if the very agricultural production is consumed by the inhabitant owners of the land.

SIDE BY SIDE COMPARISON

What then do we really solve by the Franklin Currency or Pennsylvania System? A side by side comparison to mathematically perfected economy™ distinguishes little merit whatever in the alleged "most brilliant banking model in our national history." Much less does it affirm the "banking model" comprises any veritable solution. Even against such simple, fundamental requisites as providing for us, in all cases, to procure our own production for whatever we deem to be sufficiently equivalent measures of the production of others, the Franklin Currency fails. In the case of the one requisite in which it may conditionally succeed, evidence sustains the proposition instead that solution is only inadvertent:

Issue:

mathematically perfected economy™

Pennsylvania Currency

  1. Subjects can pay for all production with no more than whatever they deem to be equivalent measures of their own production (debts are free of interest and any other extrinsic cost).

  1. Currency can be introduced to represent and sustain all potential production.

 

Only agricultural land or production were supported.

  1. The costs of government are paid explicitly and only by those who we might intend to bear the costs (versus by whatever potentially unrelated endeavors may require potentially disproportionate financing).

  1. Budgeted, otherwise affordable costs of servicing debt are unaffected by vacillating costs of government, volumes of further borrowing, or remaining monetary obligations.

  1. Automatically solves inflation and deflation.

Inflation and deflation are automatically solved by illimitable potential funding, retired by schedules of payment equivalent to the rate of consumption or depreciation.

 

Inflation and deflation are claimed to be solved; but only if interest rates are perpetually adjusted according to public expenses and remaining indebtedness can inflation be eliminated, relative only to the limited degree of represented agricultural wealth. Rather than actually solving inflation, deflation is perpetually imposed by lack of a sustaining circulation for all endeavors other than agricultural production.

  1. There is no multiplication of debt above principal.

 

Immediate debts are increased so much as taxation, the costs of which are merely imposed however disproportionately by a pattern of payment akin to interest.

  1. There is no further, perpetual multiplication of debt by interest in maintaining a vital circulation.

• ?

Although the process claims to charge interest, the form of the periodic charges is distinguished from traditional "interest" by an inseparable guarantee that the "interest" will be spent back into circulation only as funds government operations. This one virtue may be entirely inadvertent, as no evidence is provided that the architects intended to solve multiplication of debt by conventional interest.

Furthermore, because the system only provides to sustain a fraction of potential industry, and because it does not eradicate all further potential currencies potentially subject to interest, the interest of these currencies will perpetually multiply debt in proportion to the circulation until the system, still, will succumb to terminal debt.

  1. The system thus does not suffer terminal sums of debt (is sustainable, at least insofar as eliminating multiplication of debt by conventional interest).

• ?

While no evidence may exist *of an intention* to solve multiplication of debt by interest, nonetheless the Pennsylvania System had no undefeatable capacity to sustain other industry. If only agricultural land was financed, even if the circulation was not retired, once the land was paid for, there would be no remaining way of funding government if the only avenue for taxation was "interest" imposed upon debt.

  1. The system is sustainable without potentially perpetual adjustments of interest rates to compensate for government costs.

  1. The cost or value of money or property cannot be manipulated by the system.

  1. The cost or value of money or property are preserved by the system.

 

  1. No opportunity exists in the system itself to obfuscate taxation.

 

Vital issues "solved" (without further possible reduction):

12/12

2, 1, or 0?/12

DID FRANKLIN EVEN PRETEND TO HAVE SOLVED THE ONE ISSUE ELLEN HODGSON BROWN CLAIMS IS SOLVED?

Like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, perhaps Andrew Jackson, and certainly Abraham Lincoln, Benjamin Franklin's unfinished monetary thinking could eventually have been developed into a prescription accomplishing universal monetary objectives without possible exception.

But the diligence Franklin had dedicated to monetary solution at the inception of the Pennsylvania System is ostensibly reflected in his April, 1729 paper, "A Modest Enquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper-Currency." In studying this paper, while Franklin reportedly wrote it "in support of a currency emission then under consideration in the Pennsylvania assembly," we find that his self confessed "Modest Enquiry" does not even exercise the terms "inflation," "deflation," or any expression akin to inherent multiplication of debt by interest whatever — not even once. It ventures the direction, but neither does it identify the objects of such terms as issues which can or must be solved with certainty. Instead it gropes by approximations, leaving still such ambiguity as is impossible to assemble directly into a prescription accounting conclusively and without exception even for the few issues he raises and questions.

His Modest Enquiry certainly does however venture observations regarding the volume of circulation, which, if finished, might even so much as sustain our very prescription for mathematically perfected economy™. But his Enquiry falls short of contriving the necessary tests. It does not ask for instance, if it were necessary all at the same time to trade all the production which existed, how much currency *must* be in circulation? It does not ask either, if the circulation should represent all the wealth of production, is that not how much currency must *rightly* be in circulation? His Modest Enquiry does not equate depreciation with consumption as predicates a necessary remaining circulation. Nor then can it possibly produce by intention, a singular schedule for payment of debts representing just the wealth we have created. Neither then can it ask how the circulation should ever be less than the remaining value of production, because it did not ask the preceding questions. But it does observe the adverse consequences of such a deficiency.

So Franklin's thinking is indeed compelled by observations which are consistent and conducive to the mathematic perfection of economy. In fact, the comments on his Modest Enquiry in a further University of Virginia page record that "the historical circumstances that led Franklin to publish his pamphlet are described in detail in Richard A. Lester's book, 'Monetary Experiments Early American and Recent Scandanavian [sic],' Chapter 3, 'Currency Issues to Overcome Depressions in Pennsylvania, 1723 and 1729,' Princeton University Press, 1939, pp. 56-111."

In fact then, urgent and vital as such purposes are, Franklin's Enquiry is just what his title intends to offer itself as. It little more than wonders aloud how much currency to circulate, loosely observing consequences as they purportedly affect interest rates imposed by private issuers, without even ascertaining whether the purported risks which ostensibly justify interest even exist, or identifying the real creditor. He neither probes the full possible extents of the nature of currency, nor tests decisive propositions of proper circulation by deciding cases. He does take vital steps in those directions which largely put him ahead of his time. But how does this equip Franklin or his co-authors to solve inflation as Ellen Hodgson Brown asserts?

There is no formula for solving inflation; much less is there a concept for solving inflation and deflation, particularly as related to depreciation and interest. Thus, not even a comprehensive basis exists for either such formula in Franklin's self assessed Modest Enquiry.

I have already addressed Franklin's "Modest Enquiry Into The Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency" in an earlier PFMPE™ page, "Why Have Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Ron Paul, Edwin Vieira and So Many Others Failed to Deliver Solution?" The arguments of this page sufficiently introduce both the shortcomings of original thinking, and the later departures which today, rather than answer, present again and again yet another question of solution, foregoing the fundamental principles which alone resolve solution.

This ever wayward pattern, given the due consideration it deserved before claiming solution, yet always returns to the same place: How many solutions for inflation and deflation can there be, if solving inflation and deflation is to maintain a circulation which at all times is equivalent to the wealth it is intended to represent? Does interest multiply debt? Regardless even, how many solutions for multiplication of debt by interest can there be, but eradication of interest? If the cost or value of money or property are only systemically manipulated by the only powers a monetary system has to do so — inflation, deflation, and the ramifications of interest — then how many solutions of systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property can there be, but an integral (inseparable) solution of inflation, deflation, and multiplication of debt — the latter of which of course requires eradication of interest?

These in fact are quite simple questions without tolerance for any irregularity whatever. Where does the endless cherry picking contest come from? How many solutions indeed are there?

But so, a curious pattern spans a series of works surfacing long after my 1979 thesis that a) any purported economy comprising a currency subject to interest ultimately terminates itself under insoluble debt; and b) 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 multiplication of debt by interest.

The curious (and quite understandable) thing about this pattern is that a series of purported experts rises wholly of their own accord, emulating, borrowing, and even corrupting material so long ago developed into a categoric prescription for mathematically perfected economy™, insulating themselves "perhaps" to feign originality, yet stumbling even in presenting the problem and its integral solution (or purported plurality of solutions), as would sustain facades of either originality or authority.

In the very first page of his stolen "Debt Virus" thesis for instance, Jaikaran merely emulates my Parable, for which no other source exists, claiming Franklin himself called this same currency "Colonial Scrip," when there were many forms of scrip issued by many colonies. Thus the name Jaikaran so carelessly has Franklin falsely giving to the Pennsylvania System is hardly either a historic fact, characteristic of Franklin, or fitting to distinguish the currency which my Parable describes not in historic terms, but as an invention intended merely to teach.

No source for the defenses of Franklin attributed by the Parable, truly exists.

I would almost be flattered therefore that Jaikaran begins so transparently by obfuscating my Parable. But so poorly does he evidently present or defend his stolen thesis, that I hear regularly that *my* thesis is well known to have been authored before me, and was "long ago" disproven. Of course if such a claim somehow stands, Jaikaran has proven himself less than capable of defending it, because he only wrote his stolen idea after it had existed in my own web pages for 5 or 10 years, 15 years after I first published it, and 25 years after I began speaking about it.

So, where yet is the disproof of such an elementary proposition that there is one and one only integral solution to inflation and deflation, systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and inherent multiplication of debt by interest?

In the end, what is accomplished?

"Somehow," at least some of Jaikaran's followers are left with the hideous notion that debt is the evil, when of course the capacity to endeavor beyond what can immediately be paid for is instead quite enabling, particularly given the perpetual redeemability of the currency and solubility of debt guaranteed by mathematically perfected economy™; and when multiplication of debt is quite obviously the only cause of catastrophic failure under usury; usury in fact is multiplication of debt. So Jaikaran's solution is economy without debt? Who would even author a bona fide debt *virus* thesis, harping on the contrary of debt?

The notion is as hysterical as G. Edward Griffin's and William B. Ryan's purported disproofs that interest multiplies debt in proportion to a circulation.

In Griffin's case, it is worthwhile to re-package Mullins' work, but interest doesn't multiply debt because we can all work so much for the banking system as to negate the ramifications of interest. A purported expert repeats the work of a predecessor merely to disclaim the most important reason for that work. It isn't even possible to deliver to the banking system so many times our production; much less can we justify such a thing.

In Ryan's case, interest doesn't multiply debt because what you pay out of the circulation (interest and principal) is the same as what you must borrow back (as a subsequent debt) to maintain a circulation — hardly the same pretended reason. Ryan is so careless he doesn't even realize his own arguments disprove his claim.

Then we have Edwin Vieira and Ron Paul and literally millions of followers claiming the dollar is depreciated "by printing money out of thin air."

What useful thing could that possibly mean to you?

Long before Jaikaran wrote his stolen thesis, Mr. Vieira invited me for obvious reasons to move to New Hampshire to start a "libertarian" state. Obviously I did not do so. But now that Vieira's recent pages reflect the form and content of mine, and even as my work so long ago invalidated the gold standard, Ron Paul calls Mr. Vieira the leading authority on constitutional currency, even as a cursory examination raises the fact their New Hampshire HB 1342 violates Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money...." The NH State Treasurer, whose assistance was "somehow" needed in drafting that preposterous bill, notes in his description of the bill itself, that he could understand no way whatever that the bill would solve anything; that it demonstrated no solution whatever. Why in fact pass it? Paul and Vieira cannot defend such a horrendous fault?

There is one difference of course: rather than challenge Mr. Paul, Mr. Vieira endorses a return to the gold standard. Imagine that. People printing gold coin, looking to pass laws enabling them even after the fact to do so, and not even a word how to return to the gold standard, or how it can possibly arrest multiplication of debt: "printing money out of thin air" is our problem; and "knowing" that makes you an authority on monetary solution.

These in fact are the poorest records of authority or solution imaginable. They would disgrace an intelligent nation; and they would insult any principled person. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Paul, who has refused to answer to mathematically perfected economy™ for 20 years, usurped and killed the real revolution. Ron Paul of course won't answer to me, even as *neighbors* have volunteered to personally deliver their own requests, because Ron Paul can't explain even how we are going to return to the gold standard, much less how that can possibly save us from irreversible multiplication of debt and further, escalating devaluation of the currency, as ever more of a circulation subject to interest is inherently devoted to servicing debt, versus sustaining the commerce which is obligated to do so.

Now, we have Franklin solving inflation and saving interest for eternity with "the most brilliant banking model in our national history."

Where can all this take you? Where does this idea come from, that Franklin's Colonial Scrip solved inflation?

ORIGIN AND POTENTIAL MISCONCEPTIONS OF MY PARABLE OF PERFECT ECONOMY

Perhaps I can answer both questions directly. An account of how I learned about this currency and how its story evolved into said Parable may settle this dispute, for the footsteps are readily traced backward.

In the spring of 1975 I was working out in a gym at Terminal Camp, Valdez, Alaska. A political discussion with another man turned to a substantial explanation of mathematically perfected economy™; and when I was finished, the man invited me without any further explanation to what he called a meeting. I replied that I did not join or attend meetings, the purposes of which I neither knew or could agree with. He explained that the interests of the group involved the present deterioration of government, and particularly "economics," and that I should come because it would be very important for the group to understand the ideas I had just explained to him.

He said their meeting was at 7:00 PM, every Tuesday, just through the door in the back of the gym.

I did not expect to attend, but as it happened, I decided, a few minutes late, to drop in. I opened the door to find a very large classroom with perhaps fifty or a hundred people clustered before a podium, a speaker addressing them. I quietly slipped into a seat in the back.

An elder gentleman from Canada was giving a fine presentation of the history to and thru the remarkable present monetary system. He told a substantial story of the Pennsylvania Currency through the voice of Franklin to the engagement of which my Parable now tells. When he quoted Jefferson regarding the ramifications of essentially simultaneous inflation and deflation as exist under usury, I suddenly realized why the previous gentleman had invited me to the meeting, because Jefferson's very words, which I had neither read nor heard before, expressed in perhaps more cryptic or hermetic terms the very problem I had explained and solved for the gentleman.

Upon concluding the remarkable presentation, the gentleman from Canada asked if there were any questions. What I had found curious about the presentation, was that the story was told in a way which did not quite get at the essential principles. He left the audience with an instinctive impression that the tax and monetary system he described would at least seemingly be preferable to what we suffered now. But there was no distinguishing principle by which we could extrapolate the difference or understand with certainty what it meant to solve, if anything. I on the other hand, felt like I had been drawn there for Mr. Jefferson to personally grab me by the throat, emphasizing "by inflation and deflation."

The story had been told matter-of-factly, in a way which left you approving of some ingenuity, but without your finger on exactly what. I was not even sure that the gentleman understood the distinguishing principles himself, although certainly he held them in some esteem.

So I happened to raise my hand first from clear in the back of this large classroom.

The speaker immediately recognized me, obviously appreciating the opportunity to answer to any keen interest. My interest was so intent that my hand rose immediately.

I phrased my question something like this: "In this story of Colonial Scrip, you tell of two producers who issue notes to each other, and how this was the origin of that system's circulation. I was wondering, because you did not say so, if you realized that this and the taxation system you described almost comprise a mathematically perfected economy?"

Indeed his face broke into a frown, and after a moment he answered that he didn't have the slightest idea what I was talking about. The gentleman who had invited me then explained why I had been asked to come; and the speaker asked me to come forward and explain.

So I came to the front of the room, and there, explained to the speaker and audience how at least in the story which had just been told, there was no inflation because only so much currency came into circulation as corresponding production would exist, and because the circulation was retired as those notes were redeemed in the very production they represented, as that production was consumed. The lifespan and volume of the currency relatively closely matched that of the represented wealth. Moreover, all the prosperity the colonists would have been capable of producing in nature could readily be sustained perfectly by that very system, particularly as there was no inherent multiplication of debt by interest.

More curious than ever, Mr. Walker asked me to elaborate on the latter point; and so I explained as I had originally postulated in high school that any purported economy subject to interest inherently terminates itself under insoluble debt, because merely to maintain a circulation which is vital at least to servicing obligations which exceed the circulation from the outset, the subjects of the system are compelled to re-borrow whatever they pay out of the general circulation in the way of principal and interest, as subsequent sums of debt perpetually increased therefore so much as periodic interest on the sum of debt. Thus the indebtedness of such a system multiplies by ever greater increments of ever greater sums of periodic interest on an ever increasing sum of debt, until the system inevitably collapses under a sum of debt which the circulation is finally incapable of servicing.

Ultimately at least, should it be able to continue even so far, the periodic interest on an eventual sum of debt will exceed the entire circulation, with the subject populace no longer credit worthy to borrow more.

The audience was so fascinated by this proposition, that by the time I finished taking questions it was quite late in the evening. They were most appreciative of the newly learned significance of the described Colonial Scrip being free of interest.

I revisited the group the following Tuesday, to my surprise to hear a repetition of the previous presentation. I memorized the talk and important quotes, having already gone over them in my head many times since being startled frankly to hear that someone such as Thomas Jefferson had pretty much said exactly what I had been telling people for years, since in fact a high school student. I visited with the speaker and gentleman who had originally invited me, to find the speaker possessed a wealth of documentation.

Because I wanted no part of the corruption going on there, I left Alaska sooner than expected, losing contact with both men. In a few years, and particularly after a remarkable evening of discourse with Will McPhee of the math staff of the University of Colorado (who had learned of my ideas through his son, Jacques McPhee), I decided to publish my thesis formally.

The story I learned in Alaska in 1975 did not concur with Ellen Hodgson Brown and other's accounts of the Pennsylvania System. Its original telling may have been flawed as others' interpretations of it. Nonetheless of course, I continued hundreds and hundreds of times to tell it as it had been originally told, because it proved such a valuable teaching instrument.

Copies of this were posted to pre-web bulletin boards, along with source code to the computer models I provided the Reagan Administration, and an early page, "Mathematic Proof the Federal Reserve Caused the Great Depression." The latter, as well as documentation to the source code, doubled as opportunities to explain the thesis that any economy subject to interest ultimately terminates itself under insoluble debt, and that there is one and one only integral solution to inflation, deflation, and multiplication of debt by interest.

Eventually, some time about 1990, I received a letter from a professor asking for my sources for Franklin's role in the story of Colonial Scrip (the Pennsylvania Currency). Of course, I had looked for them myself for years, but had found virtually nothing of certain vital details given in the original presentation.

When this professor rejected the very idea of relying on verbal sources, I of course largely appreciated his academic reservations, but was reluctant, even to preserve the integrity of my intended explanation, to simply jettison the story which I believed was well and relatively accurately intentioned, even if it might have perpetuated err.

The solution to this of course was not even to claim the story was a historic account... to present it openly and merely as a parable, however accurately or inaccurately it might have been linked to the described persons and time.

I thus took the liberty to elaborate upon the life cycle of the currency, and to give the Parable's method of taxation such near perfection, that solution of its one remaining defect could be readily understood and appreciated.

In the Parable therefore, I have Franklin proudly announcing the solution of inflation and deflation, and even of funding government without taxation. But except for the original core, the words and the prescription have for so long been mine!

SUMMARY

So this is where the idea Franklin solved inflation, deflation, or multiplication of debt by interest may have come from. And now of course, thieves who mistook a parable for history can hardly erase my words from their books.

As to however else Franklin purportedly solved any of these things, I don't think you're going to fool any thinking person, for the very formulas which necessarily adjust interest and predicate rates of payment evidently do not even exist. Like the objecting professor, I haven't found the corroborating facts in historic accounts in 35 years. Certainly they're not in Franklin's very Modest Enquiry.

I anticipate yet for all of this that Mr. Franklin and Mr. Jefferson would receive my Parable quite well, if not with a wry smile. I toast Franklin. I even named my dog after him; and Placer Country's Ben Franklin too was certainly one of the greatest creatures to ever grace this earth, May 6, 1980-August 9, 1983.

But the Pennsylvania Currency, particularly given all the support Ellen Hodgson Brown might muster for it, not only cannot save us; it can only distract us from veritable solution. In fact, what a hideous idea, that today we could fund government (and all the rest of our industry), by financing agricultural land at "modest" interest... leaving of course, for its circulatory shortcomings, all the further multiplication of debt to our ruin by supplemental currencies subject to real "interest."

How so, Ellen, even as we succumb to terminal sums of perpetually multiplying, insoluble debt?

As to solution then, if you are not looking vigilantly and far beyond the Pennsylvania Currency, shame on you, because for all the things which are not solution, this country is lost.

By my account on the other hand, no one proposing a plurality of solutions has recognized one yet.

What would make this a great country nonetheless, is if this mistake were simply rescinded that we can forgive, congratulate each other, and move on. There's still a stupendous, critical job to do; and little dialog headed that direction that we can even begin to take the right first steps.

MORPHALLAXIS, January 14, 1979.

RESPONSE AND ENSUING DIALOG TO THIS ARTICLE

Don't let the prospect of a national crisis trick you into giving up your freedom, America. The people behind this scam are the same landsharks and flim-flam men who polluted the global marketplace with their snake oil and toxic sludge. These are the fraudsters who manufactured the crisis to begin with. This is just the latest installment of the Shock Doctrine; engineer a crisis, and then, steal whatever is left behind. Same sh**, different day. Be resolute. Don't budge. Our economic foundations may be crumbling, but or determination is not. This is our country, not Goldman Sach's. The people who destroyed America must be held to account. Their time is coming. Justice first.

Mike Whitney — http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article6399.html

RIGHT-CLICK HERE TO COPY PERMALINK TO THESE RESPONSES (Copy Link Location):

http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-ellen-hodgson-brown-web-of-debt.html#EHBResponseToPennsylvaniaCurrency

ELLEN HODGSON BROWN'S RESPONSE TO THIS PAGE

Sunday, September 21, 2008, 5:33 PM

Hi Mike, someone forwarded your website mentioning my last article. I have trouble reading your site because of the background, which bothers my vision, and the heavy prose, which I'm afraid takes too much time for me to sort out. I'm SO busy of late, I have to disengage myself from side issues to get my real work done. However, I read some of it, enough to think you must not have read my article, just someone else's summary of it. The numbers are very simple: you start with $105. You lend 100 at 5% interest and spend 5 into the economy on government endeavors (roads, bridges, payroll). 105 circulates in the economy and comes back as principal and interest. You lend and spend the same 105 over and over without ever inflating the economy. Because the 5 goes back to the government (defraying taxes), you have a closed system, with no parasite drawing profits out and throwing off the numbers. There are many reasons that I think an interest-free system would be hard to implement, which I've gone into at length in my book and blog. I didn't say Franklin invented that system, I just said he endorsed it; it was already in place in Pennsylvania when he wrote on the virtues of paper money. The details and supporting evidence were written up in a scholarly economic journal, the name of which I've forgotten but the cite is in my book. Ellen

MY REPLY TO ELLEN HODGSON BROWN'S EMAIL

Monday, September 22, 2008, 10:29 AM

Dear Ellen,

I appreciate your writing back, and hope we can reach agreement on each of the issues my article raises. Evidently, we're very far from that, which means of course, that you being an advocate of the subject Pennsylvania Currency and further pluralities of solution, and myself being so long confirmed in the contrary proposition of a singular solution, that one of us has no right or authority whatever to pretend we are right. In the chance nonetheless that you *might* yet be inclined to read through my "prose," that you *can* answer to the questions it raises, if you don't mind, I'm going to try to push you at least toward volunteering a responsible answer, or actually refuting mine (which is sufficiently re-presented again in the very piece to which your response refers).

No one of course can rightly claim expertise in monetary solution without answers to the questions of my paper, and many further questions. Rather than being difficult to answer, or not having enough time to answer them, anyone who has done the diligence of this work has so carefully considered them that they *already have* the best answer for all; and yet if I may repeat the logic of my article in whatever other words are necessary then, all you've done of course is answer with no more than the original proposition which raised all those questions. Otherwise, your response answers to nothing whatever but your vision issues, tastes for style, and want for time which preclude a useful answer.

Thomas Jefferson

If the American people ever allow banks to issue their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation [by having to maintain a vital circulation by perpetually re-borrowing principal and interest as subsequent sums of debt, increased perpetually so much as periodic interest], the banks and [bank owned] corporations which will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

mike montagne

Solo bow hunt, self portrait, 7 miles into the North Fork Wilderness.

FROM THE VERY ARTICLE ABOVE

As to however else Franklin purportedly solved any of these things, I don't think you're going to fool any thinking person, for the very formulas which necessarily adjust interest and predicate rates of payment evidently do not even exist.

[Nor does your response even indicate that you recognize they (and much more) *need* to exist, if as you claim, the described system was never inflationary.]

Your answer furthermore seems at least to presume that I'm a simpleton. It simply re-states or mis-states (as I will soon ask about) the obvious principle which my paper simply asks of first, as a matter of polite disproof. Even if the answers it asks for are not obvious, the same paper too unravels those answers. I'm not offended at all, but I say you seem to take me for a simpleton because without even questioning the quantities you merely assert again are made right, and even as you say you have scanned my paper, evidently still you presume your first statement stands just because you said it does the first time, and that I haven't or can't ask any further relevant question, never thinking for instance even, if the government service ostensibly paid for is consumed, how then can you consider your answer not inflationary, if as you intimate, the currency is to remain in circulation? The paragraph to which I replied of course, implies the contrary, that to avoid inflation, what you claim is interest is paid out of circulation as the government service is consumed.

Now, which is it? Is the interest paid on the land debt retired as it is paid out of circulation as the government service is consumed (which alone would resolve inflation related to the government service, if it is paid for by interest [without taxation, as your paragraph claims]); or is it now that you say the interest remains in circulation, to fund government programs again and again, when a) you haven't even provided another way but taxation for the government to get the money back again, *once it spends it into the general circulation the first time*, or b) if you're saying that perpetual interest on the original debt (which of course will eventually be paid for, negating the whole potential of the stipulated method), continues to pay the money out of circulation in perfect balance for government services which may or may not escalate, and the very scope of taxation which may thus be collected through your "interest" may further vacillate according to how much land is so financed, what sum of debt remains, and whether the sum of land is paid off... all this still just remains in perfect balance, so that there is no inflation?

If you are trying to assert (versus explain) that government services always just automatically fall into perfect balanced relationships for a given rate of interest, no matter how much land is so financed, no matter how much the government may or may not need to grow, and even no matter the fact that eventually all the land in existence of course is paid for, I must tell you frankly that answer is so incredibly inept, that I would call it not just preposterous, but incredibly preposterous. What for instance is that magic one rate of what you call "interest"? Who has ever accounted for such things to be in perfect, "non-inflationary" balance at all times? Your answer certainly does not. My paper raised all these questions. And yet this is your answer?

How do you fund government when all the land is paid for?

How do you operate all the rest of the industry which might exist, when the whole circulation is dedicated to paying for land?

Why are you advocating the alleged brilliance of this system, which doesn't even provide to sustain so much further industry as is possible, and requires a sustaining circulation?

What if, for instance, all at one time, we wanted to exchange all existent wealth? Where is the circulation to do that? Why can't we have a circulation which would sustain this upper limit of potential trade? Why do you not account for it? Or do you simply believe somehow that you do?

When for the lack of sufficient circulation to sustain all other industry beyond the powers or lending practice of this "land bank," the subjects of the system are forced to resort to borrowing private or other circulation subject to interest, and as their industry becomes dependent on that supplemental circulation, how then does the multiplication of debt by real interest not consume the circulation you have said without question so neatly accounts for all issues? How does your brilliant banking model then avert eventual collapse under terminal sums of insoluble debt, multiplied in fact by the supplemental currencies?

If I may repeat another question raised in many ways in my paper, if Franklin and his co-authors or the authors (whichever the case), had meant to account for inflation in all the ways which this convoluted proposition of yours purports to do, where is the necessary formula? Where is the evidence they regulated interest and rates of payment against principal in any way that intentionally actually solved inflation? Even if these things existed, why do you and they not also account for deflation (i.e. obstruction or failure to provide a sufficient circulation to sustain all further industry)?

Perhaps, evidently lacking all these vital answers and not even recognizing the tremendous faults they plausibly comprise, you will just say that the bank you were exalting was not the land bank to which I might refer hypothetically, expecting this excuses the fact you have provided no answer to any of these questions. But even that matters not, for you have said the money was loaned into circulation to farmers; and so even if it funds agricultural production, this certainly does not provide sufficient circulation to sustain all further industry; and thus the questions pertaining to this shortcoming still apply.

The exercise to which you presume you have accounted for is no less than the equivalent of writing software which would model this whole affair, not dependent upon human decisions implying options, but instead predicated by the very obligations of the system. Somewhat like Griffin, you trace a small subset of circulation *part way* about one cycle, simply claiming this accounts for what you assert. Have you ever drawn that out on paper to the end? Have you ever written software which models it to the end, determining even your claim this system was never inflationary? Really? You mean at all times, whatever the consistent rate at which your "interest" is paid, government services are given out and paid in exact accord with each other? I suggest a reasonable person would ask, "when?"

Even the people you attribute to have solved inflation did not claim to have done so! Now you have a marvelous accident, even as you refuse to answer these questions?

Worse, why would any comprehensive solution even attempt the organization you bless with brilliance?

How does it even tax properly? (!!!!!)

You say, "defraying taxes?" What is your purported interest, but *the* preposterous, prescribed way *to pay the taxes*?

The first question a software engineer or any person so diligent as to perceive solution is going to ask is, even if you're just trying to solve inflation (while you should also be trying to solve deflation or inadequate circulation), why are you associating the payment of another thing (taxation), to the first thing (land or agricultural production), when their consumption or depreciation (and thus the rates at which you are obliged to withdraw circulation) is hardly likely to be parallel; and so you preclude solving inflation and deflation (really), and taxing justly as well?

Believe it or not, I have kept this letter short. Because I have to respond to a further matter, and because my questions evidently exceed your intent to answer, I'm truncating my letter here. The remaining questions I have already written exceed those so far asked. No point, if you won't account for these things.

But I do have five further points I want to touch on before concluding.

  1. I would have finished answering last night (after receiving your answer), except that I was interrupted by a call from a homeless friend, a very intelligent and talented person needing moral support right now. We talked until his cell phone ran out. The fact is, he could have shot down your answer as well, and he deserves a good answer — I would say, quite soon in fact.

  2. I would also therefore like to respond just a bit further, that your answer to my many questions simply re-states (or mis-states) the utter obvious claim to which all the questions I posed were asked.

    So what do we have? We have a country not only at the cusp of monetary failure for vast criminal malpractice against it, and against the rest of the world as well. We have self accredited "expert" after further self accredited "expert," advocating a variety of purported solutions, all to the further confusion of a once self governing populace needing to wake as much as most of those who every day stand up with another solution. We all belong to that boat; and from it, at most one camp can emerge to the betterment of the people, unless a plurality of solutions (as you are said to suggest) indeed exists.

    To advocate what is not solution in the midst of all this is therefore in my opinion a very reckless, irresponsible, and even inhumane thing; and I dare say I sense you take the incumbent responsibility quite lightly, if you dream I am such a simpleton that your answer has not already struck me, or if you believe it answers to any of the questions raised. It obviously answers not one.

    Like you, I have no free time to myself for this. But I make the time, because if one of us has the answer of course, nothing could be more important. I hope you agree. If you do not, then of course even simpletons will know what you are in this for. Answer the questions or study the issues until you can. What good is anything short of that?

  3. You say, "There are many reasons that I think an interest-free system would be hard to implement, which I've gone into at length in my book and blog."

    Why don't you give me a single reason to think so?

    I consider your position absolutely preposterous, even according to the few of your efforts that I am aware of. Furthermore, what is the presumable difficulty? The only reason I fathom a person could even think so is they haven't given the proposition the least quality thought; and your answer to my paper certainly reinforces that interpretation. In fact, in your interpretation of the system you have called brilliant, taxation is simply implemented in the form of interest; and so you don't really have conventional interest (because there is the inseparable obligation to spend the taxation into circulation, versus acquire unearned wealth, which is the inherent purpose of conventional interest). By only obfuscating taxation and payment of debt then, you preclude both acquiring property for the value of the property, and you preclude just taxation as well (unless all these things just happen to fall into their right places as you appear to "think"). Then you require preposterous rigamarole to administer the system if it is to accomplish your eradication of inflation (which preposterous processes you don't even recognize are required to do so); and on top of that, you aren't ready evidently to also account for deflation or an inadequate circulation, or even the fact your method of taxation ("interest") itself terminates once all the land is paid for!

    Furthermore, you have a government bank. It's creating the money. Why not move the taxation to where it belongs, so that it can be paid by those who consume of the program, at whatever distinct rates of withdrawal/payment indeed eradicate inflation and deflation? That's God damned easy, in fact, isn't it Ellen?

    Damn easy, I say.

    And what do we have then, when we pay off the debts at likewise, whatever rate of consumption maintains a circulation which is always likewise in exact proportion to the remaining value of the wealth it likewise represents?

    Whoa!

    We have two things: a) we have an interest free economy; and b) it is a mathematically perfected economy™.

    So in fact for solving all the difficulties of your ridiculous proposition, Ellen, we achieve the interest free thing you assert is "hard to implement."

    So long as you hold onto your ridiculous assertion then Ellen, you are the problem. You are not the solution.

  4. Regarding the accuracy or origin of the quote... the people who sent me the quote gave it as originating from your book. I have no idea where it comes from, what it was written for, or whether you ever will take the integrity of monetary solution more seriously than your answer suggests. It appears you're answering to a simpleton. But your answer certainly does nothing to clear up the doubts about the cited assertion which I raise, and having your answer now, assuming you must feel it suffices to extend me the answer to those questions, I can understand how you might have authored the quote. Still, you have my heartfelt apology if the material I was provided is inaccurate in any way. If it is inaccurate, please supply an accurate paragraph and if necessary, I will rephrase anything in my article accordingly. Also, if you would like me to link to your article, please provide the URL, and I'll gladly do so. I did not know this was a further work beyond your book. In my opinion, we do the [people the] service we should by linking back and forth between related contentions.

  5. Furthermore, because all these things are so important, and because before I finished my answer I received confirmation that your letter to me was sent to others (which I certainly do not object to at all), I presume that sets a precedent that I would like to express directly, that our correspondence to each other be so formal (unless we stipulate otherwise) that you may use of course any citings or whole portions thereof to further substantiate your claims that mathematically perfected economy™ is impossible, or would be difficult to implement, or that there are further possible solutions which account for all of the matters which either of us might present. Accordingly of course, I will be so forthcoming in supplying replies as I hope to receive from you.

    Unless you object, I will post your reply, together with mine, either at the bottom of the present page, or on a separate page/blog, as I certainly believe our discourse is vital to the critical purposes of the public.

Still however, I do indeed very much appreciate your writing, and encourage you to continue our correspondence unless of course in your mind and heart you do not see any way that our eventual agreement serves the people to identify solution.

In regard to the fact you have answered, I respect you moreso than the many others who I estimate refrain from doing so because they know their alternatives do not measure up to mine. You are a brave person to do so, and granting that an interest [in] integrity is the motivation for that, so too do I expect that if we can agree even on the first principles — that for instance to solve inflation and deflation is only always to maintain a circulation which at all times is equal to the remaining value of whatever it is to represent — then our agreement on the whole of this matter in fact is not far off.

Meanwhile of course, we both cannot be right.

Warm regards, and thanks for your letter, indulging me in this interest,

mike montagne

September 29, 2008 ELLEN HODGSON BROWN UPDATE   [PERMALINK]

Without replying to the questions posed by this article, Ellen Hodgson Brown has evidently downgraded her article's description of the Pennsylvania System from "most brilliant" to "most efficient." Without a word to uphold her side of the controversy she has raised, apparently she has also retracted her claim there was a non-inflationary implementation of the Franklin Currency.

But rather even than her downgraded claim of efficiency, the many further questions raised by this article and its responses attest on the contrary to substantial unnecessary complications, altogether suffered in a failure not only to solve inflation and deflation, but a further failure to solve multiplication of debt by interest.

History attests in the stead of her claims, that no record exists this system was even designed to spend the interest into circulation in a prescription which would have solved any of these vital monetary issues. Her original claim the system was non-inflationary in fact is preposterous on one analytical count alone: for if the described system was indeed non-inflationary, that purported virtue was both inadvertent, and a consequence of a far greater fault — that the system could only sustain such a substantially inadequate circulation (deflation), that it certainly would have made itself the victim of supplemental currencies, and all the ramifications of usury.

No wonder then, she will not respond to my question, [even] *if* the system was so comprehensive, why did it not solve deflation as well?

As I have raised, Franklin himself did not even use the term "inflation," — or even an equivalent expression; much less had he or his contemporaries realized that inherent multiplication of debt by conventional interest required eradication of conventional interest. On the contrary, the whole of relevant understandings had yet to develop, or certainly we would have found Mr. Jefferson in his Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank so many years later, citing eradication of conventional interest as the fundamental obligation of President Washington and the fledgling nation.

Contrary to the whims of Ellen Brown, we in fact can readily deduce all these concurring facts from the fact that if the requisite principles were recognized and exercised, the Pennsylvania Currency would have provided further to fund not just agricultural land and/or production (the latter of which is asserted) — the system would have financed *all* potential industry.

Thus as the Pennsylvania System financed only a narrow sector of vital industry (agricultural land), the fact it left the needs of all further industry to seek sustenance from further private currencies which assuredly would have been subject to interest, thus ensured that even if the Pennsylvania System had been meant to solve multiplication of debt by interest, it would not have: the necessary supplemental currencies would have multiplied debt into terminal sums of debt, giving the whole of the system all of the consequences of usury. Obviously even, those who bought land might even have saved substantially and avoided Ellen Brown's obfuscation of taxation and interest, simply by borrowing at initially less interest from private usurers.

Beyond these fatal faults, the questions here sufficiently portray the constant need for attendance or revision, and the inevitable offenses of administering the pioneer system she now claims is "efficient," if the Pennsylvania System or Franklin Currency were even to try to do the right things monetarily and administratively, in the wake of its obfuscation of taxation.

As we understand from these questions then, the Pennsylvania System is far from efficient at solving inflation, if indeed it were even intended to. Furthermore, it certainly cannot be efficient at justly distributing the burden of taxation, for her obfuscation of interest and taxation was not even applied in such a way as associated the issues of taxation with those who should bear its burdens. How can that be "efficient" even in this one regard then, if it is not even universally just?

Rather than efficiency (or solution), the system evades solution in its entirety, to suffer whatever the consequences. Never in the history of bona fide engineering has any such thing been truly called efficient; and yet of course, if the obfuscation were ever adjusted to do all these things most efficiently (as in a veritable process of solution), the distribution of costs and rewards would fall into the simple, direct order already prescribed by mathematically perfected economy™.

Finally then, neither can the Pennsylvania System be even relatively "efficient" at anything else, because it doesn't solve anything else. It certainly can't be efficient for instance at loaning a sufficient circulation into existence, because it provided to sustain nothing but the purchase of agricultural land.

In any case, Ellen has provided no further response to any of these questions, as anyone would, who in fact had ever substantially analyzed them. Still, as far as I know, nonetheless she continues to advocate against monetary solution eradicating interest (mathematically perfected economy™).

So, we find as well how dangerous her obfuscations are to bona fide solution. After all, where do we go in the wake of such vital, avoided debates, where one side answers to its pretended authority only by further unqualified assertion and evasion?

So, not only are we divided by all this baseless obfuscation; the purported authority of so many false solutions heads our country and the world away from solution and union. The lies of all this unfound excellence are in fact one of our greatest enemies.

Worse yet than to proliferate division, the very refusal of so many false authorities to answer or debate indicates they intend to persist in doing so. In my opinion, and by the very measure of the present and ensuing events around us, few crimes could be so great against the rest of humanity than all this vanity.

Because I tarried so tediously down all these roads so long ago, it remains my position just the same, that if she and all those who stand with the likes of her, ever distinguish the roles of creditor, debtor, and monetary obligation, versus sustaining the obfuscations of usury (or trying to invent acceptable reasons for retaining interest, as she has), she, they, and we, can only find that there is no basis whatsoever for her claim that implementing a system free of interest would be difficult.

On the contrary, the only reason to defend or retain conventional interest is to retain the unassented and unlawful power to dispossess us, to all the ramifications we presently experience.

In fact as the arguments here still sustain, all other obfuscations — and of course, particularly this formerly "most brilliant" example of her purported plurality of solutions — are essentially far more convoluted, and only so, because the authors of those obfuscations have never solved the issues in the first place. The fact remains — even as Jaikaran, Zarlenga, Griffin, Paul, Vieira and other pretenders concur without qualification with purported pluralities as asserted by Ellen Hodgson Brown — both sides of the issue, however many stand on the other side, cannot be right.

Either conventional interest multiplies debt in proportion to a circulation, or it does not. Either inflation and deflation are solved only by maintaining a circulation which at all times is equal to the wealth it is intended to represent, or there are other solutions. If there are, the opposition has yet to produce or qualify them.

As to why these pretended authorities are opposed to mathematically perfected economy™, evidently they dare not say.

But when they do, I will debate them.

RELATED REFUTATIONS/REVIEWS OF CONTROVERSIAL MONETARY PROPOSITIONS

"To find the players in all the corruption of the world, 'Follow the money.' To find the captains of world corruption, follow the money all the way."

mike montagne — founder, PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™, author/engineer of mathematically perfected economy™ (1979)

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.

© Copyright 1979-2008 by mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.Copyright 1979-2008 by mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

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. The trade name, Mathematically Perfected Economy™, may only be used, and may freely be used, only by permission, and only by countries complying with the prescription for Mathematically Perfected Economy™ herein.

THANK YOU FOR VISITING PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™!

Firefox™.BEST VIEWED WITH MOZILLA FIREFOX™ AND FULL USAGE OF A BROWSER WINDOW AT LEAST 1450 PIXELS WIDE.


Search perfecteconomy.com     Search Web