BANAL FAULTS OF THE SO CALLED AMERICAN MONETARY ACT

Under the Constitution, Article I, Sec. 8, our government has the sovereign power to issue money and spend it into circulation... Stephen Zarlenga, author of "The Lost Science of Money" [?] and director of his own claim to be "America’s leading think tank focusing on monetary history, theory and reform." It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt. John Philpot Curran, Speech upon the Right of Election, 1790 The majority is rapidly becoming disenfranchised by a stampede of mortgage foreclosures and resultant crash of real estate equity; by fuel prices that compel independent truckers to abandon their rigs on the highway; by a shut tight job market and so forth. Businesses are closing. Construction has come to a halt. And all the disenfranchised are hamstrung by increasingly lunatic legislation and irrational and intrusive ordinances. If anyone in government were inclined to address these and a multitude of similarly bleak issues, they would have the support of the majority. Government of the status quo, by the status quo and for the status quo would yield to government of, by and for the people. Larry Ward

Saturday, May 17, 2008

BANAL FAULTS OF THE SO CALLED AMERICAN MONETARY ACT OF THE SO CALLED AMERICAN MONETARY INSTITUTE

Thomas Jefferson

"Only lay down true principles, and adhere to them inflexibly. Do not be frightened into their surrender by the alarms of the timid or the croakings of the wealthy against the ascendancy of the people. The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property, and in their management. Try by this, as a tally, every provision of our Constitution, and see if it hangs directly on the will of the people."

mike montagne

Notably, Mr. Zarlenga himself doesn't even demonstrate how to accomplish these fundamental objects of monetary reform. Instead, his "American Monetary Act" simply appoints a bureaucracy to an uncharted goal of *somehow* adjusting the circulation to avoid inflation. While only hoping that his bureaucracy can regulate a non-inflationary circulation by an unjustified and unspecified balance of processes which ultimately have to replicate paying off interest free assets at the rate of depreciation or consumption, Mr. Zarlenga himself hasn't even demonstrated how his bureaucracy can possibly do so, or that doing so could possibly be to our benefit, subject to multiplication of debt by interest, *and to perpetual dedication of ever more of the circulation to servicing debt*. Particularly then, a circulation equal to the sum of the wealth it is intended to represent is of no benefit whatever to its subjects, if interest dedicates ever more and eventually all of the circulation to servicing debt.

Contrary to Zarlenga's unqualified claim of improvement, as we have already shown, the Chicago Plan clearly represents no improvement whatsoever: it is yet another guise for imposing interest upon the people's promises to pay *each other*. It is clearly even a leap backward in sustainability. It provides no mechanism whatever for regulating the value of currency but amassing further government overhead, and at other times assumably, merely retiring circulation by taxation.

This is not only a highly undesirable scheme because it begs growth of government and reliance on government which are entirely otherwise redundant; it is an unworkable scheme because on the contrary, "inflation" and the accompanying faults of interest are only solved by paying off interest free debts at the rate of consumption or depreciation. But since when is abandoning perfection the "proper" goal — especially when we already have a prescription for perfection; especially as Zarlenga hasn't even finished his prospective "American Monetary Act"; and particularly if, unless its finished form meets the standards of mathematically perfected economy™, by restricting a circulation subject to interest, the banal faults of the American Monetary Act expedite the terminal processes it merely claims to solve?

According to its own material, the "American Monetary Institute" was established in 1996. While calling itself an "institute," the material I have seen is issued uniformly by a Mr. Stephen Zarlenga, whose AMI website prominently claims to be "America's leading think tank focusing on monetary history, theory and reform."

What is and what distinguishes Zarlenga's "American Monetary Act"? What makes AMI or Mr. Zarlenga America's leading monetary think tank? Why give scope to his so called "American Monetary Act", which he calls "Greening the Dollar" while promoting his very unfinished proposition to the Green Party?

Essentially, the American Monetary Act resurrects a First Great Depression era proposition which, for its imperfections, was abandoned by its author, Henry Simons. Simons' further efforts evidently never arrived upon a perfect monetary prescription; and so yet, the core of the "American Monetary Act" is an artifact of initial efforts which fail the tests of scientific rigor. In fact to preserve his act, Zarlenga ultimately even promotes the idea of abandoning perfection.

Neither the Chicago Plan or American Monetary Act solve the potential imperfections of a monetary system, because they fail our vital rule of thumb: neither eradicate interest; neither therefore can solve all the ramifications of inflation and deflation, endow money and property with perpetual value, or allow their subjects to pay for the works of others with an equal measure of their own work.

Notably, Mr. Zarlenga himself doesn't even demonstrate how to accomplish these fundamental objects of monetary reform. Instead, his "American Monetary Act" simply appoints a bureaucracy to an uncharted goal of *somehow* adjusting the circulation to avoid inflation. While only hoping that his bureaucracy can regulate a non-inflationary circulation by an unjustified and unspecified balance of processes which ultimately have to replicate paying off interest free assets at the rate of depreciation or consumption, Mr. Zarlenga himself hasn't even demonstrated how his bureaucracy can possibly do so, or that doing so could possibly be to our benefit, subject to multiplication of debt by interest, *and to perpetual dedication of ever more of the circulation to servicing debt*. Particularly then, a circulation equal to the sum of the wealth it is intended to represent is of no benefit whatever to its subjects, if interest dedicates ever more and eventually all of the circulation to servicing debt.

The so called American Monetary Act itself thus never even discerns the way to its dream of regulated-away inflation; and yet it casts the finding of that uncharted way to the hapless rigamarole of a bureaucracy. But the bureaucracy itself is redundant to real solution; and real solution itself is impossible to Zarlenga's retention of interest — and thus by extension, solution is impossible to the bureaucracy.

So, any responsible effort will ascertain the consequences of maintaining a purportedly non-inflationary circulation subject to interest; but had the purported leading think tank done so, how could they possibly avoid discovering how their "American Monetary Act" even reduces the maximum possible lifespan of the conventional usury systems they pretend to improve upon?

The real problem of a currency subject to interest is not simply "inflation," but that ever more of the circulation is dedicated to servicing debt. So, in a conventional usury system reaching the later stages of its maximum possible lifespan, the lifespan is typically extended by expanding the circulation at an ever escalating rate (in keeping with the escalating rate of increasing debt), in the hope of maintaining a sufficient portion of the circulation which can be dedicated to sustaining commerce. As no system can service infinite debt subject to interest, in the end, even this becomes impossible when the accumulated debt exceeds the system's credit-worthiness. But by obstructing this expansion of a circulation subject to interest, Zarlenga's "American Monetary Act" expedites its own end, and reduces the maximum possible lifespan of the conventional system of usury it pretends to improve upon.

Neither however does Zarlenga's purported "real solution" prevent devaluation of the currency or multiplication of costs by purported inflation, because interest still dedicates ever more of the circulation to servicing debt. As in any system subject to interest, this of course makes the American Monetary Act's currency perpetually less effective for procuring wealth. Furthermore, those costs of multiplying debt remain as the only systemic cause of rising prices, while restricting the circulation all the more prevents the subject commerce from maintaining necessary margins of solubility.

Thus the very causes of the First and every further Great Depression remain in effect under Zarlenga's purported "real solution"; and thus the questions which were likely to arise in the midst of the First Great Depression certainly "may" explain Henry Simon's abandonment of the original Chicago Plan.

But there are further irregularities.

The quest for monetary reform exists because of a kind of money: A circulation subject to interest comprises a perpetual process of unjustifiable, multiplying dispossession which eventually results in collapse.

Yet as if the real issue of the present's privatized currencies were who creates the money, Zarlenga's American Monetary Act merely transfers the creation of money to government, still letting banks loan it into circulation subject to interest. Of course, as any rate of interest will multiply into usurious sums of debt and inevitable collapse under insoluble debt, then if the subjects of the system are forced to maintain the circulation to any degree by re-borrowing principal and interest, then obviously, multiplication of debt and the further ramifications of interest still prevail.

As if it has solved this issue, and without defining the scope and necessary implementation of an exceedingly impractical, unoriginal idea, the American Monetary Act tosses us the bone that government can spend necessary money into circulation. This of course would mean that even if no government program or bureaucracy were desirable or necessary, government itself must grow equivalent to and prior to all desirable economic growth; and furthermore that, to grow, endeavors must earn the money from the recipients of the government programs before entrepreneurs can embark on their intended venture, for they cannot borrow the money without suffering the consequences of interest.

Remarkably, despite all this, Zarlenga accounts for Simons' abandonment of the original Chicago Plan thus; he says, "Simon [sic] was demanding perfection from his own proposal and was being overly cautious. The proper goal was not perfection, but should have simply been substantial improvement that the Chicago Plan clearly represented."

Is there an argument which establishes unqualified mediocrity is preferable to perfection?

Of course not. But to its even greater discredit, the American Monetary Act builds no incontrovertible arguments of clear improvement. Instead, it wholly avoids accountability with just such empty promises, pretending its mere claims and vain bureaucratic dependencies are as good as scientific formulation. The American Monetary Act is everything bad that bad legislation can be. It is simply the product of exalted superficial claims, and at best, intentions which are never met with the diligent work which would fulfill them.

Contrary to Zarlenga's unqualified claim of improvement, as we have already shown, the Chicago Plan clearly represents no improvement whatsoever: it is yet another guise for imposing interest upon the people's promises to pay *each other*. It is clearly even a leap backward in sustainability. It provides no mechanism whatever for regulating the value of currency but amassing further government overhead, and at other times assumably, merely retiring circulation by taxation.

This is not only a highly undesirable scheme because it begs growth of government and reliance on government which are entirely otherwise redundant; it is an unworkable scheme because on the contrary, "inflation" and the accompanying faults of interest are only solved by paying off interest free debts at the rate of consumption or depreciation. But since when is abandoning perfection the "proper" goal — especially when we already have a prescription for perfection; especially as Zarlenga hasn't even finished his prospective "American Monetary Act"; and particularly if, unless its finished form meets the standards of mathematically perfected economy™, by restricting a circulation subject to interest, the banal faults of the American Monetary Act expedite the terminal processes it merely claims to solve?

Is it actually undesirable, Mr. Zarlenga and your fellow proponents of the American Monetary Act, that people be able to pay for the production of others with equal measures of their own production?

We have "interest"; we suffer from "interest"; and you give us "interest" again, under a cloak of monetary reform, and under the deception that government can and should grow so much as desirable industrial expansion predicates.

What could be more preposterous? Why? And to what possible benefit over mathematically perfected economy™?

So the "clear improvement" of Mr. Zarlenga's "American Monetary Act" and the purported excellence of America's self claimed, leading monetary reform think tank could hardly be more dubious. The facts against Zarlenga's "clear improvement" make the American Monetary Act a mere Emperor's Robe of purported monetary reform.

Furthermore, they expose a complete lack of due diligence and a failure to provide the conclusive arguments, models, data, and demonstrated principles necessary for a republican government to determine facts of solution and representation. Which of course is why Mr. Zarlenga instead exhorts us to abandon perfection.

The American Monetary Act is such a poor work, one might wonder why it strives to compete with mathematically perfected economy™, especially as it is so plain why it does so without invalidating our purported singular solution for inflation and deflation, systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and inherent multiplication of debt by interest.

Could the American Monetary Act possibly be a better solution? Is it even a step in the right direction? Even if it were, why take just the step, when we can go the distance?

Worse, why take a step in the wrong direction, when we can go the distance, and when mathematically perfected economy™ is the only way both to save us from the brink of collapse under interest, and to achieve full, just prosperity?

But there is even more to the story, particularly as determines the potential of present political efforts at a most critical time.

Within the last few years, Mr. Zarlenga introduced himself by an email asserting that our thinking was in basic agreement regarding monetary reform, and asking that without even seeing it, I help promote his recent book, "The Lost Science of Money."

The potential offenses of these announcements against mathematically perfected economy™ (1968-1979) are obvious. On the one hand, even while announcing knowledge of my much earlier work, which determines a *singular* possible solution, our work therefore can only possibly agree if Mr. Zarlenga advocates mathematically perfected economy™; and I am to help promote his book announcing that he has resurrected "The Lost Science of Money" 30 years after I formally published the singular prescription for mathematically perfected economy™, 40 years after I conceived and began to speak of it, 23+ years after the models I provided the Reagan Administration were posted to pre-Internet bulletin boards and substantially downloaded by academia, while Zarlenga's work is peppered with unique and intrinsic terms I introduced in 1979, such as "interest-bearing debt," and since PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy was the first monetary reform site on the eventual internet?

I don't think so.

On any other hand our work can't possibly agree; and in fact, as we see here, our work diverges to such opposite poles there is no reasonable purpose in his work to use my term, "interest-bearing debt," because his purported "real solution" doesn't even account for multiplication of debt by interest, or the further iniquities of interest, which is coercion imposed upon our certifiable and enforceable promises to pay *each other*. No one need loan us money at interest, Mr. Zarlenga. This is the concept of the usurer.

While Mr. Zarlenga advocates that a perfect solution should not even be our goal, he claims nonetheless that the "real solution" is to preserve interest, and to leave a bureaucracy with the a duty of regulating away inflationary circulations, without even demonstrating it is possible to do so with a circulation subject to interest, without cutting short the maximum possible lifespan of a conventional monetary system subject to interest.

Of course, should earning sufficient capital be preclusive to entrepreneurial endeavors, the people can only borrow money at interest; while the very potential maladministration of his precious bureaucracy could at the same time see fit to be removing just so much circulation as is necessary and conducive to sustaining all such intended endeavors.

Needing no such bureaucracy — and thus eliminating not only the many evils of the potential bureaucracy, but the American Monetary Act's need to expand government to sustain a vital circulation — mathematically perfected economy™ automates solution of inflation and deflation by paying interest free obligations at the rate of depreciation or consumption. Only under mathematically perfected economy™ can people pay for the work of others with equal measures of their own work. Eradication of interest at the same time eliminates multiplication of debt; and so further, the combined solutions of inflation/deflation and multiplication of debt by interest eliminate systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property.

These are all the things which manifested in the First Great Depression, which Zarlenga only claims to solve in his so called American Monetary Act.

So these are the very opposed poles of the prospective solutions. Understandably, Mr. Zarlenga has not answered invitations to debate solution. But do the indefensible faults of his American Monetary Act explain obstruction of mathematically perfected economy™ in the 2008 presidential campaign?

In response to his appeal to promote his book, "The Lost Science of Money," I asked to see the work, and simply never heard from Mr. Zarlenga again until on 2/6/2008 I received an email announcing "A Real Solution to the Banking/Monetary Crisis", an AMI blog, and a "FREE Quarterly Monetary Seminar in Chicago." Mr. Zarlenga claims, "Friends I'm more than ready to do interviews on solving the crisis, for print, radio and TV!"

Well, that hardly explains non-response to my standing invitation to debate solution.

Taken on its own perhaps, this controversy hardly deserves attention except that vigilant citizenship must sift through the facts to defend itself from becoming prey to the active. But it turns out that a principal reason to respond to Mr. Zarlenga's American Monetary Act instead is the far more serious question of whether his business may be to obstruct mathematically perfected economy™.

A clue to the plausibility of this business of obstruction exists in the question of what furthermore is the significance of Mr. Zarlenga's free monetary seminars being in Chicago? It turns out that Chicago is the point of obstruction to which mathematically perfected economy™ was presented to the Kucinich campaign since December 2007... likewise, without reply.

The question is whether Mr. Zarlenga is even directly responsible for cutting mathematically perfected economy™ off from the American people, for in Chicago the vital proposition of mathematically perfected economy™ inexplicably, and impolitely died.

So there is far more to the story of the "American Monetary Act" than might immediately meet the eye; and to gauge the whole of the many critical, contending works, it is in fact for the pretension of solution itself that all the pieces of the puzzle must be put together.

Remarkably then, the proposition of mathematically perfected economy™ I offered the Kucinich campaign (through Kucinich respondent, Mr. David Bright, December 31, 2007) was quite warmly and responsibly received from the first moments of my initial call; and, after substantial and even jovial discussion of the obvious solution of mathematically perfected economy™, was immediately sent by the good Mr. Bright to Kucinich economics people in Chicago, who "like" Mr. Zarlenga (or being Mr. Zarlenga?), would simply not even reply.

So... a presidential candidate seeking the office on a platform of admittedly imperfect monetary reform, condescends to the advocate's appeal to abandon perfection, versus evaluating a proposition of mathematically perfected economy™?

Such a detailed proposition of singular solution for inflation and deflation, systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and inherent multiplication of debt by interest doesn't even deserve a word of reply? Not even a thank you? Not even an invalidation worthy of founding public understanding?

A further video of Congressman Dennis Kucinich speaking at a 2005 [AMI] Monetary Reform Conference rounds out the unexplained puzzle of evasion. The AMI video certifies the connection between Kucinich and Zarlenga; Mr. Kucinich even lavishly praises Zarlenga with having taught Kucinich the brunt of his purported understandings of economics; and yet in this lengthy address to the AMI Monetary Reform Conference, Mr. Kucinich has practically nothing whatever to say about monetary fundamentals.

As there isn't even the least revelation amounting or pointing to solution in his lengthy address, one would have to wonder why the Kucinich campaign itself would simply reject mathematically perfected economy™ without even replying.

But Mr. Kucinich concludes his address with an appeal to carry on and expand the quest for monetary reform — a seeming appeal for the real, ultimate answer. That appeal hardly seems in keeping with the evasion with which his Chicago people greeted mathematically perfected economy™.

So now, with the respondents refusing debate, let us get to the bottom of the "American Monetary Act," and the purported science which evades discussion of mathematically perfected economy™.

RELATED EXTERNAL MATERIAL

1. The American Monetary Institute

Stephen Zarlenga ("The American Monetary Institute") ASSERTED NATURE OF THE PROBLEM Under the Constitution, Article I, Sec. 8, our government has the sovereign power to issue money and spend it into circulation to promote the general welfare through the creation and repair of infrastructure, including human infrastructure — health and education — rather than misusing the money system for speculation as banking has historically done, periodically causing one crisis after another. Our lawmakers must now reclaim that power!	mike montagne — 35-year advocate of singular solution Constitutionality of Spending Money Into Circulation; and Retiring Circulation By What, But Taxation For No Service Whatever? *All* serious monetary reformists of course are quite familiar with Article 1, Section 8, only because it gives the scantest indication of the legal/intended nature of money. Mr. Zarlenga's interpretation however is preposterous, because the words "spend" and "circulation," or equivalents thereof which amount to his interpretation, do not even appear in the entire text of the Constitution. Not even once. The "scientific" basis for making this assertion is non-existent. The assertion is a further stretch of the truth, merely to create the false impression that Zarlenga's "American Monetary Act" is the ultimate intention of the founders; and in fact if the interpretation were shared by other monetary reformists, obviously we would be shouting in unison for constitutional spending of money into circulation; we would not even require termination of the so called Federal Reserve, because Zarlenga's "American Monetary Act" too lends the money into circulation subject to interest... and thus the gargantuan government he advocates merely to sustain a vital circulation would too have been the intention of the founders, and the eternal purpose of the American People. Having raised the obvious bounds of the present state of the Constitution, it still of course *would* be within the granted powers for Congress ultimately to determine that spending money into circulation would be appropriate; but it would certainly be unwise for Congress or Mr. Kucinich to determine to do so on Mr. Zarlenga's unqualified say-so — particularly too without either evaluating and invalidating mathematically perfected economy™. For the state to wisely evolve into the purported status of Mr. Zarlenga's interpretation, the state, and particularly Congress, would have to perform the due diligence Mr. Zarlenga has yet to perform or provide; and that due diligence would have to determine unequivocally that the American Monetary Act better served the purposes of the people than mathematically perfected economy™ (the mathematic models of which are readily demonstrated by computer software I have provided since 1983, which has even accurately projected the debt we have accumulated and could have avoided since then under mathematically perfected economy™ — which models of course you can still, *presently* download from our pages). Mr. Zarlenga's dubious interpretation nonetheless forms the core of his proposition; and yet while the idea of spending money into circulation may tempt the careless, its vital and critical faults, particularly if coexistence with interest is suggested, are readily exposed. IMPORTANCE OF THE ACTUAL DELEGATION AND LIMITATION OF POWERS But actually, Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution grants powers not to our government in general, but explicitly and solely to Congress. This is for a reason; and the distinction is critical, because (according to prevailing interpretation) without a constitutional amendment, the powers granted can be delegated to no other ostensible authority whatsoever. Thus lacking any scientific/actual basis to understand that Article 1 indeed grants "our government" any sovereign power to spend money into circulation, we can truly observe only that rather, Mr. Zarlenga's prejudicial interpretation simply concurs with his proposed "American Monetary Act," which of course (without a requisite constitutional amendment) features the claimed but non-existent power/obligation. This is careless enough law making in the least. But the assertion and accompanying duties therefore are a simple case of inventing reason and authority, purportedly in concurrence with the eventual proposition. But how ludicrous is the fundamental assertion even on its surface? If "the government" were obligated to spend money into circulation, for what would "the government" also be empowered to tax? Of course, to retire circulation. But obviously, even if there were distinguishing cases where the competing/conflicting principles were to apply, there would be a whole further necessary body of law distinguishing the areas of legal application. In other words, if Mr. Zarlenga's interpretation that Article 1, Section 8 prescribed or even suggested the propriety of spending money into circulation, the principles of spending and retiring money would at least be so refined as to indicate that taxation should only be imposed to retire circulation, without providing any government service whatever for the expense, and even at a time when the expense could least be afforded, because the fact of wealth being in decline would necessarily predicate the need for deflation by un-represented taxation. So to earn credibility, Mr. Zarlenga's "scientific" proposition must prescribe the processes and bounds of applying spending, taxation and loaning at interest. It further must distinguish the fundamental principles which ascertain that the conflicting ideas of spending money into circulation, taxation merely to retire circulation, and, in all other cases, borrowing circulation at interest. It further must demonstrate that this odd and fundamentally conflicting conglomeration of processes somehow coexist in useful, efficient, effective and just ways. While under Mr. Zarlenga's proposition this is potentially impossible, instead Mr. Zarlenga admonishes us not only to abandon perfection as an objective, even as perfection in fact is *the* simple answer and most efficient process. He further asks us to continue even featuring interest, without even disproving interest is the cause of the very crisis and further injustices he pretends to solve. In the least this must be an incredibly politicized prescription, because its few if any scientific argument do not even show how it solves anything. WHAT ARE THE INHERENT FAULTS OF SPENDING MONEY INTO CIRCULATION? Our Parable of Perfect Economy touches on the inflationary fault of spending government funding into circulation; and Lincoln of course spent the Greenback into circulation. Lincoln avoided accumulating federal debt to bankers by issuing the paper himself. But to avoid inflation, eventually the issued circulation would have to have been retired by taxation. So no cost is avoided if inflation and deflation are regulated away; the cost is either paid by devaluation of the circulation at the further cost of waves of adjustment acting without any means of fair distribution of the cost whatever, or the cost is paid by retiring the circulation through taxation. The benefit Lincoln achieved then was to save the people all the engendered and unjustifiable interest. So, the quite unoriginal idea of spending money into circulation embodies obvious faults: The only method of increasing the circulation requires a government program which costs just so much. American Monetary Act: Lacking such a program, deserving private industry, requiring further circulation to sustain it, cannot even eventually leave the starting blocks; and *still*, it cannot leave the starting blocks until it earns its necessary financing from the recipients of a potentially undesirable government program. Furthermore, even should the industry eventually earn the financing to get off the ground, the industry and its market still suffer deflation, because the circulation represents the value of the government program. The value and monetary needs of the further industry therefore still compete for a deflated (insufficient) circulation. Ultimately then, to finance industry we have the arduous, un-useful, inefficient, ineffective and unjust prospective process of asking the government to establish a potentially redundant program; waiting for the government to spend the money of the program into circulation; potentially competing for the deficient/deflated circulation until or if its saving can finance the intended industry and its market. mathematically perfected economy™: In mathematically perfected economy™, the qualified industry and its market simply borrow whatever necessary funding into circulation and pay off the resultant obligations as they consume of the related asset. There is no redundant delay; no redundant requirement of government cooperation; no redundant requirement of an equivalent government program; and, without even a regulatory bureaucracy, there is no inflation or deflation. Furthermore, because mathematically perfected economy™ eradicates interest (and because AMA does not eradicate interest), only in mathematically perfected economy™ is it possible for all of us at all times to acquire the production of others for equal measures of our own production. In other words, particularly as our debts are only to each other, only in mathematically perfected economy™ can we at all times enjoy economic justice. Retiring the related circulation. American Monetary Act: In the so called American Monetary Act, there is no direct method of retiring the related circulation in conjunction and in direct proportion with expiring production/wealth. Thus as Mr. Zarlenga's very act acknowledges, a bureaucracy is required to withdraw or retire circulation as to avoid inflation and deflation. But what about necessary guidelines for that bureaucracy? Mr. Zarlenga just hands the job off, *as if* it can be accomplished. But if Mr. Zarlenga had made a serious/scientific attempt to give the bureaucracy whatever guidelines would eliminate inflation and deflation, he would have found it impossible to do so without either eradicating interest, or the highly suspect process of government spending equivalent to whatever sums of interest were required by the banks. mathematically perfected economy™: Eradication of interest, together with the very schedule of payment of mathematically perfected economy™, allow us to pay for the production of others with an equal measure of our own work and automatically retire the circulation without inflation or deflation — or a redundant bureaucracy which cannot accomplish these objectives without the ultimate equivalent of mathematically perfected economy™ itself! NO ADVANTAGE WHATSOEVER All this inefficiency, inconsistency and gargantuan probable overhead therefore can provide no advantage whatsoever, for even if it could accomplish its goals subject to interest, that accomplishment would amount to the equivalent of mathematically perfected economy™, except that the potential floodgates of government spending would replenish the circulation so much as necessary to eradicate multiplication of debt by interest. To do that would be as much as to multiply present government spending many times over. Why again, but for the unjustified sake of bankers? There is no value to the people of such a process whatever — again, the only thing accomplished is to deny them mathematically perfected economy™.
ILLUSTRIOUS HISTORY The American Monetary Act goes beyond the Chicago plan in three important improvements derived from the lessons of history - experience with the Bank of England’s nationalization in 1946, and our American experience of the past 50 years: First, the Act proposes that infrastructure expenditures, including education and health and farming parity be used as mechanisms to get newly created money spent into circulation to promote the general welfare. We’ve observed that the privately controlled money system can’t or won’t make the necessary infrastructure expenditures. Second the Act introduces considerations of fairness, sustainability, sound environmental practice and social cohesion as values in monetary decision making. In other words moral considerations are explicitly considered. I wish we were the first to do this [???] but Article two of the treaty protocols establishing the European System of Central Banks and the EURO beat us to it, and it’s already operational in the EURO system. The provision is quoted In Chapter 23 of the Lost Science book: "To promote throughout the Community a Harmonious and balanced development of economic activities, sustainable and non-inflationary growth respecting the environment, a high level of employment and of social protection, the raising of the standard of living and quality of life, and economic and social cohesion and solidarity among Member States." Third the American Monetary Act places more reasonable nationwide legal limits on the charging of interest, with an 8% cap – about what it was in most state laws until 1980 or 81.	HISTORY Mr. Zarlenga merely informs us the American Monetary Act is borrowed from a Great Depression-era plan which in fact was abandoned by its author — likely even for many of the faults we have cited. The basic faults of this implementation have already been raised. The further assumption that the costs or value of infrastructure are sufficient to sustain both all dependent commerce and all perpetual interest on private debt is unqualified, and even obviously preposterous. When ever do they even naturally occur in the necessary equality? As for the assertion that "the privately controlled money system can’t or won’t make the necessary infrastructure expenditures," *the reason* the privately controlled system of unearned profit by interest eventually cannot (and thus won't) afford even to maintain existing, necessary infrastructures, is inherent multiplication of debt by interest. Yes, further corruption further contributes to redundant costs, but even if we strip those entirely away, any system subject to interest inherently and irreversibly multiplies debt in proportion to a circulation, until it cannot even afford to persist in servicing debt. Trivial and fictitious. Throughout the history of monetary systems I'm sure, moral considerations have been considered by subjects and ministers of monetary systems alike. I know that I've considered them since I was a young boy asking how many times we'd pay to cross the bridge before the bridge was paid for; and I have no doubt whatever that long before the European System of Central Banks which demand usury too from their subjects, moral monetary fundamentals have been important to countless people. So the American Monetary Act *still features interest*, and therefore fails both counts of our rule of thumb — with only the possible exception being that it replicates the current state of affairs insofar as an unlimited, unpayable stream of government spending hopefully compensates for the fault of interest, that it deflates the circulation. In lieu, we have perpetual gargantuan government; we potentially have no one paying for just or unjust programs, upon which as much as the equal rest of the society may become dependent... while neither Mr. Zarlenga or his exalted American Monetary Institute or anyone else in history have established a just rate of interest in respect to the proposition of mathematically perfected economy™; and while all this potential iniquity exists only for the sake of preserving the imposition of interest on the promises of each of us to pay each other. I predict on the contrary Mr. Zarlenga, that given the choice you may prefer for your own purposes to deny them, that the American People will choose eradication of interest, and to pay for their production with equal measures of their production.
WHY DIDN'T THE CHICAGO PLAN PASS? First there was no understanding or support for the proposal among the electorate. Only Irving Fisher seems to have understood the necessity for popularizing the matter. Simons himself got cold feet and shied away from promoting the plan, desiring to remain on a level of professorial discussion. He even threw a wet towel on Fisher who was promoting the reform suggesting that Fisher avoid popularizing the idea! Simon was demanding perfection from his own proposal and was being overly cautious. The proper goal was not perfection, but should have simply been substantial improvement that the Chicago Plan clearly represented. Instead Simons became obsessed with how banks would evade the reforms.	WHY OF COURSE SHOULDN'T THE CHICAGO PLAN HAVE PASSED? There was no understanding because neither the Chicago Plan or American Monetary Act can be understood to be solution. Until their features are refined to the equivalent of mathematically perfected economy™, both acts solve nothing — and evidently Simon may have understood so if he was demanding perfection from his own proposal. After all, in what can we succeed, and what do we risk, with the faulted state of these propositions? As to denying perfection (solution) is a proper goal — why and what for, especially if you cannot invalidate the fact of singular solution, established 35 years ago? In fact, Mr. Zarlenga's American Monetary Act instead is as much as the purposed embodiment of imperfection. That is, even to the detail of his unoriginal and unnecessary usage of terms such as "interest-bearing debt" which belong to and were introduced by the arguments of mathematically perfected economy™, the American Monetary Act at best preserves the interest of the money changers by the ghastly proposition of imposing such gargantuan government as can make up for all the interest in eternity.
WAR, DENIED REPRESENTATION, AND OTHER UNORIGINAL PERCEPTIONS The next AMI Monetary Reform Conference takes place at Roosevelt University in Chicago, September 27-30, 2007. The conference will especially focus on how our private money and banking system causes unnecessary warfare by creating a financial motive for war.	WAR, DENIED REPRESENTATION, AND OTHER UNORIGINAL PERCEPTIONS It isn't the fact the system is private which is responsible for its effects: It's the interest. It's the interest. It's the interest. The rest is unoriginal as well; and finally, we arrive again at Chicago.

Summary

So we have Mr. Zarlenga's "Lost Science of Money," a product of America's purported leading think tank on monetary reform — the excellence of which assumably accounts for non-response from both Mr. Zarlenga and the Kucinich Campaign's Chicago people, as well as Mr. Kucinich's unexplained exclusion of mathematically perfected economy™ from the 2008 political landscape.

To what benefit, I leave it to Mr. Zarlenga to explain to you in light of the following.

Mr. Zarlenga claims to have submitted his proposition to public input; but since he does not answer to me, I give mine now:

Nothing could be more adverse in my estimation Mr. Zarlenga, than the ridiculous rigamarole you appoint to engendering whatever gargantuan, otherwise redundant government operations are necessary to spending into circulation sufficient money to sustain our private matters against the interest you advocate. I know of no founder who advocated such a thing; and only of great men who advocated the contrary — minimal, extremely restrained government.

You call that "American," even as if such a thing should be a tradition. I reply the idea is as un-American as anything can be, for if we followed your way we would have embraced the Bank of England, asking only that the King spend lavishly enough upon us to make up the difference in what we could not afford to re-borrow to maintain a circulation subject to your precious interest.

You claim to solve inflation. Instead, you advocate building a redundant government so great as to fill the lake behind a damn intended to leak so much as bankers require for their purposes. The evils you yourself attribute to a privatized circulation will still exist under your pretended solution, because the same bankers will grow wealthy by the same means at their exclusive disposal now.

The real issue is not inflation, for inflation cannot even exist when money is borrowed into circulation to finance wealth, and when the wealth is paid for as it is consumed, by its consumer. The issues are broader even than multiplication of debt by interest, which you do not solve any moreso than the present insoluble accumulation of public debt now solves... for the issues span all the further ramifications of interest, which certainly at least make it impossible for us in all cases to procure each other's work for equal measures of our own work.

The only way to make it possible to pay for each others' work with an equal measure of our own work Mr. Zarlenga, is to eradicate interest; and likewise, the only way to solve inflation and deflation is to pay interest free obligations at the rate of consumption or depreciation.

This of course eliminates all your redundant rigamarole, and all the opportunities for abuse it comprises, which amount to the possibility of systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property.

Presto. For giving up unearned gain and all its injustices... you have mathematically perfected economy™.

As to the silence from the Kucinich camp, I expect you can explain that.

RELATED EXTERNAL MATERIAL

1. Austrian School (Wikipedia)
2. Mathematics and Economic Analysis
   William L. Anderson, 4/2/2002, Ludwig von Mises Institute
3. Nikolai Kondratiev, Author of the Kondratiev Wave or Long Wave, at ANSWERS.COM
4. Kondratiev Wave or Long Wave, at ANSWERS.COM
5. Austrian Economics
   Deborah L. Walker, Library of Economics and Liberty, Concise Encyclopedia of Economics
6. Capital and Interest: A Critical History of Economical Theory
   Böhm-Bawerk, Eugen von (1851-1914)
   1. The Opposition to Interest in Classical and Medieval Times
   2. The Defence of Interest From the Sixteenth Till the Eighteenth Century
   3. Turgot's Fructification Theory
   4. Adam Smith and the Development of the Problem
7. Google Austrian School Economics in a separate tab or window

RELATED PRIMARY ARTICLES

• PROBABILITY AND TIMELINE FOR WORLD-WIDE ECONOMIC COLLAPSE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF INTEREST
• WHAT IS Mathematically Perfected Economy™?
• WHY AND HOW USURY HAS BEEN IMPOSED ACROSS THE WORLD
• [ KEY MODEL ]  PARABLE OF PERFECT ECONOMY — HOW USURY COMPELLED THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
  35. HOW MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED CURRENCY™ EXTENDS THE INDIVIDUALISM OF THE PARABLE
• PURPOSES OF THE DECEPTION THAT INFLATION IS CONTROLLED BY INTEREST (USURY)
• WHY INFLATION ITSELF IS A LIE; WHY IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SOLVE THE REAL CONSEQUENCES OF A CURRENCY SUBJECT TO INTEREST
• QUOTES
• [ KEY ]  DOES RISK JUSTIFY SUBJECTING THE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE TO INTEREST (USURY)?
• WHAT IS FREE ENTERPRISE?
• [ KEY ]  WHY AND HOW PRECIOUS METAL MONETARY STANDARDS [THE GOLD STANDARD] CAN ONLY FAIL. WHAT IS SOUND MONEY?
• WHAT IS USURY?

RELATED REFUTATIONS/REVIEWS OF CONTROVERSIAL MONETARY PROPOSITIONS

53. Why Invalidate All Contending Monetary Propositions?
54. Why Pre-MPE™ Austrian School Dogma Can Never Solve Our Issues
    55. A FATAL FLAW OF AUSTRIAN SCHOOL ECONOMICS — COMPLETE REJECTION OF MATHEMATICS?
    56. REGARDING INTEREST THEN, DOES AUSTRIAN SCHOOL ECONOMICS NOT HAVE TITLE TO LIBERTY AND RIGHT REVERSED?
    57. William B. Ryan Kent State University Capital Ownership Group Forum Ad Hominems Disprove Mathematically Perfected Economy™?
        
        Or Academia Inadvertently Validates Mathematically Perfected Economy™?
    58. Example Austrian School Rejections of Mathematically Perfected Economy™
    59. VICIOUSNESS AND EVASION AS THE REGULAR DEFENSE OF THE AUSTRIAN SCHOOL
60. What's Wrong With Ron Paul and Milton Friedman's Idea To Stop Expanding The Money Supply?
61. What's Wrong With Social Credit and Douglas' A + B Theorem?
62. Why Have Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Ron Paul, Edwin Vieira and So Many Others Failed to Deliver Solution?
    63. WHY RON PAUL AND EDWIN VIEIRA HAVE FAILED TO DELIVER SOLUTION
    64. H. R. 1148 — RON PAUL'S ATTEMPT TO RESCIND THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT?
    65. FANTASIES OF EDWIN VIEIRA'S REDUNDANT NEW HAMPSHIRE HB 1342, PURPORTEDLY TO ENDORSE CONSTITUTIONAL MONEY
    66. HR 2779 — RON PAUL AND EDWIN VIEIRA'S SO CALLED HONEST MONEY ACT
    67. BANAL FAULTS OF THE SO CALLED AMERICAN MONETARY ACT OF THE SO CALLED AMERICAN MONETARY INSTITUTE
71. [ TO COME ]  The Broken Ideology: Monetary Narcissism Condemns Its Own Progeny To Destruction
72. THE COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE FANTASY OF A DEBT FREE MONETARY SYSTEM
73. AXIOMATIC ECONOMICS? VICTOR AGUILAR'S PURPORTED REVIEW OF MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY™
74. Margrit Kennedy's Essays On Interest and Inflation Free Money
75. ELLEN HODGSON BROWN AND WEB OF DEBT
76. EDWARD FLAHERTY'S PURPORTED DEBUNKING OF JAIKARAN'S STOLEN DEBT VIRUS THESIS
77. REAL OPTIONS OF 'TRADERS,' TRAITORS AND LOOTERS IN THE LAST DAYS OF THE REPUBLIC
78. Has Anyone Ever Disproven Mathematically Perfected Economy™?
79. How Mathematically Perfected Economy™ Solves The Faults Of All Alternate 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)

 del.icio.us  FaceBook  NewsVine  reddit