Invalidation of G. Edward Griffin's Creature From Jekyll Island Obfuscation

The traditional definitions of "inflation" and "deflation" respectively are increases or decreases in circulation per the assets the circulation is otherwise intended to represent. Obviously then, the only way to solve inflation and deflation as defined is to maintain a circulation which is always equal to the current/remaining value of the assets it is to represent; and the only way to do that is to introduce so much circulation as the value of the asset, and to pay the resultant obligation off at the rate of depreciation or consumption (which are to be understood to be equal). You can't do that if the obligation is subject to interest, because *for all cases*, more has to be paid out of the circulation than circulation exists: For each and every case, debt or circulation plus interest to be paid out of the circulation in servicing interest is greater than the debt or circulation which must be paid out of the circulation to solve inflation and deflation. Besides making it impossible to solve inflation and deflation then, interest makes it impossible to pay for the work of others with an equal measure of our own work, because all the while that debt is multiplied in proportion to the circulation, ever more of the units of circulation is dedicated to servicing debt, with ever less therefore remaining for the intended purpose of sustaining commerce. Furthermore then, interest makes it impossible to maintain a circulation which across its whole is at all times redeemable in and representative of the very things of value we the people intend for it to represent. mike montagne

Saturday, May 31, 2008

Invalidation of G. Edward Griffin's Creature From Jekyll Island Obfuscation Of The Need To Re-borrow Interest To Maintain A Circulation

After tracing site traffic yesterday to a DailyPaul Forum thread started by the good Mr. Shovelhead, the kind of misunderstandings on which a republic will perish begged response to G. Edward Griffin's Creature From Jekyll Island obfuscation of the need to re-borrow interest to maintain a circulation.

From Griffin's suspicious twist, and even as debt continues to multiply in proportion to the circulation or our capacity to service debt, forum participants had drawn faulty conclusions either that it is impossible to perfect economy, or that it is not even necessary to solve inherent multiplication of debt by interest.

To Mr. Shovelhead's exemplary credit, he could not concur in the other reader's unqualifiable deductions. But the obvious expense of Griffin's resultant confusion therefore is collapse under untended further multiplication of insoluble debt, unless Mr. Griffin's reassurance that no such problem exists holds water.

Even if Giffin's intended point were true however, it provides no foundation whatever to rightly deduce that it is impossible to perfect economy, or that mathematically perfected economy™ does not solve the breadth of monetary improprieties observed by others, and assumably, even by Mr. Griffin himself (for he wrote a book ostensibly against an entity, the only imposed process of which is "interest"). But it is in fact impossible for Griffin's irresponsible obfuscation to represent the whole quantified cycle of interest, as it would have to, if his deception were to certify the impression he wants you to take from it.

Griffin's obfuscation instead is limited to the mere idea that one of the issues solved by mathematically perfected economy™ does not exist. The promise Griffin hopes an unthinking readership to assimilate, is that it is not even necessary or right to perfect an economy of multiplication of debt by interest, even as every debt subject to interest is multiplied even in its initial case by interest; and as perpetual multiplication, suffered merely in maintaining a circulation, certainly would result in collapse, and even the terminal conditions mounting everywhere around us.

We of course then cannot afford to underestimate or misunderstand the latter potential issue of inherent, irreversible and terminal multiplication of debt in proportion to a circulation, by interest.

But Griffin attempts to refute just this proposition only, by providing an example which cannot possibly account for multiplication of debt across a whole system subject to interest. In fact, to accomplish the purpose of invalidation, all those who deny the proposition of this terminal imperfection must demonstrate that no interest whatever is re-borrowed as would inherently increase the sum of debt in proportion to a circulation. Thus Griffin's obfuscation must account for every cent of interest paid out of the general circulation — something which we shall soon see is obviously impossible.

RELATED EXTERNAL MATERIAL

1. MONEY AS DEBT; An instructional video that gets a flunking grade; An analysis by G. Edward Griffin, 2007 June 7

The Pledge of G. Edward Griffin's Creature From Jekyll Island

Rather than answering the issues raised in the principles of mathematically perfected economy™, Griffin simply invents and answers his own questions, ostensibly intending to invalidate the fact of inherent, perpetual, irreversible, and terminal multiplication of debt in proportion to a circulation, which obviously would be solved by the third aspect of mathematically perfected economy™. Even rather than to attack the obvious solution, he purposely further refrains from answering for the whole quantities by which interest multiplies debt in proportion to a circulation:

G. Edward Griffin — RECENT author of "The Creature of Jekyll Island" ASSERTED QUESTION "[1] Where does the money come from to pay the interest?"	mike montagne — 35-year advocate of singular solution ACTUAL QUESTION Griffin carefully re-paraphrases the real question to fit his answer and to avoid addressing the practical extent to which his obfuscation must occur to accomplish its purported result; and so, all the care he takes to avoid the relevant issues instead poses the question of whether all this prejudicial and such transparent design is mere gross mistake. Mr. Griffin pretends to introduce a question as if it were never answered by other work existing long before his. Certainly no one else was projecting from the early 1970s that we would suffer "economic" failure as a consequence of multiplication of debt by interest; and so I will answer for my own work in particular, which of course is the probable root source of the matter Mr. Griffin hopes to invalidate (however mis-explained or modified by ever more immitators). From its beginning 40 years ago, my work and my initial inquisition into the subject matter realized that *some* multiplication of debt by interest may or may not be nullified by processes such as bankruptcy and consumption of our production by the so called financial institutions. My work furthermore recognized that an ultimate terminal state might or might not be forestalled by "growth," inflation of the circulation, etc. Careful accounting for the potential interactions of these processes of course then was a reason to write the models I furnished the Reagan Administration, which indeed account for bankruptcy and other processes which reduce the multiplication of debt marginally, except in latter stages where gross bankruptcy may become critical. So not only was Mr. Griffin's obfuscation accounted for long ago; the degrees or limitations to which his obfuscation might manifest have been carefully examined clear across literally thousands of entire potential lifespans of systems subject to interest. Mr. Griffin's impertinent story has already been accounted for. Over its whole duration, my work therefore has been so careful as to express the quantity by which debt is increased by terms such as "so much as" periodic interest on the sum of debt. So the real question is not Mr. Griffin's, but *how much* of the resultant periodic interest on debt will not increase the sum of debt, not just as in Mr. Griffin's example, but by further undesirable processes such as bankruptcy — which Mr. Griffin curiously does not even mention as a further obvious manifestation of multiplication of debt in proportion to means. Mr. Griffin's example therefore can only hold sway if we refrain from scrutinizing it at all, because it no more proves that all interest can be (or is) restored to the circulation without multiplying debt any moreso than drinking a thimble of water and walking ten feet into the dessert prove the whole dessert can be crossed on a thimble of water.
It would seem, therefore... [2] It would seem, therefore, that there is no way that you - and all others with similar loans - can possibly pay off your indebtedness. The amount of money put into circulation just isn't enough to cover the total debt, including interest.	It does not just "seem, therefore"... Mr. Griffin's purported invalidation itself attests to the fact it does not just "seem" that interest paid out of the general circulation must be restored by other processes to avoid multiplication of debt by interest and dedication of more of the circulation to servicing debt, versus sustaining commerce. In other words, Mr. Griffin's one case demonstrates that *in the case* (and thus in every such case), to avoid multiplication of debt by re-borrowing interest as would increase the sum of debt so much as periodic interest on debt... *every cent* paid toward interest obligations must be earned back by the subjects of the system. His one case does not answer for how this can possibly occur across the whole system. It merely answers for one $80/week case. In other words, for Mr. Griffin's attempted invalidation to hold water, *he must answer for how it is possible across the entire system for every cent paid toward interest to be earned back from the banks to which the interest is paid.* A single *unaccounted* cent of interest therefore on the contrary invalidates Mr. Griffin's obfuscation, because it increases the sum of debt in proportion to the circulation. Obviously, a continuous, perpetual such process then would continue to multiply the sum of debt in proportion to the circulation; and further still, if there are in fact trillions of dollars of annual interest which Mr. Griffin's obfuscation does not account for, then obviously debt is multiplied in proportion to the circulation, to the very substantial and terminal degrees which Mr. Griffin simply denies by gross err.
GRIFFIN'S ASSUMPTION HE IS INVALIDATING NECESSITY [3] This has led some to the conclusion that it is necessary for you to borrow the $900 for the interest, and that, in turn, leads to still more interest. The assumption is that, the more we borrow, the more we have to borrow,	INVALIDATION OF GRIFFIN'S ASSUMPTION It is not merely an assumption that it is "necessary" to re-borrow what we pay against interest obligations to maintain a circulation. It is a fact it is necessary to re-borrow what we do re-borrow (and what thus does increase debt in proportion to the circulation), because it is impossible across the whole system to work for the bank to the required degree that would nullify multiplication of debt in the form of Mr. Griffin's obfuscation.
FURTHER OBFUSCATION OF FIAT [4] and that debt based on fiat money is a never-ending spiral leading inexorably to more and more debt.	MULTIPLICATION HAS NO CONNECTION WHATEVER TO THE FACT OF FIAT Obviously, the process has nothing whatever to do with what material the money is made of. What kind of "expertise" is this? It is simply further obfuscation hoping to leave the reader with the unqualified idea that a magic material might insulate money from the "interest" attached to it. Yet of course, a debt represented by units of *any material* subject to interest would multiply debt in proportion to the circulated units to the very degree that it is necessary to re-borrow interest paid out of the general circulation.
ANOTHER GRIFFIN FALLACY [5] but it is a fallacy that the only way to pay it back is to borrow still more.	THE ONLY WAY TO PAY IT BACK I never said, and my arguments never required saying, the *only* way to pay it back is to borrow still more. But the only way to pay *all* the eventual principal exceeding the circulation *and* interest back is to re-borrow whatever is *not* *perpetually* reintroduced by the so called financial system consuming *so much* of our own production as you have not accounted for, Mr. Griffin.
A PURPORTED "EXCHANGE VALUE OF LABOR" ACCOUNTS FOR ALL THE INTEREST PAID AGAINST DEBT? [6] The assumption fails to take into account the exchange value of labor...	WHOSE ASSUMPTION? No, Mr. Griffin, your assumption fails to take into account how incredibly much of our production the banks must consume directly from us to nullify multiplication of debt by interest.

SUMMARY

Even Ron Paul has used my term, "insoluble debt."

What makes *any* of our debt "insoluble," if in fact it is practical to repay it as Mr. Griffin evidently asserts?

What is wrong with Griffin's mere trivialization of the perpetual costs of interest?

If we're going to be a republic which resolves its issues, we must answer these questions.

As all the propositions which conflict with mathematically perfected economy™ beg us without qualification to behold that we suffer "inflated" circulations, nonetheless the money in circulation in fact is far less than the remaining value of all related assets. This means we suffer *deflation*.

Furthermore, because interest is the only process attached to the currency, actual deflation further means that the rising costs of all things can only be driven up by the rising costs of servicing the multiplying debt everywhere around us, as opposed to the unqualified proposition of circulatory inflation [another new/unique MPE term].

Moreover then, the further unqualified proposition that having circulatory inflation, we the subjects of the system would simply charge ourselves to death, trying to increase profit without need... this proposition cannot possibly even come to play.

These ideas are plainly hideous.

But far worse; they are even terminally destructive if for any of them, we further succumb to multiplication of debt by interest.

If the advocates of these opposing and more recent propositions were right on any count, then having the circulatory inflation we do not have, and further presuming Mr. Griffin's celebrated obfuscation refutes the very existence of inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt by interest, then how is it even possible that the present sum of debt exceeds the circulation, especially since we cannot have borrowed more circulation than we have borrowed?

The very inconsistencies of these vital quantitative irregularities instead refute the pretended expertise of Griffin's invalidation.

Look around you; how many of us are actually earning money from a bank? How much of our total production is consumed by banks? How much even can be?

In order for Griffin's obfuscation to invalidate the fact debt is multiplied by interest to the degree we are forced to re-borrow interest and principal as subsequent sums of debt increased *so much as* periodic interest on the sum of debt, *every cent* of interest and principal must be earned back by subjects of the system otherwise maintaining said circulation.

In other words, the only way that can happen is that whenever *we* build a house and have to finance our production with money created without cost and yet subject to the unjustified and unjustifiable processes of interest... if the bank charges us 2 or 3 houses in interest, then every time we build such a house, we must do so much as build the bank 2 or 3 houses to avoid multiplication of debt by interest.

All across the system, if debt is not being multiplied by interest, every penny of interest is being earned back from the so called banking system. If there is no such evil then, why did Griffin write his book so many years after the same history my work raised?

Because the so called Federal Reserve is private, when the effects of interest are the same, regardless of the public/private nature of the issuing entity?

We never have and we never will nullify multiplication of debt in proportion to the circulation by interest except by eradicating interest, because it is not even possible for the so called banks to consume so much of our production.

Nor would it be to our true benefit, if they did so.

RELATED EXTERNAL MATERIAL

1. G. Edward Griffin's Creature From Jekyll Island obfuscation of the need to re-borrow interest to maintain a circulation

RELATED PRIMARY ARTICLES

1. [ KEY SUMMARY ]  HOME — SOLUTION, PURPORTED MONETARY REFORM, OR INHERENT FAILURE BY INTEREST?
2. PROBABILITY AND TIMELINE FOR WORLD-WIDE ECONOMIC COLLAPSE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF INTEREST
   3. [ KEY ]  ABOUT INTEREST, KEY TO THE CYCLE OF USURY: 'IT'S THE INTEREST, STUPID, IT'S THE INTEREST'
   4. ARTIFICIAL SUSTENTION — RELEVANCE OF PROJECTION AND CAPACITIES TO ARTIFICIALLY EXTEND THE LIFESPAN OF USURY
   5. INHERENT PATTERN OF FAILURE OF ANY PURPORTED ECONOMY SUBJECT TO INTEREST
   6. CURRENT SHAPING OF THE FAILURE — PRELUDE TO SECOND GREAT DEPRESSION OR MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY™
   7. [ KEY ]  WHY AND HOW PRECIOUS METAL MONETARY STANDARDS [THE GOLD STANDARD] CAN ONLY FAIL. WHAT IS SOUND MONEY?
   8. [ KEY ]  THE PURPORTED QUESTION OF WHO SHOULD ISSUE THE CURRENCY — WHO WOULD LOAN MONEY IF IT WERE NOT SUBJECT TO INTEREST?
   9. [ KEY ]  DOES RISK JUSTIFY SUBJECTING THE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE TO INTEREST (USURY)?
   10. PURPOSES OF THE DECEPTION THAT INFLATION IS CONTROLLED BY INTEREST (USURY)
   11. WHY INFLATION ITSELF IS A LIE; WHY IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SOLVE THE REAL CONSEQUENCES OF A CURRENCY SUBJECT TO INTEREST
   12. WHAT IS USURY?
   13. WHAT IS FREE ENTERPRISE?
14. WHAT IS Mathematically Perfected Economy™?
    15. 'MPE™ 101' — BASIC IMPLEMENTATION OF Mathematically Perfected Economy™
    16. [ KEY ]  'MPE™ 102' — 'FIAT CURRENCY.' WHAT ABOUT IT?
    17. [ KEY ]  'MPE™ 103' — HOW MUCH MONEY TO CIRCULATE 'OUT OF THIN AIR'?
    18. 'MPE™ 104' — TAXATION UNDER MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY™
    19. 'MPE™ 105' — DEBT ONLY EQUIVALENT TO THE PROPERTY WE HAVE POSSESSED AND NOT PAID FOR, OR THE COSTS OF SERVICING DEBT PERPETUALLY MULTIPLYING IN PROPORTION TO OUR MEANS; WHAT IS THE REAL ENEMY?
    20. [ KEY ]  'MPE™ 106' — 'MONEY OUT OF THIN AIR': IT IS NEITHER AN OFFENSE OR DISADVANTAGE THAT TOKENS OF WEALTH COST NOTHING
    21. 'MPE™ 107' — PARASITIC 'MARKETS' CAN ONLY MAKE KILLINGS AT *OUR* EXPENSE — 'INVESTMENT' IN Mathematically Perfected Economy™
    22. 'MPE™ 108' — CIRCULATORY INFLATION AND PRICE INFLATION EXPLAINED
    23. 'MPE™ 109' — CIRCULATORY DEFLATION AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF DEFICIENT CIRCULATION
    24. 'MPE™ 110' — DEPRECIATION AND EQUITY IN MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY™
    25. 'MPE™ 111' — UNINTRODUCED CIRCULATION AND EQUITY IN MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY™
    26. 'MPE™ 112' — NATURE OF MONEY IN MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY™
    27. 'MPE™ 113' — UNEARNED GAIN — PROFIT WITHOUT REAL, COMMENSURABLE CONTRIBUTION TO THE POOL OF WEALTH
    28. 'MPE™ 114' — LAND
    29. 'MPE™ 115' — RETIREMENT
    30. 'MPE™ 116' — PURPORTED SUPPLY AND DEMAND
    31. 'MPE™ 117' — MATHEMATICALLY? PERFECTED? ECONOMY? WHY TERMINOLOGY TO WHICH SOME OBJECT?
    32. 'MPE™ 118' — HOW WE READILY COMPUTE FUTURE ACCUMULATION OF DEBT WITH GREAT PRECISION (TO THE NAYSAYERS OF PROJECTION)

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

    68. Invalidation of G. Edward Griffin's Creature From Jekyll Island Obfuscation Of The Need To Re-borrow Interest To Maintain A Circulation

        69. USURY OR MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY™ — WHICH PRESERVES 'COLLECTIVISM' OR 'INDIVIDUALISM'?
    70. GARY NORTH PRETENDS THE ORIGINS AND FAULTS OF MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY™
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