'MPE™ 117' — MATHEMATICALLY? PERFECTED? ECONOMY? WHY TERMINOLOGY TO WHICH SOME OBJECT?
Monday, June 16, 2008
'MPE™ 117' — MATHEMATICALLY? PERFECTED? ECONOMY? WHY TERMINOLOGY TO WHICH SOME OBJECT?
More than a few people have attacked the very mention of a mathematically perfected economy™ — asserting it cannot be possible to perfect a monetary system by mathematic processes, or that there isn't even a possible legitimacy of combining the three terms in the same expression. Others advocate compliance with the preferred strategy of patent, specious catch words.
Where instead can either take us?
The latter asks us to adopt a stratagem intended to deceive us, and knowable in every form from an absence of usefully definitive expression.
The former blunders into the most negligent argument possible, because without even a process for recognizing plausibility, it acts against what we should certainly attempt to do (perfect economy); and it rejects the very instrument of knowing both how to do so, and verifying whether we have done so (mathematics). Serving us the prospect of utter ignorant destruction if by closing its eyes it fails to account for but one possible terminal process (inherent multiplication of debt by interest), the former prevails only if in fact there is no possibility of mathematically perfecting economy, or by demonstrating such adversity to intelligent reflection that the arguments of mathematically perfected economy™ find a better place to light. Without the far greater but necessary leap of disproving that the faults of monetary systems can be solved mathematically, before we hear those arguments of mathematically perfected economy™, it asks us to reject them.
Thousands and thousands of times over 40 years in response to this immediate assertion, I've given the patent account of how mathematically perfected economy™ is specifically the mathematic process of solving (perfecting) two obvious and elementary faults (inflation/deflation and inherent multiplication of debt by interest) — the combination of which further solves all remaining irregularities (which must fall into the classification of systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, because this whole class of faults comprises the consequences of the two only powers to inflict any combination of the first faults [inflation/deflation and interest]).
The first of two patent questions of this account therefore is, "Do you mean that if inflation and deflation are defined respectively as increases/decreases in circulation per related wealth/assets[/whatever], that it is mathematically impossible to solve inflation or deflation, or that it is impossible to solve inflation or deflation mathematically?" Of course, it is obvious to anyone with the most elementary mathematic skills that the *only* way to solve inflation and deflation both is to maintain a circulation which at all times is equal to the value of represented property. So this is our first intrinsic process of mathematically perfected economy™.
The second patent question is, "And so if debt is inherently and irreversibly multiplied in proportion to a circulation by interest, it is impossible to solve multiplication of debt by interest?" Even more obviously then, our second obligatory aspect of solution is complete eradication of interest.
Given the predominate dogma, this second obligatory aspect of solution of course begs us further to answer a) how debt is inherently and irreversibly multiplied in proportion to a circulation by interest, and b) the question whether money must or should be loaned from existing circulation at interest. Obviously, we must answer these questions decisively. But particularly as we can decide these questions so clearly, it is just so obvious that indeed we can perfect economy mathematically. In fact, in understanding that the combination of our first two fundamental and elementary solutions eradicates all other faults, we understand that indeed we have mathematically perfected economy™.
So indeed do we accomplish specifically what the terms best express.
As to the assertion we should adopt a stratagem designed to succeed by delightful, specious names... this asks us too to give up both those arguments and a purposely accurate (and an evidently even provocative) expression, to compete solely on the level of those who do so only to deceive us. After all, to want specious names is to want both to avoid the meat of the matter, and to decide purported knowledge by terms which do not even intend to declare what is to be "known," or how we are to "know" it.
Is the so called "Patriot Act" even patriotic to the principles of a free republic; or does it attempt to preserve a foreign policy which is unsustainable, and itself outrageously foreign to the existence of independent, free republics, by destroying the very liberty likewise of the host republic? Is there even an honest or sound argument for what is speciously called, "honest money," or, "sound money"?
Moreover, what is the obvious and singular pattern of building any genuine discipline?
All true science adheres to explicit, distinguished definitions. We do not have in one case a term "inflation" referring to circulatory inflation, where in another case "inflation" refers to price inflation, and where in many other cases yet, "inflation" refers to price inflation as if the cause of price inflation is to be understood to be circulatory inflation, when in fact there isn't even a formal proof of such a thing; and on the contrary, in a monetary system subject to interest, price inflation in fact is driven by interest, which is the very thing which at the same time, the pseudo scientists advocate solves price inflation.
Obviously, we do not solve the cause of price inflation by increasing its cause, interest. Indeed we may produce the impression of that effect by making the costs of servicing debt so expensive within the maintainable circulation that price increases necessary to maintain margins of solubility cannot be sustained. But the purpose of this whole facade then is as transparent as its advocation by mere assertion. Follow the money, and you can only find that the only consequence of the facade is to perpetually maximize the unearned profit taken by interest — which of course for the sake of all the related deceptions furthermore is the whole purpose of imposing and perpetuating a system which intentionally prevents economy and sustainability, rather than establishing either.
But by exacting and complete identification of all these things only do you make full sense of all the involved factors — which the perceiver distinguishes by explicit, distinguished concepts which can only be represented by an equivalent refinement of the necessary terminology.
When there is a possible cause to deceive us, we know at least two things: The deceiver anticipates they cannot prevail over us without succeeding in their deceptions (particularly even in the remnant structures of a republic); and truth (which is only whole) is the only way to straighten our course.
But as the few well known and obvious techniques of disinformation rely on the artistic obfuscation of terminology, the first obligation and the first sign of a genuine discipline then is exacting terminology.
No matter how you slice it, the specific proposition before us is the proposition of mathematically perfected economy™; and in the case of the terms, mathematically perfected economy™, we are further to understand from the fact of singularity in the demonstrated fact of perfection, that what we can know only mathematically, is too the only road to true free enterprise, and to a truly free republic.
RELATED PRIMARY ARTICLES
"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)
