|
|
 it is their right, it is their duty... |
|
PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™ : 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 circulation. |
William B. Ryan Kent State University Capital Ownership Group Forum Ad Hominems Disprove Mathematically Perfected Economy™?
Thomas Jefferson 
The Bank of the United States is one of the most deadly hostilities existing against the principles and form of our Constitution. The system of banking is a blot [defect] left in [unsolved by, and unfortunately tolerated by] all our Constitutions [state and federal], which if not covered [eventually solved and revoked] will end in their destruction. I sincerely believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity is but swindling futurity [on the greatest possible scale]. INTRODUCTION Most of us tend to hope at least that conclusive resolution would never for a moment be denied opportunity to deliver needed economic justice and sustainability. Obstruction of monetary rectitude in a republic even failing under imposed monetary injustice lurks among the greatest crimes. Thus intervention of any kind against monetary representation begs scrutiny sufficient to apprehend the purposes and consequences of the terminal injustice and dispossession we so waywardly call "interest." While William B. Ryan's ad hominems and obfuscation may advance no real or useful discipline, critical thinkers will first question what possible benefit can descend from the obvious standards of participation which follow. Still it is the critical thinker who may be surprised most to hear everywhere that the "debt virus theory" or the "ten can't repay eleven fallacy" "have already been disproven," for we have to be rightfully cynical to anticipate how the following assertions will proliferate even by ostensibly implied credentials. Yet Mr. Ryan's intended disproof does not even address mathematically perfected economy™. It merely hopes to dispute that just one of many problems solved by mathematically perfected economy™ does not exist. As we shall see however, Mr. Ryan even disproves his own proposition that there is no such thing as inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt by interest. BACKGROUND Many years ago I was invited to the "Social Credit" forum, which discusses Douglas' "A + B" Theorem, which can be interpreted to be an early effort to resolve the issues solved by mathematically perfected economy™. There nonetheless, mathematically perfected economy™ immediately drew great ire led on by Mr. William B. Ryan, as exemplified in his following efforts at denunciation since. Why must we wade through the vituperation? Only because William B. Ryan, "think tanks," and others who will give the matter such poor attention may claim to have disproven mathematically perfected economy™; and you can't possibly know better otherwise. Enjoy.
William B. Ryan Kent State University Capital Ownership Group Forum Ad Hominems Disprove Mathematically Perfected Economy™? Cited Basis of William B. Ryan's Purported Refutation On Sun, 03 Nov 2002 of Kent State University's "Capital Ownership Group's" "Virtual Think Tank" pages, William B. Ryan posts an entire former PFMPE™ newsletter ("Leaders Fit For Fools") with the following introductory remarks against the proposition that a currency subject to interest inherently multiplies debt in proportion to a circulation: [1] I've been on this fellow's mailing list for some time. He is another crank I enjoy reading if only for the humor. To me, it's more fun than going to the zoo and looking at the funny animals. [2] His "mathematics" results in the profound conclusion that 2 + 2 = 5. [0] "...in any system where the currency is loaned into circulation as a debt subject to interest, it is mathematically impossible to maintain a circulation without debt increasing in proportion to that circulation, until the costs of debt consume the entire circulation, and commerce itself can no longer be afforded." [3] This is simply not true. William B. Ryan's Purported Disproof of What He Calls The "Ten Can't Repay Eleven Fallacy" In his subsequent post to himself, William B. Ryan presumes to disprove that this one problem of many solved by mathematically perfected economy™ even exists. I leave it to the reader to deduce why he does not distinguish the problem from mathematically perfected economy™ itself, particularly as many readers will assume (incorrectly) that the relevance of one problem and the solution of many others are equivalent, even if Mr. Ryan actually fails to disprove inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt by interest. Of course, neither I, nor Jefferson (sidebar), nor anyone else I am aware of ever put the problem in the terms Mr. Ryan may purposely obfuscate. Ryan's intended points are enumerated [p] for further discussion: [4] The typical way the cranks put it is this: If banks loan ten, where does the money come from to repay eleven? The difference between eleven and ten being, presumably, interest. [5] The question carries with it a number of implied false assumptions. [6] The question itself is false. [7] It begs the wrong answer. [8] The mistake is to try to answer it rather than questioning the question itself. [9] The following story falls within the same category of logical fallacies: "Three men go into a motel. "The man behind the desk said the room is $30, so each man paid $10 and went to the room. A while later the man behind the desk realized the room was only $25, so he sent the bellboy to the room with $5. On the way the bellboy couldn't figure out how to split the $5 evenly between the three men, so he gave each man $1 and kept the other $2 for himself. "This meant the three men each paid $9 for the room, which is a total of $27. [10] Add the $2 the bellboy kept = $29. "Where is the other dollar?" The predicate to the question should have been: Subtract the $2 the bellboy kept = $25. Where are the twenty-five dollars. Answer: The motel has it. As to the ten can't repay eleven fallacy, the answer is similar. [11] The flux representing the flow of loans is the very same money as the reflux in payment of principal plus interest--the reflux is the flux delayed in time. [12] Ten can't repay eleven falsely implies that the interest is something extraneous to loans, and must be extracted from outside the lending process. [13] In reality ten is repaying ten. [14] And it is empirically verifiable. Here's how: [15] At zero interest none of the reflux is allocated to interest; all of it is allocated to principal. At a rate of interest X, X is allocated to interest, and the reflux - X is allocated to principal. [16] It is entirely a matter of accounting in the books of lenders and borrowers. When plotted on the same graph against time, the flux and reflux curves are parallel regardless of the rate of interest. THIS IS A DISPROOF? So Mr. Ryan begins with ad hominems (1) and a surreal allegation (2), which he alleges represents the thesis of a selected truncated quote (0), which he merely asserts is not true (3). He resumes with further ad hominem to introduce a pretended summary he wholly invents himself (4). He then equates his pretended summary to an irrelevant story (9), which he asserts to have a similar answer to the "ten can't repay eleven fallacy" he has invented. By obvious standards, bona fide refutations must apply directly to the ostensibly refuted proposition. Rather than a credible approach at disproof, Mr. Ryan's efforts take the form of disinformation. He thus introduces his disproof (11...16) with remarkable analysis. Although the cited quote (0) is a statement, he refers to its purported equivalents with such leeway as to treat them as questions (5). Although a question is not an assertion, he then states that "the question is false" (6); that the question begs the wrong answer (7); and that "The mistake is to try to answer it" (8) — which he then purports to do. He then merely asserts that "The following story falls within the same category of logical fallacies" (9). Yet in the story, he simply obfuscates that we should add the $2 kept by the bell boy to the $27 ultimately paid for the room to account for the $25 originally paid out of $30, when obviously, the $25 intended cost of the room plus the $2 kept by the bell boy equals the amount actually paid for the room ($27); and the $27 actually paid for the room plus the $3 refunded is the equation to return the original $30 sum paid. Thus the only attempted trick question is Mr. Ryan's. In the body of the ostensible disproof provided within this diatribe nonetheless (11...16), it is reasonably clear that his terms flux and reflux (11) refer to the very process I cite by which we can only maintain a circulation by re-borrowing principal and interest paid out of the general circulation as [with "as," unequivocally expressing equality] subsequent sums of debt, which are increased so much as periodic interest [expressing the inherent transformation of paid interest, re-borrowed as debt (new principal)]. Contrary to his introductory assertions, no one misunderstands that the flux and reflux are equal if a circulation is maintained; and Mr. Ryan well knows that from his visits to the zoo, because he had to cherry-pick and truncate a quote to avoid 35 years of consistent explanation that a) having to re-borrow principal paid out of the general circulation as new debt negates the usual assumption that we can pay down the sum of debt; and that b) having to re-borrow interest paid out of the general circulation as new debt above the former sum of debt comprises the transformation of periodic interest into a greater sum of debt. Of course, I am not even aware of anyone who assumes that more has to be re-borrowed back into a circulation to maintain a circulation of what has been removed from it. So Mr. Ryan's point of argument itself is merely an invention. Thus we all understand that we have to re-borrow what we paid out of the circulation if we are to maintain a circulation. Moreover, this is plainly evident not only in the Excel spreadsheets I've made available for some 15 years (which Mr. Ryan could easily have examined), but in the source code and functionality of the models I provided the Reagan Administration, which were made available to public bulletin boards as early as 1983-4. Thus if Mr. Ryan had made the least effort to check the math, he would have found it in order before he made the false allegation he redundantly attempts to disprove. Moreover then, redundantly demonstrating that the "flux" and "reflux" are equal where a circulation is maintained disproves nothing of the attacked proposition, because in fact it is Mr. Ryan's misunderstanding or invention that inequality of the flux and reflux were presumed to engender inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt in proportion to a circulation, with the ultimate consequence being terminal collapse. On the contrary, what inherently multiplies debt in proportion to a maintained circulation is the plain and simple facts a) that re-borrowed payments against principal do not reduce the existent sum of debt; and b) that re-borrowed payments against interest are thus transformed into further debt. In Mr. Ryan's terminology, flux (interest + principal paid out of the general circulation) indeed equals reflux (a new principal, borrowed back to replenish the circulation). Thus the subsequent principal or resultant sum of debt is equal to the former principal or debt plus interest. Actually, if Mr. Ryan read his own words carefully, he would see that he disproved himself: "At a rate of interest X, X is allocated to interest, and the reflux - X is allocated to principal." (15) That's exactly right. In re-borrowing interest, interest is converted to new principal (debt), which, because it exceeds the previous sum of debt, is indeed how much debt increases. Thus indeed, a circulation subject to interest inherently and irreversibly multiplies debt in proportion to the circulation, even by inherently greater increments of periodic interest on ever greater sums of debt, until the system collapses under a sum of debt it can no longer service. Nice try. But I think it would be a good idea to be more careful with the word, "crank." RYAN'S UNDONE MATH AND BOOK KEEPING ENTRIES 
So here is the very graph of the math Mr. Ryan neither performed according to his own prescription nor viewed in his visits to the zoo (from which he could have downloaded his asserted chart), wherein equal flux (principal and interest) re-borrowed (re-fluxed) as the subsequent sum of debt accumulate ever greater debt until the costs of servicing debt are terminal. Thus as I have explained to Mr. Ryan personally before, indeed as we pay principal and 10% interest out of a 100-unit circulation and re-borrow the interest on the original 100 hypothetical units of debt, the sum of debt increases annually from 100 units to 110, 121, 133, 146, 161, 177, 195, 214, 236, 259, 285, 314, 345, 380, 418, 459, 505, 556, 612, 673, and to 740 units in 21 years, whereat servicing the 740-unit sum of debt (including the 5% dedicated to principal in the hypothetical [which you can alter however you want, Bill]) requires 100.912 units — more of course than the entire circulation (100), and leaving nothing at all to sustain whatever commerce is obligated to service the debt it can no longer afford to service. So indeed we see — and particularly in a chart of equal flux and reflux (or otherwise) — that the transformation of interest into principal inherently and irreversibly multiplies debt until at most, an inherent maximum possible lifespan is reached — or actually, until it stumbles upon its general practical lifespan, which must fall short of the maximum "possible" lifespan. For William B. Ryan and such others' further edification then, in a chart accounting for the 5% dedicated to servicing principal, the annual costs of servicing debt are 15, 16.500, 18.150, 19.965, 21.962, 24.158, 26.573, 29.231, 32.154, 35.369, 38.906, 42.797, 47.076, 51.784, 56.962, 62.659, 68.925, 75.817, 83.399, 91.739, and 100.912 units respectively for the 21-year maximum possible lifespan of the system. So in the end Mr. Ryan, you prove what you set out to disprove. In your own words: "At a rate of interest X, X is allocated to interest, and the reflux - X is allocated to principal." (15) A Question for Kent State University According to the home page for the Capital Ownership Group at Kent State University (http://cog.kent.edu/), a purpose of COG is "to abate the negative effects of globalization." But if mathematically perfected economy™ is not even urgently embraced to avert the failure of an inherently terminal system evident everywhere about us, what we have at the Kent State University "Capital Ownership Group" therefore is no less than a prevailing "quality" of thinking which occupies no less than hundreds of purported economists in nothing less than perpetually OBSTRUCTING mathematically perfected economy™. Of course, we can understand two reasons they would resist MPE™ for their own hides at the expense of ours, because 1) in a pre-MPE™ era the proposition of MPE™ demonstrates their uselessness in failing to develop a bona fide discipline conducive to solution; and 2) in an established MPE™ era, MPE™ will certainly render them useless for their lack of any possible further purpose such as the extended tenure over which they failed forever at their original purported purpose. There is simply no place for false economists in true economy; and from their fragile but so consistent solidarity, we might even expect that they know so. Thus while their false "economy" inflicts so much damage upon the rest of humanity by inherently and irreversibly multiplying debt even to collapse, they preserve unearned profit at the expense of true free enterprise, and even our country. Why tell us about that then, especially if they cannot even give us any better reasons than Mr. Ryan's, and they're bound to piss off somebody who can? According to the liberally re-written history of a previous era, Montezuma sent jests to head off Cortez, hoping only to so distract him by feigning a stupidity incapable of communicating the direction of their capitol — all so that the Aztec empire might not be destroyed. "Similarly," Kent State University's "Capital Ownership Group" "think tank" gives us irreversible, terminal, ever escalating usury, William B. Ryan, and a purposely falsified "science" so destructive it must be destroyed for solution and rectitude to prevail.
"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." |
pfmpe[ at ]perfecteconomy[ dot ]com Gross National Public Debt Clock "National debt," perhaps better said to be "federal debt," refers only to public debt accumulated by the federal government. National debt does not include the even greater sum of private debt, or further public debt accumulated by state and local governments. PER CAPITA, THE CURRENT FEDERAL PUBLIC DEBT COMES TO APPROXIMATELY THIRTY-THOUSAND DOLLARS. FIGURED AT THE ROUGH SCALE USED BELOW TO DETERMINE RESPONSIBILITY FOR PRIVATE DEBT, THE AVERAGE FEDERAL DEBT WOULD BE ROUGHLY $93,750 PER ELDER ADULT MOST RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCUMULATION OF FEDERAL DEBT. BUT LIKE PRIVATE DEBT, THE UNDUE BURDENS OF THIS SHARE WILL SIMPLY BE SADDLED UPON YOUNGER GENERATIONS. Javascript must be enabled for zfacts.com to display the clock's real time gross national public debt data. PER CAPITA U.S. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE DEBT Estimates of the sum of private and public U.S. debt together, accounting for potential Social Security and Medicare liabilities as of November, 2007, run as much as more than $96 trillion; or $320,000 per capita even for infants; OR AN AVERAGE OF ROUGHLY HALF A MILLION DOLLARS PER ADULT. THIS EQUATES TO ROUGHLY $1 MILLION PER ELDER ADULT, MOST RESPONSIBLE FOR ENGENDERING THIS DEBT.
BROWSER INSTRUCTIONS 
TO ADD THIS PAGE TO YOUR BOOKMARKS OR FAVORITES...
BOOKMARKS > BOOKMARK THIS PAGE 
TO MAKE THIS PAGE YOUR BROWSER'S HOME PAGE... TOOLS > OPTIONS... 
SPREAD THE WORD! PEOPLE MAY NEVER COME HERE UNLESS YOU RECOMMEND THIS MATERIAL! TO SEND THIS PAGE AS A LINK OR PAGE... FILE > SEND... CLICK THE COPY-TO-CLIPBOARD TOOLS TO...
COPY THE URL TO THIS PAGE:
COPY THE HTML CODE FOR AN ANCHOR TO THIS PAGE:
COPY THE HTML CODE FOR AN ANCHOR TO OUR HOME PAGE:
PLEASE SUPPORT PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™!
DONATIONS FROM JANUARY 1979 TO APRIL 2008, $0.00!!! My great appreciation to Max Demarzi, who donated $100 on May 11, 2008. |
|
|
RELATED REFUTATIONS/REVIEWS OF CONTROVERSIAL MONETARY PROPOSITIONS
del.icio.us
FaceBook
NewsVine
reddit
Example Austrian School Rejections of Mathematically Perfected Economy™
mike montagne's mathematically perfected economy™ BLOG
PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™ is the original and only bona fide solution to the world's imposed, falsified economic systems. On November 7, 1998, tens of thousands of voters designated PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™ a Starting Point HOT SITE. Since the early 1990s, even while subject to extensive imitation and plagiarism, we have served up to hundreds of thousands of visitors per month, from all parts of the world.
Copyright 1979-2008 by mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
BEST VIEWED WITH MOZILLA FIREFOX™ AND FULL USAGE OF A BROWSER WINDOW AT LEAST 1450 PIXELS WIDE.