End The Fed Network

Sound Money for America! Audit the Fed - Repeal the Federal Reserve Act!

Austrian Economics is not the answer. Gold is not the answer. Ron Paul´s idea´s are not the answer.

Here´s my reply back to www.mises.org on when they asked me why i un-subscribed from their website. Dear Chad, I have been looking around on your website (www.mises.org) but i wasn´t able to find mathematically proof of presenting a sustainable solution for a sound monetary system en therefore economy. Even more worrying is the fact that your organisation also promotes interest as a tool to use. Interest in itself will make any monetary model terminal by default by further multiplication of debt. On top of that you promote a return to the gold standard. While the gold standard can neither save us from further multiplication of debt or rectify the other issues before us, simply re-invoking the gold standard would pave the way for immediate loss of "our" monetary gold, for already twenty years ago, the perpetual process of multiplying debt had plunged us from the greatest creditor nation in the world to its lowliest debtor nation. For the very purposes of the lie, "our" currency is now held in immense quantities across the world; and thus even if "we" held gold for money instead of paper, our inevitable collapse under perpetually multiplying indebtedness therefore will mean giving up the last of our former gold, rather than the last of a mere paper, as we tolerate the imposition of a Second Great Depression. I am now even more worried about our financial future, unless we advocate Mathematically Perfected Economy (MPE) in which we mathematically have proven the above, but are also offering a real immediate solution to the current terminal system. For more information you can visit the following links: www.perfecteconomy.com http://endtheecb.ning.com/video/mathematically-perfected Kind regards, Jack http://endtheecb.ning.com

Views: 257

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

have you heard of Walter Burien? if not,,, take the time to learn how we have been duped ... http://video.google.com/videosearch?rlz=1C1RNNN_enUS358US358&so...
Burien is only raising downstream consequences of government corruption. While of course this corruption must be eliminated, nonetheless, because it is not a systemic monetary issue, it implies nothing toward solution. In visiting some of the videos referred to by your link, I see that some people (perhaps even Mr. Burien himself) have misunderstood that the income taken by the government ownership of enterprise (which is what he is exposing) could be applied to government expense, thus eliminating the need for taxation.

This is self destructive thinking (if thinking at all). Do the math; you aren't eliminating taxation at all; you're instead paying the taxes through a vehicle of corruption — thus simply transferring the cost somewhere else, *and in the process* preserving the very corruption you ought to want to eliminate.

Since when should government be in business? Its duty is to provide whatever infrastructures we decide serve us; and furthermore, to impose the costs of those infrastructures according to consumption. The concept of a republic was never to engage in regular enterprise; nothing could be more foreign to the purpose of a republic, which exists primarily to sustain just reward and true free enterprise. There would be no true free enterprise, if government were allowed to compete with us. For example, for the portions or Google which the government owns, it could selectively obscure the visibility of sites like this. Why? Because under a central banking system such as we have been subjected to without our assent, the central banking system eventually comes to be the real owner of everything. It thus owns politics, largely for omnipotent financial power to put anyone into office who will turn a blind eye to its iniquitous existence. This is not just how it persists; this subversion of representation is absolutely vital to its persistence as an iniquitous entity.

Thus you can assure yourselves that if you are to tolerate government involvement in business, such sites as this will disappear from the Google map.

There is no need or object for government to be involved in business. What we are after is monetary justice; and if we can't focus on that together, there isn't even any point in our participation here.

That means realizing the difference between solution and mere treatment of consequences which may have no power whatever to resolve fundamental cause for our predicament. It's important to know about what Mr. Burien exposes; but it is not the fundamental cause of monetary injustice or failure.
Don't feel bad Mike, we all are sound-bite conditioned where most miss the prime point to look in right field as it all takes place in left field. It appears you need some clarification to catch the point I am making especially in my documentary released last week "The Only Game in Town - The Way Our Government Can Be" (the one you glanced at was from 2000)


1. You say government should not be in "Business". Well, to late... as we slept over the last sixty years government took it all over by investment. Collective government is now the primary OWNERS of the banks; insurance; Brokerage; fortune 500 companies by investment. Not "1" government but through the 174,000 registered local government entities and federal as a "collective". The #1 investor for all public debt is government itself.. They promote debt at the front door and finance the same debt using their own investment assets through the back door. When looking at governments "gross" income, investment income is now greater than all taxation collected. In order of gross income it is: Investment; Tax; Enterprise

2. The "primary' point of comprehension I am trying to teach is: Taxation is NOT needed. Government can meet all operating expenses that currently are funded by taxation through what I call the TRF (Tax Retirement Funds) that would be set up for that purpose. Normal pension funds pay for a salary and benefits at retirement, a TRF fund pays for ongoing government budgetary expenses into perpetuity where taxation is not lowered but eliminated..

3. The "existing" structure is here right now to make this happen at the stroke of a pen. Government's own investment management teams that have excellent track records are in place to manage TRF funds through assigned diversification to each TRF fund. TRF funds would grow to massive levels in a very short period of time and through capital investment drive the economy for the next thousand years with a prosperity factor unequaled. No taxation with 100% disposable income maintained by the consumer spent into the economy; thus excellent investment returns; thus more than ample funds generated for government operations. The public gets the yolk taken off their backs of taxation (extortion no matter from what direction you look at it from); businesses thrive; and government maintains... a win - win for all concerned.

4. The transparency is accomplished to kill about 70% of the corruption; the "intent" of government changes from expand, expand, expand to take it all over and out of the TRF principle of operation transitions into a smaller; more efficient; less intrusive structure.

5. Why is this not in place today? ANS: Easy money and a blind population being masterfully entertained to be oblivions to the basics of the above DUE TO THE MONEY and CONTROL involved at this time. There is no accident that 70% of our elected officials are attorneys. Just as jackals tearing at the carcass of a fresh kill, they are walking with as much cash as they can get their hands on today and dotting the "I's" and crossing the "T's" to lock in the productivity value of the next five generations.. Keep in mind that due to the money (wealth transfer) involved, it is essential that they put out the best sound-bite distractions and misdirections possible to keep the populace off in la-la land maintained in a complete "void" of comprehension to the basics stated here... And my do they do an excellent job with the utilization of almost unlimited cash obtained under the current status quo. Hell the general populace is so sound bit conditioned that 65% would be backed off and have their minds shut down by a comment like: "Oh, you would have to be a total idiot to think that would work!" But luckily for the rest there is a 10% factor that will not be bullied into blind submission and ask in reality: "Why not?" and move it forward into reality.

In my new documentary I give the example of the Mesa, AZ Police Department that already has been doing this for over two decades. Eight-five % of their budget is satisfied in the same way a TRF would operate.. You don't hear a peep about it in the news or from any political party being I guess they don't want to give anyone else ideas that effects "their" easy money and control derived from taxation.

So Mike, I hope the above has been helpful to break through the wall of the void created in your mind over decades DUE TO THE MONEY AND CONTROL involved and under the disposal of "others"..

Walter Burien - CAFR1.com
Very well Walter,

But of course, anyone who has done this 25 years — much moreso 30 and 40 — is well aware that our fellows are sound bite conditioned. Yet as we seldom convey meaningful understanding of such challenging and obfuscated topics with 800-word vocabularies and no more than three-word sentences, the importance of the material predicates whether it is delivered at all in the only form which truly conveys its intended understandings. Successful government of a republic requires that a populace develop sufficiently exacting understanding of its issues; therefore let's not be obstructed or limited to third grade vocabularies or sentence structures. We who will meet the challenges of our countries will struggle however necessary. Certainly a few minutes with the dictionary cannot be replaced by mere persistent ignorance.

1. "You say government should not be in 'Business'. Well, to late..."

No, on the contrary it is never too late to repair a republic, or none of us would be here. The question then is whether to get government out of business, or to further its existence in business as your method of taxation evidently further prescribes.

2. "The 'primary' point of comprehension I am trying to teach is: Taxation is NOT needed. Government can meet all operating expenses that currently are funded by taxation through what I call the TRF (Tax Retirement Funds) that would be set up for that purpose."

What you tell us then directly conflicts with what you mean to tempt us to do. Is there some way your proposed program ACTUALLY ELIMINATES cost to us — the very costs of "taxation?" Absolutely not. So at best, you only suggest we pay in one way versus another. You're not demonstrating that taxation is NOT needed. You're in fact only imposing the taxation in a different way.

The question is then, why is your way the way?

3. "The "existing" structure is here right now to make this happen at the stroke of a pen."

Maybe so, and maybe not. But this is absolutely irrelevant unless your way is the way; unless it solves all the monetary issues; and unless the existent structure is in fact desirable, in fact further, because it is the most desirable structure. Just because we toss a square of cardboard across the yard doesn't make it an ideal wing for a given aeronautical design mission.

4. "The transparency is accomplished to kill about 70% of the corruption;"

Again, irrelevant unless the previous requisites are met. I propose to eradicate 100% of the corruption. Why should we settle for less; and why would you propose anything is a solution which eradicates only 70%?

5. "Why is this not in place today? ANS: Easy money and a blind population being masterfully entertained to be oblivions to the basics of the above DUE TO THE MONEY and CONTROL involved at this time."

No one in a republic should be swayed by the arguments you provide here, because a solution IS a solution; that is, it leaves absolutely nothing unsolved.

All you are proposing to do is to sweep the costs from one place to another, so that it appears (I suppose?) there is no cost. This is no different than a central banking system telling us it has solved or "fought" "inflation" by increasing interest rates. Shall we shout, "Hooray!" while we're paying even more in interest — so much more in fact that industry is unable to maintain vital margins of solubility because the market is so deprived of currency which can be dedicated to that purpose, and while the higher rates of interest even multiply artificial indebtedness at yet faster rates? Of course not. This would be utterly stupid — even if we have done so for a hundred (or hundreds of) years!

You're telling us then that the costs are not PAID FOR in whatever means the funds are taken? Of course they are; so there is NEVER any meritable argument to purportedly eliminating taxes by obfuscating some other stream of funds to take the costs there, versus somewhere else!

You call that eliminating taxes? It's just another form of imposing the costs.

But of course I am with you on reducing taxes as much as possible; and so I explain that mathematically perfected economy™ is your only alternative for so reducing ultimate government costs, because it is the only monetary prescription which eradicates all extrinsic costs:

Obviously we are headed the same direction with all this, so I hope you will carefully consider this explanation; and I hope that you don't mind if I raise a principle which I find lacking in your proposed 70% solution which in fact is critical to absolute representation.

That is, as you recall, our founders stood against "taxation without representation." We can argue until we are blue in the face over the possible/probable implications of this expression. But I know that any taxation levied upon me which is not directly proportionate to my voluntary consumption of the ostensible service/infrastructure, and which costs therefore involve no extrinsic cost whatsoever... I know that exceeding these bounds is "unjust taxation" by definitions which I hold dear; and I also observe that others are offended by exceeding these bounds.

So, if you will, please let me explain what "just taxation" can and cannot be.

Here then is what I mean by "solution"; and this is why nothing but 100% solution is any solution at all:

Two problems exist then with your purported solution of taxation:

1A. It does not resolve the obfuscated nature and unjust consequences of the currency, to which all possibilities of just taxation are subject.

2A. Nor does it directly associate the means and proportions of taxing with willful consumption of rendered service/infrastructure.

Both are vital, indispensable principles. Here is why:

1B. If you don't resolve the nature of the currency, then eventually, and soon enough, nobody will even be able to afford your method of taxation!

No, it doesn't matter what you call solution, even if it were solution, because as we maintain a circulation under the current, imposed systems of exploitation, we are obliged to perpetually re-borrow principal and interest as ever greater sums, and eventually a terminal sum of debt. Your subjects go bankrupt; you can say the peripheral banks loaned bad debts, even as the obfuscated currency of the central banking system itself is responsible for making the debts "bad"; the whole system fails; and no matter whether you didn't save the subjects a penny by convincing them they were eliminating taxes... even your method can no longer "work."

So there is no method of just taxation whatever without just economy: Just economy first.

2B. Now, a further problem I have with your proposition, even as it cannot reduce cost (and even as it inherently imposes greater costs than just taxation under just economy), is that it doesn't link payment directly with consumption.

This is a principle which should never be abandoned, because it opens the door for obfuscation, and therefore for exploitation and corruption. Only when the price for what we get IS the price for what we get, can we rationally determine whether the price for what we get is just. The obfuscation you suggest in fact is a regular principle of corruption!

So no proposition which ignores this principle truly solves for all the conditions which "solution" must account for.

3. Another issue of actual solution is expedience/overhead. Your proposition perhaps meets this requisite, because, assumably, it would eliminate overhead to the consumer of the service/infrastructure.

But as your proposition fails on the first and second counts, it can be no solution of at all.

The only solution therefore is:

1C. to resolve the categoric faults of pretended economy so that industry and economy are sustainable, and that whatever means the taxation is levied can be afforded;

2C. to directly associate the means of taxation — free of ALL extrinsic cost (which is only possible in mathematically perfected economy™) — with whatever service/infrastructure is willfully consumed, in proportion to that voluntary consumption;

3C. and to do so, wherever possible, without any overhead, or thus, with minimal practical overhead.

Thus for instance, we might pay for our consumption of roads with fuel taxes.

All this of course is the very means of taxation which is intrinsic to mathematically perfected economy™ — the reduced costs of which are impossible to meet by your proposition, AT LEAST because it does not resolve the fundamental flaws of the present pretended economy, which can only multiply artificial indebtedness into terminal costs and inevitable failure.

The question is then, Walter, why would you (or anyone else) have any problem with that? Thus why would you promote anything less as "solution"?
Call a duck a cow as long and as hard as you want, people with eyes open will see a duck.

Per solution, let the readers see and think an face value what solution they wish.

Ownership? The people have lost it all through the slick talking ilk that have greased their pockets for centuries at others expense. Taxation is not needed. Your whole argument falls flat on its face due the blind justification of pitching taxation as if necessary and between the lines throwing out smoke and mirrors of discussion of cows when I am talking ducks..

To get to the bottom line with no further obfuscation of justifying the theft of others productivity value through taxation, if you look at the "collective" total of government pension funds it is in the trillions, that generate trillions EACH YEAR and have driven in their own way the economy for the last sixty, that is INVESTMENT income not taxation income. Who investment income benefits directly is the issue of ownership.. Does government own the people or do the people own government. TRFs return ownership to the people; creates capital reinvestment of unequaled proportions; AND changes the society from a CASH; TAXATION; and INVESTMENT society to a CASH and INVESTMENT society only. If you do not call that a solution, I have to ask myself one question and that is: What is your intent behind your writings... it sure as hell would not be taking the yolk of theft and oppression off the backs of the populace and returning ownership of the wealth that is RIGHTFULLY theirs back to their direct benefit. That is MY intent, and No it is not uninformed good intentions but it is sound fundamental application..

No more smoke and mirrors please. The people and I are getting a little tired of obfuscation to distract from the basics of true ownership availed and their continued depletion at the profit of others..
From what i understand (i know nothing about U.S. Tax & Pensions) is that no matter what you throw at it in the (intermediate term) your will still end up with a death duck! Unless you solve the real fundamental problems.
PS: I only have 32 years of seeing it from the inside looking out. I looked at an article today that put a smile on my face so I shred it with quite a few. Here is the post I put out regarding what was brought to my attention:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Walter Burien"
Sent: Wed, February 3, 2010 16:01
Subject: Who got 92% OF THE VOTE and has been in office for 31 years?


Who got 92% OF THE VOTE and has been in office for 31 years?

Is 88 years old and runs the 3rd largest city in the country that is debt free?


Sent FYI from,

Walter Burien - CAFR1.com
Irrelevant gibberish.

Does your pretended solution ACTUALLY eliminate cost?
if you look at the "collective" total of government pension funds it is in the trillions, that generate trillions EACH YEAR and have driven in their own way the economy for the last sixty, that is INVESTMENT income not taxation income.

Sure, Walter!

So it's not costing us any money! SHOW US HOW!
"If you do not call that a solution, I have to ask myself one question and that is: What is your intent behind your writings... it sure as hell would not be taking the yolk of theft and oppression off the backs of the populace and returning ownership of the wealth that is RIGHTFULLY theirs back to their direct benefit."


YOU, yourself, admit it is only 70-some-odd-percent "solution." If it leaves the door open to corruption; and this is your only offense — ducks and cows — I can see why you're so upset. Seems to me, a fella who brings accusations of ducks and cows to his defense, claiming everyone will see the light, is reaching for limits of credibility which would shame what comes out of ducks and cows.

But thank you for painting us a picture of your vision of solution, and invalidation of solution — so gracefully, you didn't even have to answer to the issues.
And as to your gifted assault on my attempt Walter, how do you propose eradicating 1) inflation and deflation, 2) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and 3) inherent, irreversible, and therefore terminal multiplication of artificial indebtedness... how do you propose that solution isn't the only way to lift the yolk of oppression?

Is there more than one solution, Walter?



© 2014   Created by Steven Vincent.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service