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

[jack]

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

[Robert M]

Because they will have to comply to the Gold Standard as set, no more, no less. What part of equal, no interest, no taxes don't you understand? No wonder Walter is staying away from the inane arguments on here!

[Todd Marshall]

"What part of equal, no interest, no taxes don't you understand?"

All parts I guess.

Todd Marshall
Plantersville, TX

[Robert M]

Get a life! Join the American Patriots' reclamation movement. Stop dissing the Walter Burien ideology. he's right, y'know!!

[jack]

In a former Ron Paul Meetup forum, a forum correspondent writes only:

Pass it on…

http://www.endthefed.us/

In a campaign of quantity versus quality, the so called Ron Paul Movement has bought up every conceivable domain name only implying whatever Mr. Paul and his family of “Austrian Economists” merely claim is “sound money.”

While even Benjamin Franklin long ago (at the age of 23) substantially invalidated the gold standard, and while my work for the last 30+ years emphatically invalidated Mr. Paul’s arguments long before he chose to persist in them, Mr. Paul himself of course has refused to answer once to these arguments in twenty years.

But so, twenty years of evasion therefore establish some unknown prospect or even possibility of returning to the gold standard?

To perpetually assert what is not solution is a perpetual affront to solution.

Thus I reply:


MPE?

In my opinion, these late comers to the anti-privatized currency movement, who keep advocating gold despite its obvious faults and impossibilities, are hugely at fault for perpetually infusing public confusion.

There’s a claimed $70 b of monetary gold on hand at the U.S. Treasury ??and China, who we owe many times that, has spent much of the last year going after it.

Thanks in fact to the improprieties which gold standard advocates will not answer to, in fact we presently owe many times all the gold in the world. The mere dream of a return to the gold standard therefore is no more than the brain child of the brain dead.

But even more to the discredit of its inept assertions, the “gold is money” movement has been for profit from the beginning ??to itself coin unconstitutional money.

Moreover, its ostensible premises were invalidated before it started: Ron Paul, Edwin Vieira, and its other heads were apprised so when some of them asked for my blessing from the very beginning.

All the monetary gold in all the world will not sustain but a fraction of present industry ??even of the relatively little industry surviving the present, monumental multiplication of artificial world debt.

Gold therefore will not even solve our debts, should we be so stupid as to further give up the world’s gold for those artificial debts; nor would a return to gold even allow us to continue servicing those artificial debts: Present commerce, obligated to continue servicing present sums of debt, would immediately collapse if the world’s circulations were immediately restricted to what is redeemable in the world’s monetary gold. This preposterous idea therefore ??already proven a failure a hundred years ago ??merely appeals to simpletons too lazy or self deluded to understand the real problem and rectify it.

Incredibly costly tokens of value are not a blessing: They instead are an incredible misconception which has not staved failure before, and will not stave failure again. It isn’t the cost of the currency which will save us from multiplying debt. It is rectifying the nature of the currency ??adopting the one form of currency which cannot and will not devalue.

So if instead we held fast to that principle, then there would not even be a need for the idea of a purported (invalid) capacity to redeem the currency with a finite quantity of a mere material, the quantity of which we have over and over again outgrown. When the music stopped playing under any gold standard ??none of which have staved failure ??just as it will tomorrow… there weren’t enough chairs.

Nor of course will gold arrest multiplication of debt by interest.

What you should study therefore is the people behind this movement, who are largely “Austrian Economists.”

They believe math cannot be applied to “economics,” not for analysis, not for solution, not for projection.

Instead of recognizing the inherent, irreversible consequences of “interest,” they advocate interest ??which multiplies debt in proportion to a vital circulation, as it compels us to replenish the circulation of interest and principal by perpetually re-borrowing interest and principal as subsequent sums of debt, perpetually increased so much as periodic interest.

What do they want then, but to be the private bankers collecting that interest, saying gold will save you from them?

Why won’t Ron Paul answer to the proposition of mathematically perfected economy?? Because he can prove anything else will solve inflation, deflation, and perpetual multiplication of dispossession and debt, by interest?

For crying out loud, [person’s name], usury on such a scale is perhaps the greatest possible crime on the scale it is presently exercised. The wars we are fighting, when it comes down to it, are fought over usury. The American Revolution was over usury. And these advocates of a gold standard which has never saved you and will never save you, want to preserve usury.

Think about that.

[Steven Jensen]

Okay, what is your answer then Jack? Where do we go from here in your opinion?

S. Jensen

[jack]

http://www.perfecteconomy.org/pg-amendment.html

There is no other solution. Regulation can only temper an inherently terminal process.

Best regards,
Jack

[Steven Jensen]

I am not an economist I am a psychologist, (well a bachelors & reading (far more informative than my professors I assure you). I realize that expecting math to accurately describe human behavior is a ridiculous assumption that should not be considered economic doctrine.. It seems to me you are saying we are screwed regardless of what we do, that there is no clean way out that will give people real money for their work and ingenuity and savings. Well If we are to believe your assumptions should we not hole up in a cave with our rations?

There must be a solution to this problem. Can we not have a currency based on usable goods (Crops, base Metals, Nat Gas, Oil, coal, etc. and Gold/Silver?) A basket of commodities? If not please offer advice on how else to build our economy or how to build my bunker...

[jack]

I just sended you the solution in my previous reply. Please take your time to read it.

Where there is interest on money brought into circulation, there will be failure. It’s inevitable.

You need to distinct between money being issued into circulation with interest/usury and money already in circulation.
Take that as the first principle and the rest will be a revelation!

We do not try to capture human behaviour into math's. We even don't like to use the WE word as we believe in individualism and freedom. We are for a free economy that won't eventually collapse under the burden of debt.

There is no mystery to projecting the pattern of failure engendered by any purported economy subject to interest.
As interest multiplies debt in proportion to a circulation, ever more of every existing dollar is dedicated to servicing multiplying debt, and ever less of every existing dollar can be dedicated to sustaining the commerce which is obligated to service the multiplying debt. Everything around you can be understood from the obvious consequences.

We criticise the fact that governments pay interest for the use of our own money which the central bank creates "out of nothing" (to use William Paterson's famous phrase). This leaves the state of a nation's economy susceptible to the interests of private bankers who create the money solely for the purpose of creating ongoing profits for their employees and shareholders, without any other binding social or legal obligations to the broader community (or future generations) that are normally expected from government entities. Either private individuals or corporations borrow to fund themselves and their businesses, or government "borrows" money from the central bank to fund deficit spending.

As long as Central Banks keep printing OUR money AGAINST INTEREST nothing will change. It´s the Interest!


Rick Zimmerman did a good job answering your question on a commodity backed currency. It won't fly!

I think you are missing the point about Austrian School Advocates:
If you have gold or silver backed currency,
the supply of money is finite, we would all agree!!!
So if you have a finite supply of money and let say banks charge a rate of 10%.
The more loans the banks make, the more interest they will earn, the more money they control!
So what happens when they are holding a majority of the money supply, our economic freedom is in their hands they can charge what ever the market will bear, think about that when the economy is robust and people need money. The true problem will be when there is not enough mnoney in circulation to service the debt FORECLOSURE then THE ECONOMY is done, just like the present economic problem same result THE ECONOMY is done. All you intellectuals cant see the obvious, interest is a means to transfer the wealth away from the people to the few wealthy people who control the banks and therefore the destruction ot the economy and the looting of property, it will always happen. Usury is wrong !!!! 1000s of years ago this was known how can we not be aware of this? Yes it is the lack of education I wonder why this is not taught these days??? Gold and Silver are just commodities they are not labor true money besides you cant eat either it would be bad for your teeth. LOL

[mike montagne — founder, PFMPE™]

"I realize that expecting math to accurately describe human behavior is a ridiculous assumption that should not be considered economic doctrine.."

How exactly does anyone realize that math cannot be expected to accurately "describe" human behavior? You mean to tell me if you take ten steps straight ahead, and the average length of your step is 35 inches, I can't tell you'll be *approximately* (which IS the "accuracy" of the projection) 350 inches ahead, in the direction of travel?

The pretended Austrian "economists" of our day constantly tell me there's no way to project monetary failure, to recognize the cause of failure, or to develop or prove solution — asserting (stating without proorf) that this is because math can't account for indeterminate human behavior.

Since when is a fundamental, ongoing, irreversible process — which is necessary to carry out merely to maintain a vital circulation, and which (therefore) IS transpiring all the while a vital circulation IS maintained — since when is ANY "indeterminate behavior involved"?

NO "indeterminate human behavior" whatever is involved; if there were such a fantasical obstruction in fact, the very banks couldn't calculate your next months' interest! In fact, that's the very process my models projected the present failure from 1983! All those models do is re-borrow the principal and interest you have to pay out of the general circulation in the way of servicing debt; and re-borrow so much as necessary to maintain a vital circulation. Because the money can't return to circulation any other ways, there is no "indeterminate human behavior" whatever involved; and so the models hold, because you can calculate even with tremendous accuracy, the very moment of theoretical failure — which only can be forestalled by temporary, artificial means.



"It seems to me you are saying we are screwed regardless of what we do, that there is no clean way out that will give people real money for their work and ingenuity and savings."

When a system can only multiply artificial indebtedness in proportion to a finite capacity to service debt, until you suffer terminal failure; and when someone explains that to you, that does not translate into "we are screwed regardless of what we do." What it translates to is, a) you best understand the problems before you, because a consensual republic only solves its problems by a singular possible solution, when and if it CAN identify that solution; and b) you best not delay in adopting that solution.

Is there more than one solution to inflation and deflation? Absolutely not. Is there more than one solution to inherent, irreversible multiplication of artificial indebtedness by interest? Absolutely not. Is there more than one solution to systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property? Absolutely not: it's solved only by the integral solution of the first and second solutions.

So you were sent to the solution; and you deduce "that there is no clean way out that will give people real money for their work and ingenuity and savings"?

Absolutely not. You just read the only clean way — the one and only prescription for immutable money — or what Mr. Paul calls "honest money," but refuses to debate. If you read that explanation carefully enough, you'd already have the answer. Read it again; and if you want to debate the answer still, I'll gladly take it up with you. Otherwise, you're the problem. It's second grade math; a seven year old can do it. Where do you come in with the idea "indeterminate human behavior" is involved?



"Well If we are to believe your assumptions should we not hole up in a cave with our rations?"

If it is more difficult or less rational for you to understand and solve your problems, you're probably right. What you're telling us is that you'd rather spend 3 or 4 houses for every house you might have for a while, dragging the rest of us down with you. I think you can do better; in fact I know you can. You don't even have those rations. But if you understood the problems before us, we'd all be standing on the same side of the line, demanding, and standing for nothing less than the one solution of 1) inflation and deflation; 2) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property; and 3) inherent, irreversible multiplication of artificial indebtedness into terminal debt.

Not to pick on you... we need you... and we need you to do better... just a little better.



"There must be a solution to this problem. Can we not have a currency based on usable goods (Crops, base Metals, Nat Gas, Oil, coal, etc. and Gold/Silver?) A basket of commodities?"

You asked the golden question. Jack put the answer in your hand. Just take it, man, we need you to do just a little clear thinking. What you are being told is not that there is no answer; you're given the arguments that there is no answer but THE answer.

You can do it. We all can. Let's get off our duffs and get it done.

[jack]

Gold is and has always been one of the bankers tools to control the economy
and it's people. Gold is not solution but a deadly alternative.

So why do i own gold then?

As long as they do not convert to a sustainable solution i will be holding
gold as protection because it's the only poor option we have.
It's not ideal, it's not perfect, and it's absolutely no solution.

http://www.perfecteconomy.org/pg-amendment.html

Because there is no other solution. Regulation can only temper an inherently
terminal process.

[Kenneth Lowndes]

You have said:

"Gold is and has always been one of the bankers tools to control the economy and it's people. Gold is not solution but a deadly alternative."

My Reply: So is paper also in use by Banksters. And for purposes far more deadly then all that gold. So we should all stop using toilet paper? This Idea of Gold being a "deadly" alternative kind of stinks, if you can catch my drift. The silver standard makes far better sense.
Silver being the poor mans gold.
We certainly DO need to fundamentally alter the current Federal Reserve Fraud System, ABOLISH IT AND ditch it in it's entirelty, and then work for and with Honest money.

Only the dishonest will object.
There is a reason behind the word Honest, placed in front of the word money. When printing money of no value meets up with real value, which one survives? Which one deserves to survive such?

Let's go fill up two houses, sitting side by side. Fill one up with Federal Reserve notes of any denomination.

Fill the other house with gold and silver.

Then tourch them both. Let them burn until the fires put themselves out. Go back in a few hours and check to see if either one of them retains any value. Go with the one that retains value.

Screw the rest.

End the Fed.

Audit the Fed.

That is the Mission and the Purpose of this site. You can create your own site for alternative causes. There is plenty of room for such.

Seems like you might be a recruiter for an the Fed moveEnd the End Movement. It isn't happening.

http://www.ivamu.com/
So Stick with the program, not the status quo.

It seems you might never have been there "with us."

"Who Benefits?"

You then say: So why do i own gold then?

MY REPLY: Didn't know you owned such. But in a word, Hypocrisy does comes to mind.

YOU SAY: As long as they do not convert to a sustainable solution i will be holding gold as protection because it's the only poor option we have. It's not ideal, it's not perfect, and it's absolutely no solution.

MY REPLY: In this world, we do not strive for "perfection." That is and has become the purpose and mission of Mao Se Tung, Pol Pot, Hitler, and a few other Mad Men of note. What we do work for is Justice, the Happiness of Prosperity Created by Honest Labor, with all its fruits. This side of Eternity will not see "perfection." But nothing, even this, is NO excuse or cover for Tyranny and injustice.

YOU SAY: http://www.perfecteconomy.org/pg-amendment.html
Because there is no other solution. Regulation can only temper an inherently
terminal process.

MY REPLY:

Free youerself from the Tyranny that "Perfection" in this life brings. Be good with your life here on this earth. Being good to yourself and others. Relax. We are winning.

The other side has fully exposed all of its ammo, and they are running low.

[jack]

Most people can't give you a good definition of money — a definition which holds; and a definition which serves them.

Yet if we ask the questions which develop a fully accountable answer, we readily arrive at a fact that the only definition of money which can inflict no offense whatever, is a currency which comprises immutable tokens of value.

In fact likewise, most people do intuit that money IS a relatively immutable token of value — not understanding how the exceptions are engendered, or how the exceptions offend them. In other words, they recognize that immutability is a vital object; they likewise recognize that immutability of a promissory note is even vital to its facts of contractual obligation; but they do not recognize that one and one only monetary prescription makes good on this indispensable object of immutable tokenization of value.

Both to tokenize value and to immutably tokenize value nonetheless are only TO REPRESENT not only however many different products, but necessarily, to likewise represent the volumes of such products, or we fail to keep the ostensible 1:1 relationship between circulatory volume and remaining value of all products, which is necessary to immutable value.

The only way to immutably tokenize value therefore is if the units of value of the circulation are immutably linked to the remaining value of ALL represented property (not just to one or several of MANY products); and thus likewise, the remaining volume of units of circulation must at all times equal the volume of remaining value of the ALL the products which the circulation is intended to represent, or we fail to keep these principles. In fact then, the only way to maintain these equal volumes is to pay the value of the represented property out of circulation as the value of the property is perceived to be consumed, or to depreciate. The only way you can do this of course, is if we pay monetary obligations comprised only of principal, at the rate of depreciation or consumption of all represented properties.

Volume of circulation must likewise equal remaining volume of all represented property. Franklin observed in his "Modest Inquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency," that the colonists prospered substantially more when they supplemented their circulation of precious metal with paper currency (certain implementations of which were debatably subject to interest). He postulated that some prospective extent of such supplementation might be excessive; and that it might have negative consequences. But nonetheless he noted (evidently then because they never reached such a limit) that the additional circulation of paper currency sustained substantially greater prosperity.

Why?

They must therefore have suffered previously from an effectively deflated circulation. But simple questions thus resolve Franklin's curiosity:

If the circulation is to represent (tokenize) value, then if the circulation were ever to exceed the volume of the remaining value of all property, then someone would have received circulation for nothing. Such an excessive, "inflated" circulation however would be impossible, if in fact all promissory notes (of principal only) are legitimately collateralized.

Likewise however, if the effective volume of circulation is ever less than the volume of represented property, then it is impossible to trade all property all at once; and someone will not have received and persisted in just reward for their production.

So, an "effective," just circulation must at all times equal the remaining value of ALL production ("products").


A further malady exists in the present disposition of currencies subject to interest. That is, ever more of a circulation is perpetually dedicated to sustaining ever greater sums of artificial debt, leaving ever less of the same circulation to represent/tokenize the value of property. Thus interest makes abiding by our necessary principles of immutable tokenization impossible.


1. The only circulation which sustains all these necessary objects therefore is a volume of circulation which is at all times equal to the remaining value of all property.

2. The only way to maintain such a circulation is to pay principal out of circulation at the rate of consumption or depreciation of related property.

3. Thus as a circulation comprised of promissory notes only represents FINANCED property (subject to promissory obligations), the only way to sustain a circulation which necessarily represents the remaining value of all property is to further accommodate immediate conversion of equity into currency.

These in fact then are the principles of mathematically perfected economy™; and this is a vital path of the logic of overall solution.


But our question asks if money is a product? Essentially, this is to ask if it MUST be a product in order to serve these vital purposes of a just currency, which of course must eradicate all potential for systemic offense.


We can see however, even on an abstract level, that the concept of tokenization can only go awry if the need for tokenization must account for all products, and the concept of tokenization requires A product or a few products to do so. Yet even according to the concept of tokenization itself, the token is distinct from the product itself — unless to be an immutable token of value, "money" must actually exist in the physical form or instances of some such "product." In other words, if just/"honest" money IS a product; how then and why would argue this restrictive concept of A product or products? How can either case serve the objects of volume equaling the volume of ALL products, if money "must" be A product or products; and if the volume of THE product or products must yet equate to the volume of ALL products?

In fact, given the aforesaid observations, we readily recognize that nothing but ALL products CAN so represent all products; and the only reason folks like the Austrian "economists" are trying to insist on A product (or products) for their obfuscated claim to tokenization, is they refuse to acknowledge the very principles they pretend their ONE or few products somehow uphold — and yet are proven not to uphold.

As Franklin likewise observes, never did their precious metal monetary standards result in actual consistent values of money; and the reasons are evident in these principles: There is no perpetual 1:1:1 relationship between remaining circulation: remaining value of represented property: and obligation, because the Austrians refuse to recognize that the only mathematic course to this perpetual relationship is to pay off promissory notes comprising obligations of principal only, at the rate of consumption or depreciation of the related property — with the payments thus retiring the circulation as the value of the property itself is consumed. In fact, only promissory notes of principal, paid at this obligatory schedule of payment CAN accomplish these purposes; and do so even without regulation.

Thus we readily understand the problems of gold, which itself in fact perpetually violates our necessarily perpetual 1:1:1 relationship; and which further violates these principles when it coexists with interest, which perpetually disposes ever more of the circulation to servicing a perpetually multiplying sum of artificial debt — leaving ever less of the same circulation to sustain commerce.


Thus the answer to the original question is that money CANNOT BE A product, if it is to be an immutable token of value, because A product, in which the resultant circulation would ostensibly be redeemable, ITSELF cannot represent All products! Thus it cannot provide a perpetual 1:1 relationship between volume of circulation and redeemability which purportedly eliminates subversion of value. Effectively, the Austrians (and others) claim virtues of gold which do not exist, while the principles they exalt instead would endorse only mathematically perfected economy™, because the only currency which CAN accomplish this purpose of making the circulation effectively not A product, but in fact at all times ACTUALLY REDEEMABLE in ALL products, is mathematically perfected economy™ — which alone therefore, immutably tokenizes all products represented by the circulation, and in such a way that the circulation is always redeemable in the very scope and volume of products it was from the beginning, intended to represent.