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]

I believe that would be "YOKE,"

[Todd Marshall]

Eradicate INFLATION by observing the relation that governs all mediums of exchange:

DEFAULT = INTEREST + INFLATION

Create media as trader's ask for it (the media is a promise to complete a trade). If the promise is kept, the media is returned after the trade is made and DEFAULT, INTEREST, and INFLATION are all zero.

If the promise is broken a DEFAULT is experienced. INTEREST is collected equaling this default. By the relation, INFLATION will remain zero.

Further, in that class of responsible promise makers, INTEREST will be zero. In those classes less responsible, INTEREST will relate directly to the irresponsibility (rate of DEFAULT) of the class.

Very simple.
Todd Marshall
Plantersville, TX

[mike montagne — founder, PFMPE™]

"Eradicate INFLATION by observing the relation that governs all mediums of exchange:

DEFAULT = INTEREST + INFLATION"

If you advocate interest, you effectively advocate eventual default, because interest inherently and irreversibly multiplies artificial indebtedness (a debt which is not even TO the purported banking system) in proportion to capacity to pay, as we are forced to maintain a vital circulation by perpetually re-borrowing interest and principal paid out of the general circulation as subsequent debts, perpetually increased then so much as periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt. This of course dedicates ever more of every unit of circulation to servicing debt, versus sustaining industry; and this, together with its inevitable generation of a terminal sum of debt (which is impossible to service) is the cause of present failure.

To say then that "DEFAULT = INTEREST + INFLATION" is not only to fail to account for dedication of ever more of every unit of circulation to servicing debt -- thus compelling gross (global) default at a terminal sum of debt -- it furthermore only pretends that "DEFAULT" equals the sum of "INTEREST" and "INFLATION."

This certainly fails to abide by your next principle, which equates rightly to allowing debtors to issue "promises to complete a trade" (ostensibly, to deliver something of equal value to whatever is acquired in the trade -- which of course is a promissory note). It is possible of course to suffer some practically negligible amount of default even so, in which case neither can DEFAULTs greater than zero equal zero INTEREST plus zero DEFLATION.

So your equation doesn't hold.


"If the promise is broken a DEFAULT is experienced. INTEREST is collected equaling this default. By the relation, INFLATION will remain zero."

Neither can this assertion possibly hold, because you could only charge "interest" in the case of DEFAULT (after a fact of default), otherwise you would cause what you are meaning to compensate a pretended creditor for. All the creditor you implicitly refer to does, is publish our promissory notes to each other. There is no risk of loss whatsoever, but the negligible costs of publishing the promissory notes.

So neither is what you have asserted so "simple," nor is it "very" (true).

On the one hand, you're asserting we must charge interest -- which is effectively to assert that a central banking system exercises the very principle you assert. You would be confirming the central banking system if you were right.

The fundamental reasons we must end the Fed on the other hand are 1) that it merely publishes our promissory notes to each other (as you suggest), but that rather than concurring with your observation the promissory notes are paid out of circulation (retired), the obfuscation of the Fed first allows it to keep them (thus artificially enrichening the Fed to the extent of all principal ever financed by the obfuscation); and secondly 2) that interest obligates us to maintain a vital circulation by perpetually re-borrowing principal and interest paid out of the general circulation, as an eventually terminal sum of debt. Thus the latter obfuscation is unjustified, because the risk of loss is the mere costs of publication; and because it multiplies debt into a terminal sum of debt (the present cause of failure).

SO, only mathematically perfected economy solves the actual (simple) issues, by retiring promissory notes as they are paid out of circulation; by requiring payment at the rate of consumption or depreciation (which solves inflation and deflation and maintains a perpetual 1:1:1 relationship between remaining circulation, remaining value of represented [redeemable] property, and remaining promissory obligation; and by eradication of interest -- which solves perpetual multiplication of artificial debt into a terminal debt, by interest.

Yes, simple. But not as you have said at all.

[Robert M]

Methinks Montagne has a monetary interest in his own agenda.

[Todd Marshall]

Eradicate INFLATION by observing the relation that governs all mediums of exchange:

DEFAULT = INTEREST + INFLATION"

If you advocate interest, you effectively advocate eventual default, because interest inherently and irreversibly multiplies artificial indebtedness (a debt which is not even TO the purported banking system) in proportion to capacity to pay, as we are forced to maintain a vital circulation by perpetually re-borrowing interest and principal paid out of the general circulation as subsequent debts, perpetually increased then so much as periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt.
----------------------
Todd Responds:
You're not paying attention. DEFAULTs leave broken trading promises in circulation. INTERST equaling DEFAULTs recovers that circulating media and mitigates the DEFAULT. Nothing is multiplied.
----------------------

This of course dedicates ever more of every unit of circulation to servicing debt, versus sustaining industry; and this, together with its inevitable generation of a terminal sum of debt (which is impossible to service) is the cause of present failure.

----------------------
Todd Responds:
Wrong. Nothing more is put in circulation. For that class of traders that statistically DEFAULT, they request a “loan” of say 1000 but are granted exchange media of say just 950. But they must pay back 1000. That extra 50 pays back the DEFAULTed media of someone else in that trading class. No leaks. Everything put into circulation is thus recovered. No INFLATION.
----------------------


To say then that "DEFAULT = INTEREST + INFLATION" is not only to fail to account for dedication of ever more of every unit of circulation to servicing debt -- thus compelling gross (global) default at a terminal sum of debt -- it furthermore only pretends that "DEFAULT" equals the sum of "INTEREST" and "INFLATION."

----------------------
Todd Responds:
See above. You're not getting it. This is not pretending. It's fact by simple arithmetic.
----------------------

This certainly fails to abide by your next principle, which equates rightly to allowing debtors to issue "promises to complete a trade" (ostensibly, to deliver something of equal value to whatever is acquired in the trade -- which of course is a promissory note). It is possible of course to suffer some practically negligible amount of default even so, in which case neither can DEFAULTs greater than zero equal zero INTEREST plus zero DEFLATION.

----------------------
Todd Responds:
Just as un-mitagated DEFAULTs result in INFLATION, over-mitigated (too much INTEREST collected) results in DEFLATION. The relation hold. It's controlled through diligently monitoring DEFAULT and collecting INTEREST to match it.
----------------------


So your equation doesn't hold.


"If the promise is broken a DEFAULT is experienced. INTEREST is collected equaling this default. By the relation, INFLATION will remain zero."

Neither can this assertion possibly hold, because you could only charge "interest" in the case of DEFAULT (after a fact of default), otherwise you would cause what you are meaning to compensate a pretended creditor for. All the creditor you implicitly refer to does, is publish our promissory notes to each other. There is no risk of loss whatsoever, but the negligible costs of publishing the promissory notes.

----------------------
Todd Responds:
You would not do well in the insurance business. They collect premiums equal to claims and make their money on the investment income. When they experience higher claims, they raise their premiums. It being a competitive business, when they experience lower claims they lower their premiums. On average, CLAIMS = PREMIUMS.
----------------------


So neither is what you have asserted so "simple," nor is it "very" (true).

On the one hand, you're asserting we must charge interest -- which is effectively to assert that a central banking system exercises the very principle you assert. You would be confirming the central banking system if you were right.

----------------------
Todd Responds:
I am confirming a “manager of the medium of exchange”. This manager has to follow the relation DEFAULT = INTEREST + INFLATION. He must monitor DEFAULTS and collect INTEREST to match them. There is no subjectivity. It's addition and subtraction. By doing this INFLATION will average zero.
----------------------

The fundamental reasons we must end the Fed on the other hand are 1) that it merely publishes our promissory notes to each other (as you suggest), but that rather than concurring with your observation the promissory notes are paid out of circulation (retired), the obfuscation of the Fed first allows it to keep them (thus artificially enrichening the Fed to the extent of all principal ever financed by the obfuscation); and secondly 2) that interest obligates us to maintain a vital circulation by perpetually re-borrowing principal and interest paid out of the general circulation, as an eventually terminal sum of debt. Thus the latter obfuscation is unjustified, because the risk of loss is the mere costs of publication; and because it multiplies debt into a terminal sum of debt (the present cause of failure).

----------------------
Todd Responds:
Again, if you “GOT IT” you wouldn't make such an appraisal. Three things are wrong with the current FED. 1) They are private banks making profit. This profit is an unnecessary leak in the system. 2) They loan to the government. Governments are the greatest DEFAULTers yet the current FED treats them as the most responsible traders. 3) They arbitrarily diddle the INTEREST knob in an attempt to “control” inflation. It is known how to control INFLATION. Recover all loaned media of exchange (i.e. promises to complete trades) when the trades they stand for are successfully completed (i.e. the media is returned by the borrower).
----------------------


SO, only mathematically perfected economy solves the actual (simple) issues, by retiring promissory notes as they are paid out of circulation; by requiring payment at the rate of consumption or depreciation (which solves inflation and deflation and maintains a perpetual 1:1:1 relationship between remaining circulation, remaining value of represented [redeemable] property, and remaining promissory obligation; and by eradication of interest -- which solves perpetual multiplication of artificial debt into a terminal debt, by interest.

Yes, simple. But not as you have said at all.

----------------------
Todd Responds:
Insurance companies have been doing it for years (the honest ones anyway). They're able to monitor claims and adjust premiums accordingly. It is very easy to keep such a FED honest. Audit them regularly to verify that they are following the relation: DEFAULT = INTEREST + INFLATION.

Todd Marshall
Plantersville, TX
----------------------

[Steve Todd]

Check out http://economicedge.blogspot.com/ and Freedom's Vision on the site, a change from a debt based economy the math works but the powers that be would never let it happen unless the people brought out torches, pitchforks, and boiled rope..

[jack]

These guys are copycats and stealing all research from Mike Montagne, People for Perfected Economy. www.perfecteconomy.com

Mike has been working on this since highschool some 40 years ago. Check out his website.

More news will follow soon

[mike montagne — founder, PFMPE™]

In 1979, after speaking less formally on this thesis for some ten years prior, I formally published a proof that any purported economy based on interest-bearing debt ultimately terminates itself under insoluble debt. In an obfuscation of monetization which artificially obligates us to borrow our own promissory notes into circulation from a mere intervening publisher, we are thus forced to maintain a vital circulation, at once never comprised of more than remaining principal, and yet perpetually depleted of principal AND interest in the process of resolving every resultant, artificial monetary obligation.

Thus we are compelled to re-borrow principal and interest as ever greater sums of debt, perpetually increased so much as periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt, until of course we suffer an inevitably terminal sum of debt which dedicates so much of the circulation to servicing debt, that it becomes impossible to sustain sufficient industry to do so; credit worthiness is thus compromised so as it is further impossible to maintain a vital circulation by legitimate further borrowing; and the system soon fails, without actual prospect of recovery.

You have two choices at that point — fix the fundamental flaws, or start the process over again (which is what happened during WWII)... all to suffer the same consequences over again.

My work is the original source of thousands of such assertions across the internet. Original documentation of this thesis of inevitable failure, together with a proof of singular solution to the categoric faults of the imposed, pretended economies, have been maintained online since ten years before there was an official internet — that is, since the early 1980s, primarily on public bulletin boards. Occassionaly the material made radio shows or newspapers; but largely no publishing or media house would touch it. Nonetheless, the original internet forms reproduced the thesis in documentation which I had provided to the Reagan Administration, together with computer models (complete with source code which you can still download from my pages) which projected from early 1980s data that said pretended economy would collapse at approximately 2010 AD. You can still run 1980s data to reproduce that projection.

Years down the road, once there was an official internet, one of the first to majorly plagiarize my work was Jaques Jaikaran, in "his" "Debt Virus."

A first thing I'd like to point out to you is that a genuine analyst who has done the math is hardly going to come up with the attempted expressions of the problem which the many plagiarists convey to you as their own analyses. The reason is simple; if you don't understand the problem explicitly, you can't possibly understand the solution. WORSE, if there is a singular solution, you believe wrongly that you have free license to support anything which may "sound good" to you.

But the fact is, there is one explicit definition of the problem; and that one accountable definition likewise spells a fact of SINGULAR solution — that is, there is one and one only integral solution for 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 in proportion to a vital circulation.

Jaikaran begins "his" very first page of "his" book plagiarizing my "Parable of Perfect Economy" — a NON-EXISTENT event, told, and invented largely by yours truly, to explain actual economy; the faults of the present, imposed systems; and transformation to solution.

So Jaikaran proves his crime right out the gate. Like everyone who plagiarizes my work, of course he can't afford to cite me as a reference — the whole idea of "his" book was mine; and precedes any other.

An unfortunate consequence of Jaikaran's readership is that many of them have come away with the idea that "debt" is our enemy. This is not the case at all. In fact, debt is an advantage of the natural process of monetization. And so, what you need to understand is that the actual problem introduced by obfuscating debt from the natural form of monetization, is that terminal debt does not mean that debt is the issue: ARTIFICIAL MULTIPLICATION of artificial debt is the issue (more on this a bit later).

Another misunderstanding therefore which seems to come from "Jaikaran's" pretentious work, is that we can avoid debt by spending money into circulation.

The idea however has a fatal flaw: If you spend money into circulation, you will suffer circulatory inflation unless you likewise devise a means for retiring from circulation in synchronization with consumption or depreciation of the related property.

Ah! And when you do this, in fact you are replicating the pattern of a natural promissory note!

So the truth of the matter is, there IS no way of spending money into circulation even, which does not replicate the natural pattern of monetization of debt; and in fact, even any immutable token of value represents an obligation to redeem the token in value — thus comprising as much as a debt.

But is the problem thus "debt"? Absolutely not! Only by assuming a legitimate, enforceable, unexploited debt for instance, can we accommodate a newlywed couple for instance buying a home upon certification of their credit-worthiness. According to the natural pattern of a promissory note then, they pay only the principal. Where the real creditor (who gives up property in exchange for the note) is granted the note, they are paid in full from the outset, so long as the integrity of their obligation is enforceable.

Thus they pay off a $100,000 home with a 100-year lifespan at an overall rate of $1,000 per year, or $83.33 per month. As with a promissory note, their payments are retired from circulation.

So long as they maintain his obligatory schedule of payment, a perpetual 1:1:1 ratio between monetary obligation, remaining circulation, and remaining value of the property is maintained; and the system is fully protected, even in default, because the remaining value of the home always suffices to fulfill the remainder of the obligation.

Thus not only do we provide for genuine credit-worthiness to achieve standards of living which are impossible otherwise for the couple, we likewise provide genuine legitimate consumption of the work of the home builder — who likewise would never achieve such a standard of living otherwise.

DEBT is not the problem; ARTIFICIAL MULTIPLICATION of debt into terminal debt is the problem; and so, as nothing but mathematically perfected economy™ solves the categoric faults of the pretended economies; and as transformation to mathematically perfected economy™ accomplishes that purpose immediately, without cost, and even without need for regulation, it's about time you turned from the plagiarists to the original author of solution.

[Todd Marshall]

That link way over complicates the issue. The media of exchange are "promises to complete trades". Most trades complete as promised. Some DEFAULT. As they DEFAULT, INTEREST must recover that still circulating media. It's just that simple. Ratios don't come into play. The level of savings and consumption doesn't come into play. The unemployment rate doesn't come into play. Prices of things doesn't come into play. All of these things are completely disassociated from management of the medium if the relation DEFAULT = INTEREST + INFLATION is observed and INTEREST collections match DEFAULT experience.

[Robert]

I think you're missing the point that the Austrian school is trying to make, namely that we have a statist economy controlled-by a central bank that manipulates the supply of money via the chicanery of fractional reserve banking. This is not free banking, the Austrian school advocates a free-banking economy, that is not controlled by the federal government and its proxy the Federal Reserve System. A return to money, that is a store of value, such as gold is the only means to wrest our world away from the statists and the political capitalism and cronyism as practiced by mega-banks such as Goldman Sachs in concert with the Treasury department and the Federal Reserve.

[jack]

First of all, Mike formally published the theses of inevitable failure in 1979: a) that any pretended economy subject to interest inevitably terminates itself under insoluble debt; and b) that there is one and one only integral solution to the categoric faults of the imposed systems: 1) inflation and deflation; 2) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property; and 3) inherent, irreversible multiplication of artificial indebtedness by interest.

Secondly, he furnished the Reagan Administration with computer models which projected the present failure, proving the first thesis (a) — which models c) you can still download, complete with source code from our pages; d) run 1980s data; and e) still project that the present failure will occur at approximately 2010 AD.

Thirdly, it is utterly preposterous that any Austrian “economist” could have projected the present failure; and every person here with the least familiarity with this pseudo science knows why:

The Austrians routinely reject mathematics; and they in fact exalt interest — the very cause of failure!

The reason nonetheless that Austrians and Hayek in particular exalt interest (with no mathematic or rational defense whatever), Hayek himself tells us: It makes “banking” (obfuscating the promissory notes of the people) “an extremely profitable business.” (See Mises page, reproducing Hayek’s article: “A Free-market Monetary System.”)

“Freedom” is Hayek’s first lie, for there is no freedom even from terminal exploitation, when the purported “Free Market Monetary System” is imposed upon the people despite political promises to the contrary, and when it can only multiply artificial indebtedness in proportion to capacity to pay, as the unassenting subjects are forced to maintain a vital circulation by perpetually re-borrowing principal and interest as ever greater sums of artificial debt, perpetually increased so much as periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt, until of course the sum of artificial indebtedness exceeds their (finite) capacity to pay, destroys their credit-worthiness to maintain a vital circulation — and you have what you have right now, everywhere around you.

That’s freedom, Mr. Austrian “economists?”

In fact the lie of your pretended economy can only multiply artificial cost!

Now, to say you predicted the present failure, even as it is the one possible fundamental consequence of the interest you advocate — that is one of the greatest lies in history.

But it won’t fly.

[jack]

Obviously, if Austrian School thinking does not even recognize the causes of our problems, it is not only impotent to solve them; it may even be opposed to doing so. Potential instances of predisposition against solution are its favor toward unearned gain and interest. Yet perhaps even more adverse to solution is the Austrian School’s wholesale rejection of mathematics, either for analysis or solution. The typical Austrian School adherent casually asserts for instance there can be no such thing as a mathematically perfected economy, because (they assert) it is impossible for mathematics to account for indeterminable human behavior. When you apprise them that on the contrary, usury or perfected economy instead comprise the limitations to which human behavior is subject, they want to change the subject.

According to its own descriptive material, Austrian School *thinking* is a branch of heterodox “economics” — which is all branches of thinking falling outside of the ostensibly orthodox thought now imposing usury. A principal reason there is so much disagreement between Austrian, heterodox, and orthodox schools of thinking however, is they are all pseudo sciences. All are totally bereft of formal proof and theorem.