Tuesday, February 11, 2003


[PFMPE] (THE REAL) State of the Union

The REAL State of the Union, in response to a shameless pandering of the American people.


 http://www.perfecteconomy.com/nl20030211-state-of-the-union.html


_________________________



As short of vital standards as humanity may fall, in my estimation, even the least of us understand that worthy leaders ascend to authority by necessary excellence. Problems of interacting mankind are not complex. Solutions are precluded by self interest attempting to displace justice. Unless it is possible there are conflicting justices, then there is always one solution, as there is always one justice, equal for all, and consistent across all time. Not only will the formula for justice never change then, everywhere problems arise, we may know they can only be caused by corruption of justice. The struggle for justice therefore is of striving to overturn corruption of justice; and the real glory of the founders of our country is how close they came to setting up a system, which, when used for its intended purposes, provided for the people to protect themselves from corruption of justice. As unworthy leadership therefore is the roadway to injustice, it forever may be said that what is wrong with the world today is caused by unworthy and unserving leaders, tolerated in their abuse of authority. For wherever true justice is administered, what problem can exist?

The central purpose of the government spawned by the American Revolution is elimination of injustice, whether inflicted from within or without. The Constitution and Bill of Rights, and every office of government created under authority of law therefore, exist to establish justice. All authority inherent under the Constitution compels every branch and office of government to act together, to condemn and defeat abuse of power.

I would think however, that surely the luminaries who established this country never dreamed the people would tolerate every branch of government abusing its authority.

Nor would I think they dreamed a future people would fall so far short of necessary vigilance, they would tolerate every branch of government together abusing power, even to such a degree that their "economy" would have them paying their whole lives, each and every one of them, over and over, for homes a few of them built by a mere few months' labor — all the while, accepting this incredible, perpetual forfeiture of prosperity is simply to their benefit.

I suppose, possibly however, even if the American Revolution was itself a struggle against the establishment of central banking, that perhaps the founders might have gazed into a not-too-distant future and perceived that some day it would be possible that even if the people were made to trade many years of their lives for homes depreciating all the while those homes were made to cost the people yet more... maybe the founders conceived that some day a duped and cowardly populace would never understand that's not a good deal.

Nonetheless, I can understand that wherever true justice is not administered, controversy and injustice remain. I can understand that whether injustice is caused from within or without, regular and fluid relations are impossible; perpetual peace is impossible; and the work of establishing justice by whatever form or degree of strife, is left to be done.

Those who subvert justice may usually do so for self interest. But as human existence requires justice, and as history too attests, injustice is meant to end. The struggle for justice which established this country itself well demonstrates that proper solution of problems is a perpetual goal, to be revisited in all cases where justice is not administered, and people are ever to stand up for whatever is right.

There are certain "things you don't do" in this world. At least I think there still are. At least I still believe there are certain things you don't get away with forever.

I also think there will always be turmoil, so long as people stray right and left from center, as if there is a "how much you can get away with" — and in every case, a possible "how long you can get away with it" as well.

I believe the world both requires justice and deserves to give itself justice. I also believe all of us will be better off by exacting justice, than by pursuing anything less — in any and every case. I also estimate then, that we can only be all the better off for starting today, than tomorrow.

But that would also mean we have a hell of a mess to clean up in Washington.

As we know from our experience and disposition to secure what is right for ourselves, we can understand that to inflict injustice may condemn not only we ourselves who might be responsible, but in the damages which ensue and which endure for however long, we also may condemn further generations, however many, to suffer consequences of however many kinds.

In considering how we might possibly, truly set the world straight, I believe we can all understand, an obligatory test which all justified human action passes, is reversal of roles, or universal application of ostensible principles.

On behalf of unworthy leadership, abusive of authority, undermining real liberty and justice from even its own people, and even pretending to attend principles which if truly practiced would pursue different objectives or different means, a mindless public can easily be duped into playing out any edict which is no more than "my nation, right or wrong" — action ostensibly for the sake of the nation, and even ostensibly for the sake of good causes, while real motives or real consequences are purposely never even expressed.

A universal characteristic of the abuser of authority who does so therefore, is to present partial truths, if any truth at all, because the objectives of abusive authority are exposed in the full truth, and because the objectives of abusive authority are impossible to qualify in full and true terms, as purposes of those meant to be swayed.

We are certainly no nation to condemn other nations which rightly measure the pattern of every other nation's behavior, particularly where actions of any kind may be aggressive to any degree, and particularly where justice can possibly be corrupted as a result. A nation rightly branded as an unjustified aggressor is rightly to be known as exactly that. Certainly always, ensuing history will come to understand the real issues at play.

No nation therefore can be properly respected, or remain respected, which does not act in proper conscience. No nation can be properly respected, or remain respected, for inflicting on others, however mindlessly, what they would not prefer to be inflicted upon themselves, and what cannot be justified by the full scope of facts.

It is obligatory therefore that all truly justified societies qualify all authorized or tolerated action, in full and true terms. Justice is not an accident. It is an explicit state, predetermined by the full truth, and full application of one constant formula for justice. IF ever we achieve a proper end, each side of any controversy is found doing unto the other, as the other would have done unto themselves.

I know a truly courageous and righteous nation would keep all that in mind, if it chose as a means to an end, to blow men, women and children to pieces. But I think a righteous nation would be equally mindful of injustice while instead starving a nation to death, with equally little prospect of result, or record of success.

Wherever a leader presents partial truth, it is to be expected they abuse authority.

But a truly righteous nation also watches exactly where it is going.

It is also to be expected however, that the leader who presents partial truth cannot achieve justice or peace, because justice involves full truth, and peace requires justice. Perpetual peace is impossible where one side is favored over any other.

When a country inflicts injustice, it makes itself an enemy of all the potentially afflicted; and it makes itself the object of any possible form of recourse. It is incumbent upon the society responding to the leader presenting partial truths or worse therefore, to find the full truth, and to evaluate all real, possible consequences.

Certainly there is a great difference between edict and edification; and certainly it thus behooves any respectable nation, perhaps poised unwittingly to act on behalf of ulterior motives in the gravest of ways, to demand edification of edict. After all, what worthy leader is unprepared to sufficiently qualify the gravest of acts?

If for instance, the United States possessed the principal world supply of a given resource, how should the American people respond, that we should be reduced to poverty and suffering by some great giant of a warring, self interested, all-consuming nation, moreso desiring control and unjust procurement of our resources, than even to apply the principles it claims justify war, equally to all its potential enemies?

We would know that nation as a great hypocrite nation; and none of us would be surprised to find all its leaders, applauding such unjustified action together, as the greatest of hypocrites together.

None of us then, would be surprised to see those leaders looked exactly like the representatives and executives of the United States did, just the other day.

Thus we follow an oil man and a capitalist of our "defense" system, neither of whom do many of us even know have ever produced anything remarkable for the world, much less anything equivalent to the wealth they have accumulated, and both of whom surely enjoy comfortable relations with the world's usurers, for it seems they came to power and they came to wealth in the very same way.

While these men and their many accomplices have lied to us we recover from a recession they neither admitted, while they and their friends in fact compile a record of gutting our nation, and while their record of real service is bereft of fact or acclaim as can be, rather than demand the unproduced evidence war is justified, an ostensibly courageous, righteous nation chooses instead to bow its heads, hoping greater disasters will not precipitate on us for our terrible indiscretions, as we prepare to bomb hell out of men, women and children who we have likewise starved for a decade.

In the interests of procuring our resources, it is more than possible if we suffered such murder and treachery as would surely accompany such an aggressor's purposeful, unjustified war against us, that many good and blameless persons would suffer as for which no oppressor nation could be respected in the remainder of eternity.

Under the efforts of a foreign nation to control and consume our resources for perhaps unjustified decades before, certainly a leader might rise amongst us — their power in fact elevated by justified resentment of the oppression. As citizens all over the world are now demonstrating against the United States, a leader standing amongst us against any possible oppressor might gain considerable support, particularly where, across our citizenry, substantial suffering could be attributed to the oppression.

Iraq is just one of many nations in "economic" ruin at the hand of foreign policy of the United States, you and I, and the international institutions of usury which plunder the world. Across the world, people are reduced to poverty and even near anarchy and revolution, by oppression exercised by "economic sanctions" levied like carpet bombing intended to rout out one rat from an unknown place among however many whole neighborhoods; by swindling whole populaces from decent wages; and by the hand of usury, inflicted by institutions which derive remarkable seeming power from concerted exercises of many corrupt governments, particularly including our own hypocrites, who likewise impose usury upon "their own" people, calling it everywhere, remarkably, "economy."

One consistent theme. All this kind of activity. And everywhere, deprivation of prosperity for the profit of the few, with the deprived slaying the deprived that one plunderer can prevail over another.

But I believe — and I believe I can sufficiently show — there is such a thing as mathematically perfected economy.

It is readily demonstrated how a circulation comprised of debt subject to interest, multiplies debt in proportion to a circulation, until systemic collapse under insoluble debt.

From this it is my hope we can understand, that the very disposition to retain each and every such system therefore, is not only the very reason all we have worked for is perpetually diminished, and will eventually be brought to naught under systemic indebtedness. The plausible thesis any "economy" subject to interest ultimately terminates itself under insoluble debt, does not only mean that at the present moment of marginal debt under a system which can only multiply debt, we thus are at the brink of failure.

Retention of every such system is also the very evidence that across the world, so many abusers of authority cannot possibly serve us.

"Economic" instability, and every obstruction to realization of the prosperity we are capable of, are problems created by man.

"Economic" instability is a circumstance resulting from a system where the self interests of a few prevail over the natural interests of the very many.

We ourselves are a country marginally surviving imposed costs of servicing debt. Thus if the system of the few can only further multiply our debt, we ourselves are a country on the verge of collapse under insoluble debt. As a result of this same system, perpetrated about the world largely as a result of our tolerance of the system at home, from which base of our former wealth that system acquired and retains great power across the world, countries like Argentina are already crumbled under the weight of insoluble debt.

Yet the entire world is more capable now of rendering production from natural resources than ever.

No natural factor therefore precludes prosperity.

Our predicament therefore, like all "problems" of interacting man, is a consequence of subversion of justice.

In a conciliatory letter to a friend after the American Revolution, Benjamin Franklin explained the real cause which compelled rebellion:

"We would have gladly borne the little tax on tea, and other matters, had it not been that they took from us our money, WHICH created great unemployment and dissatisfaction."

Benjamin Franklin referred to the real cause of the American Revolution being the Bank of England requiring British Parliament to order the colonies to give up the notes they issued to each other, and which they used as an interest free currency.

In return for the interest free notes they issued as evidence of debt to each other, and which they used as a currency which will never multiply debt in proportion to the circulation, the colonists were required to use notes issued by the Bank of England, for which they were required to pay interest. Franklin reported, "Within a year, the poor houses were filled. The hungry and homeless walked the streets everywhere."

After defeating the central bankers in the American Revolution, the effort to establish a central bank here was brought into the process of establishing the new country.

In the resultant debates of the founding, Thomas Jefferson argued, If the American people EVER allow the banks to issue their currency, then by inflation and deflation, the banks and (bank owned) corporations that WILL grow up around them WILL deprive the people of all property, until their children wake up HOMELESS on the continent their forefathers conquered.

Jefferson meant for us to understand that in an "economy" where the circulation is debt subject to interest, that is, in a central bank "economy," merely maintaining a circulation inherently involves simultaneous processes of deflation and re-inflation.

In other words, on the one hand, in so-called economies where the circulation is debt subject to interest, as in every so-called central bank economy, a constant deflationary process is an unavoidable consequence of the obligation to service debt: principal and interest are continually paid out of circulation.

Thus to maintain a vital circulation in any central bank "economy," the subjects of the system are perpetually forced to re- borrow all that they pay in principal and interest as subsequent debt, increased so much as periodic interest.

Debt multiplies and multiplies across any and every such system in history, because to merely maintain the vital circulation, it is mathematically impossible for debt not to multiply.

To maintain a circulation under any "central bank economy" of history therefore, is to ensure that debt increases in proportion to the circulation or the commerce which can be sustained by the circulation, as principal and interest constantly are necessarily re-borrowed as subsequent debt, increased therefore so much as periodic interest.

But as any one thing inherently and irreversibly increased in proportion to another eventually exceeds the proportions of the other, debt perpetually increased in proportion to a circulation eventually imposes costs of servicing debt which are impossible to furnish. Ultimately the costs of servicing debt will exceed even the entire circulation.

Along the way to a sum of debt which cannot be serviced, the costs of debt predicated by the overall rate of interest infringe to an ever greater degree on what circulation can be dedicated instead to sustaining commerce. This of course has driven tremendous sectors of former industry from our country, and failed many who stayed.

But in the death throes of such a system then, it is necessary to reduce interest rates that the last spasms of viable commerce might survive the further multiplication of debt which will nonetheless extinguish all commerce.

Which is of course, exactly as we stand this very day.

Interest thus ultimately multiplies debt to insoluble debt, while impeding prosperity to an ever greater degree, all along the way to systemic collapse under insoluble debt.

And therefore as the costs of servicing irreversible multiplication of debt infringe to an ever greater degree until systemic collapse under insoluble debt, "central bank" "economies" are the very reason we pay lifetimes for homes built by a few of us, by a few months' work.

In Jefferson's absence, "somehow" "our" first central bank was bestowed upon us.

Of the first bank Jefferson said, "The Bank of the United States is one of the most deadly hostilities existing against the principles and form of our Constitution. I deem no government safe which is under the vassalage of any self-constituted authorities, or any other authority than that of the nation or its regular functionaries. What an obstruction could not this bank of the United States, with all its branch banks, be in time of war? It might dictate to us the peace we should accept, or withdraw its aid. Ought we then to give further growth to an institution so powerful, so hostile?"

President James Madison said, "History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible, to maintain their control over governments, by controlling money and its issuance."

After a short, adverse lifespan, we soon were saddled with a second central bank; and I believe we are obligated at least to ourselves by this persistent recurrence of central banking not only in our own country but in all countries of the world, to ask how a people should ever have mandated that they would benefit by interest. Never in history has an intelligent society preferred to suffer the consequences of usury, given the option to practice true free enterprise.

Our second central bank was dissolved by the heroic efforts of President Andrew Jackson. Jackson said, and we might remember, "If congress has the right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given them to use themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations." And particularly, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations for profit manifested in such a way as multiplies profit in proportion to the circulation until due collapse of the system under insoluble debt.

Abraham Lincoln said, "The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. The banking powers are more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. They denounce as public enemies all who question their methods or throw light upon their crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe. [As a most undesirable consequence of the war...] Corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow. The money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed. The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity."

Frederick Douglass observed, "The whole history of progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning, they want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue until they are resisted. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."

The process of irreversibly multiplying debt in proportion to a circulation will never change in time. If these great men spoke out against what today we call central banking, why do not our current hypocrites?

Because their allegiance is to the takers.

Why will the media give no scope whatsoever to the prospect of mathematically perfected economy? Because their allegiance is to the takers, and because they are owned by the takers.

Why does no candidate argue for mathematically perfected economy? Because they are afraid of the takers, because the people have no meaningful courage, respect, or dedication to their own cause, and because as a consequence of the tremendous graft of their imposed system, only the takers can afford to put candidates in office.

Thus we can understand the concerted gesticulations of the many hypocrites before us, and the consistent flow and orientation of disinformation — never once breaking from ranks altogether upholding the multiplication of our debt and preclusion of the prosperity we are capable of, as if these purposes and naked fact they are no service to us whatsoever, are of unquestionable rectitude. What legitimate media and public representatives could so abstain for a century, to culmination of a second cycle of economic ruin at the hand of central banks meant from the beginning to profit all they could from us, while delivering us nothing?

Across a century in which the "economic" systems of the world were collapsed, and are about to collapse again under irreversible multiplication of debt, not one legitimate and legitimately surviving inquisition into the incontrovertible consequences of usury?

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, by artificially withholding further credit to indebted sectors, bankers caused artificially deflated conditions which collapsed many businesses, and provided for take-over.

While the public was outraged by the obvious tactics, incredibly, the brand of politician we have known ever since, proposed the solution was consolidating the powers of banks in the privately owned Federal Reserve System. Actually, the Republican Party of betrayers proposed consolidating powers in the same 12 private banks as we "know" today as "The Federal Reserve," and the Democrat Party of betrayers promised never to do such a thing.

The Democrats were elected, and but a year later violated that promise in establishing the so-called Federal Reserve, comprised of the same 12 private banks as proposed by the Republican Aldrich Bill, on the eve of December 23, 1913, in the absence of many who might have opposed it.

In a mere 15 years, those banks plunged the "economy" into depression, in fact delivering all the evils the betrayers then and ever since have promised to prevent.

Today, many people falsely believe that war can rectify "economy."

It never has. And it never will.

Central banking systems do not save countries. They ruin them.

The so-called Federal Reserve System collapsed commerce a mere 15 years into its existence, by artificially and intentionally imposed deficiencies just as Alan Greenspan has multiplied the profit of the Federal Reserve Banks by maintaining high interest rates ostensibly to hold down rising charges for production — while the very interest rates and consequent acceleration of the multiplication of debt alone impose higher costs on production, which must be covered by higher charges if production is to remain solvent.

After a decade of collapse, with the virtual erasure of debts by system-wide insolvency, at the close of the second world war, prior to which, according to our very Congressional Record, the Federal Reserve had annually moved some sixty billion dollars of gold to Hitler, and to pay the debts of Japanese military escalation to German munitions makers, the need to rebuild Europe provided the opportunity to indebt the surviving world anew.

For the rapid growth which could ensue such destruction, something like starting from a new beginning, new commerce could operate under initial debt. In other words, history illustrates the system does not provide for repairing the fractured system. After it collapses all we have worked for, we may be so deluded as to simply tolerate restarting the system anew, to repeat its inherent, unavoidable cycle of multiplying plunder to yet another subsequent collapse.

Of course, a further option is instead to establish justice and solution. After all, there are ten-year-old mathematicians all over the country who can confirm solution, who neither wish to spend the rest of their lives paying for the same home you did.

As under any such system, debt is multiplied by ever greater increments of periodic interest on ever greater debt, growth and increasing prosperity were initially less impeded through the 50s and 60s.

A $35,000 home built in 1963 might cost you a million dollars plus interest now, even after it has been paid for many times over. Is it "all relative," as so often mindlessly recited by the dupes of usury? Absolutely not. IF all this were merely "relative," after all this otherwise inexplicable changing of the value of money, a home still would be paid for with only the work of producing the home.

By the later 70s, debt was multiplying at alarming rates, and those who were mindful of the mathematic implications were disturbed. Ronald Reagan denounced the national debt accumulated by Jimmy Carter as "unforgivable." Reagan tripled the debt left at the end of the Carter Administration in 7 years.

In the process, appealing to an ignorant public, Reagan accelerated the process of ambitiously revising figures in the hopes of painting a prettier picture. The disinformation necessarily assembled to sway your support while pulling off this graft is no less than your tax dollars being spent to deceive you more ambitiously, every day.

Over the early 1980s, we corresponded with the Reagan people, and provided the Reagan Administration computer models capable of calculating the maximum possible lifespan of any "economy" conveyed by a currency which is interest-bearing debt. The models simply borrowed at whatever rate was necessary to maintain hypothetical growth rates, until the entire circulation was necessarily devoted to servicing debt. As some portion of the circulation however is necessarily devoted to sustaining solvent commerce, while commerce survives that is, a practical lifespan of any such system will fall short of the maximum possible lifespan, and typically will be engendered by the collapse of significant sectors of the "economy," marginalized in advance of other sectors. As the first sectors collapse under marginalized circumstances, they in turn collapse related sectors, then marginalized by diminished market, diminished revenue, diminished supply, diminished capacity to service debt, and consequent insolubility. As anyone can understand a simple model of the limitations of any such system, in the end, the projected form of collapse manifests as people now coincidentally say... "like a house of cards."

Understand however this is not a model of the sort attempting to predict one of perhaps many contingent, intermittent directions. It is a model of the absolute limitations of the system, and the onset of maximum limitations, according to managerial policy.

Interest rates of course comprise not only the rate of profit of the central banking system, but the rate at which debt is multiplied.

Our models, which simply replicate the process of multiplying debt, projected from the early 1980s that if interest rates were aggressively adjusted downward while restricting borrowing by other means than multiplying the profit of the central banks to the preclusion of commercial viability, we might have been able to service multiplying debt until something like 2020 AD.

In the early 1980s however, we expected "the game" would be more inconspicuously managed against the prospect of public apprehension. Particularly as Alan Greenspan maintained higher interest rates than projected a maximum possible lifespan to 2020 AD. therefore, we can hardly expect to make it to 2020 on borrowings we cannot afford.

In straightforward terms, the chances are not good we'll make it to 2010 without systemic collapse unless we adopt solution. All the while to the end, we will suffer more marginal solubility, despite what promise the allies of the central bankers will report, to your greater cost.

There is one solution and one solution only, and that is elimination of the corruption of the value of money, of precluded prosperity, and particularly of precluded prosperity by multiplication of debt upon commerce.

We further provided Reagan and David Stockman a proof it was mathematically impossible that Reagan's proposed 10% tax cuts per year for three years would truly offset "inflation." As Federal costs are only a part of the whole of costs we suffer, and as even by the government's and so-called Federal Reserve's purposely distorted accounting, we suffered increasing costs of the whole of more than 10%, thus of course how much he could reduce our costs was far less than our costs were actually increased.

While we provided and feel we proved singular solution in mathematically perfected economy, and though the debt engendered by the method of subduing increasing prices would certainly add substantially further to real costs, Reagan directed Stockman to determine "inflation" as increasing prices, hoping, despite the further increasing costs moved into multiplication of debt, that he could report a cross-section of prices that would "prove" to the satisfaction of a disinformed public that indeed he served them.

It was impossible even before the very outset however, that Reagan would truly reduce real costs. He simply moved the figures into another column of profit of the central bankers, while central banking multiplied us into the greatest debtor nation of the world.

In fact, the merits of service of every president since and including Gerald Ford can be measured by the fact every president since and including Gerald Ford has been apprised of the timely embodiments of this very essay, with not one president demonstrating a record of serving the people.

Reagan, like many others before and after him, plowed on with an agenda which has only served the central bankers by multiplying our debt. As an ever more difficult environment for prosperity was pitted against our efforts and capacity to produce as never before, under Reagan, the prosperity of the mid 70s stooped under the weight of mere "relative" debt, until we suffered the greatest single-day securities disaster since the Great Depression. "We" also descended from "the greatest creditor nation" of the world to the greatest debtor nation in a mere seven years, while Reagan, particularly like those after him, sought every distortion of reality to deceive the people, and champion false accomplishments readily discerned to this very moment.

To convince an equally inept populace there is nothing wrong with central banking, and necessarily to finance ever more vain hopes of prosperity against debt, the currency presses could only be pushed into higher gear.

During the Reagan Administration, "inflation," which is defined as an increase in circulation per goods and services [or production], was as much as re-defined as increasing charges for production. From thereon, there would be almost no limit to the further adulteration of analysis or reporting, but what the public would swallow.

But there certainly is no qualified association of higher charges with a greater circulation per production, particularly if that greater circulation is necessary to service debt multiplied in proportion to the circulation.

In fact, as every central bank "economy" multiplies debt in proportion to any circulation, central bank "economies" themselves compel higher charges for production, IF production is to remain solvent above the higher costs of greater debt.

Ostensibly to stave "inflation" nonetheless, Alan Greenspan maintained high interest rates.

The idea of course is to restrict the circulation by making further circulation so expensive that under the resultant circulation, markets cannot afford higher prices.

All the while, merely as we maintain a circulation, debt and the profit of the central banking system multiply at the faster rates predicated by higher rates of interest.

The consequence of making credit so expensive markets cannot afford rising prices therefore, is ever greater marginalization of existent production, under the weight of greater debt.

Alan Greenspan thus accelerated the demise of the system by marginalizing both consumer and producer, and multiplying debt at the highest rates either might tolerate.

In 1996, during the campaign preceding the second Clinton Administration, I responded to an MSNBC question, Are political reporters politically biased?

"Unless there is an editor or reporter with a perfectly neutral work-focus and style of presentation, then ALL reporters and editors are politically biased.

Bias however, is no sensitive issue where a mature audience is apt to detect bias and account for it. The damaging aspect of 'news' coverage is its non-focus on imperative issues and qualifiable solution; and that so many citizens of all countries of the world hold to so many irrelevant snippets as if they can be served by them.

For some 20 years for instance, the prospect of a 'balanced budget' occasionally draws some focus. But, in the news, and in politics, never have we seen an exhaustive proof of whether it is even mathematically possible to balance the budget under current and ever-worsening conditions. If however, world politics will ever see the solution of ever-mounting debt, and a solution of the ever greater costs of ever mounting debt, inevitably this will be through the eyes of a mathematic expression equivalent to conclusive, mathematic proof.

Do the people even want to see or hear this, or administer to issues in conclusive terms? Only their focus on such a scope will tell. But certainly no news-service offers the inevitable argument.

In any event, the impertinence of the audience befits the impertinence of submitted material. If they had no equally impertinent audience... all impertinent material, and all impertinent politicians, would be equally vanished.

Just something to consider, as we plunge ever deeper into insoluble debt."

The Clinton-Gore Administration of course, likewise received our proof of mathematically perfected economy. Mathematically perfected economy is a singular solution for the issues confronting us.

In return for our efforts, and in sole response to our efforts, Bill Clinton sent us 8 years' of Christmas cards — without a word on economics, unless those words are in the cards we never opened.

You might understand that several of those sendings were never even opened nonetheless, as it wasn't long after my subdued 1996 expression of displeasure that Bill Clinton and Al Gore claimed to have accomplished something which to recently had been considered "mathematically impossible."

My very words. Imagine that.

Clinton, known well enough for his truthfulness, claimed to have balanced the federal budget; and remarkably, this claim survives the mainstream press as "might" induce approval of an unapprehending populace to this very day.

But were taxes increased?

Was government spending decreased?

Were either taxes or spending increased or decreased as necessary to avoid further accumulation of national debt?

OR "might" he just for instance have instead relinquished hard-earned and vital assets such as the Panama Canal, and gutted social security and even other funds meant for, created by the work of, and owned by, the American people?

And can this "possibly" explain why Al Gore refused to run for 2004, saying only that he's come to realize "the old methods may not work any more?"

Indeed, no more room may remain for the old methods to "work" any more; and when and if we finally have to clean house, which "may" be very soon, neither the White House or Congress or Judicial system will be a comfortable place to perch, if not only did you permit this to happen, you were a principal perpetrator.

But in the mainstream press owned by the principal perpetrators, the legend of the balanced budget lives on, even as federal debt continued to accumulate under the purported, balanced budget — and even as federal debt is regularly purchased by the so-called Federal Reserve, for profit, at your further expense.

As Clinton took office with business across the world plummeting from profitability, "new engines of growth" were direly sought. It was necessary to dramatically increase the circulation that, if new production of some sort could survive, it might sustain "the economy" against the accumulated debt.

"One thing always particularly attractive to the banking 'industry,'" is the prospect of siphoning profit from commerce in a "new" way.

If you ever have to deal with "investors," you might be apprised they are in general not particularly brilliant people. Across the world they claim their role drives the system. In fact, largely they procure and distribute funds from close proximity to the central banking system — at behest of the system, and at the direct or indirect profit of the printers and changers of the money. One thing motivates them, and that is unearned profit.

The "economy" was largely sustained by the strength of the software industry. But in every new area and era of venture, pretenders may accumulate. Right and left new ventures were spawned, often with no real product, or no prospect in hell of generating a profit. Huge sums of cash were dumped into empty businesses, and on the claimed "boom," Clinton likewise claimed efficient administration of the "economy."

A typical blunder for instance would be a proposal for the world's largest online mall. EVERYONE would be allowed to sell EVERYTHING — and everyone's store front might cost them nothing to participate. A great idea?

A little software would run it all. But what were the real prospects? First of all, a formula for everyone to sell to themselves everything they might, for profit, is to cancel all the profit. Moreover, which store front is to be presented of all so many store fronts? And finally, how have you improved distribution or handling, when you can still pick up your bar of soap at the store?

There are no credible figures, but so few are the so-called dot-coms which ever made a profit, quite likely all the prosperity claimed of the Clinton era is more properly represented by a negative expression.

Nonetheless, the failure of all those dot-coms dumped huge amounts of cash into the system, which, against the further multiplied debt, allowed us to just sustain ourselves. Now, under all so much more debt, accumulating ever more debt everywhere about us, and without even a credible facade worthy of even greater funding necessary to sustain us against even further debt...

Just exactly, where are we going to go?

There is negative interest now in Japan. They are HOPING they can pay people to take money, that the system does not quickly deflate as we pay against existent debt — while we are so insolvent we can neither afford or credibly be granted further debt subject to interest which will further multiply debt — as necessary to maintain a vital circulation.

Which pretty much brings us up to date on the longevity of the second cycle of collapse to be engendered by the so-called Federal Reserve System and its sister central banks around the world.

"If" we were to perfect "economy" of these incredible inconsistencies however, that effort would render mathematically perfected economy.

What is mathematically perfected economy?

Given that the imperfections of an "economic" system which adversely affect us are inflation; deflation; inadequate circulation; corruption of the value of money; and multiplication of debt in proportion to the vital circulation, mathematic solution is no great challenge.

As inflation and deflation are defined as increases or decreases in circulation per production, inflation and deflation are solved by a circulation always equal to the current value of production.

If an adequate circulation is sufficient to convey all production, therefore, as all production might be exchanged for circulation at once, an adequate circulation is always equal to the current value of production. In order for an adequate circulation to sustain commerce however, no part of an adequate circulation may be diverted from sustaining commerce, as by an artificially imposed necessity to service debt, multiplied in proportion to the circulation.

If there is no inflation or deflation, and if an adequate circulation exists, the relationship between units of currency and the remaining value of units of production is constant, and therefore the system does not corrupt the value of money.

Money is as a written obligation, worth the original obligation to pay. If we charge interest for the use of money, we multiply obligation; and if we must maintain a circulation to convey commerce, and if we must do so with a currency subject to interest, then in maintaining a circulation, we will perpetually multiply obligation in proportion to the circulation, and commerce which can be sustained by it. To eliminate multiplication of debt in proportion to the commerce which can be sustained by a circulation, money must, like an obligation to each other, be merely a medium of exchange, managed jointly for joint benefit by the device of government, or independently, by individuals.

To solve for each and all these aspects together then, is simply to provide adequate circulation in the form of debt, and to pay off the debt at the rate of consumption of the indebted asset or service, without interest.

The only real differences therefore are adequate circulation, elimination of interest, and the essential schedule of payment.

Suppose for instance a builder determines to build a home for which the builder wants $100,000, and which shall have a 100-year lifespan. The owner of the home assumes a $100,000 debt, which is paid to the builder. During the life of the home then, the owner pays for the home at the rate of consumption, which is $1,000 per year, or $83.33 per month.

For extrapolating the difference in cost or lost prosperity there is to us across an entire system, little doubt there is therefore, how all countries of the world might prosper under mathematically perfected economy.

By loaning into circulation so much currency as finances all new production, there is always adequate circulation. By paying debt at the rate of consumption, the circulation always equals the current value of production. There is no inflation or deflation. Debt is not multiplied by interest. The circulation is always sufficient to pay debt. Everyone receives the full measure of their production. Everyone pays for no more than what they consume. We may prosper to the full extent of our willingness to produce from available resources.

Multiplied indebtedness can never interrupt, impede, or jeopardize prosperity.

If there is any further perceived problem this prescription does not solve, in several decades we haven't heard it.

John Kennedy was the last president to even speak against central bankers.

The very revolution which established this country was a revolt against central banking. The greatest leaders of our history ALL spoke out emphatically against central banking. They all warned what is now upon us would be the consequence of central banking.

What does that tell you?

The real state of the union therefore is a litany of deceit and disservice.

Plain and simple.

I will not trouble you with a point by point refutation of the pandering delivered by "our" president just the other day. But no, the elderly and disadvantaged shall not have more care under ever-multiplying indebtedness. No, George Bush spewing a few words as if he created the internet does not spell the advent of hydrogen-powered automobiles. Nor shall "recovery" mean meaningful wages for the employed, true full employment, or mothers once again able to stay home to raise their own children. Recovery will not mean once again we will pay for a home with the effort of creating one.

"Recovery" will mean only another brief while that we can deliver the costs of perpetually multiplied debt against the perpetually greater difficulty of ever greater debt.

If "our" president has his way, we will gladly do that as we succumb to insoluble debt. He will wave and smile. He will even pretend to be your friend.

Speech crafters carefully drew up facade after facade that George Bush represents us, that he stands for freedom, that he is a patriot in the thread of great presidents before him, and that he makes America a proper place for even its own people. But he will not deliver prosperity, and he did this to manipulate you into assenting to war.

To wage war on what evidence we know of? Absolutely not.

If there is a reason for war, it hasn't been produced to me. Or to you, either.

To invade Iraq, particularly if Iraq complies with weapons inspection needs would be unconscionable. But if with Afghanistan and potential pipeways under their belts, oil men will profit, then eternity should know a tree by its fruit.

To maintain peace, Iraq is faced with the difficult decision to immediately comply fully with weapons inspection demands. If Iraq is to be granted any option to be freed peacefully however, it is our obligation at least to leave leeway to comply. As I see it, there is hardly the support for war here the media purports; and the only real option for George Bush to "win" in Iraq is to do so without a single bullet.

But as is the case for every nation, our real issues are at home and in proper commerce within and without our country. Here, the Bush Administration deserves no patriotism.

In the midst of the Great Depression, Congressman Louis T. McFadden explained innumerable offenses and the very adverse nature of the Federal Reserve System at great length, concluding emphatically, "The Federal Reserve Act should be repealed; and the Federal Reserve Banks — having violated their charters — should be liquidated immediately. Faithless government officers who have violated their oaths of office should be impeached and brought to trial. Unless this is done by us, I predict the American people — outraged, robbed, pillaged, insulted, and betrayed as they are in their own land — will rise in their wrath and send a President here who WILL sweep the money changers from the temple."

John Kennedy, it must be said with considerable cooperation within the Soviet Union, brilliantly forged peace out of the Cuban missile crisis. Kennedy said, "All problems are man made. Therefore all problems can be solved by man." George W. Bush may be making far more problems than he can handle, and certainly more than he is prepared to defend us from. People across the world are asking us for responsibility. What do we hear?

One thing certainly will set the world straight — and that is every decent person's unrelenting dedication to setting the world straight.

Solve the real problems before us. Do not make problems.

Refinance all debt without interest. Finance new production with new debt, paid to producers on assumption of debt by consumers. Pay debt according to the rate of consumption of indebted assets or services, that each and every one of us may prosper according to our unimpeded, undiminished doings. Peace and stability then will reign on earth.

If mankind is truly apt to evolve to higher existence, mathematically perfected economy is inevitable. Which is only one of many reasons why those who pretend to serve you can ill afford to accommodate the possibility of mathematically perfected economy — or real solution to other problems they impose upon us.



mike montagne — PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy



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."



"A country voting each for the self determines a subclass few of them will truly belong to, prevailing at the cost of the rest. Even a country voting for the good of all determines a good country only if it votes so well. It is incumbent on the wise to spread word of real solution."

PLEASE promote mathematically perfected economy by forwarding our newsletters to your address book, and by publishing PFMPE URLs to forums, newsgroups, websites and newsmedia. Where an ostensibly representative government and media serve oppression, everyone not participating effectually in solution is an accessory to the consequences.


PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy — Now 100,000 visits per month.

 http://www.perfecteconomy.com/

PLEASE JOIN PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy without cost or obligation, and register to receive our FREE NEWSLETTER at  http://www.perfecteconomy.com/index-contact.html.

 http://www.perfecteconomy.com/index-articles.html#nl20030211-state-of-the-union