The Mathematic Perfection of Economy by Mike Montagne

Editor’s Note: Mike maintains a YouTube channel here. Mike maintains an “End the Bank of England” ning page here. Also see Mike Montagne 1/17 (MPE) American Underground Network 28.05.11 Also see Mike Montagne 1/10 (MPE) Von Mises Austrian economist Robert Murphy 17.09.11 Also, check out this page at m4f.

Perfect Economy Being denied the progress we can easily achieve by practically all sides of the issue, some few of us hold out much hope for the emergence of a real, veritable monetary science, preserving a representative value of money and property, incapable of maldistribution of wealth, and sustaining all of the desirable forms of prosperity toward which we make ourselves capable and deserving.

While the anticipation of never transitioning into that seeming frontier can never be validated by simply failing to raise a few vital truths, most of us realize too that the vast pretensions of purported economics are responsible for great, extensive wrong in the world.

Yet this very moment you have your finger on proof of singular solution; and while indeed we can deliver rice so that millions of producers of rice will not be starved for the sake of enmities such as commodities trading, even the whole of the lie which pretenders call “economics” is a mere pseudo science, bereft even of a fundamental proof which necessarily would ascertain that its practice is economic, just, or even sustainable.

“Banking was conceived in iniquity, and born in sin. Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again.” Sir Josiah Stamp

Within itself then, the pseudo science can only be comprised of naysay versus unqualifiable assertion, because what cannot work cannot be qualified. Thus, the unqualifiable assertions of purported economics are left to be sustained by testaments of the very things which cannot work, do not engender justice, are not economy, and are not even sustainable.

Its study is not even a study as much as it is a broad, concerted, conspiratorial evasion, because the most useful questions are purposely not asked, and because its obvious faults and solution are ignored to use what they call economy as a tool to deprive the many of all these things. The only way beyond the lies and all their consequences therefore is the very monetary paradigm before you, because mathematically perfected economy™ is the singular solution of all possible monetary irregularities.

Three major religions have outlawed usury for thousands of years; and yet imposed across the world are currencies by which, if we merely maintain a vital circulation, can only perpetually multiply principal into ever greater, ever more usurious sums of debt. But worse, the pretended principles of purported modern “economics” are even inherently and inevitably terminal, because it is impossible to fulfill the obligation to service debt if we do not maintain a circulation, and because we can only maintain a circulation by re-borrowing principal and interest as subsequent sums of debt, perpetually increased in proportion to the circulation so much as periodic interest. Ultimately and inevitably then, every circulation subject to usury engenders a sum of debt which is terminal.

In our joined understanding of only these present facts then is the people’s greatest possible strength concentrated, because we can prove without equivocation not only that we are denied representation, but that there is a singular fact thereof.


Granted this proof of a singular, integral monetary solution nonetheless, a people who will not see through the transparent facades everywhere to unite for nothing less than that single fact of representation, doom all of us to all the consequences mounting before us.

“The purpose of this financial crisis is to take down the U.S. dollar as the stable datum of planetary finance and, in the midst of the resulting confusion, put in its place a Global Monetary Authority [GMA – run directly by international bankers freed of any government control] -a planetary financial control organization.” Bruce Wiseman

In this too then exists a critical obligation to bring this understanding of monetary rectitude and singular fact of representation to all others, for as surely as inherently terminal systems are terminal, and as surely as the evidence of a near term end has amassed everywhere about you, soon enough the facts we have so far not learned from will once again demonstrate the inevitable maximum possible lifespan of usury is predicated by a moment when the costs of servicing its irreversible multiplication of debt exceed our finite capacity to do so.

Obviously, our evolution for the real better, and even our very sustenance hinge upon realizing solution soon. Likewise, humanity will never stand as one until we understand as one, the one possible monetary paradigm by which unity, harmony, justice, prosperity, and even sustainability truly exist.

In the interest of disinforming you of the cause and consequences of irreversible multiplication of debt, we are not just lied to regularly. We are deceived without exception, for a purpose; and the purpose not only of all the pervasive, concerted disinformation, but the vast usurpation which must come with it, is preservation of an imposed currency for the sake of unearned accumulation of vast, undeserved wealth, by inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt by usury.

Because the known improprieties of the currency are the very intended tools to do this, modern “economists” and the pretended representatives before us will never rectify purported economics of its obvious faults. In turn, true economic solution can and will only be established by a knowledgeable people, demanding together not only the one monetary paradigm that can serve them, but thus unseating the vast usurpation presently working to secure usury forever.

We absolutely can solve the few simple issues imposed upon us by “modern economies.” We can readily perfect economy by mathematic processes, in fact of the most elementary kind. Ancient scripture even tells us we will do so.

Moreover, the responsible and vigilant citizen who breathes can only smell the sulphur of purported modern economics. They thus turn to discover at least the smoking history everywhere by which, without mandate, and converse to representation, today’s central banking systems were imposed upon the world. But the smell and dark, corrupt history of the thing are not enough, even if they lead us to the beginnings of the crime.

Contemplating that dark history or perceiving any of the many adverse consequences everywhere about us only incline the responsible citizen to find and eradicate them. Yet there is no way to eradication but solution; and so, given resistance to a proof of singular solution, a struggle must ensue, and history must indeed boil up the vital paradigm.

“All the perplexities, confusions and distresses in America arise not from defects in the constitution or confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, as much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.” President John Adams

The material of these pages represents an effort of some 40 years. The few classes of effort to refute or alternate this long-standing proposition of a singular solution, or the proposition of inherent multiplication of debt which mathematically perfected economy™ addresses, are documented within these very pages. To expedite our progress, those few efforts are explicitly invalidated by this material as well.

The dedication of this material to solution was the first of its kind to appear in the present arena, even before the official emergence of the web. Original proofs and prescriptions for mathematically perfected economy™ appeared in public bulletin boards for instance, from which academia could access the very computer models and documentation I provided the Reagan Administration.

Playlist Explaining MPE

In the early 1980s, by a process no less accurate or abstract than calculating succeeding periodic interest for any debt, said models accurately projected not only the unanticipated multiplication of debt accumulated under Mr. Reagan’s two terms of office, but the accumulation of debt to now. But their principal purpose was to conservatively calculate from the same time, a maximum practical lifespan for the present cycle of usury. In serving that purpose according to administered rates of interest and circulatory growth, they indicated a maximum practical lifespan to approximately 2010 AD.

From the material presented by these pages, it may be understood quite definitively in fact that we are in the midst of the beginning of the projected failure, because in fact we are unable even to service mounting public debt — which of course is responsible for its accumulation.

I have spoken more and more formally about mathematically perfected economy™ since high school. In 1979 I published a formal proof that a) a any purported economy subject to interest ultimately terminates itself under insoluble debt; and b) that there is one only solution to the breadth of present monetary irregularities, which categorically are, 1) inflation and deflation, 2) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and 3) inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt in proportion to the circulation by interest.

Years before I published these proofs, the thinking was so well received by such distinguished persons as Will McPhee of the math staff of the University of Colorado, that he engaged scores (if not hundreds) of other professors, and several hundred people altogether, to give immediate audience to the proposition; and there was not a dissenting opinion.

Many web sites and documentaries have been patterned after the background material which was first introduced to the web by these pages. Some introduce further research into history which neither attests to nor denies mathematically perfected economy™, because this is the origin of its authorship.

The present page sufficiently presents the underlying rationale. The many further pages expand upon intrinsic and related concepts as necessary to close the many surrounding issues, often raised only in evasion or indifference.


Contradictory promises are circulating before the unfolding economic catastrophe at hand.

On the one hand, we have a handful of recently emerging threads of purported monetary reform, all of which can readily be shown to embody critical faults. On another we have the purported rectitude of the incongruous and plausibly catastrophic system which has been imposed upon us, and which now, as it can only multiply debt all the further, threatens inevitable failure under a mountain of debt which is not only artificial and unjustified, but wholly avoidable by proper, true economy.

On the side of the latter then, we have a populace which largely understands nothing of the imposed system’s purported economics, but asserts in one way or another its perpetuation. Buoyed by a shameless propensity for dogma and a remarkable irreverence for the long term lack of accountable explanation, they are spurred by a mainstream media owned by the very people intending to dupe enough of us to persist in a mass dispossession of our country. This faction is our greatest shame, our whole sufficient vulnerability, our mere weakness.

Even wearing its neglect for the criminal and ever more crippling debt it intends itself to simply evade and to pass on to its own progeny, this faction stands faithfully with the many monetary facades and iniquities which in the respiration of history imposed the world’s First Great Depression upon them just a few breaths ago.

They stand even arrogantly by their many incongruities, even as none have the least understanding of either the first catastrophic failure’s cause, or its possible prevention. In a queer counter-intellectual stupor meant to defend positions which can only truly be defended otherwise, they defend the indefensible system they themselves never assented to, even as we can readily demonstrate the underlying cause of its first catastrophic failure persists in the very terminal sums of debt presently accumulating everywhere about us.

Thus for nothing better than confusion and worse, they perpetually commit all of us to a process which in fact is meant only to multiply debt for unearned gain — for we can readily solve that process and avoid systemic collapse under terminal artificial sums of debt.

According to this faction, while we can no longer even afford to service the debt their apathy has already accumulated, and while artificial sums of debt continue to multiply even at inherently escalating rates, they willfully and daily absorb the unqualified proposition that we enjoyed “growth” while all but the last of our industry was driven from our country. But as surely as this irreversible amounting of debt will impose systemic collapse, their unqualified denial ensures the near term event of a Second Great Depression, because it is a sum of debt increasing in proportion to our means to service it. Just such irreverence and ineptitude in fact set the table for the First Great Depression.

On another hand, we have a small faction which understands at least that we require monetary reform.

But what reform will serve us?

If you don’t mind (and I’m not sure I don’t mind), I’d like to put the present stance of this faction into perspective by citing my response to a recent letter from a friend who passes on a post advocating that it is “Time to listen to Texas Congressman Ron Paul, the lone voice of reason in Congress today who’s got to feel like he’s shouting into a field of cotton with his repeated warnings about the dangers of a collapsing dollar, while the administration goes AWOL on the problem.” Indeed, just today or yesterday or so, as some prices have escalated 20 or 25 percent in just the last few months, Presidente Bush said “we” want to be careful not to “over-curreck.”

“If ever again our nation stumbles upon unfunded paper, it shall surely be like death to our body politic. This country will crash.” President George Washington

Mario Sikorski is a good friend who has followed, participated, and promoted this effort for I don’t know how long. His email updates me of developments circulating among a broad scope of teachers, economists, and students of the effort to perfect economy. Hopefully my answer to his recent letter will bring the reader up to speed on the question of veritable monetary reform:

Thursday, March 27, 2008

The trouble is, Ron Paul doesn’t have the answer.

We can readily prove that; and we can readily prove what the answer is.

Most of us thought that Ron Paul’s long term integrity would find the answer, or be open to the answer, or would receive the answer laid on his doorstep. But in the true mold of Austrian “economists,” evidently he disdains math and mathematic solution, even as they are indispensable both to finding and to demonstrating our way.

People have been jumping up and down for more than 200 years in this country over the controversy between usury and free enterprise. Those two mutually exclusive things are what we’re really dealing with here.

The founders hoped to perfect economy, and tried to perfect economy. Jefferson particularly realized that they had fallen short of that vital goal, and so he pointed to the monetary defects of the Constitution in such a way that we were to realize the answer to monetary perfection laid not in the Constitution, but in our responsibility to achieve a future perfection before it was too late.

To his great credit, and like many others, Jefferson realized that usury comprised the most dangerous power to usurp the country.

What Ron Paul and his followers do not understand is that a process which multiplies debt *in proportion* to our means or capacity to service debt, inherently imposes the culminating events we now face. Thus to jump up and down and shout “inflation,” or a return to Constitutionality is not even to engage in fruitful dialog regarding real solution.

The *only* thing which can truly save us is a proof of solution. If we can’t deal with simple mathematic problems by proof of solution, there isn’t even any reason to take encouragement then from Fox News’ prospective awakening [regarding the forwarded material’s urging that Fox revisit Ron Paul’s advocations].

Few Americans understand what caused the first Great Depression. Fewer still can put their finger on a singular prescription which would have avoided not just the ultimate consequence of the First Great Depression, but even every minute degree of inequity which, having inevitably accumulated over the first mere 15 years of the so called Federal Reserve System, could *only* result in an event which again we are approaching at a like, inherently escalating rate.

There are nonetheless the most concrete reasons these things happen as they do; and if we are not ready ourselves to face those reasons, there is no hope for us.

It is easy now to predict another world-wide Depression, for it almost seems that no one can answer for the sums of artificial debt which continue to multiply at inherently escalating rates. But someone has answered; and who has heard them?

It is easy too to look at our fellow citizens and see that they and their run amuck government haven’t the least disposition to solve their problems, for the answers are simple, and sitting right in front of their faces. It is for their own iniquities that we are not solving the simple issues which threaten or even ensure our destruction.

But let’s face it. So it is too for a candidate who only jumped up and down shouting about *some* of the consequences of this mal-designed system — and who never once has burrowed for us into the necessarily exhaustive, mechanical explanation which would convey to us a *true* understanding of solution.

How do I know?

Because I have attempted since even before Mr. Paul’s first campaign for the presidency to engage him on these issues. Because my own work disproved Mr. Paul’s notions before even the mid 1970s when Mr. Paul claims he took an interest in “Austrian Economics” — a purported discipline which itself does not even claim to solve the problems before us, and which in fact advocates the very things which are the cause of our problems… namely, “interest,” and unearned gain.

Mr. Paul uses the words of Mullins and others to shout to us that money is created out of thin air; that our issue is fiat currency; that government over-spending (my term) is destroying us.

These things indeed speak of vast, run amuck corruption; and have a ring which has appealed to a few of the jeopardized masses. But they are not even meaningful expressions which deliver terms on which we can build solution.

Mr. Paul claims nonetheless that we need therefore to reduce the circulation. But he hasn’t even proven that what we suffer from is truly inflation.

Let me ask everyone something:

“Inflation” and “deflation” are defined respectively as increases or decreases in circulation per related production. That is, the proper/traditional definition of inflation is an increase in circulation per the very things for which so much currency was introduced to circulation. It has *always* *only been theoretical* that “inflation” *caused* increasing prices. In all the pseudo sciences of purported “economics,” there is no proof and no formal theorem which establishes that “inflation” engenders increasing costs.

So, before I ask my question, let me say first that I can and have proved this unqualified proposition wrong; and that the story of my first spewing forth of the inadvertent contrarian proposition best puts the questions at hand in their deserved context, because they are the very questions every student, the teacher, and their teacher before and so forth should have asked.

I enjoyed the benefits of an advanced mathematics education as a young child — college algebra at age 7, calculus as I turned 10. Years down the road, in high school actually, I was required to take a course which exposed forever to me the falsifications which are presently leading us down the road to disaster. I of course have reservations about asserting this childhood qualification; but I have greater reservation about its plausible omission, because otherwise this high school event circa 1968 might be stripped of the weight it deserves.

Having moved from the place of my earlier, discontinued education, in effect I retraced much of my earlier education in high school, where I enjoyed certain respect for a gift of seeing the answers to problems.

I will not dwell on that long. But as a generic understanding of mathematics does not generally suffice in its observation of formal proof and theorem, it is important at least to some degree to build a case that the style and stature of the teaching we received even so early in our lives was substantially disciplined. As a consequence of that early discipline, I was the only student my two difficult high school math teachers ever gave an A+; and I was the only student in either of their careers to take them up on an offer to forego turning in homework. I did mine according to my own schedule and habits, forfeiting a throw out test and never missing a single mathematic problem on a test in my high school career.

I considered myself very fortunate to have both these teachers, Jane Luks and Richard Herman, because they were both exceedingly astute, and taught solely by formal proofs of the theorems which distinguish and comprise a true discipline. It is this distinguishing aspect of mathematics and geometry which I feel compelled to concentrate on briefly, because it is an appreciation for proof and theorem alone which can put the weight of a singular proposition of mathematically perfected economy™ into perspective.

That is, there is one “and one only solution” (as Jane Luks used to say) to our present problems, and we are about to demonstrate so much in general, literal terms.

Thus our small, seemingly insignificant story is actually a case of the pseudo science, “economics,” versus the bona fide science of mathematics; and really it is important for you to be delivered it in those terms to weigh its full meaning. The math of it, as you will see, is simple — as elementary and incontrovertible as elementary and incontrovertible can be.

In high school — actually I did not know it at the time of the present story, but my gifts for problem solving were privately celebrated by a number of the faculty. One day for instance, as my Trig/Geometry teacher Jane Luks was about to teach the so called Pythagorean Theorem (which I later learned he was actually taught in Egypt), she asked if anyone thought they could prove the square of the hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares of the two right sides.

The idea of the necessary proof immediately formed in my head; but it wasn’t my custom to overly involve myself in answering; and so I didn’t raise my hand. Two fellow students, did. As we listened to them meticulously give the challenge a try, I was gently shaking my head no, understanding they were off in futile directions. Noticing my private gesture, Mrs. Luks then asked me, and I produced a whole proof directly off the top of my head. The story of the event, which Mrs. Luks evidently considered somewhat remarkable, circulated in the faculty lunch room to the economics teacher, Mr. Otto, of the subsequent story.

I would not say my business/economics teacher was intimidated by my mathematic intuition. But one day long after the present story unfolds, he did tell me it came pretty close to that. What was most great about our controversies, is that we were always able to discuss them as gentlemen. To his great credit, he never once defended the great lie.

So not long into his business/economics course, Mr. Otto cited the traditional definitions of inflation and deflation, merely saying then (much like Mr. Paul), that inflation caused increasing prices.

I tried in my own busy head to perceive how said ramification was engendered; and I came up with quite the opposite proposition.

To the present point it is also fitting and timely to say that already (very early in the course) I was quite frustrated with the purported discipline, because even as I had scanned the whole text book, I didn’t find *a single* formal proof or theorem. In fact, though my disposition toward the course remained relatively positive, it would be truthful and even rather polite to say that already I had come to think the whole body of propositions were utter crap. To this very day, no one has demonstrated to my satisfaction otherwise.

So I immediately raised my hand, and to the best of my recollection the discourse between Mr. Otto and myself regarding inflation, deflation, and purported price inflation went something like this:

“If all the money is loaned into circulation as debt, and the debts are subject to interest, and if we cannot borrow more than the value of whatever we are borrowing the money for, it is unclear first of all how it is even possible to suffer what you define to be “inflation.”

“In other words, if we can’t borrow $50,000 to buy a $35,000 home or $50 to buy a $20 tire, how can we possibly *ever* suffer ‘inflation’?”

Mr. Otto turned a bit red, rubbed his head, and agreed that was a pretty good question. He didn’t know. I tell you now (40 years of intensive testing of the idea later), that neither does Mr. Paul; and that there is a better and more deserving perception of the issue than Mr. Paul advocates in the pattern of many others who have never solved the present issues.

My first proposition was only an introduction to the several refutations I intended to make. I then presented Mr. Otto the postulate I intended:

“But I don’t understand then, even if it were possible to suffer inflation, that an increase in circulation per goods and services would engender increasing prices.”

“In other words, I understand that *if* we somehow *could* be subjected to a circulation greater than the value of all the things for which we had borrowed the money into circulation, *seemingly* that greater circulation which we do not even know can exist might only at first provide a capacity to *pay* higher prices; but as to why or how it would cause them, there is no connection whatsoever, for how does a factory say for instance first detect that one day the circulation we do not know can even increase in such a way has somehow increased… are you saying that in these potentially non-existent circumstances that nonetheless the factory simply raises prices one day, to take greater profit from ‘inflation’?”

“This doesn’t seem plausible. I’ll tell you why:”

“If money is introduced to circulation as debt subject to interest, then merely to maintain a vital circulation, we have to perpetually re-borrow whatever we pay against principal and interest obligations. Payments against the previous sum of principal thus are re-assumed as new principal, equal to the old — making it impossible to pay down the sum of debt. But as payments against interest obligations do not count against the previous principal, our perpetual re-borrowing of interest to replenish a circulation means therefore that the sum of debt will perpetually increase so much as periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt. Not only would this mean that there is ever less of a given circulation to devote to prices, much less increasing prices ostensibly tolerated by the non-existent “inflation,” it would mean that as a consequence of this multiplication of debt in proportion to the circulation, that the system inherently, ultimately collapses under a sum of debt it can no longer afford to service.”

“So we have several things here — not just some purported ‘inflation,’ which we don’t know even can exist:”

“We have an inherently, irreversibly multiplying sum of debt, which ultimately engenders collapse, and which, all along the irreversible path to that collapse, imposes ever greater costs of servicing ever greater debt. While I can understand that *these costs* manifest in ever greater prices as industry has to account for their erosion of profit margins, it is also true that ever less of the circulation can be devoted to commerce, as ever more of the circulation is inherently devoted instead to servicing debt. Eventually, even *ALL* of the circulation is devoted to servicing debt.”

“So it would not be an increase in circulation per goods and services which engenders perpetually increasing prices; it would be the nature of the money; it would be that all the money is subject to interest which inherently engenders perpetually increasing prices by imposing ever greater debt upon the people. And so in fact, while industry can survive this irreversible multiplication of debt, it would be the ever greater costs of servicing this inherently ever escalating multiplication of debt which actually even requires prices to inherently increase at an equivalent, ever greater rate.”

Mr. Otto grew a few shades deeper red the whole while; and in the end stood there rubbing his head. Finally he said, “By God, I think you’re right again.”

This was my inadvertent self initiation into the monetary reform movement — a wholly independent one.

I had never read Mullins or any meaningful “economics” literature; and even though a good supporter of mathematically perfected economy™ has recently furnished me a copy of Mullins’ most well known work, I regret to say I still haven’t read it. “None Dare Call It Conspiracy” wouldn’t be written for a decade. I did not know yet that the so called Federal Reserve System was privately owned, or the extremely shady dealings which created it for the very purpose I had just explained to Mr. Otto.

I was just a boy, so they say, and nonetheless the idea I’d just had could never leave my head. There was no exaggeration of its importance. If anything, quite the contrary was so. But certainly a proposition of inherently escalating costliness, dispossession, and inevitable collapse as a consequence of interest still seemed even so important as to be absolutely critical, even at the time. I pondered the relevant questions day and night then, because of their obvious prospective importance.

Even as this process began, I understood there was an explicit, qualifiable solution — and even a bona fide science which would comprise an opposed, true form of economy, for the topic of discussion had related instead to what amounted to a method of stupendous mass dispossession (quite striking to a potential subject of such an imposed process), ostensibly justified by risk comprised in a money which because it cost nothing to produce, and didn’t even represent earned wealth which could not be restored to such an issuer but by the stroke of a pen, comprised no risk whatever.

Not only so; in the identified process laid the proof of Jefferson’s postulate of usurpation — something I also already understood, intuitively.

In my original postulates then were both the proof of the terminal injuries of usury, and the very foundation of true economy, because it is *interest* which inherently multiplies debt in proportion to a circulation, or the commerce which must service debt on the ever diminishing portion of the circulation which can be devoted to sustaining commerce. A system comprised of usury therefore is unsustainable, and simply a means of dispossessing the subject society of its wealth. Already, we had informally proven this.

So I was inclined at the time to believe we had simple, finite issues which could be solved readily, for to solve inherent multiplication of debt and its ramifications a) we only have to eradicate interest.

Moreover, while the initial questions understood it may not even be practical to suffer “inflation” as defined, nonetheless a formal prescription for eradicating inflation and deflation was warranted, and so perhaps over the next day’s thinking I realized the answer to this too was conclusive and exceedingly simple: The only solution to inflation and deflation in fact is b.1) to pay off debts *equal to* the original value of the related production at the rate of the related production’s depreciation or consumption (which are to be understood to be equal). Only this schedule and limitation of the original obligation eliminates inflation and deflation.

Thus too, to solve inflation and deflation, b.2) the circulation cannot be subject to interest, because if it is, more is paid out of circulation than originally introduced — or in other words, we inherently suffer deflation.

It was some while further before I put the rest of the puzzle together.

First of all, much like Mr. Paul and others, even as I couldn’t put my finger on explicit detriments, I was originally uncomfortable with the idea of debt at all, and so I spent some while considering just about every conceivable alternate way to introduce money into circulation to avoid indebtedness before I realized finally that debt is not an undue or unnatural circumstance; and that it in fact represents the very opportunity and means of necessary economic expansion.

Any other way of introducing circulation engendered inflation or deflation at some point or another, and deprived us of the instances of assuming debt we can take advantage of. There was nothing wrong with young people buying homes with work they would eventually render for instance, particularly as it enabled the home builder too to deploy their capacities immediately, for deserved reward.

Only a system thus which allows people to pay only debts which are equivalent to what they receive in fact enables us to achieve our full potentials, for only in such a system can we pay for the work of others with whatever we deem to be an equal measure of our own work. The money of mathematically perfected economy™ frees us of the costs, escalating risks, and ultimately terminal consequences of interest, or self multiplying, ever escalating unearned dispossession to inevitable collapse.

The other issues could be reduced to a *class* of problem, namely systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property. In other words, to deliver a form of money with perpetually consistent value, it was necessary first to directly link the circulation with the remaining value of the property for which it was introduced; and to eliminate all ways by which the system itself could manipulate or affect the value of money. The former [unsolved] need to directly link the circulation with the remaining value of related assets was already accomplished by eradicating interest and the predicated schedule of payment which eliminated inflation and deflation: only by this combination of attributes is the resultant sum of circulation, and only that resultant sum of circulation, at all times equal to the remaining value of the assets in which it is redeemable.

In other words then, only in mathematically perfected economy™ is the value of money constant and perpetuated, by a fixed, direct linkage between the circulation and very remaining value of whatever things it was originally issued.

How else however might the cost or value of money or property be manipulated?

I labored over solving effectively infinite individual instances of potential manipulation before I realized almost humorously, that all these things were in fact one thing, and that in fact I *already had* solved them. Because the cost or value of money or property are only systematically manipulated by interest, inflation, and/or deflation, we had already taken care of all these issues. Except if we were ever to obstruct necessary finance (which is the obstructive form of deflation), mathematically perfected economy™ alone therefore isn’t even endowed with any power to manipulate the cost or value of money or property (while obstructive deflation of course isn’t even necessarily detrimental).

Thus mathematically perfected economy™ is the singular integral solution to 1) inflation and deflation, 2) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and 3) inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt by interest. It is simply a system then where our promises to pay are issued without the costs and consequences of interest imposed by the present privatized currencies, where debts equal to the original value of the property for which the circulation is issued are paid off at the rate of depreciation or consumption of the property.

Notably then, mathematically perfected economy™ alone does not require an alternate monetary standard, because only in mathematically perfected economy™ is the value of the currency always redeemable in the remaining value of the property to which from the beginning, the whole circulation and every instance of the circulation are both equal and redeemable.

So this is practically all there is to the mathematic perfection of economy.

  1. There is one and one only solution to inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt by interest; this being eradication of interest.
  2. There is one and one only solution to inflation and deflation; this being maintenance of a circulation which is at all times equal to the remaining value of the very assets for which the circulation was issued.
    1. A schedule of payment equivalent to the rate of depreciation or consumption is key then not only to implementation of mathematically perfected economy™, but to the very economic justice of receiving for an equal measure of our own work, the equivalent work of others.
  3. There is one and one only solution/eradication of systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property; this itself being the union of the singular solutions of inflation, deflation, and inherent multiplication of debt by interest.

Mathematically Perfected Economy™ therefore is the one and only system by which we can prosper to the full measure of our capacities, as limited only by available resources.

For some reason, even as I authored these ideas as a high school student, I brought them up constantly in refutation of the further propositions of the pseudo-science, “economics” — a pseudo-science which is not even about justice, eliminating injury, minimizing cost, or what is “economic” — a pseudo science which openly defies even the very thing it is called. Realizing all this so long ago, I’ve constantly raised these questions and the alternative proposition of mathematically perfected economy™ to this very day.

In the course of all that discourse, I used to visit regularly with a neighbor with whom we shared a back porch; and we regularly discussed the topic which I had come to call “mathematically perfected economy.” MPE™ of course was not an internal or intrinsic discipline of what we call modern “economics.” It was in fact a wholly foreign refutation and singular solution.

I had forgotten that one day my friend and neighbor Jacques McPhee had asked me if he could write his father about my ideas; and I had also forgotten that he had explained that his father was the head of the math staff of the University of Colorado.

A few years down the road, after Jacques and Liza had moved away, I was invited to their wedding in Colorado.

I changed after the wedding ceremony, and, arriving at the reception only a few minutes late, decided to sneak in by a back way, suddenly thinking myself quite out of place in jeans and a wool shirt, after arriving at a surprisingly splendid mansion entered by hundreds of guests in suits and tuxedos.

I followed others to a back door, and so entered the kitchen where just a step inside magically, were Jacques and Liza, beaming bride and groom dressed much like myself. No sooner had we engaged in congratulations than Jacques said, “Mike, I’d like to introduce you to my father.”

Standing but a good step away was a very distinguished gentleman in a tux, and though he was engaged in discussion with several professors, no sooner did he hear my name than he turned to me with an outstretched hand, saying, “You’re the one with the economic ideas!”

A tad shyly I suppose, I answered as I dimly recalled the casual question Jacques had asked me years earlier, “Well, yes. I suppose that’s true.”

In some 40 years now, I’d say still I think that no one, not a soul, has ever asked such intelligent questions in such a well conceived pattern. Will McPhee desired to understand the truth. Before you knew it, I was quoting Jefferson, Lincoln, Franklin… telling what on our current pages I only call “Parable of Perfect Economy,” and tracing the history of economy back to ancient Egypt. We conversed intensely for hours, standing in the very same spot. Different professors joined us for hours at a time.

Then Mr. McPhee asked me how long I was going to be in Colorado Springs; and I told him I was leaving in the morning. With a frown, he said, “That’s too bad. I want to introduce you to some people. Would that be OK?”

“Certainly,” I replied.

So he escorted me from room to room and I was quite impressed with the respect he commanded. Everywhere, people stopped their discussions, and he was easily able to introduce me then to the whole room at once, asking everyone to assemble in the Ball Room in an hour from the beginnings of our tour of the building. To my surprise, there they all were, hundreds of professors, assembled suddenly to hear us speak.

Will then re-conducted me through the original pattern of questions; and I answered them as I had before.

I will not try here to recount that whole set of events; but my principal point I will simply say now is that we haven’t *had* that public, relevant, and crucial discussion; and that Mr. Paul’s propositions are in fact quite dangerous to the very prospect we *will* have it before it is too late.

Two things about this event amazed me:

  1. I will not tell how late it was before we were finished; but in the whole evening only one threesome excused themselves after a gentleman raised his hand to tell us at a late hour of the morning that his daughter had been married the previous day as well, and that while the present discussion was extremely important and exceedingly interesting, they had yet to make their daughter’s reception, and simply had to go.
  2. The other thing was that there was not a dissenting opinion.

The latter was not amazing in and of itself, because when a teacher expands upon a matter by proof and theorem, that is what you expect of disciplined practitioners.

What impressed me that there was not a dissenting opinion instead was this: That while there assumably were a number of “economics” professors present (or at least many who were versant in purported economics), not a person raised the least objection either to my proof that any purported economy subject to interest ultimately terminates itself under insoluble debt; or that there is one and one only integral solution to 1) inflation and deflation, 2) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and 3) inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt to inevitable collapse, by interest.

So seemingly fabulous was the reception, that I expected after almost a decade already of speaking informally about mathematically perfected economy™, I had finally done my deed. I expected to hear about mathematically perfected economy in papers across the country, because in my naivete I thought government intended to be just. I had no idea what corruption, as Jefferson had told, had been wrought by the power of “central banking,” which of necessity, would even have to own the mainstream media.

But so Mr. Paul’s assertions of “inflation” do no just come into question; they stand in the way of solution if he usurps the attention of a movement *desiring* effectual monetary reform, by proposing non-solution, and even by mis-identifying cause. Worse still it would be, if a purported return to Constitutionality eventually was blamed for the inherent systemic failure which Ron Paul’s propositions do not even address.

An example of this potential calamity is evident in Mr. Paul’s attention to government over-spending. He addresses over-spending as a cause of potential failure, versus a symptom of the cause of inevitable failure — the latter of which we have already proven.

That is, government over-spending is an inevitable consequence of reaching the later stages of the limited lifespan of any purported economic system subject to interest.

As we maintain a circulation subject to interest by re-borrowing what we pay against principal and interest obligations as subsequent sums of debt, the sum of artificial debt we are forced to service increases by ever escalating increments of periodic interest on the growing sum of debt. As we can less and less afford to service private debt, two things therefore arise as consequences:

  1. We can ever less afford to service an escalating sum of federal/public debt (which the usurpers will willingly defer to preserve their graft); and
  2. We are ever less credit-worthy to replenish the circulation of what we pay against our inescapable private debts, by re-borrowing further.

The latter introduces a need to find a way — any way — to sustain the circulation by introducing a stream of capital sufficient to maintain a circulation against the constant deflation which is transpiring — in other words *our* payments, predominately against private principal and interest obligations (which is the side of their graft which the usurpers are not so willing to defer).

Particularly in the later stages of the limited lifespan of any such purported “economy,” “financiers” (mere publishers of money), need to be ever more “creative”[/subversive] to establish a return stream of “capital” (currency, produced at virtually no cost whatever) sufficient to maintain a circulation against the inherent destruction of credit-worthiness by the system. In other words, as we are made ever less fit to service debts multiplied ever more beyond us, to sustain the graft, “financiers,” have to leak ever greater quantities of “money” into the system so that we can continue to service private debts from a sufficiently replenished circulation.

Thus as collapse approached in the events which led to the election of the Clinton Administration, during Clinton’s two terms the usurers necessarily poured money into a wholly bogus “technology boom.” Thousands of enterprises fell by the wayside. But most of them could only have fallen by the wayside, because there was no product or service, and because in truth the few which offered either were competing for shares of the existent market, which was already taxed to its limits by servicing existent debt.

This was the reason so much costless “money” was poured into the system that most of these “ventures” could *party* with 90% of their budget: We had to replenish the circulation to continue servicing existent, multiplying debt, that we could push back the Second Great Depression a while longer. The extremes of the artificial measures themselves testify to the proximity of collapse, just as the present “sub prime” “mortgage crisis” truly testifies to the underlying cause *of so much present, ***artificial*** debt*.

How desperate are we now?

With the inevitable collapse of that bogus, claimed prosperity, to sustain the circulation during the recent Bush Administration they’ve re-financed all the equity in our homes, or “reverse” financed their homes, to fuel a bogus “housing boom” — which in the end could only have forced us to pay all that we are capable of paying and more, if its adverse escalation of artificial “value”/”appreciation” were to be sustained.

In other words, the latter lie only forces us to pay lifetime after lifetime for production we alone rendered by but a mere few months of work. All along the course of this purported “economist’s” “boom,” all we can get for a $1,250,000 home built for $35,000 in 1963 is another $1,250,000 home built for $35,000 in 1963 — or the present equivalent of a $15,000 home built in 1963, built in 2007 for $300,000.

Like federal over-spending, these false booms were compelled by the need to replenish the circulation of perpetual, escalating “deflation,” comprised of our obligation to service multiplying private debt.

Like government over-spending, artificial industry “successes” comprised only by the initial availability of money are only bound to failure, because they have no capacity to arrest multiplication of debt in proportion to the circulation and commerce which can be sustained by the ever diminishing proportion of the circulation which can be devoted to sustaining commerce.

These phenomena have already driven the real industry from our country, and the false prosperity or industry of these “booms” as well, only because our real industry cannot be sustained here under the significantly advanced multiplication of debt we suffer from the earlier beginnings within the present limited lifespan of “our” implementation of a system which, for every country, can only engender collapse.

Ron Paul tells us that rectifying these issues will be painful; but I can show how truly rectifying them would not be painful at all.

He advocates returning to the gold standard and dramatically reducing the present over-“inflated” circulation.

But such a system as is imposed upon us suffers a deflated circulation; and the gold standard can neither a) save us from perpetual multiplication of debt by interest; nor b) can it sustain prosperity exceeding relatively minuscule monetary reserves.

Perhaps even more hideous, c) students of the monetary gold situation are aware we probably don’t even have the gold some of us we think we do; d) not only is there no binding linkage between the value of a purported precious metal monetary standard and the value of a circulation and prosperity limited to monetary reserves; the limited circulation itself therefore manipulates the value and availability of money (which thus must manifest in disadvantage or obstruction of prosperity); and e) the historically demonstrated encumbrance of the limited circulation is not only demonstrated and demonstrable, the calamities imposed by this defect have thus already served well as a principal argument to abandon the encumbrances of the faulty standard.

Even if none of these things inspired the perfection of economy, they indelibly register the shortcomings and present potentially catastrophic consequences of re-invoking the gold standard.

While the worst obvious consequence is dramatic immediate deflation, these questions have to be answered conclusively if any of us are to pretend well that this one ill contrived thread of purported monetary reform has a chance in Hades of serving us.

But of course federal over-spending otherwise is a crime; and particularly it is a gargantuan, unconscionable crime against our very progeny, because *we* who incurred most of that debt cannot ourselves either pay it, or even service it — and yet “we” who commit the present and future to its terminal course expect our progeny to suffer servicing this gargantuan sum of irresponsibility from an ever more disadvantaged position, which might even tomorrow impose the inevitable collapse on us.

So what would happen if Ron Paul simply terminated federal spending, which covertly, in the subversion necessary to all these abominations, has in fact become necessary to maintain a circulation against so much escalating deflation?

Of course, we would suffer instant deflation of the circulation; and an instant Second Great Depression. The same thing that happened before would simply happen again.

We will get that Second Great Depression anyway, so what are we going to do about it? Is it a product of Ron Paul’s [potentially non-existent] “inflation?”

Or is it a product of the inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt which mathematically perfected economy™ alone solves?

*If* in fact it *is* impossible or impractical to maintain a circulation subject to interest without multiplying debt in proportion to the circulation; and if there is one and one only solution to real inflation and deflation (as no one has proven otherwise for either case), then we know at least this:

  1. Unless Ron Paul advocates eradicating interest,
    1. he cannot solve inherent multiplication of debt all the further;
    2. therefore neither can he avert inevitable collapse under an eventual sum of insoluble debt.
  2. Unless Ron Paul *also* advocates paying our debts at a schedule equivalent to their consumption or depreciation, neither can he solve *real* inflation and deflation.

Notably then, not only does he advocate neither; his precious “Austrian Economics” actually advocates *interest*, and even itself argues against a constant value of money!!!

All this of course means we will never solve our problems under Mr. Paul or his precious Austrian pseudo-science.

Alternatively then, what would mathematically perfected economy™ entail?

In the case of a $100,000 home with a hundred year lifespan, we would pay for the home/debt at the overall rate of $1,000 per year or $83.33 per month — a mere fraction of present costs.

Simply by re-financing all debt under mathematically perfected economy, we would immediately achieve full employment and *multiples* of our present “prosperity,” because so much *existent* cash could be devoted to commerce, versus its present dedication to servicing debt.

By financing all further possible prosperity under mathematically perfected economy™, we would leave the consequences of usury in the dust.

The problem is not “the strength” of “the dollar”, because the present dollar is not only a facade, it is a process which can only multiply debt to collapse. It is not that the dollar is “weak;” it is that the dollar *inherently* weakens itself, as ever more of every dollar is inherently dedicated to servicing an ever greater sum of debt, versus sustaining the commerce which must pay for that debt.

The problem is the nature of the dollar, that it is a purposed method of dispossessing us in a system where unearned gain is championed at the inevitable cost and destruction of earned gain. The problem is the nature of the dollar is mutually exclusive to true free enterprise; that usury is an inherent tragedy involving a role where the principles of real prosperity are inherently slain. The problem is no purported provision or reparation can change or avert the consequences of that, so long as “the dollar” or any other currency remains subject to “interest.”

The problem thus is there is no solution to the (orchestrated) failure of the dollar but to perfect the dollar of inflation, deflation, and inherent multiplication of debt by interest.

No then; it’s not time to listen to Texas Congressman Ron Paul, who at least to my knowledge, and as well seemingly to that of any of his supporters, has never even tried to present a full qualification of his now disqualified propositions. It’s time to conduct the dialog Mr. Paul has avoided.

It’s time to hear THE solution.

Mike Montagne — founder, PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy and author of mathematically perfected economy (formally published in 1979 after speaking on mathematically perfected economy for the preceding decade)

This basic history may give political context to the material of these pages. This is the story of a simple thing humanity can and will some day achieve, and a government and people disposed instead to their own destruction.

Even as terminal sums of artificial debt now tower above us, a controversy brews amongst us in which nothing short of solution will be good enough. I didn’t trust Richard Nixon, or I might have approached him. But I have furnished many of the candidates for the highest office of our country and every president since and including Gerald Ford a proposition of mathematically perfected economy™.

Quite remarkably I would say, every one of them but Ronald Reagan evaded even answering.

But why?

Contemplate that question for just a moment.

Do you suppose for instance, that it is possible to maintain a circulation subject to interest without multiplying debt in proportion to the circulation until our commerce caves in under the weight of an eventual sum of debt it can no longer afford to service?

Would you, as President of the United States, or would you as a candidate for the highest office of an ostensibly representative government, in genuine faithfulness to that office, refuse even to engage in dialog on this issue?

Would you deny the fact is evident even in the insoluble debt amassed everywhere about us?

As none of the present players will commit to the arguments which ostensibly justify usury, we must decipher why; and the answer to this question hinges on another:

If the purposes of evasion were legitimate, why not justify in absolute terms how we can even maintain a vital circulation without suffering perpetual multiplication of debt to ever greater detriment?

If the central banking system were not imposed, this question would have been answered in 1913.

It is because this obvious and crucial question cannot be answered that evasion is consistent instead with recognizing alternative arguments can only be defeated by the foundations of mathematically perfected economy™. This makes all evaders culpable for our oppression, for nothing less than mathematically perfected economy™ can serve us.

Until we settle for nothing less than full accountability then, we will have neither accountability, representation, or solution.

In substantial intercourse with the Reagan Administration, I offered and provided his staff with substantial material over his first term in office. Some or all of that material may at least have contributed to the resignation of David Stockman:

  1. mathematic proof that any purported economy subject to interest ultimately terminates itself under insoluble debt;
  2. mathematic proof there is one and one only integral solution to 1) inflation and deflation, 2) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and 3) inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt in proportion to a circulation;
  3. * mathematic proof it was impossible for his proposed 3 years of 10% reductions in federal taxation a) to balance the federal budget (as he claimed) or b) offset price inflation exceeding 10%, or much less, c) solve price inflation’s cause (as a) the costs of federal operations would be driven further upward by the unsolved causes of price inflation [those costs therefore were not even sufficiently offset]; b) as 10% of federal taxes are far less than 10% of the cost of all things; and as c) the cause of price inflation is inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt by interest);
  4. and computer models capable of calculating the maximum possible lifespan of any purported economy subject to interest.

As our next page, “PROBABILITY AND TIMELINE FOR WORLD-WIDE ECONOMIC COLLAPSE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF INTEREST”, more substantially addresses the projections of said models, I will only inject the proposition here that the models have accurately projected from the early 1980s the very accumulation of debt to this moment; that they projected that national debt would triple under Reagan; and that they project a general practical lifespan for the present system of usury to approximately 2010 AD.

So as my models projected… as Reagan’s programs inherently tripled the debt of the entire previous history of our nation and the United States descended from “the greatest creditor nation” in the world to its lowliest debtor, Reagan required Stockman to revise the formulas which formerly expressed the vitality we could no longer sustain in an obvious attempt to disguise the failure. Stockman evidently wasn’t entirely pleased with that duty; it’s said that Reagan then took Stockman “to the wood shed”; but Ronald Reagan never tried me on for size. You know the rest of the story.

My certified delivery receipt from Jimmy Carter was not returned for 6 months.

Every year for 8 years I got a Christmas card from the Clinton family; but not a word in reply to mathematically perfected economy™ except indirectly in a state of the union address where Mr. Clinton falsely claimed to have balanced the federal budget (as Mrs. Clinton continues to falsely claim), “something which before had even been thought to be mathematically impossible.”

(Except to pathological liars.)

There was no such significant increase in federal revenues or tax rates; there was hardly a penny of real profit generated by his false technology boom; there was no such accountable reduction in federal spending. How then did he actually “balance” the federal budget?

We do know.

I’ve seen the YouTube videos regarding the Clinton’s controversy with Peter Paul. I’ve received plenty enough Christmas cards from the Clinton family; in fact if I recall, I only opened the first of them.

Hillary will never give you solution. Ask her. Ask her if she can either refute or deliver mathematically perfected economy™; even ask her why not?

Or perhaps ask her why in fact is it that mathematically perfected economy™ is not made a cause of her Bilderberg meetings?

John McCain stands for perpetuation of the things which are against us. In Greek, that happens to be the definition of the word, “evil.” Enough said. But ask McCain too, if you really believe there’s a chance he represents the people.

Barack Obama will probably be our next president; and I would gladly salute him if he would commit to establishing mathematically perfected economy™; so if you have the chance, ask him for us, because I’ve yet to receive a yea or nay to the calls I’ve made or all the questions I’ve sent. I tried Michelle too.

My concern about the Ron Paul campaign therefore is hardly new or casual.

I don’t call out Ron Paul in animosity. I even like the man immensely, except that I think he dangerously over-simplifies serious issues, and in so doing, effectively opposes mathematically perfected economy™.

In the eve of March 27, 2008 (last night), I watched part of a CSPAN program in which HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson asserted to his audience that hundreds of thousands of mortgages were being saved *temporarily* by reducing or restraining interest rates. Reducing or restraining interest rates.

A great cheer rose when he cited just one case of reducing an interest rate from 10.8 to 6.5 percent.

Just one case.

From 10.8 to 6.5 percent.

He said, “The problem is these reductions are temporary. Every day that we delay, thousands of home owners are at risk. Families must have a true mortgage, not a suicide loan.”

Well a country and the world as well must have a true mortgage, not a suicide loan.

In meaning well I’m sure, Mr. Jackson said there is a solution; but he asserted that it was not just one thing, and that it would be complicated and difficult to achieve it. As he spoke, it seemed he thought no one realized what that solution, however complex, might be; and yet it seemed as well that his office was bent moreso on moving a known direction, but only so much as might temporarily stave collapse.

I would ask him instead to consider going so far as would allow his people to prosper to the full extent possible.

Respectfully, I submit also that no, it is one thing; and even as he said without realizing it, that one thing is interest.

Mr. Alphonso Jackson is an optimist; and I certainly don’t criticize him for that. Nor do I criticize him for not realizing that the answer, as most true solutions are, is simple — so simple that he did not even realize he had just uttered it in his very sentence. His perception of difficulty — a difficulty which to his credit he appears wholly dedicated to overcome — stems from impossible, artificial conditions, imposed by an unassented system which was never justified in the first place.

Thus his perception of difficulty is just so disproportionate to the mere costs of carefully re-examining his very sentence.

But imagine just the same, the cheer Mr. Jackson would have received if he had announced that we had reduced interest rates not to 6.5 percent, but to zero percent; and that we were re-scheduling all payments against all debts to be refinanced in this way at the rate of depreciation of the related property.

What person and what country then would be threatened with losing their home? Who then would not line up for the only possible genre of mortgage which is not a suicide loan?

Perhaps I’m just a teenager who 40 years later still knows no better than trying however vainly to save his country. But obviously, I lean irreversibly to the contrary proposition, that mathematically perfected economy™ justifies a commitment not only to my own country and the representation it once represented, but to preserving both for the world.