PDA

View Full Version : Mathematician: a No Interest on the Money Supply - Nuclear Bomb Shell - PROOF



majapahit
11th January 2011, 14:57
Bill Ryan, you need to talk to this guy :hippie:
He's a - self proclaimed uber - mathematician
OK, he might be a handfull
He writes open letters to the likes of Hillary Clinton, Ron Paul, Obama, wrote to Bush

Systemic interest on the money supply
(money supply = all money as debt issued by the central bank(s))

:director:
Runs that same system of money supply
Into The Ground
Always
Everywhere
All the Time
Because that is the case :painkiller:(Wittgenstein)

seeing is believing
one has to read his website
the talented rant of a maverick prodigy (he is old now)

you do need a notion of what fundamental mathematical theory is about
it's rather elegant in it's simplicity

I ran into a dutch reference to 'mathematically perfected economy™' (his trademark)
it's a - somewhat awkward - proclamation of the mathematical pitfall of the money issue
which is much in vogue at the moment

And he is Right
He is Mr. Science Himself
He is the Einstein of Monetary Theory
and he created a Nuclear Bomb under the FED, BIC, IMF, ECB money system

his name is mike montagne
http://www.perfecteconomy.com

Sincerely, mt

Paul
11th January 2011, 16:59
This looks at first glance to me something like "Modern Money Theory (MMT)", aka chartalism. You might attempt a Google search for those items and compare. I doubt that such a classically elegant monetary system is the key "missing link" needed to improve humanity's current situation. Our greatest problems and opportunities reside in other planes of awareness. The web forum iTulip.com (where I spent much of my time the last two years) is more focused on such economic and monetary matters. From what I can tell (I've only been here a few days longer than yourself) Project Avalon is working other aspects of our situation. Keep reading; you will find much here, of surprisingly high quality.

majapahit
11th January 2011, 17:19
"Modern Money Theory (MMT)", aka chartalism." fiat money is created by government spending. Taxation is employed to reclaim the money and control the total amount of fiat money in existence"

Nope, different animal, wrong paradigm.
Bad idea.

mike montagne
is right on the money

Good idea

Mathematical proof is an acquired taste

and will hold up in the COURTROOM

mt

EDIT:

The web forum iTulip.com (where I spent much of my time the last two years) is more focused on such economic and monetary matters.
saw your iTulip.com. Same, confused paradigm of economic 'what the h*** is happening', that I see everywhere
(it's an inflation! no, it's a deflation! no, it's a Weimar Republic! .. it's a flying pink elephant)

you ask 2 economist what's going on, and you'll hear 2 rambles

mike montagne
http://www.perfecteconomy.com

he's the real thing, mt

Fredkc
11th January 2011, 17:57
Fiat money has always been a dead loser. Fraud from gitgo.

Everyone is told "Economics is far too complicated for amateurs." Complete bunk, meant to scare off the honest.

All you need to know about Fiat money is contained in line 5 of post #1:
Systemic interest on the money supply

After all, who wouldn't want to collect a percentage on every dollar, pound, shekel, etc that exists? Exactly what Banksters have sold the world.

"Sound money" is about value, and nothing else. Whenever someone talks about sound money being about controlling, or guiding the economy, know they are either ignorant, or lying to you.

One of the most sound ways of looking at such things is called "Austrian Economics". If you have the yen to educate yourself in this regard, I would suggest a couple of places:
Lew Rockwell.com (http://www.lewrockwell.com/) (Ron Paul posts his writing there)
and http://mises.org ( a bit more 'longhair' but an excellent source).

"I place economy among the first and most important virtues and public debt as the great danger to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let our leaders load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude."

"I sincerely believe ... that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale."

"Paper is poverty,... it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself."

"Scenes are now to take place as will open the eyes of credulity and of insanity itself, to the dangers of a paper medium abandoned to the discretion of avarice and of swindlers."

All quotes above: Thomas Jefferson.

Fred

Paul
11th January 2011, 18:12
Mathematical proof is an acquired taste

and will hold up in the COURTROOM
I am quite familiar with mathematical proof, having considerable education and a decent bit of talent in it. Yes, it is an acquired taste. No, it won't do you any good in a courtroom.

So far, I regret to say, I have mostly noticed adjectives of praise for "perfecteconomy", and adjectives of condemnation for iTulip. Not much substance to go on.

JoshERTW
11th January 2011, 18:13
Right on the "money" as always Fred :)

majapahit
11th January 2011, 19:59
I am quite familiar with mathematical proof, having considerable education

Well, this is economics by a mathematician, supposedly 'econometrics'. My brother, diseased, a mathematician, my friends brother a Economitrist, I've studied Law and Sociology.

Perhaps Mike Montagne's discourse of his personal path to cleverness somewhat illiterate (so he is obviously a nerd, .. and?)

The website refers to several anecdotes regarding Mr. Otto, his economics teacher.
"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."

There are several subjects addressed, i.c. interest on the money supply, the subject of inflation versus pricing etc etc.

The core of the presentation concerning Interest is:

"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," red.: concerns 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."
(I've added some spaces to make this somewhat better readable)

So, mr. ThePythonicCow, since you claim to be somewhat of a mathematician, together with Mr. Otto does this make you utter: "By God, I think you're right again."

And, in Dutch Law at least, this is an argument to be presented before the court (and will get you in big trouble when presented under the wrong circumstances, I admit :canada:)

?, mt (p.s. I'm not a native English speaker, please forgive)

Paul
11th January 2011, 21:07
"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.
As Steve Keen (his blog is at Debtwatch (http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/), but I don't have a link to this specific item) has pointed out, this confuses stores of money with flows of money. One can pay debt, with interest, in a monetary system which only has the amount of money in circulation equal to the base debt. One need only pay the interest in installments, and require that the lender recirculate the payments received, so that the debtor can earn some of the partial payments back (perhaps by working for them) in order to make the next payment.

Here's a simple example. Let's say we have an economy with a total quantity of money in circulation of ten sea shells. You have the sea shells. You lend the ten sea shells to me, at 10% interest. The repayment plans requires me to pay you one sea shell per month, for eleven months. I also work for you, earning one sea shell per month. So we start out by moving ten shells from you to me (funding my loan.) After one month, I repay one sea shell, and you turn around and hand it back to me, as my first months earnings. This repeats for the next ten months, as I repay you eleven sea shells.


If money is introduced to circulation as debt subject to interestLending money into existence is deeply destructive, yes. Not for the simple mathematical reason that it is impossible (see above paragraph) but because it eventually causes great miss-allocations of economic resources. Lending banks are incentivized to lend increasingly large amounts of money into existence, which causes future promises to repay debt to become increasingly more valuable while current means of production place increasingly burdensome demands for more debt. Corporate financial structures replace equity (which can decline in value during economic downturns) with debt, increasing short term profits while also increasing the systemic risk that many businesses will go bankrupt in a major downturn.


And, in Dutch Law at least, this is an argument to be presented before the court That may well be. Such arguments are not mathematical proofs (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Mathematical_proof) however, at least not as I understand them.

cense
11th January 2011, 22:04
Max Igan (The CrowHouse) did an interview with Mike Montagne in April 2010:
http://thecrowhouse.com/040110.html

According to that interview, Montagne's more recent website is ",org", not ",com"
http://www.perfecteconomy.org/

To date, I couldn't get a clear picture of Montagne's idea neither from any of his sites (which are hard to read) nor from the interview with Max Igan.
If anyone can point me to a presentation or any kind of visualization that helps to grasp it, that would be great.

majapahit
11th January 2011, 22:23
Here's a simple example. Let's say we have an economy with a total quantity of money in circulation of ten sea shells. You have the sea shells. You lend the ten sea shells to me, at 10% interest. The repayment plans requires me to pay you one sea shell per month, for eleven months. .. repeats for the next ten months, as I repay you eleven sea shells.

Here's the superior example.

There'e 10 seashells 'money supply', at a ridiculous 10% over 10 months, by The Bank of Goon
(we will be paying 1 seashell 'for the privilege'), it's still with the bank.

I can borrow the 10 seashells from The Bank of Goon, because I have such good looks,
and then lend this money to your Mickey at 10% over 10 months to let him build a hut.

At month eleven, I have my 10 shells back, +1 extra for interest from Mickey,
I 'owe' The Bank of Goon 1 shell on the books though.

So, surprisingly, at this same month eleven, money circulation still is 10 shells
but with 1 in the books as 'indebted' to high almighty, of which none shall speak his name,
on punishment of getting acquainted with 'Charles the Nasty'.
This constitutes 10% of circulation.

Mickey, in the meantime, starts building another hut at month 11.
Borrows again 10 shells from me, Mr. Good Looks.

At month 21

Mickey repaid me again +1 shell interest. Way to go Mickey. :fish:

There's an endebtment (this english?)(EDIT: indebtedness) to the bank for another shell.
And without expanding the shell supply, that's now 20% of circulation.

Thus, at this very month 21
I could borrow Mickey 10 shells again for another hut
but in the meantime the 'money supply' is indebted to the shell monopoly of The Bank of Goon,
20% of all moneys.

No problem to lend you 10 shell again,
but the big picture is,
somehow we're 2 shell short with all the shells that are around
to 'someone' (who shall not be spoken of, or it will destroy your 'career')

All this, because we've been had

like a bunch of stupid hillbillies :shocked:

mt

Paul
11th January 2011, 23:11
Here's the superior example.I'm not sure what you intended to prove with your example, but the existence of examples that show debt-based money fails does not "mathematically prove" the non-existence of examples that show it working.

My presence on this thread is not helping much. I probably won't respond again here.

majapahit
11th January 2011, 23:49
.. but the existence of examples that show debt-based money fails does not "mathematically prove" the non-existence of examples that show it working.
Is this proper English? Because if it is, you're in a sorry state
(Sorry couldnt resist, it's dutch humour, we're bad people) :cool:



Max Igan (The CrowHouse) did an interview with Mike Montagne in April 2010:
http://thecrowhouse.com/040110.html

GREAT FIND cense :first::first:
This guy is hard to trace

I've listened to it, it's Econometric Hocus Pokus at it's superior best.
In the interview he does explain what he wants to explain.
What he doesn't realize (like I said previously, this guy is an academic Nurd of Nurds),
is how difficult this will be to grasp by people not versed in academic mathematic lingo, clad in a cloak of seemingly simple english,
or lacking the Rubiks Cube gene (my nephew of 11 years can do that .. and many can't.)

He says: 'Anyone with highschool should be able, and must grasp what is presented here (.. on the subject).'
Thit is not really what is the case.

But .. you go ask you neighbour, ask a friend, do some scribling on a piece of paper, it's not too hard, it's a trick of the mind, a Rubiks Cube, and the reward immens .. when we will be able to avoid the likes of 'Charles the Nasty' of course. (BILL RYAN .. Help! :hug: )

See my previous post with 'superior example',

what Mike Montagne seems to be skipping - with his ease on the subject -, what should be emphasized, is, that money with de bank, is 'different' money, than money in circulation.

We are using 'their' money, for a fee,
'they' pretend it's 'our money', and that we should not worry about the 'authority' of the money handlers (the changers).

Really, they are well spoken, wearing pretty suits and ties, what could be suspect with The Bank of Goon? (Charles). What could be wrong with Interest? It's Fair. It pays pensions. It pays a premium on your savings. It's heavenly.

It's a scam.


According to that interview, Montagne's more recent website is ",org", not ",com"
http://www.perfecteconomy.org/

correct
this guy is busy
he's now advising the Icelandic government.
All original data and documents, and 'models' used for the Reagan Administration will be on the .com site. The .org is for the 'future rollout' to countries 'worldwide'. Ahum, well .. knock on wood, I'd say.

Listen to his advise to the Reagan Administration requests.

And be horrified.

mt