228 responses to “Ron Paul: End the Fed, Legalize Competing Currencies”

  1. Jack
  2. Douglas

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  3. Citizen

    Jack and MPE Supporters

    With all due respect, I’ve read and re-read this MPE theory and have numerous questions that remain unanswered.
    1. “is at all times equal to the remaining value of all property.”
    M1 & M2 currency will never equal assets. Currency functions as a transaction medium not a weight on a scale!

    2. “pay principal out of circulation at the rate of consumption or depreciation”
    So the lender who makes the loan is to receive back his “principal” and then not spend it, consume his wealth, spending it back into circulation??

    3. “accommodate immediate conversion of equity into currency”
    Equity is ever subject to fluctuation, inflation/deflation, dependent up Free Market demand and supply. How and who could possibly determine a “Real Time” valuation of assets, Mark to Market? This comment suggests that there is some magic “formula” that determines “conversion of equity”

    4. “a vital path of the logic of overall solution.”
    Vital path? … Overall Solution?? what kind of Voodoo Economics is this?

    5. “tokenization must account for all products,”
    What is this… a method of creating a generic value of widgits? Does MPE propose to sell all real estate for the same dollars/SF ??? Where is the Free Market in this system?

    6. “objects of volume equaling the volume of ALL products, if money “must” be A product or products;”
    SAY WHAT? No product, even gold, sugar, salt, lumber, tomatoes, silver, or any finished product has a immutable or constant value! AE never ever suggested such nonsense!

    7. “The Austrian “economists” are trying to insist on A product (or products) for their obfuscated claim to tokenization,”
    NO, AE does not pretend that hard currencies are STATIC tokens of value. There is no such thing in nature. The only CONSTANT is CHANGE

    8. “our necessarily perpetual 1:1:1 relationship”
    What planet are you living on??? What happens when this magic ratio “1:1:1″ gets out of sink? Burn down the excess house inventory so we match the “immutable tokens”

    9. “money CANNOT BE A product, if it is to be an immutable token of value”
    Maybe someday in the distant future, say 35,000 years from now, that may become a reality. But Not This Day!

    I’m sorry… I guess I’m to dense to understand your Math!

    I just don’t understand how rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic will keep us afloat?

    Government is the Parasite that’s killing its Host >>> We The People!

    »crosslinked«

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

    1. MPE is a pipe dream.

      A system of no interest rates is incompatible with property rights. Good luck getting everyone who owns resources and capital to give up lending them for profit. They OWN them. THAT’s why they can charge interest. To implement this system is to destroy property rights as we know them.

      The next issue with the system is that it allows anyone who demands money to have it, as long as they are deemed “credit-worthy”. Guess who is the most credit worthy of all? BANKERS. This system is even more in favor of the elites than what we have now.

      The third obvious issue is that if there is no interest rate, the mehanism that allocates production through time is gone. This means our production would not be aligned with the demand of society. In other words, we would produce things that nobody demands and waste resources that could have been used on things people actually want. Remember the housing bubble? Imagine that, but with every product, not just houses. Mathematically perfected my ass.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      1. lol

        Wait for the text book sized response to this, complete with full paragraphs of only one sentence, and littered with purposely inflated language meant to confuse people to cloud the issue.

        If this thing was actually mathematically perfected, you could explain it in straight talk. 1+1=2

        So far, all we get is 1+2x-56+200y/32{45676z^5}^(52-32)+2a(40000321b)=?

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      2. Jack

        Is that why you want to stay anonymous? Because you know it´s coming and your afraid we are going to find you!?

        Bankers won´t be left with any assets as they will all be returned to the people.

        wtf do property rights have to do with taking unearned and unjustified profits over the back of hardworking Americans??

        Why would we produce things nobody demands? If your in the game to just take loans to produce things nobody wants you will go bankrupt very soon because you simply cannot pay back the principal and you will destroy your own credit worthiness. Game over.

        Alternatively you can then turn to the seconday (subprime) market and take a loan at interest from some austrian f…..r. Good luck to them.

        Your on dope dude, give it up

        To LOL (another funny name for a coward):

        There is only one viable solution:

        As this is the very set of principles — and the only set of principles which ensure the immutable value of money across its lifespan — a perpetual 1:1:1 relationship between remaining value, remaining *obligation*, and currency in circulation —.

        That wasn´t too bad, was it

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

        1. lololol

          The MPE is “coming”? LOL I won’t hold my breath.

          “Why would we produce things nobody demands?”

          Read up on mal-investment. The interest rate organizes the allocation of production through time. I’ve asked repeatedly how the MPE replaces this system, but have yet to receive any answer. Big surprise.
          As you may have noticed, bubbles are formed when interest rate is held too low for too long. What do you think will happen if it’s held at zero indefinately? It will maximize mal-investment, which means resource waste will be maximized. Simple as that. MPE is one giant bubble.

          When loans are based on savings, it’s the people who save that get the interest, not the bankers. Savers have lost hundreds of billions of dollars in interest since the interest rate has been held too low. How is ‘no interest on savings’ good for the people? The MPE fantasy has the same problems as the keynesian fantasy.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        2. It will never fly.

          “Bankers won´t be left with any assets as they will all be returned to the people.”

          So then you agree, MPE is incompatible with property rights.

          Thx for admitting it.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        3. Jack

          “Bankers won´t be left with any assets as they will all be returned to the people.”

          So then you agree, MPE is incompatible with property rights.

          Thx for admitting it.

          You must be one of these hypocrit libertarians. Correct me if i´m wrong.

          You may want to research how the banks got their properties in the first place. There must be quite a few out there who can tell you…so go round and ask, and also explain about your property rights….
          Your are just part of the problem

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

        4. David

          Making your point again Jack. Banks have no more rights to the wealth they have stolen from us than a theif has a right to the property he has stolen while breaking into your home. This is about protecting the property rights of the population from the theft and fraud which has been perpetrated on them by Banks.

          ____________

          Edward Mandell House had this to say in a private meeting with President Woodrow Wilson:

          “[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will effect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer being unable to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions.

          Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud which we will call “Social Insurance.” Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner, every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America.”
          __________

          In 1913, Colonel Edward Mandell House helped to pick the charter members of the original Federal Reserve Board.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      3. Jack

        lola

        So here´s what our austrian economist thinks:
        ¨¨Austrian economists largely advocate the idea that malinvestment occurs due to the combination of fractional reserve banking and artificially low interest rates misleading relative price signals which eventually necessitate a corrective contraction – a boom followed by a bust.¨¨

        What do you think will happen to interest rates when we have competing banks?! If you figured out what happens to the price of a product when there is a lot of competition you may also want to do the math why interest is always having a terminal effect on a vital circulation/economie.

        Bubbles are formed when we employ an interest rate based system. The interest makes it necessary to re-borrow simply because the interest is not being issued by the lender, and so the interest always has to come out of the excisting circulation/economy (our labor and production) until the excisting economy terminates itself under insoluble debt.

        In a MPE based free market it is impossible to create bubbles, because there is no necessity to re-borrow due to the NON interest bearing loans. Principal is loaned out, and principal is payed back in a (non) lineair manner during a specified time (depending on the collateral).

        It is interest which saddles industry with perpetually escalated artificial indebtedness; and we know that it is not an increased circulation, but this increasing sum of indebtedness in proportion to a vital circulation, which forces industry to increase prices to sustain vital margins of solubility, and which, at the same time, makes it mathematically impossible to do so without increasing the circulation (which we may or may not have determined is the case; and in the latter case of which, it is impossible to suffer increasing prices, because the circulation is dedicated instead to the costs of the multiplying sum of terminal indebtedness).

        We need *further circulation* to sustain further industry; and MPE provides *all* that necessary further circulation. If you borrow from the existing circulation, you’re failing to fulfill that vital purpose; worse, if you do this at interest, you provide a way for some to deprive others, and so engender a cycle of self escalated borrowing at interest which produces the same effect we have today — termination.

        All debts — which always equate to promissory notes/obligations under MPE — are collateralized under MPE. Therefore you can only borrow from the Common Monetary Foundry against the equity of any property you may possess or purchase; and your ability to pay against it (credit worthiness) must be certified based on earnings or potential earnings.

        People can buy again. Markets will open up everywhere; people will have plenty to spend; and will embrace production over trying to steal, as a consequence of needing to hedge their savings against destruction by “the banking system.”

        The banks go away; any money you don’t spend, stays in your account at the Common Monetary Foundry (effectively *our* [actual] depository). Because we dissolve social programs such as Social Security, and because we may work half our lifetimes perhaps, retiring for the rest (all this part, just for instance), a country might require a citizen to save half their earnings during their working life, to sustain the same standard of living in their retired life. Still, they would have say half a dozen times as much spendable income or more. There is no longer any need for banks. We publish our money; we maintain our accounts; we automate distribution of income for instance to our accounts (no cashing pay checks anymore)… etc.

        One of the things we can do in “reparation” of the consequences of the so called central banking systems, is restore so much to the savings of everyone as they would thus have saved if they had lived all this while under MPE. This is necessary to establish a sustainable state. It likewise relieves you of your losses in the stock markets for instance, 401Ks, and so forth — meaning effectively, that we’re just going to allow you to take that extra profit when the corporation buys back their stock from you, so that they can compete with actual private enterprise, startup-funded by MPE, with no cost whatever.

        And when it comes down to it, the austrians only ask “how,” because their eyes glassed over at the first sentence — their pre-conceptions (not thinking) whispered to them, you lazy f….k, you’ll never be able to make an unearned penny again if you let these guys repair “the economy” which is going to steal from you ever unearned penny you’ll spend your whole life plotting to steal, versus earning.

        Take the baseball bat to “Austrian economists.” We should decorate the neighborhood with them — swinging from every tree.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  4. Jack

    Sloganizing the issues — Purported solution on the cheap for the sheep.
    Good for you, you memorized that senseless crap

    Mr. Paul is wrong on every count when it comes to (monetary) solution.

    Effectively, what Mr. Paul want is to remove the embossed letters which now say “Federal Reserve Bank,” and replace them with “Ron Paul’s ‘COMPETING’ Bank(s)” — a principle which he refuses to debate, further define, or justify. Of course, any ostensible “competition” would ostensibly, on the contrary, drive interest rates down. But Mr. Paul tells us that we wouldn’t have borrowed ourselves into this debt mess if higher rates of interest had discouraged excessive/reckless borrowing.

    Mr. Paul has never done the math: he tells you that all of you are going to benefit somehow therefore — oh and we so willingly believe this preposterous notion, don’t we? — he tells us we will benefit paying perhaps 17% interest on our homes than 5%. Sounds really like a good idea, doesn’t it? Especially since the rate of interest is the rate of multiplication of artificial indebtedness — higher rates of which instead necessitate greater rates of borrowing to maintain a vital circulation.

    Unfortunately, most people who exalt Austrian “economics” hardly know the first thing about it. They reject math — most of which is little more than counting — as if you could understand otherwise; and they could have possibly determined solution otherwise. In no legitimate discipline or walk of life does such reckless abandonment of principle hold.

    But Mr. Hayek, God of the Austrians tells us why they advocate interest and the current banking model — which are our very problem. See Hayek’s article at Mises org: “A Free Market Monetary System,” I think it’s called. Anyway, he thus justifies interest, that it makes banking “an extremely profitable business.”

    That’s right. There IS no justification, just an outright confession of the motive.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5

  5. Citizen

    Jack,

    You said …
    “If you don’t believe congress can be controlled, then you obviously cannot support our Republican form of government. So what are the Austrians really for?”

    I stopped believing we could “control” Congress long ago. And yes I’ll fight to restore and support our Republic.

    We still have a Constitution and a dollar is defined as 371 4/16th grains (24.057 grams) of pure silver.

    We probably won’t agree on what a 2000 SF condo should cost across the country or world, but we can DEFINE what a DOLLAR should be and allow it to float relative to your or my condo.

    Currency need not be “immutable” to be effective as a medium of exchange.
    It does need to be a store of value, fungible, divisible, portable and NOT be created out of thin air as Debt; to suck the masses into credit slavery.

    And NO, we don’t need to statically value all assets (immutable) to use Silver as Currency. In fact it is a better world when things are chaotic and ever changing, I like the seasons, the tides, the rain and the drought.

    Inflation and deflation persists in NATURE. Populations expand and contract
    subject to the abundance or scarcity of food.
    Wealth is saved or consumed but it should not be stolen by our Government’s deliberate DILUTION and MANIPULATION of the DEFINITION of the currency. Government currency counterfeiting is theft, nothing more.

    Lets start by Ending the Fed

    p.s.
    And Global Warming is directly proportionate to all the Hot Air being generated in Washington DC!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  6. Hal Roberts

    If we were to retuern to the gold/silver standard all people invested in gold and silver would have there investment taken away by the goverment for penneys on the dollar? Am I right or worng?

    It’s funny when you buy stock it is considered a investment but when you buy gold and silver they call it horrding?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

    1. Citizen

      Hal,

      That’s right, when you buy something that “holds its valuer” your hoarding your wealth!
      Now don’t you just feel awful about yourself?

      FDR called it Executive Order 6102, Obama might call it Executive Order 666, when HE attempts to “steal the gold” again!

      FDR confiscated gold with the express plan to INFLATE the dollar. Just what Ben Berneke intends to do in the next 18 months…

      Be Prepared!

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. Jack

    Great constructive discussions going on right now!

    Because most debates seem to come down to one an one important question only; What is Money, What should Money be?

    Please find below our explanation/definition of what money should be.

    WHAT IS MONEY, WHAT SHOULD MONEY BE ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Thus the answer to the original question is that money CANNOT BE A product, if it is to be an immutable token of value, because A product, in which the resultant circulation would ostensibly be redeemable, ITSELF cannot represent All products! Thus it cannot provide a perpetual 1:1 relationship between volume of circulation and redeemability which purportedly eliminates subversion of value.

    Effectively, the Austrians (and others) claim virtues of gold which do not exist, while the principles they exalt instead would endorse only mathematically perfected economy™, because the only currency which CAN accomplish this purpose of making the circulation effectively not A product, but in fact at all times ACTUALLY REDEEMABLE in ALL products, is mathematically perfected economy™ — which alone therefore, immutably tokenizes all products represented by the circulation, and in such a way that the circulation is always redeemable in the very scope and volume of products it was from the beginning, intended to represent.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6

  8. Citizen

    Jack,

    MPE IS IMPOSSIBLE!
    A Statist Solution by Forced Compliance

    Do you hand out pastel jumpsuits with those MPE little red books?

    Hey, MPE’rs go start a commune and check back in 10 years.

    AND

    Would you please find another web site to Post your Manifesto…. Comrade !
    Your treatise takes up so much web real estate that others are simply IGNORING IT!

    Thank You

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

    1. jack

      Citizen, you wouldn´t know a good theory if you found it alongside your throat — with your head that far out of your ass.

      This is why Ron Paul *has* supporters — because an idiot can only be supported by even lower-order idiots who apparently can or do not think for themselves.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

      1. Citizen

        Morning Jack

        Not so…. I do know that posting the same cut and past drivel again and again doesn’t make it a better theory.

        You have conspicuously avoided every sincere question ask of you.

        AE has consistently destroyed your MPE drivel as unmanageable outside of a total Totalitarian State that would DICTATE an IMPOSED value on all assets. This would be the antithesis of Free Market and would not permit citizen free will choices.

        I’m sorry, but your MPE is neither Mathematical nor Perfect and is far from an economic system!
        Good Day

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3

        1. Jack

          Sloganizing the issues — Purported solution on the cheap for the sheep.
          Good for you, you memorized that senseless crap.

          If you don’t believe congress can be controlled, then you obviously cannot support our Republican form of government. So what are the Austrians really for?

          The Austrian school is a plague to true resistance.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  9. Jack

    If I were President, I assert that by exercising the following prescription, I could arrest the present monetary failure in less than a day; and I could establish a perpetual, sustainable solution, or absolute economy, in perhaps less than a month.

    You may of course never elect me. But still the purpose of this page is to explain how to do so — how to immediately transform unsustainable systems of usury into mathematically perfected economy™. We have already sufficiently explained why.

    This program of course could be implemented by any nation, collection of nations, continent, and so forth. While world leaders can and have stood in the way of mathematically perfected economy™, nonetheless I further assert that mathematically perfected economy™ is inevitable not only for the reasons given already, but those to follow as well.

    Obviously, present world conditions call for this resolution loudly; and so, unless mathematically perfected economy™ can indeed be invalidated, those who will neither hear nor heed immediately, therefore condemn the rest of us to the calamity before us.
    This proposition is no casual or recent matter of relatively little development or survival of test cases. Its initial form was developed seriously since early 1979, before I provided computer models to the Reagan Administration just a few years later. Those models of course readily tested for interest free cases. Primarily however, they projected not only the otherwise unforeseen federal debt which President Reagan’s two terms eventually accumulated. They further anticipated in 1983 that for expected interest rates and growth, that public and private debt would multiply at rates which would develop terminal sums of U.S. debt, and potential world wide monetary failure. Our projections determined this would occur at approximately 2010 AD.
    Essentially then, the designed power of those elementary but potentially exceedingly accurate models, was to calculate the maximum possible lifespan of any purported economy subject to interest. You can still download the models from our pages.

    PRIMARY PRINCIPLES

    All subjects of contemporary, pretended economies have critical interests in veritable solution; and rightly, only by prevailing understanding can a publicly approved solution ever have emerged.
    That we can say there are legitimate representative governments, true representation always seeks and finds not only the ideal, but the due, certifiable approval of their apprised people. Given the critical circumstances, just such a process is to be expected now more than ever.

    Because the problems and consequences before us are universal, a model for real solution must solve for the innate, sustainable interests of all. That is, it must solve for the world — not just a country, not just a generation, not just a time, not just a class, not just a disposition.
    Effectively then, we can only seek to prosper so much as our contribution to the pool of wealth; and we must seek to prosper only so much, in whatever way cannot and will not deprive others of the opportunity to prosper likewise.

    No matter the issues necessarily addressed then, this is the primary object and final test not only of this proposition, but of any prospective/purported solution.

    WHAT IS THE CAUSE OF FAILURE WHICH WE MUST MOST URGENTLY ARREST?

    As we have said, the critical breaking point of the pretended financial systems of the world is predicated by irreversible, perpetual escalation of artificial sums of debt, which ultimately exceed a finite capacity to service debt. Vast, persistent housing foreclosures, marginalization of industry, and destruction of credit-worthiness are obvious, inevitable consequences of the final stages of this artificial, escalated multiplication.

    In the terminal stages of its practical lifespan, such a system requires paying the vastest costs of servicing debt out of circulation. Yet these very same terminal sums of debt finally destroy the last remaining possibility of sufficient credit worthiness to assume further debt. So much as the vital circulation can only be replenished by further borrowing then, the very multiplied indebtedness of the final state makes it impossible to justify “credit” as would maintain a vital circulation. It is at this juncture then that “the economy” suddenly collapses.

    To prevent this final, potentially sudden collapse, it is necessary therefore to prevent a final/terminal cycle of deflation.

    HOW TO ARREST THIS DEFLATION AND FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE FAILURE IMMEDIATELY

    1. To avert a terminal cycle of deflation, and to arrest further development of the failure by further multiplication of indebtedness, we must immediately suspend all payments against debts subject to interest to “banks” (or “credit”/”lending” institutions), and from all intermediate “banks” to the “central bank.”

    2. To sustain other incidental lenders across a brief period of transition to mathematically perfected economy™, the accounts of small, private creditors (home owners carrying the paper on a sale of their home for instance) would be credited (artificially) with so much as the payments they are accustomed to receiving, without taking these payments from the debtor.

    3. Any other possible conduits of deflation are sealed, including taxation. Federal taxes are suspended and the states are asked or required to suspend state and local taxations.

    4. Accounts of retired persons are credited with advance sustenance as will be completed in later stages of what yet amounts to a more or less immediate recovery (4.g.), not just to pre-collapse conditions, but to a level of prosperity several times that.

    5. Necessary government programs are funded temporarily by new circulation, with the tolerance for this brief measure to sustain necessary government activities being the tremendous present deflation of the circulation.

    Effective immediately then, not only would critically marginalized home owners be able to stay in their homes, *all* home owners and all surviving industry would immediately have the entire former costs of servicing debt available instead to sustain necessary commerce. Immediately, industry would not only avoid and survive the imminent failure, but prosper across the transition period to substantial further extents which have otherwise been impossible.

    A capacity to sustain unlimited further prosperity is eventually provided by converting the present system to mathematically perfected economy™ — effectively concluding a transition period existing only so long as necessary to set up accounting infrastructures, and to refinance debt under mathematically perfected economy™.
    Meanwhile, there is no deflation; no need to borrow further to maintain a vital circulation; and we immediately prosper to whatever further degree we are relieved of servicing the existent sums of artificially multiplied debt.

    HOW TO AVOID “CAPITALIZATION” OF (STEALING) THE LIQUIDITY SUDDENLY REALIZED

    To avoid theft of the liquidity which would suddenly be realized:
    Prices would be frozen. Commodities traders would be eliminated from the chain of purchase. Products would be directly delivered to markets by natural processes of distribution, without unearned taking. Commodities traders would be paid for their existing assets with a separate currency, temporarily at least dedicated to unearned taking. Just settlement of their unearned wealth would be settled later.
    Having relieved not only the pressures of escalation, but the whole weight of servicing existent debt, no reason persists for bona fide industry to raise prices; and, granted such substantial further liquidity under existing price states, industry would immediately be free to sustain and generate further employment, while sustaining profit margins substantially beyond what was previously possible — if and only if truly free markets are liberated from predation.
    “REPAYMENT” OF ARTIFICIAL DEBTS TO THE CENTRAL BANK(S)

    To resolve all debt to the unassented and unlawful central bank(s), I would scribble onto a piece of paper, “Will pay to the bearer upon demand, infinity.”

    This like irredeemable promise to pay would be offered with a cordial invitation to challenge this resolution of all debt in a fitting court of law (manned of course and accountable to the people), where on behalf of the people we would argue:

    1. that inherently no private entity has any right deprivable from any other private entity or person to issue irredeemable promises to pay (“Federal Reserve Notes”);

    2. that therefore on the one hand, the paper I have submitted satisfies the purported obligations;

    3. or on the other hand, there is no legal basis whatever for the purported debts;

    4. and most of all, that as the implementation of interest inherently multiplies debt in proportion to an obligated circulation, the imposed currency cannot constitute lawful obligations to “repay” debts which ultimately are purposely made insoluble by the very artificial conditions imposed upon the arrangement.

    This of course would not resolve whatever assets have been acquired by equally/potentially illegitimate, unlawful means.
    For now, like the resolution of assets acquired by commodities traders, I leave it to the people ultimately to determine whether they want to go after these assets, or whether we shall just call termination of all this good enough.

    But should these banks or any advocate of the currency they have imposed upon us make any substantial effort from this time forth to obstruct or even discourage us from solution, I recommend instead not only to recover the assets/profits which have been dispossessed from us, but to try all persisting advocates for crimes against humanity — these being explicitly, whatever perpetuation of damages is suffered since these systems were imposed.

    RAMIFICATIONS

    These measures, necessarily carried out before the onset of fatal deflation, arrest further failure within a day, with the additional liquidity immediately established being capable of sustaining multiples of present industry.

    Those who delay implementation of this proposition therefore are responsible for the consequences this measure would avoid — 10,000 homes daily going into foreclosure, vast further dispossession, inevitable further failures of industry, and so forth. As the present arguments sufficiently demonstrate, all of said detrimental consequences can be arrested in less than a day.

    1. ESTABLISHING AN EMERGENCY, TRIAL IMPLEMENTATION OF MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY™

    2. As soon as possible, to restore and sustain the industry we are capable of, an initial implementation of mathematically perfected economy™ is established under emergency conditions. Once electronic infrastructures are established to maintain the people’s accounts, that initial implementation comprises:

    3. refinancing of all private debt without interest, with schedules of payment being the rate of consumption or depreciation (which are to be understood to be equivalent);

    4. a general, de-escalated formula for depreciation shall be used for the initial implementation. Specialized formulas may be implemented thereafter;

    5. the remaining value of the related property shall be the refinanced sum, as determined by the general formula for depreciation;

    6. any payments so far made beyond the depreciation so far incurred and up to the full remaining value of the property shall be considered accumulated equity, counted against the balance of the remaining debt;

    7. equity in all property as determined by the general formula for depreciation can be financed likewise;

    8. thus the whole effective circulation is equal to the whole value of related wealth; and the remaining circulation is always equal to and redeemable in the very remaining value of the represented wealth, with this itself eliminating any cause or need for ostensible alternate monetary standards;

    9. debts which have been paid, in principal and interest both, to the extent of the remaining value of the property, shall be considered fulfilled;

    10. further financing for further production shall be made available under the same terms;

    11. private savings are converted into the new currency;

    12. otherwise, MPE™ currency is not interchangeable with the former Federal Reserve Note;

    13. mathematically perfected economy™ divorces itself from the previous, imposed system;

    14. to restore sustainable conditions with regard to retirement, the accounts of all working-age people are eventually to be credited with a facsimile of what they would have saved and could therefore have lived on should they have benefitted from mathematically perfected economy™ their whole working lives;

    To replace social programs which are unsustainable as a consequence of unfunded near term federal liabilities, a mandatory savings program is implemented in which the private individual takes an interest in preservation of the value of the currency (which is sustained by MPE™), and by which the individual is compelled to save some portion of their income over working years, which they may spend in retirement.

    For example, if for the purposes of calculation, working years are taken as the years 20 through 60, and savings are taken to necessarily account for 20 years thereafter, compulsive savings of 1/3 of income may be enforced across the 40 years to render the same standard of living across the latter 20. The ultimate terms of such a program are to be determined in the final implementation of MPE™ as agreed by the public.

    All people beyond the age of 20 then are to be credited so much, to establish a sustainable condition akin to what would have existed in mathematically perfected economy™ all this while. These savings of course are to serve in lieu of inherently unsustainable “social security.”
    Sustainable conditions are thus immediately established; illimitable further prosperity is readily funded; and all this costs us nothing.
    Under mathematically perfected economy™ then, a $100,000 home with a hundred year lifespan for instance would be financed at the overall rate of $1,000 per year or $83.33 per month, with the initial/general formula for depreciation dictating higher rates of payment in the initial phases of the debt, and substantially lower payments in the latter phases.

    The emergency implementation of mathematically perfected economy™ serves as a proving or trial period, after which the subject populace may determine to retain or reject the proposition, optionally returning to the conditions formerly imposed by the previous system, or electing to adopt any other potential solution.

    The time required to implement this trial depends upon development or adaptation of existing hardware and software technology to maintain the necessary accounts. Roughly a month of operation under emergency deflation prevention measures might be required before the necessary infrastructure can be developed/adapted, so that this perpetually sustainable trial phase of mathematically perfected economy™ can begin, for whatever duration the people elect to preserve it.

    PERMANENTLY ESTABLISHING MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY™

    Should the public elect to retain mathematically perfected economy™ after the emergency trial, its ultimate implementation is determined in regard to specialized rates of depreciation, scope of financed wealth, and potential relationships with other programs.
    It can be said that no risk is involved, because in all respects, emergency or otherwise, by eliminating the vast costs and destructive consequences of “interest,” these provisions generally engender as much as a dozen times the liquidity possible under the conditions of interest-bearing systems — particularly of course, prior to the present and ensuing phases of failure.

    Ostensible “foreign” debt of the people shall be collected from the sellers of the debt in the currency of which the debts were issued.
    SUMMARY

    No one will ever stand for your liberation from usury so long as you, the people, fail to master the problem and its solution. When, and only when you will settle for nothing but the latter, none of the foes of justifiable economy can afford to stand against you.
    It is your obligation then to broadcast this proposition of solution if you so see fit. We have no candidate to serve us. None apparently dare respond; and yet we have a critical election just weeks away. But if each of us immediately sent this proposition of solution to our entire address books, the entire country could be prepared to vote for solution in only days.

    Shame on us then, if we can do no better.
    This page can be copied and pasted into an email; or the permalink to its online instance may be sent; and/or its zip (compressed) file can be distributed freely; or the link to download the compressed distributable may be sent. The recommended procedure is to send this page copied into a text email, complete with the following permalink to the page. Please see the distribution instructions below for further information. Many articles at the PFMPE™ web site (perfecteconomy.com) answer virtually any further conceivable question or issue.

    This of course is a serious appeal. Usury is not only terminal; its perpetuation requires usurpation, and that usurpation largely explains the undesirable world as it is. You will have no representation so long as there is apathy toward privatized currencies, which obviously have been imposed upon us for the very purpose of the multiplication of unearned profit which is responsible for the specter of world wide monetary failure before us.

    In the introductory quotes with which I began this page, Ayn Rand tells us that “Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money.” I translate this and the rest to mean, “they start by imposing interest to multiply debt upon the circulation, for money free from that multiplication is mankind’s only protection from those men, and so, it is the only possible harbor of unsubverted moral existence.”

    At present, while 10,000 homes a day are going into foreclosure, the media those men own suppresses the truth, saying such remarkable, ongoing events — and all the related evidence not just of depression, but of utter world-wide failure — are only fueling “fears” of a severe recession. On the contrary, no distortion could be more conducive itself to engendering failure, because it asks us to remain ignorant of all the things we can no longer afford apathy.

    Before putting this matter to rest then, let us consider the opposite, positive case of Rand’s postulate:

    When we are ready to deliver ourselves from oppression, necessarily, we will so understand first and foremost that “interest” can only multiply debt upon the obligated circulation, that no just person will refrain for a moment from assimilating the opposing, vital principle.
    A succeeding republic of course must meet necessary minimal standards, first for deserving, and then for enforcing representation.
    A truly positive people are not deterred from unity and purpose by a handful of usurers and whatever panderers, generations, or classes tie themselves to purse strings at so much cost to all the rest; they are not discouraged by anything from the good and due things people can readily achieve. Especially, they do not settle for less than ideals, when the ideal can be handed to them.
    Here that ideal is. America used to be such a place; and no one in history has to look far to find that out.

    “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.”

    mike montagne — founder, PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™, author/engineer of mathematically perfected economy™ (1979)

    © COPYRIGHT 2009, by mike montagne and PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4

  10. Douglas

    Legalizing Competitive Currencies.

    Please consider a new bill called, State Emergency Currency Reserves (SECUR).

    States should now be given the proper legislation needed to maintain their independence and local economic sustainability. SECUR is a new bill that should be drafted immediately and passed through Congress and the Senate.

    SECUR is justified under the current threats of terrorism, natural disasters and the insane plans of the Private Central Bankers. The formation of a World Government Economy initiated behind ‘Secretive Doors’ will NEVER succeed. The plan will fail and result in a horrific war that will exterminate millions. The same process that gave rise to the Nazi’s has been formed once again by the foolish arrogant Central Banking Families.

    SECUR will provide a legal currency reserve to be established by each State. The State reserves should be based on each States GDP, Natural Resource reserves and current product / service capabilities. Exchange rates should be managed by Congress and the Senate through the ‘Humble’ service of an appointed Federal Government Agency, ‘The US Federal Currency Exchange’ (UFCE).

    Each State should be given the ‘Conditional’ authority to manufacture a suitable medium of exchange, be expected to maintain accurate records and maintain order against counterfeiting. As a fast supplement and short term solution, the stowing of large amounts of US minted coins by each State is recommended. The value of the Coins can be adjusted to keep State economies going until a NEW medium is properly issued.

    If you think logically and realistically, We the American People owe nothing to the Central Banking Families. However, they have already countered this truth by manipulating Nations against Nations, by intertwining the economic dependencies of Nations and most effectively by directing the debts of one Nation to another.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  11. thomasmoonman

    Gold is important first and foremost (in reality) in advanced technologies. Computer chips and such. Gold is the finest electrical conductor their is. Hence the use of it and platinum in high end electronics. I hate that this is never discussed.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. Jack

    Interesting debate going on here:

    http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-10-07/ron-paul-u-s-heading-for-soviet-style-economic-collapse/

    QUESTIONS FROM LIBERTARIAN777

    Libertarian777
    October 10, 2010 at 10:07 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Jack, I haven’t read the full website on the MPE, but a couple questions I do have:
    1. in your example about the car, if there is no interest / (assumably ‘fees’ would still be considered interest), how do you protect against default risk? Also how do you account for capital movements between countries? Does the issuing entity just keep issuing currency as the demand for it increases due to offshore investments?

    2. in one of your other posts, you mentioned a centralised (government run?) place that will issue/create the money as required, and withdraw it once it is retired.
    Question is, to whom do you entrust to perform this function? how do you prevent them from being politically influenced? How do you prevent them from changing the rules in future (day 1 100% of money created must be retired. 20 years and 5 elections later, only 95% of money created has to be retired etc.).

    3. I understand your concerns about going to a gold (or other commodity/production based) backed system. Ignoring that (as one aspect), what is your take on Ron Paul’s stance to allow competing currencies?

    Even in your MPE model, where money is created as the demand arises, are you not then also requiring a federal tender law, that the manufacturer of the vehicle HAS TO accept that money, so created, by whatever entity has that authority? Or does the car dealer have no say in how he chooses to get paid?

    4. lastly, how does your MPE model work in a deflationary environment such as Japan, where population growth is negative (which would imply deflation by any means. since Japan has a fertility rate under 2, one would expect its economy to decrease over time, except if they could consistently increase productivity beyond the rate of decline {technological innovation aside}).

    ANSWERS JACK:

    I want to answer accountably and accurately. I don’t “make” things complicated, and I don’t have time to convert my answer to second grade “language.” So here we go:

    1.A. in your example about the car, if there is no interest / (assumably ‘fees’ would still be considered interest), how do you protect against default risk?

    In mathematically perfected economy™ (and, owing to its eradication of interest and obligatory schedule of payment, in mathematically perfected economy™ ONLY)… the remaining value of the represented property is always equal to or greater than the remaining promissory obligation. Thus there is no risk of default whatsoever, in all property which is desirable to others — allowing the Common Monetary Foundry (CMF) to continue collecting the remaining obligation (as is necessary to ensure the integrity of promissory obligations by solving inflation and deflation). The CMF is charged with just two responsibilities: a) certifying credit-worthiness (certifying ability to pay by universal formula — this is just software, immediately processing the account records of the prospective debtor); and b) maintaining the accounts of the people. Payments are automatically made by the CMF, which can even forewarn of critical improprieties from its maintenance of accounts. Likewise, income is automatically credited to your account. No more bills, no more cashing checks. But, as stipulated by the amendment for mathematically perfected economy™ and absolute consensual representation, these accounts cannot be taxed (income tax is outlawed) — taxes are limited to explicit charges for infrastructure or services actually rendered and willfully consumed by each subject. In other words, you will most likely pay for roads as you consume of them, in a fuel tax (which likewise involves no interest).

    The only fees are the costs of maintaining the system — which of course, are minimal costs of maintaining a software installation, and/or physical issuance of physical currency (wherever necessary).

    Thus MPE is the only system in which at all times, you actually *can* protect yourself against default, because, under usury, very little of initial payments goes toward principal, and therefore the remaining, obfuscated obligation, particularly including interest, exceeds the value of the property: no real means exists therefore to do so.

    1.B. Also how do you account for capital movements between countries?

    You exchange currencies just as you do now, but instead, *actually* accounting for the devaluation of all currencies subject to interest. (Montagne provides formulas for two methods of devaluating interest-bearing currencies.) Because mathematically perfected currency™ is the only currency which perpetually maintains its value by virtue of a perpetual 1:1:1 relationship between remaining circulation, remaining value of represented property, and remaining obligation, it is the only currency which (by all the recognized means of doing so) perpetually maintains its value throughout its lifespan. (No, it is impossible for gold/silver/etc to do so, because of its inherently disparate proportions.)

    1.C. Does the issuing entity just keep issuing currency as the demand for it increases due to offshore investments?

    The CMF is not the actual issuer of the currency: YOU (WE) are. In other words, what the CMF actually does, is, on each debtor’s behalf, a) certify credit-worthiness, b) perform payment, and c) issue the promissory obligation in a standard form as we are all familiar with (electronic data or physical bills).

    In other words still then, *you* (we) are the actual issuers of the currency — as we actually are now, because no currency is issued but upon our issuance of a promissory obligation. Thus, the only need and incidence for issuance is the natural need and incidence which monetizes property now. The difference is only that MPE currency is stripped to your actual promissory obligation — which means eradication of interest. You pay $100,000 for a $100,000 home. Nobody gets anything for nothing; you pay for the home *at least* as you consume of it.

    2. in one of your other posts, you mentioned a centralised (government run?) place that will issue/create the money as required, and withdraw it once it is retired.
    Question is, to whom do you entrust to perform this function? how do you prevent them from being politically influenced? How do you prevent them from changing the rules in future (day 1 100% of money created must be retired. 20 years and 5 elections later, only 95% of money created has to be retired etc.).

    PFMPE’s constitutional amendment (world-wide mandate for mathematically perfected economy™ and absolute consensual representation) ensures retention of the underlying prescription for the natural life cycle of a promissory obligation. The system runs without the usual need for administration; and, as such, runs without even any assets beyond software which retires the circulation as principal is paid against existing promissory obligations. Except for physical money (which nonetheless leaves a parallel audit trail), no opportunity to corrupt the system even exists, because money comes into circulation upon *our* issuance of promissory obligations, which of course (and only which of course), are therefore free of extrinsic manipulation, adulteration, or exploitation of the obligations, or the natural opportunity to make good on them. Only this prescription for the life cycle of a promissory obligation does all this then, because inherently, interest/usury perpetually multiplies artificial indebtedness in proportion to a circulation until we suffer the present failure (which process Montagne identified and solved for in 1968).

    3.A. I understand your concerns about going to a gold (or other commodity/production based) backed system. Ignoring that (as one aspect), what is your take on Ron Paul’s stance to allow competing currencies?

    First of all, please note that MPC is the only currency which at all times is redeemable (and just redeemable) in terms of the very property it represents. The faults of all other currencies are what a gold standard hopes (vainly/incorrectly) to account for. No such ensurance is even necessary in MPE, because its prescription and its prescription alone maintains the integrity (and therefore the redeemability) of the entire resultant circulation. Effectively then, the very property which alone, fully backs MPC, is the very *necessary* store of value that all other currencies can only fail to establish (because one and one only prescription does this). Thus, the represented property IS the necessary store of value which ensures the redeemability of the currency (even without any government intervention).

    But thus, if you ignore the faults of any inherently finite currency, which therefore is powerless to respond in volume to any need for a circulation particularly which exceeds the finite monetary reserves of the purported standard (which needs are why every implementation of a precious metal monetary standard have necessarily been abandoned), then you can’t solve inflation and deflation, or sustain all potential industry. What comprehensive solution could possibly ignore this, for the sake of avoiding intelligent discussion here, or whatever further ostensible purpose? The very moment you abandon accountability, you abandon vital principle.

    Now, you should ask Ron Paul what he means by “competing currencies,” because he is the one who must be accountable for advocating that *somehow* (by some undeclared and certainly unproven, purported virtue), “competing currencies” are going to save us. Alan Greenspan for instance welcomed the Euro as a purported competing currency. What could he have possibly meant; and why would Greenspan (of all people) and Paul concur in the proposition of an event which has already proven its failure? The underlying theses of MPE proved 40 years ago that the lie of all this ambiguous talk of “competing currencies” (inherently involving interest and differing from MPC™) is, that each such currency is subject to interest, which implicitly, inherently, and irreversibly multiplies artificial indebtedness in proportion to a circulation and remaining capacity to pay, until you suffer terminal failure. Is it an advantage to us that we pay interest to a mere publisher of our promissory obligations to each other? Absolutely not. All along the way to inevitable failure, the interest of these purported “competing currencies” makes it mathematically impossible to accomplish the assumable objects which Mr. Paul constantly pretends to advocate by the mere hollow slogan, “honest money.” What money can possibly be “honest,” but a money which perpetually maintains its value and disposition toward that value? What other monetary process but mathematically perfected currency™ can do that? It is mathematically impossible for any other prescription to accomplish the purposes of an ostensibly honest currency, but mathematically perfected currency™. So is Dr. Paul intending for these currencies to compete with mathematically perfected currency™ (MPC™)? He hasn’t answered a single letter or telephone call since 1980 about it. What do you make of that? What reasonable thing can you make of that?

    Worse, if you study the Austrian dogma, or if you follow the concurring claims of Dr. Paul, you find each actually advocate higher rates of interest, which of course can only multiply artificial indebtedness all the faster. You don’t believe that or something? You can’t understand the math? To maintain a vital circulation, we have to re-borrow the principal and interest we pay out of the circulation as a subsequent sum of debt, which is inherently increased therefore so much as periodic interest. The greater the rate of interest then, the faster the rate of multiplication; the shorter the lifespan of the system; the faster you devalue the currency; the faster you dispose more of every unit of the currency to servicing debt, versus sustaining the industry which is obligated to do so; and the faster you reach failure.

    That’s “competition?”

    To what effect? Faster or slower failure, while advocating higher interest will prevent us from borrowing, when in fact… sure, it will… but to the effect of being unable to afford maintaining a vital circulation, which likewise expedites failure.

    So how can any currency subject to interest compete with MPC? You mean it’s better for me to pay 7 houses for a house instead of 4 (or 1!), especially if we do the math, from which we can only rightly understand that the former dispossesses us all the faster from the house, when we suffer inevitable failure — but that the latter dispossesses us just as well? And so, the very inevitable failure we are experiencing is a competition for principle, when the only adherence to principle predicates a currency which is not subject to interest, with one and one only just, obligatory schedule of payment?

    There is no principle in ignoring the facts which determine principle. Nor is it a matter of opinion what Ron Paul’s stance on allowing competing currencies “means.” If he could defend the idea, I assume he would have. If you understand the idea is defensible, you would have defended it conclusively and irrefutably. Anyone who believes the idea is defensible by anything else will probably answer (vainly) here, with the same preposterous things we’ve heard for years — and that’s why we have no unity, we have no respect for principle. To sway us then, they have to prove not only that interest isn’t terminal, but that “a central bank,” which only publishes evidence of our promissory obligations to each other at negligible cost, even *needs* to charge us interest… in which (as Montagne explains) any purported banking system commits two crimes against us. What are those incredible crimes? The people who will try to defend interest haven’t even gone there yet. Much less has Dr. Paul. Why in fact is *everyone* wondering what Dr. Paul can accomplish by competing currencies? Because never in his life has Dr. Paul explained this to any reasonable person’s conclusive satisfaction.

    Now, if you want to know what he might mean, you have two choices (because he advocates interest): a) you can evaluate all the possible consequences of plausible ranges of interest (which in fact will conclusively project the terminal failure Montagne explained 40 years ago, which the models he provided the Reagan Administration indeed projected); or b) you can do your homework, by at least visiting the Von Mises pages and studying a preposterous article by Hayek, purportedly prescribing a free market economy (subject to unassented usury [did you ever vote for the Federal Reserve System?]): Hayek gives the reason for all this “competition”; he tells us why he advocates “banks” (which of course are wholly unnecessary) — he advocates banking because “it can be an extremely profitable business.” Read it for yourself, and choke on that proposition for a while. So that’s a core idea of “Austrian economics” which is admissible evidence.

    How’s the “competition” even going to lead to the higher interest rates Dr. Paul has advocated would save us from excessive debt? How are those higher interest rates not instead going to multiply debt all the faster, so long as we do succeed in maintaining a vital circulation? How are we going to avoid terminal failure by *either* higher or lower interest rates — by any rate of interest which is profitable to a bank at all?

    Real benefit from any of those things is not only impossible; the idea of “competing currencies” is itself preposterous, because adherence to the only principles which serve us predicates one form of currency and one form of currency only. And so, the only thing we can deduce from Mr. Paul’s 30 years of evasion, is he has no intent to compete with that currency whatsoever.

    If he does, where is he? Why is he not here explaining himself? I challenge him to do that. After all, who in their right mind could support him, understanding the ramifications of interest — the mere discussion of which, he refuses to engage in?

    3.B. Even in your MPE model, where money is created as the demand arises, are you not then also requiring a federal tender law, that the manufacturer of the vehicle HAS TO accept that money, so created, by whatever entity has that authority? Or does the car dealer have no say in how he chooses to get paid?

    Absolutely not.

    The value of the money is decided by each individual, private issuer of their certified promissory obligation. The only *real* possibility of *actual* free markets then is under MPE. Likewise, the Constitution fails either to sustain all possible industry or a perpetual value of a finite circulation, because the principle of the gold standard does not account for the issues. It was flawed; and most of the most enlightened founders (Jefferson for instance) understood it was flawed.

    Nor does the mandate impose acceptance of these promissory obligations, which in fact are only stripped of all adulteration: Under MPE, you’re just paying the real creditor fully (the guy who builds the house, as the present obfuscation does — but depriving the real creditor of interest [the real creditor of course is the guy who builds the house and accepts a promissory obligation as payment]). The purported banking system ITSELF deprives the real creditor of interest! All that the real creditor is interested in nonetheless is maintenance of the integrity of the currency. You can’t maintain the integrity of the currency under any contemporary concept of banking, because interest multiplies artificial indebtedness to banks (which merely publish the evidence of our promissory obligations to each other), in proportion to the relevant circulation, and so, because furthermore, ever more of every unit of relevant circulation is inherently dedicated to servicing an ever escalating and eventually terminal sum of artificial debt, as opposed to sustaining the industry (trade) which the circulation is only *said* (wrongly) to represent. What your central banking system does (or the “competing banks” of Mr. Paul do), is intervene upon the transaction, claiming that to merely publish the evidence of our promissory obligations to each other is to rightly launder all the principal which is ever created thusly, into their own possession… and then to multiply that into terminal debt, because the ten cents it cost them to publish $100,000 into circulation ostensibly justifies their collecting a further $300,000 (or $500,000 or whatever, if Mr. Paul and the Austrians here have their way), even as that ten cents the $100,000 cost them was collected in a tiny fraction of the first payment.

    Stupid as all this is then, anyone who argues for this, claiming to represent either liberty or justice, is saying that this is what free people would elect to have done to them — even as no *actual* benefit whatever exists, and even as the ancient ruse is terminal! At the same time, you’re arguing to “end” the Fed, only assuming that “competing banks” won’t preserve the very thing (interest) which is even terminal.

    No one in history has proven an honest money can be subject to interest, because that’s impossible: the promissory obligation of the debtor is still the promissory obligation of the debtor (as opposed to being property of the banks); the evidence of the promissory obligation must rightly be retired with payment; and the real creditor (who in fact is denied interest by the obfuscations of “banking”) is in fact denied interest by purported banking — so the principle you claim, if you defend banking, is even disproven by banking itself.

    Nonetheless, to answer your question: NO. It’s not compulsive to accept MPC. You are perfectly welcome to subject your promissory obligations to interest (given up, even until now, without your permission [while anyone who argues for the obfuscation (laundering of principal subject to interest) is implicitly giving their permission]).

    So the car dealer can accept your promissory obligation free of interest (which alone maintains the integrity of the obligation), or the car dealer can accept a purported bank’s publication of your promissory obligation subject to interest, which inherently destroys the integrity of the currency until the destruction manifests in terminal failure, and even complete dispossession of all.

    As to how you might believe you can fare better under interest (even amidst the present evidence of the consequences), I leave it to you to decide above or beyond or ostensibly immune to these facts as you want to decide. But it is a crime against *me* likewise, that you (by whatever presumed nobility) enforce your destructive currency upon me. Therefore, I presume if you are a true advocate of liberty, you will allow me (and others who truly want to free ourselves from the unnecessary and even criminally terminal shackles of usury) to elect instead to deploy MPE (which is the only prescription which is free of both fault and involuntary servitude).

    Of course, the only reason to engage in discussion with intelligent people, is that together we realize the difference, that we can overcome a corrupt government to establish solution together. As Jefferson said, we cannot be ignorant and free; but of course, if you love usury, we welcome you to enjoy or suffer the consequences, so long as you restrict both to yourselves.

    4. lastly, how does your MPE model work in a deflationary environment such as Japan, where population growth is negative (which would imply deflation by any means. since Japan has a fertility rate under 2, one would expect its economy to decrease over time, except if they could consistently increase productivity beyond the rate of decline {technological innovation aside}).

    There is no such thing as “a deflationary environment, such as Japan,” under MPE, because MPE solves inflation and deflation. In other words (follow it out for yourself), it solves the same problems which beset Japan. For your further evaluation then, I hope you will note that Japan enjoyed its relatively faster recent rise to its peak prosperity under always lower interest rates than we suffered. Japan’s problems largely extend furthermore then from the fact the US comprises such a large part of its markets — which of course means that our escalated rate of failure compromises Japan, even as Japan otherwise would have benefitted further from its lower interest rates, as its market collapses under higher interest rates.

    The 1983-84 models Montagne provided the Reagan Administration accounted for all these issues. So, all this (including solution) has been known for a long while. And yet, here, what are we doing? Advocating interest? Pretending it’s justified? Pretending the banks even deserve to keep the principal (versus retiring it, as under MPE)? And thus that Ron Paul *somehow* advocates a solution he fails to sufficiently define, even before his ever unbending supporters?

    The answers to these issues are plain. They’re simple, elementary, indisputable math.

    And we can never have unity therefore, if without accountable, conclusive explanation, we advocate retaining a banking system, when in fact “the banking system” is the very problem.

    The *name* of the banking system is of no consequence — and yet in fact, that’s all Mr. Paul is advocating, if he’s advocating retaining the banking system AT ALL.

    In fact then, as to your assertion that an economy must increase over time… I hope you’ll also understand that the only reason it is compelled to do so is a further testament that the banking system is at fault — because it is the multiplication of artificial indebtedness which requires us to do so, even as in the end, the purposed obfuscations of the purported banking system (usury) can only dispossess us of every purported gain (all of which ultimately default back to the purported “banking system”).

    If you believe in interest or usury, just say so. Why pretend you’re eliminating the problems caused by usury, by preserving usury? Just say you want to change the name of “the bank,” or provide for Hayek’s bank to insert itself into the equation for Hayek’s obvious and even self confessed purposes. Everyone who wants to enjoy or suffer those consequences is welcome to do so. I’m only trying to save all of us from those consequences who truly want to save ourselves. So let’s discuss them politely and intelligently, without malice, and with genuine concern for the demonstrable truth. I appreciate your questions because they head that direction.

    But now what? Shall we preserve this as a forum where usury is defended not by the truth, but by saying to explain this is verbose, or unintelligible? How many times and how many years must we carefully explain how usury is terminal, even when the fact is sitting right here, right now, before your very eyes?

    Usury cannot hide from the truth, IF an intelligent people will understand the ramifications of usury. So no, on the contrary, those who defend usury by asserting that all I have so carefully explained can never be understood are the ones who are “verbose” — because verbosity is by definition, words which explain nothing. Even more plainly, the evident reason they resort to that accusation is that there is no argument which justifies usury. There never has been; and there never will be.

    Just something to think about, as we plunge ever deeper into the insoluble debt of usury.

    After all, any argument for anything BUT MPE, inherently asserts that [somehow] we are better off for paying more for our own production than our own production.

    HOW EXACTLY SO?

    WHY EXACTLY SO?

    How much homeless would we be suffering if we were paying each other $1,000 per year or $83 per month for a $100,000 home with a hundred year lifespan (under MPE)? How were we better off for the “competing banks” we already have? And who in their right mind will forever deny the very ramifications everywhere around us?

    I’ll bet you someone here WILL!

    But these things are not matters of opinion. They are facts, or they are not facts. So, until someone here justifies interest, and unless someone here can prove interest is not inherently terminal, *opinions* will be as destructive as interest itself.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. Douglas

    Jack

    Thank you for your excellent post 10/09 2:40 AM. I have copied your post so I can study it, over and over again. You have made some incredible observations that I am very appreciative of and will study them.

    I suppose that if the original Colonies of the US had not been interrupted by the circumstances that led to the American Revolution, the original money system of Ben would have ‘Naturally Developed‘ to a great extent.

    Hamilton was the perfect example of a ‘Economic Expansionist’ that had no regard for the effects he and his partners greed would have on the general population. Thus Jefferson resigned and prophesied what would happen to the US if such a private control of monetary policy would be allowed to exist for an extended period. Everything Jefferson said would happen has come to pass!

    I still believe that when the issuance of NEW units of exchange are issued by a Democratic Body of Elected Representatives that an honest money system can be sustained without inflation or deflation. My observation is based on the fact of ‘Natural Necessity‘. As said, the mother of all inventions is Necessity. So, a society of Democratic Citizens would ’Naturally’ only allow the necessary amounts of NEW units into circulation as they would feel are necessary. If they screw up then all would pay the just consequence. Thus, the population would learn (Evolve) to manage their economy ‘Naturally‘.

    The implementation of Patents, Copyrights and Trade Marks Punitively safeguards society from the unjust issuance of NEW unit influence. Thus, the Founding Fathers foresaw the need to protect the ‘Mother of Necessity‘.

    Your exposition leans towards basing all Units of Exchange on the value of private property. Thus the value of the land people live on becomes the Ultimate Value of the established Unit. The only way this can be sustainable is if the Commonwealth of Citizens Own all the land within their Respective Districts. Then the Value of the land would be proportionally valued based on the Natural Necessities of the people. The people of the Commonwealth could only lease the land ‘From Themselves’ which is valued based on the volume of the Commonwealths GDP.

    Thus the expansion of Commonwealth will be Naturally proportional to their basic needs; their would be no inflation, deflation, overproduction or over consumption. What I am saying is not Socialism or Communism because it still requires a ‘Ongoing’ Democratic Representation of all the Citizens of the Commonwealth. Thus, the Commonwealth’s natural resources would also be the unconditional property of the Commonwealth of Citizens and there extraction would be governed by the Commonwealth of Citizens.

    Your thoughts on this Jack.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

    1. Jack

      Hi Douglas,

      I just posted a very detailed answer to questions from libertarian777. Debate going on here:

      (http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-10-07/ron-paul-u-s-heading-for-soviet-style-economic-collapse/)

      This will hopefully also answer many of your questions but it´s awaiting moderation.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

    2. Jack

      “I suppose that if the original Colonies of the US had not been interrupted by the circumstances that led to the American Revolution, the original money system of Ben would have ‘Naturally Developed‘ to a great extent.”

      You have have to get it straight — what you THINK is the original economy of Ben Franklin comes from Mike´s Parable of Perfect Economy: it’s the original economy of Mike (almost).

      “Your exposition leans towards basing all Units of Exchange on the value of private property. Thus the value of the land people live on becomes the Ultimate Value of the established Unit.”

      Not quite — on production… there’s quite a difference. Land is not production; land is a different issue… which I leave to the public to deal with as it may (because they’re not about to grow up enough to deal with land rightly).

      You say this: “The people of the Commonwealth could only lease the land ‘From Themselves’…”

      Your getting warm. I would deal with land this way: we have a right to use so much of it (hence my responce to Jefferson’s concept, “in usufruct”); and we have an obligation either to restore it to its original state, or to provide for restoring it to its original state. (This is an abbreviated explanation.) Thus we neither pay for our own land; on the contrary, we use it without consuming it — providing for its restoration.

      “What I am saying is not Socialism or Communism because it still requires a ‘Ongoing’ Democratic Representation of all the Citizens of the Commonwealth. Thus, the Commonwealth’s natural resources would also be the unconditional property of the Commonwealth of Citizens and there extraction would be governed by the Commonwealth of Citizens.”

      Absolutely. On the contrary, what we’re proposing is true free enterprise — and THE ONLY true free enterprise. But of necessity, it is true free enterprise WITH the obligatory responsibilities which are attached to *any* enterprise.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  14. turbo181

    This announcer is one of the better ones in Fox. Thankfully he lets Ron talk and explain his view to the fullest. A rare sight in Fox News.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. Citizen

    Jack SAYS,

    YOU SAY: “Immutable” currency…
    There is NO such concept in the know physical universe.

    YOU SAY: “contractual obligation”
    is what the US Constitution guarantees We The People, but the FED has violated that “obligation”
    repeatedly to the tune of 5700% inflation since 1913.

    YOU SAY: “the remaining volume of units of circulation must at all times equal the volume of remaining value of the
    ALL the products which the circulation is intended to represent,”
    That’s a mouth full and an paradoxical impossibility.
    First off, currency “circulates” assets do not. You can have money or assets (both are wealth) but you cannot have both simultaneously, that is unless you’re practicing FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING and then you can lend the same dollar 10 times over, our Current Problem.
    This has never existed in time or space, and I doubt could ever be CONTRIVED much less sustained by even the most DRACONIAN RULER alive. The concept would require a VIRTUAL Economic Super Computer that would instantly balance inequities of financial values; a condition that doesn’t even exist in our natural biosphere. Houses or land are not FUNGIBLE

    YOU SAY: “represented property out of circulation as the value of the property is perceived to be consumed, or to depreciate.” This statement ASSUMES that the “value of property” is STATIC, ergo that there are no Free Market forces that dictate the value of property in a time and space reference and based upon consumer use/demand only. EXAMPLE: two houses built 1975 for $100k, one in Beverly Hills, CA. the other in Flint Michigan. They both “depreciate” on the books however one is now worth “value of property”, $2.5M and the other is < $8k (salvage value of lot) YOU SAY: “someone would have received circulation for nothing.” Thus you assume that both houses would, or at least should, have the same ending value over time, but they DO NOT! And yes… People who SAVE often DO “”receive value for nothing”” BECAUSE they have reserved value (savings) and good timing. YOU SAY: “if the effective volume of circulation is ever less than the volume of represented property, …; and someone will not have received and persisted in just reward for their production.”
    Herein lays the value of SAVINGS! A person who postpones consumption and saves has a different “Time Preference” and is able to TAKE ADVANTAGE (in time) when values of goods are cheap relative to his SAVED VALUE.

    YOU SAY: “Thus interest makes abiding by our necessary principles of immutable tokenization impossible.” People who choose to SAVE earn INTEREST regardless if you’re willing to pay it or not! They choose to hold currency that has INTRINSIC value, like land, energy, minerals, etc., which have INTRINSIC value but not IMMUTABLE value. If something is made plentiful (plasma TVs) then the price drops and its intrinsic value diminishes. If something becomes scarce, food, water, shelter, gold, then its intrinsic value rises. NOTHING IS IMMUTABLE, except for God…. But that’s a whole other day.

    YOU’RE NUMERATIONS:
    1. Your sounding like Milton Friedman, Chicago School Monetarist who sought to control M2 money supply in order to balance supply/demand forces. Problematic at best.
    2. “pay principal out of circulation” This is simply another term for CONSUMPTION, locking wealth into intrinsic assets. As things are consumed, demand entices suppliers to produce.
    3. “immediate conversion of equity into currency.” This last BURST BUBBLE (housing) disproved this notion with a loud THUD! Tens of Thousands of homeowners converted their false home equity to pay off credit cards, only to now be upside down with mortgages 30% higher then the value of their homes. When Mal-Investments run a muck and “equity” is INFERRED as in the hyper inflated housing market, corrections are inevitable…CRASH! A “Crack Up Boom” (LvM) occurs and HERE WE ARE!

    YOU SAY: “must eradicate all potential for systemic offense.”
    You’ve lost me here… What is “systemic offense”??
    Print more money??? Tell me it ain't so Tim Gietner

    YOU SAY: “tokenization must account for all products”
    Fiat currency IS TOKENIZATION and HIGHLY MUTABLE.
    Real Estate appraisers use a Mark to Market approach to valuate real estate both in good times and bad, and as WE all know, markets are NOT STATIC, much less IMMUTABLE! And neither is currency.

    Franklin’s Colonial Script was counterfeited with almost reckless abandonment, even under penalty of death,
    BUT eventually even that script went away when the silver coin act of 1794 was enacted
    and people dumped the script for REAL CONSTITUTIONAL MONEY.

    Gold and Silver COINS are hard assets with INTRINSIC value
    AND even currency value and even that value fluctuates with perceived human demand for the need to SAVE and PRESERVE VALUE.
    Gold is trading above 1,400 Fed Notes or MPE Notes (your choice), per oz but 6 months from now it may be 2,500 or 800 notes depending on how poorly or well helicopter Ben predicts and reacts to the market.

    Frankly I think he needs to raise the Discount Rate 500 basis points immediately,
    but what do I know.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. SilentNoMorePubs

    Watch the video WHY WE ARE IN SO MUCH DEBT for one of the clearest, simplest explanations yet of why our money is destroying our prosperity. Full of insights.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. Jason

    Jake,

    You make some very good points about interest. I’m confident that Dr. Paul is open to your ideas. He is an extremely bright and compassionate individual who truly believes in selfless service. I was, however, put off by your combative position on a number of posts. It was not until I read your noncombative post on 5 Oct that I was able to internalize your arguments.

    You and Dr. Paul have more in common than you are putting forth. By far and away the most important issue of our time is to end the Federal Reserve and banking as usual. This you agree on. You also agree that interest, as it is used by the Federal Reserve, is a hidden tax that is destroying our social fiber. There is, really, little that you disagree on–only the difference between the gold standard and what you propose. I will take the opportunity here, for the benefit of readers who are underexposed to a hard truth, that the Grace Commission Report of 1984 under Reagan found that not one nickel of our income taxes goes into the Treasury. It is all applied toward interest on the national debt (i.e. paid to the Federal Reserve) and we derive no government services whatsoever in return for what was paid.

    Dr. Paul spent decades earning the trust of the people and I believe is in a position to win the Presidency and effect real change. You’re not. Please, for the sake of our nation, get behind him and share your ideas. If this problem could have been resolved from the Congressional seat, Dr. Paul would have already succeeded. It will take a President with extreme conviction to make this happen. You have to admit that, even if Dr. Paul went with non of your thoughts, his ideas are far better than the existing system. For this reason alone you, being one of the relatively small percentage of the population who understands money, should be completely behind him. It will take a mountain of very intelligent and dedicated people to pull this off, and I’m positive that Dr. Paul would love to have you in his camp.

    You’re smart and have good points. Use tact and present those points to improve the movement, but refrain from attacking the only man I’m aware of who stands a fighting chance of making this happen.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

    1. Jack

      Hi Jason

      Thanks for the kind words and i can see what you are trying to accomplish but after numerous attempts from our side Mr. Paul has (not yet) seen the importance to discuss those issues. We stand ready to debate our position (which is the only true position) any time with Ron Paul. If you (or anyone else) can get Mr. Paul to discuss solution with Mike or myself i urge you to do so in the interest of WE, THE PEOPLE.

      Few are the people who have serious evaluated the faults of Ron Paul’s spiel. The reason we revised our site to support him in the early parts only of the previous election was…

      We of course were convinced our arguments would prevail over his lack of argument (he only makes unqualified assertions — even in cases he might say or intimate for instance that elevated interest rates will stave what he only perceives to be excessive borrowing). The very form of his “argument” (assertions) therefore should raise our skepticism.

      If we were building a bridge…then the pretended engineer who was concerned more what color and style it was given, who insisted that parts be designed wrong, would raise the ire and attention of every legitimate engineer. They would be offended by the very form of the first’s assertions. So it is with Mr. Paul; no one with credible ideas can fail to be offended when counters are merely asserted — when there is no veritable argument; and particularly when any possible argument would be preposterous. The reason folks do this is they don’t understand or appreciate how legitimate ideas are developed. The difference then is that the developer of a legitimate idea presents it by its arguments — an entirely different, and necessary approach which so prominently distingushes the two. Ron Paul is a man of no more than assertions. A marked man.

      (LETTER TO RON PAUL) UNANSWERED!

      To: Ron Paul

      The sky is not falling “because we created money out of thin air.”

      The sky is falling because 1) when you hold in your hand “a dollar,” it actually represents an obligation to pay… and because 2) that *eventually impossible* obligation to pay is *already* so incredibly far much greater than the wealth most of us hope that false dollar could otherwise represent.

      The purported “confidence” in “the dollar” therefore ultimately tumbles because there was no real basis for “confidence” in the first place.

      The lie of the false dollar was always a deception; and it was never the inexpensiveness of the lie which hurt us. The sky is falling instead because of the inevitable ramifications of a purposed process, which in fact was the original, principal intended object of a privatized currency.

      From the very beginning, the issue — and the only distinguishing process even — was “interest.”

      mike montagne (to Ron Paul, “About Interest…”)

      (LETTER TO RON PAUL) UNANSWERED!

      Dear Mr. Paul,

      I frankly have supported your efforts for decades, even as I gained a far greater liking for you during the 2008 presidential campaign. You deserve and receive great credit for courageously standing for much truth against times so long ruled by ulterior motives and deception.

      I hope some day I have the opportunity to share your friendship; and I hope very much too that you will never take my stance for mathematically perfected economy™ (which is so much like many of the objectives we share) as a personal cause against you.

      On the contrary, it is because like you I must stand particularly for such important and vital truth, that our differences require further collaboration.

      The world nonetheless can only be served by veritable solution, even as the world itself, in many cases at least, looks to we the people of the United States to rectify world-threatening matters which largely emanate from the efforts of usurers which have been advanced from the resources of this continent and nation. The very headquarters of the operations of which I write are located here.

      The people of the world can rectify the matters before us; but I believe we need potential leaders such as yourself to engage in quality dialog which so obviously poses the possibility we can truly solve 1) inflation and deflation, 2) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and 3) inherent multiplication of debt by interest — the latter of which of course is one of the most serious problems confronting the world.

      In other words Mr. Paul, in my estimation we are facing a termination of all ages, freedom, and the principles of our republic, for the sake of the selfishness comprised in the privatized currency which has been imposed upon us for the very purposes of illimitable unjust, unearned gain.

      Our ability to succeed hinges not only on perceiving all of the truth, but in solving for it. One of the saddest potential things I think then, is that people such as yourself and I cannot engage in the vital processes which will lead fair men to agreement.

      Yours sincerely,

      mike montagne

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      1. Jason

        Jack,

        As I said, I think your ideas have a lot of merit. But I think you’re putting the cart before the horse and it won’t work. You don’t fight a war before the soldiers are in place. I sincerely believe that there won’t be another Dr. Paul in my lifetime, and I’m middle aged with quite a while left. He’s the first we’ve had since JFK. The first step is to get the right people in the right places. Abolishing the Federal Reserve is the ultimate goal, everything else is secondary.

        There will be tremendous Congressional debate if the decision were made to abolish the Fed. Panels would be set up, experts consulted, etc. It would dwarf the debate over Obamacare. You would have a chance to be heard. Bashing Dr. Paul’s ideas at this point will only make it more difficult to get the right man in the right place and could lose the war before it even starts.

        Keep the big picture in sight. Even if we were to utilize the Constitutional system of toting coins around, at least that is backed by the Law of the Land. It may not be a perfect system, but it’s immensely better than what we have at the moment. “Perfecting the State” is a process, and right now we’re in a monumental crisis where days matter. We don’t have time to insist on perfection right now. We are and must be in survival mode.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  18. Exposingthetruth41

    Ha! If anyone debased the dollar in the past they were sentenced to death. You see our founding fathers knew EXACTLY what was happening. Today people are so distracted. We are overworked and too tired because of the fact that most of our time is spent making money to comply with all the taxes, licenses, new regulations, fines, fees and any other insane excuse the government can think of to make sure they get most of our money. It is time to wake up! Ron Paul 2012

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. Jake

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Thus the answer to the original question is that money CANNOT BE A product, if it is to be an immutable token of value, because A product, in which the resultant circulation would ostensibly be redeemable, ITSELF cannot represent All products! Thus it cannot provide a perpetual 1:1 relationship between volume of circulation and redeemability which purportedly eliminates subversion of value.

    Effectively, the Austrians (and others) claim virtues of gold which do not exist, while the principles they exalt instead would endorse only mathematically perfected economy™, because the only currency which CAN accomplish this purpose of making the circulation effectively not A product, but in fact at all times ACTUALLY REDEEMABLE in ALL products, is mathematically perfected economy™ — which alone therefore, immutably tokenizes all products represented by the circulation, and in such a way that the circulation is always redeemable in the very scope and volume of products it was from the beginning, intended to represent.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  20. dedbusted

    Ron Paul for President!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  21. jake

    As I have described, the fatal fault of the imposed monetary system is interest; and all further faults merely result from further failure to solve inflation and deflation. The Austrians, and Mr. Paul in particular, not only advocate interest; they advocate ELEVATED RATES OF INTEREST.

    Effectively, what they want is to remove the embossed letters which now say “Federal Reserve Bank,” and replace them with “Ron Paul’s ‘COMPETING’ Bank(s)” — a principle which he refuses to debate, further define, or justify. Of course, any ostensible “competition” would ostensibly, on the contrary, drive interest rates down. But Mr. Paul tells us that we wouldn’t have borrowed ourselves into this debt mess if higher rates of interest had discouraged excessive/reckless borrowing.
    Mr. Paul has never done the math: he tells you that all of you are going to benefit somehow therefore — oh and we so willingly believe this preposterous notion, don’t we? — he tells us we will benefit paying perhaps 17% interest on our homes than 5%. Sounds really like a good idea, doesn’t it? Especially since the rate of interest is the rate of multiplication of artificial indebtedness — higher rates of which instead necessitate greater rates of borrowing to maintain a vital circulation.

    Unfortunately, most people who exalt Austrian “economics” hardly know the first thing about it. They reject math — most of which is little more than counting — as if you could understand otherwise; and they could have possibly determined solution otherwise. In no legitimate discipline or walk of life does such reckless abandonment of principle hold.

    But Mr. Hayek, God of the Austrians tells us why they advocate interest and the current banking model — which are our very problem. See Hayek’s article at Mises org: “A Free Market Monetary System,” I think it’s called. Anyway, he thus justifies interest, that it makes banking “an extremely profitable business.”

    That’s right. There IS no justification, just an outright confession of the motive.

    perfecteconomy dot com
    endtheecb dot ning dot com

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

    1. Douglas

      Jake, there is no need to charge interest on NEW currency through the proper representation of all the Constituents affected. Thereby the Elected Representative of each State would debate the positive and negative effects of all NEW issuance on behalf of ALL their respective Constituents. This proper issuance would be a benefit to the general economy. Such a Constitutional process would naturally eliminate inflation and deflation. Furthermore, this Constitutional process would eliminate overproduction and consumption which is the fuel of inflation and deflation. No repayment of this New Constitutional Issuance would be required as long as it ‘Completes its Contract of Issuance’. Much like a ‘Grant; is required to complete.

      With the ‘Free Market’ in place no repayment of NEW issued currency issued would be necessary unless the issuance proves to be fraudulently used or abused. Thus, the NEW issuance would represent the Natural expansion of our civilization’s economy based on the general needs of ALL Constitutions concerned. Balanced!

      Now if Citizens who have captured much currency already in circulation decides to lend it out at interest, then that would become a ‘Free Market Money Store Institution’ that is backed by only the currencies or assets accumulated by that ‘Private Bank’, all without the ludicrous fractional reserve policies of the Federal Reserve.

      Thus, as I understand it, under the proper issuance of Constitutional Units of exchange, the US economy would remain in perfect balance and expanded only by the necessary need of all the Constitutions involved.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

      1. Douglas

        What I am trying to say is that NEW Currency or ‘NEW Units of Free Market Exchange’ can be issued into a Free Society by a Democratically Elected Government without Interest or Repayment as long as that NEW Issuance is backed by the ‘Completion of its Purpose’ through its respective ‘Constituent Receipts’. This will naturally ‘Balance’ a ‘Free Enterprise System’

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

        1. Jack

          Doug

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

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

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

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

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

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

          Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          Thus the answer to the original question is that money CANNOT BE A product, if it is to be an immutable token of value, because A product, in which the resultant circulation would ostensibly be redeemable, ITSELF cannot represent All products! Thus it cannot provide a perpetual 1:1 relationship between volume of circulation and redeemability which purportedly eliminates subversion of value.

          Effectively, the Austrians (and others) claim virtues of gold which do not exist, while the principles they exalt instead would endorse only mathematically perfected economy™, because the only currency which CAN accomplish this purpose of making the circulation effectively not A product, but in fact at all times ACTUALLY REDEEMABLE in ALL products, is mathematically perfected economy™ — which alone therefore, immutably tokenizes all products represented by the circulation, and in such a way that the circulation is always redeemable in the very scope and volume of products it was from the beginning, intended to represent.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2

  22. MaxZagar

    FOX “journalists” must really think that the US citizens are totally stupid flock …

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  23. Tanarus20

    Ok people! This is the way out…
    If people in their own states can (push for a bill that allows citizens to slowly transition), to allow silver and gold to buy goods they need, then the dollar crash wont create such a bad a hardship.You will have (A safety valve)

    Problem…The Federal Reserve will fight such a bill tooth and nail. Because they KNOW they cant compete with “Sound Money.” thus rendering them irrelevant.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  24. notpcone

    The Federal Reserve……..which has NO connection with the Federal Govt. Nice play on words!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

    1. Forest

      “which has NO connection with the Federal Govt”

      Yep, absolutely NO connection. NONE at all. Completely private and TOTALLY independent of ALL Government entities.

      Whackjob.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

      1. Citizen

        Forest… or should we start calling you “Whackjob”?

        the point, the FED Reserve IS RUNNING our economy into the ground!

        It’s a central bank, government authorized monopoly, to manipulate our currency with reckless abandon for the benefit of the Elite.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  25. notpcone

    Imagine Ron Paul as President!!!!!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

  26. momsstickytoes

    I dont know how Ron Paul can get away with the LIE “Fiat money is to blame for everything unemployment, recessions.”
    The recessions before fiat money were far longer, deeper and more constant.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

  27. Douglas

    The only way to End the Fed is behind ‘Closed Doors’. The American people cannot comprehend what has taken place and nether do many of our Congressmen. Ron Paul knows the Fed is the problem but still does not tell US the full answer to the problem. Reinstating the ‘Gold Standard’ is defiantly not the answer. That would create a major crisis overnight, one that would cause a ‘Gold Rush’ of insane proportions.

    By ending the Fed without the public knowing the economy could be brought ‘Swiftly’ back to a positive effort. However, this would require a brilliant cabinet of well seasoned economists and futuristic thinking civil engineers. Counter acting the ludicrous effects of total insane issuance by the Federal Reserve is not an easy task. Furthermore; asking Congress to ‘Do Their Job’, listen to their constituents, and Issue them the NEW currency they need to keep the economy going would require the re-education of Congress , which would not be too difficult.

    The fact is that the Private International Bankers have already served the US up to China and Hilary Clinton has signed the ‘Eminent Domain Agreement’ That means ‘when’ the US economy fails to repay China then China will have legal Eminent Domain to take any land, city or industry for payment they choose. However, if China declares war on the US than all claim are off unless taken by force.

    LISTEN ‘The International Bankers DO NOT CARE’!!!!!!!!!!!!! They have no Allegiance to any Nation. The Nations of the World are Their ‘Subjects’. The more we fight each other and blow each other up the more they stand to knowingly benefit.

    However, they will loose control just like they did with the Hitler experiment. This time it will be the Final End of them for good! The Final day of the last ‘Beast’ of their creation is upon them and will consume them all. However, it will take a large part of our civilization with it. That is OK. We will rebuild.

    The International Bankers are like little children playing a game where they do not have to worry about any ‘Accountability’ because they are the supreme controllers of everything. All the Nations are theirs to exploit and manipulate. What ‘World Government’? They already have one! All that is left is for the Nations to be managed by the ‘Socialistic’ UN implementation of ‘Share or Die’ land and resources management. They have everything they feel they need to complete their plans.

    Accept for one thing, the Hearts and Minds of Americans. That is why they must destroy America first and show the world that their will be no more Yankee saviors and you all must bend to their will. Hitler saw what they were planning to do ‘With Him’ and turned on them and created his own ‘sick’ version of a Global Socialistic Party.

    We can play “Politics’ all day but in the end it all comes down to who has Money and who Controls Money.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

    1. Douglas

      On the other hand there is in fact a’ Sleeping Giant, of US Citizens that do understand what true US Monetary Policy was supposed to be. I looked deep into US monetary history and found that it has been a rollercoaster since the US Revolution started. The rest of the World needs to understand this because they have all been adversely affected by this.

      However, they all know well the positive Hallmarks influenced by the US. For example, Patents, Copyrights and Trade Marks to state the ones I feel now truly influence the topic of our discussion. Although other ones have been adopted that work too, like, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion and Equal Rights before the Law. These Hallmarks have been so well receive that they without question accepted the Federal Reserves Private Control over US Monetary Policy.

      This is a Great International Problem. Not for the Private Central Bankers, cause they own and control ‘Not Only’ the ‘Federal Reserve’ but ‘many’ ‘Private Central Banking Systems throughout the world’. So, if the US fails to stay on their knees before ‘The Federal Reserve’ then they will simply let if fall and be consumed by another Nation.

      China and Russia called for a ‘World Currency’ because they know what the International Bankers have always dreamed of and want to benefit from this. However, courting the ‘Kings of the East’ is not as easy as taking advantage of as was the US. The US was the most lucrative society they have ever had the pleasure of exploiting. So much so, that they were able to use many other Nations to exploit the free markets of the US. However, this is a double edge sword.

      There is only so much exploitation they can do before it catches up with ‘Natural Laws’. Then balancing out the unnatural over production and consumption results in chaotic consequences. They are Masters at manipulating their way through these’ Chaotic Consequences’. Playing out that they can solve the problem with ‘Socialism’ is a cheap cop out. No one can escape the ‘Natural Laws or the Universe’.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  28. Gassebol

    ….and we need to make the chinese to start to buy our stuff. The balance of trade is out of control. Soon we can not even pay the intrest on our national debt.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  29. chelonia1663

    Gold is NOT solution. Mr Paul does NOT offer solution but more of the same. Think!

    There is only one and one solution for inflation, deflation, en the disposition of our currency. That is Mathematically Perfected Economy. Search it

    Trust me. Our Money, Our Rights. We do not need banks. Also no RP Austrian competing banks

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3

  30. chelonia1663

    Gold is NOT solution. Mr Paul does NOT offer solution but more of the same. Think!

    There is only one and one solution for inflation, deflation, en the disposition of our currency. That is Mathematically Perfected Economy. Search it

    Trust me. Our Money, Our Rights. We do not need banks. Also no RP Austrian competing banks

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  31. ImNoTLeavin2Day

    “You can’t trust the government” coming from a politician… If Ron Paul isn’t the remedy to everything wrong with the U.S. then there just isn’t any hope. RP2012

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  32. roseagain2

    Ron Paul wins again!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  33. sillynanny44

    Libertarians #FTW

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  34. sillynanny44

    #lol #LOL

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  35. chaseef

    Goldbugs can send me all the hate they want, but I think Friedman had the right idea: all currencys freely floating, along with gold, competing with eachother. Then when governments get stupid, and do what they always do and ruin the currency, the people can go to gold.

    The monetary issue is so complicated, and I dont know what the perfect system is. Neither do the gold bugs.

    Besides, the massive deleveraging would destroy the structure of production and maybe billions would starve.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1