#SHOW COMMENTS
Here we will address a ” pretender bender ” who calls himself “ David B “ who Is parroting Victor J.AGUILAR from Axiomatic Economics, lets dismiss these preposterous claims of unqualified assumption shall we?
David B: MPE Assumption #1: People trade things that are of equal value. If they trade things that are not equal in value, then one of them is being cheated. Ignores Marginal Utility: People come away from trades with something of greater value than what they brought to them and that their valuation of things depends on how many of those items they already own
REPLY : In MPE we pay for what we consume, logically an item depreciates in value if we consume it which doesn’t directly reflect the value of any other items one may own because we choose the rate at which we consume those other items . Money or the secondary issuance ( further representation ) will always equal the former issuance of one of our promissory obligations without banking exploitation ,money therefore will be then our very protection that represents a true record of our exchange so we categorically know we are giving up an equal representation of wealth to each other that’s unexploited evidence of our promissory obligations we have to each other ( money creation ) , however there is no need for a margin utility if you want to give away your money or labour & production because you cant issue a promissory obligation representing nothing of value in doing so, rather it has to come out of your earned savings or your own pocket thus it will be your loss & your loss alone. There’s no free lunch or unearned profits in MPE, we give up & receive an equal representation of wealth to each other which also consists of * the earned profit which is a greater value upon further of our labour & production we give up & receive from each other , GREATER VALUE IS INCREASED EARNED PROFIT PER NEW REPRESENTATION OF PROPERTY (NRP) WE GIVE UP TO EACH OTHER without banks or government representatives intervening on our business & commerce stealing from us in the process *
EG : If I built a house for 70 thousand in a Mathematically Perfected Economy™ & sell that house for 100 thousand consequently that 30 thousand is my ” earned profit ” which is * GREATER VALUE * where I gave up my labour & time to produce a house & what some one pays me for that house by issuing a 100 thousand dollar promissory obligation ( money creation ) thus issuing 100 thousand UNEXPLOITED dollars into circulation upon the sale is always an EQUAL representation of wealth we give up to each other ,not that we give up to any publisher of money OR bank who merely pretends to loan us money risking nothing of their own.
David B: MPE Assumption #2 (based on #1): Borrowers are trading more money in the future for less money now. It follows from premise #1 that they are being cheated. Ignores Time Preference of Money: money today is more valuable than money tomorrow.
REPLY: No one is borrowing or loaning money from anyone because we create money (principal only) however there is a debt, so its only a obligation then to pay & rightfully retire (principal only) that you created on conception to pay for the property you purchased in the beginning, time preference is not ignored because we retire principal at the rate of consumption or depreciation of the property we purchased.
You can pay down your house sooner under MPE if you want?
No one is trading money in the future for less money now rather money is always equal with respect to the volume of remaining circulation , remaining property value & remaining debt , For example If you bought a house in a mathematically perfected economy™ for 100 thousand dollars with a projected life span of a 100 years & you paid down (principal only) sooner over 50 years rather than the projected 100 years the CMI will still retire the money you may have already paid in advance accordingly to the rate of the depreciating life span of the house you purchased still adhering to MPEs 1.1.1 ratio.
However If one did choose to pay down their obligation faster one wouldn’t have that extra money one otherwise would have to spend on other things such as a business, expanding business , paying employees more for example which is a true free enterprise sovereign market unique to any nation free of exploitation. MPE is NOT socialism nowhere near it . you cant brand MPE with any pr-existing name or ” ism ” because MPE simply cant be compared to anything we have seen in history in any nation, to do so only demonstrates ones very own wilful blind ignorance .
If you decided to sell your house that you paid in full after 50 years you keep the remaining value of the house which is 50 thousand dollars free of taxation or exploitation & it’s yours because you have already paid for your house, however whoever buys your house after 50 years issuing their own promissory obligation likewise takes on the remaining 50 thousand dollar obligation on the house which is also in adherence of MPEs 1.1.1 ratio respectively to remaining debt obligation, remaining value of the house & remaining money in circulation.
David B: MPE Assumption #3 (based on #2): Any monetary system subject to interest ultimately terminates itself under insoluble debt. It follows from premise #2 that, because the charging of interest is not currently prohibited, the world economy is destined to collapse. Ignores Velocity of Money: Money in circulation is used over and over again before debts come due.
REPLY: MPE doesn’t ignore the velocity of money because it identifies the velocity of money we pay out of circulation ( principal & interest ) on our falsified debts to local banks terminally depletes a circulation that only ever consists of some remaining principal at most , where the rate of circulatory deflation or the theft of circulation by all local banks depletes circulation at a greater rate of any former re-inflation by means of national debt thus irreversibly multiplying debt thereafter, clearly evident by increasing sums of national debt . Identifying then banks don’t spend what they steal “principal & interest” back into circulation because the velocity rate of a monumental theft of circulation is governed by the rate of interest on our very own falsified debts to local banks where principal & interest is stolen ,laundered out of circulation over the years & thus consequently the money banks steal is loaned back into circulation as a terminal multiplication of national debt just to re- inflate circulation, continuing the banking cycles of what is a guaranteed dispossession & consolidation of all our property & wealth public & private in the very end .
Money in MPE simply circulates over & over until the debt ( principal only ) is fulfilled likewise its retired at the consumption rate of the property one may have purchased, however principal is NOT generally paid in full before the debt is due or fulfilled , unless one chooses to pay their debt off faster but this does not mean the money paid in advance is retired faster than consumption as I have already articulated above.
In MPE its NOT difficult to control “Velocity of Circulation” because the money we create, earn & pay-down from circulation is RIGHTFULLY RETIRED at the rate of consumption or depreciation we decide of the related property , where if someone unfortunately defaults on an obligation the property in question is fully redeemable for its remaining value , anyone who merely assumes human nature can adversely effect MPEs simple 1.1.1 Second grade math ratio needs to think again go back to school come back & articulate how & why exactly human nature can be adverse in the 1.1.1 ratio ? Because you if you did think again you will clearly see with logic alone that MPEs 1.1.1 ratio is insulated from any outside human nature or adverse emotional decisions simply because we retire money at the rate of consumption of property , its not rocket science .
David B: MPE Assumption #4 (based on #3): There is class conflict between labourers and usurers as they battle over the unearned gain (surplus value) that is the proletariats’ due. By an argument similar to dialectical materialism, as the world economy collapses (see premise #3), the implementation of Mathematically Perfected Economy™ is inevitable. Montagne writes:
Absolutely prohibiting the collection of interest is a type of Socialism that requires enforcement.
The bigger problem with MPE is that no one owns anything. And since the value of everything determines the money supply, what is to prevent the banks from regulating, dictating or punishing how you use or how much you use your car or house of whatever. Everything you have in MPE is on leased.
REPLY: This last one from David B is preposterous folks, MPE is absolutely not claiming there is a class conflict between labourers & usurers rather MPE is proving & demonstrating with logic & elementary 2nd grade math usurers or banks are stealing unearned profits from the pool of wealth. Usurers , banks or the mere publishers of money however could be considered a class of thief who gives up nothing of their own in the alleged loan contract or the alleged borrowers promissory obligation . Moreover Surplus gain is not unearned profit , unearned profit is charged Interest which is a perpetual deficit that’s often 2X or 3X the principal , principal only I may add that was only ever issued into circulation thus it’s impossible to pay principal & interest out of circulation on all our own falsified debts without someone else defaulting on their alleged loan thus multiplying debt borrowing back principal & interest as national debt at further interest just to re-inflate circulation .
Moreover Mike Montagne DID NOT write or make any claim purporting a prohibition of interest is a type of socialism, this is simply not true , unfounded & an out right LIE , however in a mathematically perfected economy™ a prohibition of interest is essential because MPE proves with logic & 2nd grade math alone interest is the inherent fault that irreversibly multiplies debt .
In a mathematically Perfected economy™ we pay for what we consume which doesn’t mean we don’t own anything or we are leasing anything ,if you pay for property in full its yours, If your not using the representation / money but in possession of it such as earned profit or savings its then merely a record of a prior exchange or former debt that evidences what someone has given up & likewise received giving up their own labour & production to another which is a true representation of wealth, ultimately backed by the liquidity of the property or property value given up in the creation of money ( promissory obligation ) , but this does not necessarily mean ones earned profit or savings can represent ones own debt rather it can also represent & record ones own wealth or entitlement if they have given up their labour & production in an exchange earning that entitlement or money , consequently earned entitlement or money only becomes a debt again when its used in an exchange & only then it can circulate further to be earned & likewise retired on someone else’s unfulfilled debt or promissory obligation thus no one owns the money in the end simply because it has to be retired so as to defeat circulatory inflation, property however is something we can own & consume . Moreover there are no banks in MPE rather we have a nonprofit common monetary infrastructure ( CMI ) sovereign to any nation that handles all transactions & accounts who merely checks our credit worthiness if we can pay down what we have purchased issuing a promissory obligation ,however after the purchase its we the people who decide the depreciation or consumption rate of the property not the CMI , not any government regulation nor any thieving bank. ( see mandate )
Here we see David Bender promoting more LIES ?
David B MPE is based on the assumption that you need money circulating that represents total value of all assets in the economy. Loan money to build or purchase 1000 houses is created and then repayed and retired from circulation at the rate of depreciation of the 1000 houses over 50 years. However, all this time (50 years) that currency for the 1000 houses is circulating in the economy (velocity) and going towards the purchase of other things. The consequence of all this circulating currency is that money supply actually exceeds GDP resulting in inflation.
REPLY : MPE proves & demonstrates to eradicate inflation & deflation we first have to remove unwarranted interest & only then we can balance the remaining volume of money circulating equal the remaining property value & equal remaining debt by retiring principal from circulation at the rate we consume property we purchase .
No one is loaning or re- paying any money in MPE because we the people who create money not any publisher of money as David bender advocates who only pretends to loan money giving up no consideration of their own commensurable or equal to the debt? ,therefore in MPE its an obligation by the obligor ( not a borrower ) to pay the true creditor who gives up property & likewise pay down & retire principal from circulation at the rate of consumption .
The remaining money in circulation simply circulates further over the the remaining life time of property or as long as remaining consumption is left on the property , its preposterous to suggest the total sum of money created remains in circulation & its only retired when property no longer represents value? . In MPE we pay at the rate we consume therefore what we pay down in principal ( NOT PAY BACK ) out of circulation is retired as we consume property which always leaves us with a remaining volume of circulation that equals the remaining obligation or debt until the debt is fulfilled. The consequence is there is no inflation or deflation PERIOD .
David B : SSS (Safety Society System) is very similar to MPE but its much better thought out and controls for inflation and currency velocity. MPE does not. The issue here is that to control inflation, It is important that there is currency availible on demand to make purchases for ONLY those assets that are on currently for sale. There doesn’t need to be cash availible to purchase everything in the economy all the time.
REPLY : What can I say folks ? , SSS (Safety Society System) is not very similar to MPE because SSS (Safety Society System) falsifies a debt to a mere publisher or bank who gives up no consideration of its own commensurable or equal to loan it imposes on a purported borrower & likewise charges a purported borrower interest for the privilege of of being robbed . To make such an assertion stating a system of exploitation such a SSS (Safety Society System) is very similar to MPE is absurd & only proves David Bender has NO authority on monetary solution .
David B: MPE generates and injects cash into the economy to represent all the total value in every real asset in the economy whether its for sale or not.
REPLY : MPE does not generate or inject cash , its the obligor who creates principal upon * new representation * that represents the property they purchase by issuing a promissory obligation & its the obligor who retires the principal at the rate they consume that property they purchase.( see MPE for dummies )
David B: SSS only generates and injects cash (on demand) into the economy for those assets in the economy that are for sale. In this way, SSS is not inflationary like MPE. MPE ignores velocity.
REPLY : MPE most definitely does not ignore velocity because the obligor who creates principal retires that principal from circulation at the rate he or she consumes property. The obligor does NOT retire the total sum of principal after he or she has consumed the total value of the property, to suggest MPE ignores the velocity is to suggest principal that purchased property is paid down & retired from circulation only after the property has no remaining value left or only after property has no remaining consumption left to consume, which only demonstrates David Benders failure of rudimentary logic here in the process of advocating his own purported solution which is nothing more than very similar to the banking exploitation that exists today which is most definitely NOT very similar to MPE , nowhere near it.
Here we see David Benders preposterous example why MPE would have inflation?
David B: * Imagine * a city with 1000 families. Each family makes $75,000/yr, $6250/mo.
All 1000 families bring in a total town imcome of $75,000,000/yr
Each family lives in a house that cost $250,000.
Each family has a fee-based 30-yr loan and pay $700/mo, $8400/yr
This means the economy retires at least $8,400,000/yr
This means builder will need to build and sell at least 34 houses/yr to replace the retired money
34 new home loans will cover the annual salary of 112 workers/yr
The velocity of currency $75,000,000/$8,400,000 = 9
Local Builders can build at least 1000 houses in 30 year
REPLY: This is absurd for starters David Bender should know by now there are no loans in MPE , he only propagates this LIE of loans in MPE & likewise the LIE asserting with no qualification MPE ignores velocity because he advocates banking exploitation himself, moreover there is no inflation or deflation in MPE because we DON’T ignore the velocity of the remaining circulation because we are rightfully retiring the principal from the remaining volume of circulation AT THE RATE OF OUR CONSUMPTION EVERY MONTH ( NOT AT SUCH TIME AFTER WE CONSUME THE REMAINDER OF THE PROPERTY ) that’s always equal to the remaining debt & always equal to the remaining property value.
If we had 1000 * NEW * homes with a life span of 100 years worth $250,000 each we would have 1000 people each creating $250.000 to buy their * NEW * home . Therefore we would have 1000 x $250,000 = 250 million dollars of * NEW * money issued in circulation that equals the remaining property value & equals the remaining debt . Each month the 1000 people pay down & retire $208.325 each from circulation or 12 x $208.325 = $2,499.9 a year which is a total of 1000 x 2,499.9 = $249,990 a year from circulation that’s rightfully retired at the rate of consumption . ( NOT STOLEN BY A BANK Eg: Safety Society System )
Where at one year of consumption each house has a remaining value of $247,501 or a sum total of 1000 x $247,501 = 247.5 million remaining property value that * equals * the remaining volume of money left in circulation which is 247.5 million & likewise * equals * the remaining debt which is 247.5 million .
Income , savings or earned profit therefore is comprised of the remaining 247.5 million that’s circulating, (1000 peoples salary @ $75,000 = 75 million which is comprised of 247.5 million that’s still circulating regardless , one could even pay in advance $2,499.9 x 4 = $9,999.6 a year & pay their debt down in 25 years, or pay $19,999.2 a year over 12 .5 years in fulfilling their $250.000 obligation in MPE, however the money paid in advance sits in your account otherwise as savings & its retired at the rate of any remaining consumption left on property regardless which could take 100 years & any new owner who takes on the remainder of the debt takes on the remaining consumption even if he pays for the house out of savings the money still sits in his account being retired at the rate he consumes the remaining value of that property ) plus all other NEW money created upon NEW represented property which will always be perpetually increasing circulation above & beyond 247.5 million, even if we produce new representation that issues more money into circulation it always will equal the remainder of debt & the remainder of property value regardless that likewise circulates & spent resulting in earned profit or savings so someone else can pay down their obligation or resulting in earned profit for a business so a business can likewise pay either income / wages to employees & or pay down their own obligations , so generally no credit is created for wages in MPE considering we retire circulation at a slower rate ( NOT LOWER ) than a perpetually increasing circulation per new representation, however if you were starting a new business there is an exception if you needed the capital to pay employees wages before your profit margin is sufficient in volume to pay employees wages, you as an employer, would have to put up something redeemable of value of your own that you already owned as collateral to issue a promissory obligation that represents the value for the labour or wages you pay to employees to begin a business ( all promissory obligations are collateralised or redeemable in property so you cant issue a promissory obligation for nothing of value or above the remaining consumption or value of redeemable property )
Therefore by NOT ignoring the volumetric velocity of circulation per representation in MPE we get a result of NO INFLATION OR DEFLATION regardless of an increasing circulation per new represented property if we retire circulation at the rate of our consumption, we always will have a sufficient amount of money available left in circulation so its physically possible for people to earn , save , pay down & retire their obligations or debt either now or in 100 years without irreversibly multiplying debt to re-inflate a otherwise deficient circulation.
“ No builder in MPE needs to build anything new to perpetually replace a volume of circulation that’s rightfully retired which is a sum of circulation that no longer represents remaining property value & no longer represents remaining debt?”
To suggest a builder has to build new homes to re-inflate what is retired that no longer represents value, assuming then a non existent velocity problem exists that David Bender has JUST dreamed up, or was it Victor ?, nevertheless irrationally then deciding because the volume of circulation is always above a total sum of salaries its then inherently causing circulatory inflation, concluding then using what is a clear lack of intellect that circulatory inflation has to exists in MPE because money is not retired fast enough from circulation, which ( WHEN THE PERFECT VELOCITY OF REMAINING PRINCIPAL AVAILABLE LEFT IN CIRCULATION IN MPE IS ACTUALLY RETIRED AT A PERFECT VELOCITY OR RATE OF OUR CHOICE OF CONSUMPTION ” EXACTLY EQUAL “ ( NOT ABOVE OR BELOW ) BUT ” EXACTLY EQUAL ” TO THE REMAINING VELOCITY OF DEBT & ” EXACTLY EQUAL ” TO REMAINING VELOCITY OF PROPERTY VALUE ) is an epic failure of rudimentary logic by brain dead bender & Victor here, simply because they’re clearly not taking into account that an obligation can be retired over a 100 years & the principal I created for my house for example is actually earned & retired on someone else’s obligation as the true creditor who gave up property to me spends it & I likewise earned & retired someone else ‘s principal they created on their obligation from another true creditor spending money , even though the debts are varying amounts we are all retiring the sum we created or retiring the sum of principal at the rate of our consumption from an overall pool of wealth regardless.
If I earned $75,000 X 50 years = 3.75 million but I only issued a promissory obligation for $250,000 for a house which is logically below my total income NOT above my total income, now if my obligation was actually above my total income I CANT PHYSICALLY PAY THE PRINCIPAL DEBT? however I retired $250,000, but I also earned the remaining 3.5 million over a life time of working as a result of many others who are issuing new promissory obligations issuing new circulation upon new representation, but that 3.5 million can only be retired as a result of me spending it in a overall pool of wealth where many others again likewise earn it off me & subsequently off each other & retires it on their own obligation at the rate of their consumption as I did with my $250,000 obligation, SO what does brain dead bender & Victor suppose I retire on in my old age? or do they expect I will get a an old age pension I cant possibly live on because its paid with an irreversible multiplication of artificial debt or perpetual re-inflation? Because that is exactly what they advocate which can only multiply artificial debt to pay the former falsified debt , thus all we have here from David Bender & Victor is a * limited imagination * of 11th hour pretenders who PURPOSELY point people away from MPE with what is clearly fabricated LIES & PREPOSTEROUS unqualified assumptions to not only confuse themselves but to confuse & divide others in a mere unqualified attempt to discredit MPE in the process of not only advocating the lies of economy as fact but further banking exploitation as some purported alternative solution.
THERE IS NO INFLATION OR DEFLATION IN MPE:
The meaning of ” inflation ” is to increase but its an abnormal or distorted increase, so there is no such thing as inflation & deflation in MPE because there is no distortion or abnormality ,even circulatory in nature neither a increase or decrease of circulation is abnormal or distorts the availability of the remaining volume of circulation that it was intended to represent in relation to remaining property value & remaining principal debt /obligation which are balanced or always equal at all times .
With the total eradication of interest In MPE we have no price inflation on whole because the interest imposed on all our business & commerce today that’s likewise passed onto the consumer is non existent in MPE .
Circulatory Inflation & deflation therefore just doesn’t happen from the get go in MPE even when an obligor issues a promissory obligation for new represented property that issues new money into circulation simply because this increase of circulation is immediately equal to the remaining principal debt & remaining value of the property that the obligor purchased so long as the obligor retires principal at the rate of their consumption there is no inflation or deflation.
Deflation is to reduce or a reduction in the availability of circulation resulting in a deficient circulation . so in MPE we don’t even have deflation or an insufficient volume of circulation simply because we will always have exactly the required amount of money per representation available left in circulation to pay down & retire the remaining principal from circulation in servicing any outstanding obligation , balancing then circulation equal to the remaining obligation & equal to the remaining property value .
Circulatory Inflation & Circulatory deflation therefore means there is a volumetric impropriety that exists in the remaining availability or volume of circulation for what it was intended to represent which is a volume of circulation that’s abnormally above or below its intended representation, therefore the remaining volume of circulation is not balanced or not equal to the remaining property value & not equal to the remaining obligation or debt.
” CONTROLLING INFLATION “ as David Bender suggests therefore means:
1) Controlling the behavior or supervising inflation ( WHICH IS EXPLOITATION ) thus NOT ERADICATING OR SOLVING inflation or deflation .
0r
2) Maintaining the influence ( WHICH IS EXPLOITATION ) of an abnormal or distorted increase of circulation thus NOT ERADICATING OR SOLVING inflation or deflation?
I formally then challenge, ” Victor J. AGUILAR ” & ” David B ” to debate on TNS radio. (SEE VICTORS EVASION HERE & IN THE COMMENTS BELOW )
Australia for Mathematically Perfected Economy™ 
also, if, as I gather, you want to tax people on whatever, where are they supposed to get the additional money in the 1:1:1 equation. Of course, the government is going to put it into circulation again in the above mentioned ratio, but there will be benefactor of this wealth transfers, and those that are hurt by it.. If the benefactors should start hoarding this debt free money (for them debt free), an imbalance could occur, resulting in lack of liquidity..
The only taxation in MPE is in what you personally pay to use or consume public infrastructure , if you don’t use public infrastructure your subsequently not taxed, in the case of a defaulting obligor in the extreme case with nothing to redeem to pay down the outstanding obligation a 1c increase for example may be imposed in purchasing a ticket for public transport, other than this there is no other taxation, the CMI are merely publishing further representations of our promissory obligations at cost only, any new money issued into the circulation is by the issuer of that promissory obligation , NOT the CMI or government , there is no need to perpetually re-inflate a circulation in MPE, because there is no adverse deficiency in respects to its remaining volume of circulation , represented property value & remaining obligation, once again there is no imbalance in that 1.1.1 ratio , actually this blog explains all I have written so far , if one was to read it all hey , & it may come across as repetitive but all this is a part of proving & demonstrating the MPE solution really, once you identify the inherent faults in todays lie of economy you can then grasp the principles of MPE.
For example the term ” debt free money ” is a rational impossibility to say the least , simply because money is not only used to pay a debt itself, but its also the very record & evidence of a principal debt , obligation or mere transaction , regardless if banking intervenes on that transaction stealing the value of that true debt we really have to each other or not , in other words to deny the existence of the underpinning debt ( we have to each other )in any transaction were there otherwise is no loan or borrowing is to likewise deny the banks very first crime, pretending to loan a sum of principal , in turn stealing the true value we give up to each other , its denying a theft of our labour & production we give up & receive from one another , its denying a theft of our hard earned blood ,sweat & tear’s , logically concluding then ,the term ” debt free money ” or ” money created out of thin air ” is not only a lie but a propagation ( propaganda ) only to point you away from the very hand ( sleight of hand of a thief ) that steals from all of us , not only when a bank pretends to loan us money , but on every single transaction in every day commerce & we all wonder why we have price inflation , its the Interest we the people pay on our personal but falsified debts to all local banks dummies.
https://australia4mpe.wordpress.com/category/is-money-a-debt/
The unearned Interest we may personally gain on banking investments is logically a fraction of only 1% out the total sum of principal & interest banks steal out of a general circulation , thats a volume of circulation only ever comprised of some remaining principal at most , concluding what we purport to earn on banking deposits in interest , including banking employees wages, every day costs for a banks such as electricity etc is a mere pittance compared to what banks purportedly earn , not only in unwarranted interest on purported loans ,but from the sum of principal they pretend to loan from the get go, stealing in the order of “2X ” the principal in total today , making todays price inflation on whole the very evidence of that theft , escalating price inflation therefore can only be the very evidence of a continuation of that theft.
Concluding we would be far better off if we didn’t have the the adverse volumetric imposition of unwarranted interest, not only on our personal falsified debts to banks, paying for example in the order of two homes for only receiving one home , but having much more disposable income other than the crumbs of unearned gain we might get back in interest on so called banking investments , & lets not forget its not just homes its the added cost we all pay in price inflation on whole today , resulting taxation etc , think how much better off everyone would be financially if we eradicated interest ( unearned gain ) altogether & solved the otherwise falsified debt today ( falsified debt = theft ) into what a debt ought to rightly be, where there are no pretend loans.
a simple example… person A (over)pays the house with your credit/money “issuance”.. the seller receives your money…
person A does not repay (retire) the money, partly or fully, the CMI can not sell the house for the remaining value… or it can sell it for more, or for less..
or it starts renting it? do you choose the “benefactor of the imbalance”, if the (remaining payment of) house goes for less than market value of other houses, or do you create an imbalance in the 1:1:1 on that particular house? say cmi is in a position to receive more money for the house than is the sum of the remaining payment.
obviously, the managers of CMI are in a position to assume property and transfer wealth, be at a nominal loss, profit or get cheated on..
If for example the CMI cant sell the house resulting from a defaulting obligor , the CMI doesn’t simply rent the house if one can buy the house for what they’re otherwise paying in rent, the CMI can also call upon the defaulting obligor’s assets also, that being other assets without representation to retire the money for the represented house , savings, insurance etc , if all else goes bad & the obligor had no insurance , no savings , no other unrepresented assets & died for example burning down the house in the same process the CMI can call upon taxation to retire the remaining consumption of the house , keeping in mind if the house wasn’t burnt to the ground that depreciation rate of the related property may well be far less if one was otherwise consuming that property.
If you pay above remaining consumption In an actual sale, its simply circulates further & its your loss & your loss alone, & you take the risk of not redeeming what you paid over the remaining consumption on any subsequent sale thereafter, now paying down circulation to be retired is always keeping to that 1.1.1 ratio regardless if you want to give your money away or not , however even though you can pay above remaining consumption to a true creditor in a sale It doesn’t mean you can issue a promissory obligation ( issuing new money ) to pay above remaining consumption, because you cant , again if you choose to give away your money in MPE its coming out of your own savings & it simply circulates further so someone else can earn that money & retire their obligation.
Now If the CMI receives more than remaining consumption of the related property so as to retire the money , the CMI is not really receiving that excess ,rather its otherwise savings for the person who paid above the remaining consumption, ( its not stolen by the CMI) & we only pay for what we consume in MPE , however if you want to pay your home down faster than your consumption its otherwise your savings .
Lastly no one is renting or leasing in MPE other than holiday apartments for example , most people including todays renters can afford to buy their own home. Issuing a promissory obligation on unrepresented property is issuing new money thus paying a true creditor in full , its merely an obligation then for the obligor to pay & retire a sum of principal at the rate of their consumption or depreciation of the related property .
If you can comprehend the above in relation to what you have written, indeed there is no imbalance in that 1.1.1 ratio, you just have to work all the options through your head ,thats all.
“Now If the CMI receives more than remaining consumption of the related property so as to retire the money , the CMI is not really receiving that excess ,rather its otherwise savings for the person who paid above the remaining consumption, ( its not stolen by the CMI) & we only pay for what we consume in MPE , however if you want to pay your home down faster than your consumption its otherwise your savings . ”
so basically he pays the remaining credit given for the house? the question is who is this person that gets the house on the cheap and how is he/she chosen?
The person that issues a promissory obligation is not getting the house on the cheap nor is anyone else if its represented property ( unrepresented property you can give away for free if you really want ) , the obligor is paying for the remaining consumption as they consume the remainder of the home ( represented property ) , if they pay down their promissory obligation faster, its paying their own money into their own saving account in the CMI, which the CMI may retire at a latter stage as the obligor consumes the remainder of the house,( represented property ) if the obligor sells the house they keep what is in their own account otherwise as savings, any subsequent obligor purchasing the represented property merely takes over that obligation to retire the remainder of the home , once again we only pay for what we consume in MPE.
Paying down money to be retired by the CMI is not paying a true creditor in full to begin with ( someone who gives up property ) , please you have to differentiate the two process’s of the obligation here & that is simply to pay ( pay the true creditor in full ) & retire ( pay the CMI ) the principal at your choice of consumption of the related or represented property in question.
All this is already articulated on this blog if you read a post called MPE for dummies .
“The only taxation in MPE is in what you personally pay to use or consume public infrastructure , if you don’t use public infrastructure your subsequently not taxed, in the case of a defaulting obligor in the extreme case with nothing to redeem to pay down the outstanding obligation a 1c increase for example may be imposed in purchasing a ticket for public transport”
I didn’t get this part. how is the building financed, and what if it is not “economic”.. I see the advantages of the idea per se, but it is not immune to human error/corruption.. then again, nothing is..
Both public & private property in MPE is financed much like today with a promissory obligation / promissory note the people actually issue, when banks pretend to loan money to the people , however in MPE we are not pretending to borrow from a mere publisher who pretends to give up consideration of value themselves in any loan, in turn stealing from the people who are the only ones who give up consideration of value & in fact always have been the true issuers of all new money when they sign a promissory obligation , concluding there is no borrowing or lending to finance our production MPE , public or private ,because we the people have always financed our own production, yet most refuse to come to terms banks are stealing our production in pretend loans, misrepresenting our promissory obligations we really have to each other .
Once again I have already articulated how & why MPE can insulate a nations volume of circulation from mans outside error & corruption , however any corruption on the inside within the CMI is not immune to the law outlined in the united peoples mandate , deeming any corruption that purposely subverts the 1.1.1 ratio inside & out ” high treason “, one of which crimes of high treason is therefore the practice of banking today that pretends to loan us money for the mere cost of publication , I suggest you read the mandate because this is what keeps politicians serving the people ,apposed to serving a kleptocracy/ rule by thieves, however I must stress any outside error or corruption cant subvert the CMI unless its subverted from the inside first , & this is what that united peoples mandate address’s, among many other things.
I think I may not have been clear enough.. “The person that issues a promissory obligation is not getting the house on the cheap nor is anyone else if its represented property ( unrepresented property you can give away for free if you really want ) , the obligor is paying for the remaining consumption as they consume the remainder of the home ( represented property )”
the point being that the market value of the house (remaining representation to be payed and retired) is lower than what a similar house can be obtained for on the market.. say the guy payed of faster, or it was a location that became popular i.e. a religious miracle happened in the vincinity and now the place is a tourist magnet. or Kylie Minogues sister is sunbathing naked under your balcony…
Someone, if one wants to maintain 1.1.1 is going to get the house cheaper than what its economic/market value is.. let us say more people are interested in buying this house, 2 options:
1. the “chosen one” gets it for the remainder of the outstanding promissory obligation.
2. the CMI auctions it and the highest bidder obtains it, in which case the CMI has a slight positive balance on their account and the outer “economy” a slight negative balance…
now, I can think of a solution, but was wondering if these kind of real world asymmetries have been considered..
Once again the market is subject to that 1.1.1 ratio, logically all new money issued into circulation is subject to that 1.1.1 ratio, however what you may earn out of the overall pool of wealth to further produce something without issuing a promissory obligation yourself is therefore producing unrepresented property & it remains unrepresented until another issues a promissory obligation, when new money is needed, without any intervention or regulation whatsoever
Once again if you want to pay more than remaining consumption to initially purchase property you cant issue a promissory obligation to do so, in other words you cant issue new money for new representation into circulation ,however you can you take over another’s obligation likewise issuing a promissory obligation in your name ,which to the latter on already represented property often doesn’t issue new money , unless of course the seller has for example added another floor to his home increasing its value, therefore the promissory obligation may issue money into circulation for the added value of the second floor , In any case what you may choose to pay above remaining consumption or value is coming from your own savings or what you earn from the over all pool of wealth & its your loss & your loss alone, yet that money nevertheless remains in circulation to be earned & retired on another’s obligation, making it no loss for another.
Once again paying a true creditor in full on purchase by issuing a promissory obligation is not paying the CMI to have that money retired , although these are a process that eventually retires the obligation they are two different processes , one being the creation of money paid into circulation & the other to retire money, paying it out of circulation , you have to differentiate the two here , lets be very clear here the true creditor is not the CMI.
The seller of property in fact chooses the buyer who then becomes the new owner , the CMI cant intervene between the buyer & seller choosing a buyer, much less can the CMI sell represented property over or above remaining consumption not even resulting from a defaulting obligor , what your suggesting not only contradicts what I have already explained, its likewise a crime treason outlined in the mandate, however if you sell property below the remaining consumption its likewise your loss & your loss alone , so lets be very clear again if the CMI purposely subverts the process of any transaction in favor of another , whether its in favor of a buyer or seller in anyway ,its a crime of treason , all the CMI can do on a defaulting obligation is to recoup that value of the obligation so it an be retired , if they sell the represented property short there logically not retiring the entire sum correct , even this process may be a gain for another who purchases the represented property ,whether its resulting from defaulting obligor or a simply a seller choosing to sell the home below the remaining consumption, yet the money is still in circulation here & any subsequent sale therafter will often result in selling a home for its remaining consumption taking that actual gain anyhow, still in circulation mind you, these often self resolving cases would be rare to say the least, more than likely resulting from a deceased obligation but not if one simply takes over that obligation , or in the case for any one who chooses to give away their production for free , for example selling something below remaining consumption , however I have already articulated how the CMI can retire the entire sum a defaulting obligation with out necessarily coming at a added cost of another , keeping to that 1.1.1 ratio all along , haven’t I now ?,regardless if something is sold short of remaining consumption the true value or market value hasn’t changed & nevertheless self corrected when one actually takes that gain selling property in subsequent sale, therefore not adversely effecting or corrupting the price compared to other similar properties in the market , yet there is no loss to another here unless you choose to take that loss , except for possibly in the extreme case if the obligor dies whom has no insurance , no savings , no retirement funds , no unrepresented property , by which taxation is used to retire the remaining obligation , which could also be considered a choice by the people in way , by actually choosing to use public infrastructure , well aware that any increase in price to use public infrastructure is due to these extreme case’s, which I might ad will be a marginal cost to say the least, thats still keeping to that 1.1.1 ratio anyhow.
Please you have to logically walk all your assumptions through your own head to prove that assumption is either correct or incorrect, in this case your assumptions are incorrect OK, simply because the CMI doesn’t choose the buyer if that buyer is prepared to purchase the remaining consumption or the market value, its first in best dressed here, much like today, lets be clear there are no auctions that go over remaining consumption or market value of represented property , this is considered treason not only for the CMI ,but for any estate agent who are currently profiting further from unwarranted interest imposed on all our phony loans from banks , if the CMI is selling it above or even short of remaining consumption on purpose its treason , however what is actually taking the short fall from another , even when we choose to give way or production for free to another , is in itself , self correcting the true market value in actually selling the related property, taking that gain in a subsequent sale, isn’t it now? , so if the CMI is forced for some reason to sell it short on just one occasion which would be rare to say the least ,its self correcting anyhow, & neither adversely effecting the overall market at all, & still keeping to that 1.1.1 ratio .
I mean even today if you sold me a home below or half its its market value its not going to effect the market of other similar homes selling at the full market value, to suggest these rare transactions effects the whole market is an absurd suggestion to say the least, particular if I subsequently sell the property a week later taking the gain you gave away to me in the first place, yet the market value of the home hasn’t changed all along.
In regards to MPE you maybe gaining from another’s gift or through ignorance , or lucky enough on a rare occasion to gain through something unfortunate , say for example some one dies in their own home & as a result no one wants to live in that home , possibly the CMI is forced to sell the home short , yet the CMI cant do this unless it has redeemed that shortfall elsewhere so as to retire that shortfall as I have already articulated & under no circumstances does the CMI sell a defaulting obligation above the remaining consumption, never , however you can if there is a sucker prepared to give his money away for nothing , keeping in mind he will be fully aware he’s paying above remaining consumption of the related property , only thing that sucker cant issue a promissory obligation to do so ,again its coming from his own savings & its his loss & his loss alone , taking the risk of not redeeming what he gave away on a subsequent sale after Kylie has already moved out of the neighborhood.
There is no outer economy in MPE ,other than another nations economy.
You assume error through a lack of your own comprehension, I suggest you take your time & study the entirety of this blog & not just this post, because your looking for a solution to a non existent error thats already been solved by MPE, this is where plagiarist come from only to steal from MPE in part, only to sell non solution sadly , simply because they believe they have found error in MPE , yet the only error is theirs , either through a lack of knowing the inherent faults of todays lie of economy to begin with, or lack of study / comprehension of MPE principles, or both in most cases, because MPE not only proves the inherent faults in todays lie of economy but in doing so likewise demonstrates the solution ,of course then failing to identity the inherent faults in todays lie of economy you simply have no solution really , not only MPE disproves all other so called solutions & todays lie of economy , but if you change the MPE principles in the slightest it disproves itself & this is exactly what plagiarists do when they steal from the MPE thesis, wrongly believing they have found error , only to sell you on non solution as result , pointing you away from the only solution in the same process, often these pretenders are profiting from you all selling books , videos etc making hundreds of thousands , even millions of dollars, selling lies dressed up as truth at the end of the day.
I have started a thread at Debate Politics where I make the following points:
1. David Bender is a plagiarist. I did NOT authorize David Bender to speak on my behalf. Bender needs to cite his sources.
2. David Ardron is a liar. By putting the word “and” between Bender’s and my name, Ardron is implying that we are coauthors. This is not an honest mistake; Ardron knows very well that I have no association with Bender.
3. I do not support the Safety Society System. I never even heard of it until David Ardron falsely accused me of being a coauthor.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/139389-critique-montagne-mathematically-perfected-economy.html
In reply here to Victor Aguilar’s further publication at” debate politics forum ” of not only what is clear evasion but further unqualified assumptions in what appears to be an attempt on his behalf to make false accusations pertaining to myself now, Eg:David Ardron is a liar?, where Victor Aguilar is merely assuming all along here David Bender has not quoted his source relating to Victors Preposterous Critique of MPE & likewise merely assuming I haven’t sourced his preposterous absurd critique here on this post. Which is clearly not the case at all?
NOTE: The related sources has always been hyperlinked up the top of this page on David B likewise I source Victor J.AGUILAR )
1) As far as I’m aware David Bender did not * speak * on Victor Aguilar’s behalf & neither did I indicate or infer David Bender has done such a verbal act, David Bender copied parts of Victor Aguilar’s preposterous written critique, propagating then what victor has written , as a result both Victor Aguilar ” and ” David Bender are asserting the same unqualified written assumptions to be true in relation to MPE when they are clearly FALSE , on the contrary indeed David bender did quote his source to Victor Aguilar’s preposterous critique only days after Ivan PFMPE made him aware he was publishing parts of Victor Aguilar’s preposterous critique of Mathematically Perfected Economy™.
2) David Bender is nothing more than a pretender much like YOU Victor Aguilar who are both asserting something to be true when its clearly not , this is why I wrote ” and ” between both their names simply because they are both propagating something to be true in relation to MPE when its clearly not.
3) Its quite clear I made no such accusation Victor Aguilar was or is a co author of safety society system , this is simply unfounded & a out right lie propagated now by Victor Aguilar himself on this debate politics forum in what appears to be a further attempt to not only discredit MPE with mere unqualified assumptions but likewise discredit my own integrity with a rather weak argument based on the word “and ” used between two names?
” Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt. ”
Abraham Lincoln
In conclusion may I suggest to save further shame & embarrassment for Victor Aguilar & David bender they both retract their pretended publications of unqualified assertions in relation to MPE, Mike Montagne & myself now because this can only divide & confuse people further away from the one & only solution ( MPE ) with what are clearly false assertions & unfounded accusations both neither Victor Aguilar nor David Bender can prove nor qualify.
Officially refuting Victors publication on this ” debate politics forum ”
Mike Montagne : Free, unimpeded barter allowed people to produce to natural capacities, and to obtain for our own production whatever we deemed to be equal, undiminished measures of the production of others… Because no one takes from the trade anything but the equal of what they contribute to it, each party receives the full, self-determined equivalent of their contribution to the overall pool of their wealth.
Victor J. Aguilar: 1) People trade things that are of equal value. If they trade things that are not equal in value, then one of them is being cheated.
David Ardron : If I have to give away 3 items for free to a little man * bank * with 5 body guards for every 10 items I trade, of course I’m being cheated by an unjust imposition.
Unless Victor can provide a source which he hasn’t so far? the following quotation word for word dose not appear to be one of mikes own quotations but rather another’s interpretation as I see it?
” Free, unimpeded barter allowed people to produce to natural capacities, and to obtain for our own production whatever we deemed to be equal, undiminished measures of the production of others”
If you want mikes quotation word for word go here
Mike Montagne : [If] we were confronted by a small man and 5 body guards… and the small man shouted down to us his law that “he” had taken control of the [market] grounds, all consummated trades required each party to give up 3 items for each 10… This would be the end of our trade without cost, on the ground, at the value, and for the reward of our common choosing. But usury is a greater abomination, because while it may not so much require armies as deception, disinformation, ignorance, fear and division, it inherently and inevitably takes more than any knowledgeable public would ever assent to, and by necessity must erase the very possibility of representation
Victor J. Aguilar: 2) Borrowers are trading more money in the future for less money now. It follows from premise #1 that they are being cheated.
David Ardron : Preposterous?, Borrowers are NOT trading more money in the future for less money now because there is no loan from a small man * the bank * with 5 body guards who gives up nothing of his own in any trade in that market & secondly this is in reference to barter where people in the market would be giving up 3 items in interest to the little man with the 5 body guards for every 10 items they trade? So logically yes It follows the premise of # 1 where they the traders in the market are being cheated or robbed ?
Mike Montagne : Any purported economy subject to interest ultimately terminates itself under insoluble debt, because to maintain a vital circulation, we must perpetually re-borrow periodic principal and interest payments as subsequent debts, increased so much as periodic interest. Re-borrowed principal equals and thus retains the former debt its payment would otherwise resolve. Thus the sum of debt increases so much as periodic interest, which is re-borrowed as new debt, above the retained sum of debt… the probability for world-wide collapse as a consequence of interest is therefore 100 percent. Certain.
Victor J. Aguilar : 3) Any monetary system subject to interest ultimately terminates itself under insoluble debt. It follows from premise #2 that, because the charging of interest is not currently prohibited, the world economy is destined to collapse.
David Ardron : No shit Sherlock any child with a bag of marbles can demonstrate interest paid out of circulation perpetually depletes a general circulation that only ever consists of some remaining principal at most where the rate of circulatory deflation or a theft of circulation is at a greater rate than any former rate of re-inflation which is a multiplication of falsified debt clearly evident by increasing sums of national debt.
Mike Montagne : We have in effect two conflicting philosophies. One wants earnings for its work equivalent to its work. The other wants unearned gain which can only be taken at the cost of earning equivalent to real work… We mature beyond the era of unearned gain… Like cannibalism, unearned monetary gain and all the manipulation which goes with it will one day disappear from history forever after.
Victor J. Aguilar : 4) There is class conflict between laborers and usurers as they battle over the unearned gain (surplus value) that is the proletariats‘ due. By an argument similar to dialectical materialism, as the world economy collapses (see premise #3), the implementation of Mathematically Perfected Economy™ is inevitable.
David Ardron: Any sum of interest OR UNEARNED GAIN paid out of circulation to a bank or usurer is not restricted to laborers or proletarians therefore the argument has nothing to do with dialectical materialism , the argument is solved with logic & elementary 2nd grade mathematics where any sum of interest is most certainly NOT SURPLUS VALUE because neither you Victor J. Aguilar or any bank on this planet can prove or demonstrate how interest is first created then issued into circulation so it can exist as surplus value above the principal value issued for its intended representation ?, contrary to Victors clear lack of intellect & preposterous unqualified assumptions propagated by he & many others today , INTEREST IS ALWAYS A PERPETUAL DEFICIT that perpetually depletes a volume of circulation that only ever consists of some remaining principal at most. Which is an Epic fail of rudimentary logic & 2nd grade mathematics on Victors behalf assuming any sum of interest is a surplus value, despite the associative words he uses in the context of his critique it merely indicates he can use a dictionary pertaining to have some ” purported ” intelligence or ” purported ” authority in economics .
To conclude this once again Victor J. Aguilar here has purposefully obfuscated or cheery picked parts 1 ,2 ,3 & 4 off mikes web page here & here & here taking phrases & sentences out of their original context & publishing them in this obfuscated manner in his preposterous critique to purposely confuse the reader to think one thing to be true when its clearly not, hoping all along the reader of his preposterous critique wont do their homework & just take Victors conclusions on face value to be factual, WELL I HAVE DONE MY HOMEWORK FOLKS AND VICTOR EVADES DEBATE LIVE ON TNS RADIO SIMPLY BECAUSE HE IS PHONY AS PHONY GETS ;
A) We don’t borrow money in MPE period & we don’t trade more money in the future for less money now in MPE nor do we borrow money when we barter either.
B) Interest is never justified to someone who steals from us PERIOD.
Victor J. Aguilar’s critique of MPE is purely based on mere unqualified assumptions to not only purposely confuse & divide you all pointing you away from MPE, but in doing so Victor has personally attacked Mike Montagne’s integrity who is the original author of MPE by what is clearly a case of character assassination purporting Mike is some Marxist or Socialist which is completely unfounded & a complete & utter lie.
So far I have clearly proven & demonstrated Victor J. Aguilar’S purposed misinformation & as a result I have likewise identified, David Bender & G Edward Griffin who advocate banking exploitation for their own personal gain, as a consequence these individuals & others are clearly propagating the same preposterous conclusions & out right LIES found on Victor J Aguilar’s Critique of Mathematically Perfected Economy™ in a mere attempt to justify there own unqualified assumptions dressed up as solution which is nothing more than banking exploitation.
“Remember folks you don’t & you never will get a mathematically perfected economy™ from snake oil salesmen ( BANKS ), rather you get division, fear, lies & deception every time & when that day comes, under every rock you will find hiding evaders, pretenders, usurers, advocates of usury phony “economists”… all the seekers of unearned profit who knew not even how to limit their great crime against us”
I have never heard of David Bender and have NOT authorized him to speak for me. You say that he is parroting me and denounce him as a plagiarist, which appears to be true since I can see my own words in his statements without quotation marks around them or any evidence that he cited his source.
But if you know this man to be a plagiarist, then why are you quoting him? You should have provided a link directly to my original paper:
http://www.axiomaticeconomics.com/montagne.php
There always was and still is a hyperlink that’s attached to your name up the top of this page that links to what is a rather poor critique of MPE I must say victor. What more do you want for advocating something to be true when its clearly not? Your evasion of fact, well that can be likewise found hyperlinked down in the bottom text of this post?