Has Mike Montagne discovered the holy grail of financial solutions?

Great post.

Mike mathematically proves with his computer model that all economic models based on any form of interest are terminal by default.

We, the people of the world denounce your claim of ownership of the world for it is through fraud, deception and usury that you have made yourself the rulers of humankind. You have committed every evil in your goal for world hegemony and have become drunk with the blood of the innocents.No longer shall we sit idle by allowing your agenda to stay hidden behind the veil. We shall unite with a common purpose and with a common goal to spread the knowledge of your tyranny across the globe and to demand justice until the world is free from the slavery and perdition you have created on this earth.

Join us:

http://endtheecb.ning.com

http://endtheboe.ning.com

http://endthefedusa.ning.com

I found the site full of waffle, irrelevant pictures and quotes of US presidents -- but not a single equation.

Maybe I missed where he explains, models and proofs his theory?

Larry,

Looking at that website and watching the first three videos brings me much closer to Tapani's point of view than yours.   The website is a mess.  It is very hard to read with links all over the place and the narrow paragraphs in two columns.  The video's seem to spend more time talking about how he has found the perfect economy than explaining just exactly what that is.  He slams Ron Paul's solutions to the problems we all face and mocks any comparision between Ron Paul and people like Jefferson, but then goes on and imply something like, "Jefferson would have agreed with me".  As far as I know Ron Paul has never compared himself to Jefferson, only his followers do.  Mr Montagne's videos and writings make him seem arrogant which is a bit of a turn off for me.   Maybe if I could find out what exactly MPE is, that arrogance may be justified.  Until then I am left with the impression, "Where's the beef?".

I know you are a smart guy and have fully thought through this stuff yourself.  Can you point at a quick summary or link to a video that actually explains what he is talking about?  I have probably spent an hour wandering around reading and waching videos but still don't know exactly what MPE is and how it will work.

Thanks,

Joel

Ok, yes he is right... and the only way to perpetuate an economy is his way ... it would be a flat line on a graph ...no up cycles or down...just flat for 10,000 years...if we were computers or robots and lived perfect world... maybe...but we do not!  We live in a mean, unforgiving world of humans dealing with reality ...each and every day...!  And we want to better our selves...we want to progress this is a biological imperative...!!!

Here is where fantasy meets reality...here is where his system while is absolutely correct and irrefutable...will not work for biological systems.

There can be no progress with out interest...there is no market with out interest...so while interest is like sugar to a fat man... too much will kill...but he still needs some.

The only viable, reasonable system is one the RP Austrians advocate that of ups and downs ...not a flat line ...but a pulse.  What we are seeing now is not a pulse... but a heart attack. RP solution is far from perfect... but is is good enough ... to insure freedom and liberty and an adequate pursuit of happiness.

All biological systems must cycle...(Rest and Grow)  (Live and Die) to get ...better (more efficient for the situation...ecology) but never perfect..."live" the more efficiently they cycle the longer they live... and as Dr, Paul teaches us "economics is about Human actions... biological systems.  So you need a lot of little ups and lot of little downs in a cyclic timed system...you also need to allow poor systems to fail so their is progress, reset sometimes too.

Here is the final word... see the system we have now is too hot, will fail very soon,his system is too cold and may never fail... but Dr. Paul's system is just right for our desire to balance freedom and liberty with our desire to pursue the most happiness...for the longest time.

He is right... and his MPE will last 100,000 years ... but who wants to live like that!

I do not want to drink from his holy grail...it just cost me too much...but not in interest ...just life..

The system breaks faster, it collapses sooner and then we have to really address the situation.  How many times have we read it here - meaningful change can only happen after a severe shock to the system.

Interest debt levels in this country are already nearly unpayable.  Collapsing the system stabs the beast in the heart and we pick up and move on from there.

Although I don't think that's what Ron Paul has in mind....

Welcome to the Machine (head) -

Quite possibly the best post of the New Year.

You cynic you - and I hardly detected a note of sarcastic flaying anywhere in the post.

But can you source your assertion that Montagne has (had) 73 IQ points?

Keep 'em coming mh, great post.

Perhaps a name change to deus ex machina is in order - what with the perpetual motion hamster thingie and all????

You have never found a formal proof and theorem in the present pseudo science of  "economics," because not only are there none, there isn't even a guiding precept which would dipose the pseudo science even to be "economic."

But you obviously aren't a credible mathematician if you fail to perceive the explicit equations in the literal material a readership obviously desires, and any credible mathematician finds incredibly obvious. Is it really unobvious to you to read exacting explanations how inflation and deflation are solved only by eradication of interest and an obligatory schedule of payment at the rate of consumption or depreciation, and you fail to realize yet that:

current circulation = principal - consumption or depreciation = remaining value of all represented property

The words express the very thing you merely claim is not there.

Well Joel, where were you during the 2008 campaign, where Ron Paul's people constantly introduced him as a modern day Jefferson?

In fact the propositions of Mr. Paul and the so called Austrian "economists" are more analogous to Alexander Hamilton, who advocated a central bank, whereas Jefferson asserted that the system of banking was more dangerous to our republic than standing armies; that the American Revolution would be defeated when government fell into the hands of the banking system; that the banking system was destructive to every principle of our Constitution.

I don't just "slam" Ron Paul's solutions; I disprove them. There's a difference. When ANYONE advocates increasing the cause of failure as a purported solution, it is incumbent upon anyone who knows better to defend actual solution, to invalidated preposterous pretended solutions, or we will fail to save our country.

Despite your trivial claims, you couldn't have read much, because ON EVERY PAGE of that website is several definitions of mathematically perfected economy™ — right at the top of EVERY page (underneath the black bar at the top). How did you get past the link to a Synopsis right at the top of the site directory?

But you're quite wrong that Mr. Paul's people weren't comparing him to Jefferson; and so in fact, can you cite a single assertion of Mr. Jefferson which rather than complaining about the very nature of the banking system as Jefferson did, instead advocates competing banks and even higher rates of interest, as Mr. Paul and all the so called Austrian "economists" perpetually advocated — not only ostensibly benefitting us by even higher rates of interest, but even by less (if any) control on Mr. Paul's advocated, private banks?

In fact, F.A. Hayek tells us the purpose of these banking systems — that they are "an extremely profitable 'business.'"

You can't ask (credibly) where the beef is, when it's right under your nose. If you can prove there's an alternate solution to inflation and deflation, do it. Where is it? How about inherent multiplication of debt by interest? Every class of attempt to do so is already disproven on those pages.

Who are you to say my video doesn't actually explain what I am talking about?

OR is it the ONLY video which actually explains, in a fully accountable manner, what "it is talking about?"

It's the ONLY video which walks you thru the math; the process of failure; and the only solution.

What exactly is it you watched or you read, that you just don't get?

Larry's interpretation is absolutely correct:

The reason the pretended economy fails (which reason has been plagiarized and mis-stated so often) is that all currency comes into circulation not strictly as a natural promissory note would obligate the debtor to repay just the principal, but as an obfuscation which comprises an artificial monetary obligation to pay principal and interest out of a general circulation which at most is comprised of only some remaining principal. Thus to persist in servicing just the initial obligations (or artificial indebtedness to mere intervening publishers of our promissory obligations), the unassenting subjects of this process are compelled to maintain a vital circulation by perpetually re-borrowing principal and interest paid out of the general circulation in the way of servicing every such initial artificial debt.

To the extent they are compelled to re-borrow principal, it is mathematially impossible to pay down the sum of debt, as new debt takes the place of former debt which otherwise would ostensibly be resolved by payments against principal.

To the extent that it is necessary to re-borrow interest then, the sum of debt therefore perpetually increases by so much as periodic interest on an ever greater and eventually terminal sum of debt.

Thus as interest is the agent of artificial multiplication of indebtedness into terminal debt, the higher rates of interes which Mr. Paul advocates (without comprehensive explanation) inherently escalate the rate of failure, imposing failure all the sooner.

The video walks you through the math. A second grader can do the math. So what's the problem? You can show that higher rates of interest won't multiply debt all the faster, so long as we succeed in maintaining a vital circulation; or, that in the alternate case, where we can no longer afford to maintain a vital circulation (which of course defines entry into the terminal phasses of failure), that we're going to survive terminal deflation of the circulation?

By the way, Mr. Paul furthermore claims circulatory inflation only by claiming the dramatic further introductions of currency which are vital to sustain a vital circulation under the deflationary process of the obfuscated currency and its inherent escalation of indebtedness.

Though I have corrected him on this idea for 20 years, how has he shown you we actually have the dramatic increases of currency we do not have, which or course is depleted just as I have just now explained, by servicing the ever escalating sum of debt?

NO ONE can rightly claim circulatory inflation just citing what must be introduced to a perpetually deflating circulation; and, of course, thus understanding how interest multiplies artificial debt into terminal failure, we know that ACTUAL circulatory inflation would be calculated instead by: resultant circulation = previous circulation - PERIODIC COSTS OF SERVICING DEBT + further circulation artificially borrowed into circulation.

If what is coming in is not greater than what is going out (which Mr. Paul even advocates to increase by increasing interest), how then is it POSSIBLE this results in our having more circulation, despite the greater rates of borrowing which are necessitated by the very rates of interest Mr. Paul advocates increasing?

If you're interested in the answer, why don't you have Mr. Paul debate solution with me?

Did you have something relevant to say; or were you about to point out that nobody has gotten rich, without in fact authoring solution?

Hi Mike,

Welcome to the site and great to have a chance to throw some questions at you!

From your website: (http://www.perfecteconomy.com/pg-synopsis.html)

Thus by abiding by only the few relevant, incontrovertible principles, we have a singular prescription for true economy in which the value of money is preserved perpetually, in all cases, by maintaining a constant 1:1 relationship between the circulation and remaining value of the represented wealth. Only by this one explicit cycle of circulation does the value of the circulation always equal the remaining value of the wealth. Only by this one explicit cycle of circulation is all the circulation at all times redeemable in exactly the wealth it is intended to represent. Only by this one explicit cycle of circulation do we pay for each other's production with an equal measure of our own. Only by this one explicit cycle of circulation are further "monetary standards" or "reserves" wholly redundant, even as those purported monetary standards or reserves are wholly incapable of protecting us from inflation and deflation, systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and inherent, terminal multiplication of debt by interest.

And so — as opposed to the present exploitation, and in understanding the present magnitude of escalating, terminal oppression — we would universally understand that under mathematically perfected economy™ instead, in the case of a $100,000 home with a 100-year lifespan, we would pay for the home at the overall rate of $1,000 per year, or $83.33 per month, simply for eliminating exploitation and its accompanying irregularities from an imposed, falsified, and purposely destructive equation.

Can you expand on this a bit? Specifically the part, 'by maintaining a constant 1:1 relationship between the circulation and remaining value of the represented wealth'

Under the, 'remaining value of represented weath', what is the value of the $100,000 house after 20 or 50 or 100 years?

What happens as productivity and/or population expands and contracts? Is the money supply equally adjusted?

Hi Joel,

I'm a fan of Mike Montagne but not of his website

He was very early to mathematically document the fatal flaw of our monetary system (exponential growth of debt) and he was correct in identifying interest as a problem.  If you are looking for the "meat" you will find it in his spreadsheets and equations - not in his words.  

Larry, how can you fairly say this? I've explained how interest inherently multiplies indebtedness every way it can rightly be explained. Your claim this site here for instance is a great teacher of the same principle; does it even correcly state it? Absolutely not. Neither does it do so in fewer words.

His alternative, the Mathematically Perfected Economy, is only conceptually explained.  The program is his intellectual property and the equations and variables are guarded as a secret.  If you are looking for those, they aren't there or weren't the last time I looked.

"Only" conceptually explained? What further way explains anything?

"The equations and variables are guarded as a secret?"

ABSOLUTELY NOT! Since the early 1980s, the models I provided the Reagan Administration were available COMPLETE WITH SOURCE CODE. There isn't an iota of hidden logic; the theses are sufficiently documented; you can still plug in 1980s data and run the same projections, to determine the pretended economy would collapse approximately right now.

Not only so... my early material projected the necessary de-escalation of interest rates and all the basic methods of artificial sustention which are temporarily, unsustainably holding the pieces of Humpty Dumpty together for a short while. You and I have even discussed the rest of the hand they have to play. But there's never been any guarded secret. Anyone who knows how to work with a spreadsheet can download those spreadsheet models (which simplify the executable I provided Reagan). There's not a hidden formula in a single spreadsheet. Not one. Where's all the hiding? Every cell is a product of an exposed formula. Further sheets demonstrate the role of interest rates. How could the formulae be more exposed? It can't happen. Where'd you come up with this idea all of a sudden?

He seems to hold some resentment toward many held as monetary experts as they have had little interest or appreciation for his work.  He has also accused some of stealing his ideas.  For example, he got into a spat with Ellen Brown and Steve Zarlinga.

You bet. It's not "just" about stealing credit for my life's work. Zarlenga not only plagiarizes my work in terms of articles, claim modern "economics" is wholly bereft of formal proof and theorem... Zarlenga eventually proves he doesn't even understand the theses he plagiarized, by advocating his "Chicago Plan" as a solution -- which of course retains interest; and even higher rates of interest than we're currently suffering!

You can't claim to resurrect a "Lost Science of Money," dispensing with the one indispensable fact at the bottom of all the science! Zarlenga mistakenly wrote me asking me to help him promote his little ditty, stating we are of like mind. I asked why he thought I would want to promote his book if he knew I was of "like mind," as we would well know then that I advocated there is one and one only solution to the categoric faults of the pretended economies. Is there more than one solution of inflation/deflation, systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and inherent, irreversible, and therefore terminal multiplcation of artificial indebtedness in proportion to capacity to pay? Or did he publish my thesis as his?

He never answered.

But ho, the plot thickens. Why have Dennis Kucinich and Barack Obama never responded to mathematically perfected economy?

Quite simple; my work was forwarded to Zarlenga.

In fact during the most recent presidential campaign, I called the Ron Paul headquarters for my last time, to be told upon introducing myself that "everyone knows there's no such thing as mathematically perfected economy."

I asked Mr. Paul's respondent a patent question, "Do you mean to tell me then that if inflation and deflation are defined respectively as increases or decreases in circulation per goods and services, there is no mathematic solution then for inflation and deflation?"

Long pause. Then, "I can't debate that with you sir."

Half an hour later the Paul Campaign called me, pleading with me not to take the arguments of this respondent as the official Paul position. They claimed great interes in my web pages, and promised to watch carefully. Yeah, right.

I had already called the Kucinich Campaign in the interim, speaking to a Mr. David Bright, who intelligently listened to my explanation of MPE, means of transitioning to MPE, and so forth. He immediately asked me to send papers that he would personally deliver to their "Chicago People."

Guess who their Chicago People are?

Right. Stephen Zarlenga. Plagiarist, and advocate of a bogus solution involving interest. And right there on the same web pages, a video in which Kucinich claims to have learned everything he knows about monetary matters... from Zarlenga.

Do I have a problem with that? You bet I do. To the degree of ten-thousand homes a day still going into foreclosure; a neighbor who recently killed himself over it; friends losing their homes; a hundred and twenty-five-thousand children under the age of 12, homeless on the streets of Los Angeles.

Just trivia.

Ellen Hodgson Brown? You bet!

Where'd she get this idea you have to introduce the interest into the circulation with the principal? She shoot you some short-cut answer, because she can't even explain why in real terms. In fact, she too disclaimed the fundamental problem is really interest.

Do you know why all these plagiarists don't recognize my work? Because if they did, they couldn't claim it.

Meanwhile, after every controversy runs its course, and they're proven wrong time and time again, don't you think too it's a bit curious that "their solution" morphs, increment by increment, into mine? And they're still the author of solution?

There's a pattern of geunuine research you evidently don't care much for. That is, anyone who actually identifies problems and solution has to do something from the outset. That is, if circulatory inflation has to be distinguished from price inflation, where the prior art called both "inflation," a real analyst has to clean up the terms. They don't start out seeing you have to introduce interest with principal so that you can pay a purported debt comprised of both out of circulation. No sir.

Nor are you tempted, when you identify the inevitable consequences, to simply call it a "Ponzi scheme" -- negating everything you have to understand, to recognize what would be a solution.

Nor do you start out claiming the "Pennsylvania Currency" was the most brilliant banking model in our nation's history, actually thinking mike montagne's words were Benjamin Franklin's -- and not being able to explain yourself how the Pennsylvania Currency was "not inflationary" -- not even considering it might be good it might not be deflationary either!

So what did Ellen Hodgson Brown do when she found out "her research" related to an artificial event, an ACTUAL parable; not to history at all?

Oh, she revised her claim that this "banking model" (which was purty close to the actual prescription for mathematically perfected economy) -- she simply re-canted her claim of brilliance, and asserted instead that a Nebraska model was a fine solution.

How so? Does it eradicate interest?

Ellen claims it's not the interest you know.

You bet I have a problem with Ellen Hodgson Brown. It's big. And I do intend to hold her accountable for it.

As far as Ron Paul and Austrian economics, I agree with Mike, they are wrong when it comes to financial solutions and alternatives.  I really like Ron Paul's positions on many things but economics are not one.

You know, it's so pathetic that anyone is supporting Ron Paul through all this. Unless interest is not the problem, he's advocating exacerbating the problem. So prove interest is not the problem.

All this guy does is pretend he's advocating "honest money." As he ever defined it -- I mean, accountably, showing how we're going to be better off with reduced circulations subject to higher interest? You mean to tell me the housing crisis would never have occured if we were all paying 17 percent interest instead of 5? If so, it would only be because nobody could afford to own a home! The assets would be more toxic. We couldn't afford to sustain a fraction of the industry we are now; and that's only IF we could survive multiplication of debt by higher rates of interest so far.

Does anyone here know that Austrian "economists" routinely dismiss math, claiming obtusely that it cannot account for indeterminate human behaviour? What CAN you use then? And what would you claim solution by?

Well they don't claim solution; they don't even claim to conclusively analyze how "fiat" eventually fails -- even as the only fiat they can conceive of is subject to interest; even as interest is the cause; and even as THEY ADVOCATE INTEREST!

That's pretty interesting I think. Do you know why they think interest is fine (without applying any math)?

Read bom Baewerk. He spends practically half a dozen chapters developing an argument that the only historic disposition against interest is merely sentimental, originating in bogus religious material.

Well, what better can you think, if you refuse to determine the consequences of interest by the very DETERMINATE math which a bank uses to calculate your next month's interest?

I wish he would re-do his website as the message seems to be jumbled.  You have to work to find the important stuff and then, invariably, some details are missing.

I have been very busy. In fact, suddenly foreign governments have been showing interest in MPE as the only solution to monetary injustice and failure. Meanwhile, I've authored a constitutional amendment, and have been busily rewriting the site down to just 2 or 3 main pages, with the rest of the material remaining in reference sections.

But Larry, you're telling me you can find actual explanations of the problem, solution, and transformation into solution written by others? Likewise, as the folks here say, in some cases I've provided too much; in others too little?

You can't have it both ways. The pages of the existent site went up in answer to questions which often arise despite the fact you can find the answer in the way the material is already expressed. You don't find any unanswered questions. As to details missing?

Such as what? You mean somebody else out there has explained the actual problem, the fact of one solution, and carried solution forward to such detail?

WHERE?