As I wrote to Mike privately awhile ago, the essence of his solution, Mathematically Perfected Economy™, is at once an economic principle and an ethical one. The principle is that of non-intervention; a principle which is found at the heart of Democratic Theory. His conception appears to my mind as an economic analog to the conception of civil liberties which seeks to guarantee for each individual all those freedoms which are consistent with the same guarantee for every other individual. In its economic manifestation it can be stated as follows (Mike's definition of MPE™): It is every prospective debtor's right to issue their promise to pay, free of extrinsic manipulation, adulteration, or exploitation of that promise, or the natural opportunity to make good on it.
From this perspective it should be abundantly clear that bankers as legally sanctioned usurers and faux creditors have no place in a democratic society. They are neither desirable nor necessary. They should be no more welcome than slave owners, political dictators or murderers. They have no right to insinuate themselves into economic relations as the only legal arbiters of debt and credit. But having done so, they have impaired every other freedom inherent to the democratic ideal and continue to prevent a truly free market economy from taking shape.
~ Jim Eldon, responding to Ellen Hodgson Brown (Web of Debt)
FALSE IDEA OF 'CORRECTIONS' UNDER USURY
If you are digging for the truth Mr. Hudson and Mr. Sommers (and I hope you are), you are still at least a way short of your goal.
In the "potentially" fatal events around us, and certainly for instance in losses such as sustained foreclosure of more than 10,000 homes a day for more than a year, the so called markets or subjects of the imposed system are certainly not purposely "correcting" some anomalous behavior to its proper result, for in the end of what you and many others call a correction, those who produce nothing come to own our production. Is that the "correct" result?
All along the way to that purported correction yet, a constant, perpetual consequence is that those who produce are forced to pay many times their own production to those who do not produce; and all this yet, is only to procure their own production from each other in transactions conducted under a further obfuscation which requires us to maintain a vital circulation by perpetually re-borrowing so much as periodic principal and interest as subsequent sums of debt, perpetually increased so much as periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt. Obviously still, to inherently and irreversibly multiply artificial sums of debt in proportion to a vital circulation is inevitably terminal. But in fact then, unless all this perpetual, escalating, and inevitably terminal incongruity is both just and of use to the subjects of the imposed systems, no such thing as a correction to rectitude is even possible in what you still call "a correction."
Altogether, on the contrary then, the very idea of such an ostensible result is neither defined nor then agreed upon, in whatever terms would make the consequences of such a process "a correction" — or the imposed system itself, "self correcting."
But we can also invalidate this dubious assertion on further obvious terms, for if we possibly understood the assertion, and if "the market" or subjects were self correcting, why then are they not always self correcting, instead of only intermittently?
How furthermore can we even say there is a rectitude in the result, if we cannot or have not determined it otherwise? What have you or anyone else determined at all in fact is "correct" about the result, other than that it is merely an eventual state amongst undetermined factors, which in all cases of your self-correcting system, simply takes off again from the spot "a correction" returns it to?
Nothing at all of course, or I'm sure you would be the first to say so.
No one then can truly claim to understand anyone's unqualified expectation of a purported correction, in fact because there is nothing scientific or even logical about claiming an equally unqualified and readily invalidated magic power to "self correct," in a system which can only heap an eventually terminal, artificial sum of debt upon us, merely by obstructing our right to issue our promises to pay each other, so that posing as "creditor," it can falsely claim that our promises, which comprise virtually no cost whatever to a purported central bank, justify charging us interest (for our very own promises to pay, of all things) — all of which itself of course disproves the pretended justification of interest by depriving the real creditor of interest — who of course accepts our promises in exchange for their former property.
Thus without even resolving these critical questions of rightful creditor, purported justification of interest, rightful issuance of our promises, as well as the questions of any and all purported integrity thereof, none of us have determined that your consequence is a correction. Yet in fact too, to know what has corrected afterward, in the least is to be able to determine what a "self correcting" system would have done if indeed, all the while it were self correcting.
The thing you refer to as a correction then is instead merely a consequence like pushing something up which you cannot continue to push up, and which then falls down. Does it fall to its right spot? Or some other? If so, why push it up; or what ostensible systemic power pushes it up, but this artificial multiplication of debt itself — particularly as a monetary system only has the power to regulate the volume and cost (or rate of multiplication) of the debt which comprises the currency? What are the principles of determining a thing's right place in your alleged self correcting system? If said system is indeed self correcting as you expect, why does it not instead at all times keep things in all their right places, rather than escalating our rush to ruin?
I declare on the contrary, that we can readily demonstrate that there is one and one only way to achieve all the intended, natural, and necessary objects of order; and I add therefore that your said system has no power whatever to self correct, because it is an explicit and purposed violation of the one set of principles which keep all things in their right and usually intended order. But by all the usual aspects of applying terms still, your idea of self correcting is a misnomer even on its shallowest surface. If we look deeper yet, then what is it?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
