But for the benefit of the forum (or at least me), could you explain what you’re getting at in the simplest possible terms? Talk to us (or at least me) like we (or at least me) are five-year-olds.

For example, you seem to be saying that the Fed doesn’t create money out of thin air. Or have I misinterpreted what you wrote? If they do create it out of thin air (which their own literature seems to indicate), then some other posters (and possibly you) have an excellent point–why should they be allowed to charge interest?

In my limited understanding, interest is, for lack of a better term, a necessary evil if the lender makes a loan of hard currency and literally is deprived of the use of that currency for the duration of the loan period.

But if the Fed and banks in general are actually able to create money out of nothing, then they are not deprived of the use of any currency because they never had it to begin with–it did not and does not exist. If that is the case, then the interest they charge (as well as the principal) is literally a gift of free money to them, not a rental fee for the use of their money.

Any clarification you could provide would be very much appreciated.

An alternative to the debt-money system and Keynesian style economics is presented here.

http://www.michaeljournal.org/whatsnew.htm

Thanks for the kind words. I’ll put my feet to Alex’ fire, or Mr. Paul’s any time they’re ready.

What about it Alex? Are we just now going to start talking about solution, 30 years after the “possible” fact? Is there more than one solution to 1) inflation and deflation, 2) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and 3) inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt in proportion to a circulation?

Or does just anything we pretend to engineer fly, no matter the fact that gold cannot arrest further multiplication of debt by interest, and thus inevitable, terminal debt?

Send me an email. Give me a call. Let’s put all the other stuff behind us, and get at the real work at hand — hammering out the difference between actual mathematic solution, and whatever anything else is.

Since when does Zeitgeist identify the cause of this failure, or its solution?

Is there more than one solution to inflation and deflation? Is there not but one way to maintain a circulation which is at all times equal to the remaining value of the wealth it is intended to represent?

Is there but one solution to systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property?

Is there but one solution to inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt by interest?

Did Zeitgeist author the integral solution of these categoric faults of contemporary monetary systems?

On the contrary, Zeitgeist is just another late comer, re-presenting yet again the same research I raised 30 years ago as a basis for understanding the imposition of usury, its consequences, and singular solution. To claim to be the author of any of that now is simply preposterous. The question is, why isn’t Zeitgeist either supporting mathematically perfected economy, or invalidating the proposition it is the singular integral solution for the categoric faults of the present, imposed systems?

Moreover, bring us the raw arguments how whatever Zeitgeist proposes is a monetary solution at all. Those who divert us from solution are in fact the problem, not the solution. So bring more than claims, and draw them together into veritable solution, rather than more claims. Until you can refute mathematically perfected economy or prove an alternate solution, I’ll have to agree with Alex. Who are you to claim Zeitgeist is a contributor to the truth, versus an enemy of it?

I am the author of the two theories I espouse, namely a) that any purported economy subject to interest ultimately terminates itself under insoluble debt; and b) that there is one and one only integral solution to 1) inflation and deflation, 2) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and 3) inherent, irreversible, and inevitably terminal multiplication of debt in proportion to the vital, obligated circulation.

For your information, the thesis of mathematically perfected economy was first published in 1979, while I spoke of it for some 10 years prior. Ron Paul’s right hand man and “foremost authority on constitutional money,” Edwin Vieira first advocated MPE, and/or its causes, then split off without refuting my proofs of cause and solution, to support the gold standard, which my work so long ago even had already invalidated.

The so called “Debt Virus Theory” is simply a stealing of my work, and re-packaging of it by a man who doesn’t even seem to understand the problems identified so long ago. My work is all over the very first page of that ridiculous later work which cites a story *I invented* as actual history! Obviously, Jaikaran never researched it!

So, G. Edward Griffin and William B. Ryan claim as you have that profit or some other perception negate multiplication of debt by interest. These things have been argued out for 3 decades already; and if you want to see the results of those arguments, my invalidations post links back to Mr. Griffin’s material, Kent State Capital Ownership Group, and so forth. Mr. Vieira has even written me lately claiming *not* to have co-authored the New Hampshire Bill advocating the state coin gold money.

The answers I’m citing you are 30 years old. I’ve written scores of thousands of lines of software code which projected the present failure. Maybe you ought to listen. I’m only trying to save my country.

Steve,

There obviously isn’t any risk. Here’s the question for Ron Paul and the Austrians:

I build you a house. You agree to buy it for $100,000, which you will pay me over time. You give me a promise to pay (note). I circulate that as currency; and if in fact the debt can be collected, the note is so good as currency.

What happens in a central banking system is “a banker” (usurer) intervenes on our arrangement, demanding that you issue your promise on their paper, and further demanding that you pay him 2 *more* houses for the one you’re intending instead to pay me.

The real question then, is why is this arrangement right, not just between you and I, but across a whole country — which hasn’t even given its assent to the arrangement?

Of course, it isn’t right: they are merely intervening as if they are the real creditor (me); and as if requiring you to use their paper imposes such a risk beyond the value of the paper itself (if any), that you should pay them 2 houses for the 1 I have delivered you!

Worse, because all the profit we can make *from each other* does nothing to negate having to re-borrow whatever we pay out of the general circulation, if we/you are going to continue servicing your debt, we have to borrow back the principal and interest we pay out of the circulation, merely to continue servicing the initial (and further) debt which is created.

Along the way, what we pay in the way of principal is re-borrowed as new debt equal to the former debt it otherwise would have resolved. Thus we fail to pay down the sum of debt. But what we pay against interest and necessarily re-borrow then inherently multiplies the sum of debt, because the re-borrowing of interest increases the sum of debt so much as the periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt.

So, the debt grows and grows and grows in proportion to the obligated circulation, until we suffer a terminal sum of debt.

What is the risk?

Nothing but the paper (if any)!

If it cost $0.01 even to publish a $1,000-bill into circulation, then it costs $1.00 to publish $100,000 for your home. When you pay that $1, they break even — and everything above that is unearned profit, imposed upon unassenting subjects (except the folks here who seem to agree with the arrangement [which is advocated by Mr. Paul and his Austrian friends]).

In any case, so if your payments are $1,000 per month, the banking system’s profits are 1,000 times their costs, in the very first payment you make!!!