The trouble is, Ron Paul doesn't have the answer.

[ithink]

I'm a bit surprised by your answers, I thought there would be more to them.

You're dancing the issue again, but here we go...ta ta ta, it is my post and I believe it is about Ron Paul not having the answers: ie. he is not, er, gold is not the all powerful genie many people think it is...

2. Compound interest sir, always concentrates wealth too highly. That is what it does. You say you have elaborated, but I have not seen it.

Recessions without government interference have a tendency to break this up. Please give an example of any system in the last 200 years that did not have any government interference. My history book says there are none, how about yours?Defaulted debts vanish concentrated wealth. ... and they destroy the individuals who cannot pay, of which there are plenty in a compound interest system... like families, like MINE! Am I some sort of sewer rat that needs this "correction"? And after the correction, who is left holding the larger bag???I'm sure you know this. The MPE, as unpractical as it is, would result in the same wealth accumulation that our current situation does. In fact, if MPE worked, it would likely be worse because there would be no default mechanism built in to humble wealth accumulators. That is pure speculation, and I purely speculate exactly the opposite.

Furthermore, Mike says "the present sum of existent debt far exceeds both the currency in circulation, and the remaining value of represented property" Is this true of false, sir?

That's an unsolvable debate that requires consensus on what the "value of represented property" is. I imagine you know this as well. No, I do not. The amount of money in circulation is not enough to pay all the outstanding debts. Sir, we have a mathmatician telling us this. Any thought experiment will confirm it. C'mon. If 1 billion is loaned this month, 1.1 billion is owed next month and without another loan, there isn't enough to pay the first. Do you agree with this or not?

Now how about this:

the process of being compelled to maintain a vital circulation by re-borrowing principal and interest paid out of the general circulation obviously, perpetually increases the sum of debt so much as periodic interest on the sum of debt. Thus, both existent data and accountable analysis of the underlying process concur, and project such a sum of debt increasing in proportion to a circulation, that the costs of servicing an eventual sum of debt will impose systemic failure, in that at least the entire circulation will eventually be dedicated to servicing debt.

This fails to incorporate circulation from debtors back into the economy. A common misconception is that the Fed holds all these ever increasing debts, and the interest paid just keeps mounting higher and higher. That is false, and most who keep repeating it know quite well they're not telling the truth. The Fed sends the majority of the excess taken in from interest to the Treasury. Congress spends it into the economy, thus providing the phantom "uncreated interest" that is feared so much. What you are failing to tell us is that all that money -- every red cent -- is generated by a loan. You cannot pay off a debt to bank A without a loan from Bank B. And the minute you try, you owe more money. Wrap your head around it.

If you want to discuss the process of finding a bottom among a default then you'll have credibility with me--even if you believe a default spiral would not stop. Contrary to what you've posted here, I considered Mike's MPE until his madness overtook him as it always does. I sincerely asked questions regarding the model, and when Mike was stumped he'd revert to anger and claiming "you can't refute the math!" (Umm, yeah, 2 + 2 = 4. That's my economic model and you cannot refute it, can you). So I'd appreciate your honesty in quitting inferring things you've made up. Fine. Post the refutation of the math. Dance around if you wish, or just post the refutation of the math.

Regarding getting rid of compound interest, yes, I would like to get rid of it, but I think it is just way too cumbersome to switch to a system like Mike's. What I'm saying that could be done is what would happen to the economy if the principal issued by the bank on day one equaled exactly the loan payed back at year 5. I'm saying just do the math, whatever it works out to be, and force the banks to issue the entire debt up front as the loan. I think that without the increasing pressure on the system from the demand to take out another loan to pay the "missing interest payments", you could sustain a static economy rather than one that was mandated to grow constantly, which of course puts massive pressure on all the resources involved, including working fathers, mothers, and the planet itself.

Google "Muslim Banking". Apparently the pope kind of likes it too. The Muslim system is supposed to be full reserve, but it's fractional in practice, as they admit. I'm aware of the other systems in general.

"what would happen to the economy if the principal issued by the bank on day one equaled exactly the loan payed back at year 5." Banks couldn't make money, so you're left with a state run bank to issue all loans. If the bank didn't charge seignorage then taxpayers are on the hook for bad loans and it would be worse than the current GSE model because there wouldn't be a protective cushion from defaults, which are inevitable and unpreventable. So a state bank would charge seignorage, which is interest for all intents and purposes. But is it compounding? No.

Milton Friedman's countercyclical ideas are very interesting, but I don't see how they'd work without a trustworthy congress. We'd need senators responsible to the state again for it to work IMO, or they'd debase way to far and they do.

The method of implementation, honesty of the governement is another question that could be addressed using part of another system I have researched. What I'm saying is Ron Paul doesn't have the answer, neither does Mike, neither does Social Credit, and neither do your or I. But I do believe a system could be made to work by taking all the best parts of all these systems and making them work as one.

Thanks for you comments, they are well worth the read as I am not beholden to any particular system.

[Rensai]

I am not sure Mike has "the" answer, and I question the payments over the lifetime of the asset. But I do understand why he is asking for that. He's pretty astute to even mention it.

I think he is the opposite of astute to mention it. Do you also understand all the reasons why it would never work? I'll use his example to point out a few of the more obvious problems. In his example he uses a house at 100 years for the loan payments. The first problem. Some houses are ruined after just a few years of abuse, while some have lasted well over 100 years. How does he know what the life of the asset is? In reality, that number is unknown, and his formula already breaks down. But say we arbitrarily set the lifetime of a home at 100 years. Will you loan me money knowing you and I will be dead before its paid off? At no interest whatsoever? That's not a loan, that's charity. Realistically, no one would ever make that kind of loan no matter how good Mike says it is on paper. It would be a terrible return on investment. So again, his idea fails. If the government stepped in and offered such welfare (thats what it would be), we'd be bankrupt almost immediately.

His idea lacks any connection with reality whatsoever. He completely ignores the big problem with his idea, that no one would ever offer such loans. There is nothing stopping him from opening a bank and loaning money out based on his ideas..... except that no one with money would willingly invest in such a bank.

I would prefer a system like ours right now, but without the compound interest.

You realize of course, that nothing in our system is forcing you to take a loan with compound interest right? If you want a system like ours, but with no compound interest.... don't sign any loans that use compound interest. There ya go. Problem solved. Somehow I don't think that's what you really wanted though.

I posted Mike here because I'm not aware of anyone else pointing out the problems with compound interest the way he is. Removing compound interest from the current system would be extremely simple, and the benefits would be colossal.

I think plenty of people understand the problems with compound interest, but getting rid of it is not simple. Maybe I'm missing something. How would you get rid of it?

Hey, thanks for chiming in. I am not sold on the 100 year loan either. Figuring out what the lifespan of something is would get weird very quickly. My whole point of sharing what Mike has to say is to address the issue of compound interest. So to answer your question, I say YES, I would like to get a loan without compound interest, but I don't know where to do that.

The point I was trying to make is that it is not the system that prevents you from getting a loan without compound interest. It is the fact that no one is offering such loans. There is a difference. You have the freedom to take such a loan, were it offered. The system allows it. But, it is not offered because lenders want to maximize their profits from the loans, so they use compound interest right? Can you see anyone ever voluntarily loaning money out under Mike's system when they could instead use compound interest to actually make a profit on the loan? I sure can't.

That leads up to the two main points of my post.
1) That Mike's system is completely infeasible and would never voluntarily be used.
2) That you can't get rid of compound interest in any simple way. There are a lot of dynamics involved in our system that allow this; supply and demand, the monopolization of banking, the massive amount of American debt, etc. All these things and more create the environment that allows bankers to get away with outrageous compound interest.

Regarding getting rid of compound interest, yes, I would like to get rid of it, but I think it is just way too cumbersome to switch to a system like Mike's. What I'm saying that could be done is what would happen to the economy if the principal issued by the bank on day one equaled exactly the loan payed back at year 5. I'm saying just do the math, whatever it works out to be, and force the banks to issue the entire debt up front as the loan. I think that without the increasing pressure on the system from the demand to take out another loan to pay the "missing interest payments", you could sustain a static economy rather than one that was mandated to grow constantly, which of course puts massive pressure on all the resources involved, including working fathers, mothers, and the planet itself.

So you advocate forcing the bank or lender to lend on terms you dictate? That is a direct infringement on one of our most basic rights guaranteed in the constitution. We all have the right to decide what to do with our money/property right? What gives you the right to tell them what to do with their money? What do you suppose would happen if you forced the banks to loan money on your terms? Think they'd just accept that and shrug it off, or would they shift the money into different investments and things and tell you they have none to loan or some other work around?

There are plenty of things about the banking system that need fixed. For example, the fractional reserve system. They should not get to loan money they don't have. However, forcing them to loan money under terms set by you (the borrower) is wrong.

[ithink]

I am not sure Mike has "the" answer, and I question the payments over the lifetime of the asset. But I do understand why he is asking for that. He's pretty astute to even mention it.

I think he is the opposite of astute to mention it. Do you also understand all the reasons why it would never work? I'll use his example to point out a few of the more obvious problems. In his example he uses a house at 100 years for the loan payments. The first problem. Some houses are ruined after just a few years of abuse, while some have lasted well over 100 years. How does he know what the life of the asset is? In reality, that number is unknown, and his formula already breaks down. But say we arbitrarily set the lifetime of a home at 100 years. Will you loan me money knowing you and I will be dead before its paid off? At no interest whatsoever? That's not a loan, that's charity. Realistically, no one would ever make that kind of loan no matter how good Mike says it is on paper. It would be a terrible return on investment. So again, his idea fails. If the government stepped in and offered such welfare (thats what it would be), we'd be bankrupt almost immediately.

His idea lacks any connection with reality whatsoever. He completely ignores the big problem with his idea, that no one would ever offer such loans. There is nothing stopping him from opening a bank and loaning money out based on his ideas..... except that no one with money would willingly invest in such a bank.

I would prefer a system like ours right now, but without the compound interest.

You realize of course, that nothing in our system is forcing you to take a loan with compound interest right? If you want a system like ours, but with no compound interest.... don't sign any loans that use compound interest. There ya go. Problem solved. Somehow I don't think that's what you really wanted though.

I posted Mike here because I'm not aware of anyone else pointing out the problems with compound interest the way he is. Removing compound interest from the current system would be extremely simple, and the benefits would be colossal.

I think plenty of people understand the problems with compound interest, but getting rid of it is not simple. Maybe I'm missing something. How would you get rid of it?

Hey, thanks for chiming in. I am not sold on the 100 year loan either. Figuring out what the lifespan of something is would get weird very quickly. My whole point of sharing what Mike has to say is to address the issue of compound interest. So to answer your question, I say YES, I would like to get a loan without compound interest, but I don't know where to do that.

The point I was trying to make is that it is not the system that prevents you from getting a loan without compound interest. It is the fact that no one is offering such loans. There is a difference. You have the freedom to take such a loan, were it offered. The system allows it. But, it is not offered because lenders want to maximize their profits from the loans, so they use compound interest right? Can you see anyone ever voluntarily loaning money out under Mike's system when they could instead use compound interest to actually make a profit on the loan? I sure can't. I agree that there is a discrepancy here, and as long as the bankers control the system with exorbitant profits for themselves, then we are destined to universal failure. This is what Jefferson said: "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies . . . If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] . . . will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered . . . The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." -- Thomas Jefferson -- The Debate Over The Recharter Of The Bank Bill, (1809) So do I agree and thing the sovereign power to create money should be taken from the bankers? Yes. And how is it restored to the people? By allowing them to issue money in the form of promises to pay to each other, facilitated on the national scale by a national bank controlled by the government, with a control system similar to what is offered under the "social credit national credit office". Such a system would be pure math. It would be a machine. Start it running, you leave it, and it would run itself as a function of the productivity of the country.

That leads up to the two main points of my post.
1) That Mike's system is completely infeasible and would never voluntarily be used.
2) That you can't get rid of compound interest in any simple way. There are a lot of dynamics involved in our system that allow this; supply and demand, the monopolization of banking, the massive amount of American debt, etc. All these things and more create the environment that allows bankers to get away with outrageous compound interest. I agree the obstacles look huge, and we have to ask how could this be implemented without disturbing the economy? Simple. Leave the private bankers alone, but start the government issuing money based on promises to pay from the citizens, at zero interest. We'll see how long the bankers last then -- won't we?

Regarding getting rid of compound interest, yes, I would like to get rid of it, but I think it is just way too cumbersome to switch to a system like Mike's. What I'm saying that could be done is what would happen to the economy if the principal issued by the bank on day one equaled exactly the loan payed back at year 5. I'm saying just do the math, whatever it works out to be, and force the banks to issue the entire debt up front as the loan. I think that without the increasing pressure on the system from the demand to take out another loan to pay the "missing interest payments", you could sustain a static economy rather than one that was mandated to grow constantly, which of course puts massive pressure on all the resources involved, including working fathers, mothers, and the planet itself.

So you advocate forcing the bank or lender to lend on terms you dictate? That is a direct infringement on one of our most basic rights guaranteed in the constitution. I disagree. See Jefferson's quote above. And if you read it carefully and if you think deeply about how a loan is issued, you will realize it is the borrower who is issuing the loan to the bank, not the bank to the borrower. The bank is actually acting as "money changer", changing the borrowers "promise to pay" into "legal tender", or the nations currency. This power has been usurped from the people and the people nationally (government), and needs to be restored. Once this is restored, a whole host of other abuses will evaporate or simply become untenable under such a system -- like too much socialism that must always enter into any such system that must terminate in failure. We all have the right to decide what to do with our money/property right? What gives you the right to tell them what to do with their money? What do you suppose would happen if you forced the banks to loan money on your terms? Think they'd just accept that and shrug it off, or would they shift the money into different investments and things and tell you they have none to loan or some other work around?

There are plenty of things about the banking system that need fixed. For example, the fractional reserve system. They should not get to loan money they don't have. However, forcing them to loan money under terms set by you (the borrower) is wrong. Not so. Here is what one of our prime ministers said on the matter: "“Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes that nation's laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of Parliament and of democracy is idle and futile. The Liberal Party believes that credit is a public matter, not of interest to bankers only, but of direct concern to every citizen. The Liberal Party declares itself in favour of the immediate establishment of a duly constituted national bank for the control of the issue of money in terms of public needs. The flow of money must be in relation with the domestic, social, and industrial needs of the Canadian people.”".

[Rensai]

Regarding getting rid of compound interest, yes, I would like to get rid of it, but I think it is just way too cumbersome to switch to a system like Mike's. What I'm saying that could be done is what would happen to the economy if the principal issued by the bank on day one equaled exactly the loan payed back at year 5. I'm saying just do the math, whatever it works out to be, and force the banks to issue the entire debt up front as the loan. I think that without the increasing pressure on the system from the demand to take out another loan to pay the "missing interest payments", you could sustain a static economy rather than one that was mandated to grow constantly, which of course puts massive pressure on all the resources involved, including working fathers, mothers, and the planet itself.

So you advocate forcing the bank or lender to lend on terms you dictate? That is a direct infringement on one of our most basic rights guaranteed in the constitution. I disagree. See Jefferson's quote above. And if you read it carefully and if you think deeply about how a loan is issued, you will realize it is the borrower who is issuing the loan to the bank, not the bank to the borrower. The bank is actually acting as "money changer", changing the borrowers "promise to pay" into "legal tender", or the nations currency. This power has been usurped from the people and the people nationally (government), and needs to be restored. Once this is restored, a whole host of other abuses will evaporate or simply become untenable under such a system -- like too much socialism that must always enter into any such system that must terminate in failure. We all have the right to decide what to do with our money/property right? What gives you the right to tell them what to do with their money? What do you suppose would happen if you forced the banks to loan money on your terms? Think they'd just accept that and shrug it off, or would they shift the money into different investments and things and tell you they have none to loan or some other work around?

There are plenty of things about the banking system that need fixed. For example, the fractional reserve system. They should not get to loan money they don't have. However, forcing them to loan money under terms set by you (the borrower) is wrong. Not so. Here is what one of our prime ministers said on the matter: "“Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes that nation's laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of Parliament and of democracy is idle and futile. The Liberal Party believes that credit is a public matter, not of interest to bankers only, but of direct concern to every citizen. The Liberal Party declares itself in favour of the immediate establishment of a duly constituted national bank for the control of the issue of money in terms of public needs. The flow of money must be in relation with the domestic, social, and industrial needs of the Canadian people.”".

Now here's an idea I could get on board with, if its done properly, but I thought we were debating Mike's idea? So why do I feel like you just pulled the old switcheroo on me? What does this have to do with Mike's idea? Did I miss something? Your answers sound a lot like Ron Paul to me. For that reason, your whole response confuses me. Good answers. I more or less agree, but must be confused because this does not seem like your original position to me.

[ithink]

Regarding getting rid of compound interest, yes, I would like to get rid of it, but I think it is just way too cumbersome to switch to a system like Mike's. What I'm saying that could be done is what would happen to the economy if the principal issued by the bank on day one equaled exactly the loan payed back at year 5. I'm saying just do the math, whatever it works out to be, and force the banks to issue the entire debt up front as the loan. I think that without the increasing pressure on the system from the demand to take out another loan to pay the "missing interest payments", you could sustain a static economy rather than one that was mandated to grow constantly, which of course puts massive pressure on all the resources involved, including working fathers, mothers, and the planet itself.

So you advocate forcing the bank or lender to lend on terms you dictate? That is a direct infringement on one of our most basic rights guaranteed in the constitution. I disagree. See Jefferson's quote above. And if you read it carefully and if you think deeply about how a loan is issued, you will realize it is the borrower who is issuing the loan to the bank, not the bank to the borrower. The bank is actually acting as "money changer", changing the borrowers "promise to pay" into "legal tender", or the nations currency. This power has been usurped from the people and the people nationally (government), and needs to be restored. Once this is restored, a whole host of other abuses will evaporate or simply become untenable under such a system -- like too much socialism that must always enter into any such system that must terminate in failure. We all have the right to decide what to do with our money/property right? What gives you the right to tell them what to do with their money? What do you suppose would happen if you forced the banks to loan money on your terms? Think they'd just accept that and shrug it off, or would they shift the money into different investments and things and tell you they have none to loan or some other work around?

There are plenty of things about the banking system that need fixed. For example, the fractional reserve system. They should not get to loan money they don't have. However, forcing them to loan money under terms set by you (the borrower) is wrong. Not so. Here is what one of our prime ministers said on the matter: "“Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes that nation's laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of Parliament and of democracy is idle and futile. The Liberal Party believes that credit is a public matter, not of interest to bankers only, but of direct concern to every citizen. The Liberal Party declares itself in favour of the immediate establishment of a duly constituted national bank for the control of the issue of money in terms of public needs. The flow of money must be in relation with the domestic, social, and industrial needs of the Canadian people.”".

Now here's an idea I could get on board with, if its done properly, but I thought we were debating Mike's idea? So why do I feel like you just pulled the old switcheroo on me? What does this have to do with Mike's idea? Did I miss something? Your answers sound a lot like Ron Paul to me. For that reason, your whole response confuses me. Good answers. I more or less agree, but must be confused because this does not seem like your original position to me.

Haha. No switcheroo. My whole point of using Mike on this forum, after at least 3 threads, is because he is qualified, in my mind, to point out the mathematical problems with compound interest. You are the first to at least consider something like this. So yes, I am in favor, partially, of what Mike teaches, but I also think the vehicle is found, in part, in Social Credit, and the rest already exists in our current system. I am not smart enough, or vain enough to begin to think I could orchestrate a new system on paper, so my hat's off to Mike who has gone ahead and done that. I'm not a fan of Ron Paul's gold standard either, but aside from that I like and appreciate what he knows and what he says, and yes, some of his principles are mine. I think even a bit of what Darren talks about is mixed in here too. I think we as a group have most of the answers we need, but most people are so married to their woman, they cannot look at another, if you know what I mean.

If we've come this far, do we agree that compound interest must go, or at least consider a system without it?

Secondly, are you familiar with the concept of a national credit office as outlined in Social Credit?

A more correct name for this thread might be "Re: The trouble is, Ron Paul doesn't have the answer, and neither does Mike, nor I..." but that fails to flush out the rhetoric and no new ideas are born.

[JMarsigli]

Recessions without government interference have a tendency to break this up. Please give an example of any system in the last 200 years that did not have any government interference. My history book says there are none, how about yours?

Semantics ithink, semantics. Do we need to define every single word before using them? The point is the same, here rephrased: government interference tends to protect accumulated wealth, where lack of interference provides forces for natural redistribution as debt is defaulted on.

Defaulted debts vanish concentrated wealth. ... and they destroy the individuals who cannot pay, of which there are plenty in a compound interest system... like families, like MINE! Am I some sort of sewer rat that needs this "correction"?

What? I see default as liberation, you can choose to see it any way you'd like to. The Jews 7 year law liberated the "debt slaves". I see recessions combined with modern bankruptcy law doing the same today.

The amount of money in circulation is not enough to pay all the outstanding debts. Sir, we have aCRAZY mathmatician telling us this. Any thought experiment will confirm it. C'mon. If 1 billion is loaned this month, 1.1 billion is owed next month and without another loan, there isn't enough to pay the first. Do you agree with this or not?

You're simplifying a complex system and leaving out important details. Basically, it's not the exact physical amount of money in circulation that matters in our system. It is the velocity of circulation or lack there of. The more money changes hands the more goods everyone has regardless of whether actual money has been created or destroyed.

I'll invite you to take the simple thought experiment a little further. The interest is payable with sufficient circulation or growth. Do a small simulation of a closed system economy and you'll see the problem comes when wealth is concentrated too much, or in other words, not circulated. I think you're getting hung up on the initial money creation through debt concept to fully think this through, or "wrap your head around it". You're previous response shows your lack of understanding. Forget about how debt is created for a moment and think this through.

Fine. Post the refutation of the math. Dance around if you wish, or just post the refutation of the math. [/color]

Many of us have, but rather than discussing the issues brought up you revert to Mad Mike's standard spit-fire "refute the math" answers.

[ithink]

Recessions without government interference have a tendency to break this up. Please give an example of any system in the last 200 years that did not have any government interference. My history book says there are none, how about yours?

Semantics ithink, semantics. I know you like semantics, but I don't. I want math. I am an engineer. Show me the numbers, or your argument pulls a building 7 on it's own. Do we need to define every single word before using them? The point is the same, here rephrased: government interference tends to protect accumulated wealth, where lack of interference provides forces for natural redistribution as debt is defaulted on.

Defaulted debts vanish concentrated wealth. ... and they destroy the individuals who cannot pay, of which there are plenty in a compound interest system... like families, like MINE! Am I some sort of sewer rat that needs this "correction"?

What? I see default as liberation, you can choose to see it any way you'd like to. The Jews 7 year law liberated the "debt slaves". I see recessions combined with modern bankruptcy law doing the same today. What an idiot. How is bankruptcy equivalent with the jubilee? Answer: it is as much satans version of the jubilee as communism is of the law of consecration.

The amount of money in circulation is not enough to pay all the outstanding debts. Sir, we have aCRAZY mathmatician telling us this. Any thought experiment will confirm it. C'mon. If 1 billion is loaned this month, 1.1 billion is owed next month and without another loan, there isn't enough to pay the first. Do you agree with this or not?[/color]

You're simplifying a complex system and leaving out important details. Basically, it's not the exact physical amount of money in circulation that matters in our system. It is the velocity of circulation or lack there of. The more money changes hands the more goods everyone has regardless of whether actual money has been created or destroyed. The only reason the magnitude of the problem that I am elucidating, as well as mike the mathmetician, is because the system is so large and so complex that it can and has remained hidden for some time. That is the only reason you can say "it's complex, now here is your pablum".

I'll invite you to take the simple thought experiment a little further. The interest is payable with sufficient circulation or growth. Do a small simulation of a closed system economy and you'll see the problem comes when wealth is concentrated too much, or in other words, not circulated. I think you're getting hung up on the initial money creation through debt concept to fully think this through, or "wrap your head around it". You're previous response shows your lack of understanding. Forget about how debt is created for a moment and think this through. The longest running Canadian Prime Minister said: "once in control, usury will wreck any nation." How come this guy didn't say: "once in control, fiat money will wreck any nation!"? This same man spent years working as Rockefeller's PR man. Now how is it, sir, that this man, with decades of experience in international financing on both the public and private fronts made the same error as I am making now, to the point that he was motivated to establish a national bank which endures to this day?

Fine. Post the refutation of the math. Dance around if you wish, or just post the refutation of the math. [/color]

Many of us have, but rather than discussing the issues brought up you revert to Mad Mike's standard spit-fire "refute the math" answers.

Bull. You haven't posted anything but your Austrian drivel and your testimony in the current collapsing system, and neither has anyone else.