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

[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.