The Political Measuring Stick

[Jason]

Ithink....could you put MPE in a simple scenario for the rest of us to chew on?

[ithink]

Hold on! Did I read that right? Is this supposed to say, "Fool, stop right now?" I hope this is not what was meant. If so, it is extremely arrogant and unChrist-like (as is the "grade 5 math" comment), as well as poor spelling on your part.

You say we cannot have debt, but you belong to a church which holds you in perpetual debt to Christ with a debt that can never be paid. Well surprise surprise, you also belong to another organization on this planet to whom you also owe a debt that can never be paid, and how does it feel?

I never knew this forum was a good source of anti-Mormon rubbish! If I was really looking for that sort of thing, I would talk to Jerald and Sandra Tanner or Ed Decker.

900 years ago, anyone practicing usury was excommunicated from the Christian church. With that in mind, I can only say God help you all that continue to sustain this bastard financial system child of the devil, because if I was in a position to do so, I would start purging in the same way that old Christian church did.

Aaahhh... So during the Great Apostasy, the corrupt Christian Church of the Dark Ages was holding fast to the Iron Rod on their way to the Tree of Life, while the Restored Church today is somewhere in the mist of darkness??? More anti-Mormon rubbish...

I am willing at every point to receive more knowledge.

Really?! That does not appear to be the case from your unChrist-like behavior illustrated above. ithink, you may think you are smart but I am sure you are far from perfect (as are most of us--including myself). Your elitish behavior just makes me say =;

1. Find me doctrine that says we can pay Christ back for his sacrifice for us.
2. Actually, usury was forbidden by God back in the time of Abraham. Abrahams father, of Ur of the Chaldees, was an apostate idol worshiper, and was cast out because he was a proponent of interest, as you are. Is that what you are referring to as the Apostate church?
3. I don't think I'm smart at all. But I never quit until I get to the bottom of every question I endeavor to ask. Some of the questions I have been answering on this forum remained unanswered in my mind for 33 years. I could acquiesce to the grossly flawed analogy of the site owner, but I'd be lying to myself if I did, and I'm not prepared to do that.

[Teancum-Old]

You see - It is mathematically possible, under certain possible scenario's, while maybe not likely or realistic, it is mathematically possible to pay off all the debt and interest, without new debt or new money.

Your simple example is a joke, and sorry, but you fail grade 5 math.

You say Mr. Smith owes 130K for a slide. Full stop right now, you've made a massive error.

Hold on! Did I read that right? Is this supposed to say, "Fool, stop right now?" I hope this is not what was meant. If so, it is extremely arrogant and unChrist-like (as is the "grade 5 math" comment), as well as poor spelling on your part.

You say we cannot have debt, but you belong to a church which holds you in perpetual debt to Christ with a debt that can never be paid. Well surprise surprise, you also belong to another organization on this planet to whom you also owe a debt that can never be paid, and how does it feel?

I never knew this forum was a good source of anti-Mormon rubbish! If I was really looking for that sort of thing, I would talk to Jerald and Sandra Tanner or Ed Decker.

900 years ago, anyone practicing usury was excommunicated from the Christian church. With that in mind, I can only say God help you all that continue to sustain this bastard financial system child of the devil, because if I was in a position to do so, I would start purging in the same way that old Christian church did.

Aaahhh... So during the Great Apostasy, the corrupt Christian Church of the Dark Ages was holding fast to the Iron Rod on their way to the Tree of Life, while the Restored Church today is somewhere in the mist of darkness??? More anti-Mormon rubbish...

I am willing at every point to receive more knowledge.

Really?! That does not appear to be the case from your unChrist-like behavior illustrated above. ithink, you may think you are smart but I am sure you are far from perfect (as are most of us--including myself). Your elitish behavior just makes me say =;

A re-post just for ithink. Any response?? Your behavior on this forum is sick.

Good to see the forum members are fawning at Brian's feet because he runs the forum?

More degrading insults ithink? You never stop. =; =; =; =; =; =; =; =;

No fawning here. We just happen to agree that it is a mathematical possibility to payoff principal and interest.

[Teancum-Old]

Hold on! Did I read that right? Is this supposed to say, "Fool, stop right now?" I hope this is not what was meant. If so, it is extremely arrogant and unChrist-like (as is the "grade 5 math" comment), as well as poor spelling on your part.

You say we cannot have debt, but you belong to a church which holds you in perpetual debt to Christ with a debt that can never be paid. Well surprise surprise, you also belong to another organization on this planet to whom you also owe a debt that can never be paid, and how does it feel?

I never knew this forum was a good source of anti-Mormon rubbish! If I was really looking for that sort of thing, I would talk to Jerald and Sandra Tanner or Ed Decker.

900 years ago, anyone practicing usury was excommunicated from the Christian church. With that in mind, I can only say God help you all that continue to sustain this bastard financial system child of the devil, because if I was in a position to do so, I would start purging in the same way that old Christian church did.

Aaahhh... So during the Great Apostasy, the corrupt Christian Church of the Dark Ages was holding fast to the Iron Rod on their way to the Tree of Life, while the Restored Church today is somewhere in the mist of darkness??? More anti-Mormon rubbish...

I am willing at every point to receive more knowledge.

Really?! That does not appear to be the case from your unChrist-like behavior illustrated above. ithink, you may think you are smart but I am sure you are far from perfect (as are most of us--including myself). Your elitish behavior just makes me say =;

1. Find me doctrine that says we can pay Christ back for his sacrifice for us.
2. Actually, usury was forbidden by God back in the time of Abraham. Abrahams father, of Ur of the Chaldees, was an apostate idol worshiper, and was cast out because he was a proponent of interest, as you are. Is that what you are referring to as the Apostate church? Actually I was referring to the Church you initially referred to above when you said: "900 years ago." That would make that "church" either the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church around the year 1100 AD. You never mentioned Abraham on this thread until now
3. I don't think I'm smart at all. I guess we are to ignore your use of "fool" and the reference to grade 5 math. But I never quit until I get to the bottom of every question I endeavor to ask. Some of the questions I have been answering on this forum remained unanswered in my mind for 33 years. I have no problem with questions until they are being used in a condescending fashion. I could acquiesce to the grossly flawed analogy of the site owner, but I'd be lying to myself if I did, and I'm not prepared to do that.

[Teancum-Old]

I refuse to respond further to ithink until he clears up the anti-Mormon rhetoric above and acknowledges the poor, elitish methods he has chosen (as quoted above) to illustrate his position.

[ithink]

Ithink....could you put MPE in a simple scenario for the rest of us to chew on?

Alright. What is MPE?

Before the solution, we identify the problems.

1. Inflation and deflation
2. Inherent and irreversible multiplication of debt
3. Systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money

The solution?

1. Eradicate interest, and pay off obligations comprised of principal only at the rate of consumption or depreciation of the asset.
2. Interest is the singular cause of inherent multiplication of debt, which is not repayable. It must be abolished.
3. Manipulation of the money supply is solved through the combination of 1 and 2.

This is MPE in a nutshell. To prevent collapse and a terminal cycle of deflation setting in, there are a number of other items which would need to be implemented immediately, which I will not lay out here.

If the readers cannot grasp this, then here is what you need ask yourselves: "Is it possible to solve inflation / deflation under any form of currency subject to compound interest?"

[ithink]

I am willing at every point to receive more knowledge.

Really?! That does not appear to be the case from your unChrist-like behavior illustrated above. ithink, you may think you are smart but I am sure you are far from perfect (as are most of us--including myself). Your elitish behavior just makes me say =;

1. Find me doctrine that says we can pay Christ back for his sacrifice for us.
2. Actually, usury was forbidden by God back in the time of Abraham. Abrahams father, of Ur of the Chaldees, was an apostate idol worshiper, and was cast out because he was a proponent of interest, as you are. Is that what you are referring to as the Apostate church? Actually I was referring to the Church you initially referred to above when you said: "900 years ago." That would make that "church" either the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church around the year 1100 AD. You never mentioned Abraham on this thread until now
3. I don't think I'm smart at all. I guess we are to ignore your use of "fool" and the reference to grade 5 math. But I never quit until I get to the bottom of every question I endeavor to ask. Some of the questions I have been answering on this forum remained unanswered in my mind for 33 years. I have no problem with questions until they are being used in a condescending fashion. I could acquiesce to the grossly flawed analogy of the site owner, but I'd be lying to myself if I did, and I'm not prepared to do that.

I think you owe me an apology, comparing me to the Apostate Deckers et al. My reference to the primitive church was to show that the Old Testament doctrines lasted until just a few hundred year ago. That is a long time! And as for the integrity of that church, I thank them for what they did. Your attitude smarts of "And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them?... O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people? Nay; but ye have cursed them, and have hated them, and have not sought to recover them." I don't know what part of the ancient church this applies to, but I'm speaking of the attitude.

And as for those who reject me because "I rub them the wrong way". Get over it. Here is what I wrote the author of a famous money video most of you have seen, about my attitude to everyone else: "I don't care about the appearance of the messenger, good, bad, ugly, proud, humble, a$$hole, or saintly nun. I only care about the message." If you don't adopt that attitude yourself, you'll be forever stuck and constantly missing out on the pieces you need to put it all together.

About the grade 5 math. I'm sorry, but it is grade 5 math. If someone can't do it, they fail grade 5 math. Shall I lie about it, or shall you, or shall we be honest men admit who is wrong and continue a frank (albeit painful) and honest discussion, or shall we derail the thread and never resolve our minds to the issue at hand?

Finally, you say here that I used the word "fool" against the site owner. I object and impeach you as a liar. I said no such thing, but you libeled me by changing my words and falsely saying I did.

[Jason]

[Teancum-Old]

I think you owe me an apology, comparing me to the Apostate Deckers et al. OK, so let's call it even; your condescending statements for my comparison to apostates. My reference to the primitive church was to show that the Old Testament doctrines lasted until just a few hundred year ago. That is a long time! And as for the integrity of that church, I thank them for what they did. Your attitude smarts of "And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them?... O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people? Nay; but ye have cursed them, and have hated them, and have not sought to recover them." I don't know what part of the ancient church this applies to, but I'm speaking of the attitude. I can thank many individual Christians during this period for their extraordinary work in preserving the Bible (Tyndale, etc.). On the other hand I know that God had a lot to do with making sure the said church didn't take too many "plain and precious parts" from the Bible as well. The general leadership of this said church committed many atrocities and trampled all over individual agency. Its difficult for me to thank them for much, especially when they were instrumental in preventing the Bible's release to the "unwashed" masses and for the removal of many plain and precious parts.

And as for those who reject me because "I rub them the wrong way". Get over it. Continuing with this elitish, condescending attitude will give you a hard time getting anyone to listen to you wholeheartedly. Here is what I wrote the author of a famous money video most of you have seen, about my attitude to everyone else: "I don't care about the appearance of the messenger, good, bad, ugly, proud, humble, a$$hole, or saintly nun. I only care about the message." Goes much too far for my taste (especially with your choice of vocabulary). I would not recommend playing with evil. We are supposed to steer clear of it as did Joseph with Potiphar's wife. If you don't adopt that attitude yourself, you'll be forever stuck and constantly missing out on the pieces you need to put it all together. Agree to disagree (and recommend others to stay away from this advice).

About the grade 5 math. I'm sorry, but it is grade 5 math. If someone can't do it, they fail grade 5 math. Again, elitish and condescending. Makes me say =;. Shall I lie about it, or shall you, or shall we be honest men admit who is wrong and continue a frank (albeit painful) and honest discussion, or shall we derail the thread and never resolve our minds to the issue at hand? Fine with me if you can stop with the elitism and condescension.

Finally, you say here that I used the word "fool" against the site owner. I object and impeach you as a liar. I said no such thing, but you libeled me by changing my words and falsely saying I did. I may be wrong, but you have never corrected me until now. I still cannot tell what was meant by:

Full stop right now, you've made a massive error.

Still appears that "fool" was the word sought for.

So, I will listen to you when you quit the elitism. It's really tough to take anyone seriously when they degrade left and right, accusing people of:

fawning at Brian's feet

I am ready for a civil, "frank (albeit painful) and honest" discussion where all can learn together if you are. If I am to take you seriously, you will agree to be civil. If not, then I have had enough. A civil, "frank (albeit painful) and honest" discussion requires mutual respect or else it will lead to nowhere.

[ChemtrailWatcher]

Teancum, have you never heard of the expression "full stop"? It's another word for "Period" -- you know, like at the end of a sentence. Must be a "British" thing....

ithink, it's great to see a fellow Canadian participating on here.

[Jason]

Teancum, have you never heard of the expression "full stop"? It's another word for "Period" -- you know, like at the end of a sentence. Must be a "British" thing....

ithink, it's great to see a fellow Canadian participating on here.

Glad to see you are still around!!!

[creator]

Mummy: I think most of us agree with your concept of all/most of the assets ultimately going to the banker due to the high level of control he has over the economy (since that is what is happening today under the Fed and their buddies). However, I may differ from Brian on this, my point in showing that it is mathematically possible for the principle + interest to be paid off (although definitely unlikely in our current system) is to support the idea that interest, in and of itself, is not evil (I believe ithink disagrees vehemently with this though). Evil comes when men use the concept of interest to achieve their own evil goals. I believe interest could be used righteously (although historically it has been wickedly abused). Else why would the Savior refer to interest in a positive way in some of his parables??

My point was only about the mathematically possibility applied to la-la-land, and example that would never be reality... not to say interest is not evil, or rather that the current system is not evil, and the way it operates makes it impossible to pay off all of the debt and interest.

[creator]

...I could acquiesce to the grossly flawed analogy of the site owner, but I'd be lying to myself if I did, and I'm not prepared to do that.

Just stop, ithink, you're embarrassing yourself. My analogy was not supposed to be realistic at all, simply to illustrate math that shows in completely controlled la-la-land scenario it is possible to pay of all the interest and debt. You're comments reveal you didn't quite grasp every aspect of the scenario, if you re-read and re-read my simple scenario you'll see the math, it's possible. Anyways... let's get back on track here, no need for the kind of behavior your displaying here.

[Teancum-Old]

Teancum, have you never heard of the expression "full stop"? It's another word for "Period" -- you know, like at the end of a sentence. Must be a "British" thing....

ithink, it's great to see a fellow Canadian participating on here.

Thanks for the note ChemtrailWatcher. Would have been helpful if ithink would have just explained that. Never heard that expression before. I was wrong... not the first time of course :p .

So, does anyone excuse ithink's elitish and condescending behavior?? I absolutely do not. I simply can not and will not bother participating in a discussion when someone behaves that way. I would rather quit the discussion than blow my lid over it. X(

[ChemtrailWatcher]

That's OK, Teancum.

I just found this explanation for the term "full stop" on a website:

The term full stop is rarely used by speakers in Canada, and virtually never in the United States. In American English, the phrase "full stop" is generally used only in the context of transport to describe the process of completely halting the motion of a vehicle. See, e.g., Seaboard Air Line Railway Co. v. Blackwell, 244 U.S. 310 (1917) "under the laws of the state a train is required to come to a full stop 50 feet from the crossing", and Chowdhury v. City of Los Angeles, 38 Cal. App. 4th 1187 (1995) "Once the signals failed, the City could reasonably foresee that motorists using due care would obey the provisions of the Vehicle Code and make a full stop before proceeding when it was safe to do so".

from this website: http://www.answers.com/topic/full-stop

I researched it further online and it appears that "full stop" is a British expression.

From my experience, the term is sometimes used for emphasis. You could compare it to this:

"I've had enough of this weather. Period."/ "I've had enough of this weather. Full stop."

On further thought, ithink might have been using the term in the sense of coming to a complete stop. Kind of like saying "Quit it!"

Hope this helps!

[ithink]

I think you owe me an apology, comparing me to the Apostate Deckers et al. OK, so let's call it even; your condescending statements for my comparison to apostates. My reference to the primitive church was to show that the Old Testament doctrines lasted until just a few hundred year ago. That is a long time! And as for the integrity of that church, I thank them for what they did. Your attitude smarts of "And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them?... O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people? Nay; but ye have cursed them, and have hated them, and have not sought to recover them." I don't know what part of the ancient church this applies to, but I'm speaking of the attitude. I can thank many individual Christians during this period for their extraordinary work in preserving the Bible (Tyndale, etc.). On the other hand I know that God had a lot to do with making sure the said church didn't take too many "plain and precious parts" from the Bible as well. The general leadership of this said church committed many atrocities and trampled all over individual agency. Its difficult for me to thank them for much, especially when they were instrumental in preventing the Bible's release to the "unwashed" masses and for the removal of many plain and precious parts.

And as for those who reject me because "I rub them the wrong way". Get over it. Continuing with this elitish, condescending attitude will give you a hard time getting anyone to listen to you wholeheartedly. Here is what I wrote the author of a famous money video most of you have seen, about my attitude to everyone else: "I don't care about the appearance of the messenger, good, bad, ugly, proud, humble, a$$hole, or saintly nun. I only care about the message." Goes much too far for my taste (especially with your choice of vocabulary). I would not recommend playing with evil. We are supposed to steer clear of it as did Joseph with Potiphar's wife. If you don't adopt that attitude yourself, you'll be forever stuck and constantly missing out on the pieces you need to put it all together. Agree to disagree (and recommend others to stay away from this advice).

About the grade 5 math. I'm sorry, but it is grade 5 math. If someone can't do it, they fail grade 5 math. Again, elitish and condescending. Makes me say =;. Shall I lie about it, or shall you, or shall we be honest men admit who is wrong and continue a frank (albeit painful) and honest discussion, or shall we derail the thread and never resolve our minds to the issue at hand? Fine with me if you can stop with the elitism and condescension.

Finally, you say here that I used the word "fool" against the site owner. I object and impeach you as a liar. I said no such thing, but you libeled me by changing my words and falsely saying I did. I may be wrong, but you have never corrected me until now. I still cannot tell what was meant by:

Full stop right now, you've made a massive error.

Still appears that "fool" was the word sought for.

So, I will listen to you when you quit the elitism. It's really tough to take anyone seriously when they degrade left and right, accusing people of:

fawning at Brian's feet

I am ready for a civil, "frank (albeit painful) and honest" discussion where all can learn together if you are. If I am to take you seriously, you will agree to be civil. If not, then I have had enough. A civil, "frank (albeit painful) and honest" discussion requires mutual respect or else it will lead to nowhere.

Your economy is tanking and the collective fallout is going to be total disaster. If you want answers, have a hard look at what I have offered, regardless of how it was offered. Go read the letters between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Frankly, what I have written doesn't even begin to approach what was exchanged between those two men -- real men. If you and your feelings and your opinions are made of glass, that is your problem -- not mine. The fact is because of the collective attitude not unlike yours, we are not ready to stand up and meet the challenge that is before us head on. In my opinion, we stand ready to get run over Book of Mormon style.

Now what was this thread about?

[ithink]

Mummy: I think most of us agree with your concept of all/most of the assets ultimately going to the banker due to the high level of control he has over the economy (since that is what is happening today under the Fed and their buddies). However, I may differ from Brian on this, my point in showing that it is mathematically possible for the principle + interest to be paid off (although definitely unlikely in our current system) is to support the idea that interest, in and of itself, is not evil (I believe ithink disagrees vehemently with this though). Evil comes when men use the concept of interest to achieve their own evil goals. I believe interest could be used righteously (although historically it has been wickedly abused). Else why would the Savior refer to interest in a positive way in some of his parables??

My point was only about the mathematically possibility applied to la-la-land, and example that would never be reality... not to say interest is not evil, or rather that the current system is not evil, and the way it operates makes it impossible to pay off all of the debt and interest.

???? Was not your example was meant to convince us that the system was not terminal, which it is. I don't care about lala land Brian, I am concerned only with reality. Do you have a real world example to illustrate your point?

[ithink]

...I could acquiesce to the grossly flawed analogy of the site owner, but I'd be lying to myself if I did, and I'm not prepared to do that.

Just stop, ithink, you're embarrassing yourself. My analogy was not supposed to be realistic at all, simply to illustrate math that shows in completely controlled la-la-land scenario it is possible to pay of all the interest and debt. You're comments reveal you didn't quite grasp every aspect of the scenario, if you re-read and re-read my simple scenario you'll see the math, it's possible. Anyways... let's get back on track here, no need for the kind of behavior your displaying here.

I'm not feeling embarrassed.

Brian, look. You posted a flawed analogy, even in lalaland terms. If you will simply correct your analogy and tell us not how much Smith owes, but how much he was lent, we can put this to bed. A lot of people that read this post seemed convinced by your analogy that the real system we have could work. That may not have been your intention, but that is what happened. What was the principal that Mr. Smith received from the bank in your closed system example?

[creator]

My point was only about the mathematically possibility applied to la-la-land, and example that would never be reality... not to say interest is not evil, or rather that the current system is not evil, and the way it operates makes it impossible to pay off all of the debt and interest.

???? Was not your example was meant to convince us that the system was not terminal, which it is. I don't care about lala land Brian, I am concerned only with reality. Do you have a real world example to illustrate your point?

No my example was not meant to convince anyone that the system is not terminal, of course it is terminal! I never denied that. My example was meant only for a limited objective, of showing that there are scenario's, however unrealistic, that show it's mathematically possible to pay off all the debt and interest, that's it, it wasn't about what we're experiencing in the real world. I think I made that very clear over and over again in my posts.

[ithink]

FULL STOP.

DEFINITION THAT APPLIES TO THIS THREAD

If you have such an aversion to the British system Teancum, then pay some attention to what I am saying, because the system that is working against us and is going to start WWIII and destroy your country, or what is left of it, is the British system of hedgemony -- not the superficial one, but the one behind the scenes. Yes, they still have their thumb on you!

I am not your enemy sir, I am giving you the key to unlock your chains. I am telling you not just what is wrong, but how to fix it. You picked a great name for the forum -- if the original Teancum was here today, do you think he'd be worried about the way the solution was presented, or do you think he'd be wanting to know where to cast his javelin? If you find what I am saying is true, you don't have to reference me for it, I simply don't care. Just say you googled it.

[ithink]

My point was only about the mathematically possibility applied to la-la-land, and example that would never be reality... not to say interest is not evil, or rather that the current system is not evil, and the way it operates makes it impossible to pay off all of the debt and interest.

???? Was not your example was meant to convince us that the system was not terminal, which it is. I don't care about lala land Brian, I am concerned only with reality. Do you have a real world example to illustrate your point?

No my example was not meant to convince anyone that the system is not terminal, of course it is terminal! I never denied that. My example was meant only for a limited objective, of showing that there are scenario's, however unrealistic, that show it's mathematically possible to pay off all the debt and interest, that's it, it wasn't about what we're experiencing in the real world. I think I made that very clear over and over again in my posts.

By the same token I've asked what was the principal lent to Mr. Smith? We must know that before your example can be vetted in the real or any other world.

[Original_Intent]

My point was only about the mathematically possibility applied to la-la-land, and example that would never be reality... not to say interest is not evil, or rather that the current system is not evil, and the way it operates makes it impossible to pay off all of the debt and interest.

???? Was not your example was meant to convince us that the system was not terminal, which it is. I don't care about lala land Brian, I am concerned only with reality. Do you have a real world example to illustrate your point?

No my example was not meant to convince anyone that the system is not terminal, of course it is terminal! I never denied that. My example was meant only for a limited objective, of showing that there are scenario's, however unrealistic, that show it's mathematically possible to pay off all the debt and interest, that's it, it wasn't about what we're experiencing in the real world. I think I made that very clear over and over again in my posts.

I understood that you were illustrating theoretical possibility, not practical application. I appreciate the value of your theoretical concept, but it appears not all do, Brian. I think it is worth seeing how it could work because it further illustrates what the cause of the problem in reality is. If we just say "it's mathematically impossible" and accept that, then we look no further for the cause of the problem. By you showing that it IS mathematically possible, then it forces us to peel back another layer of the onion and look for real root causes.

[ithink]

I understood that you were illustrating theoretical possibility, not practical application. I appreciate the value of your theoretical concept, but it appears not all do, Brian. I think it is worth seeing how it could work because it further illustrates what the cause of the problem in reality is. If we just say "it's mathematically impossible" and accept that, then we look no further for the cause of the problem. By you showing that it IS mathematically possible, then it forces us to peel back another layer of the onion and look for real root causes.

Well said. I'm game. What was the principal lent to Mr. Smith?

[Original_Intent]

ithink, I will step in and show an easy example of what Brian is saying.

Smith is lent $100, and will accrue 1% interest each month, and it will accrue the last day of the month. The lender is Mr. Bernanke.

Smith spends the hundred dollars to buy a lawn mower. He mows lawns for $10, or really big lawns for $20. Since we don't want to complicate this economy with all the other people whose lawns Smith could mow (because then we would have to be worried about where their money came from, etc.) We will say that Smith only mows Mr. Bernanke's lawn, and as it is a very large lawn, he gets $20 per mowing, and it needs to be mowed weekly.

At the end of the month after taking care of operating expenses, etc. Smith has $20 that he can pay towards the loan. Which he does leaving a balance of $81. (1 dollar of interest was charged.)

This, continued for 6 months, could pay off the debt. (not to mention that now Smith owns an only slightly used lawn mower.) Smith's labor made it possible to pay the principal AND the interest.

Again, in the real world there are plenty of reasons why it doesn;t work this way - primarily because Mr. Bernanke does not intend it to work this way. He would rather have Smith default on the loan and then he will take the lawn mower and force Smith to mow his lawn (as well as whatever else he needs done!) for the privilege of eating. And I think that was the point that Brian was making - it is not that the math is impossible, it is that the goal of the system's controllers is that the debt not be paid off.

[creator]

I understood that you were illustrating theoretical possibility, not practical application. I appreciate the value of your theoretical concept, but it appears not all do, Brian. I think it is worth seeing how it could work because it further illustrates what the cause of the problem in reality is. If we just say "it's mathematically impossible" and accept that, then we look no further for the cause of the problem. By you showing that it IS mathematically possible, then it forces us to peel back another layer of the onion and look for real root causes.

Well said. I'm game. What was the principal lent to Mr. Smith?

Doesn't really matter in the scenario I gave. Let's say the principles was $100,000 and the total interest paid back was $30,000. Under my scenario, because the banker wasn't holding on to the money as it was paid back, and there was no new debt and no new money being introduced into the economy, it was still possible to pay back all the principal and interest... the key there was that the money kept circulating, albeit in a very controlled manner, and wasn't held onto. You could almost say Mr. Smith simply paid off the interest and debt via services rendered to Mr. Banker... yet they still exchanged those pieces of paper, those dollars, back and forth.