"First of all, conducting what (at most) will only be a mere fraction of our overall trade will certainly not solve the fundamental issues of the present obfuscation of our currency. We do not borrow money from banks: au contraire, they merely publish evidence of our promissory obligations, absorbing no more than the negligible costs of publication. The real issues therefore are 1) the laundering of principal into their unwarranted possession (for the real creditor who gives up property for the promissory obligation is paid in full; and the obligation therefore is to pay and *to retire* principal from circulation -- paid principal is the property of no one; and it is certainly not the property of banks); and 2) the unjustifiable imposition of interest therefore requires us to perpetually reflate a vital circulation of the interest and principal we pay out of the circulation in the way of servicing any existent sum of debt. Failing to borrow further then, we cannot even persist in servicing the initial debts of the finite lifespan of any such system."
I agree so far, but I'm not sure what point of mine you are addressing with this.
"This perpetual obligation to reflate the circulation then perpetually increases the sum of debt, and dedicates ever more of a circulation to servicing a sum of artificial, falsified debt to the purported banking system, until we suffer terminal failure. Principal borrowed back into circulation comprises new debt equal to the former sum of debt which might otherwise be presumed to be paid down -- therefore making it mathematically impossible to pay down the sum of debt. Interest on the other hand, paid out of circulation and borrowed back into circulation to maintain a vital circulation perpetually therefore increases the sum of debt by so much as periodic interest on an ever increasing sum of artificial, falsified debt. Thus any system subject to this obfuscation of our promissory obligations inherently engenders its own failure at even an inherently escalated rate of re-borrowing (reflation), until we suffer the present terminal failure -- a failure from which we cannot recover because even to artificially sustain the system is to accumulate further sums of falsified debt."
Again, I agree. This process is part of what makes fractional reserve banking inherently unstable.
"You claim gold will save us. But gold cannot save us from the real problems, because it has no power whatever to arrest this process of perpetual, escalated multiplication of artificial indebtedness.
Of course, the reason this country was obliged to leave the gold standard furthermore, was that no finite quantity of circulation can *possibly even* maintain a consistent 1:1 relationship between a volume of circulation (or representation of a volume of value) and the volume of the ostensibly represented value itself. The faults of the gold standard therefore have compelled the fractional reserve practice of the present era, because of the injustices imposed not only upon our commerce and industry, but upon any existing contract to deliver."
Bzzzzzz.... here is where you go way off course.In a real gold standard there is no fractional reserve banking. There is only direct specie transaction for goods and services. In such a system, banks operate essentially as nothing more than secure warehouses for specie and coordinators who put lenders and borrowers together.In specie-only currency systems, there is absolutely no way to have fractional reserve lending. In order to have fractional reserve lending, which is what leads to perpetual debt cycles, one must have specie be represented by paper. Only when specie is represented by paper is it possible to have a fractional reserve lending system.Bitcoin is the equivalent of forcing everyone to transact in specie. I challenge you to demonstrate how fractional reserve lending would operate using Bitcoins. It is impossible.
"Thus no matter how much you might "succeed" in this unqualified proposition, we would only suffer a stupendous restriction of industry and commerce under even the whole of the gold existing in the world today, for *at least* it is obviously impossible for the gold to represent both the value of the volume of gold, and whatever volume of commerce/industry/production as well. It is this very disparity in volumes which itself makes it mathematically impossible for gold to engender the stability or "honesty" (without honesty at all) of the only, vital 1:1 relationship between circulation and represented value which *can* honestly represent the latter."
This makes no sense to me. Gold is money. In a real gold standard, it is used to represent the value of goods and services. Gold doesn't have a lot of uses other than jewelery so on its own it has almost no value. It is only when gold is used as a store of wealth to represent the value goods and services does it gain any real value. So I can't follow your argument here at all.
"So your proposition has no possible beneficial effect: interest will continue to multiply artificial indebtedness even beyond a terminal sum of debt (because you can hardly repay/resolve the sum of debt in the world by gold (and you would give up the gold in so doing); and because the volume of gold has no power to rightly/honestly represent (or thus convey) our production in just commerce."
Since there can be no fractional reserve lending under a real gold or Bitcoin standard, this argument makes no sense. Gold certainly does have the power to represent the value of all goods and services in the world. Gold is highly divisible, and if smaller divisions of money are required than gold could feasibly offer, that can be accomplished through the inclusion of silver and copper specie. Bitcoins don't have a divisibility problem at all. They are divisible to 8 decimal places.
"The only proposition which does solve these issues is mathematically perfected economy™, because mathematically perfected economy™ and mathematically perfected economy™ alone rectifies the obfuscation of our promissory obligations (eradicating the purported banking system); re-finances all existent debt under MPE™, counting all prior payments of interest instead toward principal; and thus achieves a perpetual 1:1:1 relationship between remaining circulation, remaining value of represented property, and remaining obligation to pay just that much for the remaining value of represented property... altogether by no more than an obligatory schedule of payment, retiring principal at the rate of consumption or depreciation of the related property. Not only does this prescription/pattern alone solve the issues of purported "honest" money then; it accomplishes this vital purpose even without any regulation, by no more than eradicating interest, and an obligatory schedule of payment, *rightly* retiring principal at the rate of consumption of the related (and therefore truly represented) property."
Under your system, explain why a lender should voluntarily lend money to someone without getting interest back.Time has value, therefore lending my money now means I can't spend it now. I would have to wait to be repaid back, and further, there is a risk that I might not be paid back because the guy might default on his obligations.I need to be rewarded for the lost time I have with my money and the risk of lending it to someone who might not pay me back.Further, the money that was borrowed went into the production of new goods or services. Presumably more goods now exist due to the borrowing which means if the money supply remains stable, less money is now required to represent all the products in existence. This results the currency constantly appreciating in value under a gold standard, which obviously means less and less money needs to be borrowed in the future to accomplish the same tasks.