TURMEL: Marc Gauvin prove bibocurrency to Fugger Bill Ryan
KingofthePaupers
control
Posted by: "Marc Gauvin" gau...@wanadoo.es marc_gauvin
Nov 26, 2009, at 12:03 PM,
MG: You are wrong about being the only one to relate inflation to
debt. We also explain that the inflation is caused by debt growth
Jct: When someone incurs new debt growth in a LETS by buying
something with a new chip, there's no inflation of the other
chips, is there?
MG: and the increase in the money supply is a symptom of
inflation not the cause see: http://bibocurrency.org Marc
JCT: Since my equation for minimum inflation is the same as for
minimum involuntary unemployment, (guys knocked out of the game
lose their watch), I/(P+I), with solution I=0, nowhere is number
of chips in the game an issue, only the interest on the money
supply. So I don't worry about stuff that that's been short-
circuited. You write about it. So I do not talk about the
increase in money supply as a symptom of inflation at all. I've
never heard of inflation increasing the money supply before. Yes,
you're proposing something new.
--
Posted by: "Marc Gauvin" gau...@wanadoo.es
Sat Nov 28, 2009 5:35 pm (PST)
MG: John, Please explain what happens to inflation in your
analysis when either of the following takes place:
1) Foreclosed collateral is re-introduced at a discount
JCT: After almost 30 years of theory, only once more:
Cashiers are instructed that all collateral being pledged at the
cage is treated the same, so whether it's foreclosed or new
collateral being pledged at the cashier is irrelevant because
Inflation (I/(P+I)) is a function of the "I" and "P" where only
the I positive feedback needs to be cut. The collateral has
nothing to do with it other than allowing P to be created. Some
bankers grant credit P on equivalent collateral, some grant P on
collateral several times the amount of the loan, over-
collateralized and some grant credit P, for rich friends, on no
collateral at all but their word. Why would you think inflation
is anything else than a function ruled by the I in P+I? when my
Miracle Equation says it's a function of only Principal and
Interest and controlling the interest is all we need do and run
it like poker chips, interest-free not caring how much
collateral ends up pledged at the cage, hopefully, the max.
MG: 2) The system produces new wealth to compensate for what has
been confiscated. Marc
JCT: Cashiers are instructed that new wealth being pledged at the
cage is treated the same as old foreclosed wealth being pledged
at the cage. Why would you think my cashier would treat either
piece of wealth differently? Is that what your analysis can do?
Heavy!
http://johnturmel.com/watch80.htm is my first ever banking system
analysis and my quote is:
>In Arnold Tustin's book, `The Mechanism of Economic Systems,' he
points out that: "time series methods used by economists may
introduce unstable high frequency modes that are essentially
spurious, counterfeit, false." "Methods used by engineers based
on continuous functions such as Laplace transformations are free
from this defect. The time series approach tends to obscure the
significance of the general analytical form of the solution."
Looking at your first bibocurrency equation:
Evolution of total debt:
Yk = Pk + R1k + R2k = Pk + (Ik-Xk) + (Dk-Wk)
The rest gets even more complicated. Daunting even. Why would I
bother looking at your complicated time-series method when the
control system of the positive feedback on debt banking system is
1/(s-i)! A continuous function free from all defect which
completely describes the control system and what output is
generated by an input without all your messy equations.
I've always looked for a way to explain the link between interest
and inflation to the masses that's easy for all to understand
while you've always sought to show off with a complicated way of
explaining it to only those with math degrees. And you've
succeeded in coming up with something so complicatedly daunting,
even I don't want to bother to see if the time series has caught
up to the exponential analysis of the Banking Systems Engineer.
Sure, the Laplace Transform of the problem 1/(s-i) may seem
esoteric but only you ignore the irrational imaginary s, even a
child can see that you're left with only the "i" to deal with.
Now, I know someone who'll love to check out your bibocurrency
with a fine-tooth comb. Remember that the reason the bankster moles
took over IJCCR and shut down the IJ...@yahoogroups.com debate
between you and that Fugger Bill Ryan.
Well, that Fugger Bill Ryan has shown up at my Facebook page
looking to argue and I think I've shut that Fugger Bill Ryan down
for awhile. So I invite you to join the Sepp Hasslberger debate
"A standard for a stable currency" now going on where he cited:
>This might be of interest to you - a proposed standard for a
stable currency...
Passive "Bounded Input Bounded Output" (BIBO) Currency Standard
Now I'm taking a break on figuring out if your time series method
has achieved the perfection of the exponential output of the
control system with the Laplace Transform I used.
But I'm not going into your complicated equations when I am
perfectly satisfied with perfect poker chip model and the perfect
Laplace Transform exponential output control system.
I don't have time to look to other than my perfect model and my
no-flaw equation but I'm sure that Fugger Bill Ryan is looking to
try to find your mistakes, if any.
That Fugger Bill Ryan is going under the name Bill Fugger at the
debate. So you go ahead and try to convince that Bill Fugger Ryan
that your bibocurrency is as perfect as my poker chips too. And
no more time wasted on the original premise now that he has at
least admitted that: "All loans can't be repaid NOW," the
essential component of death from the death-gamble mort-gage
contract.
Have fun, it's gnurd time. Remember how we had fun picketing the
Bank of Canada and having their gnurds coming out to argue with
us and forever being made fun of? I'm sure Ryan's ready to keep
fighting with you even if the IJCCR cut you both off.