A Timely Solution to the Millenary Problem of Money’s Core Misrepresentation

(An urgent communique to all economic agents public and private, particularly all levels of government, public administration, public and private financial entities and institutions.)

V.03 FINAL Sept 22nd 2023 (rev. 10 Nov 2023)

 

As a matter of utmost urgency we call for the adoption of the MSTA Resolutions (Annex I), for which we summarise the salient facts and consequences as follows:

1) Money/currency unit symbols are not formally defined as required for any determinate application of any mathematical expression in terms of said units to any independent common reality.

Consequence: Financial system imperatives are at best indeterminate vis a vis any real world societal needs and to claim any scientific/rational imperatives of these is a serious and perilous error.

2) By conflating the concepts of measure and commodity without consideration of how and/or when these two concepts are mutually exclusive, the colloquially and commonly assumed informal notion of money being used in lieu of any requisite formal definition, constitutes a logical incongruence. Such inconsistency is referred to as money’s core misrepresentation (Annex II).

Consequence: Any process no matter how compelling that in any way incorporates what can be shown to be invalid, cannot itself be considered valid.

3) Given said misrepresentation has been assumed universally by rote in all manner of money contracts and agreements and according to formal systems theory and proven practice (Annexes III, IV), said misrepresentation can be shown to cause systemic instability by allowing incoherent relations whereby money is used as a unit of measure to determine its own unit value in terms of variable quantities of itself, wholly invalidating any pretence of it acting as a valid measure/record/reference of value.

Consequence: Pursuant to formal systems theory and proven practice, imperatives that arise from using said misrepresentation by rote and as a foundational axiom, will lead to destabilisation of all concomitant processes and real world systems that incorporate the imperatives arising from said misrepresentation.

Such instability incites all agents to adopt evermore extravagant and otherwise unconscionable strategies, measures and policies, exacerbating overall systemic instability and risk (Annex IV). Thus leading to increased risk of harm, suffering, deterioration of life support systems and unwarranted exhaustion of vital resources.

4) The MSTA Resolutions provide an immediate remedy to all the above not only without cost or penalty to anyone but eliminating the vast majority of current financial risk [3]. By framing the money system in terms of formal control and stability theory and adhering to proven requirements for system stability, monetary stability is shown to be attainable by correcting money’s misrepresentation, formally defining currency symbols as only arbitrary units of value measure and strictly operating on them accordingly (Annexes III).

Consequence: Adopting the MSTA resolutions offers an immediate avenue to monetary stability validating its use as a reference of value and without any cost or penalty to any agent yet eliminating vast amounts of risk to the whole economy (Annex III). By money no longer acting as an article of trade, thus freeing the real economy from perilous financial cost and otherwise arbitrary risk, competition in terms of quality over quantity will be enhanced, while enabling a greater and more flexible inclusion, diversity of production, made impossible under money’s misrepresentation.

5) Principles of legal validity such as Quae ab initio non valent, ex post facto convalescere non possunt (what is initially invalid cannot be made valid by subsequent acts) [1] must supresede all considerations in order to determine justice. (Annex V)

Consequence: Common practice can only serve as a source of law if and only if said practice is not shown to be invalid and/or to contravene fundamental principles of law (truth, logic, natural law) (Annex V). Thus, the use of money’s misrepresentation as a foundational premise cannot be validated by appealing to “common practice” no matter how long standing that practice might be.

6) By logic and as explicitly set out in Anglo/American law [2] misrepresentation carries three levels of liability:

    1. Innocent (didn't know) e.g. most lay people;
    2. Negligent (didn't know but it is my job to know) e.g. all economic and financial experts and;
    3. Fraudulent i.e. all those with a reckless disregard for the misrepresentation.

Consequence: All those alerted to the existence of any claim of misrepresentation and who do not act to determine the truth of such a claim, are acting recklessly and therefore become potentially liable for fraudulent misrepresentation and any subsequent civil and penal charges.

Conclusion:

From the above, it follows that it is the responsibility of ALL agents public and private habitually operating under money’s misrepresentation, to attend to the formal claim and proof of said misrepresentation and to either provide proof (of commensurate rigour and detail) to the contrary, or act in good will to remedy it by calling for the adoption of the MSTA Resolutions or their logical equivalent. To do otherwise, is to be delinquent in one’s civil duty and to become liable for “reckless disregard” as outlined in point 6) above. With respect to public entities, given their mandates to represent, serve and protect their constituents and their legitimate interests, any such reckless disregard is most harmful.

We therefore call on all to respond appropriately and consequentially by alerting others to the contents by sharing the link to this document as widely as possible.

Download the urgent communique with the annexes and suggested (editable) cover letter text, and share with all your contacts and public representatives.

References:

[1] Black's law dictionary. HENRY CAMPBELL BLACK, M. A.. 1990.

[2] 2023 - Thomson Reuters Practical Law

[3] A WORLD AWASH IN MONEY Capital trends through 2020 Bain and Company. 2012 fig. 1.1. page 7.






Break out of  "The Money PSYOP" and give your kids

a future they can be proud of you for by supporting the MSTA

 

Stop WWIII

Stop WWIII

By Marc Gauvin

Copyright © 09/2023
Reproduction expressly granted provided attribution is given and original link is provided.



You Have Been Served!

Only when the "logical" alternative seems worse, does bullying and the real threat of war become an option for any empire.  Economic collapse is such a dreaded alternative outcome.  The US is in such a situation,  if the promise of "finance" is required to be "honoured",  then the US will not only lose its prominence but its whole economy and current infrastructure will collapse producing mass poverty and misery, not to speak of the devastation of the real prospect of civil war.

All you have to do to see this, is to divide the US $33 trillion public debt by the US population and you get $100,000 per capita debt or $400,000 for a household of four and then calculate the rate of inflation required to offset that debt, you quickly understand how that would bring the economy to tatters and how collapse of the social order and widespread poverty and misery become inevitable. 

Compounding is another term for exponential, literally a doubling per unit of time. While it might seem possible to offset with greater and greater production of value, the reality is that by definition it is unstable and therefore wholly unmanageable not to mention that perpetual growth is simply a pipe dream. The proof is in the pudding,  the US can no longer offset its financial excesses with its industrial and technological prowess, the numbers show that the output has always been unstable (unbounded), hence we have no proof or precedence that it has ever been "manageable". This explains the US recourse to increased bullying and now the real threat of WWIII, likely to become nuclear!

Notice how all this is predicated on the validity of financial contracts and agreements at all levels. But are they valid and what to do if they turn out not to be?  Does the world end?  No and here is why:

Here and at the MSTA, we have unequivocally proven that the very notion of money we ALL use by rote and that therefore underpins all money contracts, constitutes a logical and mathematical absurdity, that we refer to as money's logical core misrepresentation. Simply put, the notion that money can be both a measure/record of value AND an article of trade/commodity is wholly untenable under the scrutiny of formal logic as both concepts are mutually exclusive and logically contradictory.  Since that is necessarily the case, then any pretense of any valid measure within said contracts is categorically denied.  As a direct consequence of this,  all money contracts that assume said misrepresentation or any of its imperatives, must also be unactionable at least in terms of said misrepresentation. 

So, how dose this help us to remove the looming threat of WWIII? 

By recognising the invalidity of the financial promises that threaten destruction of the US, the doomsday alternative no longer serves as a worse alternative to war. This doesn't mean that balance of trade need not be reciprocated, just that the distortion introduced by money's misrepresentation once removed, will enable us doing so with valid stable measures manageable over more  flexibly negotiated periods of time and without the need for the vagaries of "austerity" i.e. managing risk without austerity.  Creditors will gladly accept, because a third world war risks either their subjugation in the case of a US victory,  or in the case of US defeat,  not being able to offset unprecedented damage incurred.   

Briefly:

  • Money in contracts has the function of measure i.e. measure of the value of goods and services. 

  • But treating money also as an asset subject to market supply and demand destroys its function of measure.

  • The balance of trade of the value of real goods and services can be measured* to reveal a truer more realistic "balance of trade".

  • Once a balance of trade in terms of valid (stable) measures of value has been established,  any outstanding balances on the part of any party can be honoured within negotiated periods of time that avoid the need for implementing damaging and debilitating "austerity".

To learn more of how to achieve this and your personal role see: You Have Been Served!

*The science of dynamical systems theory as applied to money,  provides a fully valid and relevant means for defining and specifying stable currency units
for the representation of value over time that economic and financial theory has shown to be incapable of providing. 

Break out of  "The Money PSYOP" and give your kids

a future they can be proud of you for by supporting the MSTA

 

 

A Tale Of The Seemingly Innocuous

By Marc Gauvin (c) 19/06/20223

Reproduction expressly granted provided attribution and original link are given.

 

There once was a family who unwittingly let in a tiny seemingly innocuous mouse like creature, that for its size and singular instance little was thought of it and soon the incident forgotten. Meanwhile the mouse frightened hid from them all.

The creature from hiding grew bigger and bigger and with stealth stole more and more of the household food, tore more and more of the linen and spoiled more and more flowers while leaving a more and more wretched odor and stains for others to clean.

The family members became irate as they bemoaned what had become of the home they once had. They formed alliances between them and demanded order be enforced on the others!

Those who cleaned and repaired the damage became intransigent to the rest and demanded servitude and privilege in exchange for keeping the order. All who made errors no matter how small and how few, were blamed for most if not all the many and bigger problems.

Conflict brew and transgressions multiplied to a head, until one morning the youngest infant playfully pulled on a protrusion from under the curtain, not knowing it was a tail! The mouse like creature now of monstrous size, let out a roaring squeak or squeaky roar and ran through and over the room for all to see. On its snout was the evidence of stolen food, on its paws that of ruined flowers and on its fur the threads of ruined linen. Quickly the oldest and wisest in the family rushed to the front door and when the giant mouse ran by, gave it a swift kick and watched it roll into the street and run off away in terror.

Since that day, the house returned to its former order and happiness and never again allowed any tiny mouse like creature to hide in their home for none to see.



Break out of  "The Money PSYOP" and give your kids

a future they can be proud of you for by supporting the MSTA

 

 

"Saving the Planet" or Survival and What about "Money"?

By Marc Gauvin (c) 27/08/2022

Reproduction expressly granted provided attribution and original link are given.

Isn't abundance having more than you strictly need? Can we speak of an "end of abundance" for the case where we no longer are able to sustain what we never really needed? If we have confused desire with need, technology with knowledge, subtle fallacy with truth and want with power, then isn't the problem one of a lack of truthfulness rather than of some dire circumstance?

Isn't it a question of realising that we really don't know what we are doing, instead of rationalising whatever we do as a sort of adaptation to motivate ourselves into doing "whatever it takes to survive"?

Consider the following:

Humanity didn't create itself, the universe did. So ultimately, we are not responsible for existing. What then is our true nature? Is it to be whatever we prove to be?

No other creature apologises for its nature, but simply pursues their natural impulses wherever those may lead, if it turns out that such brings them to extinction, then so be it,  they certainly won't be the first nor the last. 

The rate of net extinction of species, can only be calculated if we know the total numbers dynamically arising and dying. We are constantly discovering hundreds of new species every year.  In only 2018, 229 new species have been reported to have been discovered [1], that means that at that rate and over the last five centuries 114,500 new species potentially have been added, yet we have only detected the extinction of 900 species in those 5 centuries [2]. Even if that rate is an underestimate that is still only 1.8 species a year. 

No one can calculate the exact abundance of species and how they can adapt to human folly,  we are constantly being surprised in this regard, for example in the highly radio-active Chernobyl forest ecosystem,  species are flourishing [3].  Also,  nature never ceases to surprise us with its ability to build life into the most unsuspected environments, producing life-forms that tolerate all sorts of "impossible" conditions e.g. volcanic snails [4].

So maybe the problem isn't "saving the planet" maybe it is preventing our own extinction i.e. what all creatures do with what nature gives them, and all ultimately fail sooner or later i.e. become extinct as "99% of all species that have existed are now extinct." [2]

But what is our nature? Is our nature to walk around with gadgets providing feedback from our environment, while suppressing our innate biological impulse processing? Is our nature  to be subjugated to harebrained dogma and group think? Is it to be governed by an unstable money system of our own creation but that we never factor into our calculations, even though it is the single major influence on our behaviour,  is that system here to ensure we become what we are "meant to be" i.e. gadget addicted geeks?

Is our penchant to "understand" our environment beyond immediate direct biological responses really our "nature"? The vast majority of mankind are not number wise and find themselves stifled by science and so called "progress" rather than feeling enabled, they are enslaved by progress more than they are freed. And the notion that "progress" and technology provides for mankind's success is simply a self-serving argument because it cannot factor in how we would otherwise have evolved. How do we really know that we are better off than how we might have otherwise evolved? Was our exodus from the paleolithic into the neolithic a fortuitous step towards a more meaningful "survival". Or was it a lethal step into collective enslavement and stupidity,  sealing our premature extinction as "the transition to agriculture had an overall negative impact on human oral health, increased the incidence of infectious disease and nutritional deficiencies, and contributed to an overall reduction in human stature."? [5]

What we do know for sure, is that what we are currently doing is not sustainable and our survival is threatened more by what we are doing as opposed to by what we aren't doing. The question is what of what we are doing needs to go?  Or should we continue trying to control the Universe (i.e. just do more) to compensate for our erred behaviour?  Shouldn't we instead be focused on why we are doing what we are doing? 

Currently a tiny percentage of humans are dictating that our nature and behaviour is wrong and if we do not deny our impulses by building and doing more to restrain the effect of our behaviour, we are doomed to extinction.  But what if the solution is modifying the behaviour of just one or our own systems not imposed by nature? To understand which system(s) must go,  we would need to apply our "systems science" to all relevant systems i.e. is it the SI system of units that is causing our erratic behaviour or is it some other system, like perhaps our money system?

One thing we will find is always missing in all these dictates and so called "science", is a thorough scientific analysis of "money" as a system.  Why? Is it because our otherwise "sages" are so subdued by that system [6] that they fear discovering its affect on them? Is it that they might find that their relationship with the world through money satisfies their immediate impulses in a way that they do not want to change?

Wouldn't omitting such a thorough analysis invalidate their dictates? Isn't it a massive failure of negligence on their part to model "reality" and just happen not to include the money system and its systemic (system wide) effects i.e. effects that override any human behaviour under its yoke?

Ask these so called "experts", if according to their analyses, the money system is "passive" in the formal systems science sense of the term. If it is active (stable or unstable) ask what are its systemic effects on society when its imperatives are assumed by rote and by most all [7]? 

If they refuse to answer, then you know that they are not being sufficiently thorough commensurate with their mandate and just like most of the rest of humanity, they are simply vying to satisfy their immediate impulses. Then all this business of "saving the planet" turns out to be just a ploy for some to ensure exclusive privilege and consideration over others. 

Notice, that if funding were not skewed,  UN officials weren't earning tax free six figure salaries plus travel and living expenses, there would be no UN let alone any IPCC.   Moreover, if the money system were Passive, there would be none of the many systemic issues that depend on the current money system to exist and that are in one way or other,  seen as threatening life itself.  I leave figuring out how many of such issues depend on money to come about to the reader as an exercise.

[1]https://earthsky.org/earth/new-species-2018/

[2]https://ourworldindata.org/extinctions#how-many-species-have-gone-extinct

[3]https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/how-chernobyl-has-become-unexpected-haven-wildlife

[4]https://earthandhuman.org/know-about-volcano-snails/

[5]https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?httpsredir=1&article=1186&context=nebanthro

[6]https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

[7]https://mrcenter.info/Doc/ConferencePapers/2020/MRC%202020%20A%20systems%20approach%20to%20money_4122020%20rev2_17.01.2021.pdf



Break out of  "The Money PSYOP" and give your kids

a future they can be proud of you for by supporting the MSTA

 

 

Passive vs Non-passive Money - Raging Inferno Analogy

By Marc Gauvin (c) 5/09/2021

Reproduction expressly granted provided attribution and original link are given.

 

"While both share common knowledge, the problem of building a passive system is not the same as that of cancelling or containing the dynamics of an existing non-passive system."

You have a raging fire, you know the cause of the fire and how to put it out. You also know that the world would be better without the fire. So, do you:

1) Put out the fire or:

2) Build a model of a world without a fire amidst the fire to convince people of the virtues of a world without the menace of a raging inferno?

Remember, that while you're building the model, the fire continues to rage unabated and if you manage to build a semblance of a fire free model along side it, you still have the same problem you had at the onset of having to put out the now greater raging inferno. So, how does building a fire free model impact the fire?

What is it that prevents people from facing the raging fire head on from the onset? If all the undeniable proofs that a fire is not a good idea and how it can be put out easily, doesn't convince them to put it out, how will producing a fire free model amidst the now bigger and more daunting fire somehow convince them to put out the inferno?

What is a fire free model? Can it exist within a raging inferno or must it be created in isolation of any fire? Who can afford to create such a cocoon in which to exemplify fire free life? Will that experience be exclusive to a small number or as common place as life in the midst of a raging inferno? What does the project of building a fire free model teach us about putting out a fire, beyond preventing fire?

The truth is that if we have the knowledge to build a fire free model, we must understand fire enough to know how to put it out in the first place, right? So why would we choose to build a fire free model in the midst of a raging fire instead of directly putting out the fire? The answer is we either don't have a clue about fires or we are somehow suicidal.

The parallel between our current money system and the above raging fire analogy lies in recognising that both are unstable non-passive systems. As such and given the conditions, both share the same boundless dynamics converting what they touch into fuel for their boundless propagation, which is why both are highly contagious. Therefore, building a passive model is only possible in isolation of any non-passive system. Which means that building a passive model without first cancelling the non-passive system is a chimera, as it does nothing to address the propagation of the non-passive system.

While both share common knowledge, the problem of building a passive system is not the same as that of cancelling or containing the dynamics of an existing non-passive system.

Let's then get our priorities straight, do we want to directly deal with the raging money system and make it passive or are we going to let it continue while we unsuccessfully try to build a stable model amidst its boundless and incessant contagiousness?

The really sad thing is, that given some basic knowledge most all can learn, dealing with the raging money system is far easier than those without that knowledge can imagine and certainly far more relevant than any other action we can take. 

Support the MSTA Resolutions.


 



Break out of  "The Money PSYOP" and give your kids

a future they can be proud of you for by supporting the MSTA

 

Additional information