, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Lets begin with the following quote from what mainstream economics teaches in schools & universities about inflation, where the consensus view is that a long sustained period of inflation is caused by money supply growing faster than the rate of economic demand or purported growth.

“inflation occurs—that is, the purchasing power of the dollar shrinks—to the extent that the nominal supply of dollars grows faster than the real demand to hold dollars”
End quote:


The question begs to be asked is how can the supply of dollars grow faster than the demand to hold dollars if the real demand requires you to pay *principal + interest* out of a volume of circulation (nominal supply) only ever comprised of some remaining *principal* at most.?

In other words how can inflation rationally occur if that nominal supply of money never grows any further than to the extent of principal only & any demand to hold dollars requires you to pay *principal + interest* out of a supply of dollars only ever comprised of principal?

*Nominal* by definition is *very small* or *very least*, so nominal supply of money means very small or the least supply of money.

In this light the mainstream definition of any occurrence of inflation is an oxymoron & a contradiction in itself, simply because it suggests an already deficient money supply is growing faster than the demand, yet any possible growth of the money supply faster than demand is clearly a rational impossibility, considering the demand to hold dollars requires you to pay *principal + interest* out of a remaining volume of circulation comprised of some remaining *principal* at most, which is logically DEFLATION & the very reason why the purchasing power or value of the dollar shrinks, where the overall money supply or circulation is devalued primarily due to an unsustainable terminal escalation of falsified debt caused by the volumetric impropriety of interest (perpetual deflation) in all our personal falsified debts.

Moreover its just assumed by mainstream economics central banks create new money to purchase government bonds which purportedly increases the money supply in relation to any increase in federal debt or subsequent federal expenditure, however this is claerly unfounded & simply not true, firstly because like all other banks central banks neither risk or give up consideration of value to otherwise justify its pretended creation of money, much less any purported loan, & secondly as a result the central bank is instead either directly or indirectly purchasing government bonds with already stolen money, formerly created as every new sum of principal in our own personal falsified debts (private debt), only to be stolen in purported loans plus a further sum of principal again in unwarranted interest & subsequently laundered out of circulation, via what we are all led to believe is inter-bank lending & ultimately into possession of central bank, which can only then purchase government bonds, NOT with new money, but instead already stolen money.


It shits me to tears that fools just assume inflation or hyperinflation is the only cause of price inflation , when inflation (circulatory) is non-existent under any interest based monetary system.

Its mass insanity when these bankers fools see prices go up & when the value of their money clearly goes down the primary school mathematics is thrown completely out the window, which otherwise proves mass deflation due to the added cost of interest paid out of circulation above the sum of principal that logically artificially inflates prices to steal all that much further from us just spending money..

Its an oxymoron to just assume any increase in price is due to inflation, which circulatory inflation is not even existent under banking.

OXYMORON: Devaluation = Inflation.

Out of any nations entire money circulation only 3-7% cash & the rest is digits on a ledger or computer, so even if a nation printed 100% cash equaling all the ledger money LOGICALLY you still cant rationally or ethically have inflation either.

Its madness to even suggest inflation is even mathematically possible, because often in all these purported cases of hyperinflation the cash is subject to re-denomination in the end, which tells anyone with half a brain that you often have the same amount of notes circulating, but those notes are worth the same (BOTH DEVALUED) in regards to what those notes actually purchase.

For example If the $1 note purchases a $1 loaf of bread before re-denomination that same note re-denominated to $100 still purchases a loaf of bread regardless if that loaf of bread is priced at $1 or $100. Keeping in mind if you were earning $1 a week before re-denomination you are earning $100 a week after re-denomination, however what transpires up until re-denomination is an artificial increase in price of that loaf of bread from $1 to $100, due to the added cost of interest. So re-denomination corrects the true value (devalued due to interest) of the monetary circulation to reflect the artificial increase in price.

What eludes the typical bankers fool blinded by greed & desire is the higher denomination on the re-denominated note itself does not mean inflation, much less hyperinflation, but instead the polar opposite which is perpetual, monumental, deflation, or mass devaluation of all money & property, simply because the overall money supply or circulation in all that it represents has been devalued primarily due to an unsustainable terminal escalation of falsified debt caused by the volumetric impropriety of interest (perpetual deflation) in all our personal falsified debts.

The question begs to be asked when all this comes to fruition in Australia & it will, mathematically guaranteed under banking,,, where are you all going to run Aussie?

David Ardron.
Advocate / mentor, Co-founder, Co-director – Mathematically Perfected Economy™ (au)