The Equation That Drives The Modern Financial System: M = M + i

-

Abstract

This article examines the equation M=M, a critique of the usurious equation M=M+i, which underpins modern financial systems. While M=M+i reflects imbalance, falsehood, and perpetual debt, M=M embodies sufficiency, truth, and completeness. This principle aligns with theological concepts of divine self-sufficiency and philosophical notions of identity, such as Aristotle's A=A. By returning to these foundational truths, we can restore balance to economic and moral systems.

Introduction
Civilization is driven by principles, whether explicit or implicit, and these principles shape our economies, values, and interactions. One such principle, hidden within the foundations of our financial systems, is the equation M=M+i Here, M represents a monetary asset, and i represents interest or the additional value extracted through lending. While this equation promises growth, it generates imbalance, falsehood, and systemic exploitation.

In contrast, the equation M=M represents a profound alternative: balance, truth, and sufficiency. This article explores the implications of M=M, contrasting it with M=M+i, and situates it within theological and philosophical frameworks to reveal its deeper significance.

1. The Equation of Usury: M=M+i

1.1 An Unequal Equation
The inequality inherent in M=M+i reflects the nature of usury. By adding i, the lender demands repayment of more than the borrower initially received. This imbalance is the source of continuous exploitation, as it compels debtors to give more than they have.

1.2 A Growth Equation
The interest i represents a demand for perpetual growth. In real terms, this requires constant borrowing, resource extraction, or productivity increases to meet escalating debt obligations. Such a system is unsustainable, as it ignores the finite nature of resources and human labor.

1.3 A False Equation
At its core, M=M+i is false. M does not and cannot equal M+i, as the interest i represents value conjured from nothing. This is a counterfeit form of creativity, generating wealth without corresponding labor, input, or reality.

2. The Balanced Alternative: M=M

2.1 The Meaning of M=M
In contrast to M=M+i, the equation M=M affirms balance and truth. It reflects the idea that assets should represent their real, intrinsic value, without artificial inflation through interest. M=M is both mathematically and morally consistent.

2.2 Implications for Economics
Adopting M=M as a principle would eliminate the systemic imbalances caused by usury. Debt cycles would end, and economic systems would be grounded in tangible assets and equitable exchanges, fostering sustainability and fairness.

3. Theological and Philosophical Implications

3.1 Theological Reflection: Yahweh as M=M
The equation M=M parallels the biblical name of God, Yahweh, often translated as “I am who I am.” This name signifies divine sufficiency, self-existence, and completeness. Just as God is whole and unchanging, M=M reflects a truth that does not depend on external additions or distortions.

3.2 Philosophical Insight: Aristotle’s A=A
This theological truth aligns with Aristotle’s principle of identity: A=A. Aristotle’s formulation asserts that a thing is itself—complete, sufficient, and consistent with its nature. Just as A=A affirms the integrity of reality, M=M affirms the sufficiency of economic value as it truly exists.

By contrast, M=M+i represents a violation of this principle. The addition of i introduces a falsity—a claim that something exists when it does not. This is not merely an economic lie but a philosophical one, undermining the very fabric of identity and reality.

3.3 Moral Failure of M=M+i
The falsity of M=M+i extends beyond mathematics. It fosters moral corruption:

  • Theft: Taking more than what is given.
  • Idolatry: Valuing wealth over truth.
  • Exploitation: Living at the expense of others.
    These moral failures mirror the philosophical error of denying identity and the theological sin of rejecting divine sufficiency.

4. A Path Forward: Restoring Balance

4.1 Eliminating Usury
The solution to the imbalance of M=M+i lies in eliminating usury. This means banning lending at interest, forgiving debts, and grounding economies in tangible, real-world assets rather than speculative or fiat currencies.

4.2 Embracing Sufficiency
Returning to M=M is not only an economic shift but a moral and spiritual one. It requires accepting sufficiency over greed, balance over exploitation, and truth over falsehood. This transformation echoes the wisdom of both theology and philosophy: to live in harmony with reality as it is.

Conclusion
The equation M=M+i has shaped our civilization, embedding inequality, unsustainability, and falsehood into the global financial system. In contrast, M=M offers a vision of balance, truth, and sufficiency. This principle, grounded in both theological (Yahweh’s “I am who I am”) and philosophical (Aristotle’s A=A) traditions, challenges us to realign our systems with the integrity of reality. By rejecting the false promises of usury and embracing the completeness of M=M, we can restore moral, economic, and spiritual balance to our world.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Zachary Moore v. Alliant Credit Union et al. (2025) Affirmative Opinion in the Voice of Justice Alito

-
Image
  Supreme Court of the United States Zachary Moore v. Alliant Credit Union et al. Opinion of the Court by the voice of Justice Alito Delivered January 14, 2025 Today, this Court renders a decision of profound constitutional and societal importance. At issue is whether the foreclosure proceedings initiated by Alliant Credit Union against Mr. Zachary Moore—based on a mortgage loan derived from fiat currency—violated his constitutional rights under the Fifth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments. This case also raises broader questions about the legality of a monetary system that facilitates perpetual debt cycles through fiat currency and usury. After careful consideration, we hold that the foreclosure proceedings, as applied to Mr. Moore, constitute an unconstitutional deprivation of his rights to property and due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Further, we find that the systemic exploitation inherent in the fiat currency system and its application to the facts of...
Read more

Citing RICO Violations to stop unlawful debt collections

-
Who is Zach Moore? and what to know about my movement If you’re reading this, take it as a call to prepare—for yourself, your family, and the world around you. At the heart of my movement is a simple but powerful truth:  any contract secured with a lie, or a claim not backed by anything real (like the U.S. dollar and debt), cannot be enforced.  Moreover, those who attempt to collect on these fraudulent contracts are committing crimes and are liable to RICO charges for perpetuating a system built on deception. I’m Zachary Moore, and I’m leading a movement to destroy the U.S. dollar, bankrupt billionaires, and end the tyranny of usury. I grew up in a trailer in Alabama, surrounded by the poverty and oppression that debt creates. I worked my way out, earning $550,000 a year as a top sales consultant, but in 2023, I realized I was part of the problem—a system built on lies, fiat currency, and the exploitation of human labor. So, I walked away. I quit my lucrative job, defaulted on...
Read more

Response to Alliant Credit Union

-
  Re: Loan Number XXXX To whom it may concern, My name is Zachary Moore, owner of the property at [address redacted]. I received a letter in the mail from Alliant Credit Union dated December 15, 2023 citing information regarding a mortgage contract between myself and Alliant. I am challenging the validity of this contract.  As you know, in order for a contract to be valid, both parties must put up valid property for consideration. Without consideration, no contract can be lawfully valid.  This property must be rightfully owned by each party.  In the case of Alliant, the money loaned would need to be an asset on Alliant’s balance sheet prior to closing. As the loanee, I put up my own property for valid consideration. I put up a promissory note representing my ownership of my work and labor, a down payment of nearly $100,000, and title to the property at [address redacted] What property did Alliant put up? Please provide evidence that Alliant provided me, the loaner wi...
Read more