Why the Challenge?
I have been looking for someone for some time to finally put an end to my ordeal regarding the veracity of my claims for funding Government through Borrowing rather than Taxation
I have over the years expended much time on developing and refining the fundamentals of that claim. I am tired of the consumptive effort, the ridicule that my claims bring from so many quarters within and without higher learning, and the general silence with which so many usually garrulous economists and financial people greet the idea.
The sacrifices made in explaining a very simple idea that to me is so obvious has become unbearable. I have done all I can do. There is nothing more to refine. The rest is up to the critical nature of those knowledgeable people wishing to involve themselves in the debate. The whole of present practice in public finance is facing a challenge that none it seems wish to face.
If I be right, then Taxation will be a thing of the past, a blessing for us all. If the flaw should arrive, I would consider the relinquishment of $10,000, not a burden, but rather a great relief in finding resolution of the argument I have made.
Who Determines Whether the Challenge is Successful?
There is no need for an excessive and bureaucratic waste of resources and time on independent or mutually agreeable third parties, panels, judges, committees, and lawyers, of whom most will have only limited knowledge of the novel arguments and idea, to adjudge a purported flaw in a 15 line proof comprising simple arithmetic operations.
Stipulating for prior possession of the funds or through escrow accounts I also reject. I cannot remit the promised funds to an organization or individual before a flaw has been identified and certified. This offer has been made to many people. Ceding these funds for an indeterminate period will leave me unable to rightfully advance them should a flaw come from another quarter. I cannot agree to such onerous, bureaucratic, and vague terms.
I am about the only person proficient in the matters encompassed by the idea. So I must be the judge and jury regarding the yea or nay of the proposed flaw. I shall certainly make every effort to examine the flaw presented, exposing its errant nature should there be one. I shall also give the author and audience some measure of say in whether his argument for a flaw defeats the proof. And I shall always entertain the truth and concede error where error has been demonstrated.
The successful challenger has my word that he shall receive the funds should the flaw be decisively identified.
In What Currency is the Prize Denominated?
Canadian currency with a guaranteed exchange of $1 CDN to $0.80 US. So the recipient may take $10,000 CDN or $8,000 US.
Where is the money?
The money is liquid and sitting in 2 accounts at a Canadian bank.
How do I collect the money?
In whatever manner the successful challenger should wish. By money order or certified cheque if desired. Or I can deliver it myself.
Is There a flaw?
This proof declares with a facility unknown in present economic theory that the financial benefit for a community using Taxation to fund public expenditure is nil.
I have sought ought a flaw by sending the proof to many learned men and women in this field throughout North America and beyond. Of the few that read through the idea and proof, of which the conclusion, if it should stand, obliterates the essential theories and practices of present public finance, none have found the flaw. They have certainly identified deficiencies in my explanations, which I have remedied to its present form, but never an irrevocable flaw.
I do not believe a flaw exists.
The present state of public finance is primitive and in need of radical reformation to eradicate these obsolete conventions. Is this the idea to fulfill that profound and earnest need?
If the financial benefit of Taxation is nil or nearly so, as I have alleged and diligently confirmed, then I have some powerful allies. God himself would certainly be pleased. I am sure he must deplore the relentless plunder of the industrious and prudent by those that will blindly squander such carefully cultivated fruits. Taxpayers everywhere should also rejoice. And those inclined to science and reason should in reflection find the resulting bounty elicited from this terse proof inordinately beneficial and vindicating.
On the other side, one finds a system offensively parasitic and destructive. Neither God nor Science ever intended this horror.
An assurance of error is not a demonstration of error. Do not ask me to read through entire papers in search of the proverbial needle in the haystack. Cite the paper and demonstrate with the relevant passage where I have gone wrong. Claims of the existence of a flaw in the proof or the wholesale citation of a paper as material for that assertion does not produce the actual flaw.
For Further Queries or Comments…