IF this proposition indeed accounts for any veritable issue, then the root idea behind this proposition is ultimately and inherently that if we produce and earn and spend all the faster… we can somehow attend to the only veritable issue at the root of all the downstream consequences the advocates of this proposition conceive. The root cause nonetheless of those consequences is perpetual multiplication of faux debt, suffered in an implicit obligation to sustain a vital circulation by a perpetual escalation of faux borrowing.
The truth is, even in the days of cash, we have already had the means TO EXCHANGE “money” (obfuscated currency) virtually immediately.
But in the only legitimate world of production, the [hysterical proposition of] “velocity” of *earning* is inherently limited by the existing state of the evolving means of production. All the faster we might be able TO EXCHANGE money then has no capacity whatsoever to expedite THE EXCHANGE of what is only intentionally obfuscated money.
In accord with this preposterous set of ideas then, periods of time have even experimented with attempts to compel exchange of “money.” But (nonetheless) still, NO ONE can earn “money” any faster than they can produce — and neither can they justly deserve to do so, for earnings are inherently coupled to or dependent *upon* production.
ALL any proposition or increasing “velocity” CAN POSSIBLY accomplish then, is a relatively negligible and meaningless reduction of the time over which *the exchange* aspect of “circulation” transpires.
What however can this possibly mean then, as the ultimate exchange rate of (obfuscated) “money” IS ALREADY virtually equal to the rate of production — AND THE PROBLEM — WHICH “VELOCITY” CAN NEVER SOLVE THEN, IS INSTEAD THE VERY SAME INTENTIONAL, CRIMINAL, AND TREASONOUS OBFUSCATION OF OUR CURRENCY (WHICH THE SAME BASTARDS WHO PRETEND TO ADVOCATE SOLUTION IN VELOCITY, MEAN ON THE CONTRARY *NOT* TO RESOLVE?
Do you think people are truly incapable of understanding these facts if they yet pretend “to understand” that “velocity” poses virtues which instead are virtually impossible?
Or is the reason they uniformly exclude MPE™ (to which many of them in fact mean to answer), instead that they already understand that the singular solution is already proven in the propositions of MPE™ — and that they mean instead to fraudulently impress the public that “banking” addresses what they purport fraudulently are “banking’s only problems”?