*Čitajte na srpskom
*

The King turns to his Vizier and poses a question:

The European League proposes for us to join their economic alliance and adopt their money. What are the benefits versus the detractions?

The Vizier, a European League spy, was uncomfortable, certainly not able to speak freely. To escape the question he said:

Let us ask the Jester.

The Jester:

A king’s corrupt accountant raises a sum from 2,000 to 3,000 and calls this a 50% increase. Then, this same person cuts the sum of 3,000 by one half to arrive at 1,500 and this is called a 50% decrease.

But the 50% increased number can be cut 33-1/3% to arrive at the initial sum of 2,000? Suddenly, like magic, 500 has vanished? Where did it go?

A 50% increase cannot be reversed and equal a 50% decrease in this problem without a deceit, no different to altering the method where reducing 3,000 by 50% equals 1,500 and increasing the 1,500 by 50% equals 2,250; wherein to make the percentages match in actuality and keep the lie out of the numbers should require a 50% increase of 1,500 is 1,500 because the sum of 1,500 becomes precisely 50% of the 3,000.

Would not the more honest approach beg to work with the end sums (actual outcomes) only, where 2,000 can only become 3,000 by a 33-1/3 percentage increase of what had been 2,000 becoming 3,000? In this case a 50% reduction can actually amount to 1,500 without a lie.

If indeed, in practical applications, 50% should bring us to 3,000 from 1,500 but the 50% is labelled 750, arriving at 2,250, into whose pocket did the other 750 potentially vanish? Is the problem semantics only? Or does the European League’s “Transcendent Corruption” accounting math work in a manner similar to method this problem identifies when, for instance, making their fiat currency’s ‘amount in circulation’ grow and diminish or the public tax monies appear and vanish? The ‘assignment of percentage values’ in the European League’s math would appear to allow for nearly any chicanery presented to the King and his people to become a de facto ‘fait accompli’ in ‘good faith’ no matter the sum’s disposition!

The King:

Who can vouch for this?!

The Jester:

Why it is the European League’s spies, Your Majesty, as they state so clearly for you in their many reports’ disclaimer:

*“Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on … information which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents”*

The King:

Turns a murderous expression towards The Vizier…

*

Illustration: Rand Paul, er, I meant Danny Kay in the film The Court Jester (Paramount)