Any upvotes for this comment should be counted as votes against the "theorem". If the OP decides to give me the money, I will give it for the further maintenance of Less Wrong.
I'm gonna summarize the negative case: This guy acts like someone who thinks "theorems" can be settled by voting or "recruiting the leaders of physics". Further, his "theorem" claims that four people who are famous in the field of money, have made a fundamental error in the correct way to lend money. I suggest that instead, it is the "theorem" which is incorrect.
The theorem is straightforwardly false as stated because it says the fact is inferable from common knowledge, but it's not even understandable from common knowledge:
If a claim cannot be understood by common knowledge, it certainly cannot be proven using only common knowledge.
QED.
Maybe this sounds cheap, but I don't think it is. I think it's a real and valid refutation of your theorem. If you had stated it otherwise, then maybe it wouldn't be, but you didn't.
If that's a theorem, what are the axioms and permitted inference rules?
Strict formal logic might struggle to infer that those people even exist, let alone anything about the unobservable contents of their minds.
But I assume there's no $10k on offer for generic skepticism, so the question becomes "What would be deemed valid and satisfying by the person posing the problem?" - which is a futile tarpit if they're motivated to disagree.
It is inferable from common knowledge that Jerome Powell, Mark Carney, Warren Buffet and Jamie Dimon do not understand what the unreal part of nominal interest is (because if they did, they would insist on not charging it)
I am a complete novice to this topic, having simply skimmed your resources and some other relevant materials during the past hour. But there are two claims in your proposition: Powell et al are unfamiliar with a particular economic concept, and if they were familiar with the concept, they would favor a different policy.
It seems very possible that they don't know the concept, as it seems to be a very particular perspective on an issue which is known in economics (whether one could and should strive to remove the effects of inflation from interest rates?) but has never managed to be a central policy option. But the part that seems most open to "refutation", is the claim that if they understood this concept, they would insist on different policy. From what I see in your materials, there are already examples of debate in the economics literature, in which the kind of indexation favored by you (and by others including some eminent names) was rejected by eminent economic thinkers, e.g. Walter Bagehot. So it seems possible to understand the concept and not embrace its implications.
I offer $10,000 to the first person to refute a supposed theorem - judgment of refutation to be by vote on Less Wrong, one month (to allow ample time for discussion) after either party affirms that in their view real proof has been presented and further debate would be pointless.
The theorem:
Those interested in attempting refutation will find useful links by exploring my presence here. Attempted refutations may be submitted as replies to this post; date of reply establishes priority.
This post will gradually expand into a history lesson, extending at least four centuries into the past.
The purpose of the maneuver is to deliver news, urgently needed by the world, for which no other channel exists. My Medium page (linked in Mortgage post) describes various earlier attempts, including one in 1995 which involved recruiting the leaders of physics to announce a catastrophic failure of the supposed science of economics which proved it to be a counterfeit science.