Nobody decided to "end free discussion."   The owners of this list extended
the opportunity for people to set up their own mailing lists and announce
them here, which some have done.

If you don't like their decision, you can set up your own list and announce
it here.

The owners of the list are not obligated to run the list in a way that we
demand.  The list is run on *their* time and energy.  People who want that
environment can set up their own and announce them here.

Frankly, they are being responsible my recognizing the limitations of their
intended scope and final project. It's not easy to "end" or drastically
change a community.

Solutions to all complaints about the change in format: Start your own list.

On Nov 28, 2007 5:47 PM, John C. Turmel <bc726@...> wrote:

>   >#8471From: "cwilli5210" <CWilli5210@>
> > >Date: Mon Oct 29, 2007 1:21 pm
> > >Subject: Future of IJCCR discussion group cwilli5210
> >
> > CW: Dear IJCCR discussion group members,
> > As Editor of the IJCCR journal for some ten years, and also
> > hands-off moderator of this Group for the same time, I would
> > like to announce that the new Editorial Board of the journal
> > has decided that this 'discussion list' is not fulfilling
> > its original aim, which was to be a forum for discussion of
> > the issues arising in the journal articles.
> >
>
> > JCT: So how many people made the decision to end free
> > discussion? And who were in on the decision?
>
> Jct: We're still waiting to find out who was in on the decision to end
> discussion in this group. I know the members had no say. So who did?
>
>
>



--
--
Rich Vázquez, CISSP, CISA


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>#8471From: "cwilli5210" <CWilli5210@>
> >Date: Mon Oct 29, 2007 1:21 pm
> >Subject: Future of IJCCR discussion group cwilli5210
>
> CW: Dear IJCCR discussion group members,
> As Editor of the IJCCR journal for some ten years, and also
> hands-off moderator of this Group for the same time, I would
> like to announce that the new Editorial Board of the journal
> has decided that this 'discussion list' is not fulfilling
> its original aim, which was to be a forum for discussion of
> the issues arising in the journal articles.
>

> JCT: So how many people made the decision to end free
> discussion? And who were in on the decision?

Jct: We're still waiting  to find out who was in on the decision to end
discussion in this group. I know the members had no say. So who did?

My reply is at the end.
----------------------------------------

Myro,

If that source is the only one you have it is pretty
flimsy I need another more authorative text please.
Besides, if banks were to create money as you say how
do they coordinate their expenses to cover the all the
outstanding interest at all times and for all loans?

You are very far from proving anything.

Marc
---------------------------------------------------

[Reply]  What you call "flimsy" is written by a Ph.D.
in economics, who at the time was a professor of
economics at an accredited university.  The burden of
proof is however on you, who is promoting a crank,
non-standard theory that interest can't be paid
because supposedly the only money in existence is from
the principal of loans.  Whereas, the truth is that in
actuality the banks are spending money into
circulation for the goods and services they receiving,
plus dividends to their stockholders, and salaries and
wages to their employees.  Non-banks do this with the
accommodation of the banks.  The banks don't need the
accommodation of the banks because they are the banks.
  This is standard theory.  So it is YOU who is
expected to provide at least ONE citation from an
authoritative source that says that the standard
theory is not true, I should think, for you to retain
even a shred of credibility.  I challenged you to do
this on November 19, to which you have not replied.

As to the problem of coordination, there is no problem
at all.  If the banks had to spend exactly the amount
they are receiving for interest and other fees, and
not a penny more or less, there might be some
difficulty in doing so, to make it exact.  But the
banks, as is generally the case with all firms, are
spending more than enough to enable the public to
purchase goods and services in return from them at a
profit.  The differential is reflected in positive
account balances in the hands of the public.  It is
called the wheel of commerce in reciprocal trade, in
the modern creditary economy, demarcated between firms
and consumers.


Myro


      
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Hello,

I'd like to announce the publication of two new papers in the IJCCR,
available for download.

http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/ijccr/

The details and abstracts are included below.

Gill






Towards A Knowledge Economy

Claudia I. Carrillo F., Josep Lluis de la Rosa, Agustí Canals

International Journal of Community Currency Research
Vol 11 (2007) pp.84-97
ISSN 1325-9547

Abstract

This paper provides a preliminary formulation of a new currency based on
knowledge. Through a literature review of alternative currencies, various
properties and benefits are selected that we hope will enable such a
currency to be created. Nowadays not only money but also knowledge is
necessary to do business. For instance, knowledge about markets and
consumers is highly valuable but difficult to achieve, and even more
difficult to store, transport or trade. The basic premise of this proposal
is a knowledge measurement pattern that is formulated as a new alternative
social currency. Therefore, it is an additional means of contributing to the
worldwide evolution of a knowledge society. It is intended as a currency to
facilitate the conservation and storage of knowledge, and its organization
and categorization, but mainly its exploitation and transference.




Exploring Gender Divisions In A Community Currency System: The Case Of The
Barter Network In Argentina

Francisca Pereyra

International Journal of Community Currency Research
Vol 11 (2007) pp.98-111
ISSN 1325-9547

Abstract

This article aims to explore the ways in which Community Currency Schemes
(CCS), as markets, are permeated by other influential social orders, in this
case that of gender. The paper therefore looks at the way in which gender
structures may be reproduced or reflected in these kinds of markets and how
they sometimes acquire certain features depending on the CCS in question.
The paper is based on a particular case study, the Argentine experience with
a CCS - known as the ‘Barter Network’ - and is structured around three main
issues. The first analytical section deals with a characteristic of the
Barter Network shared by many other CCS: the preponderance of female (or the
scarcity of male) participants. Thus, the reasons for the gender composition
of the Barter Network are examined. The second section explores the way in
which, through its development, this CCS generated its own gendered
structures. Hence, the dynamics of certain trade practices which imply
differential returns for men and women are examined. Finally, the article
considers the degree of empowerment that participation in this sphere may
have implied for female participants.



---------------------------------------
Dr Gill Seyfang
RCUK Academic Fellow
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK

tel: +44 (0) 1603 592956
personal: http://www.uea.ac.uk/~e175/
department: http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/

Editor, International Journal of Community Currency Research:
http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/ijccr/




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 10:29:26AM +0000, Pablo 88 wrote:

> Thank you Hugh. I have subscribed.
>
> If this is not the only option then do you, or any other subscribers
> to IJCCR, know of the other options? Many good communications have
> occurred here and many more are still to come.

LETS specific discussion is welcome on econ-lets:

http://jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/econ-lets.html

Mrsdev was originally setup to discuss the Multi-Registry
System, but seemed to have become a place for CC software
developers and CC software development.

http://copsewood.net/mailman/listinfo/mrsdev

Ccdiscuss is intended to cover other types of community
currency including LETS.

>
> No doubt there has been some discussion on this change but I for one
> feel it is in error. Once something is established and set it is
> always a mistake to change it. If IJCCR wanted an announcement list,
> they could have easily added one under their Yahoo acct.

It isn't an error for someone whose purpose is to provide an
academic journal called IJCCR to become aware that maintaining
an email list discussion which covers a related topic is no
longer relevant to the journal and its name, unless you feel that
the people involved in the list discussion or interested in this
have a claim on the continuing effort of the person involved in
setting it up and/or a right to continue using the same name
as the academic journal.

Personally I'm happy for Colin to use the IJCCR name more specifically
for the journal this refers to.

Sometimes a conversation that has taken place in a room for a while
gets stale, the janitor needs to close the building so he can go
home, and the conversation can then more productively be refocussed
in other venues.

Best wishes,
Richard.


>
> -- Pablo
>
> On Nov 27, 2007 11:26 AM, hugh barnard <hughbarnardlists@...> wrote:
> > Hi Pablo
> >
> > With Richard Kay's help, I've started one:
> >
> > http://copsewood.net/mailman/listinfo/ccdiscuss
> >
> > but it's probably not the only option. The 'live' date
> > for this list is 1st December which is when the ijccr
> > list is off-lined.
> >
> > Best regards Hugh

Thank you Hugh. I have subscribed.

If this is not the only option then do you, or any other subscribers
to IJCCR, know of the other options? Many good communications have
occurred here and many more are still to come.

No doubt there has been some discussion on this change but I for one
feel it is in error. Once something is established and set it is
always a mistake to change it. If IJCCR wanted an announcement list,
they could have easily added one under their Yahoo acct.

-- Pablo

On Nov 27, 2007 11:26 AM, hugh barnard <hughbarnardlists@...> wrote:
> Hi Pablo
>
> With Richard Kay's help, I've started one:
>
> http://copsewood.net/mailman/listinfo/ccdiscuss
>
> but it's probably not the only option. The 'live' date
> for this list is 1st December which is when the ijccr
> list is off-lined.
>
> Best regards Hugh

This looks fun and interesting, based on this blog post:

http://digitaldebateblogs.typepad.com/digital_money/2007/11/in-a-goldmine-t.html

Has anyone read it?

--
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -  search://"Daniel Reeves"

Myro,

If that source is the only one you have it is pretty flimsy I need another more
authorative text please.  Besides, if banks were to create money as you say how
do they coordinate their expenses to cover the all the outstanding interest at
all times and for all loans?

You are very far from proving anything.

Marc

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Myro Ashenopolitus
   To: ijccr@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 5:07 PM
   Subject: Replying to Gauvin: Re: [letssc] Fw: [ijccr] TURMEL: #5 Daniel Reeves
says interest is simple.


   I reply at the end.
   -----------------------------------

   Lee, Myro

   I am aware that the goal in good accounting is that
   all accounts balance to zero. Right now I am
   interested in Myro's statement:

   That Banks create money out of thin air to pay:

   "....dividends to their stockholders, ordinary
   business expenses for goods and services received, and
   when interest is credited as it accrues on deposit
   accounts."

   Can I have an authoritative source to support this
   statement?

   So, what are the implications of this statement?

   Marc
   -----------------------------------------------------

   [Reply] As to an authoritative source, one is from
   economics professor Edward Flaherty, which your mentor
   John Turmel has posted to his personal website:

   "In the real world banks must pay their employees, pay
   interest to their depositors, meet their other
   expenses, and purchase equipment. When the banking
   system does this, it spends into existence new
   'debt-free' money (debt-free in the sense that no one
   outside the banking system is required to obtain a new
   loan). In other words, the system creates a new demand
   deposit out of nothing, adding to the money supply."
   http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/dvirus1.htm

   The implications of the statement are that inasmuch as
   the premise to the "ten can't pay eleven" fallacy that
   money is created *only* when loans are granted is
   inherently false, the fallacy is thereby invalidated.

   Myro

   __________________________________________________________
   Be a better pen pal.
   Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.
http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I reply at the end.
-----------------------------------

Lee, Myro

I am aware that the goal in good accounting is that
all accounts balance to zero. Right now I am
interested in Myro's statement:

That Banks create money out of thin air to pay:

"....dividends to their stockholders, ordinary
business expenses for goods and services received, and
when interest is credited as it accrues on deposit
accounts."

Can I have an authoritative source to support this
statement?

So, what are the implications of this statement?

Marc
-----------------------------------------------------

[Reply]  As to an authoritative source, one is from
economics professor Edward Flaherty, which your mentor
John Turmel has posted to his personal website:

"In the real world banks must pay their employees, pay
interest to their depositors, meet their other
expenses, and purchase equipment. When the banking
system does this, it spends into existence new
'debt-free' money (debt-free in the sense that no one
outside the banking system is required to obtain a new
loan). In other words, the system creates a new demand
deposit out of nothing, adding to the money supply."
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/dvirus1.htm

The implications of the statement are that inasmuch as
the premise to the "ten can't pay eleven" fallacy that
money is created *only* when loans are granted is
inherently false, the fallacy is thereby invalidated.

Myro


      
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. 
http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/

My reply is at the end.
---------------------------------

Myro and Marc,

You are both missing or ignoring fact that
double-entry accounting is, by definition, always
net-zero and no money is really created. All
transactions are balanced with equal but opposite
entries in two accounts, including loan amounts and
including payments whether principal or interest,
business expenses, executive salaries, or anything
else. The sum of all parts of every transaction is
always zero. The sum of all accounts is also always
zero. It's the purpose of double-entry accounting.

Double-entry accounting
should long ago
have rendered obsolete
the money we know.

-Lee
-----------------------------------------------------

[Reply]  This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding
of the nature of double-entry accounting, what is
termed the "net to zero" fallacy.  It is true that in
double-entry accounting debits will always equal
credits, but the debits and credits are posted to
three different kinds of accounts--assets, liabilities
and capital--allowing the calculation of profit and
loss, an inherently non-"net to zero" phenomenon.
Double-entry accounting is the only known method for
calculating profit and loss in large organizations.

As to your assertion that "no money is created"
through double-entry accounting in the modern economy,
transaction account balances at banks function as
money for the vast majority of transactions, so when
banks credit transaction account balances for any
reason whatsoever, money is indeed being created,
notwithstanding the fact that within the books of the
banks, debits will always equal credits.

Myro


      
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Lee, Myro

I am aware that the goal in good accounting is that all accounts balance to
zero.  Right now I am interested in Myro's statement:

That Banks create money out of thin air to pay:

"....dividends to their stockholders, ordinary business expenses for goods and
services received, and when interest is credited as it accrues on deposit
accounts."

Can I have an authoritative source to support  this statement?

So, what are the implications of this statement?

Marc


   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Myro Ashenopolitus
   To: ijccr@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 6:09 AM
   Subject: Re: [letssc] Fw: [ijccr] TURMEL: #5 Daniel Reeves says interest is
simple.


   I reply at the end.
   ----------------------------------------

   Myro,

   You wrote:

   "You want to make the reason arbitrarily limited to
   loans, only, and disregard all other identifiable
   credits that banks make to deposit accounts."

   Wrong, I am only differentiating as you did i.e. the
   case where the credit is offset by a debit and the
   case when it is not. One of the cases where it is not
   is by your own admission when banks lend. What other
   cases are there?

   Marc
   -------------------------------------------

   [Reply] What other cases are there? When banks spend
   money into circulation for dividends to their
   stockholders, ordinary business expenses for goods and
   services received, and when interest is credited as it
   accrues on deposit accounts. In each of these cases
   deposit accounts are credited without corresponding
   deposit accounts being debited in the same amounts,
   exactly as is the case when loans are granted. The
   money supply in the hands of the public, as defined as
   including the sum total in aggregate deposit account
   balances, is thereby increased.

   Myro

   __________________________________________________________
   Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
   with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Pablo

With Richard Kay's help, I've started one:

http://copsewood.net/mailman/listinfo/ccdiscuss

but it's probably not the only option. The 'live' date
for this list is 1st December which is when the ijccr
list is off-lined.

Best regards Hugh


--- Pablo 88 <pablo88@...> wrote:

> Agreed.
>
> BTW, I understand that this list is soon to be no
> more. Is anything as
> yet planned to take up the slack and provide either
> a new email list
> or a forum?
>
> -- Pablo
>
>
> On Nov 25, 2007 3:01 PM, Marc Gauvin
> <gauvin@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > All,
> >
> >  And what they love most are people that suggest
> that there will be an
> > enumerate number of independent CCs as some like
> to suggest. That way there
> > will be no unified alternative to the prevailing
> exponential CC thus letting
> > it continue to devour backed by brut force all the
> wealth it finds in its
> > path with no opposition.
> >
> >  They also enjoy those that attempt to take simple
> concepts and turn them
> > into intricate esoteric system's creating a clique
> insider "in the know"
> > club that sound wise but are petty and foolish,
> pick and choose who gets to
> > get into the club on criteria that has no
> foundation other than the blessing
> > of a charismatic leader. But like vampires
> avoiding day light, they can be
> > blown away with a simple question that even
> knowing the true answer they
> > can't answer because it would blow away their
> cover.
> >
> >  Marc
> >
> >
> >  ----- Original Message -----
> >  From: Pablo 88
> >  To: Peter Hogwood
> >  Cc: ijccr@yahoogroups.com
> >  Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 1:37 AM
> >  Subject: Re: [ijccr] Liberty Dollar Raid
> >
> >  The raid on Liberty Dollar shows clearly how
> Govt's react (under the
> >  compelling influence of their financial handlers)
> to any system that
> >  could grow to pose a threat to the use of fiat
> money. Govt is
> >  effectively an arm of the global fiat financiers
> and will always do
> >  their bidding accordingly.
> >
> >  Any person still operating under the bogus idea
> that the US, or any of
> >  the other so-called advanced western economies,
> is a free country
> >  needs to take their ant-delusion tablets asap.
> >
> >  The fate of the Liberty Dollar likely awaits any
> organisation that
> >  could flourish with an effective money system and
> provide growing
> >  competition to the central banking cartel. I
> maintain that Lets
> >  fulfills a useful purpose for Govts and that they
> tolerate it just so
> >  long as it doesn't get too effective. Their
> toleration is based on the
> >  following:
> >
> >  1) Decent, idealistic people (I include myself,
> at times, amongst
> >  their number) are given a field in which they can
> expend their
> >  energies and suitably wear themselves out, always
> thinking they will
> >  achieve their goal. Govt's and their allies
> perpetuate this state of
> >  delusion by intermitantly showing an interest.
> Classic gatekeeping.
> >
> >  2) Govts can point to Lets and other systems and
> say "Look, you live
> >  in a free country because we let you do things
> like this".
> >
> >  3) The people entrapped in this arena always
> think that decency,
> >  logic, rational planning and an appeal to higher
> ideals such as
> >  economic justice will win in the end. This amuses
> the people in Govt
> >  and the central bank cartel because these people
> are fundamentally
> >  psychopathic and / or sociopathic.
> >
> >  In my view, those with the power to bring about
> honest and just money
> >  systems will never do so as taking that route
> will strip them of their
> >  power. These people are into dominance and little
> else. They are
> >  cunning, clever, manipulative, unfeeling and
> ruthless. Basically
> >  inhuman.
> >
> >  [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
> >
> >
> >
>


http://copsewood.net/mailman/listinfo/ccdiscuss

http://hughbarnard.org


       ______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Mail now has unlimited storage, which means you can have spam control and
more space for those important e-mails.
http://uk.mail.yahoo.com

Agreed.

BTW, I understand that this list is soon to be no more. Is anything as
yet planned to take up the slack and provide either a new email list
or a forum?

-- Pablo


On Nov 25, 2007 3:01 PM, Marc Gauvin <gauvin@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> All,
>
>  And what they love most are people that suggest that there will be an
> enumerate number of independent CCs as some like to suggest. That way there
> will be no unified alternative to the prevailing exponential CC thus letting
> it continue to devour backed by brut force all the wealth it finds in its
> path with no opposition.
>
>  They also enjoy those that attempt to take simple concepts and turn them
> into intricate esoteric system's creating a clique insider "in the know"
> club that sound wise but are petty and foolish, pick and choose who gets to
> get into the club on criteria that has no foundation other than the blessing
> of a charismatic leader. But like vampires avoiding day light, they can be
> blown away with a simple question that even knowing the true answer they
> can't answer because it would blow away their cover.
>
>  Marc
>
>
>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: Pablo 88
>  To: Peter Hogwood
>  Cc: ijccr@yahoogroups.com
>  Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 1:37 AM
>  Subject: Re: [ijccr] Liberty Dollar Raid
>
>  The raid on Liberty Dollar shows clearly how Govt's react (under the
>  compelling influence of their financial handlers) to any system that
>  could grow to pose a threat to the use of fiat money. Govt is
>  effectively an arm of the global fiat financiers and will always do
>  their bidding accordingly.
>
>  Any person still operating under the bogus idea that the US, or any of
>  the other so-called advanced western economies, is a free country
>  needs to take their ant-delusion tablets asap.
>
>  The fate of the Liberty Dollar likely awaits any organisation that
>  could flourish with an effective money system and provide growing
>  competition to the central banking cartel. I maintain that Lets
>  fulfills a useful purpose for Govts and that they tolerate it just so
>  long as it doesn't get too effective. Their toleration is based on the
>  following:
>
>  1) Decent, idealistic people (I include myself, at times, amongst
>  their number) are given a field in which they can expend their
>  energies and suitably wear themselves out, always thinking they will
>  achieve their goal. Govt's and their allies perpetuate this state of
>  delusion by intermitantly showing an interest. Classic gatekeeping.
>
>  2) Govts can point to Lets and other systems and say "Look, you live
>  in a free country because we let you do things like this".
>
>  3) The people entrapped in this arena always think that decency,
>  logic, rational planning and an appeal to higher ideals such as
>  economic justice will win in the end. This amuses the people in Govt
>  and the central bank cartel because these people are fundamentally
>  psychopathic and / or sociopathic.
>
>  In my view, those with the power to bring about honest and just money
>  systems will never do so as taking that route will strip them of their
>  power. These people are into dominance and little else. They are
>  cunning, clever, manipulative, unfeeling and ruthless. Basically
>  inhuman.
>
>  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

Myro and Marc,
You are both missing or ignoring fact that double-entry accounting is,
by definition, always net-zero and no money is really created. All
transactions are balanced with equal but opposite entries in two
accounts, including loan amounts and including payments whether
principal or interest, business expenses, executive salaries, or
anything else. The sum of all parts of every transaction is always zero.
The sum of all accounts is also always zero. It's the purpose of
double-entry accounting.

Double-entry accounting
should long ago
have rendered obsolete
the money we know.

-Lee

Myro Ashenopolitus wrote:

>  My reply is at the end. -----------------------------------------
>  Myro,

>  It is in the logic:
>  You made two statements:
>  1) Where no new money is created i.e. when there is a simultaneous
>  debit for a given credit of equal magnitude:
>  "Only if, at the same time, another account is correspondingly
>  debited an equal amount, the net effect of money creation and money
>  cancellation is zero."
>

--
-------------------------
Ron Paul, President 2008. Go ahead, Google him!
<http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ron+paul&btnG=Google+Search>
-------------------------
*Is interest eating your lunch?*
An account in the Community Exchange can help.
Open your free *Community Exchange System* account here.
<http://www.community-exchange.org/docs/join2.asp?group=CMCS>

-------------------------
Help STOP a *terrible piece of legislation:* National Animal
Identification System (NAIS). "It is difficult to imagine any acceptable
basis for the (USDA) to subject the owner of a chicken to more intrusive
surveillance than the owner of a gun." -Mary Zanoni - posted on
NONAIS.org <http://nonais.org>
-------------------------
"Under the National Animal ID plan, every farm animal would have to be
registered - every single chicken, cow and goat in the United States." -
Mother Earth News article Read it here.
<http://movsnais.blogspot.com/2007/05/truth-about-animal-id-plan.html>
-------------------------
Read "The NAIS Story" at Liberty Ark.
<http://www.libertyark.net/nais_story.shtml> "USDA is operating without
authority from Congress."
-------------------------
If the program does not serve the goals of disease prevention or
control, then why is the USDA proposing it? To answer that, critics have
looked to where the program originated, and whom it benefits. (from
Missourians United Against NAIS <http://movsnais.blogspot.com/>
-------------------------

I reply at the end.
----------------------------------------

Myro,

You wrote:

"You want to make the reason arbitrarily limited to
loans, only, and disregard all other identifiable
credits that banks make to deposit accounts."

Wrong, I am only differentiating as you did i.e. the
case where the credit is offset by a debit and the
case when it is not. One of the cases where it is not
is by your own admission when banks lend. What other
cases are there?

Marc
-------------------------------------------

[Reply]  What other cases are there?  When banks spend
money into circulation for dividends to their
stockholders, ordinary business expenses for goods and
services received, and when interest is credited as it
accrues on deposit accounts.  In each of these cases
deposit accounts are credited without corresponding
deposit accounts being debited in the same amounts,
exactly as is the case when loans are granted.  The
money supply in the hands of the public, as defined as
including the sum total in aggregate deposit account
balances, is thereby increased.

Myro


      
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Be a better sports nut!  Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ

Myro,

You wrote:

"You want to make the reason arbitrarily limited to loans, only, and disregard
all other identifiable credits that banks make to deposit accounts."

Wrong, I am only differentiating as you did i.e. the case where the credit is
offset by a debit and the case when it is not. One of the cases where it is not
is by your own admission when banks lend. What other cases are there?

Marc
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Myro Ashenopolitus
   To: ijccr@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 1:30 AM
   Subject: Re: [letssc] Fw: [ijccr] TURMEL: #5 Daniel Reeves says interest is
simple.


   My reply is at the end.
   -----------------------------------------

   Myro,

   It is in the logic:

   You made two statements:

   1) Where no new money is created i.e. when there is a
   simultaneous debit for a given credit of equal
   magnitude:

   "Only if, at the same time, another account is
   correspondingly debited an equal amount, the net
   effect of money creation and money cancellation is
   zero."

   and a second statement

   2) Were there isn't such a compensatory debit i.e.
   when banks make loans:

   "But when a bank grants a loan, account balances are
   credited without a corresponding debit against
   anyone's account balance."

   Therefore it is clear that there are cases where
   double entry accounting occurs without money creation
   your example 1) and when it occurs with money creation
   your own example 2).

   With this we show that the first part of my statement
   at least is correct

   "Not all double entry account affects the money
   supply" at least for your example 1) above.

   The rest of my statement "only lending (increases) and
   principal repayment (decreases) do." is supported by
   your example 2) for the creation part and we all know
   that money is erased when the principal is paid.

   Marc
   ----------------------------------------------------

   [Reply] Two possibilities here, Marc. The only way I
   can make sense out of your recent posts is to realize
   that when you went to school, a) you skipped logic
   101; and/or, 2) you have an inherent difficulty in
   deciphering simple declarative sentences written in
   the English language. Your assertions make sense
   neither in logic nor in English. In other words, they
   are pure gibberish, which you keep repeating, over and
   over, as if repetition makes them true. You're not
   fooling anybody with this nonsense.

   Money is created, where money is defined as positive
   account balances, when banks credit or increase
   deposit balances for any reason whatsoever. Money is
   canceled when banks debit or decrease account balances
   for any reason whatsoever.

   As with loans, money is created when banks pay
   ordinary business expenses, dividends to stockholders,
   and interest to depositors, without any corresponding
   debit to any transaction account.

   You want to make the reason arbitrarily limited to
   loans, only, and disregard all other identifiable
   credits that banks make to deposit accounts. You have
   to do that to sustain your ridiculous "ten can't pay
   eleven" fallacy that is predicated on that patently
   false assumption.

   Myro

   __________________________________________________________
   Be a better pen pal.
   Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.
http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

My reply is at the end.
-----------------------------------------

Myro,

It is in the logic:

You made two statements:

1) Where no new money is created i.e. when there is a
simultaneous debit for a given credit of equal
magnitude:

"Only if, at the same time, another account is
correspondingly debited an equal amount, the net
effect of money creation and money cancellation is
zero."

and a second statement

2) Were there isn't such a compensatory debit i.e.
when banks make loans:

"But when a bank grants a loan, account balances are
credited without a corresponding debit against
anyone's account balance."

Therefore it is clear that there are cases where
double entry accounting occurs without money creation
your example 1) and when it occurs with money creation
your own example 2).

With this we show that the first part of my statement
at least is correct

"Not all double entry account affects the money
supply" at least for your example 1) above.

The rest of my statement "only lending (increases) and
principal repayment (decreases) do." is supported by
your example 2) for the creation part and we all know
that money is erased when the principal is paid.

Marc
----------------------------------------------------

[Reply] Two possibilities here, Marc.  The only way I
can make sense out of your recent posts is to realize
that when you went to school, a) you skipped logic
101; and/or, 2) you have an inherent difficulty in
deciphering simple declarative sentences written in
the English language.  Your assertions make sense
neither in logic nor in English. In other words, they
are pure gibberish, which you keep repeating, over and
over, as if repetition makes them true.  You're not
fooling anybody with this nonsense.

Money is created, where money is defined as positive
account balances, when banks credit or increase
deposit balances for any reason whatsoever.  Money is
canceled when banks debit or decrease account balances
for any reason whatsoever.

As with loans, money is created when banks pay
ordinary business expenses, dividends to stockholders,
and interest to depositors, without any corresponding
debit to any transaction account.

You want to make the reason arbitrarily limited to
loans, only, and disregard all other identifiable
credits that banks make to deposit accounts.  You have
to do that to sustain your ridiculous "ten can't pay
eleven" fallacy that is predicated on that patently
false assumption.


Myro


      
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. 
http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/

Myro,

It is in the logic:

You made two statements:

1)  Where no new money is created i.e. when there is a simultaneous debit for a
given credit of equal magnitude:

"Only if, at the same time, another account is correspondingly debited an equal
amount, the net effect of money creation and money cancellation is
zero."

  and a second statement

2) Were there isn't such a compensatory debit i.e. when banks make loans:

"But when a bank grants a loan, account balances are credited without a
corresponding debit against anyone's account balance."

Therefore it is clear that there are cases where double entry accounting occurs
without money creation your example 1) and when it occurs with money creation
your own example 2).

With this we show that the first part of my statement at least is correct

"Not all double entry account affects the money supply" at least for your
example 1) above.

The rest of my statement  "only lending (increases) and principal repayment
(decreases) do." is supported by your example 2) for the creation part and we
all know that money is erased when the principal is paid.

Marc





   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Myro Ashenopolitus
   To: ijccr@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 10:56 PM
   Subject: Re: [letssc] Fw: [ijccr] TURMEL: #5 Daniel Reeves says interest is
simple.


   Marc, my reply is at the end:
   ---------------------------------------------

   Myro,

   Your statement is the proof you request:

   "Only if, at the same time, another account is
   correspondingly debited an equal amount, the net
   effect of money creation and money cancellation is
   zero."

   This is a case where money creation is zero. Now the
   question is if there are other cases where the credit
   and debit do not cancel "at the same time". Logically,
   if this case doesn't exist then there is no money
   creation via deposits and if the case does exist then
   there indeed are cases where double entry accounting
   does not result in an increase in the money supply
   i.e. when the there is a simultaneous debit and credit
   of the same magnitude. Therefore,

   "Not all double entry account affects the money supply
   only lending (increases) and principal repayment
   (decreases) do."

   Your own statement confirms this:

   "But when a bank grants a loan, account balances are
   credited without a corresponding debit against
   anyone's account balance."

   This is the case where money is created:

   Marc
   ---------------------------------------------------------
   ----------------------------------------------------------

   [Reply] But Marc, the two statements are not
   equivalent. You are saying that money is created ONLY
   when loans are granted. My statement says that money
   is indeed created when loans are granted, but does not
   exclude the possibility that money is also created
   when banks credit deposit balances for any purpose
   whatsoever. It is incumbent on you to demonstrate
   that money is NOT created when banks credit deposit
   balances for any other purpose, such as when they pay
   their bills for goods and services received. To do
   that you cannot merely again assert that money is not
   created when banks credit deposit balances for any
   purpose whatsoever, but identify whose balance is
   simultaneously debited an equal amount at the same
   time. Otherwise, you will have to acknowledge that
   money has been created, thereby contradicting your
   "ten can't pay eleven" fallacy that is based on the
   false premise that money is created only when loans
   are granted.

   Myro

   __________________________________________________________
   Be a better pen pal.
   Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.
http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Marc, my reply is at the end:
---------------------------------------------

Myro,

Your statement is the proof you request:

"Only if, at the same time, another account is
correspondingly debited an equal amount, the net
effect of money creation and money cancellation is
zero."

This is a case where money creation is zero. Now the
question is if there are other cases where the credit
and debit do not cancel "at the same time". Logically,
if this case doesn't exist then there is no money
creation via deposits and if the case does exist then
there indeed are cases where double entry accounting
does not result in an increase in the money supply
i.e. when the there is a simultaneous debit and credit
of the same magnitude. Therefore,

"Not all double entry account affects the money supply
only lending (increases) and principal repayment
(decreases) do."

Your own statement confirms this:

"But when a bank grants a loan, account balances are
credited without a corresponding debit against
anyone's account balance."

This is the case where money is created:

Marc
---------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------

[Reply] But Marc, the two statements are not
equivalent.  You are saying that money is created ONLY
when loans are granted.  My statement says that money
is indeed created when loans are granted, but does not
exclude the possibility that money is also created
when banks credit deposit balances for any purpose
whatsoever.  It is incumbent on you to demonstrate
that money is NOT created when banks credit deposit
balances for any other purpose, such as when they pay
their bills for goods and services received.  To do
that you cannot merely again assert that money is not
created when banks credit deposit balances for any
purpose whatsoever, but identify whose balance is
simultaneously debited an equal amount at the same
time.  Otherwise, you will have to acknowledge that
money has been created, thereby contradicting your
"ten can't pay eleven" fallacy that is based on the
false premise that money is created only when loans
are granted.

Myro



      
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. 
http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/

Myro,

Your statement is the proof you request:

"Only if, at the same time, another account is  correspondingly debited an equal
amount, the net  effect of money creation and money cancellation is
  zero."

This is a case where money creation is zero.  Now the question is if there are
other cases where the credit and debit do not cancel "at the same time". 
Logically, if this case doesn't exist then there is no money creation via
deposits and if the case does exist then there indeed are cases where double
entry accounting does not result in an increase in the money supply i.e. when
the there is a simultaneous debit and credit of the same magnitude.  Therefore,

"Not all double entry account affects the money supply only lending (increases)
and principal repayment (decreases) do."

Your own statement confirms this:

"But when a bank grants a loan, account balances are  credited without a
corresponding debit against anyone's account balance."

This is the case where money is created:

Marc









   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Myro Ashenopolitus
   To: ijccr@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 7:27 PM
   Subject: Re: [letssc] Fw: [ijccr] TURMEL: #5 Daniel Reeves says interest is
simple.


   But Marc, you're simply repeating the message to which
   I already responded. The burden is on YOU to prove
   your assertion that "Not all double entry account
   affects the money supply only lending (increases) and
   principal repayment (decreases) do." Identify the
   account that is debited an equal amount when banks pay
   dividends, salaries and wages, and ordinary business
   expenses. Only if an equal amount is debited to some
   transaction account is the net effect on the money
   supply zero. If you can't identify that account, it's
   time for you to shut up.

   Myro

   --- Marc Gauvin <gauvin@...> wrote:

   > Myro,
   >
   > You yourself said:
   >
   > "Only if, at the same time, another account is
   > correspondingly debited an equal amount, the net
   > effect of money creation and money cancellation is
   > zero."
   >
   > So there are cases where the amount created is
   > cancelled "at the same time" and there are other
   > cases where such is not the case. That is exactly
   > the distinction I was making when I said:
   >
   > "Not all double entry account affects the money
   > supply only lending (increases) and principal
   > repayment (decreases) do."
   >
   > Marc
   >
   > ----- Original Message -----
   > From: Myro Ashenopolitus
   > To: ijccr@yahoogroups.com
   > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 7:11 PM
   > Subject: Re: [letssc] Fw: [ijccr] TURMEL: #5
   > Daniel Reeves says interest is simple.
   >
   >
   > "Not all double entry account affects the money
   > supply
   > only lending (increases) and principal repayment
   > (decreases) do."
   >
   >
   -----------------------------------------------------
   >
   > But this is a patently false assertion without
   > factual
   > basis.
   >
   > Assuming that money is defined as the sum total of
   > transaction account balances plus cash in
   > circulation,
   > whenever banks credit transaction account balances
   > for
   > any reason whatsoever, money is being created.
   > Whenever banks debit transaction accounts for any
   > reason whatsoever, money is being canceled.
   >
   > The net effect is zero only if another account or
   > accounts are debited an equal amount to every
   > credit,
   > which is what normally happens when you write a
   > check
   > to someone else against your account balance. But
   > when a bank grants a loan, account balances are
   > credited without a corresponding debit against
   > anyone's account balance.
   >
   > If you believe that when a bank credits account
   > balances when it pays dividends, salaries and
   > wages,
   > or ordinary business expenses, money is NOT being
   > created, it is incumbent on YOU to identify whose
   > account is debited an equal amount when the bank
   > does
   > so.
   >
   > The burden of proof in on you, Marc. Your crank
   > "ten
   > can't pay eleven" theory depends on it, being that
   > it
   > is based on the claim that only loans create
   > deposits.
   > To the extent that deposits can arise from any
   > other
   > source demonstrates that your crank theory is
   > fallacious.
   >
   > Myro
   >
   > --- Marc Gauvin <gauvin@...> wrote:
   >
   > > Myro,
   > >
   > > You yourself said:
   > >
   > > "Only if, at the same time, another account is
   > > correspondingly debited an equal amount, the net
   > > effect of money creation and money cancellation
   > is
   > > zero."
   > >
   > > So there are cases where the amount created is
   > > cancelled "at the same time" and there are other
   > > cases where such is not the case. That is
   > exactly
   > > the distinction I was making when I said:
   > >
   > >
   > > "Not all double entry account affects the money
   > > supply only lending (increases) and principal
   > > repayment (decreases) do."
   > >
   > > Marc
   > >
   > > ----- Original Message -----
   > > From: Marc Gauvin
   > > To: letssc@yahoogroups.com
   > > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 10:10 AM
   > > Subject: [letssc] Fw: [ijccr] TURMEL: #5 Daniel
   > > Reeves says interest is simple.
   > >
   > > ----- Original Message -----
   > > From: Myro Ashenopolitus
   > > To: ijccr@yahoogroups.com
   > > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 2:18 PM
   > > Subject: Re: [ijccr] TURMEL: #5 Daniel Reeves
   > says
   > > interest is simple.
   > >
   > >
   > > "Not all double entry account affects the money
   > > supply
   > > only lending (increases) and principal repayment
   > > (decreases) do."
   > >
   > >
   > ----------------------------------------------------
   > >
   > > [reply] You simply don't understand double-entry
   > > accounting. This is a patently false assertion
   > > based
   > > on your ignorance of accounting and true faith
   > in
   > > the
   > > dogma of your crank theory that claims that
   > > interest
   > > can't be paid because supposedly the money to
   > pay
   > > interest does not exist. But if the money supply
   > > is
   > > defined as the totality of transaction account
   > > balances, then when banks credit transaction
   > > account
   > > balances for any reason whatsoever, money is
   > being
   > > created. When they debit transaction account
   > > balances
   > > for any reason whatsoever, money is being
   > > canceled.
   > > The money to pay interest is in reflux to the
   > > money
   > > that banks spend into existence in purchasing
   > > goods
   > > and services, when they pay dividends to their
   > > stockholders, and credit interest to accounts as
   > > it
   > > accrues.
   > >
   > > Myro
   > >
   > > --- Marc Gauvin <gauvin@...> wrote:
   > > [snipped]
   > >
   > >
   >
   >
   >
   __________________________________________________________
   > Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
   > with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.
   >
   http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ
   >
   >
   >
   >
   > [Non-text portions of this message have been
   > removed]
   >
   >

   __________________________________________________________
   Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
   with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

But Marc, you're simply repeating the message to which
I already responded.  The burden is on YOU to prove
your assertion that "Not all double entry account
affects the money supply only lending (increases) and
principal repayment (decreases) do."  Identify the
account that is debited an equal amount when banks pay
dividends, salaries and wages, and ordinary business
expenses.  Only if an equal amount is debited to some
transaction account is the net effect on the money
supply zero.  If you can't identify that account, it's
time for you to shut up.

Myro


--- Marc Gauvin <gauvin@...> wrote:

> Myro,
>
> You yourself said:
>
> "Only if, at the same time, another account is
> correspondingly debited an equal amount, the net
> effect of money creation and money cancellation is
> zero."
>
> So there are cases where the amount created is
> cancelled "at the same time" and there are other
> cases where such is not the case. That is exactly
> the distinction I was making when I said:
>
> "Not all double entry account affects the money
> supply only lending (increases) and principal
> repayment (decreases) do."
>
> Marc
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Myro Ashenopolitus
>   To: ijccr@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 7:11 PM
>   Subject: Re: [letssc] Fw: [ijccr] TURMEL: #5
> Daniel Reeves says interest is simple.
>
>
>   "Not all double entry account affects the money
> supply
>   only lending (increases) and principal repayment
>   (decreases) do."
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------
>
>   But this is a patently false assertion without
> factual
>   basis.
>
>   Assuming that money is defined as the sum total of
>   transaction account balances plus cash in
> circulation,
>   whenever banks credit transaction account balances
> for
>   any reason whatsoever, money is being created.
>   Whenever banks debit transaction accounts for any
>   reason whatsoever, money is being canceled.
>
>   The net effect is zero only if another account or
>   accounts are debited an equal amount to every
> credit,
>   which is what normally happens when you write a
> check
>   to someone else against your account balance. But
>   when a bank grants a loan, account balances are
>   credited without a corresponding debit against
>   anyone's account balance.
>
>   If you believe that when a bank credits account
>   balances when it pays dividends, salaries and
> wages,
>   or ordinary business expenses, money is NOT being
>   created, it is incumbent on YOU to identify whose
>   account is debited an equal amount when the bank
> does
>   so.
>
>   The burden of proof in on you, Marc. Your crank
> "ten
>   can't pay eleven" theory depends on it, being that
> it
>   is based on the claim that only loans create
> deposits.
>   To the extent that deposits can arise from any
> other
>   source demonstrates that your crank theory is
>   fallacious.
>
>   Myro
>
>   --- Marc Gauvin <gauvin@...> wrote:
>
>   > Myro,
>   >
>   > You yourself said:
>   >
>   > "Only if, at the same time, another account is
>   > correspondingly debited an equal amount, the net
>   > effect of money creation and money cancellation
> is
>   > zero."
>   >
>   > So there are cases where the amount created is
>   > cancelled "at the same time" and there are other
>   > cases where such is not the case. That is
> exactly
>   > the distinction I was making when I said:
>   >
>   >
>   > "Not all double entry account affects the money
>   > supply only lending (increases) and principal
>   > repayment (decreases) do."
>   >
>   > Marc
>   >
>   > ----- Original Message -----
>   > From: Marc Gauvin
>   > To: letssc@yahoogroups.com
>   > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 10:10 AM
>   > Subject: [letssc] Fw: [ijccr] TURMEL: #5 Daniel
>   > Reeves says interest is simple.
>   >
>   > ----- Original Message -----
>   > From: Myro Ashenopolitus
>   > To: ijccr@yahoogroups.com
>   > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 2:18 PM
>   > Subject: Re: [ijccr] TURMEL: #5 Daniel Reeves
> says
>   > interest is simple.
>   >
>   >
>   > "Not all double entry account affects the money
>   > supply
>   > only lending (increases) and principal repayment
>   > (decreases) do."
>   >
>   >
> ----------------------------------------------------
>   >
>   > [reply] You simply don't understand double-entry
>   > accounting. This is a patently false assertion
>   > based
>   > on your ignorance of accounting and true faith
> in
>   > the
>   > dogma of your crank theory that claims that
>   > interest
>   > can't be paid because supposedly the money to
> pay
>   > interest does not exist. But if the money supply
>   > is
>   > defined as the totality of transaction account
>   > balances, then when banks credit transaction
>   > account
>   > balances for any reason whatsoever, money is
> being
>   > created. When they debit transaction account
>   > balances
>   > for any reason whatsoever, money is being
>   > canceled.
>   > The money to pay interest is in reflux to the
>   > money
>   > that banks spend into existence in purchasing
>   > goods
>   > and services, when they pay dividends to their
>   > stockholders, and credit interest to accounts as
>   > it
>   > accrues.
>   >
>   > Myro
>   >
>   > --- Marc Gauvin <gauvin@...> wrote:
>   > [snipped]
>   >
>   >
>
>
>
__________________________________________________________
>   Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
>   with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.
>
http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>



      
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Be a better sports nut!  Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ

Myro,

You yourself said:

"Only if, at the same time, another account is correspondingly debited an equal
amount, the net effect of money creation and money cancellation is zero."

So there are cases where the amount created is cancelled "at the same time" and
there are other cases where such is not the case. That is exactly the
distinction I was making when I said:

"Not all double entry account affects the money supply only lending (increases)
and principal repayment (decreases) do."

Marc

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Myro Ashenopolitus
   To: ijccr@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 7:11 PM
   Subject: Re: [letssc] Fw: [ijccr] TURMEL: #5 Daniel Reeves says interest is
simple.


   "Not all double entry account affects the money supply
   only lending (increases) and principal repayment
   (decreases) do."
   -----------------------------------------------------

   But this is a patently false assertion without factual
   basis.

   Assuming that money is defined as the sum total of
   transaction account balances plus cash in circulation,
   whenever banks credit transaction account balances for
   any reason whatsoever, money is being created.
   Whenever banks debit transaction accounts for any
   reason whatsoever, money is being canceled.

   The net effect is zero only if another account or
   accounts are debited an equal amount to every credit,
   which is what normally happens when you write a check
   to someone else against your account balance. But
   when a bank grants a loan, account balances are
   credited without a corresponding debit against
   anyone's account balance.

   If you believe that when a bank credits account
   balances when it pays dividends, salaries and wages,
   or ordinary business expenses, money is NOT being
   created, it is incumbent on YOU to identify whose
   account is debited an equal amount when the bank does
   so.

   The burden of proof in on you, Marc. Your crank "ten
   can't pay eleven" theory depends on it, being that it
   is based on the claim that only loans create deposits.
   To the extent that deposits can arise from any other
   source demonstrates that your crank theory is
   fallacious.

   Myro

   --- Marc Gauvin <gauvin@...> wrote:

   > Myro,
   >
   > You yourself said:
   >
   > "Only if, at the same time, another account is
   > correspondingly debited an equal amount, the net
   > effect of money creation and money cancellation is
   > zero."
   >
   > So there are cases where the amount created is
   > cancelled "at the same time" and there are other
   > cases where such is not the case. That is exactly
   > the distinction I was making when I said:
   >
   >
   > "Not all double entry account affects the money
   > supply only lending (increases) and principal
   > repayment (decreases) do."
   >
   > Marc
   >
   > ----- Original Message -----
   > From: Marc Gauvin
   > To: letssc@yahoogroups.com
   > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 10:10 AM
   > Subject: [letssc] Fw: [ijccr] TURMEL: #5 Daniel
   > Reeves says interest is simple.
   >
   > ----- Original Message -----
   > From: Myro Ashenopolitus
   > To: ijccr@yahoogroups.com
   > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 2:18 PM
   > Subject: Re: [ijccr] TURMEL: #5 Daniel Reeves says
   > interest is simple.
   >
   >
   > "Not all double entry account affects the money
   > supply
   > only lending (increases) and principal repayment
   > (decreases) do."
   >
   > ----------------------------------------------------
   >
   > [reply] You simply don't understand double-entry
   > accounting. This is a patently false assertion
   > based
   > on your ignorance of accounting and true faith in
   > the
   > dogma of your crank theory that claims that
   > interest
   > can't be paid because supposedly the money to pay
   > interest does not exist. But if the money supply
   > is
   > defined as the totality of transaction account
   > balances, then when banks credit transaction
   > account
   > balances for any reason whatsoever, money is being
   > created. When they debit transaction account
   > balances
   > for any reason whatsoever, money is being
   > canceled.
   > The money to pay interest is in reflux to the
   > money
   > that banks spend into existence in purchasing
   > goods
   > and services, when they pay dividends to their
   > stockholders, and credit interest to accounts as
   > it
   > accrues.
   >
   > Myro
   >
   > --- Marc Gauvin <gauvin@...> wrote:
   > [snipped]
   >
   >

   __________________________________________________________
   Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
   with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"Not all double entry account affects the money supply
only lending (increases) and principal repayment
(decreases) do."
-----------------------------------------------------

But this is a patently false assertion without factual
basis.

Assuming that money is defined as the sum total of
transaction account balances plus cash in circulation,
whenever banks credit transaction account balances for
any reason whatsoever, money is being created.
Whenever banks debit transaction accounts for any
reason whatsoever, money is being canceled.

The net effect is zero only if another account or
accounts are debited an equal amount to every credit,
which is what normally happens when you write a check
to someone else against your account balance.  But
when a bank grants a loan, account balances are
credited without a corresponding debit against
anyone's account balance.

If you believe that when a bank credits account
balances when it pays dividends, salaries and wages,
or ordinary business expenses, money is NOT being
created, it is incumbent on YOU to identify whose
account is debited an equal amount when the bank does
so.

The burden of proof in on you, Marc.  Your crank "ten
can't pay eleven" theory depends on it, being that it
is based on the claim that only loans create deposits.
  To the extent that deposits can arise from any other
source demonstrates that your crank theory is
fallacious.

Myro


--- Marc Gauvin <gauvin@...> wrote:

> Myro,
>
> You yourself said:
>
> "Only if, at the same time, another account is
> correspondingly debited an equal amount, the net
> effect of money creation and money cancellation is
> zero."
>
> So there are cases where the amount created is
> cancelled "at the same time" and there are other
> cases where such is not the case.  That is exactly
> the distinction I was making when I said:
>
>
> "Not all double entry account affects the money
> supply only lending (increases) and principal
> repayment (decreases) do."
>
> Marc
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Marc Gauvin
>   To: letssc@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 10:10 AM
>   Subject: [letssc] Fw: [ijccr] TURMEL: #5 Daniel
> Reeves says interest is simple.
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Myro Ashenopolitus
>   To: ijccr@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 2:18 PM
>   Subject: Re: [ijccr] TURMEL: #5 Daniel Reeves says
> interest is simple.
>
>
>   "Not all double entry account affects the money
> supply
>   only lending (increases) and principal repayment
>   (decreases) do."
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
>   [reply] You simply don't understand double-entry
>   accounting. This is a patently false assertion
> based
>   on your ignorance of accounting and true faith in
> the
>   dogma of your crank theory that claims that
> interest
>   can't be paid because supposedly the money to pay
>   interest does not exist. But if the money supply
> is
>   defined as the totality of transaction account
>   balances, then when banks credit transaction
> account
>   balances for any reason whatsoever, money is being
>   created. When they debit transaction account
> balances
>   for any reason whatsoever, money is being
> canceled.
>   The money to pay interest is in reflux to the
> money
>   that banks spend into existence in purchasing
> goods
>   and services, when they pay dividends to their
>   stockholders, and credit interest to accounts as
> it
>   accrues.
>
>   Myro
>
>   --- Marc Gauvin <gauvin@...> wrote:
>   [snipped]
>
>


      
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Be a better sports nut!  Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ

Myro,

You yourself said:

"Only if, at the same time, another account is correspondingly debited an equal
amount, the net effect of money creation and money cancellation is zero."

So there are cases where the amount created is cancelled "at the same time" and
there are other cases where such is not the case.  That is exactly the
distinction I was making when I said:


"Not all double entry account affects the money supply only lending (increases)
and principal repayment (decreases) do."

Marc






   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Marc Gauvin
   To: letssc@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 10:10 AM
   Subject: [letssc] Fw: [ijccr] TURMEL: #5 Daniel Reeves says interest is
simple.




   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Myro Ashenopolitus
   To: ijccr@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 2:18 PM
   Subject: Re: [ijccr] TURMEL: #5 Daniel Reeves says interest is simple.


   "Not all double entry account affects the money supply
   only lending (increases) and principal repayment
   (decreases) do."
   ----------------------------------------------------

   [reply] You simply don't understand double-entry
   accounting. This is a patently false assertion based
   on your ignorance of accounting and true faith in the
   dogma of your crank theory that claims that interest
   can't be paid because supposedly the money to pay
   interest does not exist. But if the money supply is
   defined as the totality of transaction account
   balances, then when banks credit transaction account
   balances for any reason whatsoever, money is being
   created. When they debit transaction account balances
   for any reason whatsoever, money is being canceled.
   The money to pay interest is in reflux to the money
   that banks spend into existence in purchasing goods
   and services, when they pay dividends to their
   stockholders, and credit interest to accounts as it
   accrues.

   Myro

   --- Marc Gauvin <gauvin@...> wrote:
   [snipped]

   __________________________________________________________
   Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
   with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

All,

And what they love most are people that suggest that there will be an enumerate
number of independent CCs as some like to suggest.  That way there will be no
unified alternative to the prevailing exponential CC  thus letting it continue
to devour backed by brut force all the wealth it finds in its path with no
opposition.

They also enjoy those that attempt to take simple concepts and turn them into
intricate esoteric system's creating a clique insider "in the know" club that
sound wise but are petty and foolish, pick and choose who gets to get into the
club on criteria that has no foundation other than the blessing of a charismatic
leader.  But like vampires avoiding day light, they can be blown away with a
simple question that even knowing the true answer they can't answer because it
would blow away their cover.

Marc
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Pablo 88
   To: Peter Hogwood
   Cc: ijccr@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 1:37 AM
   Subject: Re: [ijccr] Liberty Dollar Raid


   The raid on Liberty Dollar shows clearly how Govt's react (under the
   compelling influence of their financial handlers) to any system that
   could grow to pose a threat to the use of fiat money. Govt is
   effectively an arm of the global fiat financiers and will always do
   their bidding accordingly.

   Any person still operating under the bogus idea that the US, or any of
   the other so-called advanced western economies, is a free country
   needs to take their ant-delusion tablets asap.

   The fate of the Liberty Dollar likely awaits any organisation that
   could flourish with an effective money system and provide growing
   competition to the central banking cartel. I maintain that Lets
   fulfills a useful purpose for Govts and that they tolerate it just so
   long as it doesn't get too effective. Their toleration is based on the
   following:

   1) Decent, idealistic people (I include myself, at times, amongst
   their number) are given a field in which they can expend their
   energies and suitably wear themselves out, always thinking they will
   achieve their goal. Govt's and their allies perpetuate this state of
   delusion by intermitantly showing an interest. Classic gatekeeping.

   2) Govts can point to Lets and other systems and say "Look, you live
   in a free country because we let you do things like this".

   3) The people entrapped in this arena always think that decency,
   logic, rational planning and an appeal to higher ideals such as
   economic justice will win in the end. This amuses the people in Govt
   and the central bank cartel because these people are fundamentally
   psychopathic and / or sociopathic.

   In my view, those with the power to bring about honest and just money
   systems will never do so as taking that route will strip them of their
   power. These people are into dominance and little else. They are
   cunning, clever, manipulative, unfeeling and ruthless. Basically
   inhuman.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The raid on Liberty Dollar shows clearly how Govt's react (under the
compelling influence of their financial handlers) to any system that
could grow to pose a threat to the use of fiat money. Govt is
effectively an arm of the global fiat financiers and will always do
their bidding accordingly.

Any person still operating under the bogus idea that the US, or any of
the other so-called advanced western economies, is a free country
needs to take their ant-delusion tablets asap.

The fate of the Liberty Dollar likely awaits any organisation that
could flourish with an effective money system and provide growing
competition to the central banking cartel. I maintain that Lets
fulfills a useful purpose for Govts and that they tolerate it just so
long as it doesn't get too effective. Their toleration is based on the
following:

1) Decent, idealistic people (I include myself, at times, amongst
their number) are given a field in which they can expend their
energies and suitably wear themselves out, always thinking they will
achieve their goal. Govt's and their allies perpetuate this state of
delusion by intermitantly showing an interest. Classic gatekeeping.

2) Govts can point to Lets and other systems and say "Look, you live
in a free country because we let you do things like this".

3) The people entrapped in this arena always think that decency,
logic, rational planning and an appeal to higher ideals such as
economic justice will win in the end. This amuses the people in Govt
and the central bank cartel because these people are fundamentally
psychopathic and / or sociopathic.

In my view, those with the power to bring about honest and just money
systems will never do so as taking that route will strip them of their
power. These people are into dominance and little else. They are
cunning, clever, manipulative, unfeeling and ruthless. Basically
inhuman.

I'm certain the majority of you have heard about the recent Ohio
decision stopping (at least temporarily) foreclosure actions by Deutsche
bank.
http://iamfacingforeclosure.com/article/20071113_Boyko/01.html
<http://iamfacingforeclosure.com/article/20071113_Boyko/01.html>

Now - again from Ohio - 27 more foreclosures stopped.

The Judicial Integrity of the United States Court is "Priceless" – 27
More Foreclosures Dismissed
<http://iamfacingforeclosure.com/blog/2007/11/16/the-judicial-integrity-of-the-u\
nited-states-court-is-%e2%80%9cpriceless%e2%80%9d-%e2%80%93-27-more-foreclosures\
-dismissed/>

The point of my post is to alert you all to this PDF paper from 2005 by
CPA Michael Nwogugu (Masters in business administration)

_Securitization is Illegal_ (54 pages)
P. O. Box 170002
Brooklyn , NY 11217
United States
718-638-6270 (Phone)

*Abstract: *
Under US laws, securitization is illegal, primarily because its
fraudulent and causes specific violations of RICO, usury, antitrust and
constitutional laws. Securitization of many types of assets (loans,
credit cards, auto receivables, intellectual property, etc.) has become
more prevalent, particularly for financially distressed companies and
companies with low or mid-tier credit ratings. This article focuses on
securitization as it pertains to asset-backed securities and
mortgage-backed securities, and analyzes critical legal and corporate
governance issues.


http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=883300

Levi Philos

I read your profile today, I thought I would drop you a line and hope to become
your friend! Check my personal page here:
http://girldpblog.googlepages.com/girlrider.htm

Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds - Charles Mackay

http://www.econlib.org/library/Mackay/macEx.html

Or, download the book: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/636

We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when
we created them. Learn to think outside the box; and solutions appear.
You have been taught to stay inside the box; even to repair the walls of
your own prison cell in your mind. (Nobody particular intended). If you
find yourself repeating former approaches, give yourself a wack along
side the head - or perhaps inside the head - and come up with some
original solutions.


If bridge engineers were as locked into their thinking as monetarists,
we would still be using the same set of plans as used to build
"Galloping Gertie" the Tacoma Narrows bridge.
http://www.nwrain.com/~newtsuit/recoveries/narrows/gg003.jpg
<http://www.nwrain.com/%7Enewtsuit/recoveries/narrows/gg003.jpg>

A money system is really no different than a set of plans for a bridge
or any other structure. If certain engineered harmonics are a cause of
failure, throw the plans out and build without the harmonics. That is
what the bridge engineers did, and that is what monetary engineers must do.

Fundamental errors exist in monetary belief systems that date back
thousands of years. The first loans were often bred cows and/or seed,
and to ask for a return on such a loan is completely rational, but when
the money became more symbolic in nature the presumption that money
should behave like cows and seed and grow and multiply remained. After
all, you could always go out and dig up more gold and silver...

But what Gesell revealed to the world about 1919 was that most products
of man's efforts do not grow nor multiply but in fact suffer from the
ravages of time and lose value. Gesell explained how money symbols
should symbolically also show loss of value over time.

The presumption that money is a "thing" evolves from confusing the
symbol with the reality. We don't confuse the paper map with the
geography it represents and likewise, we shouldn't confuse the money
system with the physical economy. A money system is simply an extension
of language by means of symbols and contracts to rationalize the
allocation of resources and the ownership of products of man's
intellectual and physical labor. A concept of "debt" is equally an
attempt to equitably distribute ownership and future labor in exchange
for past labor of other humans. The concept that debt should be allowed
to grow is one of those "extraordinary popular delusions" that has
migrated into a public memeplex.

Financiers everywhere try to carry on the tradition of multiplying and
growing the money symbols without regard to any knowledge that the
symbols themselves are no more than markers on the map depicting the
true economic landscape.

Signed by a surveyor of the economic landscape who is trying to correct
past errors

Levi Philos

John,

I have already resent the thread to letssc. But I would like to comment on your
post:

There are approximately 400 members on this list of which only some have made
the comment that the interest thread is off topic.  Also, I don't think that
these represent the majority.

Now, those who have ventured to claim that the discussion of the effect of
interest on a currency is off topic have supported their claims on the basis of
confusing the purpose of the qualifying term Community in Community Currency
with discussion of the technical design issue of currencies in general. They
have argued the distinction between Community Currencies and Conventional Money
as if the two are separate and independent, this way they can avoid many issues
that may be uncomfortable for a number of reasons such as:

1) Defending models that are attributed to individuals that may prove to be
wrong, inaccurate or ambiguous given the appropriate scrutiny.
2) Because some may have an interest in steering the discussion away form a
critique of the system and promoting a laisser faire attitude about CC
definition that leads to division of CC discovery so that nothing opposes the
conventional money paradigm
3) Because some are on board not because they seek understanding but rather wish
to participate in a progressive exclusive "in the know" group and therefore
blindly support the predominant clique based dogma
4) For any other number of reasons that have little to do with the question at
hand  but rather ulterior motives

But if CCs are to be an answer to conventional money and conventional money is
in every community devouring all wealth in its path leaving no real value
legally available to back and promote any other alternative, then it is central
to the CC discussion and I hardly believe that the majority on this list would
back the few that oppose this discussion.

Furthermore, the new list Hugh Barnard will be moderating clearly states that
any community based alternative is to be considered so I hardly believe such
discussion will be prohibited, however from the description of the moderators
role discussion could be curbed without anyone knowing whether the moderator was
being biased or not as any injustice will surely be chalked up to human
fallibility.

Best,

Marc

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]