Dear Searchers For A Sustainable Social Order:

The last American economist, Henry Carter Adams, addressed our past and
present second-best public policy in his 1887 essay, RELATION OF THE STATE TO
INDUSTRIAL ACTION, American Economic Review, VOL. I, 1887, when he wrote:

"I am not arguing for any particular line of public policy, but rather for a
change in the attitude of mind with which men commonly regard the agency of
government; for great reforms are, after all is said, nothing but a change in
the way people look at things."

Everything bad that Ayn Rand, the Austrian economists, and their American
students have said about government is certainly true.  But the one thing that
only governments can do successfully is to distribute a public expense
uniformly over the productive members of society by means of a flat tax rate
applied to all income.  So we do need a change in the way we look at
government, and we must learn the different results produced by direct taxes
at flat rates on all income (Thomas Paine's "from each according to his
ability), and, indirect taxes at different rates on selected products of the
capital plant (only people pay taxes).

Then H. C. Adams went on to write:

"And it may not be inappropriate to say, as guarding somewhat against
misunderstanding, that I consider the attitude of mind by which this essay has
been directed to be essentially conservative.  It stands opposed to anarchy on
the one hand, which is individualism gone to seed, and to socialism on the
other, which , both historically and logically, is a revolt against the
superficial claims and pernicious consequences of LAISSEZ-FAIRE.  Its purpose
is to conserve true democracy, and this it would do by weakening the influence
of commercial democracy which now rules the minds of men."

Since the word, CAPITALISM, has been made meaningless by the advocates of
postmodern relativism, we might find it useful to call our present condition,
commercial democracy, as Adams did one-hundred and twelve years ago.  That is
to say, we live in a society that has all of the mechanisms for effective
democracy still in place, and still in working order, but yet the commercial
interests exercise an undue influence on public policy, to the detriment of
the environment and our quality of life.  The closest analog I can think of to
illustrate our condition is the biology experiment which begins with a stable
and healthy colony of laboratory rats.

Rats, as you know, are in the middle of the obnoxious species continuum,
somewhat larger than cockroaches but smaller than poor people, and we can
learn a lot about people by experimenting on rats.  Anyway, the experiment
calls for restricting the rat colony's living space and reducing its daily
food supply.  I have never seen the experiment performed, but I hear that all
sorts of social pathologies are demonstrated and I also hear that it takes a
strong stomach on the part of the experimenter to continue the process to its
logical conclusion, or "die-off."

Our human condition is much like that of the rats.  There is no direct
connection from the experimenter to the individual rat, nor from our public
policy to the individual citizen.  The experiment imposes less space and less
food.  Our public policy has imposed for the last hundred years and more 4-10%
unemployment and a 2-3%/year decline in the value of our money.  But the
single imposition on either the rat colony or the nation produces a different
response in each rat, and a different response in each citizen, so it is a
mind stretching intellectual effort for the rat or the citizen to reason from
his own experience back to the root cause of his experience.  People can see
the cause of the rat's experience because they are outside the system.  They
cannot see the cause of their own, until they find a conceptual framework, and
make the intellectual effort, that lets them view the whole system from a
vantage point outside of the system.  This is what drawings, charts, and
visual-aids help people to do, that is, to stand outside the system under
discussion and look at the whole system in operation.  Notice that the system
operates, regardless of whether or not we look at it, understand it, neglect
it, or change it to our heart's desire.

The attached file Fig7-9b.GIF has been re-sized to display properly on your
monitor and print properly on 8.5x11 inch paper, so the outsized image of
previous posts is no longer an excuse for not discussing the systemic defect
of omission in our public policy which is illustrated by the three charts.
That defect of omission is the lack of a dependent allowance adequate to
remove from the family budget the head tax of $5,000/year/dependent on
parenting families, which is the root cause of our social disorders.

For those of you who have read the REVELATION of St. JOHN THE DIVINE, and
think I am adding something to the bible by pointing out that the ten
commandments are incomplete, I beg to differ.   Something was taken away from
the bible long ago and those who took it away, and everyone else, have
suffered ever since.  I don't think anyone will be punished by God for
restoring those parts of the Law which may be found in the book of Numbers,
but are not taught to Englishmen and Americans.

For those of you who have not read the bible, the relevant parts of the last
book of the bible, written in A.D. 96 on the island of Patmos after the Temple
had been distroyed, and the Jews dispersed, reads as follows:

(REV. 22:18) "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of
the prophets of this book, If any man shall add unto these things,
God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:"

(REV. 22:19) "And if any man shall take away from the words of the
book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book
of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are
written in this book."

Happy New Year,

WesBurt

Hello again, Antonio Rossin, best wishes from Italy are most welcome, and
returned.

In a message dated 99-01-02 05:51:33 EST, you write:

<<
  Hi WesBurt,

  glad to be reading you again and have my best wishes for the new Year.

  btw, I notice that your graphic comes to my screen the same way your
  first graphic came to me some months ago.  It needs a screen as
  large as 3x4 feet to be seen in its entirely.  This trouble could
  make you loose some of the audience.

  Bests,

  antonio
   >>

Thank you Antonio, for your off list message calling my attention to the
outsized image on all of my visual-aids in the GIF format.  It does result in
a very unprofessional presentation of a very simple subject, a subject that we
all should have become acquainted with in elementary school, if our school
boards were flexible enough to admit the subject.

My thanks also to Mary Therise Gleason and Attillio Castellucci for their
interest in making the visual-aids more useful.  I am certain, as you suggest,
that the outsized images have caused me to lose some of the audience.

All ten of the visual-aids in support of my 96-02-16 post, "Two Articles of
Economic Rights & Responsibilities," were drawn in 1994 on MSWorks and could
be viewed on MSWorks but not on my AOL e-mail software.  When I found out that
my AOL software could display graphics in GIF and BMP formats, I posted all
ten visual-aids to California for scanning and conversion by a friend who had
the appropriate  programs.  The GIF format, with the outsized image, prints
perfectly with a full sized image and excellent print quality on 8.5x11 inch
paper on my printer, but no one of my audience has confessed to being that
lucky on their printer.

The attached file in BMP format prints at half-height and half-width with only
marginal print quality on my AOL software, and no means of expanding the print
image are available, that I know of.  Please let me know if any of you find
the BMP format more useful than the GIF format.

To hell with graphics, any one who can't explain such a simple subject with a
few thousand words should not be trying to discuss the Teflon Topic anyway.

Perhaps the greatest benefit from graphical visual-aids are realized by the
person who draws the chart or graph in the first place.  The effort to make
the chart satisfy Gustav Robert Kirchhoff's (1824-87) Laws of zero-sum flows
into a system node and zero-sum potential drops around system closed loops, is
a more agreeable discipline than any other I can think of.

Among other things, Figure 4, The Model of a Family, Business, Industry,
Nation, or World, shows that one trillion dollars of M1, our circulating
medium of exchange, presently supports a real economy of more than five
trillion dollars/year of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) plus more than eight
trillion dollars/year in purchased material transactions between corporate and
government actors in the capital plant.  Very little of M1 is needed to
support the speculative transactions, shown at the top of the chart, which are
many times larger than the real (physical) economy shown between lines 0 and
C.   Notice the "scale break" between line C and Line M1.  The 3 tithe General
& Administrative (G&A) rate of corporations covers what Adam Smith called the
"expense of management" in his First Maxim of Taxation, and includes; design
and construction (D&C), executive compensation (E.C.), and interest and
dividends (I&D).  Notice that according to national Input/Output Tables, the
G&A rate is two and one half times the size, in dollars/year, of the three
tithe 30% total tax rate on GDP or value-added, which covers 1, in the U.S.the
education of children but not their support, 2, executive compensation of the
ruling establishment (EZRA 7:24), and 3, infrastructure, welfare, and justice.

I suppose the authors at MIT who wrote THE ZERO-SUM SOCIETY and THE ZERO-SUM
SOLUTION know Kirchhoff's Laws as well as I do.  I first heard of them, not in
public school or college, but in GE's advanced engineering course in 1950.
Kirchhoff's Laws apply to flows within the system, but they do not know, and
cannot tell, if the system is gaining or losing ground with respect to its
environment.

But the real interesting question in the Teflon Topic is this: Do any of you
believe, as I do, that misplacing half of the first tithe for more than a
century can account for most of the disorder in the present condition of
American society?  Please enlighten the innocents on that question, all you
Determined (not devious, in deference to Olgoat) Defenders of the Status QUO
(DDotSQ) or tax exempt members of the Thirteenth Tribe, EZRA 7:24)

Happy 1999 and Y2K,

WesBurt

I don't know how I got this, but take me off your list, please.

THANKS




WesBurt@... wrote:

> From: WesBurt@...
>
> Attillio Castellucci:
>
> In a message dated 98-12-31 15:40:02 EST, you write:
>
> <<
>  From: "Attillio Castellucci" <attillio@...>
>
>  A technical question.  How do I print that hugh graph? Or can you make
>  it smaller so it fits on one page?
>
>  Cheers,
>  Attillio
>   >>
> Hello Attillio, that's a good question.  The image on my monitor when using
> the AmericaOnline software is about 4x4 times the screen size, with the screen
> showing the upper left corner of the image when the file is first opened..  I
> am using a NEC Pinwriter P5200 dot-matrix printer.   If I leave the image as
> it first opened, and give the print command, it prints the 4x4 image on 16
> pieces of 8.5x11 paper.  But, if I move the screen right and down to the
> middle od the image, and give the print command, it prints the whole image on
> one 8.5x11 sheet.
>
> I hope your system works this way.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> WesBurt
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription
> to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at http://www.onelist.com and
> select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> LETS for the Whole World

Attillio Castellucci:

In a message dated 98-12-31 15:40:02 EST, you write:

<<
  From: "Attillio Castellucci" <attillio@...>

  A technical question.  How do I print that hugh graph? Or can you make
  it smaller so it fits on one page?

  Cheers,
  Attillio
   >>
Hello Attillio, that's a good question.  The image on my monitor when using
the AmericaOnline software is about 4x4 times the screen size, with the screen
showing the upper left corner of the image when the file is first opened..  I
am using a NEC Pinwriter P5200 dot-matrix printer.   If I leave the image as
it first opened, and give the print command, it prints the 4x4 image on 16
pieces of 8.5x11 paper.  But, if I move the screen right and down to the
middle od the image, and give the print command, it prints the whole image on
one 8.5x11 sheet.

I hope your system works this way.

Kind regards,

WesBurt

Dear Defenders of the Status Quo on four mail lists:

The tabulation below compares the United States with Switzerland to suggest
that the U.S. has been losing ground since the end of World War II.

The attached file is a graphical presentation of a first reason why a society
with a well developed division of labor and a well designed circulating medium
of exchange, such as the United States, can experience 2-3%/year and 4-10%
unemployment for more than a century, without trying to correct the systemic
defect of omission in the sustaining feedback to the dependents of its
workforce.  The second reason for 2-3%/year and 4-10% unemployment, of course,
is monitized government deficits, which may be corrected by a LETS banking
system according to John C. Turmel.

Both the attached file and the tabulation will be self-explanatory to folks
with some technical or business experience.


          DATA FROM WORLD BANK's 1996 ATLAS, or 1949 & 1961 United Nations
reports, or as noted, for Switzerland under the optimum policy and the United
States under the second best policy.

Measurement                        (units)           United States
Switzerland

>>>> Recent total tax rates, "Where We Stand," Michael Wolff  <<<<
1990 tax rate                     (% of GDP)               29.8
32.5

>>>> Post war GDP/capita Trend <<<<
1949 GDP/capita                   ($/year)          171% of Swiss          849
1961 GDP/capita                   ($/year)          158% of Swiss        1,463
1994 GDP/capita                   ($/year)            70% of Swiss      37,180
2027 GDP/capita                    ($/year)          ?? % of Swiss
??

>>>> The People, 1996 World Bank ATLAS <<<<
Life expectancy at birth           (years)                  76
78
Total fertility rate              (births per woman)          2.1
1.6
Infant mortality rate        (per 1000 live births)          9
6
Primary school enrollment          (%)                    98
96
Female labor force                (% of total)               41
36

>>>> The Economy, 1996 World Bank ATLAS <<<<
1997Inflation rate (US-BLS)    (%/year )                  2.3
0.5
Agriculture                           (% of GDP)                2
less than 6
Exports                               (% of GDP)                10
36
Capital Investment                (% of GDP)                16
22

>>>> The Environment, 1996 World Bank ATLAS <<<<
Energy use                          (kg oil/capita)        7,918
3,491
Energy use                             (GDP/kg)                 3.1
9.4
Water use               (% of total water available)       18.9
2.4
Water use                    (cubic meters/capita)     1,870
173
Forest coverage            (% of total land area)          32
30
Forest coverage              (annual change %)           --0.1
+ 0.6

Measurement                          (units)              United States
Switzerland
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Looking forward to your comments,

WesBurt

>Date: Tue Dec 29 08:31:23 1998
>From: elise_benjamin@... ("Elise Benjamin")
>Here we go again!
>I have returned from a 6 day break to find more emails than I care to
>count from Turmel - not to mention those replying to him. That's fine
>- I read the subject and glance if it looks interesting, but
>generally I just delete them. Anyone who's been on econ-lets for some
>time must have realised that nothing anyone says will stop Turmel's
>postings (he appears to be someone who, no matter how many people say
>otherwise, is always right!) so why try!
      JCT: What gives anyone the right to try to stop my posts?

>I am sending this email reluctantly (I would rather not spend my time
>responding) in the hope that others will consider my suggestion -
>that is to only reply to Turmel if you really, really, really feel
>you must!
      JCT: Do you think it fair to ask people not to discuss things
with me just because you don't want to read them?

>Sometimes it feels like the biggest exchanges are the ones addressing
>Turmel's postings
      JCT: That's right. Why won't they just press delete quit wasting
our bandwidth with such discussions. Hey, isn't this is another one of
those posts that's wasting our bandwidth?

>and I don't think replying to him is helping, so why not leave
>replies to the times when he actually posts something that is brief
>enough for those of us with very little time to spare to respond to.
      JCT: I think you confuse brevity with quality. Are we supposed to
keep our discussions brief just because you have little time?

>- otherwise we will just continue with further versions of the
>current exchanges forever more and quite frankly I'm bored
>with it! Best wishes for the season, Elise
      JCT: How do you get bored with articles you don't read? And I
pointed out that starting in the new year, I'll keep my posts to this
list on local problems and all the stuff about Global LETS, religious
roots of LETS, social credit roots of LETS, Economics references to
LETS, and intervention with the world's political, religious and
financial leaders will be restricted to the lets@onelist.com listserv.
With this intention already stated, why keep harping about it?

>Date: Tue Dec 29 09:52:57 1998
>From: harpers@... (rk harper)
>Comment from a California lurker: The quality of information on this
>list is quite good. Mr. TURMOIL provides a subtle clue to an apparent
>ego problem when he starts each of his posts with his NAME IN CAPS!
      JCT: Actually, the purpose is to allow the people who don't want
to read my posts the chance to skip them while allowing those who do
not to miss them. When you see the TURMEL, you know what you can
expect so why do people still keep complaining about their reading
them?

>While his posts are not without value, an ego THAT LARGE and a volume
>of posting THAT LONG deserves its own list, which appears to be in
>the works.
      JCT: Call it ego if you must but I can't help being proud of LETS
and my contribution to its development.

>Mere mortals may have trouble with that list, however, so he may be
>back. Large egos do not enjoy conversing with themselves.
      JCT: Actually, there were about 40 subscriptions last week so it
looks like there'll be enough interested feedback to generate some
entertaining and enlightening discussions.

>In the meantime the DELETE key or a filter are better solutions than
>censorship. Thanks for the great information. My part of the world
>has been slow to see the value of LETS.  Rich Harper
      JCT: And I was quick enough to have been promoting Global LETS
three years before Michael invented the Local LETS and I'm sure the
big picture can only become clearer and clearer.

>Date: Tue Dec 29 10:08:45 1998
>From: mmattos@... (Mary Mattos)
>I suspect that most folks are fed up.
      JCT: And I suspect that it's the same half dozen who keep
complaining that are the only ones truly fed up. You can only take so
much of the discussions about "What is a LETS."

>I don't think many people on this list actually respond to those
>messages.
      JCT: Enough to let me know that someone's getting something out
of it.

>the length of the messages appears to come from debates (and what
>boils down to one upmanship) on a myriad of other lists, quoted and
>fwded to econ-lets.
      JCT: Actually, I must admit that I enjoy showing off the one-
upmanship possible when one knows how to use LETS in debates. It's a
rush to know the LETS engineering inside out and use it win every
economic debate, of knowing that I can never be stumped no matter how
educated and eloquent the opponent. You should try it out. I've armed
you with hundreds of arguments. All you have to do is find yourself
and economist to debate you in public and you too can experience the
rush of LETS one-upmanship.
      In the early years before before I learned about Michael Linton
and his working model, I picketed the Bank of Canada for 5 years every
Thursday when they set the interest rates and debated economists
before large crowds. It was a real joy confounding them and tripping
them up at every turn to the delight of the hundreds of spectators ten
deep around us. I had a special name for economists who'd argue with
me and get their brains beaten up over and over but who kept coming
back for more: gnurds. And then I found all sorts of gnurds on the
Internet, including LETSers who would argue that paper tokens were
not feasible, that large LETS were not feasible, that governments and
large corporations should not be allowed to join, etc., all eventually
proven wrong or to be proven wrong.

>that's probably why it's so difficult to wade through it (for those
>who actually even attempt it).
      JCT: I'm sure not everyone have such difficulty.

>I just delete them as soon as I see them. the concepts may be
>interesting but the ego is offputting.
      JCT: Fortunately, not everyone shuns interesting content because
they don't like the style.

>Date: Wed Dec 30 00:38:31 1998
>From: dillonph@... ("Paul Dillon")
>I should know better than to send out the following but, what the
>h#*!. Turmel's postings have been quite voluminous in the last month
>or so after a prolonged period of relative absence (which probably
>helped the heart grow fonder). And recently, in addition to the JT
>barrage, we have seen the resurgence of the posts dedicated almost
>exclusively to the relative merits and possibility of censoring the
>prodigious outpourings. Most everyone complains but also agrees that
>there is some merit to be found if one spends the time to go through
>the irrelevant, the tangential, and the excessive ornamentation of
>these posts.
      JCT: I'm still waiting for someone to point out a few examples of
the irrelevant, tangential and excessive ornamentation that could be
deleted. I've asked what in particular people think did not merit
being posted with the good stuff and the fact no one has ever actually
cited any specific passages seems to indicate that though there's a
lot, there's not much to be cut that isn't unique or relevant. I'm
still curious what you found to be thus and hope you can provide a few
examples of what you think I should have edited out to improve my
output.

>I have gotten so I occasionally take a glance but usually just
>delete. As to the "relevant" stuff, I have never found anything so
>startlingly original that it made me feel (as I do with some
>philosophers) that it's worthwhile to undertake the work of going
>through the massive accompanying verbiage.
      JCT: Considering it's so massive, you should have no trouble
mentioning some dross though the last person who thought only 90% was
unworthy couldn't actually cite any passages from that 90% in
particular.

>I know that gold ore is considered high grade if it contains 10
>ounces of gold per ton of ore. JT's stuff is far from high grade and
>I don't have anything resembling a lixivation, cyanidization, or
>amalgamation mill on my email browser. But it's true that there are
>some nuggets in all that rock and gravel.
      JCT: Is "What is a LETS" what you'd call high-grade discussion?

>But then this morning I remembered a rather fashionable example made
>long ago about Shakespeare, monkeys, and typewriters.  There I've
>said it!!!  Paul H. Dillon
      JCT: But though you have said you've found much gravel, you
actually haven't said it to us. I hope to find out so that I may be
able to better judge my work.
      Nevertheless, there's going to a lot of mining going on in 1999
and for those willing sift through it all, there's going to be a ton
of brand new stuff exclusive on lets@onelist.com.
      The new year is now here and I hope those who are interested in
these kind of discussions join us with a visit to:
http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/lets
      Or send a message to:
lets-subscribe@onelist.com
      You will receive notification with a password which you can
change if you visit the User Center at www.onelist.com
      Or go to www.onelist.com and register yourself
      To view the lets@onelist.com archives, see:
http://www.onelist.com/arcindex.cgi?listname=lets
      I wish you all a happy new year and success in your LETS efforts.
      And I do like bananas but it doesn't mean...
--
John C. "The Engineer" Turmel, Founder, Abolitionist Party of Canada
915-2045 Carling Ave., Ottawa, K2A 1G5, Tel/Fax: 613-728-2196
LETS Abolish Interest Rates http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
All TURMEL topics at lets@onelist.com listserv archives

--
John C. "The Engineer" Turmel, Founder, Abolitionist Party of Canada
915-2045 Carling Ave., Ottawa, K2A 1G5, Tel/Fax: 613-728-2196
LETS Abolish Interest Rates http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
All TURMEL topics at lets@onelist.com listserv archives

>Date: Wed Dec 30 14:27:13 1998
>From: mmattos@... (Mary Mattos)
>Subject: TURMEL - comments on Ontario Govt
>>JCT: When you consider all the deaths as a result of the Ontario
>>government's 20% cuts the unemployed and social service recipients
>>and to Health Care, it's obvious that their financial thinking is
>>quite insane.
>Do you have stats? I agree with you totally that the deaths are
>fallout from this Govt. I would be really interested in seeing the
>numbers relative to  those of the preceding 15 years or so.
>I would include murder, suicide, freezing to death on the streets,
>neglect in waiting rooms at hospitals and clinics, etc., police
>shootings, ...
      JCT: I don't have any numbers and I'd love to have them too.
They'd be very usefull. Yet I remember reading about a few cases of
people who died because the ambulance services had been cut back and
people who died before they could be operated on in hospital. I also
remember reading about 40 homeless found dead either in the Toronto
area or Ontario.
      Regardless, when the Mike Harris cut welfare by 20% and most
people's fixed expenses like rent, electricity, telephone remained the
same, it amounted to more like a 40% cut in their life-support tickets
and I deduced there would be more children suffering malnutrition and
disease from lack of medicine. There would be more murders, suicides,
dead homeless, every type of death due to the lack of life-support
tickets.
      I can just imagine Harris's alibi when he faces his judgment day:
      "I had to cut their life-support tickets because we had to
balance our books."
      Though I've heard it said "forgive them for they know not what
they are doing," it's pretty tough when we consider the results of
policies written by their hands. It does validate the notion that
people who study finance and economics are driven insane in this most
obvious way.

>doesn't have much to do with LETS at first glance, but these ARE the
>ills that LETS could help alleviate. Mary Mattos
      JCT: That's right. A government LETS could open up all the
hospitals, put all the ambulances and their crews back on the roads
and get sufficient food and medicine to all children and their
parents. It's especially indicting of those politicians who were
elected after running against me and hearing me explain over and over
at our debates how the LETS anti-poverty system could save society's
needy. I wonder what their alibi's going to be:
      "My opponent was wearing a white Engineer's hard-hat and
kept talking about a computer program so I didn't take him seriously.
      As the passage in Ezekiel mentions, I fulfilled my duty by
alerting them to the solution to all this death by poverty so they
won't have much excuse for having all those people die while they were
in power.
      What's amazing is that in every town and state everywhere around
the world are politicians doing exactly the same thing on the same
grounds of financial expediency.

>Date: Thu Dec 31 05:25:00 1998
>From: mblackmore@... (M.Blackmore)
>If this is true, it's scary. To say the least. I have no trouble
>believing that some consider themselves to be the ubermensch of the
>global glory to come... I seem to remember hearing that before.
      JCT: I you think this is scary, you'll reel when you read some of
the information from David Astle's book "Babylonian Woe" about the
banking system in antiquity. It's more like the Debt Slavery system in
antiquity. After peoples are tricked into debt using themselves as
collateral for the mort-gage death-gambles and were then foreclosed
upon, they were usually worked to death in galleys or mines in just a
few years. One passage:

      (Diodorus Siculus (A. Del Mar: A History of Precious Metals)
gives a striking picture of the horrors of marginal profit gold mining
as carried out with slave labor in ancient times in the Nubia in
B.C.50:
      "There are thus infinite numbers thrown into these mines, all
bound in fetters, kept a work night and day, and so strictly
surrounded that there is no possibility of their effecting an escape.
They are guarded by mercenary soldiers of various barbarous nations,
whose language is foreign to them and to each other, so that there are
no means of forming conspiracies or of corrupting those who are set to
watch them. They are kept at incessant work by the rod of the overseer
who often lashes them severely. Not the least care is taken of the
bodies of these poor creatures; they have not a rag to cover their
nakedness; and whoever sees them must compassionate their melancholy
and deplorable condition, for though they may be sick maimed or lame,
no rest nor any intermission of labor is allowed them. Neither the
weakness of old age nor the infirmities of females excuse any from the
work, to which al are driven by blows and cudgels; until borne down by
the intolerable weight of their misery, many fall dead in the midst of
their insufferable labors. Deprived of all hope, these miserable
creatures expect each day to be worse than the last and long for death
to end their sufferings.")
      Valdivia declared that every castellano of gold from Peru cost a
measure of human blood and tears. What was the cost to the Romans or
Greeks, it would be hard to say but a human life for every ounce would
probably be well within the mark.

      Sounds a lot like the kind of world Prof. Angell would feel right
at home in.
      Astle's book is by far the most informative book on money written
by someone who completely understood the money creative principles
behind LETS. It's the reason I think LETSers may appreciate it as much
as I do and also the reason people who don't understand LETS and think
that banks lend out their savers' money like piggy banks will find it
quite incomprehensible.
      I've been working tirelessly at transcribing all the best
passages of his book and starting in early 1999, I will be publishing
it and a later analysis at lets@onelist.com.
      Read in conjunction with what many people consider the greatest
history book of contemporary times, Tragedy and Hope by Carroll
Quigley, they provide an invaluable education in the history of debt
slavery banking and also the many historical examples of LETS style
banks used by the treauries of some rulers of antiquity.

>Can someone check out if Angell exists? If he is for real, and which
>groups he regularly has connections with?
      JCT: I did a search and he's a professor at the London School of
Economics, training ground of many of the world's worst politicians.
Early in my political career, the leadership of Canada's three major
parties was riddled with their graduates including Liberal Pierre
Trudeau, Tory John Crosbie and New Democrat Ed Broadbent. It's no
wonder that no matter who gets in, policies never change and Prof.
Angell has given us a good idea of the type of thinking they have been
exposed to.

>And isn't it about time we started up cells to develop hit lists, and
>think about sytematically carrying them out?
      JCT: Mohammed would certainly agree with waging war on them but
given we are so close to a technical solution, the mere upgrading of
the world's banking system to the LETS software, there's no reason to
not restrict our efforts to non-violent means. Remember that in his
own talk, he mentioned the large corporations starting up their own
LETS currencies even though he did not realize the ramifications of
it. We do though.
      It's just like all the hue and cry over some of the large banks
in Canada merging and having too much power. I can only say that it
just means that there are less central computers that we have to get
at and look forward to the day when there is only one. So despite the
seeming threats, the solution despite all the appearances is inherent
in the technology.

>As he says, weakness is contemptible. Perhaps we ought to be doing a
>bit of cleaning out of the gene pool ourselves.
      JCT: Let's not forget that he's coming from a class of people who
think their success is a function of their own worthiness without
realizing they have enjoyed the advantages of crooked system. Without
any idea of how the better system would operate, you never know if
he'd change his thinking once the ramifications of corporate LETS
eventually merging with local LETS become as apparent to him as they
are to me. There's a difference between advocating the law of the
jungle when you don't know there's a better way and when you find out
that there is.
      I sent him a copy of my post so it might have gotten his
attention enough to search out information on LETS. Besides, with
so many LETS in the UK and so many recent national articles on it,
he'd have to be pretty unread not to have heard about it yet. It might
just alert him to its full potential and he might just change his very
dismal tune.

>Last thought:
>>But whether you like it on not, you are faced with a very simple
>>choice: create your own future, or fall into somebody else's; take
>>control of your own destiny, or be at the mercy of another's whim.
>Quite right. We've got to make sure it is us who do the creating....
      JCT: My feeling exactly. LETS gives us the independent power to
create the world in the way we want it to be and we are doing just
that. Most LETSers don't realize the ramifications of what we're
doing but once LETS has saved the world from debt slavery, we'll all
be heroes.
      Starting in the new year, this kind of voluminous post will be
restricted to the lets@onelist.com listserv. I hope you join us there
for those discussions.
      To register, visit:
http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/lets
      Or send a message to:
lets-subscribe@onelist.com
      You will receive notification with a password which you can
change if you visit the User Center at www.onelist.com
      Or go to www.onelist.com and register yourself
      To view the lets@onelist.com archives, see:
http://www.onelist.com/arcindex.cgi?listname=lets
--
John C. "The Engineer" Turmel, Founder, Abolitionist Party of Canada
915-2045 Carling Ave., Ottawa, K2A 1G5, Tel/Fax: 613-728-2196
LETS Abolish Interest Rates http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
All TURMEL topics at lets@onelist.com listserv archives

--
John C. "The Engineer" Turmel, Founder, Abolitionist Party of Canada
915-2045 Carling Ave., Ottawa, K2A 1G5, Tel/Fax: 613-728-2196
LETS Abolish Interest Rates http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
All TURMEL topics at lets@onelist.com listserv archives

>Article #100487 (100487 is last):
>From: "Steven" <shales@...>
>Subject: John Turmel - A person who calls another a racist in order
>to win an argument, sad isn't it?
>Date: Tue Dec 29 22:27:18 1998
>John,
>You called me a racist first by misinterpreting what I said not
>explicitly but implicitly using a clever turn of phrase. When I
>pointed out your error and said that I wasn't you persisted except
>this time you said it explicitly. I am giving you an open
>opportunity in these fora to apologize If you do not afford yourself
>this opportunity you will regret it for it will show that you are
>more interested in winning an argument by bluster and threats than
>treating others as you would have them treat you.
      JCT: The debate is whether the Bible's many prohibitions against
interest rates applies to us. You have been defending the taking of
interest on the basis that one Old Testament statement allows the
Hebrews to exact usury of strangers if not their brothers. This is the
full correpondence of the text at issue:

>>>JCT: If you want to assume that Hebrews are not our brothers
>>>and that other races are not our brothers, then okay. Though you
>>>shouldn't loanshark to your brother, you can loanshark to
>>>foreigners. Of course, Christ did come to say that we are all
>>>brothers so I'd think that an injunction to keep life healthy
>>>between brothers should be obeyed between all nations. Otherwise
>>>though you could do unto brothers as you'd have brothers do unto
>>>you, you could do it to strangers as you'd not like it have them
>>>do it to you.
>>>I prefer to believe that we're all brothers and what's good
>>>between brothers should be good between strangers if we want those
>>>strangers to eventually call us brothers, or cousins.

>>You are calling me a racist. I expect an apology.

>JCT: I'm the one arguing we should treat each other like brothers
>and you're the arguing against it. I think no apology is necessary as
>your own words make you jump to the conclusion of what your words
>imply you are.

      JCT: You're the one who concluded that your words made you look
like a racist. You brought up the topic of racism. When you argued
that interest is okay because you can do it to strangers, I wasn't
suggesting that this was racism, you were. I was suggesting that this
was strangerism and that you sounded like a strangerist. And I stand
by this statement that if you want to do to strangers what you cannot
do to your brother, you are a strangerist.
      I never called you a racist and I don't consider your strangerism
to be racism so no apology will be forthcoming.

>It is now clear to me and others in this forum that no one can have
>a rational discussion with you. When you have been logically
>defeated on point after point you persist in defending what is
>indefensible.
      JCT: I just don't see what's so indefensible about taking the
literal translation of "do not lend at interest." And I've not been
defeated on even one point in this discussion.

>It is curious that everyone that I have witnessed discussing a topic
>with you metaphorically throws up their hands and leaves the
>discussion.
      JCT: That's because, like you, they keep losing to the logic of
The Engineer. After all, as a systems engineer, I have a great deal
more education in logic circuits and Boolean algebra than you do so
it's not unexpected.

>If only one person did that John I wouldn't think it was because of
>something you did but when many people do it I think the problem
>lies with you.
      JCT: No, the logic lies with me and it just means that I've
defeated everyone who has ever challenged me on my specialization,
banking systems engineering.

>Now that it has happened to me I understand the others' frustration.
      JCT: You've had your brain beaten up so many times in the last
few posts that I would have expected you to have gotten frustrated a
lot earlier than now.

>But take note John by leaving the discussion it does not mean that
>you have won anything just that someone who was willing to argue
>with you for a brief time will no longer partake of the dubious
>pleasure.
      JCT: My logic has prevailed on every point and your likening my
allegation of your strangerism to racism is just a cheap way of trying
to duck out of the debate without losing the face you lost long ago.
And if you call the beating you've taken pleasure, certainly dubious,
I'd be interested in knowing what you consider pain.

>Article #100491 (100492 is last):
>From: Chris Pollard <cpollard@...>
>Date: Tue Dec 29 12:16:14 1998
>In sci.engr John Turmel <bc726@...> wrote:
>>JCT: Agreed. Because we trust in Mammon rather than the living
>>God, desolation has already come upon us.
>Not helped by people who have too many kids.
      JCT: Fortunately, rich people seem to have less kids. Probably
because they can afford birth control. My goal is to turn poor people
into rich people to alleviate the population problem.

>>JCT: Sure but there's no reason we can't have both spiritual and
>>physical abundance.
>Please explain where we get all the extra stuff from? Where do we
>get the fish from, the tungsten etc etc.  There isn't enough to go
>around now - physical abundance who totally hose the planet.
      JCT: Sure we might have to cut back on carrion in our diets but
we can produce 10 times as much grain protein per acre than cattle and
there's lots of land yet to be cultivated. I'd think that Africa, Asia
and South America using high-tech farming methods could match our
output and together produce enough to feed the world.
      As for minerals, once we're not using so much for arms, there
might be sufficient for comfort if not luxury for all.

>Can YOU explain what would happen if every family had 4 kids?
      JCT: Sure, there might be a problem but I also remember a study
which argued that the planet can support 50 billion people. So with
all industrial activity diverted from destruction to production, we'll
certainly have the best chance to satisfy the desires of all. And even
if there's not enough for abundance for all, it's still the best that
can possibly be done and that's all we can do. If optimal clean
industrial production is insufficient, then like volcanos and
typhoons, it's a natural disaster we've done our best to cope with.
But somehow, I'd bet that once the diversion has been accomplished,
there will be enough to go around for all to have a luxurious and
abundant existence on Playground Eden.

--
John C. "The Engineer" Turmel, Founder, Abolitionist Party of Canada
915-2045 Carling Ave., Ottawa, K2A 1G5, Tel/Fax: 613-728-2196
LETS Abolish Interest Rates http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
All TURMEL topics at lets@onelist.com listserv archives

--
John C. "The Engineer" Turmel, Founder, Abolitionist Party of Canada
915-2045 Carling Ave., Ottawa, K2A 1G5, Tel/Fax: 613-728-2196
LETS Abolish Interest Rates http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
All TURMEL topics at lets@onelist.com listserv archives

>Date: Tue Dec 15 14:55:49 1998
>From: xkevinsm@... (Kevin Smith)
>Subject: Abolish interest rates.
>To: bc726@...
>John,
>I read with interest your posting on USENET about the money supply
>and sought out your webpage. I think your heart's in the right
>place with respect to some of the issues you address in your party's
>platform, but I disagree with some of your reasoning and conclusions.
>Your contention that $500 for every man, woman, and child goes to
>the expense of maintaining plates at banks sounds rather far-fetched.
>I don't know how big Canada's annual budget is, but $180 thousand
>million ($180 billion in US lingo, correct?) would amount to 20% of
>the US federal budget. Where do you get this number? How does this
>contrast to say, the defense budget, or national health care?
      JCT: In 1997, the Fraser Institute estimated that total debt
service by all levels of governments was $180 billion per year.
Divided by 30 million citizens, that's $6,000 per year in debt service
per person or $500 per month.
      That's not all the worst of it. They also estimated that the
total personal and commercial debt service was another $140 billion
for a grand total of $320 billion spent on debt service by Canadians.
That's $10,666 per citizen per year or almost $900 per month.
      I know it's amazing but the amount of money spent on servicing
interest on debt dwarfs all other expenditures and I'm sure it's the
same for the United States.

>Furthermore, what is the purpose of the money that is spent in this
>fashion?
      JCT: I think I've explained it best in part of my poem in
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/pomlizas.htm:

When you were little, did you ever dream of printing cash?
Of filling up your wallet with some money in a flash?
Creating money accurately means TO HAVE THE PLATES,
The stamping of some paper into notes best demonstrates;
Or stamping metal into coins; or blips computerized,
Into your bank account deposits, checks now authorized.
So whether paper, metal, volts of electricity,
TO HAVE THE PLATES is printing money absolutely free.

Now if you printed to spend, the others would bewail,
They'd call it counterfeiting and send you off to jail.
But what if Crown would let you merely print it up to lend?
With only what you could collect in interest to spend?
If you could print and lend a thousand out at ten percent,
You'd make a hundred interest on printing that you lent.
But if you could print up and lend a million out you'd get,
An extra hundred thousand dollars for your fee on debt!

If Crown stops using its own money plates and comes to you,
A billion printed nets a hundred million revenue!!
With everybody being taxed to pay you interest,
Of all the scams in history, TO HAVE THE PLATES is best!!!
Though never spending, only lending, riches do await,
To all who with the plates become the loan-sharks to the state.
And though to join the few who thusly profit, one might dream,
Wake up to see we're all the victims of their greedy scheme.

While Crowns of old had ruled that "Treasury run money plates,"
Without the interest to middle-men at rip-off rates,
Today most governments to banking industry have lost,
Control of money plates so interest is now a cost.
To service debt in ninety four, Canada's request,
A hundred'n eighty billion dollars paid in interest.
We're taxed over five hundred dollars each per month to pay,
For interest to holders of our plates they gave away!!!

We now see the unjustly cost that makes our tax inflate,
And only usury is what we must eliminate.
We Abolitionists would get the plates back from the banks,
Have Treasury create the money for printing charge and thanks.
The interest we save could be split up I recommend,
For each to get five hundred dollars monthly dividend,
As if you owned a share in the incorporated state,
An income guaranteed for life, no question, no debate.

      JCT: So without changing anything other than the installing LETS
at the bank's central computer and eliminating the interest debt
service, the money that tax us to pay debt service can be returned to
all citizens as a dividend.
      Or if you are a Social Crediter, you wouldn't let them tax you
that money in the first place.

>Is it your claim that interest is somehow immoral?
      JCT: Bhudda, Old Testament saints, Jesus Christ and Mohammed all
claim that taking from the poor to give to the rich is immoral and who
am I to disagree with them.

>If so, is it only immoral when practiced by a big bank, or under any
>circumstances? Why is it not the right of the "saver" to be
>compensated for the purchases *he has forgone* by the charging of
>interest from those who would like to use his money to try and
>create some wealth of their own?
      JCT: Rockefeller and Rothschild cannot forego consumption of the
billions they lend out so why should they be recompensed for foregoing
consumption they cannot consume?
      See my earlier posts titled "Christ said "Do not lend at
interest" and you'll see that helping your neighbor create some wealth
of his own permits him not only to pay you back but also be in the
position to lend to you interest-free should you ever be in need. See
Paul Corr II 8:14. That kind of security is all the recompense I would
ever need.

>Certainly you can't be serious when you say that, "...if
>you are borrowing money for a house, interest is unnecessary if it
>is insured because the house isn't going to walk away...".  Fine.
      JCT: If it's fine for a house, then I'm serious. And serious
about all loans for the recompense of security stated above.

>What if there is a real estate downturn and the house becomes worth
>less on the market than when it was moved into? Since the homeowner
>may default on his loan, isn't the bank entitled to collect interest
>in return for assuming this risk?
      JCT: Once there is no interest, there will be very small
changes in value and if someone defaults on the loan, the house didn't
disappear. The collateral is still there. And besides, we only ask
that they pay enough to cover the depreciation of the asset, something
quite easily done when all payments go against principal and not
interest.

>I personally like the idea of local currencies because I don't want
>to see the government controlling the money supply. But even in a
>completely privatised economy I would expect that banks would charge
>interest for loans and pay interest to depositors.
      JCT: LETS bankers are paid via service charges with no problems.
And depositors not only receive the security of their neighbors
success but also do not suffer inflation but rather enjoy increased
buying power of their money.
      While most people have been deluded into seeking interest in the
chase for more money to buy their goods, not seeking interest allows
for more goods bought with the same money.
      The best way to understand reverse-inflation or appreciate with
LETS is by considering LETS Hours. If you spend an hour producing a
pair of shoes for a youngster in exchange for his 1 Hour promissory
note, in 20 years when you wish to purchase a pair of shoes from the
youngster who has come on line, his 1 Hour note will buy you three
pairs of shoes because of his improved technology.
      Doesn't it make sense that as technology improves, the standard
of living should improve. And yet, though our parents could afford to
buy a home and raise 8 kids, most people can't afford a home or to
raise kids anymore. The error is in the delusion that people should
demand more money for their food, rather than more food for their
money. It's the reason I pity all those poor unions who, led by their
economists, demand more money year after year and never end up ahead.

>Interest is the oil that ensures money gets to where it's needed,
>when it's needed.
      JCT: LETS bankers manage quite trivialy to ensure that money gets
to where it's needed when it's needed without using interest.

--
John C. "The Engineer" Turmel, Founder, Abolitionist Party of Canada
915-2045 Carling Ave., Ottawa, K2A 1G5, Tel/Fax: 613-728-2196
LETS Abolish Interest Rates http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
All TURMEL topics at lets@onelist.com listserv archives

>Date: Fri Jan  1 05:59:40 1999
>From: tomlunde@... ("Thomas Lunde")
>The following is not a joke. Professor Ian Angell does exist. I
>heard him interviewed on CBC Radio about 4 years ago expressing much
>the same sort of views. I do not think, as some futurework
>participants suggested, that this is satire of the extreme right-wing
>position. I am something of an expert on satire, having done doctoral
>studies in 18th century lit, the golden age of English satire, and
>extreme though this is, it lacks the techniques that a writer like
>Swift uses to tip us off that his outrageous proposals are meant
>satirically. Science fiction fans will recognize that the brave new
>world welcomed by Professor Angell has some strong similarities to
>the dark "cyberbunk" vision created by sf writers like Sterling and
>Gibson--a world ruled by high tech corporations with their private
>security forces.
>Notice also that Angell agrees with American liberal futurologist
>Jeremy Rifkin that technology will eliminate vast numbers of jobs in
>the near future. The difference is that Angell would just let the
>displaced workers fall by the wayside while Rifkin wants to make
>provision for them.
      JCT: Social Credit has a wonderful solution to the problem of
technology taking over from people. It is the National Dividend,
everyone's share of the robot production. As Major Douglas, the Social
Credit Engineer explained that As the lever of technology gets longer
and longer, the amount of work necessary to produce all we need is
reduced and liberation from work should not be called unemployment and
punished with poverty but should be called leisure and rewarded with a
share of that production through the National Dividend. After I
heard this, I never again feared robots taking away my employment as
long as I got my share of the robot's paycheck.

>I believe that if we do not roll back the right, this world will
>begin to manifest itself. It will never fully realize itself because
>it is bound to self-destruct through its inherent contradictions -
>with great suffering for all. The struggle will not stop with the
>defeat of Mike Harris, whose Whiz Kids are moving us along towards
>this world. We have to continue fighting against corporate rule to
>save ourselves and future generations from the neocon cyberpunk
>world, even to save naive right-wingers like Craig Chandler from the
>long term effects of their own policies.  I will be posting this on
>my own website shortly with some more detailed comments. Victor Milne
      JCT: When you consider all the deaths as a result of the Ontario
government's 20% cuts the unemployed and social service recipients and
to Health Care, it's obvious that their financial thinking is quite
insane.

>Welcome to the Brave New World
>Party Political broadcast on behalf of SPECTRE given to
>Alliance of Manufacturers & Exporters Canada
>on October 2, 1998
>by Ian O. Angell
>Professor of Computer Science, London School of Economics
>Personal advisor to Ernst Stavro Blofeld

>Introduction
>Welcome to the future. Welcome to a world as different from today, as
>today is from the pre-industrial age. Welcome to Spectre: We are NOT
>the Special Executive for Counter-Espionage, Terrorism, Revenge and
>Extortion. The James Bond myth, that the state is good and global
>corporations (we in Spectre) are bad, is blatant propaganda on behalf
>of the nation-state; a morality tale told by tax collectors.
>We're merely global capitalists, and we are tired of the vicious lies
>pouring out of the nation-state; lies that categorize global business
>as criminal, just because we refuse to kow-tow to mere politicians.
>The nation state is dead. James Bond, the patron saint of civil
>servants, the thug of state, is now just another dirty old man.
      JCT: You're criminals because you put profits before the lives of
people you should be serving.

>Welcome to our Brave New World.
>But why new? New, because new technology is forcing new order upon an
>unsuspecting world. The future is being born on the so-called
>information superhighways, where everyone in the world (at least
>those who can afford it) can talk to everyone else. Anyone bypassed
>faces ruin. We're on the verge of a new revolution, an Information
>Revolution, that is taking us out of the Machine Age, into who knows
>what .... into that Brave New World.
      JCT: With all that ruin, sounds like a Brave New Hell.

>But why Brave? Brave, because this is not a world for the timid. None
>but the brave will win here. The certainties of the twentieth century
>are collapsing. The twentieth century is over. It ended at the Berlin
>Wall in 1989. Everything is changing, and I really do mean
>everything: politics, economics, society as a whole. And I really do
>mean change; not the nice neat change that snake-oil salesmen peddle
>in their change management seminars; not nice tidy transition, but
>severe and total dislocation with the past.
      JCT: Unless the Earth's peoples can get LETS accounts with which
to purchase life support first.

>Organizations, like Spectre do not identify with, are indifferent to,
>any particular country, and relocate (physically, fiscally or
>electronically) to where the profit is greatest and the regulation
>least. We think globally, because we communicate globally and because
>our shareholders, our executive, and our employees are spread out
>across the globe!
      JCT: And moving their polluting operations to poorer
jurisdictions which must choose between jobs and poisoned environment
versus no jobs and no food in order to maximize profits is no excuse.

>We are virtual enterprises at the hub of loosely knit alliances, all
>linked together by global networks: electronic, transport and human.
>We assemble to take advantage of any temporary business opportunity;
>and then we separate, each company moving on to its next major deal.
>We are project-based, and developed around complex information
>systems.
      JCT: That's right. You take advantage of the weak to maximize
your profits when it isn't necessary if you were to use LETS banking
rather than usury banking.

>The information system IS the virtual enterprise; it IS the
>headquarters; and it can be based virtually anywhere in Cyberspace.
>And while in cyberspace the apparent size of the firm can be
>amplified far beyond the physical reality. You are what you claim to
>be; you are what you can deliver via telecommunication networks.
>Global business will desert factory or office if the demands of
>workers are excessive just like Timex did when it abandoned its
>Dundee site. They sent in the helicopters and took what they wanted;
>they waved to the demonstrators fuming below, and left the local
>authority with useless real estate. We are changing the nature of
>work. With the networked portable computer and the mobile phone, we
>are turning office workers into road warriors, and squeezing 30% more
>work out of them. The virtual office is merely a mobile node in a
>telecommunications network. Cars, homes, airports, aeroplanes are now
>just extensions of the office.
      JCT: That's right, you're squeezing the workers to the point
where we can estimate the deaths you've caused. This squeezing has
been going on throughout history but things are going to change.

>The all-knowing company (just-in-timeshare) information system will
>establish the exact location of each and every employee, and messages
>for her will be delivered directly, just-in-time, no matter where she
>is in the building, no matter where she is in the world. I say she,
>because the workplace (whatever that is) will be feminized. In the UK
>women already take up 44% of the jobs. Because of the changing nature
>of work, and the freedoms delivered by home-working, the Henley
>Centre predicts that women will take on 80% of all new jobs being
>created in the next decade.
>Companies will shed office space. Offices can be hired on short time
>scales perhaps within even just a few hours. Hotels, railway stations
>and airports are already supplying temporary office space. We in
>Spectre don't pay any rent at all. We hold our meetings in the lobby
>of the best hotel in town, and all for the price of afternoon tea.
>The demand for space is a tiny fraction of the supply: And so the
>value of commercial real estate will enter free-fall. There are going
>to be very bad times ahead for the owners of office blocks. So don't
>get tied into long-term office leases; there are bargains galore
>around the corner. Sell your property shares quickly before the
>meltdown.
>No office, means: no rent, heat and light, insurance, and the number
>of support jobs can be slashed: tea ladies, security men, cleaners,
>receptionists, canteen staff, porters, electricians, plumbers,
>carpenters, janitors. All the jobs that supported the workplace of
>the Machine Age are now endangered species in the Information Age.
>Companies will use fewer workers to cover the same work load.
      JCT: And who is going to buy all your products when you've
eliminated so many pay-checks? Sure you'll have all the money but you
won't be able to consume it all yourselves, will you?

>Those lucky enough to be in work, will have to work harder, for more
>hours each week, for less pay, in less secure jobs: and they had damn
>well better be grateful for it. No longer tied to a single location,
>we are free to exploit the workers. Management can finally get its
>revenge and kill off those damn trades unions. We can really shaft
>troublesome workers. In Spectre we don't even look them in the eye.
>We fire them by E-mail.
      JCT: Seems like you've got a more efficient kind of slavery
planned for us.

>For humanity is polarizing into two employment categories: the
>financial, intellectual, cultural and business elite (the knowledge
>workers) the Alphas; and the rest (the service workers). It is time
>to rid ourselves of the backward looking idea that work involves
>physical effort. Of course labour is needed - but there is a world
>full of labourers out there. It is that rare commodity - human
>intellect - that is the stuff of work in tomorrow's world.
>No company can survive without its Alphas, but it can replace service
>workers with robots or export the jobs anywhere on the globe.
>Offices, factories and headquarters will move from high cost areas to
>low cost. British Telecom Directory Enquiries for London is based in
>Scotland. Companies can just as easily move abroad. ICL, the British
>computer company, runs main-frame help line from Poona in India.
>Courage, British institution, makes all its toys in China. A host of
>countries are out there making you an offer you can't refuse.
      JCT: Sounds like you've got everyone by the throat.

>Meanwhile, money, which is merely a means of facilitating economic
>transactions, has itself become electronic information. What
>constitutes money can no longer be monopolized by the state. Money
>does not have to be created legal tender by governments. Like law,
>language and morals it can emerge spontaneously. Such private money
>has often been preferred to government money, but government has
>usually soon suppressed it (Hayek). In the age of Internet can
>government keep suppressing it? Hayek's vision of the
>Denationalization of Money can now become a reality.
      JCT: It already is. They haven't been able to suppress the LETS
private money systems so far and with many thousands around the world
and several governments already supporting them, there's the good
chance that this ugly corporate scenario doesn't have to continue.

>The real issue is not dollar bills, but Bill's [Gates] dollars; every
>corporation will issue its own electronic money. Such trends make
>taxation of profits and regulation of the process almost impossible.
>But a real competitive advantage for those who are willing to trade
>their expertise in this electronic market.
      JCT: It does a lot more than that. It frees those corporations
from paying debt service and passing those costs along to use in their
prices. What he seems to think is another weapon in the hands of the
corporations, I see as their and our liberation from the corporate
tyranny expressed.

>We Alphas are the real generators of wealth. Our income will increase
>substantially. We will be made welcome anywhere in the world. Foreign
>entrepreneurial investors with 1 million at their disposal can bypass
>the usual entry rules into the UK.
      JCT: Sorry, I think it's the farmers, engineers and manufacturing
workers and certainly not those sitting in the corporate boardrooms.

>But poor Britain has been very slow off the Mark, with the added
>embarrassment that none of the migrant rich want to live there. In
>the United States, there is a fast-track immigration policy for
>businessmen who can offer $1 million and employ 10 people. In 1993
>six hundred millionaires emigrated to America.
      JCT: But once the shortage of money is solved, they'll have to be
a little more talented than mere possession of money.

>However, service workers are a net loss. There are a billion new
>workers in the global marketplace. It is no accident that most
>Western companies are instigating major downsizing, delayering and
>outsourcing programs.
>The motto for everyone is "add value or perish!"
>There is no room for sentimentality in this Brave New World.
      JCT: There's plenty of room if you use LETS to love thy neighbor
rather than your wish to exploit your neighbor.

>Companies must ask, and answer, some very brutal questions concerning
>which workers are resources and which are liabilities. Acting in this
>way they are not being callous, unscrupulous, unprincipled or
>immoral. "Nature is not immoral, when it has no pity for the
>degenerate." (Nietzsche).
      JCT: Yes but Nature is full of animals. I'm glad to think that
I've transcended this Law of the Jungle mentality and I'd bet that
when the world banking software is upgraded to LETS, Professor Angell
is going to feel pretty stupid for having expressed such heartless and
blood-thirsty views.

>Of course, out-of-touch politicians, both the knaves and the naive,
>incant the words - training - in New Technology and - jobs - through
>growth, pretending they can conjure up new jobs for the huge number
>of soon-to-be-unemployed - it's not that simple.
      JCT: That's right, politicians who think this way are silly but
I'm not in the political section of the 1997-8 Guinness Book of World
Records for holding such silly views. Politicians like me hold the
view of the great Quebec Social Credit politician Real Caouette that:
"If you want more jobs, take out the bulldozer and put in 50 men with
shovels. You want more jobs? Take away their shovels and give them
spoons. It's not the jobs they want but the money necessary to feed
their families."

>For technology is the problem, not the solution.
      JCT: Depends if you understand how the dividend works or not. In
Professor Angell's case, not.

>Productivity is delivered by a technology needing only a few machine
>minders growth comes from the intellect of knowledge workers, not
>from the labour of service and production workers.
      JCT: And it certainly doesn't come from the owners and share-
holders. They're the greatest drones of all.

>States must learn that they are now just a form of commercial
>enterprise and they will have to be run like corporations.
>Governments, like all other organizations will have to survive
>economically on the efforts of an elite few and no nation-state has
>an automatic right to exist.
      JCT: And very soon, they'll have to wise up like the corporations
and issue their own money rather than letting banks create and
borrowing it from them and then taxing us to pay them interest. My
party, the Abolitionist Party of Canada, is in favor of returning the
power to create money to the treasury and saving all that debt
service. If corporations can do it, any government can do it too.

>Now the Alpha chooses to give his loyalty freely and voluntarily;
>loyalty is no longer an accident of birth. It is individual, not
>tribal; contractual not judicial; it is made consciously on the basis
>of unashamed rational self-interest. If the state can't produce
>quality people products, in sufficient quantities, then it must buy
>it from abroad.
>Each state must scour the globe for elite knowledge workers, no
>matter what their age, sex, religion or race. Drag them off the
>planes if necessary. These entrepreneurs, who can flee, will be
>immune to taxation. Tax credits and tax holidays will be the name of
>the game everywhere.
      JCT: Assuming governments remain in thrall to their usurers.

>Governments have no choice. They must submit to the will of global
>enterprise. The British government had to bribe the Chung Hwa Picture
>Tube Company with 80 million to open a factory in Scotland.
      JCT: Just because he can't see doesn't mean governments will also
be unable to see. Several governments are already getting a glimpse of
the benefits of supporting community LETS and it's only a matter of
time until they see the benefit of using their own interest-free LETS
currency themselves.

>In order to attract the elite with their knowledge and money to
>enliven the economy, Alphas will be expected to be less taxed and not
>more! Arbitrage pressures, exploitation of price/tax/regulation
>differentials mean the end of progressive taxation. Companies can
>demand that its senior executives be given diplomatic status: no
>income tax! When Leona Helmsley said only the little people pay taxes
>she was making a prediction. Strapped for cash, governments will tax
>anything in solid form: we will see taxes on fuel, food and clothes.
>Property taxes will rise: in 1913 60% of US tax revenues came from
>property; today it is 10%; in 2013 will it be back at 60%?
      JCT: So not only are the workers to be laid-off but they're also
supposed to be the ones paying the taxes while those who get all the
money are the ones who won't have to pay taxes. Sounds quite illogical
to me.

>But nobody wants more service workers; each state has a surplus of
>its own to support. Barriers will be thrown up everywhere to keep out
>alien service workers. It is already happening. In California,
>proposition 187 bars nearly two million illegal immigrants from
>schools, welfare services, and all but emergency health care.
>How long before there are differential rights, for differentiated
>citizens, identified in data base, and policed by smart cards? How
>long before the notion of Human Rights is as outdated as the Divine
>Right of Kings?
      JCT: If guys like you stay in charge, I guess it won't be long at
all before Human Rights become outdated.

>The fact is - many too many are born.
      JCT: Not in wealthy societies where birth rates always go down.
The trick is to create wealthy societies who can afford birth control.

>The state was devised for the superfluous ones.
      JCT: The state was devised to give the money plates to the rich
and collect our taxes to pay the loansharks their usury.

>Mass-production methods needed an over-supply of humanity; the
>Machine Age spawned the nation-state, but with its demise what is to
>be done with the glut as we enter the Information age? Not only will
>state be pitted against state, but also against area, town against
>town, even suburb against suburb.
      JCT: But economic warfare over insufficient money has been the
story of all our history, so far.

>Global corporations have shown that the nation-state is too small for
>the big things and too big for the small things. Nation-states will
>fragment. Rich areas will dump poor areas. The number of states in
>the United Nations will increase from its present number of 184 to
>over a thousand. Belgium will break up. So will Italy, Spain, France
>and Germany. and what about the United Kingdom(?) which has never
>been truly united. How soon before the rich South-East of England
>realize the benefits of discarding that black hole for taxes north
>of Watford?
      JCT: As long as they all start up their own government LETS,
they'd all be better off. I always found it amusing that though Quebec
talks of separation, they also say they will stay in debt and continue
paying interest to the Bank of Canada. All kinds of independence but
not financial independence. If they were smart, they'd do the opposite
by creating the LETS Bank of Quebec and not separating.

>And what will replace the nation state? We Alphas, tired of
>supporting the ungrateful masses, are on the move to hot spots
>modeled along the lines of Hong Kong, Singapore, Liechtenstein. We
>are reinventing the medieval City State as the Smart City at the hub
>of global electronic and transport networks. An independent
>cosmopolitan City State of London makes real economic sense. Think
>of it! Home rule for London inside the M25 orbital motorway.
      JCT: Seems like a futuristic movie I saw recently with a high-
tech city surrounded by dirty starving slums. Oh, that's what most
large Third World cities already look like anyway.

>The Free City of London can be a tiger economy attracting in global
>corporations, but only if we chop off the dead hand of the Mother of
>Parliaments, the sleaze-machine of Westminster. If the House of
>Commons really wants to help London, then they should move to
>Birmingham.
      JCT: If they really want to help London, they should upgrade the
Bank of England's software to LETS instead of just endorsing it for
the general population to set up on their own.

>The lights are going out for wide sectors of society, And for whole
>categories of employment. Involvement in the black economy, in
>essence an alternative economy, is the only option open to the losers
>who are surplus to requirements in the legitimate economy.
      JCT: And fortunately, LETS is there to take up the slack by using
the Local Employment-Trading System to organize a System of Trading
Employment Locally. LETS is a do-it-yourself currency system that can
handle their re-employment as fast as Professor Angell lays them off.

>We're entering a new Dark Age: an age of hopelessness, an age of
>resentment, an age of Rage.
      JCT: It's not new. It's been with us throughout history. It's
just new to the First World that's just starting to get a taste of
what the Third World has been going through.

>Redundancy Rage is appearing among the unemployed.
>Newly redundant workers attack senior management and their
>ex-colleagues in the workplace, on the street and in their homes. A
>certain Los Angeles company has had five senior executives murdered
>in the past two years. Grudge terror, whether the grudge is real or
>imagined, is reality: just think of the unabomber in the US and the
>Mardi Gras bombers' attacks on Barclays Bank in the UK.
      JCT: Sort of like my Anti-Nuclear picket sign which read "Bankers
Finance War, Nuke the Banks." Seems like they're taking their rage out
on the wrong guys.

>Societies are re-stratifying; new elites are appearing. The rich are
>getting richer, and the poor poorer.
      JCT: And interest is the banking software that takes from the
poor to make the rich richer. When LETS is finally installed, the rich
will lend their abundance to the poor.

>We are already witnessing the emergence of a rapidly expanding
>underclass. The streets of London are again littered with beggars.
>In the transition we can expect massive civil unrest and disorder.
>The soon-to-be-have-nots - have nothing to lose and will riot.
>This is what happened in France in the winter of 1995, when workers
>and students took to the streets in defense of their cradle-to-grave
>welfare system.
      JCT: They may have taken to the streets but you can bet that they
didn't know what they were for, just what they're against. Just
because they haven't identified the problem yet doesn't mean they'll
be that way forever. The first LETS in France started in 1994 and now
there are over 300. See http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/letssites.htm

>It happened in Belgium, South Korea and Germany. German coal miners
>re subsidized to the tune of 150,000DM each year! It can't go on.
>This is the economics of the madhouse, and the lunatics are in charge
>of the asylum.
      JCT: Yes and you're one of the guys in charge.

>These crazy politicians cannot indefinitely keep buying votes and
>still hope to fend off the inevitable. Real world crime is finding a
>counterpart in Cyberspace: computer variants of protection rackets,
>blackmail, murder, kidnapping, smuggling, counterfeiting, fraud,
>threatening behaviour, vandalism (fax graffiti) and pornography will
>inevitably appear.
      JCT: Will? It's already here.

>Don't look to the police for help. With the lack of government
>resources, the main role for state police, perhaps the only role,
>will be the maintenance of civil order. Governments are control
>freaks, they will never give up pushing the population round. But
>because of the lack of revenue, other police duties, such as solving
>crime, which today you take for granted, will increasingly be
>outsourced.
      JCT: But that is not how governments which have used LETS
currencies operate. Argentinian provinces started up their own local
currencies using small denomination of interest-free provincial bonds
back in 1985 which allowed them to look out for their citizens, not
fight them off. http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/np2.htm

>Today in the US there are nearly three times as many private security
>guards as there are public police - even in the UK the figure is two
>to one. The eleventh biggest police force in the US is the New York
>Schools Authority.
>The natural order is reasserting itself: the police are not there to
>protect the masses, they are there to protect the property of the
>rich from the masses. Lack of government funding may mean the end of
>the Welfare State, but the rich will always find money for security.
>The security of Alphas is going to be big business, perhaps the only
>growth business in the Information Age. Whenever anyone asks me for
>career advice I always say: if you can't be a knowledge worker... be
>a policeman.
      JCT: Prison guards will be in great demand in your Brave New
World.

>So this is not a time for despair, quite the opposite. It is a time
>of great opportunity for the few, a great opportunity for YOU. It is
>in such times that new empires are made - today that means new global
>business empires. For a few companies the future looks very bright.
      JCT: Don't despair because it's a great opportunity for a few? I
despair because there's no opportunity for the many.

>Information technology has liberated the elite few, from the mind-set
>and the moralities of the tribe. We ignore tribal loyalties. There
>are enormous opportunities for those who have the vigour and
>vitality, the nerve, to break free of the limitations of tribal
>boundaries drawn from the past, and who have the vision to redraw
>their own orders, their own future.
      JCT: It's called looking out for number one. Sounds like there's
no room for selfishness and love in your new world.

>It isn't going to be easy, and it isn't going to be nice. "I have
>often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because
>they had no claws" (Nietzsche). Societal evolution is not benign.
      JCT: The point is that it can be. If we stop the system that
takes from the poor to give to rich. Notice that with LETS, we do not
take from the rich, we just borrow from the rich with the guarantee
that they can have it back as fast as they want it and can use it.

>Evolution is by nature red in tooth and claw; it spawns carnivores as
>well as herbivores. The carnivores of Spectre care nothing for
>democracy or the rules of parliament, that are representative of
>herbivores. Grass eaters beware, the jackals are circling, the hyenas
>are laughing. Specter's time has come. Why not join us?
      JCT: No thanks. I'll reserve my claws for you jackals and
laughing hyenas. Specter's time is over.

>In this brutal and brutish world remember Baudelaires' words: "one is
>punished for being weak, not for being cruel."
>From your expressions I seem to have shocked many of you.
      JCT: Is it any wonder? You represent a monstrous jungle
philosophy as inevitable. Of course, you probably don't know about
LETS or its potential for peace and prosperity for all. Of course, you
won't be able to exploit anyone anymore. Too bad.

>It's discouraging to think how many people are shocked by honesty and
>how few by deceit. I'm discouraged, but not surprised.
      JCT: I'm not shocked by the honesty, I'm shocked by the
depravity.

>But whether you like it on not, you are faced with a very simple
>choice: create your own future, or fall into somebody else's; take
>control of your own destiny, or be at the mercy of another's whim.
      JCT: That's exactly what LETS allows us to do, to take control of
our own destiny without doing it over the carcasses of the weakers
members of the human family.

>Grab hold of the future. "The reasonable man adapts himself to the
>world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to
>himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
>(George Bernard Shaw).
      JCT: We're trying to adapt the world to ourselves, but all of us
and I don't think that makes us unreasonable though all progess does
depend on our re-engineering the worlds to the needs of all mankind
and not only to the Alphas.

>SPECTRE is very unreasonable. And Spectre is going to win. Global
>business is not your enemy - populist governments are. Petty
>politicians are merely moving the deckchairs on the Titanic: we've
>already launched the lifeboats.
      JCT: Sorry, but LETS have been called life-boats. What you
have described is a galley for slavers and slaves.

>Spectre is the government in waiting. We will create our own new
>world order. Don't think you can deny global business. For remember,
>those who are not with us are against us.
      JCT: I'm against you but as long as the corporate world starts up
its own interest-free currency system, they'll be tamed whether they
know it or not.

>Take the advice of Niccolo Machiavelli. On his deathbed, a priest
>asked him
>:do you renounce the devil and all his works? Machiavelli replied
>:"This is no time to be making enemies."
      JCT: And I'm sure he's getting along well with the one he feared
to make his enemy. Beware you don't join him.

>Don't make an enemy of global business. Why not join us? The choice
>is yours. Where will you fit in? will you fit in?
      JCT: The Engineer will not be mastered by any system, The
Engineer will master the system. I don't want to fit into your system.
I want a system where I belong.

>END OF TALK PROF. IAN O. ANGELL
>Oct. 2, 1998 to Alliance of Manufacturers & Exporters Canada
      JCT: This is probably one of the most disgusting, defeatist
opinions I've ever read. I think you should call yourself an Omega
from the bottom of the swamp and leave the designation of Alpha to
those of us who have not accepted your Hell of a world but who will
re-engineer it into a Heaven of a world to the benefit of all mankind.
      Thanks Thomas Lunde for posting this.
--
John C. "The Engineer" Turmel, Founder, Abolitionist Party of Canada
915-2045 Carling Ave., Ottawa, K2A 1G5, Tel/Fax: 613-728-2196
LETS Abolish Interest Rates http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
All TURMEL topics at lets@onelist.com listserv archives

--
John C. "The Engineer" Turmel, Founder, Abolitionist Party of Canada
915-2045 Carling Ave., Ottawa, K2A 1G5, Tel/Fax: 613-728-2196
LETS Abolish Interest Rates http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
All TURMEL topics at lets@onelist.com listserv archives

>Date: Wed Dec 30 02:37:38 1998
>From: ncsamish@... (Norman Samish)
>Subject: [SystemPolitics] Re: (System Politics) re: the right path
>> From: "Attillio Castellucci" <attillio@...>
>I think Thomas may be saying something like "From each according to
>his ability, to each according to his need." There's a web site that
>seems to reflect pretty much what MTG and Thomas have been telling
>me. It's at http://www.hartford-hwp.com/cp-usa/index.html
>
>>So what you are saying is that we should not trade goods and
>>services, but somehow exchange them, like exchanging gifts maybe?
>>Maybe you're on to something. Maybe like Religion. The flock gives
>>the church what they can and the church gives the flock spiritual
>>direction with no set price tags. In time, relationships develop
>>and the members donate directly to other church members in their
>>time of need. This occurs, in varying degrees, out of a sense of the
>>joy of giving with no payment expected and a sense of what goes
>>around comes around.
>>This kind of system does not take kindly to dictatorial decrees
>>however. It the kind of thing that starts in the heart. It is built
>>one clan at a time. It is always voluntary. You can't legislate
>>away the market economy. It would go underground. You can't just
>>take away property. Do you want to start WW3?
      JCT: I think the LETS Local Employment-Trading System comes
closest to this but without inhibiting the capitalist urges in all of
us to work harder, earn more and get to keep it.
      "From each according to his ability, to each according to his
need," the famous Communist motto has shown the weakness of expecting
people to produce their maximum when they don't get to keep it.
      The better system, LETS, works more on the principle "To each
according to his want and from each according to his abundance." It
allows people to produce the maximum, consume what they want but lend
their only their abundance to the community while retaining the credit
to exact from the community what they've saved.
      The LETS motto is best described in Paul Corr II 8:14:
      "Your abundance should at the present time be a supply for their
want so that later their abundance may be a supply for your want and
in that way, he who gathers much doesn't have too much and he who
gathers little doesn't have too little, that there may be equality."
      Notice that the ones who work harder or more efficiently and
harvest much have more than those who work less or less efficiently
but the abundance is made available, and only the abundance. This
allows a market economy with the natural capitalistic impulses in all
of us and still permits the care of the needy on the promise to be
helped back should our need ever arise.
      Notice that this law of abundance is in direct contrast to the
law of abundance defining interest rates which take from the poor to
give to the rich, Reverse Robin Hood, in Matt 13:12:
      "To those who have abundance will more be given and from those
who have no abundance, even what they have will be taken away."
      You can find many references to how the LETS banking system's
interest-free currency acts like a gift economy starting your search
at: http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/letssites.htm

>Date: Fri Jan  1 05:57:31 1999
>From: tomlunde@... ("Thomas Lunde")
>Subject: [SystemPolitics] Re: (System Politics) re: the right path
>Thomas:
>First, I did not write any of the below statements so they do not
>reflect my thought. Look, let's be a little reasonable here. In a
>manner of speaking the current economy is much like a monopoly game.
>The longer you play, the more luck rewards one of the players at the
>expense of the others. Soon someone has to drop out, another has to
>attempt to borrow to stay in the game, finally the winner collapses
>the loans and there he sits with all the properties and all the
>houses and all the money. Is this sane?
      JCT: This is one of the uglier aspects of how a usurious economy
where those who are positive get more from the negatives causes the
wealth to centralize in the hands of the winners. This does not occur
in a LETS economy.

>Does this have anything to do with the exchange of goods and
>services? Does this have anything to do with children crying because
>they have no food, because intelligent people cannot express
>themselves because all their efforts are directed towards survival in
>a world in which the game is set up for a single winner to emerge.
>(Individual, corporation or nationstate - it doesn't matter)
      JCT: Good point. It doesn't. But children have no food because
they have no credit. LETS provides that "your excess food production
should at the present time supply the children's want so that later
their excess food production may supply your want."
>There is nothing wrong, in my opinion with the socialist or the
>communist creed of "each according to their ability, to each
>according to his need", but it is not what I am striving for. I may
>not be able to totally articulate what I am striving for in all the
>small details or large philosophical statements of great authors.
      JCT: I'm sure you feel the same dislike of a system that doesn't
allow you to work harder to get more as I do. I would guess that you
would find the idea of LETS quite satisfying.

>Mine is a more humble description. I want people to smile, to excude
>confidence, to be creative and joyful, whether building a bookshelf
>or taking a kid to the museum.  Iwant a floor on poverty so that no
>one can or should be too poor that life is suffering and I want a
>ceiling on wealth accumulation and I am willing for that to be quite
>high but not unlimited. I want to see personal security for all. I
>want a government that governs for the good of all the people and
>that has among it's highest ideals the continuation of the species by
>conserving and protecting the planet and all it's resources to the
>best of it's abilities. I want businesses to be interesting and
>rewarding places to express human aspirations - where business is
>interested in durability, fairness, quality, not necessarily growth
>and profit exclusively. My way is not the only way and I'm willing
>to compromise on many things, learn and change my opinion, for life
>should be a growth, not a defense.
      JCT: Once governments start LETS for their citizens, that's what
you'll get.

>Humans have choices, government and businesses have choices and then
>there are realities within which those choices have to be made. We
>are probably overpopulated - we certainly are not distributing equity
>in the current world situation. We have shortages looming - it may be
>cement, it may be oranges, it may be penicillin, when they happen we
>will all feel that shortage and have to adapt. We have energy
>crisis's looming, they may be solved - they may not. We are at the
>cusp of many potential futures.
      JCT: But the best future is where everyone can hustle for all
they can but their abundance is borrowed from them and efficiently
allocated to those who can make best use of it. The real destructive
nature of usury is that so much is hoarded and not put to most
efficient use.

>I am reposting on this list today, the future of the mega
>corporation, is this the world we want to live in? Maybe 1% of the
>population does but I think most of us would find it a little harsh.
      JCT: I read it and I think it's a horrible view of the future
that people who don't know about LETS could hold. It boils down to the
law of the jungle where the fittest survive and the weakest are left
to die out. I'll probably do a greater analysis on it at the listserv
lets@onelist.com. Join it for some pretty interesting upcoming
discussions.

>We all need to back off a little. We, are getting to be zealots,
>defending our point of view, scoring points, taking shots, making
>assumptions about anothers motives. There is a lot to explore, some
>of it requires taking positions, defending or promoting ideas - but
>thats all objective. It's the subjective stuff that damages
>learning, and yes, I have taken my share of shots too and do not
>claim any moral high ground except to say I have noticed it and I
>will strive to change. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde
      JCT: Seems to me you have a right to claim a moral high ground.
All your vibes are right on the money short of knowing about the
better system just around the corner. There are now thousands of LETS
around the world and it's been endorsed as an "anti-poverty"
"lifeboat" by the UK, Australian, New Zealand governments as well as
state governments supporting Timedollar systems in the United States.

>Date: Fri Jan  1 06:10:45 1999
>From: tomlunde@... ("Thomas Lunde")
>Subject: [SystemPolitics] Re: Was taking the West an atrocity?
>To: SystemPolitics@onelist.com
>Thomas:
>I didn't denigrate their accomplishments.  I wrote a metaphor.
>I want to extend this a bit.
>Let us postulate that this successful apple tree grower and
>harvester, secure in his knowledge that his larder was filled was
>confronted by a hungry man, a traveler perhaps, or an outcast, or one
>who had no land of his own to plant his own apple tree. Should he
>give him some apples for his hunger? We would call this charity -
>that one who has gives to one, who for whatever reason at that point
>in time doesn't have but has a need.
      JCT: Better to lend him some apples rather than give. Isaiah said
it best:
      "You who are hungry and have no money, come buy and eat." This
is not charity. In a LETS, the children buy on credit and are expected
to repay you when they grow up." It's just their debt does not grow
with interest though their increased technology would provide you with
more for your money when you choose to call in and spend their LETS
IOUS which you have accepted.

>I think there is a different answer. In all that growing and
>harvesting, the enterprising man had a partner, an unseen partner.
>That partner was the Earth, it gave the climate, the seed, the rain
>and the sun provided the energy and all these resources were given
>and man added his labour. And the Earth exists for all life, the
>apple tree, the worm, the grower and the traveler. And so I would
>say there are times when we should recognize that what we have is not
>the results of our own labour but came as a blessing from Earth and
>Sun who support all life. And that in an act of gratitude, the
>individual should share as he has been shared with.  And that sharing
>is a dividend paid to a fellow shareholder of the planet, not
>charity. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde
      JCT: How true. It was a pleasure to read your thoughts.
--
John C. "The Engineer" Turmel, Founder, Abolitionist Party of Canada
915-2045 Carling Ave., Ottawa, K2A 1G5, Tel/Fax: 613-728-2196
LETS Abolish Interest Rates http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
All TURMEL topics at lets@onelist.com listserv archives

--
John C. "The Engineer" Turmel, Founder, Abolitionist Party of Canada
915-2045 Carling Ave., Ottawa, K2A 1G5, Tel/Fax: 613-728-2196
LETS Abolish Interest Rates http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
All TURMEL topics at lets@onelist.com listserv archives

>Article #100437 (100442 is last):
>From: "Steven" <shales@...>
>Date: Mon Dec 28 20:38:08 1998
>John,
>If you want to interpret the Bible from your secular point of view
>that's fine but please admit when you are clearly wrong about
>Christ's message to the world.
      JCT: I'm saying he prohibited charging of interest. That's all.
What do you say he thought of interest rates?

>It was one of spiritual release from an imperfect physical world.
      JCT: And I say it was one of physical release from an imperfect
physical world. Why are you so sure it has to be spiritual and not
physical?

>Christ died for our sins our original sin or our debt to God for
>breaking his original commandment to man to not eat of the tree of
>life or the tree of knowledge.
      JCT: As I said, don't blame me for Adam's original sin. I wasn't
there, didn't do it and don't acknowledge any debt to God for someone
else's sin.

>It is an allegory of man's predicament of having a heavenly soul
>trapped in a physical body.
      JCT: To you everything is an allegory or spiritual. To The
Engineer, it's real and physical.

>The eternal question of mankind has been "whither heaven" Christ's
simple message was this, he who believes in me shall have everlasting
>life.
      JCT: Sure. But why should this mutually exclude "he who believes
in me shall have a fun physical life" too?

>All of Christ's parables give earthly examples of what faith in Him
>will bring. Faith in Him brings forth simply the best in all men.
      JCT: And accepting his prohibition against usury brings forth the
best in all men too.

>Through this Faith the commandments are followed like a stream
>flowing down a mountainside.
      JCT: If you any of my six unique cases against usury in the
Supreme Court of Canada, I argued that they violated the right to life
and were the genocide of the poor by taking their life support tickets
and giving them to those who already have abundance of life support
tickets until they die of their lack of life-support. See:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/scc3.htm
      So usury violates "Thou shalt not kill." Why do you think
Mohammed was ready to do war and kill the usurers if you were killing
the poor with your usury?

>It is this effortless grace that Christ was trying to convey when he
>spoke that the way is wide but the gate is narrow.
      JCT: The way is wide but the gate is narrow conveys effortless
grace? I have no idea what this statement means.

>John Turmel wrote nonsense:
      JCT: Resorting to name calling is blowing your cool.

>>JCT: And in 6:14 in the Lord's prayer, he says that we should
>>pray to the Father to "Forgive us our debts as we forgive our
>>debtors." And though he does in 6:14 say that if we "forgive men
>>when they sin against you, the Father will also forgive you." I
>>don't see why these two kinds of forgiveness should be mutually
>>exclusive.
>I never said they were mutually exclusive but that there is only
>one type of forgiveness in the NT forgiveness of sin.
      JCT: But the Lord's prayer talks about the other kind of
forgiveness and you statement that there is only one type is stating
that they are mutually exclusive. I don't think you know what mutually
exclusive means. You state that though two kinds of forgiveness are
mentioned, only one applies. What gives you the right to dismiss
the kind mentioned in the Lord's Prayer?

>>Matthew mentions both kinds of forgiveness so why assume that
>>because he says to forgive one, we should not forgive the other.
>Wrong. There is only one type of forgiveness, forgiveness of sin.
>You confuse the allegory with the message.
      JCT: Evidently, I'm not going to get an answer to my previous
questions since I already asked it here and you ducked it again. Who
are you to say that he was only talking about one kind when he was
talking about two in the very same text?

>The above passages in Matthew are of a single piece, debts and
>trespasses mean the same thing, wrondoings.
      JCT: But trespasses and debts do not mean the same thing.
I don't think that just because someone owes me that he's trespassing
against me. What gives you the right to state that they're the same
when Christ himself mention both in the same text? Doesn't the fact
that he mentioned both in the same text not imply that he, like I,
thinks they mean different things?
      You admit that he speaks of both trespasses and debts and make
the erroneous statement that they both mean the same thing. Debts are
not trespasses or sins and do not mean the same thing.

>To try to separate them into distinct meanings destroys the message
>of forgiveness.
      JCT: You should criticize Christ, not me. He separated them
into two distinct statements and I assume he had a reason for doing
so.

>>No, both forgivenesses are necessary for Heaven on Earth.
>But there is only a single message. The other message you think you
>see is the allegorical message. Don't confuse them.
      JCT: Christ is the one who mentioned both in the same message.
You're the one dictating that one of his messages was allegorical the
not the other. Why should we assume that your choice is the correct
one or that either is allegorical? Besides, it there is anyone that
has meaning in today's world, it's the debt issue, not the sins issue.

>>>All within the context of Hebrews not charging interest among
>>>themselves not a ban on interest totally.
>>JCT: If you want to assume that Hebrews are not our brothers
>I was speaking specifically about how the Hebrews thought of
>themselves in ancient Judea not the present day. And what I said did
>not imply that I didn't think the Hebrews are not our brothers,
>today.
      JCT: The whole point of this discussion is that we shouldn't do
usury to anyone and you raised this issue to argue that it says that
we should only not do it to our brothers. If we're all brothers
today, then I'm correct in stating that the Old Testament prohibition
now applies to all mankind, not just Hebrews not doing it to
their brothers.

>But in the Old Testament the message of God is to his chosen
>people, the Hebrews. So, when the OT refers to "our brothers" it is
>referring to the Hebrews among themselves.
      JCT: And I'm saying that if we're all brothers today, it's
referring to us all.

>If you wish to interpret the OT "brother" in these contexts to
>actually mean all of mankind then you are saying that the Hebrews in
>ancient Judea considered all men their brothers and part of the
>chosen people. I don't think you will find much theological support
>for your position.
      JCT: No, you've got wrong. I do wish to interpret the OT
"brother" to actually mean all mankind but I don't see how you can
jump to the conclusion that I'm saying OT Hebrews considered all men
their brothers. The very fact one of the verses says they could
loanshark to strangers seems to clearly indicate that they didn't
assume all mankind were their brothers then so your jump is wrong
again.

>>and that other races are not our brothers, then okay.
>You are calling me a racist. I expect an apology.
      JCT: I'm the one arguing we should treat each other like brothers
and you're the arguing against it. I think no apology is necessary as
your own words make you jump to the conclusion of your words imply
you are.

>It is quite amazing how Turmel can make such statements just to
>support a weak argument.
      JCT: My only argument is that we should act towards each
other as Hebrews did to their brothers. What's so weak about that?

>It is a typical trick of a demagogue to attack the moral integrity of
>his opponents.
      JCT: Resorting to name calling is losing your cool again.

>>Though you shouldn't loanshark to your brother, you can loanshark to
>>foreigners. I prefer to believe that we're all brothers and what's
>>good between brothers should be good between strangers if we want
>>those strangers to eventually call us brothers, or cousins.
>Here John is talking about interest again and fails to understand
>that interest is compensation for foregone consumption.
      JCT: So because interest is compensation for foregone
consumption, what are we to conclude but that you are arguing in favor
of its taking?

>Let's take the modern context of savings. As we save into our 401k
>plans and invest in stocks, money markets and bonds we have an
>expectation that our money will at least keep pace with inflation
>and better yet grow at the general rate of productivity growth of
>the economy at large and yet better that we will be invested in a
>sector of the economy that is growing at a faster rate than the
>general economy. We save because we have an expectation that we will
>one day retire and be without earned income. To receive interest on
>our investments is compensation for having lent our money during our
>working lives to provide a supply of investment funds.
      JCT: This is the standard argument for the permission of usury.

>This is in no way a violation of any Biblical precepts against
>usury
      JCT: So taking interest for these reasons is not a violation of
all the Biblical precepts against interest. That's irrational but you
can try it at your judgment day and see what God says. I can just
imagine your trial.
      God: You exacted usury despite my Biblical precepts against it.
      Steve: I had to keep up with inflation and secure my retirement.
      God: Oh, I didn't realize....
      JCT: Fat chance.

>(BTW the ancient definition of usury is not the same as the
>modern one of exorbitant interest) it is not mammon it is not greed
>it is simply providing for ourselves when we know will be without an
>earned income.
      God: So you disobeyed my commandment because you did not trust in
your neighbors and your community to support you. I didn't realize...
      JCT: Fat chance.

>>JCT: Nowhere in the story does it say that the prohibition was
>>against charging interest to the cousins who were redeemed.
>You miss the point of the passage. I did not say that the passage
>was strictly about prohibition against charging interest to the
>redeemed Hebrews
      JCT: Yes you did. I'll print your passage again:

>In Nehemiah 5:10 the reference is strictly about charging interest
>to those of the Hebrews that had been redeemed (bought back) from
>foreign lands...
      JCT: So you did say that the passage was "strictly about charging
interest to the redeemed Hebrews." You did. You did. You did.

>but just that the practice of charging interest of Hebrew to Hebrew
>had started again in Judea in this one instance and that it needed to
>be nipped in the bud before it became more widespread.
      JCT: If you had read Nehemiah 5, you'd realize that it already
was widespread. They were complaining about their mortgages, their
taxes, foreclosures and the enslavement of their children. But it's
true that it was against the charging of interest which needed to be
nipped, though not in the bud.

>>JCT: The Old Testament has a certain dichotomy about it.
>Oh, when something is presented that contradicts John's pet theory
>he dismisses it. Curious isn't it.
      JCT: I only used the story to explain a statement which allowed
the taking of usury from strangers. If you want to argue that it
nullifies all the other statements against interest, I just wanted to
point out that God often appeared as both a good and an evil entity.
And the fact it allows the enslavement of strangers while prohibiting
the enslavement of brothers doesn't contradict my wish that we treat
ourselves all like brothers and never like strangers again. So there
is no contradiction in my hope that we treat ourselves as brothers in
something permissible to a stranger.

>[snip of nonsense to explain away the inconvenient, contradictory
>passage]
      JCT: Resorting the name calling is losing your cool again and I
did point out that there was no contradiction in being allowed to
exact usury from strangers once we all call ourselves brothers.

>>>>Thomas 95:
>>>A false reference.
>>JCT: What do mean by "false?" He said "If you have money, do not
>>lend it out at interest." What's false about that?
>Thomas is not a book of the Bible.
      JCT: This is the sad part of it all. Men had a synod and decided
that some of the Apostles's testimonies should not be made available
to their readers which makes people like Steven conclude that St.
Thomas' words were therefore false. Much like as if some physicists
had had a meeting and decided that Isaac Newton's words should not be
included in physics books and people like Steven would then conclude
that his gravitational theory was false.
      To call St. Thomas' testimony false because "men" decided it
was not to included would seem to indicate the kind of thinking behind
Steve's reasoning. Sad isn't it that Christ's most important
commandment for Peace and Abundance on Earth should have censored out
and allow people like Steve to then call it false even though it
agrees with all of the Old Testament precepts.

>>JCT: It's not a restatement of the Jewish law which permitted
>>lending it out at interest to strangers. There's no such mention of
>>being allowed to enslave strangers here. It is not a restatement but
>>an expansion of the prohibition.
>Since the quote to which John refers is not referenced properly i.e.,
>he says Thomas 95 or the 95th chapter of Thomas but no verse
>reference.
      JCT: Oh, so now it's false because it's not referenced properly.
Actually it was. There is only one chapter in St. Thomas so the 95 can
only be referring to the verse. He would have known had he checked but
Steve's the kind of guy who likes to argue with you without even
checking the texts.

>I wonder if John can point out the book of Thomas or the
>gospel according to Thomas where we can find this statement of not
>charging interest in this supposed book of the Bible.
      JCT: Sure, some "evil" men censored it out of the Bible but some
"good" men found a way to keep Thom's testimony around. Just get the
Apocryphal (censored) texts, find the Book of Thomas, find verse 95
and there it will be. Besides, in a past post, Kevin Donnelly wrote to
mention that he had found it so I wasn't dreaming. It can be checked
though that doesn't seem to be part of your debate methodology.

>(Hint: Thomas was one of the twelve but is only mentioned briefly in
>the Bible as a doubter, hence Doubting Thomas). Perhaps John has
>discovered a lost book of the Bible the Gospel of Thomas.
      JCT: Perhaps Steve now realizes that there is, not a "lost" book
of Thomas but a "hidden" book of Thomas. Go find it if you still don't
believe it's there.

>Since Thomas was slow to understand Christ's message we can now
>understand why John has been so slow to understand the Bible among
>other things.
      JCT: Just because he was slow to accept Christ's resurrection
doesn't necessarily lead one to conclude that he was slow to
understand Christ's message. That he was the only Apostle to mention
Christ's positive prohibition of usury, unless there were others that
were censored or hidden, certainly tells me that he was not slow at
all and rather understood Christ's message better than most.

>>JCT: Yes but the law about usury is not being fulfilled so why can't
>>he be fulfilling both? Why do you always assume that they are
>>mutually exclusive, that if he fulfills the law spiritually, he
>>can't be fulfilling the law physically too? I see no reason for
>>such belief.
>But there is only one message John, redemption and forgiveness of
>our sins.
      JCT: So why did he mention both? And are we to ignore Christ's
other message on the words of St. Steve here?

>>All the verses I quoted had to do with the debt service, not the
>>debt.
>But interest on debt was prohibited amongst the Hebrews themselves so
>what is left is all other debts. So the primary message in the OT
>concerning debts of one Hebrew to another is about the principal of
>the debt not interest on debt.
      JCT: In my last "Christ said "No interest"" I explained

>I don't want to have debts for things I received to be forgiven. I
>want to pay it back. Actually, repayment is implied in Paul Corr II
>8:14 when he points out that "their abundance will later be a supply
>for your want." Furthermore, Isaiah 55 is very clear when he says:
>"You who are hungry and have no money, come, buy and eat." He
>doesn't say "come and eat for free." If you buy with no money, they
>you buy on credit and are expected to try to return it to your
>benefactor.
      JCT: So it's clear that there's nothing wrong with social
honorable debts. Or Isaiah would have given it to the poor rather then
have them buy it on credit. Again, the statements discussed are:

>>- Deuteronomy 23:19: "Do not charge your brother interest, whether
>>on money or food or anything that may earn interest."
>>- Leviticus 25:36: "Do not take interest of any kind from him."
>>- Leviticus 25:37: "You must not lend him money at interest."
>>- Exodus 22:25: "If you lend money to the needy, do not be like a
>>moneylender; charge him no interest."
>>- Psalm 15: "Who may live on holy hill? He who lends his money
>>without usury."
>>Ezekiel 22:25: "If you lend money to the needy, charge no interest."
>>Ezekiel 3:18: "Suppose he has a son who takes excessive interest,
>>And lends at usury. He'll die! His actions I detest.
>>Nehemiah 5:10: "Let the exacting of interest stop."
      JCT: Every single verse mentions "interest" and nowhere is there
any condemnation of debt. Actually, I find it quite amazing that Steve
can read these statements and not see that they deal with the interest
and disagree with my statement:.
>>All the verses had to do with the debt service, not the debt.

>So then we find the terms redemption and forgiveness in the OT we
>can assume that it is about the principal of the debt. And further
>debt in the OT can mean property, persons or even estrangement of
>family members from another.
      JCT: Sure forgiveness and redemption deal with the debts but the
prohibitions of interest under discussion deal with the interest, not
the debt. I've repeated over and over again that though forgiveness of
debts is nice, it's the growth of debts that I'm against.

>>JCT: Debt to heaven?
>Yes, John that is the Christian message we were indebted to God for
>having original sin, Christ died for our sins, paid our debts, and
>opened the way for everlasting life. There is a similar message in
>the OT of the coming of the savior.
      JCT: I committed no original sin and do not acknowledge any debt
for such original sin. The death of Christ didn't pay my debts but his
death for his attack on the moneylenders certainly cheered me up and
showed us who were the bad guys we had to deal with. And his equation
for an interest free LETS is certainly to be treasured.

>>Just what we need. Indebted when we leave the planet and getting to
>>heaven to find ourselves in debt again. I don't think so.
>This is really laughable.
      JCT: Name calling is losing your cool. What's so laughable?
You're the one who brought up this debt to Heaven. Shouldn't we be the
ones laughing?

>>>Only a literal interpretation of these themes will yield a quite
>>>impoverished viewpoint of the forgiveness of earthly money debts.
>>     JCT: I prefer the literal interpretation to yours.
>Mine is a standard theological interpretation.
      JCT: So the standard theological interpretation is wrong just the
interpretation that St. Thomas's texts were false is wrong. I'd still
prefer the literal interpretation to the guesswork of mere men.

>Perhaps you wish to debate your interpretation with some Christian
>and Jewish and Muslim theologians. It would be an interesting debate.
      JCT: I don't think there would be any debate at all. You're the
self-called "agnostic" who wants to debate. I doubt any Christian,
Muslim or Jewish theologians would argue with the literal
interpretation.

>Again, you miss Christ's message. That even men of wealth who do good
>deeds in His name will not enter the Kingdom of God but even the
>humblest of men who has Faith shall enter for through his Faith in
>Him this man shall have followed the commandments of the OT
>effortlessly without conscious thought.
      JCT: Nowhere does Christ say that men of wealth cannot enter the
Kingdom of Heaven though he certainly said they would be rare
compared to the poor. Men of wealth who help the needy and do not
exact usury, though rare, have a sure ticket into Heaven, in my
opinion.

>>>Christ goes on to tell his listeners that they cannot serve two
>>>masters, God and mammon (the greedy pursuit of wealth).
>>JCT: That the point I was trying to make. It's an either/or
>>situation.
>It is an allegory that what Faith will bring the believer is a
>falling away of earthly concerns without abandoning responsibility.
>Again this is the grace thing.
      JCT: But you are the one who's going to argue that you took your
usury because you did not have faith in his commandments to lend
without interest. In order to secure your retirement, you put your
faith in interest on money despite His injunctions against it. Only
those with the faith to obey his commandments and not loanshark to
their neighbors will enter Heaven blameless. Your faithlessness in
God's commands and reliance on Mammon's usury condemn you to another
place.

>>>Christ was clear about the Kingdom of God not being of this Earth.
>>JCT: No he did not. Actually, in the parable of the Talents, he
>>said that the joyous Kingdom of Heaven was just like our Earthly
>>Kingdom of Hell where the evil master exacts usury. It's why I
>>continually reaffirm that abolishing interest would make our Earth
>>like the Kingdom of Heaven.
>Are you dense or what? Christ's message was one of spiritual
>redemption and forgiveness.
      JCT: That's your opinion. I think his equation for LETS promises
us a Heaven on Earth. The reports all mention the feeling of community
fostered. There's even one report of a reduction in child mortality
when older women teach younger women how to care for the children and
are paid with interest-free LETS loans that the younger mothers
obtained from their LETS bank.

>The parable of the Talents was that the servant who didn't increase
>his Master's treasure should not enter into the Kingdom of God.
>You got it backwards. The parable specifically uses the word lord
>and servant as allegorical references. That the lord was unhappy
>with his servant for not increasing his treasure so too, the Lord is
>unhappy with His servants for not increasing His treasure.
      JCT: Actually, you got it backwards. The master is a usurer who
throws him into the alley where men weep and gnash their teeth, not my
vision of heaven, or in the parable of the Minas, has the servant
executed. Those who think that Christ is the Lord in the parable who
executes his slaves and presides over a Heaven with alleys where men
live in misery have got it backwards.
      But that's the brilliance of his parable. Though it condemns the
usurer as a thief who reaps where he did not sow, most people who read
it take it the wrong way. They believe that the servant who returns
only the principal and refuses to pay the usury is the guilty party
even though it is the tactic Christ urged for the resistance to usury.
It is the argument used in all the foreclosure cases I defended where
I got the defendants to accept responsibility for the principal, the
social credit portion of the debt, but to repudiate the usury, the
anti-social credit portion of the debt, just as the servants did.
      That's why they're called parables, because you won't understand
them. And remember that when they asked Christ why he spoke in
parables so you wouldn't understand, he answered because of the
differential equation for usury:
      "I speak in parables because to those who have abundance is
more given and to those who have no abundance, even what they have
will be taken away."
      He spoke in parables so you wouldn't understand because of the
function which took from the needy to give to the poor, interest. And
the fact that most people take the parable as an approbation of
usurious master, rather than the condemnation that it is, it made it
through to us today and was not censored out like the more pro-active
prohibition in Thomas which was censored out.
      His parables against interest were brilliant because they came
out sounding like stories approving interest.

>>It's in my poem which you seem not to have
>>read: http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/pombible.htm.
>So? Your secular interpretation is incorrect if these posts are any
>indication why should I read something that will only confirm what I
>already know of your views.
      JCT: Because you would then have seen the explanation of the
Parables of the Talents and Minas which confirm what I say. And my
interpretation, if not correct, is at least the literal one which I
much prefer to your spiritual ones.

>>Why don't you try to answer the question of why they should receive
>>reward for consumption they can't consume in one or even a hundred
>>lifetimes?
>Because taking from them their property would violate the 8th
>Commandment.
      JCT: Where did I say that I want their property? I never said
that I wanted to take their property? I just don't want them taking
the property of the poor in payment of usury for deferment of
consumption they cannot consume. So again, I didn't state the point
you answered, how about trying to answer the question asked?

>>>This is clearly incorrect. Interest is not a transfer of wealth but
>>>simply derived from a simple formula of (a risk premium) +
>>>(inflation).
>>JCT: So you're saving that interest doesn't take money from the
>>negatives to give it to the positives. No matter how else you wish
>>to define it, I've explained what it does, if not what it is.
>Nonsense again. Interest is payment for deferred consumption. Not
>strictly consumption in the sense of food, clothing, shelter or even
>Veblen's conspicuous consumption but consumption that might involve
>investment in anything that might earn a return. This is not mammon
>but the foundation of economic growth that enriches us all.
      JCT: So now you're saying that it is not for deferment of
consumption but for potential investment profit. Make up your mind.
And I don't think the lender deserves a share in the borrowers harvest
if he didn't do any work for that harvest. And since you can't
rationalize it as a deferment of too great a consumption, why don't
you try to explain why they should get a share of their neighbors
harvest in excess of the original loan?

>>why should the guys who create new money get that same reward?
>Expansion of the money supply exactly at the rate of growth of the
>economy keeps the price level steady. Your "new credit money" is
>really not "new" it is represented by increased output of the
>general economy.
      JCT: This doesn't answer the question of why guys who create new
money are not deferring consumption of their savings should claim a
share in the harvest of the borrowers in excess of a fair wage for
their service? Why should they be able to claim society's increased
output as their own in interest?

>>There's no interest necessary since the collateral is always
>>there and a service charge will cover the bank employees wages.
>And what is this service charge? Interest, perhaps?
      JCT: It's obvious that you have never read my number one tract:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/bankmath.htm or you would already
know the difference between how it works on Interest Island and how it
works on Service Charge Island. Though both may be quantitatively the
same, they are qualitatively different in the effect on the borrowers.
I've even provided a simple game you can play to demonstrate the
effects of both banking systems on the participants.
      As it's too complicated to go into now and as I've already
provided an explanation of the difference between the two, I'll just
say that because you can't see a difference and because you have
chosen not to find out is your problem and I hope not the problem of
other readers.

>Hmmm, this is beginning to sound like the arbitrations of value
>presented to the temple priests in ancient Judea who proceeded to
>calculate what was "fair" to both parties. Hidden interest was rife
>in these settlements. Apparently if you did not call it interest or
>usury it wasn't a violation of the Prophet's interpretation of the
>8th commandment.
      JCT: Maybe that's why Christ didn't get along with the guys who
didn't call it interest or usury when it was.

>>How can you deny the physical prohibition by claiming it applies to
>>the spiritual and then deny it applies to spiritual too.
>Because Christ's message was a spiritual message of redemption and
>forgiveness. Christ used allegories and parables to make his point,
>again you are confusing the allegory with the message.
      JCT: I've always talked about the literal interpretation, never
about allegories. You're the one always saying the statements I want
to take literally are allegories. Now you're saying I'm the one using
the allegories. Seems you're obviously wrong. And the parables are to
keep you confused, and very successfully too.

>>JCT: Christ's dying hasn't forgiven your trespasses until you
>>repent, atone and sin no more. Spiritually or physically.
>Wrong.
      JCT: That's what Ezekiel said and I doubt Christ would
contradicted it. Of course it's in the poem that you don't want to
read because it makes my point.

>Christ's dying forgave all men their original sin. His message
>was that since his coming, death and resurrection had opened the way
>to Heaven that simply Faith in Him would make all things (the affairs
>of men) flow like a stream down a mountainside in this world and in
>this Faith your treasure would be found in Heaven as everlasting life
>not treasure in this world.
      JCT: But you're the one who has shown no faith in God's
commandments nor Christ's prohibitions. You're the one who has alibied
that you need your interest to secure your retirement. You're the one
who is counting on the treasure to get you interest in this world for
your security. Even if your original sin is forgiven, I doubt your
faithlessness in God's commands will be.

>>JCT: I didn't commit any original sin that needs forgiving by his
>>death but I was born with original debts that his death after his
>>attack on the moneylenders may end up forgiving. I agree that
>>through his commands, the way is now open to the Kingdom of God can
>>be had in the here and now.
>You are Adam, so, if Christ had not come you would still be stained
>with original sin. You fail to understand Christ's message.
      JCT: It certainly has nothing to do with any original sin I'm
being held accountable for but which I did not commit.

>>JCT: You deny that Christ's commandment applies to physical interest
>>while admitting "I never asserted that there was such a thing
>>as spiritual interest" though you now assert that there is such a
>>thing as "Faith" interest.
>This is laughable because John can't read. What I said was that in
>all the major religions the ban on interest is a ban on interest
>charged to other believers not to the others who are not of the faith.
      JCT: You keep arguing that though its wrong to charge interest to
brothers of your faith, it's okay to charge it to those of other
faiths? But if we're not all brothers in faith, who is left to
loanshark to?

>>So go ahead and try to explain "Faith interest" and I hope you don't
>>have admit once again that there's no such thing as Faith interest
>>as there was no such things as spiritual interest.
>My admitting that there is no such thing as spiritual interest would
>be ok since I never said there was anything like spiritual interest
>only that Christ came not to fulfill the Law of the Prophet's in a
>physical sense but in a spiritual sense.
      JCT: So what do his prohibitions against interest apply to if
they don't apply to the spiritual?

>And you interpreted this as meaning that I meant that there was such
>a thing as spiritual interest when in fact I was referring to
>Christ's message of Faith in Him as the way to everlasting life and
>by following Christ's way all other things (the affairs of men)
>would flow like a stream down a mountainside.
      JCT: You had said that the prohibition of interest did not apply
to the physical but to the spiritual and I asked you what that meant
and you couldn't respond. You still can't. So if you want to continue
claiming that it doesn't apply to physical interest, I ask you to
explain what it does apply to. And if you want to answer "spiritual,"
then explain what that means.

>There is no need for proscriptions or new Laws in
>Christ's message when you find a proscription it is an allegory to
>elucidate the simple but profound message.
      JCT: And that simple and profound message is to trust in God and
neighbors and not usury. What message do you get from the statement
"If you have money, do not lend it out at interest," and all the other
Old Testament prohibitions?

>You misunderstand again by trying to parse what I say as meaning
>something it does not. Christ's message is clear you are caught up
>in the allegories without understanding the message.
      JCT: As you previously noted, I am caught up in the literal
meaning, not the allegorical one. Make up your mind. You're the one
who keeps telling us that it doesn't mean the literal but the
allegorical.

>>>This is the Theological view of the Bible not John Turmel the
>>>Engineer's view.
>>JCT: You're the one who keeps saying that the John Turmel view is
>>to take it too literally while dreaming up all sorts of non-literal
>>explanations of your own. I think the problem is the Steven view,
>>not The Engineer's literal point of view. Engineers should find this
>>pretty funny, actually.
>Again, my views are supported theologically, yours are not.
      JCT: Your views haven't been supported at all. They've been found
to be contradictory and irrational so far.

>Your lack of understanding of Biblical teachings is astonishing. But
>perhaps a reading of CP Snow's Two Cultures might elucidate the
>problem for you.
      JCT: Why should I read someone else's work. Can't you argue it
convincingly yourself? And even though my literal understanding may be
astonishing, it still stands uncontroverted and uncontradicted.

--
John C. "The Engineer" Turmel, Founder, Abolitionist Party of Canada
915-2045 Carling Ave., Ottawa, K2A 1G5, Tel/Fax: 613-728-2196
LETS Abolish Interest Rates http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
All TURMEL topics at lets@onelist.com listserv archives

--
John C. "The Engineer" Turmel, Founder, Abolitionist Party of Canada
915-2045 Carling Ave., Ottawa, K2A 1G5, Tel/Fax: 613-728-2196
LETS Abolish Interest Rates http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
All TURMEL topics at lets@onelist.com listserv archives

>Date: Sun Dec 27 09:12:15 1998
>From: shewill5@... (Sherryl C Williams)
>To: politics-talk@onelist.com
>>I admit that after much historical study, I hold a conspiratorial
>>view of history.
>I think that statement sums up your views in a nut shell.It always
>strikes me as a sad way to live one's life.I am not sure I know why
>I am bothering but how do you expect banks to make money without
>charging money? Do you favor my grandmothers technique of hiding her
>savings under a mattress? Happy New Years any ways.

>Date: Sun Dec 27 14:55:17 1998
>From: shewill5@... (Sherryl C Williams)
>Subject: [politics-talk] Re: : Accidental view of history
>To: politics-talk@onelist.com
>>Where does your grandma live, and when will she be
>>out of town?  :-)
>Bingo, Tim. That is why that method is not to be encouraged. I'm not
>sure what this fellow who distrust banks and bankers uses.

>Article #100426 (100428 is last):
>From: Edward Flaherty <flahertye@...>
>Newsgroups: sci.econ
>Subject: Re: TURMEL: Miracle of financial salvation almost here
>Date: Mon Dec 28 15:46:50 1998
>GChand4059 wrote:
>>Also, what is the purpose of interest?
>You can answer this question by answering the following questions:
>1.  Suppose you have some extra cash. Why would you lend it to a
>borrower interest-free and bear the risk of default when you could
>keep the money, get the same return (zero), and bear no risk of
>default?
>2. Do you think a would-be borrower would be able to coax more or
>less savers into lending him money if he offers to pay interest?
      JCT: Poor Ed. He just doesn't understand the security offered by
a community that lends money of those who have more than they need
guaranteed by the whole community.
      In my last post Financial Salvation #3, I did answer Sherryl's
question in a response:

>>If someone wants to borrow they must pay the lender an "interest" in
>>the lender's money because the lender has foregone uses to which he
>>could have put his money in the course of lending.
>     JCT: This is the reason I've spent so much time explaining that
>"banks do not lend out their depositors' funds. Each and every time a
>bank makes a loan, new bank credit is created, brand new money."
>Allowing people to try to lend out their savings for interest as a
>reward for deferring their consumption, why should the guys who
>create new money get that same reward?
      JCT: That the major injustice of it all. For all the people who
believe that they are borrowing Sherryl's grandmother's savings, there
seems to be the logical justification for deferring current
consumption. But as Sherryl is new to these kinds of banking
discussions, she's also new to the idea that the banks are not lending
out her grandmother's savings, they're lending out new money.
      Flaherty did finally admit this in our Essence of Money stream
which you may read at http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/lp.htm. But
he forgot it already since he holds to two concurrent contradictory
points of view that banks lend out already existing money and newly
created money at the same time.
      So I have no objection to your trying to lend out your savings at
interest as long as the borrowers have the choice of getting that loan
interest-free.
      Notice that in LETSystems, though members are not barred from
lending out their Greendollars at interest, with the availability of
interest free loans from the central bank, there just haven't been any
people silly enough to borrow at interest wen they can borrow at no
interest.
      See my point. No one will want to borrow grandma's money at
interest when they can get it interest-free at the central LETS bank.
So we don't have to prohibit lending at interest in a LETS and Ed's
free to try to induce people into paying him interest all he wants
with no objection from me. It's just that it doesn't happen. But word
would certainly get around quick enough that there's a usurer in the
group.
      Finally, there is a valuable by-product of lending your money
without the interest. As I wrote in

>>As to interest it is not an evil it is only a means to compensate a
>>lender for foregone consumption.
>     JCT: And I've stated over and over again that Christ states that
>the only thing you should expect was your principal back and that
>"their abundance may be a supply for your want" should you ever be
>in want. You must trust God when He says you'll be compensated by
>successful neighbors willing to help you out with interest-free loans
>should you ever be in need and not trust Mammon to get you any
>interest for your deferred consumption.
>     And everyone who has ever argued for interest as a reward for
>"deferred consumption" have never explained why Rothschild and
>Rockefeller should receive a billion reward for deferring the
>consumption of their 10 billion dollars when they can't consume 10
>billion in the first place. Why don't you try to answer the question
>of why they should receive reward for consumption they can't consume
>in one or even a hundred lifetimes?
      JCT: So Sherryl, don't bet on interest which generates inflation
to take care of your grandma's retirement. Rather bet on a community
of neighbors to not only pay her back but lend her what she needs for
a wonderful financial care-free retirement.

--
John C. "The Engineer" Turmel, Founder, Abolitionist Party of Canada
915-2045 Carling Ave., Ottawa, K2A 1G5, Tel/Fax: 613-728-2196
LETS Abolish Interest Rates http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
All TURMEL topics at lets@onelist.com listserv archives

--
John C. "The Engineer" Turmel, Founder, Abolitionist Party of Canada
915-2045 Carling Ave., Ottawa, K2A 1G5, Tel/Fax: 613-728-2196
LETS Abolish Interest Rates http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
All TURMEL topics at lets@onelist.com listserv archives

John C. Turmel,

John, I have enjoyed browsing through the archives of lists JunkEconomics and
Lets @onelist.com where some of your recent works are stored, and through your
web site at URL >http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel<.  It is encouraging to know
of another engineer who, in his search for the truth about our present
condition, has found much to discover and learn in our oldest history book,
the Bible, in addition to the usual politically correct sources which everyone
looks at.

The following post to other lists, rather sums up my inquiry to date into what
has been called the Teflon Topic by some people, but which I see as the most
inportant and largest institutionalized "interest free loan" in our culture.
That interest free loan is the first of the three Mosaic tithes which is
sometimes called the "Lord's Tithe," and is committed to the support and
education of a nation's children.  As you know, England and the USA have not
disbursed more than about half of the Lord's Tithe to date, even though most
of the industrial nations established children's allowances after World War
II.  I wanted to get comments from the several thoughtful subscribers to your
un-moderated mail list >lets@onelist.com<, before distributing my next post,
which will attempt to bring this elusive topic into sharp focus with the help
of a one-page visual-aid.  Let me know if you think the topic would be of some
interest to the private copy list on your post of 98-12-28 07:17:07 EST,  Re:
"[lets] TURMEL: Christ's Miracle of Financial Salvation #3."

Kind regards to the owner of an open mail list,

WesBurt

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Begin fallowing post to other lists <<<<<<<<<<
Subj: Religion from engineering is easier than religion from science
Date: 98-12-26 15:07:54 EST
From: WesBurt
To: meta@...,               ()  ()
To: SystemPolitics@onelist.com    (98-12-26 15:08:17 EST)  (20 sec)
CC: WesBurt

Billy Grassie, Moderator of list >meta@...<

In the last month of 1998, during which I have been enjoying the thoughtful
posts to list >meta@...< as described at URL
>http://www.templeton.org<, I happened to acquire a copy of BEYONDISM,
Religion from Science, 1987, by Raymond B. Cattell, a renowned psychologist,
who has authored 450 scientific papers, 41 books, and 24 personality and
intelligence, according to the book jacket.  Mr. Cattell's work had not come
to my attention previous to finding the book, so we may safely conclude that
BEYONDISM has not yet achieved a critical mass of public acceptance as a long
overdue, and much needed, "civic religion" with a scientific foundation.
Perhaps there is some truth in the above subject heading.

Attached below is one post, of many, from a line of inquiry which started from
my experience as a mechanical engineer at the General Electric Company in
1953, where I was concerned with a new product for automatic dispatching of
electric power systems.  Physical systems serving many millions of consumers
and distributed over large geographical areas are statistically equivalent to
many of our social institutions, and present many of the same problems with
regard the stability, efficiency, popularity, and sustainability of the
institution or system.  With only a mechanical engineer's education to work
with, this line of inquiry has lead me back in time to the origins of our
several Western religions and I found there the same financial structure which
informs our modern corporations and distributed physical systems.  I would
like to hear the opinions of some of your subscribers on list
>meta@...<, if you think this topic is in accord with the objectives
of your list.

Please feel free to snip the headings and text as you see fit.

Kind regards,

Wesley S. Burt

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Begin nearly three year old post XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Subj:  #181-0, Two Articles of Economic Rights & Responsibilities
Date:       96-02-16 21:04:45 EST
To: 73514.624@...

Stuart B. Weeks
Dir. The Center for American Studies at Concord, Massachusetts.

Dear Mr. Weeks:

Here are two rarely acknowledged, and often
misrepresented, articles of economic rights and
responsibilities which have been handed down
to us by succeeding generations of patriarchs,
prophets, and poets.  These articles were ancient
when Moses broke the first two tables of the Law
and hid the second two tables in the Ark of the
Covenant to keep the Whole Law from becoming
the public property of the Israelites.  The first
article is a statement of the Economic Right of a
person or capital asset while in development, and
still dependent on external support.  The second is
a statement of the Economic Responsibility of a
person or capital asset while in production, and
capable of being independent of all external
support.  Together, the two articles are the moral
authority which enables and defines the optimum
financial structure of a community, a corporation,
or a commonwealth.  Where the people have
sufficient vision to teach and conform to the two
articles, the people prosper.  Where the two
articles are violated to a sufficient degree, the
wealthy, healthy, intelligent, and powerful part of
the population may still prosper for a while, but
the people slowly perish.

We are most familiar with a poetic version of
these two articles which Karl Marx borrowed from
Louis Blanc, who in turn, probably got the sense
of them from Thomas Paine's AGRARIAN
JUSTICE or THE RIGHT'S OF MAN, part II.  Marx
then presented them in the inverse order and out
of sequence with their consequent effects, when
he wrote in his 1875 CRITIQUE OF THE
GOTHA PROGRAM:

"after labor has become not only a means of life
but life's prime want; after the productive forces
have also increased with the all-round
development of the individual, and the springs of
co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only
then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be
crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its
banners: "From each according to his ability, to
each according to his needs!""

In this sequence Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and their
successors gave the world a seventy-two year
experiment with communism which failed in the
U.S.S.R. and is losing ground everywhere else.
Surely Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and their successors
did not intend the consequent results; that the
Soviet Union should fail, that the future as
visualized by 19th and 20th century intellectuals
should revert to a Democratic Capitalism in
which the human assets are as well capitalized
as the physical assets.

I am pleased to propose the two articles, which
express the economic keynote of an optimum
community, corporation, or commonwealth, in
the sequence in which they naturally occur in the
life-cycle of each individual reproducible
productive capital or human asset.  They are
numbered as they might have been listed among
the twelve Moral Commandments promulgated at
Sinai, of which we are taught only ten; or as they
might have been listed among the first twelve
"articles in addition to, and Amendment of the
Constitution of the United States of America,"
of which the States ratified only ten in 1789 to
constitute the American Bill of Rights.
Fortunately for us, the omission of these two
articles did not become critical in America until the
onset of industrialization in the 1890's.

#5, TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEED,
while in development and dependent on external
support.

Only when this article has been satisfied
throughout the development period of the capital
or human asset, will "the springs of
co-operative wealth flow more abundantly" when
the asset begins to produce, as every successful
businessman has learned the hard way.

#6,  FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY,
  while in production and independent of external
support.

This article prescribes, not an equalization of
condition at the margin of subsistence by taxation
of all income in excess of subsistence
exemptions, as some people claim, but a "Flat
Tax" (% of income) on all income "from whatever
source derived," as set forth in the 16th.
amendment to the Constitution of the United
States.   #6 also defines the structure of the real
property tax of local governments, as it operated
prior to the 1890's to provide education,
infrastructure, and justice, while the U.S. was still
a  nation of property owning farmers and small
businessmen.  Today's total tax rates range from
23% in Turkey to 55% in Sweden, with the U.S.,
Switzerland, and Japan clustered around the
Biblical tax rate of three tithes, or 30% of Gross
Domestic Product.

To the contrary, the late great U.S.S.R. collected
92% of its public revenue from indirect taxes,
which increase the market price of subsistence,
and only 8% from taxes on personal incomes,
according to the taxpayer's ability to pay.  There
is no surer way to arrest the economic and moral
progress of a corporation or commonwealth than
to impair its reproductive process by raising the
price of necessities for those "parenting" families
and firms which are producing the productive
assets for the future.

Once again, Mr. weeks, nothing I might say at this point
can more clearly convey the spirit with which I submit
these two articles of Economic Rights and
Responsibilities, which are indeed the keystone of an
economic philosophy, than the words of Rene
Descartes in his 1641 letter to The Faculty Of
Theology at Paris. He wrote, concerning his
"Meditationes de Prima Philosophia," in part:

"It is different in philosophy, where it is believed that
there is nothing about which it is not possible to argue
on either side.  Thus few people engage in the search
for truth, and many, who wish to acquire a reputation
as clever thinkers, bend all their efforts to arrogant
opposition to the most obvious truths. ----- That is why,
Gentlemen, since my arguments belong to philosophy,
however strong they may be, I do not suppose that
they will have any effect unless you take them under
your protection."

  Like Descartes, I know my superiors when I meet them,
and I know that these ideas have no value until they
become public knowledge.  I wanted to submit these two
articles by today, in accord with your program schedule.
Please feel free to use this material in any way that will
contribute to the success of your program.  I will send you
an e-mail description of the visual aids to support the
technical presentation of the two articles, in a few days.

Best Regards,
WesBurt@...
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX End nearly three year old post XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
>>>>>>>>>>>>> End fallowing post to other lists <<<<<<<<<<

>Date: Sun Dec 27 16:05:21 1998
>From: TheBerean@... ("The Berean")
>Subject: [biblestudent] Re: TURMEL: Christ's Miracle of Financial
>To: biblestudent@onelist.com
>>There's something miraculous going on when you see Catholics and
>>Protestants applauding the same system; when you see Muslims and
>>Jews applauding the same system;
>What kind of nonsense is this?
>God is not going to being about a financial salvation, quite the
>opposite. Because we trust in money, rather than the living God,
>desolation shall come upon us in a moment, when we least expect it.
      JCT: Agreed. Because we trust in Mammon rather than the living
God, desolation has already come upon us.

>The arrogance of America in believing their economy is inpregnable
>shall proceed no further, and they will experience a crushing
>depression that will destroy the financial security of many.
      JCT: Unless the obey Christ's laws of abundance as stated Paul
Corr II 8:14 and Thomas 95.

>1 Timothy 6:
>5  Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the
>truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
      JCT: But is gaining to share with needy neighbors to be
condemned?

>6 6 But godliness with contentment is great gain.
      JCT: Sure but there's no reason we can't have both spiritual and
physical abundance.

>7  For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can
>carry nothing out.
      JCT: I like thinking that that's the joke on the greedy of world.
You do take all your gold with you when you die and I imagine the
greedy chained to their piles of gold not being able to fly with the
other souls not so burdened. It would serve them right.

>8  And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.
      JCT: I think that sentiment is expressed in Christ's law of
abundance. Enjoy what is yours but your abundance should supply their
want.

>9  But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and
>into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction
>and perdition.
      JCT: And the greatest lust of them all which makes men see
without seeing and hear without hearing is using your abundance to get
even more, the height of such greed, interest.

>10  For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some
>coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced
>themselves through with many sorrows.
      JCT: I use this quote in my Bible poem at:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/pombible.htm

>The days shall wax worse and worse, until the time be revealed, and
>there shall be tribulation such as the world has never seen.
      JCT: I think we've had enough of such poverty-induced tribulation
to last mankind forever already. But there's no reason we can't avoid
further tribulation by following Christ's law with respect to
abundance. You have to admit that Christ's law of abundance:
"Your abundance should at the present time be a supply for their want
so that later their abundance can be a supply for their want so that
those who gather much do not have too much and those who gather little
do not have too little" is a far cry from the Usury's Law of
abundance:
"To those who have abundance will more be given and from those who
have no abundance, even what they have will be taken away."
      The Usury law of abundance I call Reverse Robin Hood, taking from
the poor to give to the rich while Christ's law of abundance takes
from the rich to lend to the poor in anticipation that the poor will
become rich and not only pay it back but be able to return the favor
if necessary at a later date.

>What kind of delusion is this, that you should believe mankind can
>bring about its own salvation, and cure its own financial woes.
      JCT: I know that an engineering solution to financial woes
exists. The wonderful effects on communities by their use of the
usury-free Local Employment-Trading System 14 are reported on a
regular basis. And I hope you're not too disappointed to find out that
it's based on Christ's differential equation in Paul Corr II: 8:14.
You know that mankind is not obeying Christ's command to "not lend it
out at interest" so why would you assume that obeying his command
would not produce the wonderful results reported.

>Be it far from me, God is not concerned with money, but with your
>life: "for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the
>things which he possesseth."
      JCT: No question but preventing the theft of the necessities of
life support from the needy by taking from the poor to give to rich
has to be of concern.

>You stiff-necked rebellious liar, the Lord shall repay thee
>accordingly unless you repent. If you repent, God will heal you,
>and you shall know that He is God, the only God, with whom we have
>to do. Frank Pagano (The Berean) http://www.bigfoot.com/~TheBerean
      JCT: I really think you've missed the point of the whole thing
and I'm sure you haven't read the Biblical analysis in my poem. I
really don't think Christ was in favor of continued loansharking to
our needy neighbors, do you?

>Article #100393 (100403 is last):
>From: "Steven" <shales@...>
>Newsgroups: can.politics,sci.econ,sci.engr,ncf.ca.lets,
>alt.politics.greens,alt.fan.john-turmel,alt.conspiracy
>Date: Mon Dec 28 00:34:56 1998
>This is almost too easy. :-)
>
>John Turmel <bc726@...> wrote
>>>Note to readers: This writer is agnostic.
>>>Turmel fails to tell us that Christ clarified in Matthew that what
>>>he meant by "debts...debtors" was trespasses or sins or wrongdoing
>>>not physical debts in the sense of money debts.
>>     JCT: From the mouth of the oracle.
>It is right there in Matthew. Read it for yourself, ok here it is:
>Mathew 6:14 "For if you forgive their trespasses, your heavenly
>Father also will forgive you: but if you do not forgive men their
>trespasses neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." If you
>can find how your heavenly Father can forgive interest I would be
>interested to know.
      JCT: And in 6:14 in the Lord's prayer, he says that we should
pray to the Father to "Forgive us our debts as we forgive our
debtors." And though he does in 6:14 say that if we "forgive men when
they sin against you, the Father will also forgive you." I don't see
why these two kinds of forgiveness should be mutually exclusive.
      Matthew mentions both kinds of forgiveness so why assume that
because he says to forgive one, we should not forgive the other. I
could make the same argument that because he said to forgive debts,
then you shouldn't forgive trespasses. Of course, that reasoning would
be flawed for the same reason that your reasoning that since we should
forgive those who trespass against us, we shouldn't forgive them their
debts.
      No, both forgivenesses are necessary for Heaven on Earth.

>>     JCT: I think the old testament is pretty clear:
>>- Deuteronomy 23:19: "Do not charge your brother interest, whether
>>on money or food or anything that may earn interest."
>>- Leviticus 25:36: "Do not take interest of any kind from him."
>>- Leviticus 25:37: "You must not lend him money at interest."
>>- Exodus 22:25: "If you lend money to the needy, do not be like a
>>moneylender; charge him no interest."
>>- Psalm 15: "Who may live on holy hill? He who lends his money
>>without usury."
>>Ezekiel 22:25: "If you lend money to the needy, charge no interest."
>>Ezekiel 3:18: "Suppose he has a son who takes excessive interest,
>>And lends at usury. He'll die! His actions I detest.
>>Nehemiah 5:10: "Let the exacting of interest stop."

>All within the context of Hebrews not charging interest among
>themselves not a ban on interest totally.
      JCT: If you want to assume that Hebrews are not our brothers
and that other races are not our brothers, then okay. Though you
shouldn't loanshark to your brother, you can loanshark to foreigners.
      Of course, Christ did come to say that we are all brothers so I'd
think that an injunction to keep life healthy between brothers should
be obeyed between all nations. Otherwise though you could do unto
brothers as you'd have brothers do unto you, you could do it to
strangers and you'd not like it have them do it to you.
      I prefer to believe that we're all brothers and what's good
between brothers should be good between strangers if we want those
strangers to eventually call us brothers, or cousins.

>John if you are going to try to prop up your argument at least give
>the context of your quotations. In Nehemiah 5:10 the reference is
>strictly about charging interest to those of the Hebrews that had
>been redeemed (bought back) from foreign lands and now were being
>charged interest for their borrowings from other of their Hebrew
>bretheren to get established again.
      JCT: Nowhere in the story does it say that the prohibition was
against charging interest to the cousins who were redeemed. He just
said to the whole congregation "Let the exacting of usury stop." I
don't know where you got the idea that it was only for the ones who
had just been bought back. Besides, do you really want to be able to
do do to your neighbors what you can't do to your brother? Maybe you
do but I don't.

>And again to support my point: Deuteronomy 23:20 "Unto a stranger
>thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not
>lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that
>thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to
>possess it."
      JCT: The Old Testament has a certain dichotomy about it. It's
sort of like in the original Star Trek episode where Captain Kirk gets
split into two halves, one with all the bad traits and one with the
good ones. Sometimes the God who pops up is the nice half who says
that the "children are not responsible for the sins of the fathers"
and there's the nasty half who says "slaughter them all right down to
the fourth generation." And the dude who got Abraham ready to murder
his first-born son certainly wasn't the nice dude.
      Maybe Christ's mission was to extend the brotherly love of no-
usury lending not only to their brothers but to strangers too so that
we can all be brothers. Fortunately, this one approbation for
enslaving strangers with debt as you would not enslave your brother is
contradicted by Christ and several others who said not to enslave
anyone with debt at all.

>>>Christ said that he did not come to overturn the Law of the
>>>Prophets but to fulfill it.
>>JCT: So when he said to a world that was exacting interest:
>>Thomas 95:
>A false reference.
      JCT: What do mean by "false?" He said "If you have money, do not
lend it out at interest." What's false about that?

>>"If you have money, do not lend it out at interest" it was almost
>>word for word the fulfillment of both Ezekiel and Deuteronomy.
>This is not fulfillment but a restatement of Jewish Law of which
>Christ was quite knowledgeable.
      JCT: It's not a restatement of the Jewish law which permitted
lending it out at interest to strangers. There's no such mention of
being allowed to enslave strangers here. It is not a restatement but
an expansion of the prohibition.

>Christ did not come to fulfill the Jewish Law or the Law of the
>Prophets in a physical sense but in a spiritual sense.
      JCT: Yes but the law about usury is not being fulfilled so why
can't he be fulfilling both? Why do you always assume that they are
mutually exclusive, that if he fulfills the law spiritually, he can't
be fulfilling the law physically too? I see no reason for such belief.

>In Ezekial, Deuteronomy or Leviticus you have two meanings at work
>the theme of redemption and forgiveness within the day to day life
>of the Hebrews and the redemption and forgiveness that will come
>with the Savior.
      JCT: Nowhere in these verses is there any mention of forgiving
the debt. The same in Muslim religion. Mohammed said "Do not lend at
usury but you'd better try to pay it back or else." Christ didn't
think we needed such rigorous books and even said "lend expecting
nothing in return." You can bet that Mohammed though you should expect
it to be returned though you to were to give the guy who couldn't time
and better yet, forgive it.
      All the verses I quoted had to do with the debt service, not the
debt.

>The final Jubilee when all "debts" will be forgiven in particular
>the debts of man to heaven.
      JCT: Debt to heaven? Just what we need. Indebted when we leave
the planet and getting to heaven to find ourselves in debt again. I
don't think so.

>Only a literal interpretation of these themes will yield a quite
>impoverished viewpoint of the forgiveness of earthly money debts.
      JCT: I prefer the literal interpretation to yours.

>>>But not to fulfill it in the physical sense but in the spiritual
>>>sense.
>>JCT: Tell us about not charging spiritual interest.
>Your parsing not mine. See below.
>
>>>"Do not lay up for yourself treasures on earth where moth and rust
>>>consume and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for
>>>yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consume
>>>and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure
>>>is, there will your heart be also."
>>     JCT: And isn't that what happens when "your abundance is at the
>>present time a supply for their want?" There's nothing wrong with
>>reaping abundance as long as you don't hoard it for yourself but make
>>it available for the needy.
>No, that is a clear statement about what is important in life, Love
>of God, not Love of Money. When Christ says further on in Matthew:
>"For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." he means
>not physical treasure but spiritual treasure.
      JCT: Actually, he's talking about both possibilities. Those who
trust in the physical treasures of Mammon will not be rewarded like
those who trust in the spiritual treasures of God. Again, they're not
mutually exclusive but different philosophies we can hold in this
life. The physical can doom us while the spiritual can save us.

>Christ goes on to tell his listeners that they cannot serve two
>masters, God and mammon (the greedy pursuit of wealth).
      JCT: That the point I was trying to make. It's an either/or
situation.

>>>Christ confirms what he is about, preparing the way for all to
>>>enter the Kingdom of God.
>>JCT: That's my point too. Once we've abolished interest on Earth,
>>it will be the Kingdom of God on Earth.
>Christ was clear about the Kingdom of God not being of this Earth.
      JCT: No he did not. Actually, in the parable of the Talents, he
said that the joyous Kingdom of Heaven was just like our Earthly
Kingdom of Hell where the evil master exacts usury. It's why I
continually reaffirm that abolishing interest would make our Earth
like the Kingdom of Heaven. It's in my poem which you seem not to have
read: http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/pombible.htm.

>As to interest it is not an evil it is only a means to compensate a
>lender for foregone consumption.
      JCT: And I've stated over and over again that Christ states that
the only thing compensation you should expect was your principal back
and "their abundance may be a supply for your want," should you ever
be in want. You must trust God when He says you'll be compensated by
successful neighbors willing to help you out with interest-free loans
should you ever be in need and not trust Mammon to get you any
interest for your deferred consumption.
      And everyone who has ever argued for interest as a reward for
"deferred consumption" have never explained why Rothschild and
Rockefeller should receive a billion reward for deferring the
consumption of their 10 billion dollars when they can't consume 10
billion in the first place. Why don't you try to answer the question
of why they should receive reward for consumption they can't consume
in one or even a hundred lifetimes?

>>And the only thing that turns what could be Heaven on Eden into Hell
>>on Earth is the interest which takes from the needy to give to the
>>rich.
>This is clearly incorrect. Interest is not a transfer of wealth but
>simply derived from a simple formula of (a risk premium) +
>(inflation).
      JCT: So you're saving that interest doesn't take money from the
negatives to give it to the positives. No matter how else you wish to
define it, I've explained what it does, if not what it is.

>If someone wants to borrow they must pay the lender an "interest" in
>the lender's money because the lender has foregone uses to which he
>could have put his money in the course of lending.
      JCT: This is the reason I've spent so much time explaining that
"banks do not lend out their depositors' funds. Each and every time a
bank makes a loan, new bank credit is created, brand new money."
Allowing people to try to lend out their savings for interest as a
reward for deferring their consumption, why should the guys who create
new money get that same reward?

>The value of this foregone use or consumption is exactly the interest
>charged based upon the lendees ability to repay or his risk value.
>A loan's principal is often secured by real property whose value will
>depreciate at the same rate as the loan's principal is retired. A
>good example of this is an automobile loan.
      JCT: And when the world is operating under the LETS interest-free
software, the house and car will be the collateral for a loan. Every
student who comes out of school with no money will be able to get a
loan based on such collateral upon the promise to pay for the
depreciation. There's no interest necessary since the collateral is
always there and a service charge will cover the bank employees wages.

>>JCT: So tell what a prohibition against spiritual interest means.
>I never asserted that there was such a thing as spiritual interest.
      JCT: I only asked the question because you stated that the
prohibition did not apply to the physical world. Since you can't
assert that there is any spiritual interest, then a prohibition
against interest must therefore apply to physical interest. How can
you deny the physical prohibition by claiming it applies to the
spiritual and then deny it applies to spiritual too.

>As to Christ's fulfillment of the Law of the Prophets in regards to
>individual clarifications of the 10 commandments in the books of the
>Old Testament I think you need to look at the themes of redemption
>and forgiveness in the Old Testament and how Christ fulfilled these
>"laws" in a spiritual sense of dying for our sins, our trespasses,
>our debts to God in the sense of our Original Sin of separation from
>God.
      JCT: Christ's dying hasn't forgiven your trespasses until you
repent, atone and sin no more. Spiritually or physically.

>And that through Him, Christ, the way was now open to the Kingdom of
>God. By repaying God for our, Man's, original sin all men could now
>enter if they only believed in Him.  Quite a simple and profound
>message.
      JCT: I didn't commit any original sin that needs forgiving by his
death but I was born with original debts that his death after his his
attack on the moneylenders may end up forgiving. I agree that through
his commands, the way is now open to the Kingdom of God can be had in
the here and now.

>>>For Turmel to twist Christ's teachings to his own purposes is an
>>>insult to me and I would assume all Christians and even Jews and
>>>Muslims since they too accept Christ as a prophet but not the Son
>>>of God.
>>     JCT: And what is purpose? To abolish interest rates in
>>fulfillment of those religious commandments. For me to use Christ
>>teachings for the abolition of interest is a compliment to Christians,
>>Jews and Muslims whose Holy books demand it.
>They only demand in terms of not charging others of the "Faith"
>interest.
      JCT: You deny that Christ's commandment applies to physical
interest while admitting "I never asserted that there was such a thing
as spiritual interest" though you now assert that there is such a
thing as "Faith" interest. So go ahead and try to explain "Faith
interest" and I hope you don't have admit once again that there's no
such thing as Faith interest as there was no such things as spiritual
interest.

>>>forgiveness of debts, but another way to look at these ideas of
>>>redemption and forgiveness is a spiritual redemption and
>>>forgiveness through physical adherence to the Law.
>>JCT: Why should we look at it another way? To suit your purposes?
>>I like looking at it the real way and not your way.
>This is the Theological view of the Bible not John Turmel the
>Engineer's view.
      JCT: You're the one who keeps saying that the John Turmel view is
to take it too literally while dreaming up all sorts of non-literal
explanations of your own. I think the problem is the Steven view, not
The Engineer's literal point of view. Engineers should find this
pretty funny, actually.

>>JCT: We'll be waiting for your explanation wy abolishing interest
>>rates in the spiritual sense means we don't have to abolish
>>them in the physical sense.
>see above why your parsing is in error.
      JCT: I haven't seen anything in the above that makes any sense
and wasn't contradicted.

>This is almost too easy. :-)
      JCT: Hardly. Try again. ;-)
--
John C. "The Engineer" Turmel, Founder, Abolitionist Party of Canada
915-2045 Carling Ave., Ottawa, K2A 1G5, Tel/Fax: 613-728-2196
LETS Abolish Interest Rates http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
All TURMEL topics at lets@onelist.com listserv archives

--
John C. "The Engineer" Turmel, Founder, Abolitionist Party of Canada
915-2045 Carling Ave., Ottawa, K2A 1G5, Tel/Fax: 613-728-2196
LETS Abolish Interest Rates http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
All TURMEL topics at lets@onelist.com listserv archives

>Article #100356 (100361 is last):
>From: "Steven" <shales@...>
>Date: Sat Dec 26 22:23:22 1998
>John Turmel the Engineer turned theologian writes arrogantly that
>Christ meant literally
>>"Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors."
>Note to readers: This writer is agnostic.
>Turmel fails to tell us that Christ clarified in Matthew that what he
>meant by "debts...debtors" was trespasses or sins or wrongdoing not
>physical debts in the sense of money debts.
      JCT: From the mouth of the oracle.

>The Old Testament Law of the Prophets can have two interpretations
>one of day to day proscriptions for behavior and a spiritual meaning
>of transcendence of the physical world.
      JCT: I think the old testament is pretty clear:
- Deuteronomy 23:19: "Do not charge your brother interest, whether on
money or food or anything that may earn interest."
- Leviticus 25:36: "Do not take interest of any kind from him."
- Leviticus 25:37: "You must not lend him money at interest."
- Exodus 22:25: "If you lend money to the needy, do not be like a
moneylender; charge him no interest."
- Psalm 15: "Who may live on holy hill? He who lends his money without
usury."
Ezekiel 22:25: "If you lend money to the needy, charge no interest."
Ezekiel 3:18: "Suppose he has a son who takes excessive interest,
And lends at usury. He'll die! His actions I detest.
Nehemiah 5:10: "Let the exacting of interest stop."

>Christ said that he did not come to overturn the Law of the
>Prophets but to fulfill it.
      JCT: So when he said to a world that was exacting interest:
Thomas 95: "If you have money, do not lend it out at interest" it was
almost word for word the fulfillment of both Ezekiel and Deuteronomy.

>But not to fulfill it in the physical sense but in the spiritual
>sense.
      JCT: Tell us about not charging spiritual interest.

>In proclaiming that physical riches should not be accumulated but
>rather spiritual treasures that can be reaped in heaven: Matthew 6:19
>"Do not lay up for yourself treasures on earth where moth and rust
>consume and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for
>yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consume
>and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure
>is, there will your heart be also."
      JCT: And isn't that what happens when "your abundance is at the
present time a supply for their want?" There's nothing wrong with
reaping abundance as long as you don't hoard it for yourself but make
it available for the needy.

>Christ confirms what he is about, preparing the way for all to enter
>the Kingdom of God.
      JCT: That's my point too. Once we've abolished interest on Earth,
it will be the Kingdom of God on Earth. And the only thing that turns
what could be Heaven on Eden into Hell on Earth is the interest which
takes from the needy to give to the rich.

>This distinction between the physical and the spiritual is everywhere
>in Christ's teachings.
      JCT: So tell what a prohibition against spiritual interest means.

>For Turmel to twist Christ's teachings to his own purposes is an
>insult to me and I would assume all Christians and even Jews and
>Muslims since they too accept Christ as a prophet but not the Son
>of God.
      JCT: And what is purpose? To abolish interest rates in
fulfillment of those religious commandments. For me to use Christ
teachings for the abolition of interest is a compliment to Christians,
Jews and Muslims whose Holy books demand it.

>The Old Testament is rife with the ideas of redemption and
>forgiveness but they are always in terms of the Law and how God's
>chosen people should conduct themselves, allowing for Hebrews to
>redeem their property purchased by other Hebrews and forgiveness of
>debts, but another way to look at these ideas of redemption and
>forgiveness is a spiritual redemption and forgiveness through
>physical adherence to the Law.
      JCT: Why should we look at it another way? To suit your purposes?
I like looking at it the real way and not your way.

>Christ's message of redemption and forgiveness fulfilled these
>physical Laws in a spiritual sense.
      JCT: We'll be waiting for your explanation wy abolishing
interest rates in the spiritual sense means we don't have to abolish
them in the physical sense.

>I guess Turmel is as wrong about Christ's teachings as he is wrong
>about the purpose of interest.
      JCT: The purpose of interest is "Reverse Robin Hood," to take
from the poor to give to the rich, no matter how you wish to defend
it.
      For an agnostic, you sure arrogate to yourself a great deal of
authority on the subject. Now let's see you produce.

--
John C. "The Engineer" Turmel, Founder, Abolitionist Party of Canada
915-2045 Carling Ave., Ottawa, K2A 1G5, Tel/Fax: 613-728-2196
LETS Abolish Interest Rates http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
All TURMEL topics at lets@onelist.com listserv archives

>Date: Sun Dec 27 14:30:29 1998
>From: rbrown14@... (Rachel and Johnny Brown)
>Subject: No Usury
>To: bc726@...
>Dear Mr. Turmel,
>After seeing your post on SNP's Digest, I was compelled to thank you
>for making such a true stand against violation of God's moral law.
>Usury is the destroyer of nations, and your voice against it shall
>echo until it is finished. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the
>sun in the kingdom of their Father. Many blessings,
>In the service of the Rightful Heir to David's throne,
      JCT: Yes, usury has all nations in its death-grip mort-gage. But
the growth of LETS around the world portends a new usury-free era.

>Date: Sun Dec 27 14:48:38 1998
>From: rbrown14@... (Rachel and Johnny Brown)
>Subject: [snp] Re: Digest Number 21
>To: snp@onelist.com
>What this man (John C. Turmel) speaks of is the ultimate healing of
>the nations by the celto-saxon countries (purveyors of civilization)
>returning to the implementation of God's Commandments, Statutes, and
>Judgments as found in the Penteteuch.
      JCT: Actually, all nations of the world will soon be returning to
the implementation of God's commands whether they be discovered by the
Buddhists, Christians, Muslims or Jews.

>It is that law that judges between men and men, not the mere men
>themselves. I find it a miracle and quite providencial that there is
>such a voice among our kinsmen in the SNP's associates. And, I hope
>and pray that such a Jubilee is so which will cause the inheritance
>of our fathers to actually pass to us eventually.
>Brethren, be ready, brace yourselves and your families for the final
>battle. And pray that we'll know what to do when it's over.
>Jonathan David von Blucher-Brown (Lamont/Logan)
      JCT: Upon reading some of my past correspondence on LETS, I find
that there is already much movement in Scotland as well as the whole
United Kingdom:

>Date: Mon May 25 23:32:27 1998
>From: circ@... (Thomas Greco)
>Subject: Re: Scotland?
>It's not exactly a LETS. It's more like the WIR and is called SOCS
>for Scottish Organizational Currency System.
>It was announced in a Report prepared by Rural Forum and released
>last Novemeber during a conference which I attended there. I wrote
>a brief description which follows.
>You can also contact them directly for details:
>ruth anderson <ruth@...>
>SOCS -Scottish Organizational Currency System
>Overview
>1. SOCS is modelled primarily after the WIR system in Switzerland,
>which has been in operation for more than 60 years.
>2. Membership is restricted to organizations, including businesses,
>governmental agencies and non-profit organizations.
      JCT: While most Local Employment-Trading Systems do not yet
include goverment, it is a move I have been suggesting for years. It
is only a matter of time until the people in LETS and the
organisations in SOCS see that they can intertrade and there will be
an explosion of activity.

>3. SOCS operates as a mutual credit clearing system.
>4. Each member has access to an interest-free (unsecured) line of
>credit.
>5. Credit limits on each account are determined by a formula based
>on trading volume, number of trading partners and average balance.
>6. Provision is made for additional credit to be granted to a member
>organization on the basis of guarantees made by supporters of that
>organization.
>7. Transfers of credit are made using credit checks, but other
>instruments may be used in the future.
>8. The system maintains a reserve account for bad debts, the funds
>for which come from quarterly charges to mmbers' accounts for
>administrative services.
>9. A SOCS directory of members' offers and requests is maintained on
>the world wide web, and is printed periodically.
>Concerns about the design features
>1. Exclusion of some organizations could be a divisive factor. The
>rules of participation should be, as much as possible, inclusive,
>while at the same time defined as to prevent domination of the system
>by large organizations or those inimical to the purpose of the SOCS
>program. (Sec 17.3, p.62)
>3. The use of "brokers" to promote trade between SOCS and LETSystems
>may be adequate to start but the eventual implementation of more
>facilitative methods should be planned on. Regards, Tom Greco
      JCT: I'm sure that it is inevitable. I know that almost all UK
political parties have already stated support for LETS. Last June, the
UK government did so officially. See my post at:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/l980613.htm
      I don't know whether the Scottish National Party has endorsed LET
yet but it may do so soon. The best thing they could do is start a
LETS for all the members on their database to experience all the
benefits without waiting to achieve power. Of course, I'm sure such a
large LETS database would immediately draw many new members.
      JCT: John, perhaps you could lead the charge?

--
John C. "The Engineer" Turmel, Founder, Abolitionist Party of Canada
915-2045 Carling Ave., Ottawa, K2A 1G5, Tel/Fax: 613-728-2196
LETS Abolish Interest Rates http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
All TURMEL topics at lets@onelist.com listserv archives

1. John Legge writes:
http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/seminars/feng.dec98/0019.html

>>>Li Feng's model shows a strong rate of growth in the rate of profit as
technological progress occurs...one can imagine workers bargaining for a share
in this "rent from technological growth"...<<<

This diametrically contradicts the A + B theorem.

Expressed in purely financial terms, the A + B theorem concludes that the
general rate of profit must diminish to nothing as technological progress
occurs,
if sales of increasing production are limited to the reflux from salaries, wages
and dividends paid during the course of production. This results from the
differentially greater rate of growth of the "B" circuit as compared to the "A"
circuit, funded ultimately by bank credit--which leads to the hypercompetitive
struggle for foreign markets.

One can hardly imagine that immiserated workers, who are being
continuously displaced from the productive process and their sovereign
role as consumers of their own product, as being in a position to "bargain"
for anything.

In this context, the displacement of labor need not equate to unemployment,
but to labor's undercompensation.

2. The human mind does not function logically or mathematically but logistically
or metaphorically. This *Inclusive Logistic Progression* has no excluded middle.
Formal logic and mathematics are included subsets to the progression that are
used by the human mind as tools of expression and creation. They are tools
that are useful to us; they do not define reality. Nor do they necessarily lead
to
understanding. Quite often the opposite is the result. The applicability of a
logical
or mathematical argument to the real world depends entirely upon its premises.
Just changing, adding, or removing one premise in such an argument, known,
unknown or implicit, may radically alter the outcome and thereby prove anything,
even the absurd. It is through creative expression that the human mind can put
order to such apparent chaos. In this respect, we as humans are truly made in
the "image" of God, and have the ability to participate with God in building a
better world.

And here there is no necessary requirement for God to be thought of as
anything more than the *theoretical limit* to the progression.

Bill Ryan: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/7018/




Get your FREE Email at http://mailcity.lycos.com
Get your PERSONALIZED START PAGE at http://personal.lycos.com

Mon, 21 Dec 1998 09:17:06 +0100
Trond Andresen (trond.andresen@...)

At 15:40 20.12.98 PST, William B. Ryan wrote:

>Trond said:
>>"I don't recall Berglund's argument, but yes, if you have a system where
>>additional money is created at a rate above some minimum level,
>>debt/asset polarization is held at bay. This, however, means an
>>exponential [growth] rate of nominal money flows in the economy,
>>and will lead to inflation unless growth in production keeps pace."
>>

>That is to say, to avoid inflation, the growth in production of real
>goods and services must "keep pace" to the *exponential* growth in
>"nominal money flows." That would mean that the growth in the
>production of real goods and services must also be exponential, doesn't
>it?

Exactly!

>If production cannot keep pace over the long term, which seems
>probable, if only for the limited capacity to consume--inflation must
>accelerate without limit, doesn't it?

Yes, if one assumes that all parameters in the system are constant. Then we
have a linear system, where all growth curves are exponential. Then your
argument is correct.

If one, however, makes the model more realistic by assuming that parameters
change based on the state of the system, then the model becomes non-linear.
One assumption is that the financial asset loss rate* per year due to
insolvencies, increases with polarization, and the level of this rate feeds
back to increased hoarding and reluctance both to borrow and lend. This may
decrease money flows so much that inflation culminates and turns around,
into deflation and collapse.

>How could such a system be
>sustained? Must not such an irrationally constructed system experience
>recurring crises and corrections? The alternative to accelerating
>inflation would be degradation into abject polarization and
>stagnation--would you not agree?

I agree. Such a system is unstable either way: Either one has runaway
inflation, or one ends up in deflationary collapse. These mechanisms have
been my main topic of interest for the last couple of years, since IMO
polarization and its consequences is the main problem in today's world.

Trond Andresen

--
*The differential equation for accumulation, modified to account for
losses, may be expressed as:

dA/dt = ( -d -b + s (i +d) ) A(t)                                        (10)

Here b is a new parameter, the loss rate, in [% / year].

If we now assume that

b = const. * (F/M)                                                  (11)

Where F are debt burden flows on the economy, i.e.

F = (i +d) A(t)                                                         (12)

and where M is the money stock of the aggregate of indebted agents,
and where additional modifications accounting for increased hoarding is
also included (money velocity is assumed inversely proportional to b),
then a collapse may be observed when simulating the model,
for reasonable parameter values. You are invited to read the paper.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Ryan: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/7018/


Get your FREE Email at http://mailcity.lycos.com
Get your PERSONALIZED START PAGE at http://personal.lycos.com

Article 1413 of alt.fan.john-turmel:
Path: freenet-news.carleton.ca!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!bc726
From: bc726@... (John Turmel)
Newsgroups:
can.politics,sci.econ,sci.engr,ncf.ca.lets,alt.politics.greens,alt.fan.john-turm\
el,alt.conspiracy
Subject: TURMEL: Accidentaly view of history
Date: 27 Dec 1998 07:30:06 GMT
Organization: National Capital Freenet, Ottawa, Canada
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <764nlu$ahq@...>
NNTP-Posting-Host: freenet5.carleton.ca
X-Given-Sender: bc726@... (John Turmel)
Xref: freenet-news.carleton.ca can.politics:388364 sci.econ:100361
sci.engr:43825 ncf.ca.lets:713 alt.politics.greens:42115 alt.fan.john-turmel:714
alt.conspiracy:504915


>Date: Sat Dec 26 21:59:38 1998
>From: shewill5@... (Sherryl C Williams)
>Subject: [politics-talk] Re: TURMEL: Miracle of financial salvation
>To: politics-talk@onelist.com
>Oh no I though all you believers in this vast conspiracy run by David
>Rockefeller and Kissinger in the basement of the Chase Manhattan bank
>were long dead. Don't tell me paranoia lives. Do you want one world
>government or are you afraid of one world government? I always get
>these things rather backward. Oh well no one said a true paranoid can
>not have enemies!
      JCT: Though many find it easy to believe that some misguided
artist in an Autrian garret might dream of ruling the world, I know
find it impossible to ever believe that a bunch of billionaires could
use the money system to rule the world by financial manipulations.
      So laugh at the thought the some of world's billionaires acting
in collusion to keep you and yours in debt slavery and control the
world all you want but as long as the financial levers are there to do
just that, I'd prefer to believe that the state of the world has been
controlled and be wrested from them to better our fate.
      Nevertheless, may you continue to enjoy your personal interest
payments and may you continue to enjoy your taxes that your government
uses for its interest payments. I myself prefer to fight my debt
slavery even if I have to suggest that our poverty is not an
accidental phenomenon of history. I admit that after much historical
study, I hold a conspiratorial view of history. And I'd also bet that
you hold the the accidental view of history after no such study.
      The history of our debt slavery will be one of the major topics
discussed at lets@onelist.com and as you've indicated, the last thing
you want to is examine the alternate thesis.
      Finally, the fact that the new LETS interest-free banking system
is supported my so many different political parties, the
better system is on the verge of freeing the debt slaves whether they
believe in a rich men's conspiracy or not.

--
John C. "The Engineer" Turmel, Founder, Abolitionist Party of Canada
915-2045 Carling Ave., Ottawa, K2A 1G5, Tel/Fax: 613-728-2196
LETS Abolish Interest Rates http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
All TURMEL topics at lets@onelist.com listserv archives

Though many are still in despair, I see the Good News for the
world's poor right on the horizon. There's something miraculous going
on when you see Catholics and Protestants applauding the same system;
when you see Tories and Marxists applauding the same system; when you
see Muslims and Jews applauding the same system; when you see French,
English and Germans applauding the same system; when you see engineers
and economists applauding the same system; when you see the rich and
the poor applauding the same system.

      Found to alleviate unemploment and even reduce infant mortality,
the system they're all applauding is the anti-poverty LETS (Local
Employment-Trading System) financial lifeboat, also called Timedollars
or Hours. see: http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/letssites.htm

      Though Christ did command "If you have money, do not lend it out
at interest," he also knew that once infected with getting income
without working for it, "they will forever be seeing without seeing
and hearing without hearing or understanding." Nevertheless, Buddha,
Ezekiel, Isaiah, Mohammed and many other greats also prohibited
interest rates.

      Christ's greatest Christmas present to us is not a forgiveness of
our trespasses which Ezekiel promised is granted automatically by God
once we repent and sin no more but is the forgiveness from the never-
ending debts. "Don't loanshark to him as you would have him not
loanshark to you" and "Forgive us our debts as we forgive our
debtors."

      A great forgiveness of debts is coming. But how can there be such
forgiveness without a great bankruptcy of the banks? Only by using the
LETS software as the alternative in order to stay debts and grant
friendly credit for life-support to everyone. And we'll get to see
this greatest revolution in human history in our lifetimes.

      When everyone obtains the security of an interest-free LETS bank
account, the Armageddon mort-gage war will be over to heal the whole
world almost overnight. They will forgive and forget all their
trespasses (even usurers') and beat their swords into plowshares. No
more poverty. No more oppression. No more war. And for 99% of the
planet's inhabitants, it will occur as fast as a ray of sunshine
breaks through the clouds.

     With the installation of thousands of successful LETS financial
lifeboats around the world and tens of thousands of politicians who
have supported the local model, the global dream is inevitable and
what's amazing is that it will take place right on the cusp of the new
millennium.

      If you're interested in taking part in or merely watching the
global implementation of this financial miracle by the global take-
down of the International Banking conspiracy which Christ attacked in
the temple and Mohammed threatened with "war from God and his
prophet," join us at the "lets@onelist.com" listserv.

      To register, send a message to:
lets-subscribe@onelist.com
      You will receive notification with a password which you can
change if you visit the User Center at www.onelist.com

      Or simply visit:
http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/lets

      To view the lets@onelist.com archives, see:
http://www.onelist.com/arcindex.cgi?listname=lets

LETS do it.
LETS have peace.
LETS have security.
LETS have abundance.
LETS enjoy the financal miracle to end the Hell on Earth and have the
Heaven in Eden.


--
John C. "The Engineer" Turmel, Founder, Abolitionist Party of Canada
915-2045 Carling Ave., Ottawa, K2A 1G5, Tel/Fax: 613-728-2196
LETS Abolish Interest Rates http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
All TURMEL topics at lets@onelist.com listserv archives

>Date: Tue Dec 15 15:35:59 1998
>From: ingerid.straume@... (Ingerid Straume)
>To: econ-lets@...
>about some very basic features of LETS, as my experience has showed
>me its shortcomings. In my opinion, if one does NOT discuss these
>hidden weaknesses of the system, we might be promoting a system
>which is not be able to live up to its expectations. It might even
>create more unequality than was before. At least as long as the
>promoters are not interested in discussing these basic features.
>PROBLEMS MAY HIDE INSIDE LETS-IDEOLOGY
>In my opinion there are in fact a lot of drawbacks about the way LETS
>is being promoted at least here in Scandinavia. In fact I think there
>is a tendency to speak of LETS as if it can solve all kinds of
>problems, whereas my experience is that it takes a lot of discussion
>and measures to keep it going.
      JCT: Any such problems are due to the fact that most LETS are
operating at a velocity of 1 and aim at staying small under the
assumption that large LETS would somehow lose their nice and cozy
effects.
      I have always pointed out that the moment a government joins and
accepts LETS in taxes, not only everyone but every business in town
would not accept Greendollars thereby offering a saturated market and
making Greendollars are useful and used as regular money.


>One salient problem is getting some
>"over-rich" members who don't really need to spend their local
>currency because all their needs are met. Then on the other hand you
>get a lot of "poor" members who are not able to trade and forever in
>debt.
      JCT: Getting the richer members to spend is no problem if there's
a LETS store or other groups who hold the large negatives. It's only
a problem in LETS which force half the members to be negative before
the other half can be positive.

>This has to do, of course, with the way we set the prices -
>counselling work etc. pays traditionally more than housework, child
>care etc. But adjusting and levelling the prices is still not enough,
>according to my experience. The traditional "LETS"-answer to this has
>been that it all levels out in the long run. This is illusory, and
>even dangerous rethoric with very little basis in the empirical
>world.
      JCT: As soon as you achieve market saturation or even a large
database of members, these kinds of problems disappear. And further, I
have pointed out that the problems associated with people with large
positives should not be a problem. In my last UK tour, I proposed four
different recommendations to actually promote LETS savings and higher
velocity. Check:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/l980611.htm and l980613.htm

>In my view it is naive to think that all people have equal
>resources. Some DO have more than others, and some will always be on
>the weaker side. It will not do to encourage them to use the system
>and go into minus on their accounts, saying "your time will surely
>come", and that maybe they have a lot of time when they are turning
>old (or permanently ill), and then they can devote themselves to the
>LETS-system for the rest of their lives...
      JCT: I see no problem with the weaker members building up and
even dying with large negative balances. Of course, once LETS is
operated as I suggest, there is no need for half of the members to be
in negative so that the other half may be in the positive. I've
suggested allowing LETS retirees to use their homes as collateral or
LETS consignment stores to build up large negative balances.

>I think we have to face it that in order to make the system go around
>one needs to do an active redistribution of resources (the currency).
>In fact, LETS, by being a local activity, make it very obvious and
>clear that there are permanent differences in peoples needs and
>amount of resources. Has anybody had experiences of, and thoughts
>about this? It may be that these weaknesses apply especially to
>Scandinavian LETS.
      JCT: No, the problems you mention are inherent in all small LETS
which do not allow stores of large negative balances.

>Date: Tue Dec 15 17:49:18 1998
>From: admin@... ("Nigel")
>I have also been developing a LETSystem over the last five or so
>years. I don't know if it is simply a cultural difference but I did
>not encounter any of the difficulties you itemise. We simply left
>individuals free to charge and pay as they chose. The system
>currently has over 450 accounts and trades something like 6,000
>every two months.
>Nobody in the system mentioned "organises" any redistribution, people
>trade as they wish. It would ,in my view, be an imposition on other
>individuals freedom to remove (& anyway who would have the authority
>to do so & where could that come from) their right to trade as they
>wish.
      JCT: That's the way to do it. Don't even worry about who has what
balances and just keep promoting trade. Of course, this trading has
been achieved even with all the detriments that I've pointed out.

>Date: Wed Dec 16 08:29:10 1998
>From: davewilliams@... ("David Williams")
>Most people can't see how they should use LETS. Quite often it is
>difficult to access and often the particular good or service we
>require is not available at a time convenient to ourselves. I think
>people often use the LETS when they would have used a credit card.
>When they are looking to buy something with luxury value or when the
>item is not in their usual range of goods.
      JCT: But when LETS has a large database or even a saturated
market, Greendollars are no less difficult to grasp than regular cash.

>Nigel Leach states that the LETS he has set up and run for five years
>is still doing less that #7 per member per month in trading. (#6000
>over two months is #3000 per month. 450 members x #7 = #3150). This
>is one of the more active LETS and Nigel works very hard. In reality
>probably a few of the members make up most of the trading. This is
>the case in HiLETS where I am a member.
      JCT: And yet, the moment government or even a large store were to
join, trading would explode.

>Date: Wed Dec 16 07:39:55 1998
>From: an601seb@... (Sally E Brewer)
>The issues you're raising are very relevant to the action research
>work I'm doing as a member of my local LETS (membership 220 and
>rising). We had problems earlier in the year around 'commitment' and
>'debt'. The first task of my research - trying to find a way of
>protecting the scheme from possible abuse without adversely impacting
>the trading and trust of the majority of genuine members - revealed
>how this 'debt' issue can divide LETS members and activists at the
>micro and macro level. There are several ideologies - economic,
>political - that are implicated here, and that feed into related
>issues of whether (or to what extent) we see LETS as aletrnative
>currencies or complementary currencies. There are also (unavoidably)
>people's fixed ideas about 'human nature' to contend with.
>In my scheme, the people who were most concerned about the 'debts' of
>others were also those with able bodies, skills in high demand, time,
>and materially comfortable lifestyles. They were also mostly male.
>Those who protested against an imposition of a commitment limit were
>almost exclusively female, all with children, several lone parents.
      JCT: And yet, in only a decade or so, all those children would be
able to start trading and pay off mom's debt. Again, I'd bet that
most of the worrying is about having few places to spend their
earnings now. Once there are many places to spend, this question would
probably not arise.

>How many of the errors of national currencies do we transfer into
>the operation of LETS? (The myth of scarcity, boundary anxieties,
>etc.) Also, are people thinking in terms of circulation of 'gifts',
>or in terms of reciprocity?
      JCT: The only error in the national currency is the automated
scarcity caused by the interest. If that were corrected, there would
be need for LETS to fill in the gap.

>In my scheme, it became clear that key figures in the scheme hold
>a template of 'homo economicus' - the maximising, able-bodied agent -
>as the epitome of LETS membership and participation. When issues
>about members not fitting this category were raised, the comment
>'it's not a charity' was made. This wasn't what I had joined LETS to
>hear.
      JCT: But it isn't charity. It's helping out your neighbor with
your abundance in the expectation to later get it back. To the
recipient of the credit, it's as good as charity but it isn't.

>I joined because LETS seemed to offer a humane means of meeting
>human needs, as did many other members. A currency system that takes
>account of the differences that you talked about - in time
>availability, in health, etc., and works creatively to accomodate
>these in a spirit of co-operation while also nurturing people's sense
>of having something valuable to offer.
      JCT: And that's what it does. It just doesn't do it enough
because they are kept so small.

>In my scheme, I'm trying (with other members) to achieve
>a more pragmatic (rather than ideological) operation. Ultimately,
>it's the trading that constitutes the scheme, so we're concentrating
>on building the social networks and trading events that facilitate
>more trading. For those members with concerns that they have nowhere
>to spend their anchors (for which they often blame those with
>commitments, no matter how transient), we're working on recruitment
>of more members offering goods and services that members need - like
>food from local alottment growers.
      JCT: That's very useful but cannot jump start massive trading
like getting government or a large enterprise to join.

>Date: Wed Dec 16 03:35:17 1998
>From: MartinStrube@... (Martin Strube)
>My understanding of the innovatory nature of LETS is that the old
>values of "being in debt" and "being in surplus" don't apply.
      JCT: Sure they do though it doesn't feel that way simply because
the debts and surpluses to not grow.

>Because the currency in a LETS isn't limited in supply, it can't be
>"cornered" in the way most capitalist commodities can (eg "corner the
>market in diamonds"). And if it can't be cornered, it's value can't
>be manipulated by the people who might have cornered it.
      JCT: And because national currencies are artificially kept in
short supply, they can be cornered.

>The problem may arise with LETS members' attitudes to "debt". They
>shouldn't really have one. There is no harm in trading at a level
>well below break even, as long as everybody keeps trading.
      JCT: Good point. I like to use the example of a large store such
as Simpsons Sears which would allow its members who are ALL in the
negative to write checks to each other and change their indebtedness.
This would be a perfectly suitable "debt money" which would facilitate
trading in exactly the same way as LETS does.

>The value is more in the trading itself than in the state of
>individual accounts. Even someone trading well below zero is paying
>in units which still hold value for everyone else.
      JCT: That's the whole point. It shouldn't matter what anyone's
balance is since debits always equal credits.

>I think it may also be residual economic attitude which hopes or
>expects that "your time will surely come". Strictly speaking, it has
>come as you join the system.
      JCT: Actually, allowing single mothers to go deeply in the
negative is anticipation that the potential of the children's "time
will surely come."

>Date: Wed Dec 16 06:07:59 1998
>From: ingerid.straume@... (Ingerid Straume)
>Martin Strube wrote:
>>My understanding of the innovatory nature of LETS is that the old
>>values of "being in debt" and "being in surplus" don't apply.
>A appreciate your reply. Your point is correct, and we have kept
>saying the same things to our members ever since the beginning. But
>the fact remains that a lot of people feel more comfortable, in
>general, when they can move up and down on a scale instead of
>spiralling downwards, and it feels more comfortable to have say "2000
>plus" than "2000 minus."
      JCT: That's the whole purpose of having a LETS store be in the
negative while holding the collateral on consignment or allowing
retirees to be in the negative while pledging their homes to allow a
far larger number of other members to be in the positive.

>We can keep insisting that there is no "up'" and "down", but for a
>lot of people that will only remain a phrase. And that's why I am
>saying that there is an ideological element in LETS.
      JCT: But in systems where asset holders or LETS consignment
stores aren't available to hold the negative balances, it makes it
essential that half the members must be negative so that the other
half may be positive. And no one likes being in the negative which
does inhibit their trading.

>But the second problem I have mentioned will remain even if the
>impetus of the psychological associations conserning "debit" and
>"credit" was overcome, namely that some people have more resources
>and some have less. As long as the members are fairly homogenous
>this will not be visible. But as soon as you get members that are
>for instance ill, loaded with responsibilities already (have no
>time), and generally less equipped with skills, membership and "debt"
>might become a burden. I certainly know a couple of persons to whom
>it is. I use the term "debt" to illustrate my point: the way it's
>being experienced by people on a low level of systemic abstraction.
      JCT: That's the sad part about the weaker producers being in the
negative. I wouldn't worry about them dying in the negative since it
could later be shared by the whole database.

>As to another comment that was sent out (sorry I don't have your name
>- I accidentally deleted the message) the sender said something like
>that organized distribution is an imposition on the freedom and
>responsibility of the members/traders, and that no one has the right
>to subtract from other's account and redistribute the currency.
>To that I want to say that: yes, any redistribution should be
>voluntary. In our LETS we made it so that there is a "welfare
>account" which is for the purpose of helping members to even out
>their accounts if it gets too tough over a long period of time.
      JCT: This "welfare account" would only have to accessed in the
event of death if we weren't to worry about their negative balances
now.

>This would be a place to put one's surplus of currency, and that
>would stimulate the trade. The only drawback is that no body have
>been donating for that account, except the initiator of the idea
>of the welfare account.
      JCT: Another good reason to just let people go into the negative
and share the burden of non-payment if and when they die. After all,
what if they were to win a lottery a few years down the road, then all
the worry would have been for nothing.

>If redistribution was to occur, even on a level that was less
>voluntary than this, let's say like a taxation system or devaluation
>system, then membership and thus accepting the terms is of course
>still volutnary. Such measures of taxation, or one might call it
>contributing to the common good, is not so unusual in society and
>might facilitate the charity aspect. Of course, it would only be
>brought about after long discussions where all the members of the
>LETS were heard on an equal basis. I don't think it is unethical in
>any way, and if it can help the circulation it is also economical.
      JCT: That's my point. But it need only be raised if and when
someone were to die in the negative and not before.

>I wonder if there are differences between smaller and larger LETS in
>respect to what is being traded, and in what way. That was just a
>thought after reading that a large LETS of 450 members had no
>problems with unequal resources between the members, and of
>accumulation of local currency. Or are there other reasons why this
>is not a salient problem to some of the LETS. Yours, Ingerid Straume
      JCT: There is certainly a large difference between mall power
LETS and large or saturation LETS in that the large LETS exhibit none
of the above problems.

>Date: Wed Dec 16 11:32:58 1998
>From: mmattos@... (Mary Mattos)
>This is interesting. In our societies we collect taxes (as you
>mention below) and redistribute currency via welfare, social
>assistance etc. I would think or like to think that the creation of
>LETS is a way to avoid that "stigma". At present I'm drawing a blank
>re ideas/alternatives, I guess it's some of that residual stuff from
>the capitalist economy. we keep bringing "that" way of looking at
>things, and doing things into LETS.
      JCT: The best way is not to tax it to give to the weak but simply
allow the weak to go into the negative and only use the common tax
when they are absolutely incapable of repayment, i.e. when they're
dead and can't buy lottery tickets anymore. Of course, those with
children shouldn't have to worry at all since I'd bet most children
will do their best to honor their parents' debt incurred in their own
care.

>So how do we help out those who are ill, mentally ill, etc? If the
>admin fee was set aside as a pension fund it could be used to
>supplement the accounts of those who don't have goods or services to
>sell. What it comes down to is members of a community looking after
>each other... regards
      JCT: Just let them go in the negative and don't even worry about
it until the end.

>Date: Wed Dec 16 11:21:12 1998
>From: mmattos@... (Mary Mattos)
>>Because the currency in a LETS isn't limited in supply, it can't be
>>"cornered" in the way most capitalist commodities can (eg "corner
>>the market in diamonds"). And if it can't be cornered, it's value
>>can't be manipulated by the people who might have cornered it.
>The cash in the economy isn't actually limited in supply either.
      JCT: My whole point is that there is an automatic limit in the
supply necessary to pay both the principal of the loan received and
the interest which was never created or received.

>people are "free" to borrow (if the banks will grant the loans) or
>use credit cards and that increases the supply.
      JCT: Yes, it's possible to borrow new money into circulation but
never enough to pay back both the principal created and the interest
demanded.

>LETS is only an advantage if there is no interest, tax or percentage
>fee charged.
      JCT: Actually, there's nothing wrong with tax or percentage fee
charged. The only problem is the usury.

>and speaking of diamonds, isn't it time that humans "grew up" and
>stopped attaching such ridiculous value to glittery things such as
>gold and gems?
      JCT: A free market will always value scarce resources more
greatly and there's nothing wrong with that.

>can't eat them, can't burn them to heat your home or cook your food,
>can't build your house with them, so lucky old King Cole can sit in
>his room full of treasures and starve to death. ( I do have the
>right nursery rhyme don't I?)
      JCT: But once there's enough food, shelter and fuel, there won't
be any problem with wanting baubles and toys too.

>but people can and do corner markets in LETS, albeit unintentionally,
>eg carpenters, auto mechanics, etc. maybe not in the same sense you
>meant though! and they don't manipulate the market...
      JCT: It's not possible to corner the market when any other
carpenters may join.

>Date: Wed Dec 16 13:39:34 1998
>From: fraz@... (Fraser How)
>Why are the "poor" members unable to trade? What is stopping them? A
>percieved lack of skills, or a lack of demand for what they are
>offering? Or is it that they are trading, but are not getting paid
>enough to balance out what they are spending?
      JCT: Either way, who cares but those systems which do not allow
large negatives.

>Perhaps the "poor" members need to learn to ask a higher price - and
>if the "rich" people don't want to pay for it then they don't get
>it. No one should ever feel obliged to trade under LETS - that is
>not the point of getting involved, it's a fundamental groundrule of
>the LETS process.
      JCT: There's no problem with some members earning less than
others and asking them to charge more will only cut back on the demand
for their services.

>Maybe the "over-rich" need to realise that there is NO POINT
>whatsoever in having lots and lots of credits and never spending
>them! There is no interest! The LETS is there to make trading
>easier.
      JCT: But there is a point in building up savings for their
retirement. Why should that be a problem?

>Perhaps they could simply charge less and offer more for the
>goods and services that they purchase! After all - if they do not
>really need to spend, then they certainly do not really need to earn
>- they do not "really need" to be involved at-all! So if they are
>involved, presumably it's because they recognise some value in doing
>so.
      JCT: There's no reason that they should earn less than their time
is worth. It's only the lack of negative stores that forces this to be
an issue.

>Even if they participate only to gain economic benefits for
>themselves then they are only depriving themselves of those benefits
>by not spending their credits.
      JCT: But they're only depriving themselves now and I'd bet most
hope to collect some day.

>And if they are involved because they want to support others in
>their community then even more reason to just pay more and charge
>less - start building the community by recognising the value of the
>people in it.
      JCT: But what if they get into an accident and can't work
anymore. Then they will find that they will regret the decision to
have charged less and paid more. This goes against human nature and is
purposeless unless you're stuck with a system that allows no large
negative stores and deters large positive savings balances.

>Have you considered making your LETS an hour-based system? In this
>arrangement everybody's time is given equal value and this unbalanced
>spread of units would probably not occur.
      JCT: Actually, in Hour systems, some people charge 1 Hour per
hour while others may charge two, three or even half and Hour per
hour. Timedollar systems have everyone's time given equal value and
though I applaud the thought, I prefer the capitalistic notion where a
better producer may claim more Hours in exchange for his time as long
as the weaker producers are not denied the credit to pay for it even
if they do go into the negative and never get out.

>If the traders are primarily into the social benefits of LETS then
>this is worth considering. However, this method makes it more
>difficult for businesses to be involved - what do they say to the
>taxman?
      JCT: Actually, the US Internal Revenue Service has decided that
Timedollars earned are not taxable. The reasons are explained in Parry
Walker's and Edward Goldsmith's article on local currencies at:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/gold.htm

>>In my view it is naive to think that all people have equal resources.
>Certainly at the moment some people are vastly more able to produce
>and contribute than others. Perhaps it does not have to be that way
>though - all children are full of magic and life and given the right
>conditions maybe we could all grow up to be empowered individuals.
      JCT: And so should be accorded credit or their parent's accorded
the credit necessary for their development.

>We could study and analyse the causes of this imbalance forever -
>many people are busy doing just that right now. LETS is about finding
>solutions through personal and community empowerment. If we can use
>LETS to build our economies, then there will be more thriving
>businesses, more jobs, and more money that can be spent on an endless
>number of things that will improve our situation - that will really
>help the "poor" people, or even result in them becoming a part of
>history that we have moved beyond. Those who are disempowered can
>certainly benefit from being involved in LETS as it is now - but lets
>face it, if you haven't got enough money to eat, keep warm and
>sheltered comfortably then that is what you need first - not
>councelling, massage and guitar lessons - valuable though those
>things are (and I need all three ;-) So if you can't buy food,
>utilities, rent on your LETS and you havn't got much cash, then it's
>a help, for some even a big help - but it's not the answer, and we
>are being irresponsible if we act like it is.
      JCT: That's why it's so important to achieve saturation by
getting members like government to join so that Greendollars can have
a use such as tax-payment desired by everyone.

>It is for those who are in a LETS community to decide if they want
>to sieze tho opportunity to learn to value each other in a more
>human way, or not.
      JCT: And LETS members manage to do that even if they charge
different amounts for their time. The end result is always that
someone's abundance is at the present time a supply for the want of
others in the hope that the others' abundance may later be a supply
for their want.

>If someone is sitting there in a LETS with a huge positive balance
>not wishing to spend it, while others are spiraling down and down,
>perhaps they have not understood what LETS is about at all and maybe
>they could ask themselves "why am I in this LETS?".
      JCT: This is only a problem where large positives are
deterred because it forces the others into the negative. Where large
negatives are not deterred, this problem disappears.

>Why not just do whatever they are doing to earn this huge balance
>for free?
      JCT: Unnecessary and detrimental if he later gets sick.

>Or better, imo, go on a huge spending spree!
      JCT: Why force people to spend it now? Only because of the
failure to set up allowable large negative balances.

>Pay a "poor" old lady 20 credits to tell your children a story!
      JCT: And regret it later when you get sick and could really use
it to pay her 1 credit per hour for the same purpose.

>Pay the young man 30 credits instead of 10 for cleaning your car!
      JCT: Same reason applies.

>LETS is about bringing our communities to life, the numbers are
>there to serve us, not us to serve the numbers! Perhaps somebody
>else does not have the skills and resources that you do - the
>question is, do you want to value what they do have and thus
>encourage it to grow and develop, or what?
      JCT: Communities can still come to life without forcing the
positives to spend their savings in order to allow the negatives to
earn now.

>Date: Wed Dec 16 13:39:36 1998
>From: fraz@... (Fraser How)
>When promoting LETS we perhaps need to remember that the potential of
>LETS to solve all kinds of problems is not yet being fulfilled by the
>LETS that we currently see around us. Why this is the case and how to
>do something about it is really what it's all about, imho.
      JCT: And I've mentioned how to up the power of LETS by several
necessary improvements. Paper tokens for high velocity, large
collateral-based negative balances values to permit large savings
balances.

>This is in no way a denigration of what we do have - LETS does help
>people, right now, today, in many places in many ways - I am saying
>only that with it we can do so much more - a view shared by many
>LETS-types the world over. To someone new to LETS, we must be careful
>not to sell them a dream in such a way that they are under the
>impression that it will be realised just by signing the agreements
>and starting trading - whilst at the same time not selling the LETS
>short as it is, now.
      JCT: It's not unreasonable to promise Heaven once city hall joins
and starts accepting Green in taxes.

>We need to be realistic about what people can expect from getting
>involved today
      JCT: Which isn't very much as yet.

>- and at the same time we are free to share our visions of how it
>could/will be as it evolves ever-onward - after all, hopes and
>dreams are the stuff of inspiration!
      JCT: And the vision of what a saturation LETS market can deliver.

>15 years ago you could have sold somebody a modem and
>said "this will enable you to talk to people all over the world!" -
>and I bet they would have been disappointed at the results, though
>what you said was potentially true. But a few years down the line
>and - here we are, doing just that!  Best Wishes Fraser How
      JCT: You bet. Once LETS achieves its full municipal, national or
global potential, we'll have done just that.

>Date: Wed Dec 16 18:29:08 1998
>From: admin@... ("Nigel")
>>Nigel Leach states that the LETS he has set up and run for five
>>years is still doing less that #7 per member per month in trading.
>Not simply from modesty but from an interest in what makes LETS tick
>I would say that what I understand to be the current level of trading
>has in fact happened with minimal intervention - It's the users wot
>done it (also for most of the last three years my involvement has
>been pretty minimal and much valuable work has been done during that
>time by Jonathan Simms). This lack of intervention and "rule setting"
>contrasts interestingly with the many LETS that take it on themselves
>to organise things. The point David makes about the number of users
>actually using the LETS will be familiar to many of us and I will ask
>those currently involved in Calderdale LETS admin if any figures for
>this have been collected and report back. By way of contrast, in
>Worcester where I have contributed to setting up another LETSystem
>growth has been much slower than in Calderdale. So perhaps cultural
>values do indeed have a siginficant influence? Regards Nigel Leach
>Director - LETS Solutions
      JCT: A great example. The Bishop of Worcester, Peter Selby,
is a great advocate of money reform. If he were to announce to his
congregation that al the members on their database now had a LETS
account joined to the local LETS and that they were accepting Green in
the collection plate and then use those collections to finance good
works, the size of the LETS database would explode and with it, the
amount of trading.
      As I keep repeating, all takes is one large database to jump
start massive trading.

>Date: Wed Dec 16 19:37:09 1998
>From: ingerid.straume@... (Ingerid Straume)
>>Why are the "poor" members unable to trade? What is stopping them?
>One member considers herself in debt, unable to trade as she has a
>large commitment of twenty-some hours.
      JCT: Twenty hours, half a week's work, is inhibiting her trading?

>Our LETS-system has a recommended hour-by-hour yardstick (as was one
>of your questions). She is a single mother, chronically ill. She has
>no energy to spare. She also has no spare time, no space nor much
>else (like a car etc.) Her commitment came as a surprise to her (she
>hadn't fully realized the terms of the principles of LETS, nor was
>the deal between her and the seller totally clear to her.
      JCT: She may not have time now but not only will she have the
time when her children are grown but the children may even pay back
the half-week's work she owes.

>This situation brings up a few important points, I think. First and
>most salient to your point: the commitment that she has is at this
>time experienced as a debt. I think it is more down to earth to talk
>about how things are being experienced by members, regular people and
>not the most visionary of us, and not talk so much about how one
>"should" and "ought to" think. We are not yet living in a new world
>although I agree that the longing for utopia is a good thing to drive
>us "forward".
      JCT: Yes, it is a debt but the debt isn't growing so that it will
easily be repaid years down the line by the whole family who
benefitted today.

>My main concern for this member is that her membership is now a
>source of worry more than a help. For some people it might never
>feel just fine to trade at a level below zero.
      JCT: Just pointing out how she or her children will be able to
repay it years down the line should allay those concerns.

>Another problem of the poor letsers is like you mentioned, that their
>kind of services require more resources in the first place. The
>spiraling down effect becomes clear if you are a woman with few tools
>etc, offering your services along with resourceful men. Hour-by-hour
>principles is not enough to empower both categories sufficeintly so
>that both have the same balance og plus and minus. So I guess I can
>simplify my point into something like this: It doesn't matter to a
>single mother with few resources and too much work in the first
>place, that she is being told that it is just her old-fashioned mode
>of thinking that tells her that there is a difference between her
>-2000.- and somebody elses +2000.- There seems to be a lot of
>different motivations involved in the "LETS-movement", as Sally
>Brewer pointed out.
      JCT: And all this worry is unnecessary once she realizes that no
one is going to resent or chase her for her debt to those who have
helped her. Her future willingness is all that is required.

>I received another response, in Swedish though, from Marcus Helendahl
>(bank of good will) saying I think that maybe LETS shoul be more like
>market-orientated. I agree that it should be easy to trade, without
>having to change one's psychological structure first. Having an
>employee, a helper, certainly would help elderly people to join and
>use LETS.
      JCT: But most LETS would frown on elderly people going negative
when they can't earn it back even though they may eventually leave
quite substantial estates. Failing to include the elderly with such
large estates because they can't work anymore is one of the major
weaknesses of current LETS.

>>Maybe the "over-rich" need to realise that there is NO POINT
>>whatsoever in having lots and lots of credits and never spending
>>them! There is no interest! The LETS is there to make trading easier.
>The problem is not so much greed, but rather that they have abundant
>resources in the first place. They join LETS, and help out people
>when asked. These members are typically male, they have tools, cars,
>TIME, and they are skilled in lots of odd-job things that are always
>in demand. Typically, they help out single mothers with heavy work,
>carpentery, driving etc. They get lots of "points", "green dollars"
>or whatever it's called. It's not that they don't want to spend it.
>It's simply that they have no needs. Maybe they try to a couple of
>times, and maybe they are turned down when a need for once does
>arise.
      JCT: So letting them save their Green until they are older and
eventually have those needs is the solution which is not available to
LETSystems which frown on large positive balances.

>Using LETS might be a little awkward if you have an alternative (that
>is: money). After a while they realize they have loads of points. And
>this in itself might actually be de-motivating. In this case, it
>might have been better without the points!
      JCT: It's not demotivating unless people keep complaining about
it. Saving up for the future is never demotivating and helping those
who need it now is quite motivating.

>We have a few members in this category. You might say that they
>SHOULD think differently. But can the economic system be based on an
>assumption that all its members have to change their thinking to
>accomodate the system??
      JCT: I think it's up to LETSystem organizers to start to think
differently about deterring large savings balances. Then the problem
disappears and trading is maximized.

>In our LETS, we have people thinking of LETS as circulation of gifts,
>reciprocity, saving the environment etc. But LETS as an alternative
>economic system is not a realistic discussion at this moment because
>that would involve the idea of profit. That in my opinion is another
>under-discussed theme in the LETS-promotion. It touches into what we
>are now discussing but is maybe too complex to move into at this time.
      JCT: I see no reason to deter the profit motive at all. It's not
natural. Properly run, LETS could actually encourage the profit
motive. Christ's mentions this right after stating the LETS
differential equation in Paul Corr II 8:14.
>Your abundance should at the present time be a supply for their want
>so that later their abundance may be a supply for your want and in
>that way, he who gathers much won't have too much and he who gathers
>little won't have too little, that they may be equality.
      JCT: So there's nothing wrong with gathering much as long as your
abundance is available for borrowing by the poor. So, LETS not only
achieves equality of a kind but also allows the profit motive as
incentive to maximizing harvest.

>Date: Thu Dec 17 07:14:22 1998
>From: fraz@... (Fraser How)
>>She is a single mother, chronically ill. She has no energy to spare.
>With someone in that position, it is especially important that they
>DO realise the terms and principles of LETS. When she joined, did she
>have some idea of what she was going to do in order to earn hours?
      JCT: She shouldn't have to until the kids are grown and gone.
Even if she has zero skills at the moment, she could then acquire some
or find things to do which people want. But forcing her to find a way
to repay now or as soon as possible is an unnecessary headache.

>Did she realise that the LETS works on a give and take basis?
      JCT: Did she realise that it works on a give and take basis while
she didn't have the time to give? Being willing to wait eliminates
this concern.

>If she cannot see how she can earn hours at-all, then she is in need
>of more support, I agree. As you say, if she is ill, no energy,
>little resources then she is someone who needs to be supported by
>the community.
      JCT: The community supports her just by letting her go positive
in the hopes that she will in the future be able to repay either by
having children who wish to honor her commitment or by winning a
lottery.

>If she, with assistance, finds something that she would like to
>contribute and feels able to do so comfortably, then perhaps if she
>did that then people could pay her way above the "going rate" in
>recognition that she need extra support.
      JCT: But the only reason to warp the free market is because we
are demanding she find some way of earning Green now. Waiting for
later eliminates this problem and the stigma of being considered in
need of charitable support.

>For instance she could be paid 5 "hours" for one half an hour doing
>something.
      JCT: Which means someone else's time earned gets valued less.

>If there is nothing that she can do without causing herself distress,
>then somebody needs to give her "hours" - and this is so easy!
>It's not like cash, it's not hard to get. Anyone who knows her could
>donate some of their hours to her. Or, as you are suggesting already
>there could be some system where everybody contributes a little to
>support people in her position.
      JCT: But it again carries to the stigma of charity. And should
she eventually acquire skills or lottery monies, then those go gave
lost value they earned for nothing. Let's leave the charity until
we're sure she's dead and she or her children can't repay the support
they were loaned.

>Yes, and the lady you are talking about is a special case, just as
>the "most visionary" is a special case. "Regular people" on a LETS
>usually have something to offer and therefore will not feel as this
>lady feels. No-one is talking about how people "should" think - I am
>making suggestions about what they "could" do/think to improve the
>situation.
      JCT: But we shouldn't worry about it even if they, at the present
time, have no way to repay.

>>My main concern for this member is that her membership is now a
>>source of worry more than a help. For some people it might never
>>feel just fine to trade at a level below zero.
>Fine as long as your trading is both ways, up and down, that's the
>important thing, not so much your "score". If you only spend and
>never earn, or only earn and never spend, then this is where we find
>these problems.
      JCT: But you don't need to find these problems at all if you
think long term and eliminate the necessity that half the members be
negative so that the other half be negative.

>Why don't you and some friends get together and give her a gift of 20
>hours today so she no longer has to worry - and then look at how you
>can address this in the long term?
      JCT: Christ said that's the nice thing to do but he also said
that lending it with no interest and no expectation of payment is
almost as good. And since we are willing to write it off when she
dies, are not such interest free loans a deferred form of charity
anyway?

>I do not believe that it is her "way of thinking" that causes the
>problem either. The problem is that she is not earning credits, and
>she feels bad, perhaps because she does not want to take and take and
>take without putting back anything - most of us would not like that
>either.
      JCT: And isn't the fact that with no rush to pay it back and only
our hope that she does someday pay it back while never insisting that
she pay it back just as reassuring?

>Then why do they join LETS, if that is their attitude? You say they
>join LETS to help others - so why will they not realise that paying
>more to those who need it will help them?
      JCT: Giving away your hard-earned savings is not necessary and
would certainly deter many people from participating.

>What do they think about the idea of giving some away then, to people
>that really need it like the woman who feels she is in "debt"? I know
>you have said you have tried this - do you have an idea why these
>people are not wanting to do it? Why do the "over-rich" join in the
>first place?
      JCT: Certainly to help but not to give it away. Again, I don't
mind charity but lending and only giving it in charity only when the
debtor dies eliminates the feeling of low-self-worth that many who
receive charity often feel.

>You have to change your thinking a little bit to learn anything new.
>If you treat LETS as if it is exactly the same as normal money then
>it will not work well at all. It is not the same.
      JCT: Actually, I urge people to treat LETS exactly the same. It
is the same but better.

>Date: Thu Dec 17 14:10:05 1998
>From: an601seb@... (Sally E Brewer)
>on the subject of LETS and mental health, the stigma of welfare, etc.
>- there is in Brent, London a LETS affiliated to the local group which
>is run by a group of mental health service users. Its open to anyone
>to join, but the group is administered by the users. People can trade
>services like escorting to social events for those feeling vulnerable
>and isolated, and the usual goods and services, allowing access to the
>'meaningful occupation' that many of us join LETS to enjoy. Sally
      JCT: You will find that Timedollars work this way in the States
and are very successful at not only bringing happiness to the
recipients but also to the givers of such care.

>Date: Thu Dec 17 06:43:21 1998
>From: kevin@... (Kevin Donnelly)
>>In our LETS, we have people thinking of LETS as circulation of gifts,
>I wasn't going to get into this thread, but what Ingerid is saying
>here is not far from the doctrine of grace about which a certain
>Aramaic-speaking Galilean had much to say without using the word
>(sorry whoever, which is why I wasn't going to write).
      JCT: Of course, since Aramaic-speaking Galilean tekton was the
first to state the LETS differential equation, it makes sense that
LETS provides the grace promised by his doctrine.

>LETS is self-evidently a system of exchange and very useful too, but
>those who have nothing to exchange feel they do not belong. An
>economy of pure gift is some way off, but most decent societies
>recognise the right to exist and be supported, as do most decent
>families. Very few people keep strict accounts within families.
>Repent and believe the gospel, which probably annoys whoever, at
>heart means change your mind and be released from the debt-slavery
>system. Love is this, isn't it?   Kevin Donnelly
      JCT: Yes it is. LETS banking is loving your neighbor as you'd
have your neighbor love you while usury banking is enslaving your
neighbor with debt as you'd not have your neighbor enslave you.

>Date: Thu Dec 17 17:28:53 1998
>From: ingerid.straume@... (Ingerid Straume)
>I had in mind that if the concept of profit is viewed as an in itself
>bad and unwanted thing in LETS, that means LETS will not have much of
>a chance to evolve beyond being basically an idealistic organisation.
>It will not be able to compete with, or replace the interest-based
>national/global economy.
      JCT: And since my goal is to not only compete with but eventually
displace the interest-based debt slavery system, it explains why I am
so in favor or profit with the charitable aspect only taking place at
the end of the game.

>LETS-participation will require idealistic commitment and will
>continue to be heavily dependent on psychological rearrangements in
>the thinking of its members.This seems to be one branch of
>LETS-ideology. Another branch is a more pragmatic orientation. This
>line of thinking regards circulation as so central that it wants to
>draw ALL kinds of members, preferably a very blended group. That
>would imply a lot of different thinking in basic matters. This
>approach might use market orientation and incentives like profit
>would not be shunned. Profit is an incentive!
      JCT: That's me.

>Who would want to do trade on any semi-large scale if there was no
>profit in the buying and selling of goods? Is LETS to be a
>leisure-time activity, or do we want members to offer their time and
>services on an increasing basis?
>I know a few people are working on this market orientating approach.
>They are meeting massive resistance from other types of idealists.
>The system is still of course interest-free and locally based. The
>systemic features are kept. What's all the resistance about?
>Threatened ideological identity? Peter from Sweden said it seemed to
>him that LETSers don't really want their group to grow (too much).
>They want to keep it for those with the "right kind of mentality".
>Anybody have (self-experienced) views on this? Ingerid
      JCT: Your view says it very well.

>Date: Fri Dec 18 05:40:09 1998
>From: tom.holloway@... ("Tom Holloway")
>Kevin Donnelly said....
>>is not far from the doctrine of grace about which a certain Aramaic-
>>speaking Galilean had much to say without using the word (sorry
>>whoever, which is why I wasn't going to write).
>Speaking as a cast-iron, 22-carat, born-again atheist (no listowner,
>this is NOT off the subject) I have always had a great regard for
>that particular carpenter -- from all I've read he was clearly a
>thoroughly decent chap, and I recognise and applaud his impulse to
>forgiveness and generosity.
      JCT: Calling him a carpenter would be like calling me a
carpenter. He was a banking systems tekton as I'm a banking systems
engineer. His LETS and usury differential equations definitely place
him at the top, not the bottom, of the technology totem pole.

>That's interesting. For me, there are two themes here. ONE is
>typified by the argument between those who believe in the
>Internet-as-marketplace and those who believe in the
>Internet-as-potlatch -- the 'gift-economy', the 'Moka', in which those
>who give most have the greatest status. I fall very firmly on the
>side of 'potlatch' and try to keep myself as poor as is consistent
>with my retired life. No car, no telly, no microwave, I run a charity
>and sit on committees etc......
      JCT: And yet, with the resources to provide a car, a telly, a
microwave and full life support, why should you settle for less
especially when there won't be any charity committess left to sit on.

>But the _OTHER_ theme is the need for us to recognise that ALL human
>beings, including the dispossessed, have something to give. It's a
>theme I most warm to when talking to local Councillors and Social
>Service types - that their money support and voucher hand-outs don't
>provide the feeling of self-worth that we all need.
      JCT: The reason that loans with no repayment schedule and
forgiveness at the end of the game are better than self-worth-robbing
charity.

>LETS, on the other hand, reaches the parts that the hand-out system
>cannot reach. It encourages neighbors to be good neighbors, and
>single parents that by putting on some stout shoes and joining a LETS
>'garden gang' working on a pensioner's decaying garden for just one
>hour, they too play a part in the economy -- and gain a sense of
>self-worth in the process.
>Giving to those that don't have is good. Persuading those that don't
>have that -- actually they _DO_ have -- is, IMHO, better. In other
>words, I would rather 'donate' a feeling of self-worth than donate a
>LETS cheque or a fiver any day.
      JCT: Right you are.

>Date: Mon Dec 21 14:25:10 1998
>From: dburman@... (David Burman)
>The trouble with a gift economy is it can easily become a guilt
>economy - who has given more, who owes whom, etc - that can be just
>as oppressive in terms of power relationships as the cash economy.
      JCT: Another good reason to keep good and fair books with
forgiveness at the end of the game for the weaker producers in life.
My final point is that I don't mind if my mentally-retarded cousin
drives a nice car when there are enough cars, that he eats well when
there is enough food, that he enjoys all the good things in life when
there's plenty to go around, even if I know that he'll never be able
to pay it back.

>LETS allows a purchaser of whaterver means to issue his/her own
>currency when and where it is needed, thus avoiding dependence on
>gifts from others. This being said, our experience here in Toronto
>indicates that there still remains a kind of class system in LETS,
>at least at this stage of development - some find it very easy to
>earn local, and have difficulty finding places to spend it, and
>others have lots of things they need to spend local on, but have
>difficulty finding ways to earn it. If anyone has solutions to the
>latter problem, I'd be very interested in hearing about it.
      JCT: Make sure that all your members accept Toronto Dollars and
urge Mel Lastman to borrow a million, spend them into circulation in
exchange for civic services provided, then tax them back and you'll
find that everyone in town will start accepting Green in order to pay
their taxes and you'll have solved the problem of not enough places to
spend your Green.

>Date: Mon Dec 21 16:04:41 1998
>From: dburman@... (David Burman)
>In our focus group research in Toronto, I asked specifically what
>people's experience of a negative balance was, and almost everyone
>said it was like debt, but less stressful. This can be taken as an
>indorsement of people's commitment to LETS (as opposed to "being in
>commitment") in that LETS currency is taken seriously. It's not from
>a lack of understanding of how LETS works. They all knew about
>negative balances and so on. It was more of an issue of commitment in
>general - a negative balance means an obligation - and those I talked
>to did not feel entirely comfortable with that.
      JCT: But pointing out that it's a debt that no one is going to
chase you for and which you can try to repay at your pleasure should
help allay those feelings.

>Is this an issue that matters? Is it a question of education and
>getting used to negative balances? we didn't have enough participants
>to say with certainty that those who participated more had fewer
>concerns about negative balances.  I don't think it's a problem, but
>it could be a barrier to trade for some people.
      JCT: People who are forced to live in debt which grows
exponentially should have no difficulty in appreciating being allowed
to get into debt which does not.

>Date: Tue Dec 22 04:12:15 1998
>From: MartinStrube@... (Martin Strube)
>In my battles with standard accounting practices, I keep coming up
>against "the bottom line". All of us are intimidated by this. What
>we tend to forget is that commercial accounting is a closed system.
>It only appears to make sense because it allows itself the luxuury of
>ignoring so many non-costable variables. For example, it rarely
>takes account of environmental damage, nor of long term energy
>consumption, nor of health related costs, nor of social costs as
>deprivation forces crime up and community cohesion down. Accountants
>and company ("my duty is to the shareholders") directors revel in
>this simplisticism and can afford to look down upon the rest of us
>who struggle helplessly with wider concerns.
      JCT: That's because repayment schedules and the threat of
foreclosure forces all to earn as much as they can get and pay out as
little as they can no matter how damaging to anyone else. When you're
in an elimination game, a death-gamble like musical chairs with money,
where there are never enough chairs for all to survive as there is
never enough principal lent out to repay both the principal and the
interest, it pays to only look out for number one. Balancing the debt
to only the principal is having enough chairs for all to survive and
causes a paradigm shift. A change of thinking.

>Some people make the mistake of equating accounting with mathematics.
>They say, "1 + 1 = 2. How can you dispute that?"
      JCT: Actually, they're saying 1 = 1 + interest which it can never
be.

>But accounting is a very proscribed sub-set of mathematics and is,
>ultimately, as inexact a science as, say, sociology.
      JCT: Actually, accounting is a quite exact use of mathematics.
It's trying to account for an irrational proposition with a rational
tool that's the problem.

>Nevertheless, we are drawn to its tidy simplicity. Even many of us
>who should know better experience its allure and are baffled and
>frustrated and intimidated by its dictats.
      JCT: It's not the dictats of accounting that are the problem.
It's the dictats of coming up with 11 when they only printed 10 that's
the irrational problem they try to account for.

>So, have we come up against an insurmountable obstacle, or have we
>simply identified one of the problems? As we discover that this
>problem runs more deeply than we anticipated, should it follow that
>we give up on trying to deal with it? Of course not, but it may mean
>that we have to work at other ways of getting to core attitude.
      JCT: Getting a LETS account to everyone gets to the core
attitude.

>In my work as a co-operative development worker (I try to launch and
>support worker co-ops), I am forever looking for ways of
>demonstrating what I call "pop economics".  One of my favourite tools
>is the board game of monopoly. The game amply demonstrates how, run
>traditionally,  the system will, with mechanical inevitability, lead
>to the centralisation of the wealth. If you run it as a LETSystem,
>the wealth won't centralise.
      JCT: I blame the centralization of wealth on the banking function
which takes from the rich to give to the poor. The centralizing
function of the game of Monopoly seems due to wins and losses due to the
roll of the a dice rather than an inherent banking malfunction. The
dice sometimes land you in jail where you miss out on earnings when
you pass Go, or they land you on hotels where you lose to your
competitor but I don't quite see how running Monopoly as LETS would
eliminate that centralization from wins and losses due to the dice.

>If you run it as a combined cash and LETSystem, the cash will
>centralise but the LETS won't, and various other tensions will
>emerge depending on the additional ground rules you have set.
      JCT: Though it's true that money centralises due to usury and
Green money does not, I don't see how this would apply in a Monopoly
game. Could you provide further details?

>With varying degrees of success, I have been able to
>demonstrate some of the conclusions one can draw from the game; some
>of the links one can establish between the game and the host economic
>system within which we function and interact.  It might be worth
>trying it in your LETS group.
      JCT: I'd sure appreciate some instructions. I use the example of
Interest Island and Service Charge Island at the end of:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/bankmath.htm

>In my view, another interesting route to the re-examination of the
>closed system that is accounting (and the residual attitude it
>creates), is via the reviled John Turmel's efforts at bringing
>engineering rigour into accounting's mother ship - economics. Apart
>from the occasional forays into one-up-personship, I applaud his
>direction and welcome, as far as I can make it out, the substance of
>what he is driving at. Accountants and various forms of economist
>may have much to answer for, but so do we if we allow ourselves to
>continue to be awed and mystified.
      JCT: Thank you. We must not only not allow ourselves to be awed
and mystified by economics texts, we will inevitably have to correct
the misinformation taught therein. As the first Social Credit
engineer, Major Clifford H. Douglas put so well in his book "The
Monopoly of Credit:"
>p109  Unemployment, if it is to be a release, it must not be
>accompanied by economic penalization.  If it is to be a misfortune,
>then every effort should be directed to restraining the abilities of
>those engineers who will make not two but two hundred blades of grass
>grow where one grew before.
See: http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/dougtxts.htm

      JCT: Next year, such discussions of how large-scale or Global
LETS do not exhibit the problems associated with small uni-powered
LETS will be posted only to the lets@onelist.com listserv. I would
hope that those who do not mind the extensive nature of these posts or
their global nature would join me there by registering at:
http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/lets

##
--
John C. "The Engineer" Turmel, Founder, Abolitionist Party of Canada
915-2045 Carling Ave., Ottawa, K2A 1G5, Tel/Fax: 613-728-2196
LETS Abolish Interest Rates http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
All TURMEL topics at lets@onelist.com listserv archives

--
John C. "The Engineer" Turmel, Founder, Abolitionist Party of Canada
915-2045 Carling Ave., Ottawa, K2A 1G5, Tel/Fax: 613-728-2196
LETS Abolish Interest Rates http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
All TURMEL topics at lets@onelist.com listserv archives

>Date: Wed Dec 23 07:49:54 1998
>From: winston.smith@... (Winston Smith)
>Subject: Reforme monetaire
>Bonjour. A 22/12/98, vous avez icrit :
>>     Nous allons etudier des textes de:
>>5) d'autres textes de reforme monetaire
>Je vous suggere egalement le Livre d'Urantia :
>Fascicule n071, Diveloppement de l'Etat
>6 . LE MOBILE DU PROFIT - P.805
>'5 L'iconomie d'aujourd'hui, motivie par la recherche du
>profit, est condamnie, ` moins que les mobiles de service ne puissent
>s'ajouter aux mobiles de profit. La concurrence impitoyable basie
>sur l'intirjt igooste ` vues itroites finit par ditruire les choses
>mjmes qu'elle cherche ` maintenir. L'intention de rechercher
>exclusivement un profit pour soi-mjme est incompatible avec les
>idiaux chritiens et bien plus encore avec les enseignements de Jisus.

>Subject: Monetary Reform
>Hello. On 22/12/98, you wrote:
>>   We will be studying texts from:
>>5) other monetary reform texts
>I would also suggest the Book of Urantia
>Chapter n071, Development of the State
>6 . THE PROFIT MOTIVE - P.805
>Today's economy, motivated by the quest for profits, is condemned,
>unless the motive for service can be added to the motive for profit.
>Unpitying competition based on narrow minded selfish interest ends up
>destroying the very things they try to maintain. The aim of
>exclusively seeking profit for oneself is incompatible with Christian
>ideals and even more with the teachings of Jesus.

      JCT: J'ai aujourd'hui ecrit un article qui mentionne l'opinion de
Jesus sur le sujet de profit. Je l'ai poste au Usenet Newsgroup
sci.econ et a lets@onelist.com intitule: TURMEL: Problems veiled in
lets-ideology.
      JCT: Today, I wrote an article which mentions Jesus's opinion on
the subject of profit. I posted it to the sci.econ Usenet newsgroup
and the lets@onelist.com listserv titled: TURMEL: Problems veiled in
lets-ideology.

>'6 Dans l'iconomie, la recherche du profit se situe, par
>rapport ` la recherche du service, ` la mjme place relative que la
>peur par rapport ` l'amour dans la religion. Mais il ne faudrait pas
>ditruire ou supprimer brusquement la recherche du profit. Elle
>maintient assidument au travail bien des mortels qui autrement
>seraient indolents. Elle stimule l'inergie sociale, mais il n'est pas
>nicessaire que ses objectifs restent perpituellement igoostes.
      JCT: C'est exactement le point que j'ai fait.

>'6. In the economy, the quest for profit is situated, with respect to
>the quest to serve, in the same relationship to fear as love in
>religion. But we shouldn't destroy or quickly suppress the quest for
>profit. It keeps mortals working who would be otherwise indolent. It
>stimulates social energy, but it's not necessary that these aims
>remain perpetually greedy.
      JCT: That's exactly the point I made.

>'7 La recherche du profit dans les activitis iconomiques est
>entihrement vile et totalement indigne d'un ordre social avanci; elle
>est nianmoins un facteur indispensable dans les phases initiales de
>la civilisation. Il ne faut pas enlever aux hommes le mobile du
>profit avant qu'ils aient fermement incorpori des buts non lucratifs
>dans leurs efforts iconomiques et leurs services sociaux le besoin
>transcendant d'une sagesse superlative, d'une fraterniti fascinante
>et d'une perfection dans l'accomplissement spirituel.
>http://www.urantia.org/users/F/France/papers/paper071.htm
      JCT: Dans mon article, j'ai mentionne que lorsque Jesus nous
donne l'equation differentielle LETS (SEL) dans Paul Corr. II 8:14, il
ajoute la permission pour la recherche du profit qui n'est pas vile:
"Votre abondance a present decra suffir a leur besoin pourque leur
abondance pourra a l'avenir suffir a votre besoin et de cette facon,
ceux qui recoltent beaucoup n'auront pas trop et ceux qui recoltent
peu n'auront pas trop peu, et il y aura de l'egalite."
      L'effet SEL est de permettre a chacun de recolter le maximum
pourvu que l'abondance recolte est accessible a ceux qui recoltent
peu. Donc Jesus ne condamne pas la richesse ou l'abondance mais
seulement l'avidite. L'interet qui prend des pauvres pour en donner
aux riches est le comble de ce desire pecheur.

>7. The quest for profit in economic activities is entirely vile and
>totally unworthy of an advanced social order; it remains nevertheless
>an indispensable factor in the initial phases of civilization. We must
>remove from man the profit motive before they have firmly
>incorporated non-lucrative goals in the economic efforts and social
>services, the transcendental need of superlative wisdom.
>http://www.urantia.org/users/F/France/papers/paper071.htm
      JCT: In my post, I mentioned that when Jesus gave us the
differential equation for LETS (SEL) in Paul Corr II 8:14, he added
the permission for the quest for profits which are not vile: "Your
abundance should at the present time be a supply for their want so
that later, their abundance may be a supply for your want and in that
way, he who gathers much doesn't have too much and he who gathers
little doesn't have too little, so that they may be equality."
      The LETS effect allows each to harvest the maximum as long as his
abundance is accessible to those who harvested little. So Jesus
doesn't condemn wealth or abundance but only the hoarding. Interest
which takes from the poor to give to the rich is the height of this
sinful desire.

      JCT: En examinant leurs suggestions pour une societe parfaite de
Satania, je suis d'accord avec la plupart en ce qui concerne la facon
de se gouverner. Mais j'ai note a la page 813:
>6 1. Le taux ligal d'intirjt sur le capital investi.
>8 3. Des salaires justes et iquitables pour la main-d'oeuvre.
      JCT: Leur systeme bancaire en prend de les comptes negatifs pour le
donner aux comptes positifs. Comme sur la Terre, ca produit des dettes
qui accroissent exponentiellement ou ce n'est pas possible de payer
des salaires justes et equitables pour la main-d'oeuvre. Donc, je dois
conclure que ceux qui ont ecrit le livre d'Urantia n'ont pas compris
la gravite du mal engendre par un systeme bancaire usureux et je ne
pourrai pas l'inclure avec les autres textes qui savent condamner le
vol des pauvres pour le donner aux riches. Merci neanmoins pour votre
interet dans ce sujet.

      JCT: Examining their suggestions for the perfect society of
Satania, I agree with most of what they suggest as to how we rule
ourselves. But I noted on page 813:
>6 1. The legal interest rate on invested capital.
>8 3. Just and equitable salaries for labor.
      JCT: Their banking system takes from the negative accounts to put
into the positive accounts. Just like on Earth, it produces debts
which grow exponentially which makes it impossible to pay just and
equitable salaries for labor. Therefore, I must conclude that those
who wrote the Book of Urantia did not understand the gravity of the
evil engendered by a usurious banking system and I could not include
it wth the other texts which knew to condemn the theft from the poor
to give to the rich. Thank you nevertheless for your interest in the
subject.
--
John C. "The Engineer" Turmel, Founder, Abolitionist Party of Canada
915-2045 Carling Ave., Ottawa, K2A 1G5, Tel/Fax: 613-728-2196
LETS Abolish Interest Rates http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
All TURMEL topics at lets@onelist.com listserv archives

--
John C. "The Engineer" Turmel, Founder, Abolitionist Party of Canada
915-2045 Carling Ave., Ottawa, K2A 1G5, Tel/Fax: 613-728-2196
LETS Abolish Interest Rates http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
All TURMEL topics at lets@onelist.com listserv archives

I had wondered why most of the submissions to JunkEconomics were
from Jay Hanson and had surmised this was because few people were
contributing. I had contributed a couple of dozen posts over the last
months but hadn't noticed that few were getting through until
recently.
      When I went to the onelist.com to check the archives a few days
ago to see if I could refer people to them as background material for
some of the topics I've been dealing with, I noticed that only four of
my posts were listed:
- The first of my two posts on "Junk Nobel Economics Prize in
Economics?"
- The first of my four posts on "LETS Toronto Dollars."
- LETS around the world
- An article condemning one of my posts on Social Credit which had
not been let through but picked up by a reader from the econ-lets
listserv.
      I was disappointed to find out that all of my posts dealing with
debates with various economists about some startling errors in
Economics on the essence of money weren't there.
      Then I realized that the JunkEconomics list is moderated which
explains why almost all my posts were rejected and why the only posts
that seemed to regularly make it through were Jay's.
      I usually make it a policy not to join groups which are moderated
because this is not the first time that I've found moderators who
publish mostly their stuff and reject mostly everyone else's. The
problem is that if 90% of my posts were censored, how many other
people's posts did I miss because they were blocked too?
      If there is anyone out there who has responded to any of my
published posts and to which I did not respond, there's a good chance
it's because those submissions were rejected too. If you did not get a
response from me to your email, that would be because I answered your
letters and posted them to JunkEconomics which were then rejected.
There may have been plenty of replies I did not get to read just as
there were many submissions that you did not get to read.
      For those people who are interested in the further discussion on
the topics that were published but whose responses were not or in
those topics which were not not published at all, I have started an
unmoderated list called "lets@onelist.com" where you can be sure that
you'll see everything that is sent to the list. To join our
unmoderated discussions, visit:
http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/lets
      I can only say that I'm very disappointed to find out that almost
all my work did not get through and expect to unsubscribe very soon.
--
John C. "The Engineer" Turmel, Founder, Abolitionist Party of Canada
915-2045 Carling Ave., Ottawa, K2A 1G5, Tel/Fax: 613-728-2196
LETS Abolish Interest Rates http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
All TURMEL topics at lets@onelist.com listserv archives


Article 1403 of alt.fan.john-turmel:
Path: freenet-news.carleton.ca!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!bc726
From: bc726@... (John Turmel)
Newsgroups:
can.politics,sci.econ,sci.engr,ncf.ca.lets,alt.politics.greens,alt.fan.john-turm\
el,alt.conspiracy
Subject: TURMEL: Overmoderation of JunkEconomics
Date: 24 Dec 1998 04:13:18 GMT
Organization: National Capital Freenet, Ottawa, Canada
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <75sf0u$4pt@...>
NNTP-Posting-Host: freenet3.carleton.ca
X-Given-Sender: bc726@... (John Turmel)
Xref: freenet-news.carleton.ca can.politics:387947 sci.econ:100229
sci.engr:43782 ncf.ca.lets:708 alt.politics.greens:42081 alt.fan.john-turmel:706
alt.conspiracy:504041


      I had wondered why most of the submissions to JunkEconomics were
from Jay Hanson and had surmised this was because few people were
contributing. I had contributed a couple of dozen posts over the last
months but hadn't noticed that few were getting through until
recently.
      When I went to the onelist.com to check the archives a few days
ago to see if I could refer people to them as background material for
some of the topics I've been dealing with, I noticed that only four of
my posts were listed:
- The first of my two posts on "Junk Nobel Economics Prize in
Economics?"
- The first of my four posts on "LETS Toronto Dollars."
- LETS around the world
- An article condemning one of my posts on Social Credit which had
not been let through but picked up by a reader from the econ-lets
listserv.
      I was disappointed to find out that all of my posts dealing with
debates with various economists about some startling errors in
Economics on the essence of money weren't there.
      Then I realized that the JunkEconomics list is moderated which
explains why almost all my posts were rejected and why the only posts
that seemed to regularly make it through were Jay's.
      I usually make it a policy not to join groups which are moderated
because this is not the first time that I've found moderators who
publish mostly their stuff and reject mostly everyone else's. The
problem is that if 90% of my posts were censored, how many other
people's posts did I miss because they were blocked too?
      If there is anyone out there who has responded to any of my
published posts and to which I did not respond, there's a good chance
it's because those submissions were rejected too. If you did not get a
response from me to your email, that would be because I answered your
letters and posted them to JunkEconomics which were then rejected.
There may have been plenty of replies I did not get to read just as
there were many submissions that you did not get to read.
      For those people who are interested in the further discussion on
the topics that were published but whose responses were not or in
those topics which were not not published at all, I have started an
unmoderated list called "lets@onelist.com" where you can be sure that
you'll see everything that is sent to the list. To join our
unmoderated discussions, visit:
http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/lets
      I can only say that I'm very disappointed to find out that almost
all my work did not get through and expect to unsubscribe very soon.
--
John C. "The Engineer" Turmel, Founder, Abolitionist Party of Canada
915-2045 Carling Ave., Ottawa, K2A 1G5, Tel/Fax: 613-728-2196
LETS Abolish Interest Rates http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
All TURMEL topics at lets@onelist.com listserv archives

--
John C. "The Engineer" Turmel, Founder, Abolitionist Party of Canada
915-2045 Carling Ave., Ottawa, K2A 1G5, Tel/Fax: 613-728-2196
LETS Abolish Interest Rates http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
All TURMEL topics at lets@onelist.com listserv archives

>Article #99658 (99839 is last):
>From: jim blair <jeblair@...>
>Subject: Re: Jesus' views on interest are irrelevant
>Date: Tue Dec 15 19:59:10 1998
>Edward Flaherty wrote:
>>Applying Jesus' ban on interest to a modern economy is to take his
>>advice completely out of its historical and economic context. This
>>piece of advice has little or norelevance to a modern economy.
>Hi, Good post. But it should be noted that it is not clear that Jesus
>DID oppose interest.
      JCT: Christ said "If you have money, do not lend it out at
interest" and Jim doesn't find that clear.

>The "quotations" I have read on this are ambiguous and taken from
>writings that were over 30 years after his death.
      JCT: The only other possibility would have been for Christ to
have said "If you have money, lend it out at interest." I don't think
there's much ambiguity at all though I haven't suffered the same brain
damage exhibited here.

>The gospel of Matthew for example, has variously been translated as
>concerning debt, sin, tresspass and transgressions. And even if the
>"debt" version were to be accepted, it is not the "interest" that is
>asked to be forgiven, but the debt itself. So it would not be a call
>to abolish interest, but to abolish loans: they should be donations.
      JCT: Yes it's true that he did say that it's better to "give it
one from whom you won't get it back," but it doesn't mean that mean
that you shouldn't expect it back from those who are successful.

>Article #99720 (99839 is last):
>From: Edward Flaherty <flahertye@...>
>Date: Wed Dec 16 13:09:01 1998
>jim blair wrote:
>>it is not the "interest" that is asked to be forgiven, but the
>>debt itself. So it would not be a call to abolish interest, but
>>to abolish loans: they should be donations.
>I was not aware of this interpretation. I was aware, however,of an
>ancient Jewish tradition in which every 50 years all debts would be
>completely forgiven. I don't know of any details on how this amnesty
>was administered, but the effects of such a plan on a modern economy
>would be most interesting.
      JCT: Sure a global cancellation of debts would be nice but it's
not necessary. I don't want to have debts for things I received to be
forgiven. I want to pay it back. Actually, repayment is implied in
Paul Corr II 8:14 when he points out that "their abundance will later
be a supply for your want." Furthermore, Isaiah 55 is very clear when
he says:
      "You who are hungry and have no money, come, buy and eat." He
doesn't say "come and eat for free." If you buy with no money, they
you buy on credit and are expected to try to return it to your
benefactor.

>For example, suppose that as of Jan 1, 2003 (about 5 years from now)
>all debts will be eliminated by government decree. No one would be
>able to borrow money and no one would be willing to lend money for
>any period of time longer than 5 years.
      JCT: Building up his straw man so he can knock him down again.
Let's say that everyone gets a LETS account and at the same time all
debts are eliminated in the sense that we park them with the old books
until people are rich enough to pay them back. Why would Flaherty jump
to the conclusion that no one would be able to borrow? Because even
though he finally admitted that "banks do not lend out their
depositors' funds, each and every time a bank makes a loan, new money
is created," he is still under the impression that they're borrowing
depositors' funds. Once again, it shows the double-think, the ability
to believe the two contradictory views that they are borrowing newly
created money and formerly created at the same time.
      So naturally, since he forgets that they are getting new money
when they make loans at a LETS bank, he assumes that no one would lend
their Greendollar savings if they don't get interest.
      Of course, that's why I spent so much time getting him to admit
that I'm right when I state that chartered banks actually do operate
like LETS banks in the creation of the currency.

>Capital projects requiring financing for, say, 15 years could not be
>funded with debt.
      JCT: But LETS still has debt which they call commitment to repay
what has been borrowed. Of course, he assumes that because the debt
which has grown mainly due to interest has been retired with the old
books, that debt is not allowed. That is not the case in a LETS bank.
The debt is present but not a problem because it does not grow and
borrowers are only asked to return only what they received which most
people find quite fair and honorable so most LETS borrowers treat it
as such and do their utmost to repay what they've borrowed.

>Anyone wanting to arrange such financing would have to wait until
>after the amnesty to arrange the sale of a 15 year bond that would
>mature prior to the next amnesty.
      JCT: There would only be one amnesty, for the interest bearing
anti-social credits. There would be no need for further amnesty on
interest-free social credits.

>Also, to decree that all debts would be eliminated would immediately
>destroy any consumer deposits in the banking system since those are
>liabilities on bank balance sheets. The money supply would shrink
>drastically unless the Fed and consumers took counter-measures.
      JCT: So he assumes that because debts are eliminated that all
money is too. Typical economist peddling his false assumptions.

>As we got closer to the amnesty the market value of any debt
>instrument would plummet and interest rates would sky-rocket.
      JCT: He's still stuck in the interest-bearing world because,
though he's ready to assume that old debt is parked, no new debt will
be forthcoming. This is false as an LETS banker could explain to him.

>The whole concept is a fascinating mental exercise in what not to do
>to a modern economy.
      JCT: If you make all sorts of erroneous assumptions and make no
provision for an alternate currency to take its place, sure, having no
money is no way to run an economy. But it's a pretty stupid assumption
to make.

>But it might have been a good idea to a pre-capitalist system such
>as ancient Israel.
      JCT: As I'll be showing in my studies of David Astle's Babylonian
Woe, ancient Israel, Egypt and Babylon had sophisticated fractional
reserve banking then.

>I wonder if there is any documentation from that era to give us
>clues as to how ancient borrowers and lenders behaved just prior to
>the amnesty?
      JCT: Isn't it amazing that David Astle could have found so much
information about banking in antiquity and Flaherty doesn't even know
if there is any?

>Article #99747 (99839 is last):
>From: "Steven" <shales@...>
>Date: Wed Dec 16 18:08:10 1998
>The eighth commandment is the "Right to Private Property" Commandment
>and is discussed at great length in the books of the Old Testament.
>And if one follows the prophets in Exodus, Deutoronomy and Leviticus
>one finds a finer and more detailed clarification of "forgiveness of
>debt" and the emergence of the concept of the Jubilee. There are
>digressions on usury and lending and borrowing but the bans and
>strictures tend to be placed upon the Hebrew's relations with
>outsiders in terms of not borrowing from outsiders but lending at
>interest to them but not lending at interest to other Hebrews.
      JCT: That's because lending without an interest positive feedback
does not exhibit exponential growth that regularly gets out of hand
with anti-social debt, there is no reason for forgiveness of interest-
free social debt.

>The emergence of the Prophets is an interesting story because it came
>at a time of increasing concentration of wealth in Judea.
      JCT: And if you have increasing concentration of wealth to the
rich, it had to be coming from the poor which is evidence of the usury
function.

>The building of Solomon's temple had extracted enormous taxes from
>the people and its support after Solomon's death extracted further
>taxes and those unable to pay had to sell their property and this
>taxation led to the concentration of property among those who
>purchased at fire sale prices. Those former owners became much like
>"share croppers" and were in perpetual servitude and still had to
>pay rent to the new landowner as well.
      JCT: Sure excessive taxes even in an interest-free system could
do this but we know that to have so many poor, the rich could not have
been lending their abundance to the poor without usury. It's silly to
ignore usury as a component of the poverty at the time.

>Well enter the Prophets and the codification of Jewish Law in the
>books of the Old Testmament. This Law centered around the detailed
>interpretation of the 10 commandments and gave form to the Hebrew
>tradition whether they were free or slave or under the authority of
>some other ruler. It was a tradition that depended neither on
>property or power to maintain an identity and unity. But this
>codification would not have taken place if not for the concentration
>of wealth and the pursuit of more wealth and the enormous suffering
>that resulted directly as a result of the temple priests authority to
>tax the populace.
      JCT: And the concentration again implies that the poor did not
have access to loans from the rich.

>(It is interesting to note that the priestly class
>was not allowed to own property so their only support was through
>tribute and taxation.) So in that codification we have numerous
>economic references and proscriptions to avoid in the future such
>concentrations of wealth from occurring.
>The progressive clarification in the Old Testament can be found first
>in Exodous 21: "When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six
>years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing." And in
>Deuteronomy 15 we have: "At the end of every seven years you shall
>grant a release: And this is the manner of the release: every creditor
>shall release what he has lent to his neighbor; he shall not exact it
>of his neighbor, his brother, because the Lord's release has been
>proclaimed. Of a foreigner you may exact it but whatever of yours is
>with your brother your hand shall release." The clarification is
>carried further in Leviticus 25 as if Yaweh's message had come down a
>little muddled and since the seven year proscription had been a
>little too severe it was increased to the fiftieth year, derived by
>multiplying the former 7th year release by itself to arrive at 49
>years of profit and in the 50th year, release or more simply the
>Jubilee year. Leviticus 25 is a great read for its detailed
>proscriptions, here's a bit of it: "...And you shall hallow the
>fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its
>inhabitants it shall be a jubilee for you, when each of you shall
>return to his property and each of you shall return to his family."
      JCT: Again, I must point out that forgiveness of debts is not
necessary in a LETS bank because the debts do not grow.

>There are distinctions in Leviticus of different kinds of ownership
>and what property shall be allowed to be redeemed by former owners
>and at what price and how that price will be calculated as in, "If
>your brother becomes poor, and sells part of his property, then his
>next of kin shall come and redeem what his brother has sold. If a man
>has no one to redeem it, and then himself becomes prosperous and
>finds sufficient means to redeem it, let him reckon the years since
>he sold it and pay back the overpayment to the man to whom he sold
>it; and he shall return to his property. But if he has not sufficient
>means to get it back for himself, then what he sold shall remain in
>the hand of him who bought it until the year of jubilee; in the
>jubilee it shall be released, and he shall return to his property."
>There is no evidence that any Jubilee ever took place but it seems
>that in the context of the clarification of private property rights
>in the Old Testament many rights of redemption were allowed
>regardless of whether or not there was a Jubilee. This would tend to
>somewhat avoid the problem of concentration of property in the hands
>of a few as had happened since the time of Solomon.
      JCT: So I think it's pretty clear that despite the prohibitions
against debt growth, it was going on and therefore needed some kind of
Jubilee to cancel the exponential growth of that debt which always got
out of hand.

>Interesting reading to be had in the Old Testament for economists.
>Regards, Steve.
      JCT: Of course, if economists assume that credit instruments are
something new under the sun, they'll dismiss it no matter how relevant
or interesting it could be for them. Thanks for the information.
--
John C. "The Engineer" Turmel, Founder, Abolitionist Party of Canada
915-2045 Carling Ave., Ottawa, K2A 1G5, Tel/Fax: 613-728-2196
LETS Abolish Interest Rates http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel

--
John C. "The Engineer" Turmel, Founder, Abolitionist Party of Canada
915-2045 Carling Ave., Ottawa, K2A 1G5, Tel/Fax: 613-728-2196
LETS Abolish Interest Rates http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel

>Date: Tue Dec 15 14:55:49 1998
>From: xkevinsm@... (Kevin Smith)
>Subject: Abolish interest rates.
>To: bc726@...
>John,
>I read with interest your posting on USENET about the money supply
>and sought out your webpage. I think your heart's in the right
>place with respect to some of the issues you address in your party's
>platform, but I disagree with some of your reasoning and conclusions.
>Your contention that $500 for every man, woman, and child goes to
>the expense of maintaining plates at banks sounds rather far-fetched.
>I don't know how big Canada's annual budget is, but $180 thousand
>million ($180 billion in US lingo, correct?) would amount to 20% of
>the US federal budget. Where do you get this number? How does this
>contrast to say, the defense budget, or national health care?
      JCT: In 1997, the Fraser Institute estimated that total debt
service by all levels of governments was $180 billion per year.
Divided by 30 million citizens, that's $6,000 per year in debt service
per person or $500 per month.
      That's not all the worst of it. They also estimated that the
total personal and commercial debt service was another $140 billion
for a grand total of $320 billion spent on debt service by Canadians.
That's $10,666 per citizen per year or almost $900 per month.
      I know it's amazing but the amount of money spent on servicing
interest on debt dwarfs all other expenditures and I'm sure it's the
same for the United States.

>Furthermore, what is the purpose of the money that is spent in this
>fashion?
      JCT: I think I've explained it best in part of my poem in
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/pomlizas.htm:

When you were little, did you ever dream of printing cash?
Of filling up your wallet with some money in a flash?
Creating money accurately means TO HAVE THE PLATES,
The stamping of some paper into notes best demonstrates;
Or stamping metal into coins; or blips computerized,
Into your bank account deposits, checks now authorized.
So whether paper, metal, volts of electricity,
TO HAVE THE PLATES is printing money absolutely free.

Now if you printed to spend, the others would bewail,
They'd call it counterfeiting and send you off to jail.
But what if Crown would let you merely print it up to lend?
With only what you could collect in interest to spend?
If you could print and lend a thousand out at ten percent,
You'd make a hundred interest on printing that you lent.
But if you could print up and lend a million out you'd get,
An extra hundred thousand dollars for your fee on debt!

If Crown stops using its own money plates and comes to you,
A billion printed nets a hundred million revenue!!
With everybody being taxed to pay you interest,
Of all the scams in history, TO HAVE THE PLATES is best!!!
Though never spending, only lending, riches do await,
To all who with the plates become the loan-sharks to the state.
And though to join the few who thusly profit, one might dream,
Wake up to see we're all the victims of their greedy scheme.

While Crowns of old had ruled that "Treasury run money plates,"
Without the interest to middle-men at rip-off rates,
Today most governments to banking industry have lost,
Control of money plates so interest is now a cost.
To service debt in ninety four, Canada's request,
A hundred'n eighty billion dollars paid in interest.
We're taxed over five hundred dollars each per month to pay,
For interest to holders of our plates they gave away!!!

We now see the unjustly cost that makes our tax inflate,
And only usury is what we must eliminate.
We Abolitionists would get the plates back from the banks,
Have Treasury create the money for printing charge and thanks.
The interest we save could be split up I recommend,
For each to get five hundred dollars monthly dividend,
As if you owned a share in the incorporated state,
An income guaranteed for life, no question, no debate.

      JCT: So without changing anything other than the installing LETS
at the bank's central computer and eliminating the interest debt
service, the money that tax us to pay debt service can be returned to
all citizens as a dividend.
      Of if you are a Social Crediter, you wouldn't let them tax you
that money in the first place.

>Is it your claim that interest is somehow immoral?
      JCT: Bhudda, Old Testament saints, Jesus Christ and Mohammed all
claim that taking from the poor to give to the rich is immoral and who
am I to disagree with them.

>If so, is it only immoral when practiced by a big bank, or under any
>circumstances? Why is it not the right of the "saver" to be
>compensated for the purchases *he has forgone* by the charging of
>interest from those who would like to use his money to try and
>create some wealth of their own?
      JCT: Rockefeller and Rothschild cannot forego consumption of the
billions they lend out so why should they be recompensed for foregoing
consumption they cannot consume?
      See my earlier posts titled "Christ said "Do not lend at
interest" and you'll see that helping your neighbor create some wealth
of his own permits him not only to pay you back but also be in the
position to lend to you interest-free should you ever be in need. See
Paul Corr II 8:14. That kind of security is all the recompense I would
ever need.

>Certainly you can't be serious when you say that, "...if
>you are borrowing money for a house, interest is unnecessary if it
>is insured because the house isn't going to walk away...".  Fine.
      JCT: If it's fine for a house, then I'm serious. And serious
about all loans for the recompense of security stated above.

>What if there is a real estate downturn and the house becomes worth
>less on the market than when it was moved into? Since the homeowner
>may default on his loan, isn't the bank entitled to collect interest
>in return for assuming this risk?
      JCT: Once there is no interest, there will be very small
changes in value and if someone defaults on the loan, the house didn't
disappear. The collateral is still there. And besides, we only ask
that they pay enough to cover the depreciation of the asset, something
quite easily done when all payments go against principal and not
interest.

>I personally like the idea of local currencies because I don't want
>to see the government controlling the money supply. But even in a
>completely privatised economy I would expect that banks would charge
>interest for loans and pay interest to depositors.
      JCT: LETS bankers are paid via service charges with no problems.
And depositors not only receive the security of their neighbors
success but also do not suffer inflation but rather enjoy increased
buying power of their money.
      While most people have been deluded into seeking interest in the
chase for more money to buy their goods, not seeking interest allows
for more goods bought with the same money.
      The best way to understand reverse-inflation or appreciate with
LETS is by considering LETS Hours. If you spend an hour producing a
pair of shoes for a youngster in exchange for his 1 Hour promissory
note, in 20 years when you wish to purchase a pair of shoes from the
youngster who has come on line, his 1 Hour note will buy you three
pairs of shoes because of his improved technology.
      Doesn't it make sense that as technology improves, the standard
of living should improve. And yet, though our parents could afford to
buy a home and raise 8 kids, most people can't afford a home or to
raise kids anymore. The error is in the delusion that people should
demand more money for their food, rather than more food for their
money. It's the reason I pity all those poor unions who, led by their
economists, demand more money year after year and never end up ahead.

>Interest is the oil that ensures money gets to where it's needed,
>when it's needed.
      JCT: LETS bankers manage to ensure that money gets to where it's
needed when it's needed without using interest.
--
John C. "The Engineer" Turmel, Founder, Abolitionist Party of Canada
915-2045 Carling Ave., Ottawa, K2A 1G5, Tel/Fax: 613-728-2196
LETS Abolish Interest Rates http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel

--
John C. "The Engineer" Turmel, Founder, Abolitionist Party of Canada
915-2045 Carling Ave., Ottawa, K2A 1G5, Tel/Fax: 613-728-2196
LETS Abolish Interest Rates http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel

>Article #99481 (99515 is last):
>From: Warren Mosler <mosler@...>
>Date: Sat Dec 12 23:26:13 1998
>I want to borrow LETS. How can I do that?
      JCT: Join your nearest LETS or start one, promise to accept your
own Greendollar IOUs in exchange for your work and borrow what you
need to spend within your group.

>Article #99511 (99515 is last):
>From: gchand4059@... (GChand4059)
>Date: Sun Dec 13 14:33:58 1998
>Toronto dollars and new money schemes in general sound very
>interesting and filled with potential.
>What we really need is to hear from someone who actually USES
>lets-type money. Anyone like that out there?
      JCT: There are thousands of local currency systems around the
world known as LETS, Timedollars and Hours. You can start your search
at: http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/letssites.htm

>Article #99513 (99515 is last):
>From: "Steven" <shales@...>
>Date: Sun Dec 13 14:46:23 1998
>I am sure there are since human stupidity seems to be infinite as
>this thread avers.
      JCT: Either the hundreds of thousands of people using LETS around
the world are exhibiting human stupidity or Steven is. I'd bet it's
Steven wins the "stupidity" prize. Isn't it amazing that the guys who
claim to be the non-stupid are also the guys who claim they don't
understand?

>Date: Sat Dec 12 10:49:24 1998
>From: flanders@... ("john flanders")
>To: TURMEL@...
>John.
>I now see that I may have acted to swiftly with my reaction to your
>posting about the Toronto Dollar. You will understand that I did not
>want to see it harmed before it got off the ground. You probably do
>not remember me, but in the early eighties I was a with a small group
>of people who worked for a couple of years trying to get the Ottawa
>Green Party started. You disrupted our first public meeting, and if
>you remember during a later nomination meeting, your behavior was so
>disruptive that you had to be removed by the police.
      JCT: I don't remember anything disruptive about that first Green
Party of Canada meeting. All I did was indicate that I wanted to run
as the Ottawa Centre Green candidate in the upcoming 1984 federal
general election to promote LETS. Of course, some of the original
members were disturbed and may have construed my expression of that
desire as disruptive.
      If you remember anything other than my words which you found
disruptive, I'd certainly like to know about it.
      You may remember that I had then signed up 40 new pro-LETS
members which alarmed the Green party members who had not been very
successful at signing up members themselves. They therefore decided
not to hold a nomination meeting and not field any Ottawa candidates
to make sure I could not run.
      You may then remember that I then organized a nomination meeting
to which all Ottawa members were invited and which I believe you may
have attended. You will remember that on the night of the meeting, the
Green Party leader in Toronto, Trevor Hancock, issued a press release
condemning my wanting to use the Green Party to promote LETS and
appointing a candidate for Ottawa Centre, John Dodson, without an
election.
      You may also remember that that meeting was so fairly conducted
that I lost the Ottawa Centre nomination to Gordon MacLeod, one of the
original founding members of the Ottawa Greens so they ended up
cheating the wrong guy. I ended up being nominated for Ottawa West.
      So they decided to hold another nomination meeting, the one where
I was arrested after rising on a Question of Privilege to know what
was wrong with the original nominations. I refused to relinquish the
floor as the chairman Matt Barbour tried to hold new elections forcing
them to resort to the police.
      I'm appending the press from that era and am proud of the stand I
took which did result in the press I'm appending which lays out the
facts behind what I consider to have been a very dirty episode in the
Green Party's Ottawa history. Of course, having all that dirty doing
publicized did make many Ottawa Greens who did not know the whole
story mad and for which they will never forgive me but I'm proud that
my stand generated the press to expose the dirty doings.

>I bring this up to explain my somewhat hasty reaction to your
>posting. That is so much water under the bridge and I'm sure you have
>changed over the past twenty years as have I.
      JCT: Actually, I always play fair and still play as rough as I
did then.

>The creation of the Toronto Dollar is a joyous event that I don't
>want to be soiled, especially not by me.
      JCT: I would further mention that I was ejected from the Green
Party by an 8 person meeting to which I had not invited to defend
myself. Finally, I would point out that a few years later, the Green
Party did adopt LETS on their national platform.

>This message is to you, and not econ-lets. I hope you will treat
>this as a private communication, however, if you decide to post,
>please post the whole message. Regards, John F.
      JCT: I appreciate your letter and hope the story of the behind-
the-scenes activities by a few Ottawa Green members has set the story
straight.

      JCT: Greenbacks are LETS Greendollars issued by the national
goverment. This was the result of my attending my first Green Party
meeting.

THE OTTAWA GREENS MINUTES
Emergency meeting Wed. April 25, 1984, 7:30pm

This meeting was called because of John Turmel who wishes to run in
the Nepean-Carleton federal by-election as a Green candidate. This
person is a former Social Credit party member who has been a candidate
for that party many times. His platform has always been run on his
idea of replacing interest rates and eradicating the need for the
banking system. It is obvious he is not particularly interested in the
platform of the Greens, but only wishes to use it to run his own
"Greenback" ideas. When asked about this, he admitted that of course
he would be pushing his "Greenback" idea as the main theme of his
platform.
Furthermore, this person has always taken a very aggressive stance in
his political campaigns and has consequently alienated many people.
This has been evident in his attitude towards the Ottawa Greens, who
he has rejected because they have not fully agreed with his
"Greenback" ideas. As a result, he is now planning to set up his own
chapter in Ottawa and to have himself nominated as a candidate to run
in whatever election comes up as a representative of the Greens.
However, his primary interest is to run in the Nepean-Carleton by-
election and if that is cancelled because of an approaching federal
election, he will likely run in the Ottawa Centre federal riding.
This meeting has been called to discuss this situation and to
prevent it from occurring in the future. Members present: Ken Hillis,
Boris Aldanov, Matt Barbour, John Dodson, Charlie Sohmer, Bill
Trotter. The following motions were passed:
1) "Any Green Party member wishing to run as a Green Party candidate
in the Ottawa area must be endorsed by the Ottawa Greens."
Moved by Charlie Sohmer, Seconded by Matt Barbour, Agreed by consensus
2) "Candidates wishing to run as Green Party candidates in the Ottawa
area must have the ratification of their policies by the Ottawa
Greens."
Moved by Matt Barbour, Seconded by Ken Hillis, Agreed by consensus
In order to prevent John Turmel from running in the Nepean-Carleton
riding as a Green, the following motion was passed:
3) "It is hereby resolved that the Ottawa Greens authorize the
formation of a Green riding association in Nepean-Carleton
Moved by Ken Hillis, Seconded by John Dodson
It was agreed that the Ottawa Greens need a constitution and should
work on it. Bill Trotter is to check with the Chief Electoral Officer
on what could be done with someone like John Turmel, who is using the
name of the Green Party of Canada without the consent from the leader
as registered with the Chief Electoral Officer."

19840517
Bill Trotter letter to Green Party leader Trevor Hancock:
Dear Trevor:
Since I don't know if anyone from Ottawa will be attending the June
2nd meeting, I'm enclosing material which will explain John Turmel's
approach, position, etc., including the minutes of our meeting on
April 25th to discuss the situation.
It has just been announced this morning that the Nepean-Carleton by-
election will be held on Nov. 11th. We will attempt to have a Green
riding association in Nepean to counter John Turmel. We just have to
find a suitable candidate how. Perhaps we can find a candidate, since
we have 6 months before the election.
In regard to the letter and enclosed election information sent out a
while ago, I agree to keep my name on the list of party officials with
the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer. It may have some weight in
dealing with Mr. Turmel...

19840731
Green Party of Canada press release, July 31, 1984:
i) "The Green party refused "to endorse the candidacy of John Turmel
who is seeking it in Ottawa Centre.
ii) Leader Trevor Hancock says "Turmel wishes to use party to a) push
his own theories; b) have himself nominated by signing up members; c)
original members became concerned he doesn't really support Green
principles but is using the party for his own ends.
iii) Following Turmel's attendance at an OCC meeting, concerned
chapter delegates passed a proposal that non-chapter candidates needed
3 endorsements and deregistered Ottawa.
iv) Turmel does not have 3 endorsements and was informed prior to
nomination meeting. In view of this, the concerns of the original
Ottawans, the way he linked the party to the injunction, I have not
and will not endorse his candidacy. Dr. Hancock is titular head of the
Green Party of Canada.
v) We are a small party and easy prey for people to use our chapters
to espouse their own ideas in the name of the Greens. This cannot be
allowed to happen. Mr. Turmel's economic policies are not Green party
policies.
vi) When asked his opinion of Turmel, Dr. Hancock commented that he
preferred to let Turmel's record speak for itself.

July 31 letter from Trevor Hancock to the Ottawa Greens:
"In view of serious concerns, I have decided to refuse to endorse any
candidates because:
a) There is good reason to believe Turmel does not truly adhere to
Green principles, his attempt to take over the Ottawa Chapter is an
indication.
b) Turmel has created the Greenback wing which is not recognized. He
never asked for recognition but has gone ahead to use the party name
with the Greenback wing.
c) Turmel has not received written endorsements as required by the
rule of the Ontario Greens.
d) In his injunction, Turmel and Gauvin linked the name to the Green
Party of Canada.
      JCT: This was a motion before the Federal Court that all party
leaders be allowed to participate in the federal election debate.

19840801
@PAPER = Ottawa Revue
@HEADLINE = Greens running in Ottawa Centre
@NEWS = John Dodson has announced he'll be running for the Green Party
of Canada in Ottawa Centre. The 34-year-old food store employee has
worked for the Greens since the party organized in Ottawa last year.
@NEWS = At press time, Dodson had not added his own ideas to the basic
Green party platform.

@PAPER = Ottawa Citizen, Abby Deveney
@HEADLINE = Turmel faction disputes Green party nomination
@NEWS = The Ottawa chapter of Canada's Green party entered federal
politics Tuesday, mired in controversy. While some Green party members
have announced that John Dodson would represent Ottawa Centre, others,
dissatisfied with the way Dodson was chosen, elected Gordon McLeod to
represent a break-away chapter of the party.
@NEWS = McLeod defeated perennial bank-basher John Turmel at a
nomination meeting attended by about 40 Green members who are unhappy
with the earlier nomination of Dodson. Turmel, a local gambler, placed
his first bet on the political table in May, 1979. Since then, he's
run -- and lost by huge margins -- in all municipal, federal and
provincial contests.
@NEWS = "The decision to select Dodson was made arbitrarily," says
party member Marc Gauvin who ran unsuccessfully in the 1982 mayoral
race. "We just heard about them choosing him. They never held or
called a meeting." National leader Trevor Hancock acknowledges a
nomination meeting wasn't called and Dodson was chosen by party
faithfuls. But he says the splinter group attempted to take over the
chapter with a last minute membership drive forced the party to pick a
candidate this way. "There was clearly an attempt by an individual to
take over our chapter with his own supporters," Hancock says. "There
is no evidence that this person has a `Green' set of values and
philosophies." About 15 members who helped found the Ottawa chapter
chose Dodson.

19840803
@PAPER = Ottawa Citizen
@HEADLINE = Troubled Greens to conduct new nomination
@NEWS = The Green party had two candidates nominated for the Ottawa
Centre riding before a general meeting of its Ottawa Chapter Thursday.
Now it has none.
@NEWS = The Greens invalidated the nominations of both John Dodson and
Gordon McLeod and called a new nomination meeting for Sunday night too
sort out the chaos that has plagued the party's entry into federal
politics. John Dodson was named last week by a small group of founding
members to stand in Ottawa Centre. Other members protested a candidate
being chosen without consulting the rest of the Ottawa chapter, so
they held a nomination meeting Tuesday and elected McLeod. Dodson says
he won't run again. John Turmel, who lost to McLeod, could not be
reached to see if he will again seed the nomination. McLeod said he
will be a candidate.

19840807Tu
@PAPER = Ottawa Citizen, Christina Spencer
@HEADLINE = Police called as Greens nominate 4 candidates
@NEWS = Ottawa fledgling Green party built on a platform of peace had
a mini-war on its hands Sunday. The party nominated 4 candidates for
area ridings at a raucous meeting marred by shouts from a small band
of supporters of professional gambler John Turmel.
@NEWS = Police were called twice to evict Turmel and supporter Marc
Gauvin as the two hurled insults at other members. Candidates were
eventually nominated over the shouts of Turmel's brother Ray, who
remained at the meeting after Turmel and Gauvin had been expelled.
Turmel has been charged with trespassing. About 50 people attended the
meeting which was called last week after opposing factions of the
party selected their own candidates to represent some ridings. But
chaos erupted almost immediately with the pro-Turmel faction claiming
the meeting was not valid. "It's unfortunate this has to happen,
particularly to such a young party," said Green spokesman Greg Vezina,
nominated to represent the Greens in Nepean Carleton. The party
executive had earlier named John Dodson as its candidate without
holding an election. Turmel, saying the nomination had not been
democratic, called a meeting of the membership last week and elected a
series of candidates for Ottawa area ridings.
@NEWS = The executive refused to endorse those nominations and Sunday
night's meeting was called to resolve the issue. Vezina said the
executive was opposed to what it saw as Turmel's attempt to take over
the party and use it to promote his economic theories. "If someone
tried to take over any party, it would try to expel him. I think
people are intelligent enough to realize that. We named a candidate in
the first place to try to avoid this."
@NEWS = Turmel, who has been a member since February, denied he was
trying to take over. "I'm fighting for what I think is right for this
party. If signing up members and getting support means taking over the
party, then you could say any candidate for any party is trying to
take it over." He said as a result of the Sunday meeting, he plans to
run as an independent candidate against the party's leader Trevor
Hancock of Toronto. The Green slate chosen Sunday is made up of John
Dodson in Ottawa-Carleton, Greg Vezina in Nepean-Carleton, Gord McLeod
in Ottawa Centre, and Kevin Benson in Ottawa West. Turmel said at
least one of his supporters will run as an independent candidate in
each of those ridings to oppose the Greens. This slate will include
his mother Therese, a former school teacher and translator, he said.

@PAPER = Le Droit, Carole Landry
@HEADLINE = Official Greens against independent Greens
@NEWS = To end a recent controversy, the official candidates are ...
But the end to the controversy has not satisfied all the members. Some
are going to run as independents to stress their dissatisfaction with
the procedures followed. John Turmel will run against Green Party
leader Hancock in Toronto, Marc Gauvin in Ottawa Centre, Serge Girard
in Ottawa Vanier, Ray Turmel in Nepean Carleton and Mrs. Therese
Turmel in Ottawa West.
@NEWS = It all started when Trevor Hancock named John Dodson in Ottawa
Centre after a meeting of the original members. A fraction of the
members objected and decided to hold a "more democratic" meeting. At
this one, Gordon McLeod was selected even though John Dodson had the
approval of the national leader.
@NEWS = On Wednesday, a third meeting took place where the members in
attendance decided to invalidate all nominations and start anew. The
next meeting did not take place without animosity and John Turmel and
Marc Gauvin were expelled. Mr. Turmel explained that the decisions
taken were not supported by the constitution.
@NEWS = Greg Vezina added that the party had suffered because of the
controversy "We are a party who tend towards consensus and we didn't
think that some Greens would have had the intention of controlling the
party."

840808We
@PAPER = Ottawa Revue
@HEADLINE = A few hitches, just one arrest
@NEWS = The Green Party now has four candidates running in the Ottawa
area. But the nomination meeting Sunday night went off with hitches
and one arrest. John Turmel, a professional gambler and bank-basher
who has run for office at all levels, was thrown out of the meeting
and charged with trespassing . He will appear in court Wednesday.
Turmel's brother Ray and supporter Marc Gauvin "attempted to disrupt
the meeting" by bringing in a video camera, which party officials
ordered them to remove, and by yelling "point of order" (Question of
Privilege) repeatedly while party officials were trying to proceed
with the nominations, according to one candidate. Turmel called the
meeting "stacked" but was not available for comment.
@NEWS = Greg Vezina will run for the Greens in Nepean-Carleton. John
Dodson has been moved over to run in Ottawa-Carleton. Last week, he
was declared the candidate in Ottawa Centre but party officials
conceded to charges Dodson was nominated unfairly. Gordon McLeod will
take his place in Ottawa Centre and Kevin Benson will run for the
Greens in Ottawa West.

19840810
@PAPER = Ottawa Citizen Editorial, Russell Mills
@HEADLINE = Nightmares in technicolor
@NEWS = The Green Party, entering its first federal campaign in
Canada, has had enough trouble establishing its credibility without
being linked to John Turmel, who believes interest rates are the root
of all evil. Turmel, whose devotion to Green party issues such as the
environment and world peace has never figured prominently in his many
dismally unsuccessful political campaigns, has been causing much
mischief for the Greens of late.
@NEWS = After the party executive appointed a candidate in Ottawa
Centre without the formality of a nominating meeting, Turmel took it
upon himself to call a meeting last week which chose Green party
candidates in local ridings. Not surprising, the party executive was
less than enchanted by this turn of events. It invalidated the Turmel
selections and called a new meeting last week to pick the party's
official candidates for area ridings. Turmel and a small band of
followers managed to disrupt that meeting so badly that police were
eventually called and trespass charges laid against him.
@NEWS = This is not the sort of publicity that a fledgling party
dreams of receiving during an election campaign. It's enough to give
the Greens the blues -- or make them see red.

19840822
@PAPER = Ottawa Revue , Darlene MacDonald
@HEADLINE = Turmel running again, without the Greens
@NEWS = John Turmel has one aim: to get justice from all those who act
dictatorially. With that brush, the 33-year-old systems engineers
leaves few institutions untouched. From the Bank of Canada to the
Green Party, with which he has tried to associate himself, Turmel
pulls out all the stops to achieve his goals. Unconcerned with his
public notoriety, the man the call the gambler has an almost obsessive
dedication to the oath he took as a graduate electrical engineer at
Carleton university. "As an engineer, we take an oath of integrity.
Being scientifically trained, we don't have any excuse if our system
breaks down for a scientific reason," says Turmel.
@NEWS = As the only self-proclaimed systems engineer in the country to
have specialized in banking systems, which he later applied to the
operation of his own casino, Turmel detected a flaw in the banking
system -- that of the interest rate. For 5 years, Turmel has set out
to single-handedly lobby for a reprogramming of the entire system.
"All I need is to be prime minister for a day, even just chief
engineer, then I could get into the Bank of Canada's central computer,
re-program the system to operate on a pure service charge. That has
been the thrust of Turmel's strategy throughout his nearly 100 motions
before the courts, seven of which have reached the SCC, his
affiliations with the Social Credit party and the fledgling Christian
Credit party and his tireless campaign for the preservation of
democracy. Turmel has run in 16 elections on all levels in the past 5
years.
@NEWS = Denying criticism he is a publicity seeker, Turmel spouts
Biblical passages and feels strong identification with past religious
leaders who have advocated a free market by the abolition of interest
rates. Turmel has attached the name Greenbacks to his system modeled
after Abraham Lincoln's Greenback system. I prophesy that when the
electronic revolution gets fully implemented, this is the money
program that will be used," Turmel adds, waving the computer disk that
contains the Greenback program, that he will then have the last laugh.
"A prophet is never recognized in his own land."
@NEWS = The Greenback system operates on the idea that people pay
their taxes by working for the state of city. So, in exchange for
services rendered, the worker receives tradeable tax credit notes. The
working model for the system is not operating on a local level in
British Columbia. Some 1,000 Vancouver Island residents are
supplementing their cash income with "Greendollars" under a bartering
system called Local Exchange Trading System.
@NEWS = But it this economic theory which has caused dissension
between Turmel and the Ottawa chapter of the Green party. National
chairman, Trevor Hancock, refused to endorse the candidacy of Turmel
on the grounds that he is using the Green party to "push his own
particular economic theories and that he did not fully support the
principles of the party." Infuriated, Turmel is seeking to rid the
party of the "totalitarian element" which he says exists among a small
clique of the top Greens and prevents freedom of expression among the
general membership. "If you want to push an idea such as my Greenbacks
theory, you pick a party that most closely has your goals, join it and
work to add your goals if they aren't there or further them if they
are. I'm as Green as any of them. I've been at all the demonstrations.
I was the guy with the umbrella full of holes at the acid rain
demonstrations."
@NEWS = By accusing him of not sharing their objectives, Turmel
contends the "Core of the party" does not want to encourage members to
push their own ideas rather they are to express Hancock's
philosophies. For that reason, Turmel plans to run in Toronto riding
of Beaches as an independent and defeat Hancock on his own territory.
Turmel was responsible for calling the unofficial nomination meeting
which followed the party faithful's appointment of John Dodson to
represent Ottawa Centre. In the succeeding meeting in which the
candidates for the Ottawa area were officially chosen, appeasing the
faction of the party that believed the appointment of Dodson was
undemocratic, Turmel was arrested on a charge of trespassing.
Unwilling to let the incident pass, Turmel is waiting for the
constitutional documentation Greg Vezina promised to produce to show
why the first party meeting was invalidated.
@NEWS = Turmel's most recent venture was a motion before the Federal
Court of Canada to force the CRTC to adhere to the letter of its
regulations and allow the leaders of every political party to take
part in the leaders' debate. In particular, he referred to the section
which says that free time political broadcasts must be made available
on an equitable basis. Having failed in this attempt, Turmel has a
couple of other strategies left to explore.
@NEWS = For instance, Turmel suggests that if the Independents formed
a coalition of 280 candidates, Max Keeping or anybody else couldn't
keep us from a major debate. We will use any legal motions necessary
to try and block debates going on without us. The second strategy
which he guarantees will be "clogging the courts," is an attempt to
block air time given to NDP leader Ed Broadbent. "If the Federal Court
judge says it's unfair to the majors (the leading parties) for the
minors to get equal time, then I want Ed Broadbent to get less time.
After all, if you're going to be undemocratic, do it consistently, not
just to some people." He adds with a laugh "I'm doing this as a chance
to corner them into contradicting themselves."

19840827Mo
@PAPER = Ottawa Citizen Letter, Jim Poushinsky
@NEWS = As one of the two original organizers for the Ottawa Greens, I
would like to point out that John Turmel is correct in stating that
the Green party fails to operate democratically. Dr. Trevor Hancock
wrote his name in as leader of the Greens when a 100 name petition was
forwarded to register the federal political party. The subsequent 3
day founding convention attended by 167 delegates representing 4500
Greens across Canada refused to endorse Hancock as leader or
spokesperson. Many of the Green candidates seeking office have good
ideas and personal qualities despite their poor judgment in forming a
politically expedient alliance with Hancock's unrepresentative regime.
I hope we will all learn from our mistakes and get on with the
greening of planet Earth once this election madness passes.

      JCT: So that's some of the true story about how some Ottawa Green
Party members objected to my wishing to promote LETS politically and
what they did about it. I think it shows some of the dirty politics
that went on at the time and though it's true that many Greens still
call me disruptive, I think I acted with integrity every step of the
way. Even though I was finally convicted of trespassing.
      I could write a whole book about my treatment at their hands but
I think the fact I was only fined $53 is indicative of the judge's
opinion of the whole issue.
      I'd also point out that I'd been persuaded by Jim Harris to
rejoin the party in 1993 and was ready to pump a quarter million
dollars I'd won in my Topaz gambling casino to promote LETS for the
party during the 1997 federal election. Unfortunately, once again, the
leader of the day, Chris Lea, arbitrarily decided he would not endorse
my candidacy as a Green candidate and I therefore used that money to
found the Abolitionist Party for that purpose. I'm pleased to note
that while the Greens fielded 79 candidates, in only 3 weeks, I
managed to field 80 candidates. Too bad because the
Green Party could have fielded 160 candidates had they not shown an
unreasonable prejudice against me. Since Green candidates rarely even
mentioned LETS at public meetings, it allowed our candidates who were
running in the same ridings as Greens to joke that what we were
lauding LETS as an engine to power rockets, the Greens had it
installed in their lawn mowers.
      Of course, none of these criticisms apply in any way to the
leadership of the Green Party of Canada today but the autocratic
behavior of former leaders and small cliques of members was quite a
shame to behold.
--
John C. "The Engineer" Turmel, Founder, Abolitionist Party of Canada
915-2045 Carling Ave., Ottawa, K2A 1G5, Tel/Fax: 613-728-2196
LETS Abolish Interest Rates http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel

--
John C. "The Engineer" Turmel, Founder, Abolitionist Party of Canada
915-2045 Carling Ave., Ottawa, K2A 1G5, Tel/Fax: 613-728-2196
LETS Abolish Interest Rates http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel

Dr. Carroll Quigley is best known as Bill Clinton's professor of
history at the Foreign Service School of Georgetown University. He
also taught at Princeton and at Harvard.
      His 1300 page book "Tragedy and Hope" is unique among other
history books in its exposure of the role of International Banking
cabal behind-the-scenes in world affairs.
      He does not spend a lot of time explaining what he calls
"unorthodox" financial methods as opposed to "orthodox" financial
methods which can be be distinguished by the fact that "orthodox"
finance has governments allowing banks to create the money and then
borrowing that money from them at interest to create massive growth of
public debt whereas "unorthodox" finance has government Treasuries
create the money and borrowing that money from the Treasury without
interest to create a stable debt where all payments go against the
principal.
      Professor Quigley writes:

      "A real understanding of the economic history of twentieth
century Europe is imperative to any understanding of the events of the
period. Such an understanding will require a study of the history of
finance.
      The problem of public debts arose from the fact that as money
(credit) was created, it was usually made in such a way that it was
not in the control of the state but was in the control of private
financial institutions which demanded real wealth at some future date
for the creation of claims on wealth in the present...
      The banker-engendered deflationary crisis of 1927-1940 gave a
blow to democracy and to the parliamentary system... and thus became a
chief cause of World War II. It so hampered the Powers which remained
democratic by its orthodox economic theories that these were unable to
rearm for defence... It gave rise to a conflict between the theorists
of orthodox and unorthodox financial methods. Unorthodox theorists
(somewhat mistakenly called Keynessian) sought to restore purchasing
power by increasing, instead of reducing, the money supply and by
placing it in the hahds of potential consumers rather than in the
banks or in the hands of investors.
      The whole relationship of money and resources remained a puzzle
to many and was still a subject of debate in the 1950s but at least a
great victory had been won by man in his control of his own destiny
when the myths of orthodox financial theory were finally challenged in
the 1930s...
      The New Deal's actions against finance did not represent any
victory for unorthodox financing, the real key to either monopoly
capitalism or to a managed pluralist society. The reason for this was
that the New Deal was fundamentally orthodox in its ideas on the
nature of money. Roosevelt was quite willing to unbalance the budget
and to spend in a depression in an unorthodox fashion because he had
grasped the idea that lack of purchasing power was the cause of the
lack of  demand which made unsold goods and unemploment, but he had no
idea of the causes of the depression and had quite orthodox ideas on
the nature of money. As a result, his administration treated the
symptoms rather than the causes of the depression and, while spending
unorthodoxly to treat these symptoms, did so with money borrowed from
the banks in the accepted fashion. The New Deal allowed bankers to
create the money, borrowed it from the banks,and spent it. This meant
that the New Deal ran up the national debt to the credit of the banks,
and spent money in such a limited fashion that no drastic reemployment
of idle resources was possible.
      One of the most significant facts about the New Deal was its
orthodoxy on money. For the whole 12 years he was in the White House,
Roosevelt had statutory power to issue fiat money in the form of
greenbacks printed by the government without recourse to the banks.
This authority was never used. As a result of such orthodoxy, the
depression's symptoms of idle resources were overcome only when the
emergency of the war in 1942 made it possible to justify a limitless
increase in the national debt by limitless borrowing from private
persons and the banks. But the whole episode showed a failure to grasp
the nature of money and the function of the monetary system, of which
considerable traces remained in the postwar period.
      One reason for the New Deal's readiness to continue with an
orthodox theory of the nature of money, along with an unorthodox
practice in its use, arose from the failure of the Roosevelt
administration to recognize the nature of the economic crisis itself.
This failure can be seen in Roosevelt's theory of "pump priming." He
sincerely believed, as did his Secretary of the Treasury, that there
was nothing structurally wrong with the economy, that it was
temporarily stalled, and would keep going of its own powers if it
could be restarted...
      The inadequacy of this theory of the depression was shown in 1937
when the New Deal, after four years of pump priming and a victorious
election in 1936, stopped its spending. Instead of taking off, the
economy collapsed in the steepest recession in history. The New Deal
had to resume its treatment of symptoms but now without hope that the
spending program could ever be ended, a hopeless prospect since the
administration lacked the knowledge of how to reform the system or
even how to escape from borrowing bank credit with its mounting public
debt, and the administration lacked the courage to adopt the really
large-scale spending necessary to give full employment of resources."
      In Germany, Hitler's 1934 adoption of an unorthodox financial
policy which raised the standards of living of the lower-income levels
even more drastically (by shifting them from unemployment with incomes
close to nothing into wage-earning positions in industry) was not
acceptable to the high-income classes because it stopped the threat of
revolution by the discontented masses and because itwas obviously of
long-run benefit to them. This long-run benefit began to appear when
capacity employment of capital and labor was achieved in 1937."

      JCT: I will be studying his book in conjunction with the greatest
book about monetary systems in antiquity, David Astle's "Babylonian
Woe,"  In anticipation of a major improvement on the current unsafe
engineering design of money, I will be arguing that the unorthodox
financial methods we will be studying are better than the orthodox
financial methods that now are enslaving all the planet's nations to
insurmountable debt.
      These discussions will take place at a new listserv called
lets@onelist.com. You can subscribe to this list by visiting
http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/lets
      As a prerequisite, you should familiar with the LETS interest-
free banking system explained at:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/bankmath.htm
      For those unfamiliar with the LETS interest-free banking system,
much information is available at:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/letssites.htm
      A bank of interest-free poker chips will be referred to
regularly as a useful model.
--
John C. "The Engineer" Turmel, Founder, Abolitionist Party of Canada
915-2045 Carling Ave., Ottawa, K2A 1G5, Tel/Fax: 613-728-2196
LETS Abolish Interest Rates http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel

--
John C. "The Engineer" Turmel, Founder, Abolitionist Party of Canada
915-2045 Carling Ave., Ottawa, K2A 1G5, Tel/Fax: 613-728-2196
LETS Abolish Interest Rates http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel

David Astle's "The Babylonian Woe" is the finest book on the
history of money in antiquity that I've ever read. In this scholarly
work, he has presented to the world a history of the effects of
monetary mechanics in very ancient times. It illustrates how, even in
the earliest times of which written record remains, the days of
Babylonia or before, a so-called monetary science undoubtedly existed;
being then, as in today, never more than as instrument by which its
secret and cynical controllers wittingly influenced the destinies of
individuals. Nations, and empires as to (temporary) glory or final
disaster.
    This important and well-documented work is a most useful reference
book; complementing any study of Economic or Monetary history. It will
be a great asset to learned societies, top management, and self-
teaching individuals in all parts of the world.
      In his preface, Mr. Astle wrote:

      "In almost all of books of reference on the history of money was
practically no clear approach to the subject of money and finance, or
to those exchange systems that must have existed in order that the so-
called civilizations might come to be. In the odd case where the
translations of the texts might reveal some key clue, no more special
emphasis was placed herein than might have been placed on the mention
of a gold cup, a ring, a seal, or some exquisite piece of stone work.
      In almost all of the works of the great archaeologists and
scholars specializing in the ancient civilizations, there is a virtual
silence on that all important matter, the system of distribution of
food surpluses, and surpluses of all those items needed towards the
maintenance of a good and continuing life so far as were required by
climate and customs.
      In all these writings of these great and practical scholars, the
workings of that mighty engine which injects the unit of exchange
amongst the peoples, and without which no civilization as we know it
can come to be, is only indicated by a profound silence. Of the
systems of exchanges, of the unit of exchange and its issue by private
individuals, as distinct from its issue as by the authority of
sovereign rule, on this all important matter governing in such
totality the conditions of progression into the future of these
peoples, not a word to speak of...
      While it is true that the average archaeologist, in being
primarily concerned with the results of the forces that gave rise to
the human accretions known as civilizations, has little enough time to
meditate on these forces themselves, especially since so little
evidence exists of what created them, or of how they provided guidance
to men in earlier days, the widespread character of these omission
borders on the mystifying.
      Virtual failure to speculation those most important matters of
all; the structure of the machinery of the systems of exchanges which
undoubtedly had given rise to the ancient city civilizations, and the
true nature of the energy source by which such machinery was driven,
whether by injections of money as known this last three thousand years
or so, or by injections of an exchange media of which little
significant evidence or memory remains, is cause for concern.
      The truth of the lines as quoted herein from Boeckh's "Public
Economy of Athens" (page ii) is immediately clear to all and that the
physical force underlying all civilizations must have been the system
whereby surpluses were allocated to the people according to their
place in the pyramid of life and to their needs; thus, when being
controlled by the benevolent law of a dedicated ruler, maintaining at
all times the true and natural order of life.
      It must not be supposed,therefore, that there is a lack of
understanding of the importance of these matters; nor that there is
any special conspiracy of silence, even though there might indeed be
the temptation to arrive at such a conclusion. According to "Tragedy
and Hope," the important and compendious work of Dr. Carroll Quigley,
an outstanding scholar of liberal outlook, (as interpreted by the
reviewer, W. Cleon Skousen), such conspiracy certainly exists, and is
vast in scope to say the least.
      Rather it were better to accept things as they appear, and assume
that these scholars merely present the fragments of fact as they
unearth them; leaving speculation of the true significance of such
fragments of fact in relation to the weft and warp of life, to those
considered to be particularly specialized in various fields
represented. In the case of money and finance, the scholars concerned
would be classified as economic or monetary historians.
      Thus little enough seems to be available on the subject of money
and finance in ancient days. Nor seems to exist examination of the
significance of such money and finance relative to the progress about
which so much has been written in modern times.
    Apart from Alexander Del Mar who wrote in relatively recent days,
and apart from that of the philosophers of antiquity such as Plato,
Aristotle, Socrates, Zeno, etc, almost no speculation seems to be
available from scholarly sources in regards to the unprejudiced
PHILOSOPHY of money, in ancient times.
      On the all important subject of the consequences of the creation
and issuance of money by private persons as opposed to its creation
and issuance according to the will of a benevolent, instructed and
dedicated ruler, almost no speculation seems to exist in ancient or in
modern times. Of those forces that sought throughout history to
undermine any ruler who may have been firmly in the saddle because of
his exercise of that prerogative which is the foundation of the State
Power or God-Will of which has is the living evincement, insomuch as
he maintained firm control of the original issuance of money and its
injection into circulation amongst the people as against State
expenditures, almost nothing seems to be known. Very little
information is available of the means those forces employed towards
this purpose through injection into circulation amongst the peoples of
silver and gold, and of instruments indicating possession of the same.
      Practically no information seems to exist of the growth of
private money creation in the days of ancient city states of
Mesopotamia, of which, because of their records being preserved on
fire-baked clay, more is known than of more more recent civilizations;
and the gap must necessarily be filled by a certain amount of
speculation. Little is known of the beginnings of the fraudulent
issuance by private persons of the unit of exchange, as in opposition
to the law of the gods from whom kings in ancient times claimed to
derive their divine origin; nor is there any information on the
significance of such practice relative to the continued stability of
the natural order of life in which obtained that system wherein the
fount of all power was the God; such power descending to man by way of
king and priesthood and directing him as he proceeded about his
everyday affairs, content that God's in His Heaven and all's right
with the world.
      It seems that almost none of the scholars make any serious effort
to throw light on the real meaning of this matter of private monetary
emission, and the disastrous effects that it has had, and in finality,
will have, towards the defining of the remaining period of time of man
upon this earth, as being brief and uncertain.
      Those strange decisions of kings signalling the opening of wars
as frightful and disastrous to the European peoples, as the last two
so-called "World Wars," decisions so abnegatory of self, but more than
that, abnegatory of the best interests of the peoples they represented
before God, far from being the directives of a benevolent force, are
the directives of a force which cannot but be described in any way but
as being wholly malevolent."

    JCT: The situation is just as if future historians, upon studying
today's economy, found that there were no "economics" textbooks
explaining how banking worked. Considering how many such textbooks
there are, they would also find it quite mystifying.
      I will be studying his book in conjunction with Professor's
Carroll Quigley's book "Tragedy and Hope where he mentions what he
calls "unorthodox" financial methods as opposed to "orthodox"
financial methods. They can be be distinguished by the fact that
"orthodox" finance has governments allowing banks to create the money
and then borrowing that money from them at interest to create massive
growth of public debt whereas "unorthodox" finance has government
Treasuries create the money and borrowing that money from the Treasury
without interest to create a stable debt where all payments go against
the principal.
      In anticipation of a major improvement on the current unsafe
engineering design of money, I will be arguing that the unorthodox
financial methods we will be studying are better than the orthodox
financial methods that now are enslaving all the planet's nations to
insurmountable debt.
      These discussions will take place at a new listserv called
lets@onelist.com. You can subscribe to this list by visiting
http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/lets
      As a prerequisite, you should familiar with the LETS interest-
free banking system explained at:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/bankmath.htm
      For those unfamiliar with the LETS interest-free banking system,
much information is available at:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/letssites.htm
      A bank of interest-free poker chips will be referred to
regularly as a useful model.
--
John C. "The Engineer" Turmel, Founder, Abolitionist Party of Canada
915-2045 Carling Ave., Ottawa, K2A 1G5, Tel/Fax: 613-728-2196
LETS Abolish Interest Rates http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel

--
John C. "The Engineer" Turmel, Founder, Abolitionist Party of Canada
915-2045 Carling Ave., Ottawa, K2A 1G5, Tel/Fax: 613-728-2196
LETS Abolish Interest Rates http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel

The purpose of this list is to provide a forum for discussion of
the implementation of a Global interest-free LETS (Local Employment-
Trading System) currency system, details of which may be found
starting at:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/letssites.htm

      Though the advanced LETS engineering mathematics are also useful,
the prerequisite for these discussions is the simple algebraic
explanation of the LETS currency available at:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/bankmath.htm

      We will be dealing with tracts from:
1) The Bible and Koran
2) "Tragedy and Hope" by Dr. Carroll Quigley
3) "The Babylonian Woe" by David Astle
4) "Social Credit" by Major C.H. Douglas
5) other monetary reform texts

      Useful information is available at:
1) http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/pombible.htm
2) http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/pombank.htm
3) http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/pomlizas.htm

      The working model used for our discussions are poker chips.

--
John C. "The Engineer" Turmel, Founder, Abolitionist Party of Canada
915-2045 Carling Ave., Ottawa, K2A 1G5, Tel/Fax: 613-728-2196
LETS Abolish Interest Rates http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel