Accidental view of history
>Date: Sat Dec 26 21:59:38 1998
>From: shewill5@juno.com (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.
-------------------------------
Accidental view of history #2
>Date: Sun Dec 27 09:12:15 1998
>From: shewill5@juno.com (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@juno.com (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@cofc.edu>
>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://turmelpress.com/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.
-------------------------------
Send a comment to John Turmel
Home