TURMEL: LETSer wants interest.
I just found this
on Sabine's LETS newsgroup at:
Topic: John Turmel's Highlights from UK Visit (1/1)
Date: 13 February 1997 02:14 PM
RG: I quote from the above posting:
JT: "The real feat is for adults to beat
the brainwashing and see the
evil of USURY 1/(s-i) software versus the soundness of the LETS 1/s
interest-free software. You have political power. Many people in the
grips of usury debt slavery do not have the opportunity to vote. To
fail to use your available power is a sin against those who cannot
vote for help themselves"
RG: I'm probably being something of a fly
in the ointment to the other
posters on this site, but I am a LETS user who is solidly pro-
interest. I have absolutely no wish to see LETS replacing current
financial systems. LETS for me is a supporting system; an alternative
which adds value rather than replaces.
Money for me is an energy. I expect it to work and to grow. When I
lend my money to someone I expect it to have grown in value when I
receive it again. If I decide I want something now and I don't have
the resources then I expect to have to pay more in the long term if I
borrow resources. It makes sense. Current financial systems are in
place because they work and because they have been needed over the
years. Witness the remarkable resilience and growth of global
capitalism throughout this century.
So, as I see nothing wrong with interest, LETS becomes not a
replacement to the current system, but a fascinating way of
supplementing it. I don't need to detail the benefits of LETS--that's
why we're here in this forum.
But, I cannot support present systems being replaced by LETS. And
let's face facts: it's not going to happen. Big money always wins out
in the end, and frankly I don't have much against that. As a LETS user
and supporter I would nevertheless have to vote and act against a
group which was looking to use LETS as a way of getting rid of
interest. Regards, Russell Gardener
I've refered your opinion to econ-lets:
To subscribe to econ-lets listserv,
send: subcribe econ-lets <your name>
I've been writing
that interest is the statistical genocide of
the poor by withdrawal of life-support tickets? Christ said that when
it came to interest, the odds were pretty high of ever convincing them
that usury's evil. "They will forever be hearing without hearing and
seeing without seeing." It's one reason I usually don't try to explain
it to someone who already thinks it is okay and necessary.
I cannot begin to enumerate all the social evils I see spawned
out of the lack of funding due to the interest imbalance. Does someone
else want to try their hand at convincing Russell that interest really
is "the sin that leads to death." I think the topic of the deathly
effects of usury-induced funding shortages would be of import. Would
giving a starving Third-World child an interest-free LETS credit card
save her day? I bet.
a comment to John Turmel