TURMEL: LETSer wants interest.
I just found this
on Sabine's LETS newsgroup at:
http://gold.globalcafe.co.uk/webboard/$webb.exe
From: (russell.gardener@teradyne.com)
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
JCT: Russell.
I've refered your opinion to econ-lets:
To subscribe to econ-lets listserv,
send: subcribe econ-lets <your name>
to: mailbase@mailbase.ac.uk
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.