>Article #100815 (100845 is last): >From: Plumed Basilisk <Rob.Russell@[www.cauce.org]Canada.Com> >Subject: Re: TURMEL: BABYLONIAN WOE Preface Analysis >Date: Wed Jan 6 10:36:41 1999 >In alt.fan.john-turmel John Turmel <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >JT> by John C. Turmel, B. Eng. (Banking Systems Engineering) >Liar. Carleton University, where you got that B.Eng. offers no such >degree. Options are: >Computer Systems Engineering >Electrical Engineering >Mechanical Engineering >Mechanical (Computer Integrated Manufacturing) Engineering >Civil Engineering >Environmental Engineering >Aerospace (Propulsion, Structures or Systems) Engineering >No such thing as Banking. >Mgr of Technical Documentation Carleton Engineering EngSoc Project JCT: Don't get your shorts in an uproar. 23 years ago I got my degree in electrical engineering from Carleton. Please detail of any statements I may have made that my last 20 years specializing in banking systems engineering were at Carleton. All you have to do is check my Advanced Banking Systems Engineering Analysis at http://turmelpress.com/bankmath.htm to verify that I have the most advanced education in banking systems in the world. That's if you have sufficient engineering background to stay with me though many non-engineers have managed to stay with the algebra quite easily. You certainly have a no-class way to putting things but I'm sure you can't find any statement of mine that I received my banking systems engineering at Carleton. Still, I doubt you have the class to apologize for falsely calling me a liar. Anytime you wish to wish to challenge my qualitative engineering credentials in banking, I'll be ready to take you more seriously unless all you want to is rant. And finally, if engineers do not challenge the incompetents running the money system, who else can be expected to try?
>Article #100821 (100845 is last): >From: email@example.com >Subject: Re: TURMEL: BABYLONIAN WOE Preface Analysis >Date: Wed Jan 6 16:19:21 1999 >Turmel, please get off this newsgroup and keep off it. We don't need >your long, ranting, off-topic nonsense here. Take it to some other >newsgroup where other religious bigots can discuss your wacky ideas >with you. JCT: For someone who has lurked silently in the woodwork and who has not ever contributed one iota nor ever challenged me in debate, is name-calling the best you can do? Just because you can't see that the work of a Tekton like Jesus deserves to be associated with the work of other engineers in the sci.engr newsgroup is your failing, not ours.
>Date: Wed Dec 30 18:05:43 1998 >From: firstname.lastname@example.org (James Rogers) >Subject: Re: International Bankers Take-down soon >Hi. I don't know what this is doing on the Y2K-Survival list, but I >couldn't let such an egregious breach of common sense and reason >go unchallenged. >The economists aren't applauding; they're snickering. Anyone with >high school mathematics and a very basic understanding of economics >could demonstrate why your plan *can't* work for any length of time. JCT: I'm sure many economists do think this way no matter how many LETS, Timedollar, or Hour systems are successfully in operation around the world. You wouldn't be economists is you looked honestly at empirical evidence which contradicts your religious financial beliefs. By the way, I've not heard you challenge my math yet and it's very rare that an economists ever resorts to math to challenge my math anyway. The standard way of challenging my math is to do as you have done, call it names and try to laugh at it. What you don't realize is that you're just another in a whole list of people who have resorted to these tactics only to be challenged and then to eventually fade away in defeat.
>"Interest" isn't just a man made feature; it is an intrinsic property >of *all* transactions of any type. "Interest" is to economics what >entropy is to thermodynamics (i.e. there is *always* a non-zero cost >to executing a transaction, be it energy or money). TANSTAAFL. >You are trying to create an economic perpetual motion machine. Don't >waste your time. -James Rogers email@example.com JCT: Some people may wish to liken the interest-free LETS local currency systems now operating all around the world as some impossible dream but somehow, the very fact that they do operate successfully seems to indicate that you may be wrong. Maybe you should contact people using these local currencies and inform them that they can't be working as they are. And they can take the word of an expert like you if they wish to continue believing their senses.
>Date: Thu Dec 31 03:13:46 1998 >From: firstname.lastname@example.org ("Chuck Burns") >Subject: TURMEL: International Bankers Take-down soon >You are right to post this objection. I just hit the delete button. >It never dawned on me that anyone would take the type of clap trap >(that flies in the face of human) nature seriously. Chuck JCT: Here's another who claims that he used his delete button and has guessed at the content that he has responded to. Actually, I can't think of anyone more inane that someone who doesn't see how the mere fact that they are responding to the article is proof that their statement that they didn't read it is untrue. And it's really amazing how many such people there are. I have archives full of people tell me that they didn't read the articles they responded to.
>Date: Tue Jan 12 20:14:50 1999 >From: GHyman@compuserve.com (Geoffrey Hyman) >Subject: TURMEL: Christ's Miracle of Financial Salvation #3 >John: >Despite the biblical "quotations" I can't understand the morality of >lending money to the poor and needy - even at zero interest. Surely >it is better to simply give rather than lend? JCT: I'm not disagreeing with you. When Thomas quoted Christ, he did say: "If you have money to lend, lend it without any interest. But rather give it to one from whom you won't get it back." So I'm aware that when there are poor, you should give it to them. Yet, I believe there are extra advantages to lending without interest. Otherwise, Isaiah 55 would not have said "You who are hungry and have no money, come, buy and eat." He would have said "Come and eat for free." There's nothing wrong with expecting to be repaid.
>Examples are: >1) If a man has no income, give him work and pay him a wage; JCT: LETS allows him to work and earn a wage by allowing him to spend his IOUs into circulation and then work for them.
>2) If a man has no skill, give him free education and training JCT: I see no reason why he should not pay back the time of the teachers who have spend time on him. If a tutor spends 40 hours on his education and thusly allows him to be productive, is there any reason that he should not return those 40 hours of service to the teacher? If we anticipate that he will become productive,
>3) If a man is sick, give him free health-care. JCT: Again, why shouldn't the doctor not expect that once the man has been cured, he will return the time to the doctor which the doctor spent on him.
>4) Provide support for all people 'at-risk'. JCT: Isaiah and LETS provide for all people "at-risk," the only difference is that there is the hope that those people eventually come on line and return the credits to the system that the system provided while they needed it.
>5) Give surplus food away rather than hoard it. JCT: LETS allows the food to be bought rather than hoarded while at the same time maximizing its production and saving.
>All of these are basic welfare economics. Why would interest free >loans be better? Geoff JCT: Right now, governments either loan-shark it to you or give it to you after you've gone broke. Lending without interest is the middle ground which maintains the incentive to work through and a debt which the recipient wishes to honor while at the same time maximizing his chances of success. Giving it away would also reduce the stimulus to production which financial reward offers to the majority of people. I doubt the majority would work their maximum if they did not profit extra by that extra work. That's why giving away their surplus provides less incentive to maximization of production that lending out their surplus offers. And besides, though giving it the poor is supposed to be best, it would never be acceptable to economists while lending it should be more, though still quite difficulty, acceptable to them. You cannot imagine the trouble I've had getting economists to understand how society would be better off if surpluses were loaned to the poor by the rich who can't use it. I can't even imagine trying to get these people trained in the science of greed to understand giving surpluses away and wouldn't want to try.
>Date: Tue Jan 12 10:13:13 1999 >From: email@example.com ("Attillio Castellucci") >Subject: [lets] Incentive for the money lenders >To: firstname.lastname@example.org >Hi all. Have been lurking on this group for a couple of weeks. >Question: What incentive do the current money lenders have to enter >into a no interest system? Cheers, Attillio JCT: A few posts back in the Accidental view of history #2, I pointed out that:
>>>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 >>>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. JCT: So Attilio, the issue is whether you trust in the security offered by your neighbors IOUs or if you trust in the security offered by the interest from your bank account. I think history has shown that the poverty engendered among your neighbors by the usury is overwhelmingly destructive making the choice actually quite simple. It's just that lending without interest goes against all the brain-washing that we've been exposed to.
>Date: Fri Jan 8 23:07:22 1999 >From: email@example.com ("Thomas Lunde") >Subject: TURMEL: Return of barter - MTG's Brave New World? >Dear John: >I will delete most of your post to save space. Suffice for me to >say, that you are slowly educating me by your analysis. I find it >interesting that I resist the LETS idea at the level of practicality >while I am attracted to it philosophically. It makes sense, we should >do it - why don't we (the collective we of wage slaves to the >capitalistic profit system)? Is it conditioning? Have we all done it >so long - and it has worked after a fashion for most of us and for >some small few, it has worked exceedingly well that we cannot >conceive or believe that an interest free system can work? I am >puzzled at my own reactions. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde JCT: Well put because the money system does accomplish a sophisticated kind of brain-washing we're all exposed to almost from the moment we are first exposed to it. When you're only a few years old and your daddy tells you that you can't have that ice-cream-cone you want because he can't spare the dime, or you see how he struggles and fights to get some of this precious material which can be changed into all forms of assets, and you then are exposed to television, novels and life in general where the greatest atrocities are explained by the simple statement "I did it for the money," it's not hard to believe that money conditions our thinking. Mohammed says mankind has been driven mad as if by the touch of Satan while Christ said that when it came to interest, they would forever be hearing without hearing and seeing without seeing or understanding. In a world where money has been kept in short supply and where people believe that it's value is based on its short supply, parting with this security for life-support without some kind of reward seems illogical. Thus, becoming a world where money is not kept in short supply will cause a paradigm shift which I liken to the game of musical chairs. Everyone who plays musical chairs knows that when there are insufficient chairs for all to survive, it is optimal strategy to think only of oneself. With a lot at stake, the idea of helping someone else up onto their chair would seem rather insane. People might even cheat, push, shove, elbow to get a seat and survive. This death-gamble is identical to the mort-gage with money game. Thus, lending someone some of your life-support tickets in a world where they are kept in short supply seems quite as insane without some kind of compensation for the real risk to your own life-support. Yet, if a chair were to be added to the game so that there were enough chairs for all to survive, there would then be a paradigm shift as there is now no need to cheat, push, shove elbow to survive when they realize all do survive and it has now become a game to win the biggest chair, not to survive. The same applies in an interest-free world. Now that life-support tickets are no longer kept in short supply, rationalizing all sorts of crime with the alibi "I needed the money" would now seems quite insane. So, yes, the money system has brainwashed all of us and it takes a superior and minority intellect to defeat it. And the more one has studied the alibi pretext of Economics, the more one's brains have been scrambled and the more difficult it is to beat the brainwashing so that when one has studied Economics enough, it might be almost impossible to beat the brain-washing at all. You only have to go over the "Essence of Money" articles at: http://turmelpress.com/lp.htm where you'll notice how the fact that loans are not depositors funds are learned and then forgotten almost instantaneously in economists' brains. Even once they may have finally ceded that loans are not depositors' funds, you'll notice that they've forgotten that admission just a few days later. The greatest use to these kinds of debates are the fact that the doublethink of economics is exposed for all to see even though the economists themselves have no idea that they keep contradicting themselves. So, yes, as Mohammed has stated, there is ample proof that they have been driven insane by their money beliefs in those articles. And yet, we know that it is not impossible to beat the brain- washing though I must point out that even LETSers who have a perfect interest-free model to use and study remain just as fooled by the big world-wide money system and cannot see the big picture of a Global LETS just like people who don't understand LETS also cannot. The final point is that the conditioning is so pervasive and effective that my explanations actually strike at their cognitive dissonance so that not only can they always reject the truth but they can actually be offended at hearing it and will most often demand that I stop stating it. Hearing the truth about money and usury often enrages many readers to the point where they cannot resist reading it though the continually demand that I quit writing it. My posts were recently censored from the econ-lets listserv so that we can see that the conditioning affects LETSers as completely as it affects non-LETSers. So trust your philosophical attraction to LETS since it does make sense and we (the collective we of wage slaves to the capitalistic profit system) should do it. All we have to do is beat the conditioning that makes people such as James Rogers above that it can't be done no matter how successfully it is being done. You have to admit that his particular madness is easily seen by people who understand how LETS works though it's doubtful the madness can be seen by people who do not understand and are actually just as financially insane as Rogers himself. -------------------------------
Miscellaneous Topics #2
>Date: Wed Jan 13 12:59:03 1999 >From: firstname.lastname@example.org ("Alan Sloan") >Subject: [lets] Re: Incentive for the money lenders >To: email@example.com >>Question: What incentive do the current money lenders have to enter >>into a no interest system? Attillio >They are less likely to get cheated, mugged or ultimately shot. >Their social community should expand, and their lives will have >less stress because of social inequity being reduced. JCT: Right on. My favorite article detailing the non-financial benefits of belonging to an interest-free trading circle is at: http://turmelpress.com/gold.htm
>Date: Wed Jan 13 11:34:03 1999 >From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Cyril Cocq) >Subject: Re: TURMEL: BABYLONIAN WOE Chapters VIII-X >To: email@example.com (John Turmel) >Mr Turmel, what's the hell are you article do with engineering?!! >Get out of Sci.engr new group, you have nothing to do in this >group. Cyril cocq JCT: Perhaps you might not grasp my analyses in the unsafe engineering design of the banking system yet perhaps better engineers might. Please don't assume that because you can't see the relevance of a new currency system to engineering doesn't mean that all other engineers can't see it too.
>Date: Thu Jan 14 20:02:06 1999 >From: Gloryjake@aol.com >Subject: Dear Sir >To: firstname.lastname@example.org >Sir, Your record for losing the most should have been stopped once >you passed thirty or so. Have you no self-assurance left? Never once >have you won at an elected seat. You might as well be a black woman >running for presidential office. JCT: Actually, it's my self-assurance in being right about LETS being the best possible banking system that keeps me running. Back in 1996, after I'd lost a byelection in Hamilton East, the papers wrote: "Super Loser Fails Again," but in exactly one month, the Hamilton Self-Help Group started up a Hamilton LETS> I considered my mission accomplished, even a victory. Why would I quit with such possible victories in every riding I run in?
>Article #101337 (101372 is last): >From: Plumed Basilisk <Rob.Russell@[www.cauce.org]Canada.Com> >Subject: Re: TURMEL: Miscellaneous Topics >Date: Wed Jan 13 11:16:17 1999 >JT>Don't get your shorts in an uproar. 23 years ago I got my >I'm not. I'm just showing you up to be the liar you are. JCT: If you can prove it.
>JT> degree in electrical engineering from Carleton. Please detail >Then why did you claim to have a B.Eng. in Banking Systems? JCT: I have a B. Eng. Electrical and have specialized in banking systems just as every engineer who has specialized in radio, or television, also has a B. Eng. Electrical. They have no problem talking about their their specializations without running into the likes of you.
>JT>All you have to do is check my Advanced Banking Systems >JT>Engineering Analysis at http://turmelpress.com/bankmath. >How does this equate to a B.Eng in it? JCT: You're probably an undergraduate and aren't advanced enough to follow the articles but I'd expect you to at least be able to stay with the grade 9 algebra. Once you do get to fourth year, if you doubtfully ever do, you'll realize that only an engineer could have done the more advanced analysis. Or maybe you still won't see it but it's doubtful you'll graduate anyway.
>JT>to verify that I have the most advanced education in banking >JT>systems in the world. >In your opinion. Carleton never gave you the degree you claimed to >have from Carleton. You lied. JCT: If you can prove I claimed that.
>JT>You certainly have a no-class way to putting things but I'm sure >JT>you can't find any statement of mine that I received my banking >JT>systems engineering at Carleton. >Do you have the piece of paper saying you have a Bachelor's Degree >in Banking Systems Engineering? JCT: Can you prove I ever said I have a Bachelor's Degree in Banking Systems Engineering?
>JT>Still, I doubt you have the class to >JT>apologize for falsely calling me a liar. >I'll apologize as soon as you produce that legal document. JCT: Shouldn't you first produce the statement where I said that I had a Bachelor's Degree in Banking Systems Engineering?
>JT>Anytime you wish to wish to challenge my qualitative engineering >JT>credentials in banking, I'll be ready to take you more seriously >JT>unless all you want to is rant. ><TomCruise>Show me the degree.</TomCruise> JCT: You're at Carleton, can't you check the class of 76 for yourself?
>JT>And finally, if engineers do not challenge the incompetents >JT>running the money system, who else can be expected to try? >You claimed to have a B.Eng. Banking Systems from Carleton >University. You do not. That is a lie. You lied. You're a liar. >Liars don't represent anything well. JCT: Six times you scream I lied and I guess that you think if you rant "liar" often enough, some people might think you've got something. I've found that the only way to shut up babblers who are foaming at the mouth is to challenge them to put their money where their foam is. Since Carleton does not have a course in banking systems engineering and since I only started my specialization in banking systems three years after I graduated from Carleton, I bet Rob Russell $100 Canadian Dollars that he cannot reproduce any statement of mine where I claimed to have: "a B.Eng. Banking Systems from Carleton University." I find that when I challenge the foamers to put up or shut up, they usually shut up and fade away and I doubt this foamer should prove any different. Sadly, with students like Rob attending my alma mater's engineering faculty, I can understand why Carleton's reputation has been so down-graded since I attended a quarter of a century ago.
Some people might think it's an overstatement to say that money makes people irrational or insane. Yet, I think it's easily shown. Almost every one has heard the expression of our society "living beyond our means" as a reason for cut-backs and belt-tightening. Most people think they understand what it means. Yet, I would submit that this statement makes no sense in the real world and can only be argued if the economy is seen through money-colored, and only an interest-bearing money economy at that, not an interest-free LETS money economy since LETS faithfully reproduces a barter economy. Put yourself in a village 10,000 years in the past and try to explain to a village elder why citizens should be laid off and production delayed or destroyed because they are "living beyond their means." Since it is quite impossible to eat next year's crop, I'm sure you'll soon realize that the whole concept of living beyond our physical means is physically impossible and can only be rationalized when talking about "financial means" and not real physical means." That mankind has been fooled into believing that physically possible things are impossible because they are financially impossible will amuse historians for millennia to come. Prof Quigley raises the issue in his Tragedy and Hope which will be discussed at the new listserv called email@example.com. You can subscribe to this list by sending any email to: firstname.lastname@example.org 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 email@example.com archives, see: http://www.onelist.com/archives.cgi/lets As a prerequisite, you should familiar with the LETS interest- free banking system explained at: http://turmelpress.com/bankmath.htm For those unfamiliar with the LETS interest-free banking system, much information is available at: http://turmelpress.com/letssites.htm A bank of interest-free poker chips will be referred to regularly as a useful model. So I have no doubt that future historians will consider most people living in these last five or six millennia as having been driven quite money-mad. You only have to read the discussions on the Essence of Money at http://turmelpress.com/lp.htm to appreciate how Ph.Ds in Economics can be made to contradict themselves without ever realizing the fact. -------------------------------
Miscellaneous Topics #3
>Article #101552 (101581 is last): >From: Plumed Basilisk <Rob.Russell@[www.cauce.org]Canada.Com> >Subject: Re: TURMEL: Miscellaneous Topics #2 >Date: Sun Jan 17 14:57:45 1999 >>JCT: If you can prove it. >I can. It's as simple as looking at www.eng.carleton.ca - they simply >don't offer the degree you claimed to have. Now the onus of proof is >on you to produce your diploma in Banking Systems Engineering. > >> it's doubtful you'll graduate anyway. >I believe that your math is more along the lines of a statistician, >not engineer. You still have yet to prove that you have the degree >you claim to have. > >>JCT: If you can prove I claimed that. >Umm, you did. I quoted it in my original article on the subject. Go >to dejanews and do a search for me in this newsgroup. > >>JCT: Can you prove I ever said I have a Bachelor's Degree in >>Banking Systems Engineering? >Yes. You claimed to have a B.Eng Banking Systems. It was quoted in >my original article. > >>JCT: Shouldn't you first produce the statement where I said that >>I had a Bachelor's Degree in Banking Systems Engineering? >I did, genius. > >>JCT: You're at Carleton, can't you check the class of 76 for >JT>yourself? >I can find no class of '76 in Banking Systems Engineering. What >department offers this? > >>I've found that the only way to shut up babblers who are foaming >>at the mouth is to challenge them to put their money where >>their foam is. >People will think I've got something when they go back and read for >themselves. > >>Since Carleton does not have a course in banking systems >>engineering and since I only started my specialization in banking >>systems three years after I graduated from Carleton, I bet Rob >>Russell $100 Canadian Dollars that he cannot reproduce any >>statement of mine where I claimed to have: >>"a B.Eng. Banking Systems from Carleton University." >Go back and read my original post on the subject wherein I produced >it. JCT: I'm not interested in where you said it, I'm interested in your claim that I said it.
>>I find that when I challenge the foamers to put up or shut up, >>they usually shut up and fade away and I doubt this foamer should >>prove any different. >And a nyeah, nyeah to you too. > >>Some people might think it's an overstatement to say that money >>makes people irrational or insane. Yet, I think it's easily shown. >Blah, blah, blah. JCT: I do notice that Rob didn't take the bet to provide any statement of mine where I claimed to have received my specialization in banking systems engineering at Carleton. And though they usually shut up once we demand that they put up, how can I prevail against such logical arguments as "nyeah, nyeah Blah, blah, blah" from the wizard of words. -------------------------------
Send a comment to John Turmel