I was away for the last few weeks which also shows my time
constraints. But 30 or so questions have recently been debated so this
is quite long.

     On Oct 31 1995, huyert@qed.uucp (Timothy Huyer) wrote:

:John Turmel (johnturmel@yahoo.com) wrote:
:
::      I don't remember you conceding many posts so perhaps you could
:: tell me which points you made that you now concede were wrong. Also,
:: you are the one who earlier wrote that I was ducking your points.
:
:Considering that you seem to have saved so many of the previous posts,
:maybe you should just check yourself.
:
:: With 29 different points of contention, if
:: you can't rebut even one, why should I infer one of your books can
:: rebut even one either? After all, your performance is a function of
:: those books.
:
:I have now referred to a time constraint three times.  Turmel has read
:these posts since he has quoted them.  Perhaps that _might_ indicate why
:I did not respond to his alleged points.  Moreover, whereas my
:"performance" can be a function of those books, I have admitted that my
:"performance" is below the level of those books, which merely proves that
:you should read the books and ignore me.
:
::      How does it feel having to concede to someone making arguments
:: you're described as:
:
:I am certain my ego will survive.  Nor do I retract those comments.
:
     I guess that says it all. You made all sorts of denigrating
comments on my attempt to accurately model monetary flows and when you
have to admit that they're right, you still stick by the name-calling.

::      You're still leaving the impression that you haven't conceded
:: that your facts were wrong.
:
:Congratulations, you actually can read!  I have conceded that my skill in
:explanation on internet under time constraints is poor.  When I conceded
:a point I conceded that it was a poor example or a poor method of
:explaining the point, and that time constraints and ability meant that I
:felt it would be easier to approach the issue from a different angle.
:
     My criticisms never once argued that your skill in explanation
under time constraints was poor. Your explanation for how the money
flowed was quite accurate and is why I used it. It's your conclusion
about where that new money came from that I disagreed with. I argued
there had to be a tap while your model didn't show one. It worked with
a piggy bank. To demonstrate the creation of money, there must be a
money tap. Your manner of argument has no bearing on this technical
point.

::      Why should I go read books by guys who don't even have a
:: blueprint of the system they're discussing? Once you do have the
:: blueprint, the monetary token system becomes rather trivial.
:
:Mr. Turmel, if you are so convinced that your alleged theory can stand up
:to the criticism contained in the books I mentioned, then you should have
:no reason to fear reading them.  Indeed, it could even be useful, for, if
:you understand better how we allegedly incorrect economists and other
:conspiracists describe things, you could use our words much more
:effectively against us.
:
     How can you say that there are criticisms of interest-free
banking in your books when your books don't cover the topic?
      Have any of your books analyzed the interest-free Tally system
which worked successfully for 700 years? Do any of your books mention
the interest-free clay money used by Sparta in ancient Greece? Do any
of your books explain the interest-free Aes Grave copper coinage used
by the growing Roman Empire before they were sucked into using gold
and their empire was financially bled to death? Do any explain the
interest-free wampum used by the Iroquois North American Indian
Civilization? Do any explain the workings of the interest-free LETS
Greendollar software now sweeping the Internet world?
     I've read quite a few Economics books and the answer is no. The
study of interest-free monetary systems has been completely omitted
from your orthodox Economics curricula. I doubt you can't find one
book which even uses "interest-free" as one classification for a
banking system. I couldn't. And yet, those interest-free systems did
exist. For centuries. I've found literature on their existence. No one
can deny tallies were used. It's just that very few people know how
they really worked. And it's certainly not taught in Economics.

::      That is untrue. I have read many of the standard economic texts
:: which is one reason I've been able to handle each and every "but"
:: you're tried to present.
:
:If you have read the texts, Mr. Turmel, you would understand the
:definitions of the words that I use.  You would also recognize the models
:that I am attempting to describe, and your criticisms as to how the
:economics models are invalid would stand up under something brighter than
:candlelight.  If you have problems with a specific point within a
:specific book, please cite and I will do my best to either explain it
:better or refer you to another source which does.
:
     We're not discussing specific points in specific books. You
haven't referred to a specific point in any specific book. We're
discussing specific points we have entered upon.
     I'm not here to criticize the errors in most Economics textbooks
though I will state that if they do not comply with the blueprints
that I've drafted, they are wrong.
     I'm defending errors I am alleged to have made in an analysis of
a system which is not on the Economics curriculum. Until you
understand that what I am proposing here is something not taught in
Economics, you'll never understand why there's no reason for me to
go searching in books which don't deal with this rare topic. There is
no analysis anywhere of interest-free money systems. And I want to
discuss an interest-free money system. Why keep referring me to
analyses by students of interest-bearing systems who have never even
considered the possibility of interest-free ones? How not only have
never considered the possibility but who have been programmed by their
misinformation in their philosophy into rejecting the very notion of
the possibility of an interest-free system at all?
     As long as they can be led to believe that loans are someone
else's savings, they'll always pre-suppose that that the lender will
insist on getting interest. It is only when you one acknowledges that
we are not borrowing the savings of others but are borrowing new money
that the possibility of new money being loaned out interest-free
becomes a credible alternative.
     That's the reason I call the notion that banks are intermediaries
between depositors and borrowers one of the Big Lies of Economics.
Everyone will suffer paying interest if they imagine that the loan is
coming from someone else's savings who wants their interest like he
does. But realizing that he's getting new money from the tap shocks
him into seeing that no one is giving up the use of their money when
we borrow new money and there is no reason for interest to be paid on
newly-created money.

::      And it is the fact that I am challenging an entire (pseudo)
:: science that seems to offend you. Why is it so hard to accept that an
:: engineer using systems engineering modeling techniques can't have
:: come up with the accurate blueprint despite 5000 years of failure by
:: economists to solve this most puzzling of systems?
:
:I am not offended that you display such ignorance of reality.
:
     Sorry, my blueprint has new money coming out of a tap. Your
blueprint is telling us new money is being injected without a tap. I
think society is quite prepared to accept that systems engineers
happen to be society's masters of reality while economists, our less-
technically qualified cousins, don't even have a blueprint of of their
model to work with.
     Ignorant of your understanding of interest-bearing systems? I
think not. After all, I've accurately drafted a blueprint which shows
the banking system's technical design. I doubt there are many who can
have the same precise understanding which I derive from the use of
such a blueprint.
     Ignorant of my understanding of interest-free systems? Certainly
not. And my topic happens to be include the question of interest-
bearing versus interest-free money systems.

::      And frankly, that is my claim to fame. No economics textbook has
:: every used something as simple as a plumbing model to completely show
:: the flows of the monetary liquidity system. The analysis you've been
:: reading is absolutely unique since most engineers leave economics to
:: economists.
:
:And most economists leave engineering to the engineers.  Perhaps if you
:actually did read the literature, you would find that the models
:economists present vary in complexity from the ones as simple as yours to
:ones that require a full understanding in topology and measure theory.
:
     I think this demonstrates one of the major methodological
differences between engineers and economists.
It's true most economists' models are too esoteric for
the average individual to understand but my plumbing model is easy
enough to allow everyone to understand. It's why engineers use
plumbing with pipes in our modeling.
     Hey engineers out there. Back me up here. You've all used
plumbing to perfectly model electrical current flows. Why is it so
difficult to accept that plumbing can also perfectly model financial
flows? Once your plumbing model tells you what your system will do, do
you need to go around looking for a more complex way to model it? I'd
think one of the prime signs of good engineering is the ability to
select the most simple model to get the job done.
     The fact that economists have econometric models doesn't detract
from the fact that I'm the first person who has applied a standard
engineering modeling technique, modeling flows with pipes, to the
banking system. I just think economists hate to admit that engineering
modeling techniques can make such a difficult chapter so easy to
understand.
     Throughout all this discussion, you have not once said that the
plumbing model of the banking system I've offered is wrong. You've
implied it's not complex enough but I argue that its simplicity is the
power which offers its understanding to the masses. I argue that we
don't need complex if simple can do the job. "It's not complex enough"
is not a valid criticism of what is accepted by engineers everywhere
as one of our most potent modeling tools.
     And if an economist's model doesn't have a tap, it's wrong. And
if they do have a tap, how can the technicians operating the system
allow such irrational insufficiency of money to cause so much misery.
     Unless you're telling me that a student having the visual flows
in a plumbing model to look at while learning about the creation of
money would not facilitate his understanding, then the only reason to
argue against its merit is because it wasn't drafted by an economist.
     Here's a really fair test.
     When the first year Economics pros gives his lecture on the
hardest chapter in the book, the creation of money, give half the
class a diagram of the plumbing so that as the professor describes the
flows, they can visualize them. Give them a short quiz right after
class. I say those who watched the plumbing flows will ace the test
while those who didn't will continue to think that the creation of
money is one of the hardest chapters in the book. It's not that hard
when you're using the simplest sufficient model.

::      Fractional reserve banking has been used for 5000 years and
:: they're still working the same debt slavery scam the same way today.
:
:I'm sorry, which planet are you referring to here?
:
     You may think that the operations of fractional reserve
loansharking is something historically new but it's not. The
loanshark's interest scam is as old as money.
     What's fascinating that though there are many scholarly textbooks
on money in antiquity, there seems to be a conspicuous lack of
explanation of how they worked. They used clay, leather, commodities,
paper, all sorts of media and these books dutifully list them. But not
a one ever dealt with the TAP.
     Of course, there are always the many references in the Bible to
money and it's manipulations and manifestations. But for some reason,
most economists, as a given, automatically reject any reference to any
books tainted with the bias of theological morality. It's as if it's
assumed that the book is too old to contain modeling information on
the complexities of the system today. But just as visualizing the
banking system with plumbing made it simple today, maybe they had
pipes too.
     So, student, I think this engineer is clearly referring to the
monetary history of this planet Earth. That you don't know of this
history doesn't in any way allay the fear that we're suffered
fractional reserve banking from the moment people started leaving
their gold in the banks and carrying around clay receipts.
     I personally believe that loan-sharking has been around since the
invention of money. I'd think that the most interesting question is at
what point did all the loan-sharks of the world link up to exert total
global financial control.
     Today, we are under total financial control. All nations of the
Earth save Guernsey Island are in hock to the the Global International
Cartel of loansharks. It makes sense that once Global coordination
between loansharks is achieved and backed up with the security
apparatus of all the States, there was no way for them to lose that
control back. So how far back did the global loansharks achieve
international control over money.
     The keys are in the use of GOLD. Any time you read of a
civilization which went to war for GOLD, that civilization were
playing MORT-GAGE under the auspices of the loanshark's cage.
     In the time of Christ, men were seeking and exchanging in gold
from Britain to China. There were international bankers who could take
your money in England, give you piece of paper which would be honored
in China! That's international control. Christ said the Board of
Directors sat in Babylon.

:[ The illuminati ]
:
     Our generation got a whiff of Babylon operating under one front
called Illuminati. This bunch of rich dudes who infiltrated politics
and finance to profit by the concerted manipulations were nothing but
another bunch of loansharks who were found out.
     Am I inferring that there was international monetary control 200
years ago with the Illuminati? I was inferring that there was
international control 2000 years ago with the Babylonians and I doubt
that anyone took that control away so the name he chooses to ask about
is probably just the new name for something much older. The ancient
debt slavery mechanism of usury. Mort-gage = Death-gamble.
     So the interesting question is: When was international
coordination first achieved? It makes sense that it started when
international trade was achieved.
     My guess is that it might have been thousands of years before
Christ. But Christ had people praying for forgiveness for their debts
as they forgive their debtors so their world was in hock to the
international Babylon conspiracy of loansharks at the time.
     Imagine, a bunch of big loansharks banded to together to suck
whole nations into debt with usury having controlled the financial
destiny of all through a currency swindle for at least 2000 years.
     It always awes me that 20th century technological Earth could be
so taken in by such an old satanic fiscal device. All the old saints
in the Bible shouting "Usury kills. It's dangerous" and our generation
takes it as necessary. That usury can delude so many intelligent
educated people is most startling of all.
     I can get a ten-year-old to understand the basic stupidity of
operating under rules where you take out 10 and try to put back 11 but
can't seem to get an educated adult to under that he is doing just
that when he takes out a mort-gage death-gamble. And adults wonder
what's causing all the death and extinction that's going on around
while the child readily sees that the demand for TOO MUCH is what's
doing the killing.

::      They wouldn't include you until you understood how the money
:: system really worked and then you, like them, would have to be able to
:: live with yourself knowing how all the starvation, crime and misery
:: caused by the artificial insufficiency of money is preventable while
:: they continue to profit from the "death-gamble" loanshark industry.
:
:Yeah, but I am sure that the fringe benefits from being in the illuminati
:make up for the occasional twinge of guilt.  Anyhow, I suppose that I
:wasn't included because I missed the application deadline.
:
     Sure, the satanically inspired way interest delusion could be
such a nature that even the loansharks at the top don't realize that
what they're really doing.
     Does the President or Premier of a nation really know what he's
doing when he cuts 20% support to the already-dying. Do they not all
bemoan having to hurt the already-dying. Yet, they do it. Knowing that
the number of suicides, the killings, the violence will go up, does
that governor really know what he's doing?
     Sure, the majority of the people who are illuminated enough to
see the light of how interest-money works choose to get in on the
gravy train rather than fight for it to shared fairly. But there are
some of us who see how the current money system enslaves people with
insurmountable debt and choose to fight for its abolition.
     And I hope that league of team owners who rule the world do have
a twinge of guilt at their avaricious support of a system where "To
him who has abundance will be given even more but from him who has no
abundance, even what he has will be taken away." If there weren't
enough to go around, playing an "Each for himself" game makes sense
according to Jungle law of survival of the fittest. But there has been
more than enough to go around for almost a century and they hoarded to
the deathly detriment of others when there's been more than enough to
go around for many years.
     There's the real crime at the root of the money-lenders' guilt.
All the foreclosures, unemployments, inflation and poverty inflicted
by the mal-functioning system added no protection to their wealth.
Hundreds of millions have starved in front of granaries bulging with
unsold sustenance. For nothing. The "ineptitude" of IMF and World Bank
have slaughtered hundreds of millions in the Third World. And these
are teams of economists with nary an engineer involved with the
system. Things are not financially hopeless simply because the best at
systems analysis, systems engineers, have not yet turned their
attention to this errant system en masse.
     But I'd bet that somewhere, there are the loansharks who
understand the loanshark system really works. And they know it's
killing people. And they know it can be fixed. Almost overnight. I
wonder how those who understand how banking kills can sleep at night
when they have it in their power to stop it. Yet persuasion is all we
have.

::      I'm sorry but even Jesus Christ provided a better description of
:: the banking system with his differential equation defining interest:
:
:Oh, I'm sorry, I seem to have forgotten that you have religious support
:for your alleged theories.  Realizing that, I will now immediately
:retract my arguments, withdraw from my programme and devote myself to
:being a monk.  Or am I being sarcastic?
:
     Typical cheap shots. Tell me why the historical economic analyses
contained in the Bible are not worthy of examination? I say I have
examined for their thoughts on interest rates the writings of some men
which history has deemed to have been inspirational models. You infer
it's a waste of time. Had you studied them yourself, I'd certainly be
ready to argue their merits but that will be rather hard if you have
not read the works whose merit you deny. Infallible intuition being
your guide, no doubt.
     You'll find that the quickest way to get my dander up is to try
to denigrate these respected theologians out-of-hand. I think their
thoughts are worthy of great respect.

     On Nov  2 1995, huyert@qed.uucp (Timothy Huyer) wrote:

:Since it seemed exceptionally important to Turmel that I respond to his
:points, I have done so.  Due to time constraints, I had to be very
:terse, and also only reviewed the recap of the points that he made.
:Again, I refer anyone interested in more detail to Stiglitz and Boadway
:(1994).  _Economics and the Canadian Economy_, an intro. econ. text that
:covers much of this topic.  Due to the increasingly more binding
:requirements of my time constraint, I will only respond to comments made
:regarding that text or, with lesser ability, to other econ texts.  Page
:numbers would be helpful in all follow-ups.  I may refer respondents to a
:more advanced text instead of replying directly if I feel that that text
:holds sufficient information.  Keep in mind that the opportunity cost of
:participating in this forum is very high for me; I simply do not have the
:time or ability or will to teach entire courses in economics through this
:forum, even if I was qualified to do so!
:
     Let's remember that "Are loans old depositors' savings or new
chips?" is the original question of debate.

::      So to recap, there have been 29 points Tim has been unable to
:: handle:
::
:: (1) His model has NO source of new money.
:
:I had noted that my attempt at correcting Turmel's model was poorly
:done.  However, I had also later noted that new money is created by the
:central bank via open market operations.
:
     Noting that the central bank creates 2% of the money has no
bearing on how the private banks create money. A simple tap and drain.
The simple difference between the two is that the private bank needs a
deposit to the reservoir before it can lend new money and the central
doesn't need a deposit. It can just create it and lend it out. So the
private banks have limits on their creationary powers and the central
bank does not.
     Clearly, the reservoir in the blueprint therefore represents the
private fractional reserve bank and not the central bank. And the
amount the central bank injects is only a tiny fraction of that later
multiplied by the private banks. So concentrating on the central
bank's 2% or 3% drop into the financial bucket in our discussion of
those which inject the 97% or 98% of the money is no real help.

:  I had also repeatedly noted
:that money is a numeraire, and that the same results would hold in a pure
:barter economy.  To picture this, set any commodity as the numeraire, and
:have all other commodities priced in terms of units of the numeraire
:commodity.  You now have a simplex of codimension 1.
:
     But if you use a commodity which is in short supply, like gold,
silver, copper, chickens, you can run of out medium of exchange for a
silly reason. Using an intangible "number" represented by monetary
chips is best because you can't run short. Nevertheless, demanding the
return of 11 for 10 loaned out has certain quite predictable effects
on the participants in the economic activity.
     And (1) His model STILL has NO source of new money.

:: (2) NO ONE gives up their use of money.
:
:People will give up their use of money (temporarily) if they are
:compensated for having done so; i.e., paid interest.
:
     And when I'm borrowing the new stuff coming out of the tap, why
should the banks get to say that the new stuff they manufacture is
theirs and demand I pay them interest? No one's doing without their
savings. The bank is doing without money from the tap.
     So, why do you keep telling me about people who give up the use
of their savings when I'm talking about the tap giving up the use of
its nothing.
     And if the loan is new money to the borrower, it explains why the
saver has call on his money which was not loaned out. So, unless in a
non-fractional reserve private transaction:
     (2) NO ONE gives up their use of money.

:: (3) Depositor and borrower can BOTH get their money now.
:
:Banks keep cash reserves in order to handle expected demands for cash.
:However, should there be a run on the bank, the bank can borrow unlimited
:funds from the central bank at the bank rate.  The central bank is thus
:the lender of last resort.
:
     You don't seem to understand that my checking account is only
reduced when your checking account is increased. How much people
choose to splash from one account to another has no bearing on the
total liquidity in the pool. If half the people transfer all their
money to half the other people and then transfer it back, there was
great demand for cash but it doesn't affect money supply. Only what
goes on in the in the loan department affects the pump house to the
pool.

:: (4) Division of 1 by reserve ratio is NOT a tedious process.
:
:Tedious or trivial meant that the solution value was not necessary for
:the analysis.  The only important thing was that the solution of the
:series be a finite value, which, since the reserve ratio is strictly
:positive, is obvious.
:
     Could a negative reserve ratio be a compensating feedback to
cancel out the extra interest? Could it be the banker who adds chips
to each pot?
     Fascinating. Major Douglas suggested the banker distributing the
necessary new chips to try to balance the interest demanded through a
National Dividend to each citizen so that as the lever of robot
technology gets longer and longer, the National Dividend would
supplant the wage in the new society of leisure.
     He also suggested a compensated discount to merchants so that the
banker adds chips to their pots when they deliver goods and services
to try to balance the interest they are paying.
     But trying to balance the interest debt by adding chips to every
pot through a negative reserve ratio may be more stable.
     But never as stable being balanced in the first place. LETS
Greendollars are perfectly stable because they get rid of the interest
imbalance.
     I know that the 1/(reserve ratio) is this pretty elementary
stuff. The limit of the integral of the monetary creation by the
fractional reserve system is 1/(fractional reserve rate). It's so
simply and now that you know, I doubt you'll ever forget. I made the
point to impress you that there are certain things about the financial
flows which I know that you still don't. If you're going to stick by
your denigrations of me and my work, I'll use every opportunity to
show areas where I know more than you.

:: (5) Benefit is from the loan, NOT paying interest.
:
:For the benefit of the loan, the borrower is willing to pay interest.
:
     Not this borrower. If I'm not borrowing old chips from another
but I'm getting new chips from the cage, the cage isn't going to get
any interest that a saver might insist upon. You'll never understand
what I'm saying until you accept that you're not borrowing your
buddy's savings but borrowing new chips.

:: (6) Banker adds chips is NOT more realistic than banker doesn't.
:
:As the economy grows, the central bank increases the money supply, more
:"chips" are added.
:
     But it increases the money supply in new debt. Your original point
was that banker was increasing the chip supply so that the borrowers
could pay the interest on their debt. I said that if it was true that
the banker was just injecting new money, the social credit solution,
that would work enable the interest to be paid. But bankers add chips
not by injecting them out but by lending them out. So a new component
of debt is added which you have failed to note.

     On Jan 1, you pledge your house and I lend you $100 at 10%.
     Next year, you say: "Gee. I owe $110 and I've only got $100."
     I say: "No problem. Pay me the $100 you've got. You still owe me
$10. I'll lend you the $100 again. Pay me the $10 you owe me now. You
leave with $90. You'll owe me $110.

     Next year you say, "Gee, I owe $110 and I've only got $90."
     I say: "No problem. Pay me the $90 you've got. You still owe me
$20. I'll lend you the $100 again. Pay me the $20 you owe me now. You
leave with $80. You'll owe me $110.

     Next year you say, "Gee, I owe $110 and I've only got $80."
     I say: "No problem. Pay me the $80 you've got. You still owe me
$30. I'll lend you the $100 again. Pay me the $30 you owe me. You
leave with $70. You'll owe me $110.

     Next year you say, "Gee, I owe $110 and I've only got $70."
     I say: "No problem. Pay me the $70 you've got. You still owe me
$40. I'll lend you the $100 again. Pay me the $40 you owe me. You
leave with $60. You'll owe me $110.

     This goes one year after year until you've left with $20. Next
year you say, "Gee, I owe $110 and I've only got $20."
     I say: "No problem. Pay me the $20 you've got. You still owe me
$90. I'll lend you the $100 again. Pay me the $90 you owe me. You
leave with $10. You'll owe me $110.

     By now, you're betting on lottery tickets. Next year you say,
"Gee, I owe $110 and I've only got $10."
     I say: "No problem. Pay me the $10 you've got. You still owe me
$100. I'll lend you the $100 again. Pay me the $100 you owe me. You
leave with nothing. You owe me $110.
     With no money owing $110, you're probably thinking about
insurance fraud or crime. Next year, you walk in thinking, "Gee, I owe
$110 and I've only got $0."
     I say: "Now we have a problem. You can't pay me the $10 interest
and I'm calling in the loan. You owe me $110. I could lend you $110
and you'll owe $121 or I can take your house.
     Therein lies the true power over one's fellow man that bankers
exert, the power of financial preferment or rejection. Most people
don't really appreciate the true nature of the power of foreclosing on
one borrower while granting loans to new borrowers to participate in
the bid at the auctions for the foreclosed properties.
     Someone once said something like "If you want to steal, own a
gun. If you really want to steal, own a bank." It's fascinating how
banks can be used to starve and overcome some businesses while
fortifying others. But that financial coercive power is a whole other
topic.
     It's a neat scam to separate little people from their savings and
keep them enslaved into paying for their own slavery.

:: (7) My model handles growth, his does NOT.
:
:Adding time (and from there growth) to the system increases the
:dimensions of the problem, but economic models are more than sufficiently
:robust for that challenge.
:
     And the Laplace Transform Model handles time. So do the
differential equations and exponential functions. Time is all handled
in those analyses but simply stating that your analysis is up to the
challenge has not dealt with the question of any new source of
monetary growth. You may be up to the challenge of handling monetary
growth but you haven't handled the challenge of showing where any
comes from.

:: (8) Underlying assumption of debt>money is NOT unreasonable.
:
:Note that since the central bank creates money not via debt, and that
:this money becomes the first stage in the reserve ratio of all other
:banks, it can be established that the reserves cover the interest and
:leakages in the system.
:
     The money is not issued out by the central bank enough to balance
the interest, it is loaned out. "No problem...." You think.

:: (9) Rationality of model NOT dependent on rationality of players.
:
:Your model argues that everyone will play when they can tell that it is
:better to not play.  To assume that everyone will behave irrationally is
:fundamentally unsound.  Please refer rigorous definitions of
:rationality, contained in economics and sociology texts.
:
     In my 21 years as a professional card-player, I've seen many
irrational gamblers making many irrational plays. But at no point did
their irrationality decisions have any effect on the value of my chips
vis-a-vis the casino cashier's cage. The expected value of my chips
was always worth at the end of the game what they were worth at the
beginning. That's an immutable promise of any house.
     I once stated and stress again that the current system fractional
reserve system of banks as casino cages where they charge interest for
the time the chips are used and whose volume is regulated by the
number of chips deposited out of action in the safety deposit
reservoir section.

:: (10) Expected result is NOT that you lose your collateral.
:
:Expected result for each player, assuming random game, is that they get
:10 tokens back (the starting amount).
:
     "No problem. Pay me. Borrow again, pay interest, see you soon"
handles the fact most people will score according to a normal curve
passed through an exponential filter and will be able to refinance
with the banks having the decision of who they're going close down.
The fact they're going to through the "Pay the interest year after
year routine" hides the eventual outcome for the group.

:Each player needs 11 tokens to
:recover collateral, so NO player, given average results, expects to
:recover their collateral.
:
     The mere fact that they are called players is that they expect to
participate in a decision making process where the majority will
survive. Only when interest rate reaches 100% do half the players lose
so the other half can come up with double. After that, the majority
would be knocked out but the point is that there is always a survivor
until the last man and in a question of economic survival, people will
take any long odds that are offered.
     And yes, it is true that after many cycles, the banks will end up
breaking ALL of the players, it is not true that in each cycle the
banks can expect to break all or even the majority of borrowers. I
would opine that societies who have suffered mega-interest rates might
attest otherwise though.

:Now one player might volunteer (or be chosen
:by lottery) to sacrifice his/her end tokens so that others can recover
:their collateral, but this hardly seems to be realistic.  _AGAIN_, please
:refer texts on statistics and probability.
:
     Therein is the fundamental decision upon acceptance of an
elimination death-gamble where someone must be eliminated. Who must
always be sacrificed to their Money God. And selecting the least
number of sacrifices to permit the maximum of others to survive
happens to be the smartest way to optimize on survival and is
therefore the most realistic.
     There's a famous French Canadian folk song called "Il etait un
petit navire" "There was a little ship" which told the story of
mariners who had to choose by lot who would be eaten to further the
survival of the rest. The young lad who drew the shortest straw was
saved by his prayers for the provident abundance of God.
     In questions of life and death, people will mort-gage death-
pledge their homes to get the chips needed to try to end up owning it
but where some others must always lose. "Musical chairs" with money is
how Keynes used game theory to visualize it. Death-gamble is an
elimination game where the losers perish by financial poverty amidst
the plenty which cannot be sold. Beggars in the richest cities.
      So again, people mortgaging their homes, businesses and jobs to
get the finance to attempt some capitalist enterprise or mere survival
actually seems "very realistic." Most will do anything including crime
to survive and most will signing anything including any rate for one
last kick at the can.

:: (11) True game is NOT his positive sum model.
:
:I already conceded that my earlier corrections were poorly done.
:
     Why do you economists keep inferring that weak presentation is
the reason you're not making headway against the plumbing blueprint?

:But it
:is important to note that interest and the creation of money are not as
:indivisible as Turmel would claim.  Interest existed long before banks
:and paper money.
:
     So did plague though I doubt the plague comes close to the number
of corpses left in Usury's trail. Its historical performance surely
indicates there's no reason to leave it in the design when Greendollar
designs seem to be doing the job without any of the destructive and
philosophically condemned usury in the software.

:There is a linkage between interest and money creation,
:yes, but this depends upon a more complex general equilibrium model.
:
     Interest is NOT a factor in how much money can be created. The
only defining factor limiting the creation of money is the reserve
ratio. Other limits are set at the discretion of the bankers. How much
interest they can get for that scarce commodity is a function of the
market and does not affect how much money can be created. It could
affect how much money bankers decide to issue into circulation. Though
their goal is to lend the maximum, their occasional restriction of
loans usually has devastating but profitable-for-them effects.

:: (12) Housing and chocolate do NOT appreciate
:
:Relative to the value of other goods, they might.
:
     Imagine an average of all price rises and I'd guess majority
would appreciate rather equally for that majority around the average.
But simply look at the price rises for common treats like ice-cream
cones, bags of chips, chocolate bars, and you'll see a remarkable lack
of relative difference over time. It's not that bag of chips that
gained value, it was the money unit that lost it.

:: (13) Interest-free LETS Greendollars do NOT inherently have interest
:
:I already demonstrated implicit interest in time preferences, with you
:acknowledging that the time preference existed.  Refer to previous posts.
:
     The whole reason that LETS Greendollar accounts always balance is
that there is no interest. Stop telling me that they inherently have
interest. If they did, they'd be unbalanced. What makes them so
popular is that debits and credits always add up because neither grow
with interest feedback. The system's unique strength is its simplicity
and lack of feedback your hinting that the destructive algorithm in the
current world system must still be occur in LETS after being told that
the systems engineers followed design specifications ensured to keep
the evil interest feedback out is not facing reality. It was designed
out of the code and saying it's there can't alter that fact.
     The software engineers designed it to keep accounts based only on
service charges. No one pays interest, no one gets interest. System
time paid for by standard service charges, not variable interest on
variable loan. No matter how many times you repeat to yourself that
LETS must have interest, it's been designed out. I would have never
financed its development if Michael Linton's blueprint had any
positive feedback. I specifically threw it my complete support because
I noted the positive feedback was gone and the system was being paid
for with service charges out of Greendollars created rather than out
of interest for the tenth that was never created.
     If anyone ever tried to run a LETSystem with interest, they would
not be able to use the name. One of its prime requirements is that
there be no interest. Remember that LETS is nothing more than an
electronic casino chip system and just like poker chips at the casino
cage, there is no interest and it is not inherent in the design.
     I also showed that the time preference of the first trader was
probably balanced by the time preference of the second trader. You fix
my roof now and I'll give you my bike next week or take my bike now
and fix my roof next week. Things change if you pass it through a
money filter charging interest. I pay you to fix my roof now so you'll
buy my bike next week or you pay me for my bike now and I'll buy your
roof repairs next week. But whoever goes first has to get a loan and
has to bear the brunt of the interest which he therefore passes along
in his prices.
     Again, we're quite diametrically opposed. I say that in the real
world of economic trading, time preferences tend to balance and
whatever do exist are fixed at the time of the agreement even though
in the world of financial trading, advantage is given to the
preference for money over bicycles or roof repairs.
     And this preference can be taken advantage of and manipulated.
Considering how many deranged quacks have dreamed of ruling the world,
are there no billionaire quacks who've had such dreams but with far
more resources to go for it? Accumulating thousands of times more than
you could ever need certainly shows a cancerous growth of greed. And
manipulating the volume and value of money is something well within
the means of a group of billionaire owners quack enough to take
advantage of the leverage their piles of money give them on the
teeter-totter of life.

:: (14) Interest-free LETS NOT for only the very poor.
:
:I have never advocated that LETS is a bad thing, only that it is not an
:interest free system.
:
     Telling me that an interest-free LETSystem is not an interest-
free system is like telling me that an interest-free casino chip
system is not an interest-free system. Yes they are. Why can this not
get through? Your Greendollar or Time dollar accounts do not get
interest when you're positive and the group owes you so many hours of
work in exchange for the work you've already put in and they do not
pay interest when you owe the group so many hours of work in exchange
for the work we've put in for support your need. If you accumulate
1000 hours worth of Time dollars, you can comfortably call on those
1000 hours worth of time owed to you by the group. They're a way of
giving of your work now in order to build your bank of work owed by
the group. And since everyone has work with which to pay, if not
money, everyone has the potential to honor their Time or Greendollar
debts.

:Many social democrats (as opposed to social crediters) support
:LETSystems.
:
     Social Credit was the first major engineering analysis of the
banking system done by Major Clifford Douglas and presented to the
Tokyo World Engineering Conference in 1929. Ask any old Socred if
interest-free Green or Time dollars are the friendly social credits
they have always wanted and I doubt you'll find one who doesn't see
the social nature of the new medium of exchange being adopted by
larger and larger groups.
     What social democrats support LETSystems? And why aren't they out
here spreading the good news of a do-it-yourself self-help private
money system that allows you to bypass the interest debt system.

:Even notwithstanding political views, an
:economist can support a LETSystem in that it helps make more markets
:complete -- it is an extension of the current system.
:
     Aha! If the World Banking System adopted the LETSystem software
overnight authorizing everyone in the world authorized to borrow 2,000
hours of currency, would "what helps make more markets compete" now be
"help ALL markets compete?"  And more than an "extension," is it a
"completion" of the current system? If you think about it, this is
probably the best economic news of the centuries. Something that's do-
it-yourself and helps get more people into industrial production
extending the current system to optimal economic performance. It's
great news though isn't getting much play.

:: (15) Paying interest does NOT benefit economists a lot.
:
:As someone who pays interest, I certainly would be happier if I didn't
:have to, all else equal.  Of course, I would not sacrifice my ability to
:finance purchases or investments (including my education) today, in order
:to give up every paying interest.
:
     To give up ever paying interest, you won't imperil getting the
loan. But I never asked you to sacrifice getting your necessary loan.
I asked you to sacrifice having to pay interest and only asked you to
include my banker's service charge in your loan application.
     Interest-free credit for a service charge really is a great deal.
You'd like it. I got my engineering degree from Carleton thanks to an
interest-free student loan. I was a survivor and successfully paid it
off with interest but many students were and are still doomed to
failure for the enormous debt they incur.
     Many nice qualified graduates of our universities fail to
financially survive. The joke "What did the Arts graduate say to the
engineering graduate? Do you want fries with that?" is the sad state
of affairs as a direct result of the insufficiency of money, poverty.
     A young Ontario Liberal politician I'd met recently committed
suicide after losing his seat because he was faced with the Alley of
Unemployment where men weep and gnash their teeth.
     Another personal friend in the Toronto area has lately succumbed
and ended his tribulations. A university-graduate in Arts, quiet,
meek, pious and poor. Just couldn't take the insecurity any more.
     And there are thousands of them out there that we don't hear
about. We all know many friends who have fallen to their financial
debt, many who resorted to intoxicants trying to to diminish the worry
and the pain. And in many obits, they don't mention it was suicide. We
hear about it from friends and they'll publish overall statistics
which seem meaningless given the large population databases we're
dealing with, and we don't realize that many of us have seen 2%, 5%,
10% of some of our closest friends give up due to poverty.
     And yet, the young Liberal had received an information packet on
the results of LETS testing all around the world and didn't see that
in his hand was a source of Local employment he could have created for
himself. More and more people are learning how to cope with the
poverty and lack of employment opportunities by supplementing their
incomes with Local employment money. And who's to say when Local
employment won't handle most of one's needs?

:: (16) Can NOT explain 5000 years of economist failure.
:
:Well, given that there hasn't been 5000 years of economics...
:
     We're back to the history of international money markets. Tim's
under the impression that Big Money controlling the world through
loansharking is something new. Another clue as to the dates when
loansharking arose are societies slavery which always solved the
problems of the debt losers. In those days, when you lost and they
foreclosed on the house, you went with it to be worked to death in a
mine or as a galley slave.
     Those controlling the Babylonian Woe being inflicted on those
ancient nations weren't only running the money-houses. They were the
bullion mine owners, the arm-suppliers and the slave-owners. They all
had their parts to play in the Usury system where the Mort in your
Mort-gage death-gamble really had a deadly sting for the losers.
     The usury slavery system Christ looked at then seemed far more
brutal than the the one we're looking at today. At some point in
history, the Owner Loansharks must have decided that keeping the
slaves chained in debt was just as effective as keeping them chained
in irons with the added bonus that they didn't have to take care of
the slaves like you would one living with you. Let the slaves compete
for the day-job and kick them out at night entails no responsibility.
     So most of today's slavery is effected with debt rather than
chains and I don't know which is really worse.
     As long as there have been clay IOU tablets which bore interest,
there have been economists explaining why the debt slaves have to put
up with it. And the fact you're a debt slave too who looks for any
reason to say there's no way out rather than look yourself for that
way out of your own personal financial insecurity makes it even
sadder.
     Just imagine that since Grade 1, you've had your own interest-
free credit card to which all your consumption is registered by the
providers of your youth support. What you owe when you're finally
trained and come on line is what you received. Hour for hour.
Greendollar for Greendollar. No interest charge. Every bicycle, all
sports gear, all educational necessities including tuition, banking
service charges, are all charged to your Greendollar account bearing
no interest.
     Today, many students who owe tens of thousands will end up paying
double. But they only received half of their money's worth in goods
and services. For the other half, they received nothing but the rental
of money's time. And money does not do work.
     I can bet with high probability that if you had an open interest-
free credit line during your university years, you'd probably be a
survivor and end up paying that principal off. But without interest,
so would more of your fellow students. If all your payments go against
principal, what you pay is what what you got.
     You must imagine how life would become serene with an interest-
free credit system. If you plow snow and there's no snow, they don't
take your plow away. Your consumption pushes your account negative
until there is snow-storm and you get your chance to put in over-time.
The key to economic freedom is the ability to "work-it-off" rather
than "pay-it-off." Most of the able-bodied have lots of payment
potential if payment is in work but often no potential if payment is
in money which is being kept in short supply on purpose.

:: (17) Banks ARE like interest-bearing pawnshops.
:
:Except that they do not deny the borrower the use of the collateral
:during the period of debt.
:
     True though it's the same eventual result. You felt you ended up
with less than you thought your investment in it was really worth.

:: (18) He could NOT respond to successful use of tallies.
:
:I think I skipped reading that section.  Sorry.
:
     Tallies are my most verifiable historical national model. A 700
year long test of an interest-free money system. I'd bet that was a
global rarity in a small part of the world. Tallies worked for
government in the 12th century and Greendollar tallies can work for
government today. Greendollars are simply the tally system used by
cooperatives of individuals rather than by Kings. We did it before and
we'll do it again.

:: (19) Clay money shows fractional reserve banking NOT new.
:
:Again, I skipped Turmel's commentary here.  However, this would by no
:means deny that interest and money are always and everywhere linked.  It
:also notes that since some of the money is not created via debt (the
:original amount), then there is sufficient money in existence.
:
     No. I never said "some money is not created via debt." That's
what your example did when you had the banker adding extra chips to
every pot so the players could come up with their interest. Money is
borrowed from the central banks too and I call borrowed money "debt"
and the growth of new debt therefore kept the debt always ahead of the
amount of money issued in principal available to pay it off with.

:: (20) Name-calling is NOT relevant to a model.
:
:I never made it relevant to the model.  After all, an infinite number of
:monkeys with typewriters will get you at least one copy of _Hamlet_, so
:one shouldn't automatically dismiss anything typed by a monkey.  Of
:course, a monkey that types out _Hamlet_ is still a monkey.
:
     I leave the readers of my analysis of the interest-banking system
to judge whether the derivation of the equations were more likely
random monkeying around or non-random logical deduction. If you follow
the derivations, you'd better not vote wrong.

:: (21) Electoral support is NOT relevant a model.
:
:I never made it relevant to the model either.  It does indicate that lack
:of formal training in economics is not necessary in order for one to
:reject Turmel's views, however.
:
     So it takes very little or no training in order for one to reject
Turmel's plumbing blueprint. I agree it's easy to judge. How many
plumbers who haven't studied economics are there out there who would
like to comment on whether the system with the tap makes more sense in
discussing the creation of financial liquidity than his piggy bank
without a tap.
     And rejecting an engineer's possibly accurate views on the
engineering design of a mechanical system not only indicates a lack of
formal training in engineering but also a lack of common sense
sufficient to follow the graphical flows. The plumbing blueprint is
correct and with it, a child could follow the financial flows. You'll
have to admit it at some point.

:: (22) Anti-semitism is NOT relevant to a model.
:
:Again, I did not make it relevant.  Anti-Semitism, however, is an interesting
:and terribly unfortunate result which came about, in part, when loaning
:at interest (usury) was sinful and illegal.
:
     The Money Owners at the top cooperate because they share the
money system, not because they share a certain pew. Too many Jewish
tailors took the rap for what the Jewish money-lenders were doing to
the debt slaves before skipping town with the loot. Too many Jewish
tailors are still taking the rap for what the money-lenders of all
races are doing to the debt slaves.
     Just look at Israel how to see how they turned the returning
Jewish cousins into refugee-camp guards for their Arab cousins. Talk
about sharing "original home" without finesse.
     Let no one restrict their view to the Jewish of the world money-
lenders and certainly not to the ordinary non-loanshark Jews who have
suffered a sadder brunt from usury than all. They've suffered hideous
400% interest rates, 400% inflation rates. Being scapegoats for the
loansharks is a fate I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. I think the
loansharks are the true anti-semites, the true parasites on the race's
name.

:: (23) Central bank does NOT create the bulk of the money supply.
:
:Not the bulk, but a sufficient quantity.  Recall the previous arguments
:on reserves.
:
     I recall a recent economic tract which indicated that during the
Second World War, our Canada's central bank created about half the
money supply while Canada's private banks created the other half.
Since then the Bank of Canada has been reduced to creating 2% and the
private banks create the other 98%. They may even make the reserve
ratio zero.
     I like zero. LETS has a reserve ratio of zero. The amount of
loans going out of the tap is based on the IOUs and deeds going in and
has nothing to do with how many chips are deposited to the reservoir
at all. What a stupid reason yet it hides the tap by making people
think that their savings are being loaned out.
     As I recall the previous arguments on reserves, I argued that
such a small percent meant that the (23) Central bank does NOT create
the bulk of the money supply. The chartered banks do. I don't see how
2% is sufficient and regardless, we're talking about the internal
plumbing of the private banks right now.

:: (24) Rockefeller does NOT have to lend at 0%.
:
:But since he can and does not, it indicates that he would not if loaning
:at interest was illegal.
:
     And his $10 billion in chips would sit in his safety deposit box
with the bank always issuing enough chips to the other players per
collateral pledged without any need to notice whether Mr.
Rockefeller's chips are in the game or not. The casino bank always has
sufficient chips to liquefy whatever collateral is pledged independent
of how many chips are currently in the game. Neat, isn't it? Mutually
exclusive events. Deposits and loans are mutually exclusive events and
should not be linked in the system as they now are.

:: (25) There is NO effect on Rockefeller's property rights.
:
:If Rockafeller was obliged to lend money at 0% despite Rockafeller's
:desires, his property rights are affected.  Noting my reply to (24),
:without interference of property rights, it is extremely unlikely that we
:will see him loaning willingly at 0%.
:
     He was not obliged to lend money at 0%. No one was obliged to
borrow from him at greater than 0% when they could all go to the cage
and get liquidity at 0%. If he's loaning his chips willingly at 0%,
it's what most gamblers do during a game when they lend their buddy
chips till be goes to the cage.

:: (26) I am NOT making property rights an issue, he is.
:
:Then you are accepting that, should Rockafeller or anyone can else choose to
:not loan their money at 0%.  Since they already have that option, and
:choose not to, you are also accepting that there would be no lending at
:0%.
:
     If I can borrow my Greendollars from the LETS central computer
without interest, why would I go to an interest-bank and pay interest
or go to Rockefeller privately and pay him interest? We're dealing
with the money tap, not money splashing between accounts. As long as I
have a Greendollar access to the tap, I'm going to try to get unhooked
from interest-bearing federal dollars as fast as I can. Is the fact
that I have the opportunity to go directly to the cage and receive
chips for pledged collateral really unjustly depriving Rockefeller his
chance to loanshark his savings to me because they keep the financial
tap closed? I think not.
     As long as I have access to an interest-free source of credit, I
don't care how many loan-sharks there are around trying to peddle
their savings. I'm not buying. I'm pledging my assets to the interest-
free cage, not some private interest-charging loan-shark.

:: (27) Do NOT need statistician to test the model,anyone can.
:
:Statistics are an exceptionally useful method of testing available data
:against a model.  In order to use statistics properly, though,
:understanding of statistics is necessary.  I will allow that other
:methods of testing might be possible, but why should the route of
:statistics be ignored, particularly when it has so many possibilities in
:this case?
:
     John Von Neumann, the famous author of "The Theory of Games and
Economic Behavior," said that "important questions in economics arise
in an elementary fashion in the theory of games."
     This is because all the guess-work of econometric models can be
replaced with a fair random number generator and using Monte Carlo
statistical methods, one can use a perfectly fair time-based model,
chance, to determine an optimal strategy.
     Try it before you doubt it. Get 6 friends to put up their watches
as collateral, lend them all 10 units at 20%, let them flip coins to
determine who comes up with 12 units and who does not and note that
the number who fail can be statistically determined.
     Insistence on statistics boils down to wanting to use something
hard and esoteric to explain something easy if modeled using a game.

:: (28) He does NOT account for the time preference of both traders.
:
:The trader with the greater preference for consumption now borrows.  The
:one with less loans, and is compensated by the loan by interest.  See
:Stiglitz and Boadway for the full explanation, complete with diagrams, at
:a non-technical level.
:
     You're dealing with a biased preference for liquidity rather than
service contracts. Dealing with the time preferences for the bike and
the roof trades when dealing with and without money made that quite
clear.

:: (29) Religious works condemn, NOT condone, interest.
:
:Which is fine if you wish to live in a strict religious society.  For
:anyone slightly more liberal or democratic, a more scientific approach
:could be useful.
:
     Getting rid of interest would not cause a strict religious
society. It would cause a society rid of poverty, crime and
unnecessary death. And I'd think that many of the old strict religious
rules of living would undergo great changes when society goes from the
Usury Law of the Jungle where not all may survive to the Law of
competition where all may. I think we'll needs new laws when it
becomes a party instead of a war of survival.
     I can obey "Thou shalt not kill." That doesn't make it a strict
religious society. Sure would help though. But the Interest Death-
Gamble Mortgage kills people by lack of purchase power for the
plentiful resources needed to survive. Debts are leaving a swath of
destruction all around the world. And when saintly men make the taking
interest a capital offence under an "eye for an eye," we have to take
that condemnation of usury quite seriously, not skeptically, or worse,
not even with the respect of having given it more than a second
thought.

:I glanced back to find the full point since I did not get this in the recap.
:
::      (18) I pointed out the successful use of interest-free Tally
:: currency in Great Britain for over 700 years, the present use of
:: interest-free currency in Guernsey but that hasn't been challenged,
:: for obvious reasons.
:
:With the acknowledgement that my field is not money and banking and I am
:unfamiliar with these examples...
:
     That's my whole point. You're unfamiliar with these money and
banking examples because they're not in your Economics text-books. Why
do you think that's so? Why are Tallies, Aes Grave, Spartan money
systems not there? Why haven't historical winners made the books? Just
like Orwell's 1984 where unwanted historical disappear down the memory
hole, the history of these successful monies has virtually
disappeared. If there is a group of global loansharks who do control
things via the money they manufacture, that omission is vital. Same
with the Bible deletion in Nehemiah 5:10 and the alterations in Matt
6:9 if the Lord's Prayer.
      I think the resistance to monetary software upgrade is inspired
by the Owners' malevolent greed. I cannot accept that it's accidental.
LETS which "helps markets" is not being examined though you say social
democrats are latching on and building these so-called Greendollar
"financial life-boats" in their neighborhoods. That's good news. Maybe
you've heard about some new systems springing up I haven't yet heard
about.
     But shouldn't discussion about something that works, that helps
poor people clamber aboard successful financial life-boats, not be
raging around the world? Here's something that works for sure. Let's
see where it stops.

:It hasn't been challenged since these options have always been available
:throughout history.  If the tally currency was more robust than fiat
:money (i.e., what is predominate today), it would have survived and been
:the modern currency we all use today.
:
     It would have survived if the loansharks managed to talk the King
into outlawing tallies in exchange for his getting a loan of gold so
he can fight fight some foreign war. The hoteliers and arms-dealers
didn't take tallies. They wanted gold for what he needed and it was
quite easy to take away the King's own sound tally money and leave
them in debt-bondage to the new loansharking Bank of England. "Rule
Britannia but always pay the juice to Big Money." Kings and Governors
have sad records for getting things right.

:Unless, of course, the economists,
:* even when they did not exist * conspired to destroy a system through
:some very subtle means.
:
     All it takes is a tap of money to buy the politicians, the
bailiffs and the presses. Interest is not a necessary evil just
because every body admits they'd like some. Who wouldn't want a free
ride? Life support coming in and not having to work for it. But
controlling who gets to use money and who doesn't is an amazing power
which is readily abused. I admit that interest has a magical allure
and the major problem is the necessary rationalization for a system
where some get something for nothing while others get nothing for
something.
     My grandfather, Adelard Turmel, a staunchest old Quebec Social
Crediter, crystallized it best with "L'interet est le vol." "Interest
is theft."
     He also crystallized the inherent problems with demanding
interest on sterile money compared to the demand for interest on
reproducible flora and fauna with "L'argent n'a pas de petits." "Money
has no little ones."
     Once he saw the plumbing in his mind, there was no stopping him.
He's another who has joined the many saints above who knew about and
decried the evil of usury on money.
     The Owners of the presses have altered some of the most important
financial advice in the Bible. Why are the publishers removing one
line from Nehemiah 5:10 "Let the exacting of usury stop." And why are
the publishers altering Christ's Prayer to Our Lord (Matt. 6:9) asking
for "forgiveness of our DEBTS," not "forgiveness of our SINS."  These
are major financial statements on money being shoved down the memory
hole never to be seen again. Why these particular words?
     Check me out. Get a King James or New International and compare
them to the newer versions. The intent of those passages have been
gutted, on purpose. This takes control. And only a team of owners have
the power to order these kinds of amendments to our Holy Books. They
often talk of conspiracies of team owners running professional sports.
Why is it so hard to conceive of a conspiracy of Tap owners running
our financial sports?
     It's an ugly scenario finding out that economic system has been
fixable for years and the Owners allowed it to continue to run amok.
But what to expect from a group of debt-slave Owners who rule by
keeping the slaves sick, broke, drunk and fighting amongst ourselves.
     Thinking of usury as a system of financial debt bondage makes a
lot of its machinations stand exposed as the genocidal results of a
financial algorithm condemned throughout much of history for good
reason. MORT DEATH isn't in its name for nothing.
     As you may have noticed, I also have time constraints though I
enjoy 20 or 30 themes at a time. But what I think this boils down to
is a debate between an engineer who says the economic engine can go
faster and the economist whose monetary dial says it can't be done.
Money is but a representation of the true wealth being created and
thinking of it as a dial is very useful. This is a debate between a
engineer wanting to look at the economic engine and economists wanting
to stay tuned on the financial dial. Your dial says "Overheating. Must
slow down and lay off workers." I see the engine with millions of
highly-trained people wanting to get into production in exchange for a
fair share of the production raring to go with nothing in the way but
the readings on your lousy monetary dial.
     By simple observation, by following the dictates of your monetary
dial, millions remain unable to contribute due to an insufficiency of
financial liquidity. Though my blueprints detail why your financial
dial is malfunctioning, of greater interest is having within our grasp
the chance to upgrade the dial software to interest-free Time or
Greendollars. Installing the better software is the primordial goal,
analyzing the past performance of the 5000 year-old model can wait.
     So asking me to go read books written by guys specialized on the
mal-functioning dial is not going to help when you're dealing with a
guy who wants to get under the hood. Besides, your parts catalogue
doesn't offer any interest-free dials. So we're going to use the LETS
interest-free dial software.
     Remember that interest-free banking is not offered as a financial
alternative and is religiously dismissed out of hand. If you could say
that you'd studied Tallies or social credits and here is why they
can't work today, we could debate. But what can I say to someone who
hasn't studied the interest-free systems under discussion.
     Until you get yourself some poker chips and test out these game
theoretical models, you have not given me a fair chance to convince
you. The technique is to use interest to end up with your friends'
watches whether the loan was in coins, chips or tooth-picks. If you
can't make those tooth-picks inflate like money does, then you're not
doing the experiment right.
     We have to face up to the fact that the debt slavery system ends
up with dead losers everywhere around the world. Extinction of species
including ourselves. All financially induced by poverty.
     But there is a quick way out. All it takes is the permission of a
few Big Money Owners to let go the reins of their genocidal debt
machine and set us financially free. I'd bet that 50 of the worlds
richest Owners could cooperate to coerced an international upgrade of
the LETSystem software to World Bank computers and finance one great
LETS life-boat big enough for everyone to share in the abundance
Earth's industrial potential promises.
     Of course, global amnesty for any financially motivated crime
would be welcome from robbery to mercenary to usurer. So things are
really rosier than they look. It looks like the global debt problem
has no solution and yet a small group of World Owners have it within
their providence to fix the dial and switch the planet's industrial
power to maximum instantaneously.
     Another major incentive is personal survival. Owners' kids wipe
their tushes with the same dioxin-laced toilet paper poor kids do.
Owners' kids drink milk from the same dioxin-laced mild cartons.
Owners' kids breathe the same noxious chemicals poor kids do. Owners'
kids eat the same unhealthy food poor kids do. Maybe not the really
really unhealthy food that really really poor kids do. More and more
Owners' kids are succumbing to the Alley of poverty just like more and
more poor kids are.
     This global environmental threat of extinction is the best
argument in our plea to the World Owners to free up the controls on
the engine by letting us fix the dial. It can take the Earth a long
time to belch or sneeze from our noxious activities and we have to
worry about passing points of no return but let's hope not too much
acid rain has to come through Owner's roofs or toxic wastes from
Owner's faucets until they realize that we're all on the same ship and
only a concerted industrial effort can save our biosphere.
     And that means sharing financial credit with the poor.
     LETS is Debt Liberation software capable of saving our planet
through well-financially coordinated productive activity. I've always
bet that the software provides the perfect blend of capitalism and
communism by lending everyone the interest-free credit to be a
capitalist based not only on collateral but also on personal worth.
     That's why I'm such an eternal optimist. I see us in a World of
Hell ruled by financial shortages where we could be in a World of
Heaven where society's credit is at the disposal of everyone virtually
overnight. And more and more LETSystems are springing up around the
world announcing new little pieces of Heaven. "Have time to work? Move
here. We'll trade work."
     I heard about a new LETS being organized in neighboring Ottawa.
One started up last year in Killaloe Ontario 100 miles to the north of
Ottawa. People are saying "It's a Greendollar life-boat or it's no
life-boat at all" and are opting for labor exchanges using these
personal do-it-yourself currency kits. Financial Heaven software.
     But we'll need the support and not the resistance of the Owners
of the current money system and that's why I repeatedly stress the
Amnesty for Loansharking too. We just want to forgive, forget and get
on with life riding our new interest-free credit cards to success.
     So I'll always continue to recommend LETS Green or Time dollars
as a way of creating a little heavenly life-boat around you in a
Hellish sea of cancerous debts.
     I can think of no more evil mechanism than usury on debt. It is
theft from the poor, the negatives, to the rich, the positives.
There's a good reason it's so prominently slammed in great religious
and philosophical opinions. Usury is slavery and genocide of the poor
by financial deprivation. I accept no rationale for such a bug in our
financial software. It's a positive feedback that must be debugged.
It's as simple as that. Remove the yoke of slavery from all debtors'
necks and everyone get moving for their own benefit. It's an amazing
incentive.
     And though I've heard a thousand times that the concept of
everyone having an interest-free credit card is too good to be true,
I've never met one who said he wouldn't open an interest-free account
for himself if he could. And yet, now they can have a little "this is
truly good" for themselves. Reports of its success and growth are
heartening.
     With so much danger looming on the horizon, people who had the
chance will rue the day they didn't set up their own little or large
financial life-boats while they had time.
     I'd also predict that new programmer job opportunities will
accrue to those who can offer their services in running the LETS
software to municipal councils. I see a time when the software will be
used by every tax-payer base in the world. That's a lot of sys-ops
soon to be necessary.
     The Sovereignty movement in the United States has over 3,000
municipal councils petitioning the Federal Reserve System to give them
interest-free credit lines. These are natural municipal councils to
approach if you can show them how to set up what they want on their
own using the Greendollar software.
     If you can operate something which generates "markets" for the
city's products, I think the services of trained LETS operators will
be in great demand.
     Get some computer-science student to learn the LETS software as
an experiment and then have him offer to operate one for the
municipality.
     One of these days, a Freenet is going to offer its email services
to facilitate trades between members on its databases. This involves
adding one numeric field called Greendollars, etc., to everyone's
database record and a simple program where I authorize transference
from my Greendollar account to the cell of the recipient. With only
this small cell or field addition and use of the user's password to
authorize transfers out while automatically authorizing all transfers
in from other accounts, Greendollar credit services could be offered
to everyone on the database and only those who choose to use it may do
so.
     I see a LETSystem software landing on some very large database
and creating the largest LETSystem in the world overnight. Surely your
student union could use a Time dollar system to share out better
tutoring or supervision duties among users.
     I think the large-database self-insurance program is another
startling example of LETS financial at work. I've always been awed by
the application of LETS software to the concept of sharing out the
necessary work with government-organized work-bees where one could pay
off one's taxes with work of which an unemployed man has in abundance.
It eliminates our government's need to foreclose on its citizens for
unpaid taxes.
     It's a piece of large-database software which allows large
financial databases to self-insure without paying up front to the
former poolers of necessary resources. This insurance software is
going shake the citadels of the Insurance World. Who needs to buy
insurance when everyone's ready to pitch in their share after the
fact?
     I welcome the E-Money revolution and I see the conflict between
those systems being set up by the current Owners where people will pay
interest on their computer credits and those systems being set up by
many private individuals where people will pay only service charges
and no interest on their computer credits.
     Tell me what you'd choose. Would you like to start E-mailing your
payments with credit whose debt starts growing or would you like to
start E-mailing your payments with Greendollar credit costing you a
standard financial service charge and no growth of your debt?
     I think that the LETSystem is offering human civilization one
last chance in its battle for economic and environmental survival. 50
Billionaires could order the software offered to their customers
through their banks and turn the world's industrial activity around to
productive enterprise over-night.
     That's why I can cry for the 30,000 of the world's children who
died of poverty today because we could have installed the money
software upgrade last night. I don't need to put it out of my mind
like most people who feel helpless in the face of its enormity. I
think I'm doing something about offering a working replacement for the
current malfunctioning system.
     Forget how an interest-free credit card would be good for you and
your education and training. No money worries, just study worries as
it truly should be. Maybe that's another reason more richer students
graduate. Less money cares.
     Consider what an interest-free Time or Greendollar credit card
from the World Bank do for the starving peon in Guatemala. All of a
sudden, all the small farmers can offer to buy the millions of idle
acres being withheld in unused estates. The rich dudes get money worth
millions of hours of time and the poor dudes start working to pay it
off, interest-free.
     Remember, I never want to take it away from Rockefeller. I'm just
saying that what he can't buy because he's got too much money, I'm
going to sell to the poor, on credit following the stricture in
Isaiah 55 "You who are hungry and have no money, come buy and eat." He
doesn't give it to the broke. He sells it to the broke and therefore
gives credit to the broke in order that they may buy.
     That's the rationale for giving every Guatemalan child his own
interest-free credit card. Soon we'd have many of the millions of
unemployed doctors and medical technicians down there satisfying that
demand. Farmers, rail-road and production workers earning their hours
to satisfy new demand. In twenty years, when they retire and the kid
comes on line as a doctor, he can comes to Canada to pay back their
time with his or send over some purchasing power for tropical fruit.
     Imagine the possibilities if everyone could express financial
demand because it was based on inalienable labor-power rather than
collateral. More than four out of five billion people out there who
could band their credit lines together to order your services at high
wages building and organizing things which benefit the life-support
system.
     Now, the economic system is geared to satisfy the demand of the
financial system's dial. The problem is that the financial system
seems to allocate purchase power more so to themselves depriving many
on the lower echelons of a fair share of purchasing power. There's
lots of monetary demand for recreation and travel but not much
monetary demand for tractors and food. That's because demand
monopolizes into the hands of the small minority loanshark community
and poor people can not adequately effect demand for goods.
     Now imagine that effective demand through ability to get a loan
becomes available to everyone. Tradesmen won't have to work for the
boss who got the loan so they could get their supplies. They could
band together to use their own credit lines and share the capitalist
reward among themselves while cutting out the middleman though not the
organizer.
     I think that everybody who had every learned to drive a car or
operate a machine would become much desired labor with the demand of
billions of new credit cards to satisfy. It really would boil down to
receiving credit for as many hours as you can now put in expectant of
receiving at least that many hours back later in life.
     I think that when credit becomes socially available to everyone
on the planet, there'll be an environmentally friendly industrial boom
the likes of which cannot be imagined. Full industrial power applied
to only productive clean industries. Steel going to tractors, not
tanks.
     When everyone has a great paying job, trust me that there'll be
little crime, violence, racism, any evil ism that is now manifesting
itself. When everyone has a great paying job, it's heaven on earth and
it's certainly well achievable within all our life-times. Using LETS
on International money networks is certainly achievable the moment a
few of the biggest Money Owners decide to provide interest-free money
as a new service.
     Having committed usury is heavy indictment. Mort-gage has the
word "mort" in it, a quite apt warning of the intent of its design.
Mort means death and interest is an elimination game. And if you're
eliminated, we bankrupt you and you could die in the alley where men
weep and gnash their teeth. Many do.
     So when you contemplate all the death and extinction going on
around you for lack of money, you see that "mort" is an apt
description that what happens to some of the participants take a shot
at paying back 11 after only borrowing 10. Especially with a banker
who'll roll over your loan as long as you keep paying the interest.
     If you dig deeper into how LETS creates new markets, you'll have
to see may other beneficial uses Time or Greendollar accounts can be
put to. Financial misery and death are stalking the people and
industries of the lands. I'd rather spend time on uses the new
software can be put to.
     The problem with getting into the workings of the current
malfunctioning system, like the question of "where's the tap," is that
it detracts from the root evil which is the demand for the growth of
money in your pocket to satisfy interest in the loanshark's book.
     Though many will label some of my vehemence as excessively
emotional or even ranting, remember that there's no kind way to speak
of loansharks when you have a thorough understanding of how interest
works and see what it is doing to your friends and neighbors and
planet.
     If Christ can be forgiven for going after the loansharks with a
whip, certainly I can be forgiven for going after them with a little
true bad-mouthing.
     You are hurt in a certain way when watching the plight of the
dying children on TV if you believe that the system imbalance is
inherent and hurt in a different way if you believe that it's
preventable. If it's
not fixable, then I needlessly suffered the extra pain of one who
thought it could be fixed. But if money is quickly fixable, not
helping speed up its implementation statistically costs lives. The
hope and striving for what may be a solution, even a long-shot, is
always preferable to accepting of deadly consequences of defeat.
     Give LETS Greendollars a chance.

Send a comment to John Turmel