Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Disturbing prognosis by Antal Fekete

Expand Messages
  • Dont Panic
    Hi Todd, ... I hope you are referring to interest bearing bank debt. If you are referring to debt of any kind, then you are mistaken. Even in an ideal
    Message 1 of 14 , Oct 1, 2007
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Todd,

      > Fekete didn't address the real problem which is more mundane
      > and boring: a modern economy does not need debt at all,
      > when running in a period of relative stability.

      I hope you are referring to interest bearing bank debt.

      If you are referring to debt of any kind, then you are mistaken. Even
      in an ideal economy, founded solely on clearing, debt is fundamental to
      the process. What, if not debts, are being cleared?

      Hasan
    • ernie yacub
      ... commitments, if you re talking about an ideal economy, which would essentially be one where mutual credit systems are ubiquitous. ey
      Message 2 of 14 , Oct 1, 2007
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Dont Panic wrote:
        >
        > If you are referring to debt of any kind, then you are mistaken. Even
        > in an ideal economy, founded solely on clearing, debt is fundamental to
        > the process. What, if not debts, are being cleared?

        commitments, if you're talking about an ideal economy, which would essentially
        be one where mutual credit systems are ubiquitous.

        ey
      • Todd Boyle
        Right, good point. Obviously, an economy requires ongoing investment in physical plant and information infrastructure from marketing to design etc. In my
        Message 3 of 14 , Oct 1, 2007
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Right, good point. Obviously, an economy requires ongoing
          investment in physical plant and information infrastructure
          from marketing to design etc. In my view these are mostly
          self funded by companies, there is not a shortage of "money",
          debt, capital, or nonfinancial capacity. There is in fact a gross
          surplus of those (and shortage of social capital). There is no
          need for long term systemic debt. other than whole new, greenfields
          industries which are relatively small part of the world economy.
          Even those new sectors do not benefit by the activities of wall street,
          which are predatory and harmful to the structure of those sectors,
          invariably distorting them to less efficient forms in order to
          capture economic rents,
          FED UP with it. The young communists have a very valid critique
          that we should all have studied more carefully when we were
          in high school or college,
          Now- go listen to Naomi Klien--this ROCKS
          Talk by Naomi Klein author of "The Shock Doctrine:
          The Rise of Disaster Capitalism" Sep 27, 2007 Seattle.
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNzcJImX4Ew

          Todd
          retired CPA
          we hate what we did. we hate who we were.

          At 09:01 AM 10/1/2007, Dont Panic wrote:
          >Hi Todd,
          >
          > > Fekete didn't address the real problem which is more mundane
          > > and boring: a modern economy does not need debt at all,
          > > when running in a period of relative stability.
          >
          >I hope you are referring to interest bearing bank debt.
          >
          >If you are referring to debt of any kind, then you are mistaken. Even
          >in an ideal economy, founded solely on clearing, debt is fundamental to
          >the process. What, if not debts, are being cleared?
          >
          >Hasan
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >Community email addresses:
          > Post message: ijccr@yahoogroups.com
          > Subscribe: ijccr-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > Unsubscribe: ijccr-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > List owner: ijccr-owner@yahoogroups.com
          >
          >IJCCR website: http://www.geog.le.ac.uk/ijccr
          >Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Marc Gauvin
          Ernie, Please define commitments and debt so that we all can understand your nuance. Marc ... From: ernie yacub To: Dont Panic ; ijccr@yahoogroups.com
          Message 4 of 14 , Oct 1, 2007
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Ernie,

            Please define "commitments" and "debt" so that we all can understand your nuance.

            Marc


            ----- Original Message -----
            From: ernie yacub
            To: Dont Panic ; ijccr@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 7:50 PM
            Subject: debts and commitments - Re: [ijccr] Re: Disturbing prognosis by Antal Fekete


            Dont Panic wrote:
            >
            > If you are referring to debt of any kind, then you are mistaken. Even
            > in an ideal economy, founded solely on clearing, debt is fundamental to
            > the process. What, if not debts, are being cleared?

            commitments, if you're talking about an ideal economy, which would essentially
            be one where mutual credit systems are ubiquitous.

            ey




            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • ernie yacub
            ... debt: something that is owed or that one is bound to pay to or perform for another - you lend me $100, i owe you $100 - you sell me a book worth $10, and
            Message 5 of 14 , Oct 1, 2007
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Marc Gauvin wrote:
              > Ernie,
              >
              > Please define "commitments" and "debt" so that we all can understand your nuance.

              debt: something that is owed or that one is bound to pay to or perform for
              another - you lend me $100, i owe you $100 - you sell me a book worth $10, and
              if i don't have the money, i owe you $10.

              commitment: a pledge or promise to the community in which the cc was issued -
              you give me the book, i pay you cc10 - you have cc10 which you can now spend and
              i have made a commitment to the community to provide goods and services in at
              least that amount.

              we'll be talking about these fundamentals on wednesday at 2pm on blogtalk radio
              - http://blogtalkradio.com/openmoney

              ey

              >
              > Marc
              >
              >
              > ----- Original Message -----
              > From: ernie yacub
              > To: Dont Panic ; ijccr@yahoogroups.com
              > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 7:50 PM
              > Subject: debts and commitments - Re: [ijccr] Re: Disturbing prognosis by Antal Fekete
              >
              >
              > Dont Panic wrote:
              > >
              > > If you are referring to debt of any kind, then you are mistaken. Even
              > > in an ideal economy, founded solely on clearing, debt is fundamental to
              > > the process. What, if not debts, are being cleared?
              >
              > commitments, if you're talking about an ideal economy, which would essentially
              > be one where mutual credit systems are ubiquitous.
              >
              > ey
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >
            • Marc Gauvin
              Ernie, You really need to work on your semantics. If you want to be teacher you need to be clear and unambiguous. I have no doubt that you are convinced of
              Message 6 of 14 , Oct 2, 2007
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Ernie,

                You really need to work on your semantics. If you want to be teacher you need to be clear and unambiguous. I have no doubt that you are convinced of what you write but don't assume that others will gladly follow along because you have decided what is and what is not the bench mark in CC understanding.

                If you look at the distinction you make objectively, it easily can be passed off as a semantic ploy God knows to what end. For example:

                You wrote:

                debt: something that is owed or that one is bound to pay to or perform for
                another - you lend me $100, i owe you $100 - you sell me a book worth $10, and
                if i don't have the money, i owe you $10.

                Debt is not the "something that is owed" it is the commitment to pay measured in "the something" that often comes out of receiving something from the party to which the pledge is made but not always. As in the case of CCs the pledge is not to the forfeiter of the wealth or recipient of CCs but to the community at large. Either way, the debt or pledge is equally valid and failling to meet the commitment damages the community.

                Your definition of commitment contains the keyword "pledge" so that it is by no means incorrect to equate pledge to debt.

                Conclusion,

                The issuance of CCs in exchange of wealth generates a peldge/debt to the community that if not honoured harms that commitment.

                Best,

                Marc

                ----- Original Message -----
                From: ernie yacub
                To: ijccr@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 6:54 AM
                Subject: [ijccr] Re: debts and commitments


                Marc Gauvin wrote:
                > Ernie,
                >
                > Please define "commitments" and "debt" so that we all can understand your nuance.

                debt: something that is owed or that one is bound to pay to or perform for
                another - you lend me $100, i owe you $100 - you sell me a book worth $10, and
                if i don't have the money, i owe you $10.

                commitment: a pledge or promise to the community in which the cc was issued -
                you give me the book, i pay you cc10 - you have cc10 which you can now spend and
                i have made a commitment to the community to provide goods and services in at
                least that amount.

                we'll be talking about these fundamentals on wednesday at 2pm on blogtalk radio
                - http://blogtalkradio.com/openmoney

                ey

                >
                > Marc
                >
                >
                > ----- Original Message -----
                > From: ernie yacub
                > To: Dont Panic ; ijccr@yahoogroups.com
                > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 7:50 PM
                > Subject: debts and commitments - Re: [ijccr] Re: Disturbing prognosis by Antal Fekete
                >
                >
                > Dont Panic wrote:
                > >
                > > If you are referring to debt of any kind, then you are mistaken. Even
                > > in an ideal economy, founded solely on clearing, debt is fundamental to
                > > the process. What, if not debts, are being cleared?
                >
                > commitments, if you're talking about an ideal economy, which would essentially
                > be one where mutual credit systems are ubiquitous.
                >
                > ey
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >





                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Marc Gauvin
                Errata in the conclusion of my last post: The issuance of CCs in exchange of wealth generates a peldge/debt to the community that if not honoured harms that
                Message 7 of 14 , Oct 2, 2007
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Errata in the conclusion of my last post:

                  The issuance of CCs in exchange of wealth generates a peldge/debt to the community that if not honoured harms that commitment.

                  should read:

                  The issuance of CCs in exchange of wealth generates a peldge/debt to the community that if not honoured harms that <<community>>.

                  Apologies,

                  Marc





                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: Marc Gauvin
                  To: ijccr@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 7:34 PM
                  Subject: Re: [ijccr] Re: debts and commitments


                  Ernie,

                  You really need to work on your semantics. If you want to be teacher you need to be clear and unambiguous. I have no doubt that you are convinced of what you write but don't assume that others will gladly follow along because you have decided what is and what is not the bench mark in CC understanding.

                  If you look at the distinction you make objectively, it easily can be passed off as a semantic ploy God knows to what end. For example:

                  You wrote:

                  debt: something that is owed or that one is bound to pay to or perform for
                  another - you lend me $100, i owe you $100 - you sell me a book worth $10, and
                  if i don't have the money, i owe you $10.

                  Debt is not the "something that is owed" it is the commitment to pay measured in "the something" that often comes out of receiving something from the party to which the pledge is made but not always. As in the case of CCs the pledge is not to the forfeiter of the wealth or recipient of CCs but to the community at large. Either way, the debt or pledge is equally valid and failling to meet the commitment damages the community.

                  Your definition of commitment contains the keyword "pledge" so that it is by no means incorrect to equate pledge to debt.

                  Conclusion,

                  The issuance of CCs in exchange of wealth generates a peldge/debt to the community that if not honoured harms that commitment.

                  Best,

                  Marc

                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: ernie yacub
                  To: ijccr@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 6:54 AM
                  Subject: [ijccr] Re: debts and commitments

                  Marc Gauvin wrote:
                  > Ernie,
                  >
                  > Please define "commitments" and "debt" so that we all can understand your nuance.

                  debt: something that is owed or that one is bound to pay to or perform for
                  another - you lend me $100, i owe you $100 - you sell me a book worth $10, and
                  if i don't have the money, i owe you $10.

                  commitment: a pledge or promise to the community in which the cc was issued -
                  you give me the book, i pay you cc10 - you have cc10 which you can now spend and
                  i have made a commitment to the community to provide goods and services in at
                  least that amount.

                  we'll be talking about these fundamentals on wednesday at 2pm on blogtalk radio
                  - http://blogtalkradio.com/openmoney

                  ey

                  >
                  > Marc
                  >
                  >
                  > ----- Original Message -----
                  > From: ernie yacub
                  > To: Dont Panic ; ijccr@yahoogroups.com
                  > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 7:50 PM
                  > Subject: debts and commitments - Re: [ijccr] Re: Disturbing prognosis by Antal Fekete
                  >
                  >
                  > Dont Panic wrote:
                  > >
                  > > If you are referring to debt of any kind, then you are mistaken. Even
                  > > in an ideal economy, founded solely on clearing, debt is fundamental to
                  > > the process. What, if not debts, are being cleared?
                  >
                  > commitments, if you're talking about an ideal economy, which would essentially
                  > be one where mutual credit systems are ubiquitous.
                  >
                  > ey
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  >

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • dlwild
                  Dear Marc, Ernie, et al, First of all, the problem is definitely semantics. Arguing about semantics can lead to clarifications, or to the loss of the core
                  Message 8 of 14 , Oct 2, 2007
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear Marc, Ernie, et al,

                    First of all, the problem is definitely semantics. Arguing about
                    semantics can lead to clarifications, or to the loss of the core issue
                    being discussed. Most discussions on IJCCR happen to be about
                    semantics, rather than core issues, or about understanding certain
                    processes that as of late have had little to do with CC (it's been more
                    about money-as-we-know-it and the banking system at large).

                    In German, in the olden days, when there wasn't a word that would mean
                    exactly what the author/philosopher intended, a new one was invented.
                    German is a very precise language, English, on the other hand, is a
                    very elastic and pliable language, one word can mean many things (read
                    some Shakespeare) depending on context or even point of view. If you
                    push on a word such as "commitment" you will find that it will quite
                    probably mean "debt." If you say "debt" in the CC context it has a
                    different connotation (meaning) than in the non-alternative economy.
                    Debt in the CC "community" means commitment, debt in the globalized
                    economy means "your property is now mine" if a legal contract was
                    signed for this to happen, as banks almost invariably do.

                    Such connotations are worth arguing about if the purpose or goal is to
                    come to an agreement. If, however, the purpose is to find the greatest
                    distance from each other's worlds, then the ultimate purpose of such
                    argument is to argue for the sake of arguing rather for mutual
                    clarification.

                    Even saying "CC community" is a generalization, not to mention that
                    saying "CC" is yet another generalization. In Ernie's community, the
                    "local culture" has decide to make a difference between debt and
                    commitment. At least this is what I read from Ernie's remarks, and find
                    it a very interesting idea -not a new one to me, by the way-, which I
                    would have used to find out more, rather than try to correct him as to
                    the semantics of the whole shabang. (Read Humberto Maturana, if you
                    wish, to find out what the biological roots of culture are: Love and
                    Play, The Forgotten Elements of the Humane).

                    A "community" decides to create a membrane from the outside world (even
                    if an abstract one), in order to survive the onslaught of impositions
                    that are leading to misunderstandings as to our role as human beings.
                    CC is an attempt, small or large, depending on the local situation, to
                    side-step a trend that has led debt to mean "a pound of flesh closest
                    to the heart" (Shakespeare again, from The Merchant of Venice), a trend
                    that turned into a social dilemma in the late XVI hundreds, early XVII
                    hundreds. The argument wasn't about debt vs. commitment, but about
                    usury vs no-usury ... which led to the term usury being subtly replaced
                    by "interest rates." So you see, language is alive, and now anyone
                    claiming that usury = interest rates is considered a mad-man.

                    Turning full circle, this type of semantical discussion about semantics
                    reminds me of the "bootstrap theory" in the early days of quantum
                    physics: "It works, we are here, so there must be something holding us
                    together, one law that keeps the chaos of the subatomic world from
                    spreading into the atomic realm."

                    The question: are we arguing about semantics? Or about core issues that
                    may very well need a separation from old semantic habits?

                    Hmmm.

                    Best,

                    Leonardo



                    On Oct 2, 2007, at 12:39 PM, Marc Gauvin wrote:

                    > Errata in the conclusion of my last post:
                    >
                    > The issuance of CCs in exchange of wealth generates a peldge/debt to
                    > the community that if not honoured harms that commitment.
                    >
                    > should read:
                    >
                    > The issuance of CCs in exchange of wealth generates a peldge/debt to
                    > the community that if not honoured harms that <<community>>.
                    >
                    > Apologies,
                    >
                    > Marc
                    >
                    > ----- Original Message -----
                    > From: Marc Gauvin
                    > To: ijccr@yahoogroups.com
                    > Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 7:34 PM
                    > Subject: Re: [ijccr] Re: debts and commitments
                    >
                    > Ernie,
                    >
                    > You really need to work on your semantics. If you want to be teacher
                    > you need to be clear and unambiguous. I have no doubt that you are
                    > convinced of what you write but don't assume that others will gladly
                    > follow along because you have decided what is and what is not the
                    > bench mark in CC understanding.
                    >
                    > If you look at the distinction you make objectively, it easily can be
                    > passed off as a semantic ploy God knows to what end. For example:
                    >
                    > You wrote:
                    >
                    > debt: something that is owed or that one is bound to pay to or
                    > perform for
                    > another - you lend me $100, i owe you $100 - you sell me a book worth
                    > $10, and
                    > if i don't have the money, i owe you $10.
                    >
                    > Debt is not the "something that is owed" it is the commitment to pay
                    > measured in "the something" that often comes out of receiving
                    > something from the party to which the pledge is made but not always.
                    > As in the case of CCs the pledge is not to the forfeiter of the wealth
                    > or recipient of CCs but to the community at large. Either way, the
                    > debt or pledge is equally valid and failling to meet the commitment
                    > damages the community.
                    >
                    > Your definition of commitment contains the keyword "pledge" so that
                    > it is by no means incorrect to equate pledge to debt.
                    >
                    > Conclusion,
                    >
                    > The issuance of CCs in exchange of wealth generates a peldge/debt to
                    > the community that if not honoured harms that commitment.
                    >
                    > Best,
                    >
                    > Marc
                    >
                    > ----- Original Message -----
                    > From: ernie yacub
                    > To: ijccr@yahoogroups.com
                    > Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 6:54 AM
                    > Subject: [ijccr] Re: debts and commitments
                    >
                    > Marc Gauvin wrote:
                    > > Ernie,
                    > >
                    > > Please define "commitments" and "debt" so that we all can
                    > understand your nuance.
                    >
                    > debt: something that is owed or that one is bound to pay to or
                    > perform for
                    > another - you lend me $100, i owe you $100 - you sell me a book worth
                    > $10, and
                    > if i don't have the money, i owe you $10.
                    >
                    > commitment: a pledge or promise to the community in which the cc was
                    > issued -
                    > you give me the book, i pay you cc10 - you have cc10 which you can
                    > now spend and
                    > i have made a commitment to the community to provide goods and
                    > services in at
                    > least that amount.
                    >
                    > we'll be talking about these fundamentals on wednesday at 2pm on
                    > blogtalk radio
                    > - http://blogtalkradio.com/openmoney
                    >
                    > ey
                    >
                    > >
                    > > Marc
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > ----- Original Message -----
                    > > From: ernie yacub
                    > > To: Dont Panic ; ijccr@yahoogroups.com
                    > > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 7:50 PM
                    > > Subject: debts and commitments - Re: [ijccr] Re: Disturbing
                    > prognosis by Antal Fekete
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Dont Panic wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > If you are referring to debt of any kind, then you are mistaken.
                    > Even
                    > > > in an ideal economy, founded solely on clearing, debt is
                    > fundamental to
                    > > > the process. What, if not debts, are being cleared?
                    > >
                    > > commitments, if you're talking about an ideal economy, which would
                    > essentially
                    > > be one where mutual credit systems are ubiquitous.
                    > >
                    > > ey
                    >
                    >

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Marc Gauvin
                    Leonardo, In our work on definition of the @ currency, we have used the following definition: Debt in @ A commitment vis-à-vis the Community resulting from a
                    Message 9 of 14 , Oct 3, 2007
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Leonardo,

                      In our work on definition of the @ currency, we have used the following definition:

                      Debt in @
                      A commitment vis-à-vis the Community resulting from a negative Balance to continue to deliver Wealth in any Transaction in the future Accounted in @ until the Balance is no longer negative



                      The operative word is commitment, to separate the concept of commitment from that of debt in order to qualify the commitment frankly is splitting hairs. The definition of the @ currency contemplates rules one of which is that you cannot close an account with a negative balance, another rule is that balances are public information while other details of transactions are private information. The following is a list of the relevant definitions we are using so far:

                      1 Definitions


                      @
                      A unit for representing transactions of Wealth

                      @-system
                      A set of definitions and rules for governing Transactions of Wealth denominated in @

                      Account
                      A ledger that records the Balance between positive and negative entries of @s resulting from Transactions of Wealth

                      Balance
                      The net value of an Account at any given point of time

                      Community
                      A set of Members

                      Credit
                      The adding of @ to one's Account Balance resulting from delivering Wealth in a Transaction

                      Debit
                      The subtracting of @ from one's Account Balance resulting from receiving Wealth in a Transaction

                      Debt in @
                      A commitment vis-à-vis the Community resulting from a negative Balance to continue deliver Wealth in any Transaction in the future Accounted in @ until the Balance is no longer negative

                      Member
                      A human or groups of humans belonging to the Community

                      Price
                      The number of @s used to represent a given Wealth in a Transaction

                      Transaction
                      The process by which Wealth is transferred and Accounted for in @ resulting in a Credit to the provider of Wealth and Debit of equal magnitude to the receiver of Wealth

                      Wealth
                      Any goods or services transferable between two parties





                      There is no other way to dicuss these issues other than to agree on definitions otherwise when new comers join they will end up having these semantic sparring sessions that rarely ever are resolved to the required level of satisfaction.

                      Marc



                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: dlwild
                      To: list- IJCCR
                      Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 4:55 AM
                      Subject: [ijccr] SEMANTICS (AKA Re: debts and commitments)


                      Dear Marc, Ernie, et al,

                      First of all, the problem is definitely semantics. Arguing about
                      semantics can lead to clarifications, or to the loss of the core issue
                      being discussed. Most discussions on IJCCR happen to be about
                      semantics, rather than core issues, or about understanding certain
                      processes that as of late have had little to do with CC (it's been more
                      about money-as-we-know-it and the banking system at large).

                      In German, in the olden days, when there wasn't a word that would mean
                      exactly what the author/philosopher intended, a new one was invented.
                      German is a very precise language, English, on the other hand, is a
                      very elastic and pliable language, one word can mean many things (read
                      some Shakespeare) depending on context or even point of view. If you
                      push on a word such as "commitment" you will find that it will quite
                      probably mean "debt." If you say "debt" in the CC context it has a
                      different connotation (meaning) than in the non-alternative economy.
                      Debt in the CC "community" means commitment, debt in the globalized
                      economy means "your property is now mine" if a legal contract was
                      signed for this to happen, as banks almost invariably do.

                      Such connotations are worth arguing about if the purpose or goal is to
                      come to an agreement. If, however, the purpose is to find the greatest
                      distance from each other's worlds, then the ultimate purpose of such
                      argument is to argue for the sake of arguing rather for mutual
                      clarification.

                      Even saying "CC community" is a generalization, not to mention that
                      saying "CC" is yet another generalization. In Ernie's community, the
                      "local culture" has decide to make a difference between debt and
                      commitment. At least this is what I read from Ernie's remarks, and find
                      it a very interesting idea -not a new one to me, by the way-, which I
                      would have used to find out more, rather than try to correct him as to
                      the semantics of the whole shabang. (Read Humberto Maturana, if you
                      wish, to find out what the biological roots of culture are: Love and
                      Play, The Forgotten Elements of the Humane).

                      A "community" decides to create a membrane from the outside world (even
                      if an abstract one), in order to survive the onslaught of impositions
                      that are leading to misunderstandings as to our role as human beings.
                      CC is an attempt, small or large, depending on the local situation, to
                      side-step a trend that has led debt to mean "a pound of flesh closest
                      to the heart" (Shakespeare again, from The Merchant of Venice), a trend
                      that turned into a social dilemma in the late XVI hundreds, early XVII
                      hundreds. The argument wasn't about debt vs. commitment, but about
                      usury vs no-usury ... which led to the term usury being subtly replaced
                      by "interest rates." So you see, language is alive, and now anyone
                      claiming that usury = interest rates is considered a mad-man.

                      Turning full circle, this type of semantical discussion about semantics
                      reminds me of the "bootstrap theory" in the early days of quantum
                      physics: "It works, we are here, so there must be something holding us
                      together, one law that keeps the chaos of the subatomic world from
                      spreading into the atomic realm."

                      The question: are we arguing about semantics? Or about core issues that
                      may very well need a separation from old semantic habits?

                      Hmmm.

                      Best,

                      Leonardo

                      On Oct 2, 2007, at 12:39 PM, Marc Gauvin wrote:

                      > Errata in the conclusion of my last post:
                      >
                      > The issuance of CCs in exchange of wealth generates a peldge/debt to
                      > the community that if not honoured harms that commitment.
                      >
                      > should read:
                      >
                      > The issuance of CCs in exchange of wealth generates a peldge/debt to
                      > the community that if not honoured harms that <<community>>.
                      >
                      > Apologies,
                      >
                      > Marc
                      >
                      > ----- Original Message -----
                      > From: Marc Gauvin
                      > To: ijccr@yahoogroups.com
                      > Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 7:34 PM
                      > Subject: Re: [ijccr] Re: debts and commitments
                      >
                      > Ernie,
                      >
                      > You really need to work on your semantics. If you want to be teacher
                      > you need to be clear and unambiguous. I have no doubt that you are
                      > convinced of what you write but don't assume that others will gladly
                      > follow along because you have decided what is and what is not the
                      > bench mark in CC understanding.
                      >
                      > If you look at the distinction you make objectively, it easily can be
                      > passed off as a semantic ploy God knows to what end. For example:
                      >
                      > You wrote:
                      >
                      > debt: something that is owed or that one is bound to pay to or
                      > perform for
                      > another - you lend me $100, i owe you $100 - you sell me a book worth
                      > $10, and
                      > if i don't have the money, i owe you $10.
                      >
                      > Debt is not the "something that is owed" it is the commitment to pay
                      > measured in "the something" that often comes out of receiving
                      > something from the party to which the pledge is made but not always.
                      > As in the case of CCs the pledge is not to the forfeiter of the wealth
                      > or recipient of CCs but to the community at large. Either way, the
                      > debt or pledge is equally valid and failling to meet the commitment
                      > damages the community.
                      >
                      > Your definition of commitment contains the keyword "pledge" so that
                      > it is by no means incorrect to equate pledge to debt.
                      >
                      > Conclusion,
                      >
                      > The issuance of CCs in exchange of wealth generates a peldge/debt to
                      > the community that if not honoured harms that commitment.
                      >
                      > Best,
                      >
                      > Marc
                      >
                      > ----- Original Message -----
                      > From: ernie yacub
                      > To: ijccr@yahoogroups.com
                      > Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 6:54 AM
                      > Subject: [ijccr] Re: debts and commitments
                      >
                      > Marc Gauvin wrote:
                      > > Ernie,
                      > >
                      > > Please define "commitments" and "debt" so that we all can
                      > understand your nuance.
                      >
                      > debt: something that is owed or that one is bound to pay to or
                      > perform for
                      > another - you lend me $100, i owe you $100 - you sell me a book worth
                      > $10, and
                      > if i don't have the money, i owe you $10.
                      >
                      > commitment: a pledge or promise to the community in which the cc was
                      > issued -
                      > you give me the book, i pay you cc10 - you have cc10 which you can
                      > now spend and
                      > i have made a commitment to the community to provide goods and
                      > services in at
                      > least that amount.
                      >
                      > we'll be talking about these fundamentals on wednesday at 2pm on
                      > blogtalk radio
                      > - http://blogtalkradio.com/openmoney
                      >
                      > ey
                      >
                      > >
                      > > Marc
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > ----- Original Message -----
                      > > From: ernie yacub
                      > > To: Dont Panic ; ijccr@yahoogroups.com
                      > > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 7:50 PM
                      > > Subject: debts and commitments - Re: [ijccr] Re: Disturbing
                      > prognosis by Antal Fekete
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Dont Panic wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > If you are referring to debt of any kind, then you are mistaken.
                      > Even
                      > > > in an ideal economy, founded solely on clearing, debt is
                      > fundamental to
                      > > > the process. What, if not debts, are being cleared?
                      > >
                      > > commitments, if you're talking about an ideal economy, which would
                      > essentially
                      > > be one where mutual credit systems are ubiquitous.
                      > >
                      > > ey
                      >
                      >

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • marc_gauvin
                      Leonardo, In our work on definition of the @ currency, we have used the following definition: Debt in @: A commitment vis-à-vis the Community resulting from a
                      Message 10 of 14 , Oct 3, 2007
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Leonardo,

                        In our work on definition of the @ currency, we have used the
                        following definition:

                        Debt in @:

                        A commitment vis-à-vis the Community resulting from a negative
                        Balance to continue to deliver Wealth in any Transaction in the
                        future Accounted in @ until the Balance is no longer negative

                        The operative word is commitment, to separate the concept of
                        commitment from that of debt in order to qualify the commitment
                        frankly is splitting hairs. The definition of the @ currency
                        contemplates rules one of which is that you cannot close an account
                        with a negative balance, another rule is that balances are public
                        information while other details of transactions are private
                        information. The following is a list of the relevant definitions we
                        are using so far:

                        1 Definitions

                        @: A unit for representing transactions of Wealth

                        @-system : A set of definitions and rules for governing Transactions
                        of Wealth denominated in @

                        Account: A ledger that records the Balance between positive and
                        negative entries of @s resulting from Transactions of Wealth

                        Balance: The net value of an Account at any given point of time

                        Community: A set of Members

                        Credit: The adding of @ to one's Account Balance resulting from
                        delivering Wealth in a Transaction

                        Debit: The subtracting of @ from one's Account Balance resulting
                        from receiving Wealth in a Transaction

                        Debt in @: A commitment vis-à-vis the Community resulting from a
                        negative Balance to continue deliver Wealth in any Transaction in
                        the future Accounted in @ until the Balance is no longer negative

                        Member: A human or groups of humans belonging to the Community

                        Price: The number of @s used to represent a given Wealth in a
                        Transaction

                        Transaction: The process by which Wealth is transferred and
                        Accounted for in @ resulting in a Credit to the provider of Wealth
                        and Debit of equal magnitude to the receiver of Wealth

                        Wealth: Any goods or services transferable between two parties


                        There is no other way to dicuss these issues other than to agree on
                        definitions otherwise when new comers join they will end up having
                        these semantic sparring sessions that rarely ever are resolved to
                        the required level of satisfaction.

                        Marc




















                        --- In ijccr@yahoogroups.com, dlwild <dlwild@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Dear Marc, Ernie, et al,
                        >
                        > First of all, the problem is definitely semantics. Arguing about
                        > semantics can lead to clarifications, or to the loss of the core
                        issue
                        > being discussed. Most discussions on IJCCR happen to be about
                        > semantics, rather than core issues, or about understanding certain
                        > processes that as of late have had little to do with CC (it's been
                        more
                        > about money-as-we-know-it and the banking system at large).
                        >
                        > In German, in the olden days, when there wasn't a word that would
                        mean
                        > exactly what the author/philosopher intended, a new one was
                        invented.
                        > German is a very precise language, English, on the other hand, is
                        a
                        > very elastic and pliable language, one word can mean many things
                        (read
                        > some Shakespeare) depending on context or even point of view. If
                        you
                        > push on a word such as "commitment" you will find that it will
                        quite
                        > probably mean "debt." If you say "debt" in the CC context it has a
                        > different connotation (meaning) than in the non-alternative
                        economy.
                        > Debt in the CC "community" means commitment, debt in the
                        globalized
                        > economy means "your property is now mine" if a legal contract was
                        > signed for this to happen, as banks almost invariably do.
                        >
                        > Such connotations are worth arguing about if the purpose or goal
                        is to
                        > come to an agreement. If, however, the purpose is to find the
                        greatest
                        > distance from each other's worlds, then the ultimate purpose of
                        such
                        > argument is to argue for the sake of arguing rather for mutual
                        > clarification.
                        >
                        > Even saying "CC community" is a generalization, not to mention
                        that
                        > saying "CC" is yet another generalization. In Ernie's community,
                        the
                        > "local culture" has decide to make a difference between debt and
                        > commitment. At least this is what I read from Ernie's remarks, and
                        find
                        > it a very interesting idea -not a new one to me, by the way-,
                        which I
                        > would have used to find out more, rather than try to correct him
                        as to
                        > the semantics of the whole shabang. (Read Humberto Maturana, if
                        you
                        > wish, to find out what the biological roots of culture are: Love
                        and
                        > Play, The Forgotten Elements of the Humane).
                        >
                        > A "community" decides to create a membrane from the outside world
                        (even
                        > if an abstract one), in order to survive the onslaught of
                        impositions
                        > that are leading to misunderstandings as to our role as human
                        beings.
                        > CC is an attempt, small or large, depending on the local
                        situation, to
                        > side-step a trend that has led debt to mean "a pound of flesh
                        closest
                        > to the heart" (Shakespeare again, from The Merchant of Venice), a
                        trend
                        > that turned into a social dilemma in the late XVI hundreds, early
                        XVII
                        > hundreds. The argument wasn't about debt vs. commitment, but about
                        > usury vs no-usury ... which led to the term usury being subtly
                        replaced
                        > by "interest rates." So you see, language is alive, and now anyone
                        > claiming that usury = interest rates is considered a mad-man.
                        >
                        > Turning full circle, this type of semantical discussion about
                        semantics
                        > reminds me of the "bootstrap theory" in the early days of quantum
                        > physics: "It works, we are here, so there must be something
                        holding us
                        > together, one law that keeps the chaos of the subatomic world from
                        > spreading into the atomic realm."
                        >
                        > The question: are we arguing about semantics? Or about core issues
                        that
                        > may very well need a separation from old semantic habits?
                        >
                        > Hmmm.
                        >
                        > Best,
                        >
                        > Leonardo
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > On Oct 2, 2007, at 12:39 PM, Marc Gauvin wrote:
                        >
                        > > Errata in the conclusion of my last post:
                        > >
                        > > The issuance of CCs in exchange of wealth generates a
                        peldge/debt to
                        > > the community that if not honoured harms that commitment.
                        > >
                        > > should read:
                        > >
                        > > The issuance of CCs in exchange of wealth generates a
                        peldge/debt to
                        > > the community that if not honoured harms that <<community>>.
                        > >
                        > > Apologies,
                        > >
                        > > Marc
                        > >
                        > > ----- Original Message -----
                        > > From: Marc Gauvin
                        > > To: ijccr@yahoogroups.com
                        > > Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 7:34 PM
                        > > Subject: Re: [ijccr] Re: debts and commitments
                        > >
                        > > Ernie,
                        > >
                        > > You really need to work on your semantics. If you want to be
                        teacher
                        > > you need to be clear and unambiguous. I have no doubt that you
                        are
                        > > convinced of what you write but don't assume that others will
                        gladly
                        > > follow along because you have decided what is and what is not
                        the
                        > > bench mark in CC understanding.
                        > >
                        > > If you look at the distinction you make objectively, it easily
                        can be
                        > > passed off as a semantic ploy God knows to what end. For example:
                        > >
                        > > You wrote:
                        > >
                        > > debt: something that is owed or that one is bound to pay to or
                        > > perform for
                        > > another - you lend me $100, i owe you $100 - you sell me a book
                        worth
                        > > $10, and
                        > > if i don't have the money, i owe you $10.
                        > >
                        > > Debt is not the "something that is owed" it is the commitment
                        to pay
                        > > measured in "the something" that often comes out of receiving
                        > > something from the party to which the pledge is made but not
                        always.
                        > > As in the case of CCs the pledge is not to the forfeiter of the
                        wealth
                        > > or recipient of CCs but to the community at large. Either way,
                        the
                        > > debt or pledge is equally valid and failling to meet the
                        commitment
                        > > damages the community.
                        > >
                        > > Your definition of commitment contains the keyword "pledge" so
                        that
                        > > it is by no means incorrect to equate pledge to debt.
                        > >
                        > > Conclusion,
                        > >
                        > > The issuance of CCs in exchange of wealth generates a
                        peldge/debt to
                        > > the community that if not honoured harms that commitment.
                        > >
                        > > Best,
                        > >
                        > > Marc
                        > >
                        > > ----- Original Message -----
                        > > From: ernie yacub
                        > > To: ijccr@yahoogroups.com
                        > > Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 6:54 AM
                        > > Subject: [ijccr] Re: debts and commitments
                        > >
                        > > Marc Gauvin wrote:
                        > > > Ernie,
                        > > >
                        > > > Please define "commitments" and "debt" so that we all can
                        > > understand your nuance.
                        > >
                        > > debt: something that is owed or that one is bound to pay to or
                        > > perform for
                        > > another - you lend me $100, i owe you $100 - you sell me a book
                        worth
                        > > $10, and
                        > > if i don't have the money, i owe you $10.
                        > >
                        > > commitment: a pledge or promise to the community in which the
                        cc was
                        > > issued -
                        > > you give me the book, i pay you cc10 - you have cc10 which you
                        can
                        > > now spend and
                        > > i have made a commitment to the community to provide goods and
                        > > services in at
                        > > least that amount.
                        > >
                        > > we'll be talking about these fundamentals on wednesday at 2pm
                        on
                        > > blogtalk radio
                        > > - http://blogtalkradio.com/openmoney
                        > >
                        > > ey
                        > >
                        > > >
                        > > > Marc
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > ----- Original Message -----
                        > > > From: ernie yacub
                        > > > To: Dont Panic ; ijccr@yahoogroups.com
                        > > > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 7:50 PM
                        > > > Subject: debts and commitments - Re: [ijccr] Re: Disturbing
                        > > prognosis by Antal Fekete
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > Dont Panic wrote:
                        > > > >
                        > > > > If you are referring to debt of any kind, then you are
                        mistaken.
                        > > Even
                        > > > > in an ideal economy, founded solely on clearing, debt is
                        > > fundamental to
                        > > > > the process. What, if not debts, are being cleared?
                        > > >
                        > > > commitments, if you're talking about an ideal economy, which
                        would
                        > > essentially
                        > > > be one where mutual credit systems are ubiquitous.
                        > > >
                        > > > ey
                        > >
                        > >
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                      • Marc Gauvin
                        Graeme, Thanks for your comments we did define Wealth as follows: Wealth Any goods or services transferable between two parties But I am fine with the term
                        Message 11 of 14 , Oct 7, 2007
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Graeme,

                          Thanks for your comments we did define Wealth as follows:

                          Wealth
                          Any goods or services transferable between two parties

                          But I am fine with the term Value in lieu of Wealth.

                          Best,

                          Marc
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: Graeme Taylor
                          To: Marc Gauvin
                          Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2007 1:47 PM
                          Subject: Re: [ijccr] SEMANTICS (AKA Re: debts and commitments)


                          Marc

                          just for your information, where you write

                          Transaction
                          The process by which Wealth is transferred and Accounted for in @ resulting in a Credit to the provider of Wealth and Debit of equal magnitude to the receiver of Wealth

                          By being so specific here, your definitions for @ infer that transaction fees or any tithed proportion are prohibited.

                          Also, the term 'wealth' would be bettered served by 'value'.

                          Some services provided may not usually be regarded as wealth, so 'value' seems a more inclusive term for what is the function of @.
                          Dandenong Ranges Local Energy Transfer System describe it as energy transfers

                          cheers

                          Graeme T
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: Marc Gauvin
                          To: list- IJCCR
                          Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 3:03 AM
                          Subject: Re: [ijccr] SEMANTICS (AKA Re: debts and commitments)


                          Leonardo,

                          In our work on definition of the @ currency, we have used the following definition:

                          Debt in @
                          A commitment vis-à-vis the Community resulting from a negative Balance to continue to deliver Wealth in any Transaction in the future Accounted in @ until the Balance is no longer negative


                          The operative word is commitment, to separate the concept of commitment from that of debt in order to qualify the commitment frankly is splitting hairs. The definition of the @ currency contemplates rules one of which is that you cannot close an account with a negative balance, another rule is that balances are public information while other details of transactions are private information. The following is a list of the relevant definitions we are using so far:

                          1 Definitions


                          @
                          A unit for representing transactions of Wealth

                          @-system
                          A set of definitions and rules for governing Transactions of Wealth denominated in @

                          Account
                          A ledger that records the Balance between positive and negative entries of @s resulting from Transactions of Wealth

                          Balance
                          The net value of an Account at any given point of time

                          Community
                          A set of Members

                          Credit
                          The adding of @ to one's Account Balance resulting from delivering Wealth in a Transaction

                          Debit
                          The subtracting of @ from one's Account Balance resulting from receiving Wealth in a Transaction

                          Debt in @
                          A commitment vis-à-vis the Community resulting from a negative Balance to continue deliver Wealth in any Transaction in the future Accounted in @ until the Balance is no longer negative

                          Member
                          A human or groups of humans belonging to the Community

                          Price
                          The number of @s used to represent a given Wealth in a Transaction

                          Transaction
                          The process by which Wealth is transferred and Accounted for in @ resulting in a Credit to the provider of Wealth and Debit of equal magnitude to the receiver of Wealth

                          Wealth
                          Any goods or services transferable between two parties


                          There is no other way to dicuss these issues other than to agree on definitions otherwise when new comers join they will end up having these semantic sparring sessions that rarely ever are resolved to the required level of satisfaction.

                          Marc

                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: dlwild
                          To: list- IJCCR
                          Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 4:55 AM
                          Subject: [ijccr] SEMANTICS (AKA Re: debts and commitments)

                          Dear Marc, Ernie, et al,

                          First of all, the problem is definitely semantics. Arguing about
                          semantics can lead to clarifications, or to the loss of the core issue
                          being discussed. Most discussions on IJCCR happen to be about
                          semantics, rather than core issues, or about understanding certain
                          processes that as of late have had little to do with CC (it's been more
                          about money-as-we-know-it and the banking system at large).

                          In German, in the olden days, when there wasn't a word that would mean
                          exactly what the author/philosopher intended, a new one was invented.
                          German is a very precise language, English, on the other hand, is a
                          very elastic and pliable language, one word can mean many things (read
                          some Shakespeare) depending on context or even point of view. If you
                          push on a word such as "commitment" you will find that it will quite
                          probably mean "debt." If you say "debt" in the CC context it has a
                          different connotation (meaning) than in the non-alternative economy.
                          Debt in the CC "community" means commitment, debt in the globalized
                          economy means "your property is now mine" if a legal contract was
                          signed for this to happen, as banks almost invariably do.

                          Such connotations are worth arguing about if the purpose or goal is to
                          come to an agreement. If, however, the purpose is to find the greatest
                          distance from each other's worlds, then the ultimate purpose of such
                          argument is to argue for the sake of arguing rather for mutual
                          clarification.

                          Even saying "CC community" is a generalization, not to mention that
                          saying "CC" is yet another generalization. In Ernie's community, the
                          "local culture" has decide to make a difference between debt and
                          commitment. At least this is what I read from Ernie's remarks, and find
                          it a very interesting idea -not a new one to me, by the way-, which I
                          would have used to find out more, rather than try to correct him as to
                          the semantics of the whole shabang. (Read Humberto Maturana, if you
                          wish, to find out what the biological roots of culture are: Love and
                          Play, The Forgotten Elements of the Humane).

                          A "community" decides to create a membrane from the outside world (even
                          if an abstract one), in order to survive the onslaught of impositions
                          that are leading to misunderstandings as to our role as human beings.
                          CC is an attempt, small or large, depending on the local situation, to
                          side-step a trend that has led debt to mean "a pound of flesh closest
                          to the heart" (Shakespeare again, from The Merchant of Venice), a trend
                          that turned into a social dilemma in the late XVI hundreds, early XVII
                          hundreds. The argument wasn't about debt vs. commitment, but about
                          usury vs no-usury ... which led to the term usury being subtly replaced
                          by "interest rates." So you see, language is alive, and now anyone
                          claiming that usury = interest rates is considered a mad-man.

                          Turning full circle, this type of semantical discussion about semantics
                          reminds me of the "bootstrap theory" in the early days of quantum
                          physics: "It works, we are here, so there must be something holding us
                          together, one law that keeps the chaos of the subatomic world from
                          spreading into the atomic realm."

                          The question: are we arguing about semantics? Or about core issues that
                          may very well need a separation from old semantic habits?

                          Hmmm.

                          Best,

                          Leonardo

                          On Oct 2, 2007, at 12:39 PM, Marc Gauvin wrote:

                          > Errata in the conclusion of my last post:
                          >
                          > The issuance of CCs in exchange of wealth generates a peldge/debt to
                          > the community that if not honoured harms that commitment.
                          >
                          > should read:
                          >
                          > The issuance of CCs in exchange of wealth generates a peldge/debt to
                          > the community that if not honoured harms that <<community>>.
                          >
                          > Apologies,
                          >
                          > Marc
                          >
                          > ----- Original Message -----
                          > From: Marc Gauvin
                          > To: ijccr@yahoogroups.com
                          > Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 7:34 PM
                          > Subject: Re: [ijccr] Re: debts and commitments
                          >
                          > Ernie,
                          >
                          > You really need to work on your semantics. If you want to be teacher
                          > you need to be clear and unambiguous. I have no doubt that you are
                          > convinced of what you write but don't assume that others will gladly
                          > follow along because you have decided what is and what is not the
                          > bench mark in CC understanding.
                          >
                          > If you look at the distinction you make objectively, it easily can be
                          > passed off as a semantic ploy God knows to what end. For example:
                          >
                          > You wrote:
                          >
                          > debt: something that is owed or that one is bound to pay to or
                          > perform for
                          > another - you lend me $100, i owe you $100 - you sell me a book worth
                          > $10, and
                          > if i don't have the money, i owe you $10.
                          >
                          > Debt is not the "something that is owed" it is the commitment to pay
                          > measured in "the something" that often comes out of receiving
                          > something from the party to which the pledge is made but not always.
                          > As in the case of CCs the pledge is not to the forfeiter of the wealth
                          > or recipient of CCs but to the community at large. Either way, the
                          > debt or pledge is equally valid and failling to meet the commitment
                          > damages the community.
                          >
                          > Your definition of commitment contains the keyword "pledge" so that
                          > it is by no means incorrect to equate pledge to debt.
                          >
                          > Conclusion,
                          >
                          > The issuance of CCs in exchange of wealth generates a peldge/debt to
                          > the community that if not honoured harms that commitment.
                          >
                          > Best,
                          >
                          > Marc
                          >
                          > ----- Original Message -----
                          > From: ernie yacub
                          > To: ijccr@yahoogroups.com
                          > Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 6:54 AM
                          > Subject: [ijccr] Re: debts and commitments
                          >
                          > Marc Gauvin wrote:
                          > > Ernie,
                          > >
                          > > Please define "commitments" and "debt" so that we all can
                          > understand your nuance.
                          >
                          > debt: something that is owed or that one is bound to pay to or
                          > perform for
                          > another - you lend me $100, i owe you $100 - you sell me a book worth
                          > $10, and
                          > if i don't have the money, i owe you $10.
                          >
                          > commitment: a pledge or promise to the community in which the cc was
                          > issued -
                          > you give me the book, i pay you cc10 - you have cc10 which you can
                          > now spend and
                          > i have made a commitment to the community to provide goods and
                          > services in at
                          > least that amount.
                          >
                          > we'll be talking about these fundamentals on wednesday at 2pm on
                          > blogtalk radio
                          > - http://blogtalkradio.com/openmoney
                          >
                          > ey
                          >
                          > >
                          > > Marc
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > ----- Original Message -----
                          > > From: ernie yacub
                          > > To: Dont Panic ; ijccr@yahoogroups.com
                          > > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 7:50 PM
                          > > Subject: debts and commitments - Re: [ijccr] Re: Disturbing
                          > prognosis by Antal Fekete
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > Dont Panic wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > > If you are referring to debt of any kind, then you are mistaken.
                          > Even
                          > > > in an ideal economy, founded solely on clearing, debt is
                          > fundamental to
                          > > > the process. What, if not debts, are being cleared?
                          > >
                          > > commitments, if you're talking about an ideal economy, which would
                          > essentially
                          > > be one where mutual credit systems are ubiquitous.
                          > >
                          > > ey
                          >
                          >

                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------


                          No virus found in this incoming message.
                          Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                          Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.3/1054 - Release Date: 6/10/2007 7:12 PM


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.