>Re: TURMEL: Daniel Reeves says interest is simple but can't
>Posted by: "Graeme Taylor" telergy@...
>Date: Wed Jul 4, 2007 12:27 am ((PDT))

GT: How can 10 pay 11? When a Fractional Reserve loan is
created, the new money created "out of thin air" is
gradually written off again, until the principle is repaid.
But there is extra money needed to pay for the interest,
which is likewise created "out of thin air", or some might
say, by legal contract.

JCT: The money for the interest is not created, that's my
beef. Sure, the debt for the interest is added to the debt
for the money principle but you can't say the interest is
"created out of thin air" like the chips are created out of
thin air.

GT: "We the proles" have to scramble around to get this
additional money, whether it be for the principal or the
interest. If no new FR money was to be created, (and it
probably needs to be in every country), and "we the proles"
are still expected to pay out our existing FR loans, it
would hit the fan. But banks keep lending money. Maybe them
"economists" decide to raise interest rates. There are
winners, and there are losers. The winners are a small few
with licences to make manifest "legal tender". The losers
are "we the proles".
Hence the notion of CCs with zero or minus interest.

JCT: Minus interest causes unnecessary instability.

It is just possible that John and Daniel are both correct.

JCT: No, we can't both be correct. Either usury is payable
or it's not. It can be both. Daniel says it can be paid, I
say it can't.

One is writing about "loans" and one is writing about
"money". cheers Graeme Taylor.

JCT: No, I'm saying money is tokens to facilitate exchange,
Daniel's saying money is a "way" to facilitate exchange.

>Re: TURMEL: Daniel Reeves says interest is simple but can't
>by: "new_economics" new_economics@... new_economics
>Date: Wed Jul 4, 2007 10:01 am ((PDT))

"JCT: Presuming you can pay off both the principle
and the interest when you only got the principle is,
fundamentally, as simple as that. Har har har har."

NE: Please, the word is spelled p_r_i_n_c_i_p_A_L
when referring to the principal of a loan.

JCT: Wow, considering how many "Principal + Interest"
equations I've written, I never thought I'd make that
blooper again.

NE: But you, meaning the economy as a whole, have both
the principal plus the interest required to repay the
loan, because the lenders are spending the interest
they are earning back into the economy, just as any
recipient of income is spending his income. There is
absolutely no difference whatsoever.

JCT: The economy which borrowed only the Principal (P) into
circulation has the principal and interest (P+I) required to
pay the loan! It can be paid because the lenders are
spending it back into the economy is the point
Ryan\Kline\Hogbreath kept trying to make but when asked to
produce a payment schedule showing how it could be done in a
1-person loan, could not. The impossibility of the usury
just happens to be hidden within the "whole economy" New
Economy wants us to look at. So if bank debt is payable, why
are there so many foreclosures? "Inefficiency" is all those
who see only the whole can answer. That it is impossible for
mankind to run money efficiently enough so that all the
suffering going on around via exponential debt doesn't have
to be suffered.
So the point is made that the bankers have it within their
power to let the borrowers live, just by granting new
credits. Yes. It's true. It lets borrowers continue, but in
greater debt. Yes, bankers can let those enterprises live. I
never said they didn't have that power of life over
borrowers.
But the issue isn't that bankers can forestall the death in
the deathgamble by extending new credits and it's all hidden
within the "whole economy." New credits are coming in is all
that needs to be chanted, not whether it's enough to solve
the problem.
So, yes, the bankers have the power to create new credits to
let corporations live. But that's my beef. It also gives
them the power to let some corporations die. Then be sold
off at auction to those corporations they let live. It's the
power of life and death over industrial activity and it look
at what has resulted from leaving that power in private
hands.
Megadeaths due to the industrial inefficiency of the
Rothschild family, the Rockefeller family. Those poor rich
bankers had control of what their banks would finance and
instead of financing a Heaven on Earth, those poor bankers
have been saddled with the Crime of the Twentieth Century.
The Rothschild family are pretty well responsible for the
mess they made of the Nineteenth century full of wars and
genocides. Not a record to be proud of. But they shouldn't
have been left in control of the life-and-death lever of
finance. If they screwed up the planet, some other rich
family would have. But I bet that when the software for Our
Father's Heaven is installed, a lot of the Rothschilds and
Rockefellers will want to want to change their names. How
many "Hitlers" have you seen in the phone book from the past
century? Want to bet how many Rothschilds you'll find in the
phone book after the next century.
So yes, the Rothschild and Rockefellers had it in their
power to allow the system to reach steady state "no death"
in their death-gamble. But they would have sure had to spend
a lot and I just don't see 1% of families being able to
spend the 90% of the money they have. Sure, Rockefeller
would love to spend his billion in interest back but there's
just so much he can use.

My point is that the impossibility inherent in the death-
gamble contract cannot be forestalled in a 1-man game. Sure,
in the "whole economy," others can lose the principal they
brought into the game so the rest can pay their principal
and the interest but it takes losers for others to survive.
Sure, bankers can create new credits to let the losers
survive a little longer but eventually, it can't be
sustained. That's why I offer my billion to one odds, $1000
Canadian to 1 Turkish Lira, the other way around.
I don't bet that interest kills so opponents can argue it
doesn't necessarily kill when bankers can let you live. I
bet that "no interest does not kill" so opponents can argue
that "no interest does kill too." It doesn't. So establish a
no interest system and you've gotten rid of the death that
no longer needs to be averted by mercy from your banker.

So New Economy says that because bankers spend their
interest back, it solves the problem. And of course, I bet
Ryan/Kline and anyone else to provide a payment schedule for
1000 coins loaned to me on my island that left me debt-free
and no one could. They always ran up against the last cycle
where there's not enough for the last interest payment.

NE: because the lenders are spending the interest they are
earning back into the economy, just as any recipient of
income is spending his income. There is absolutely no
difference whatsoever.

JCT: No difference between lender spending the interest as a
worker spending his income? The worker gets and spends his
income independent of the loan cycle, the banker receives
and spends his interest income at the end of and after the
loan cycle.

NE: The individual borrower must earn the amount equivalent
to the interest plus the principal from the economy as a
whole in order to fully amortize his loan.

JCT: All borrowers compete, not just "the individual
borrower must earn the amount equivalent to the interest
plus the principal from the economy as a whole in order to
fully amortize his loan." But all borrowers, like the one
borrower, only borrowed the principal into circulation at
the time of the loan. Forget the over-all picture, the over-
all problem of the group of borrowers who all left the pump
house with P gallons of liquidity in order to compete in the
economic pool and all must come back to the pumphouse bank
with P+I to amortize their death-gamble mort-gages.
Sure, forget the big picture, look only at one individual
and then rely on the big picture to provide enough to
satisfy the debt. Har har har.

NE: Too many har har hars here from an apparent ignoramus,
John. Myro

JCT: Such temerity to call the Professor on on banking
systems engineering an "ignoramus" on the basis of a
spelling blooper. Until you can put your money where your
mouth is and provide a payment schedule in coins or deal
with the the over-all problem of all borrowers and the
pumphouse, you better keep your wrong opinions to yourself.
You're connected with the New Economics Foundation?

>Re: TURMEL: Daniel Reeves says interest is simple but can't
>by: "Daniel Reeves" dreeves@... pegarmpaul
>Date: Wed Jul 4, 2007 11:23 pm ((PDT))

DR: I think Myro just won John's bet. To spell it out:

Day 1: Lender gives me 10 tokens. Hurray tokens!
Day 2: I pay back the first 5 tokens.
Day 3: I do the lender's dishes, for which she pays me one
token.
Day 4: I pay back another 5 tokens.
Day 5: Lo! I still have a token! I pay it to the lender.
10 loaned, 11 repaid.
(Meta-bet: $200 says John won't pay up. :)

JCT: Meta-bet I won't pay up before taking my $100US bet on
the issue? I could take the bet, admit I'm wrong, send the
$100 for being wrong about usury, and collect the $200
for being right about paying my gambling debts.
Catching a middle, (where you can't lose) is always a
tempting offer so I'll take that bet.
But first, Daniel has to say
"I bet $100 that I've proven I can borrow 10 and repay 11."

Then we'll both drop our bets in the mail to the only other
person on this list to comment so far, Graeme Taylor, and
when he has both our bets, I will try to take your proof
apart. Graeme, will you hold our bets?

DR: Possible objection to my timeline: the lender may refuse
the dishes deal on day 3.

JCT: No, let the lender be your mama who's trying to help
you. She just started a mail-order bank branch on your
island and you are her first and only customer. Mama really
wants you to be able to pay back both the 10 you got in
principal from her new ATM as well as the 11th you didn't
get for the interest. She'll help you in any way she can
because, 2000 years ago, you'd be taken away as a slave for
your failure. So she really really does not want you to end
up enslaves and will do anything she can to help you pay
back 11 when the ATM only spit out 10.

DR: But then what's the point of lending me tokens if she's
not going to get anything out of it? She gets to call me
her debt slave? Great, what's that supposed to mean? The
whole point of borrowing 10 tokens and promising to pay back
11 is because I believe I can earn that extra token. If I
can't and I default then the joke's on the lender. Or if I
put up collateral worth 11 tokens and the lender takes it,
then fine, loan repaid as agreed.

JCT: Like I said, your mama wants to help settle the mort-
gage death-gamble she got you into.


JCT: So, after Daniel proffered a bet that the TajProfessor
"Great Canadian Gambler" won't pay up now that he has
unveiled his proof to win that bet, what can I do before
taking on his supposed solution to the death-gamble dilemma
but flash the cash and expect to say "bye bye trash.

>Article #4453 (4454 is last):
>From: David Johnston <david@...>
>Newsgroups: alt.fan.john-turmel,can.politics,can.legal,
>alt.drugs,sci.econ,sci.engr,alt.conspiracy
>Subject: Re: TURMEL: Daniel Reeves says interest is simple
>Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 04:02:35 GMT

On 4 Jul 2007 (John Turmel) wrote:

>So Daniel can't provide a simple 3- or 2-payment schedule
>to show how a person alone on his island can pay off all
>the coins owed, the principle and interest on his debt, but
>wants us to assume a solution.

DJ: The answer to the problem is to give the lender a
coconut.

JCT: Yes, it would be nice if you could pay your bank loan
with products too. But you can't. It takes only tokens. So
it's not an answer.

DJ: Thus you have paid the interest on the loan.

JCT: No, you paid something but not interest. Interest is
growth demanded on the original substance. This is why
moderate interest on cows that have babies is payable but 1%
usury on gold, paper, credits that has no babies is not.


--
Abolitionist Debt Slave Leader John C."The Banking Systems Engineer"
Turmel for UNILETS interest-free time-based currency in U.N. resolution
C6 to Governments in the http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel USENET blog: alt.fan.john-turmel