TURMEL: Social Credit Debate among Friends #18
John Turmel
>Date: Sun Jun 6 16:56:08 1999
>From: william...@hotmail.com ("William B.Ryan")
>SEVENTH REJOINDER, NINTH ADDENDUM
>>"...When it comes to fraudulent performances, I'd point out that
>>you're the guy who told us there are expanding nodalities which is
>>false. And you're the guy who said there are front-end mortgages
>>where the banker lends you not only the principal but also the
>>interest which also seems false..."
>This says a lot about your gambler's debating technique, which is
>mostly bluff and bluster.
JCT: I'm the guy who bet you couldn't point out any real-world
nodality nor any flaws in LETS. If it's a bluff, why are you folding?
>In the real world, interest may be paid at the beginning, where it is
>taken off in the form of "points." It may be paid during the loan,
>where it is "amortized" by being added to principal as it is repaid.
>It may be added to the end in the form of a "balloon" payment. It
>may be skewed so that more is paid up-front, or it may be skewed so
>that more is paid towards the end. It's all a matter of accounting.
JCT: You keep repeating this. We keep asking you to tell us one
place where we can get such a loan? Why are you folding?
>It doesn't really matter what's counted as interest and what's
>counted as principal in the macroeconomic sense, when there are many
>overlapping loans. It all works out the same. Interest is not a
>"positive feedback" but is simply income going to the banker, who
>spends it like anyone else spends his income.
JCT: I've pointed out a difference between interest and service
charge in the examples at the bankmath.htm page which most other
people can see you fail to.
>As to your assertion that there are not front-loaded loans, it is
>actually a fairly common practice, particularly in the real estate
>industry.
JCT: I didn't say there were no front-loaded loans. I actually
said I hoped you could produce proof there were. So far, you haven't
backed up what you say so why should I believe you?
>But the point is, it doesn't matter, if there are many overlapping
>loans. It works out the same.
JCT: It doesn't work out the same in the example that you fail to
grasp. Can anyone else try to explain the difference to him. I can't.
>>And what crank theory is that? LETS? I'm just saying Quebec Social
>>Credit teaches that credit can't be social if there's any interest."
>And all you've done is rename interest "service charge."
JCT: After pointing out the difference so many times, I'm truly
amazed that you still keep repeating that you see no difference. Of
course, it does point out that you still refuse to test out the game
theory example which makes the concept so elementary.
>LETS banking differs from orthodox banking only in that it is
>co-operative, with no profit going to the banker.
JCT: Sure there's a service charge going to the banker. The
banker gets paid for his time and effort. Mark up one critique of LETS
that fails.
>A LETS bank cannot avoid the same expenses and costs that are
>incurred by orthodox banks.
JCT: LETS does not try to avoid the same expenses as banks. It
just pays for them with a pure service charge rather interest. Another
critique that fails.
>Foremost is the risk of default, that some loans will not be repaid.
>Loans that default must be compensated by those who do not default.
JCT: Almost no one defaults on time they owe unless they die in
which case the system can easily pro-rate the loss over all accounts.
Another critique that fails.
>Whether these increased payments, over and above lent principal, are
>called "service charges" or "interest" is irrelevant to the
>discussion.
JCT: This goes to prove that the man with one eye is master in
the land of the blind. Just because you're blind is no proof that
others can't see the difference.
>Seen this way, interest is a form of insurance premium that
>contributes to a fund to cover bad loans.
JCT: Seen in this way, service charge is a form of insurance
premium that contributes to a fund to cover bad loans. Another
critique that fails.
>Any bank, LETS or otherwise, that does not accumulate such a fund in
>the form of reserves is operating on an unsound basis, and is doomed
>to failure.
JCT: LETS doesn't need to amass such a fund up front. It can
collected pro-rated shares only when the default occurs. Another
critique that fails.
>>>And why even 'reference' Kreyszig's text or any other engineering
>>>text at all, except to lend credence to your bogus claim to being
>>>an engineer?"
>>I don't think too many people aren't convinced that I'm a qualified
>>engineer. Didn't I know that your nodality theory violated
>>Kirchoff's Law? As Wes [Burt] pointed out, it's not something that
>>the average layman learns and it's obvious you never learned it at
>>all."
>Kirchoff's Law refers to current flow in electrical circuits, and
>has absolutely no relevance to the subject we are discussing.
JCT: Kirchoff's Law applies to nodes in real-world nodes for
electrical or financial circuits. To say that financial circuits can't
be modelled with electrical, or even plumbing, circuits is silly. As
usual.
>The fact that you would even import Kirchoff into our discussion is
>persuasive evidence of your complete incompetence as an "electrical
>engineer."
JCT: The fact I would use Kirchoff's Law to disprove your
nodality hypothesis is good engineering.
>In any case, the operative word is "nodality" and not "node."
JCT: Oh yes. Your ever expanding black hole that money disappears
into. Interesting theory but after repeated demands, you've not once
shown us a nodality in the real world.
>The "nodality" in question refers to a "black box" that has inputs
>and outputs, where the outputs are functionally related to the
>dynamical characteristics of the "black box." Bill Ryan
How many times have I asked you to provide us with one example of
a real-world nodality? Five? Ten? Fifteen times? Until you show us a
real-world "expanding nodality," I'd prefer to trust that Kirchoff's
Law applies to the financial circuit as readily as it applies to
electrical circuits and you don't know what you're talking about.
--
John C. "The Engineer" Turmel, Founder, Abolitionist Party of Canada
915-2045 Carling Ave., Ottawa, K2A 1G5, Tel/Fax: 613-728-2196
LETS Abolish Interest Rates http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
For TURMEL topic http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/lets