[GJM] corporate sociopath

Tue Nov 21 04:22:25 MST 2006

Dear Mr. Hattersley,

          I agree. People would still get into debt
irrespective of whether interest exists, or not. This
is especially true in rich countries for obvious
reasons. There may well be safeguards which could be
introduced. 

However, I do not think it is important enough to
warrant ignoring  the REALLY BIG ISSUE, and that  is
the present plight of humanity, and whether we can be
fully sustainable on this planet. With massive
"bribes" notably for coporations to reform themselves
we have a better chance of survival at a record speed
otherwise things could go completely awry, and may
return to a more "stone-age" type economy.

I should point out that in business if you sell a
product which costs virtually zero to produce, and
then sell it at a higher price you are in profit. In
many respects, this is morally reprehensible but it is
still legal.. A more radical  example is ofcourse the
banking system which you write of.

At the end of the day, we have to ask the vital
question. Is the survival of the human race more, or
less important than the banking system? We have to
jump off the moral high horse for now......but we can
still fight another day when the transfinancial
economy becomes a reality. NGOs concerned with such
issues would be better equipped financially, and thus,
become a greater influence in society. However, they
may not be able to achieve much especially if the
banks create interest free loans....and even free
services...

Remember money itself exists in the main as authorized
electronic transmissions from one account to another.
Remmember too that it is the power which controls the
use, and misuse of limited resources.

Regards,

Robert Searle

And 
--- Martin Hattersley <hattersleyjm at interbaun.com>
wrote:

> Robert - you say:
> 
> " We have little time to waste on high moral
> arguments about the present financial system. It can
> still create loans but these would be interest free"
> 
> The problem is that the situation causing the debt
> problem in our society 
> has very little to do with the charging of interest:
> it has everything to do 
> with the manufacture of money through debt by the
> banking system.
> 
> It is as if the printer of banknotes charged the
> face value of those notes 
> to the public, instead of the cost of printing, and
> then graciously allowed 
> us to pay that full face value by instalments over
> the years, so that we 
> temporarily had some money in our pockets to keep
> the economy moving, but in 
> the end would be as penniless as before unless we
> took another loan.
> 
> I don't see that TFE, if it allows the banks to
> continue banking in this 
> manner even without charging interest, solves the
> situation.
> 
> Martin Hattersley
> 5929 - 189 St.,
> EDMONTON AB CANADA T6M 2J1
> 
> jmartinh at shaw.ca
> e-mail: hattersleyjm at interbaun.com
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "robert searle" <dharao4 at yahoo.co.uk>
> To: "Discussion Forum for Global Justice" 
> <discussion at globaljusticemovement.net>
> Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 4:05 AM
> Subject: Re: [GJM] corporate sociopath
> 
> 
> > Dear All,
> >
> >          At last we are beginning to see people
> > talking sense on this Forum. There is only one
> real
> > solution to many of our problems. It is called
> > Transfinancial Economics. If people focused their
> > minds on this they would be getting
> > somewhere....otherwise the "usual suspects" of
> land
> > tax reform, LETS, social credit,new economics, et
> al
> > are not really upto the job of creating massive
> > positive changes in society, the economy, and
> politics
> > necessary for your survival.
> >
> > What is now more credible about TFE, and makes it
> a
> > very promising proposal indeed is that we can work
> > with the banks, and corporations rather than
> against
> > them. We have little time to waste on high moral
> > arguments about the present financial system. It
> can
> > still create loans but these would be interest
> free
> > authority.
> >
> >
> > Robert Searle
> >
> >
> >
> > --- marguerite hampton <ecopilgrim at aabol.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> "corporate sociopath"
> >> Posted by: "lurban kohler" lurbankohler at yahoo.com
> >> Sat Nov 18, 2006 4:48 pm (PST)
> >> Urban wrote in part:
> >>
> >> In case you read this Eco, your response to the
> >> building of the future, that it would cost too
> much,
> >> makes me feel somehow we need to be reminded
> money
> >> has
> >> no actual value, therefore NO amount is excessive
> if
> >> spent to create a sustainable planet. Money is a
> >> human
> >> artifact. It's power has been hijacked by the
> dark
> >> side. Were the forces of "light" to regain
> control
> >> of
> >> this power, surely we should be as willing to
> employ
> >> its magic to sustain the earth as are the forces
> of
> >> darkness which control it now willing to employ
> it
> >> to destroy!
> >>
> >> eco:  I seem to be back in the good graces of
> Yahoo
> >> again and am receiving posts and am as well able
> to
> >> post to Yahoo lists.
> >>
> >> Urban, what I was attempting to say here is that
> in
> >> the present circumstances -- the way the GMS is
> >> set up, money does have value and is bought and
> >> sold like any other commodity.  This is why we
> pay
> >> points to acquire a loan.  Which is a very large
> >> part of the problem.  Also, in the manner in
> which
> >> production is structured today, the "external
> costs'
> >> are largely ignored.  What I mean by external
> costs
> >> are negative effects on the environment and
> >> consequently
> >> on the human family.  These effects went largely
> >> unoticed
> >> for thousands of years, but have finally caught
> up
> >> to us
> >> where they can no longer be ignored.  Global
> climate
> >> change has a very large profile.  So, remediation
> >> costs
> >> which should have been included in the initial
> >> pricing of
> >> the product were not included.  Consequently, we
> are
> >> faced with a barrage of remediation costs
> >> accumulated
> >> over thousands of years and which the Stern
> Report
> >> fortells will be in the trillions of dollars as
> we
> >> attempt to
> >> deal with global climate change.
> >>
> >>           One of the things we have to come to
> grips
> >> with is that
> >>           whatever activity the human family
> does,
> >> there is a
> >>           negative impact on the environment
> whether
> >> that activity
> >>           be raising food or building structures.
> >> And advanced
> >>           technology comes with a higher price
> tag
> >> than does
> >>           simpler forms of technology such as
> >> building a grass hut
> >>           using human labor vs building the type
> of
> >> structure Reinhold
> >>           proposes using advanced technology. 
> So,
> >> whatever the
> >>           structure Reinhold proposes does when
> it
> >> is completed,
> >>           there are still negative external costs
> >> attached that will
> >>           quite probably be ignored as always. 
> Most
> >> of these costs
> >>           will be associated with materials
> >> acquisition, but dependent
> >>           upon what type of energy is utilized
> some
> >> external costs will
> >>            be energy-related.  Which is one
> reason
> >> we need Zero Point
> >>            Energy as it is known to be relatively
> >> free of external costs
> >>            compared to wind or solar power.
> >>
> >>            I just viewed 25 windmills put into
> >> action by the Kumeyaay
> >>            Tribe of Campo Indians here.  The cost
> of
> >> constuction for
> >>             this operation was $75 million
> dollars
> >> excluding the negative
> 
=== message truncated ===

___________________________________________________________ 
Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier to use" – The Wall Street Journal 
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html