[GJM] Not in the First World War
chris cook
cojock at hotmail.com
Sat Jan 19 05:01:50 MST 2008
Dear Rodney
I've always said you're a bit of a Boer! ;-)
Chris
From: rodney.shakespeare1 at btinternet.com
To: discussion at globaljusticemovement.net
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 11:25:47 +0000
Subject: [GJM] Not in the First World War
Dear All,
My daughter has just informed me I was not in the
First World War. I always accept her opinion on this sort of matter.
She says it was the one before.
Rodney Shakespeare.
----- Original Message -----
From:
Rodney Shakespeare
To: Discussion Forum for Global
Justice
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 10:36
AM
Subject: [GJM] Fw: He's Back
Dear Myro,
I have just received an email (see below) from a
troublemaker who says you are Bill Ryan and not Myro.
1. Well, I want to say that on this matter
of whether you are Myro or your supervisor Bill Ryan I have decided
to believe you. You are Myro. That means Chris Cook, who
started all this, told a fib.
2. And, while clearing up
little areas of confusion like whether or not Bill Ryan has multiple
personalities, I have decided to believe Chris.
3. And on the question as to whether or not
Bill Ryan is slightly mad I have decided to believe myself.
4. Which leaves the question as to whether
or not Bill wears different hats on different days of the week. In order
to get this right, we need a reliable observer. That means you, of
course, although I would point out that if Bill does not wear a different hat
on different days of the week there is no easy way of working out who you are
talking to.
I have also re-read your last email and
think its tone is uppity. Don't get uppity with me, young
man. I was in the First World War or even the one before that, I'm not
sure, but, believe you me, my gun is still in working order.
Rodney Shakespeare.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Foley" <rerailer at earthlink.net>
To: <SecurityPortalFeedback at lists.corp.earthlink.net>; "Steve Nieman" <SteveNieman at mac.com>;
<rodney.shakespeare1 at btinternet.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 3:05
AM
Subject: He's Back
>A while back you helped me to get a bad guy who was continuing to
send
> me wanted e-mail. Well he is back, and he is using a new
name. His
> first name was "Bill Ryan" now he is Myro
Ashenopolitus
> <new_economics at yahoo.com>
>
> What do I have to do to get this @#&^%#$@ out of my
computer! I want to
> press Federal Charges against this
person. Can you please provide me
> information on how to do
that?
>
> This nut case is still operating and he is now in
another group that I
> received e-mail from participants. Below
is the full copy of the Raw
> Source header data.
>
>
Status: U
> Return-Path: <discussion-bounces at globaljusticemovement.net>
> Received: from noehlo.host
([127.0.0.1])
> by mx-stork.atl.sa.earthlink.net
(EarthLink SMTP Server) with SMTP
> id 1jg0Er5JW3Nl34c0; Fri, 18 Jan
2008 18:29:31 -0500 (EST)
> Received: from megs17.100mwh.com
([209.151.94.25])
> by mx-stork.atl.sa.earthlink.net
(EarthLink SMTP Server) with ESMTP
> id
1jg0Er1NX3Nl34c0
> for <rerailer at earthlink.net>; Fri, 18
Jan 2008 18:29:31 -0500 (EST)
> Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]
helo=megs17.100mwh.com)
> by megs17.100mwh.com with
esmtp (Exim 4.63)
> (envelope-from <discussion-bounces at globaljusticemovement.net>)
> id 1JG0eN-0000FY-8G; Fri, 18 Jan 2008
16:29:28 -0700
> Received: from [69.147.97.123]
(helo=web63908.mail.re1.yahoo.com)
> by
megs17.100mwh.com with smtp (Exim 4.63)
>
(envelope-from <new_economics at yahoo.com>) id 1JFzpE-0001YY-9P
> for Discussion at globaljusticemovement.net;
> Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:36:36 -0700
>
Received: (qmail 8330 invoked by uid 60001); 18 Jan 2008 22:36:34
-0000
> X-YMail-OSG:
>
CdenMSQVM1mGuImXGjP3k9wc2sHbBFywKKu.bvL6aa.qAarBUwHqUWbP0SrpJ_aCHM0T4FlthflOpBXfvdPl8qkNt8HVRQkJIBpEP1a8fEGBO55noQKKMuWQtmbaLwXA9Cl_Xs2ERceeJw--
>
Received: from [64.123.204.78] by web63908.mail.re1.yahoo.com via
HTTP;
> Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:36:34 PST
> Date:
Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:36:34 -0800 (PST)
> From: Myro Ashenopolitus
<new_economics at yahoo.com>
>
To: Rodney Shakespeare <rodney.shakespeare1 at btinternet.com>,
> Discussion Forum for Global Justice
> <Discussion at globaljusticemovement.net>
> In-Reply-To: <00ec01c859da$f56e7aa0$0301a8c0 at your447023ae6b>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Message-ID:
<623481.8210.qm at web63908.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
> X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 18 Jan 2008
16:29:25 -0700
> Subject: Re: [GJM] Replying to Peter Challen
>
X-BeenThere: discussion at globaljusticemovement.net
> X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9.cp2
> Precedence: list
>
Reply-To: Discussion Forum for Global Justice
>
<discussion at globaljusticemovement.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Sender:
discussion-bounces at globaljusticemovement.net
> Errors-To: discussion-bounces at globaljusticemovement.net
> X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse,
please include it
> with any abuse report
> X-AntiAbuse: Primary
Hostname - megs17.100mwh.com
> X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
earthlink.net
> X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47
12]
> X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
globaljusticemovement.net
> X-Source:
> X-Source-Args:
>
X-Source-Dir:
> X-ELNK-Received-Info: spv=0;
> X-ELNK-AV:
0
> X-ELNK-Info: sbv=1; sbrc=-0; sbf=eb; sbw=000;
>
>
[Shakespeare] "There is no need to expand on this any
> more. The
banks create huge amounts of money -- ALL
> of it is interest-bearing --
and the only way your
> reply makes sense is if the banks create more
and more
> such money and so there has to be more and more
debt."
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> In two previous postings I've demonstrated that this
> is a
false assertion. Some significant amount of the
> money that the
banks create is not interest bearing,
> that which they create when the
write checks for
> expenditures in the ordinary course of
business,
> including dividends to their stockholders, which
>
becomes available to the general community to pay
> interest back to the
banks. It is not simply rhetoric
> that the economy is a wheel of
commerce, Rodney. This
> is generally accepted by most educated
persons, so
> when you go beyond your small clique of supporters
to
> present your ideas outside of obscure and little
> watched
cable channels, if you have the opportunity,
> you're going to have a
real problem.
>
> [Shakespeare] "Therefore there must be a
continued
> creation of more and more (interest-bearing) money
if
> there is not to be a credit contraction overall."
>
------------------------------------------------------
>
> This
doesn't follow from what I said, which was that
> the payment of
interest cancels money, but when banks
> spend for any purpose
whatsoever, the money supply is
> increased, enabling interest to be
paid back to the
> banks in reciprocal economic activity. The
receipt of
> interest and the spending are going on
simultaneously.
> Again, it is a wheel of commerce.
>
>
[Shakespeare] "I do not think you understand the
> effects of compound
interest and, moreover, are only
> thinking of interest at the branch of
a local bank.
> What about those huge international loans at
compound
> interest?"
>
------------------------------------------------------
>
> It is
impossible for you to supply even a single
> example of an international
loan contract that calls
> for compound interest, because it simply does
not
> exist.
>
> [Shakespeare] "Myro, you are a very
naughty boy in
> saying that I associate with Islamic
fundamentalists."
>
------------------------------------------------------
>
> You
object to the term "fundamentalists" which I used
> to contrast them
with the modern "reformists." Please
> address the point about the
Arabic words from the
> Quran: "fa'eda" meaning interest, and "reba"
meaning
> usury. Interest is not usurious per se.
>
>
[Shakespeare] "Please go to
> http://www.binaryeconomics.net and
examine the diagram
> on the main page. Then please tell me what,
if
> anything, is wrong with it."
>
------------------------------------------------------
>
> I've
looked at it. Since this list does not forward
> attachments, I've
appended the textual statement from
> the diagram below. There are
several things wrong
> with it, beginning with the concept of
interest-free
> loans for "productive" purposes.
>
> What
is proposed is an economy without the
> entrepreneur, with that function
being replaced by
> boards of bureaucrats determining what is
>
"productive." It is the elimination of the private
> enterprise
competitive profit and loss system, where
> consumers in markets through
their purchasing
> decisions decide what is "productive." Do you
not
> realize that is essentially the financial structure of
> the
old Soviet Union that is doomed to failure for the
> same reason that
the Soviet Union ultimately failed?
>
> It makes the same error
that I've addressed in
> previous posts that "administrative cost"
and
> "interest" are allegedly separate things, whereas in
> truth
"administrative cost" is one of the three
> components of interest,
along with the insurance
> premium for defaulted loans and the banks'
profit.
>
> Therefore the "halving or more the cost" bit
is
> fallacious, and naive to say the least, because the
> real
costs of supplying credit will remain, being
> hidden, and will probably
increase, due to
> bureaucratic inefficiency as compared to the
free
> market.
>
> [Shakespeare] Please give my
compliments to your
> supervisor and ask him if he thinks that Social
Credit
> is a good thing instead of being something which is
>
inflationary, not directed at productive capacity and
> exclusive of the
private sector.
>
------------------------------------------------------
>
> I've
had many conversations with him about Social
> Credit. He says
that your characterization of it is
> complete nonsense.
>
> Myro
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------
>
------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
Textual statement from Rodney's diagram:
>
> "A gradual rise to
100% banking reserves requirement
> stops the banking system from
creating money out of
> nothing. Interest-free loans for
productive purposes
> then come from central banks and are lent to
approved
> institutions which may charge for administrative cost
>
but may NOT add interest as they lend for 1) small
> business micro
finance, 2) homes, 3) public capital,
> 4) environmental projects, 5)
medium and large
> business IF wider ownership is promoted, and
6)
> student loans, thereby halving or more the cost."
>
>
>
> --- Rodney Shakespeare
> <rodney.shakespeare1 at btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Myro,
> > I
am delighted to know that you are Myro and Bill
> > Ryan is your
thesis adviser. Your discussions
> > together must be most
stimulating.
> > My response is in blue
below.
> >
> > Rodney
Shakespeare
> >
> >
> >
> >
----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Myro Ashenopolitus"
<new_economics at yahoo.com>
> > To: "Rodney Shakespeare"
> >
<rodney.shakespeare1 at btinternet.com>; "Discussion
> > Forum for Global
Justice"
> > <Discussion at globaljusticemovement.net>
> > Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 1:57
AM
> > Subject: Re: [GJM] Replying to Peter
Challen
> >
> >
> > > Rodney, my
replies are inserted below:
> > >
-------------------------------------------------
> >
>
> > > Dear Ashenopolitus,
> >
>
> > > It is always a pleasure to correspond
with
> > educated,
> > > open-minded and expert
people like your good self.
> >
> >
>
> > > 1. Where is the whopper when I say the
banking
> > system
> > > creates money out of
nothing and you say exactly
> > the
> > >
same?
> > >
> > > [Reply: The fact that
banks create money out of
> > > nothing was not one of your
whoppers that I cited.
> > But
> > > I do
object to the nefarious spin you put on the
> >
term.
> > > "Out of nothing" derives from the Latinized
legal
> > > term, "ex nihilo," which means contractual in
this
> > > context. Modern creditary money is
contractual,
> > > calling for future performance. When
we sit down
> > to
> > > write a contract, any
contract, we will agree on
> > terms
> > > and
conditions that did not exist before we sat
> >
down.
> > > Hence, they were created "out of nothing" in
the
> > > finalized contract that we will
sign.]
> > "Ex nihilio" means "out of nothing" and
your
> > attempt to deny that meaning is part of the
usual
> > conventional attempt to assert that
conventional
> > endogenous money is God's Gift to the
universe
> > because it is at the heart of the
(purportedly
> > successful) 'free market' system). Such
money is
> > created out of nothing, has interest (and
admin
> > cost) added and is NOT directed to the true
purpose
> > of the society and the economy i.e the
development
> > and spreading of the ownership of
productive
> > capacity (together with the associated
consuming
> > capacity). Such money is also the direct
cause of
> > the present global financial
crisis.
> > > -
> > >
> > >
Does your education and open-mindedness include
> >
being
> > > logical? Is Steven Consilio being unfair
in
> > > implicitly accusing you of Orwellian
double-think
> > (the
> > > ability to hold two
mutually exclusive ideas
> > >
simultaneously)?
> > >
> > > 2. Where
is the whopper when I say that the banks
> >
do
> > > not create enough money for the repayment
of
> > interest?
> > > I am sure that you can
explain where in the
> > process
> > > the
banks create the money for the interest.
> >
>
> > > [Reply: That was explained in my original
posting,
> > > which I'll be glad to expand upon as much as
you
> > like.
> > > The banks as a statistical
matter create more than
> > > enough money to pay interest
back to them when
> > they
> > > write checks
for any purpose whatsoever without
> > > correspondingly
debiting any bank customer's
> > account.
> > >
Those checks are deposited into transaction
> >
accounts
> > > that are liabilities of the banks, as is
exactly
> > the
> > > case when they extend the
principal of loans.
> > This
> > > process is
not a mystery and is acknowledged by
> > the
> >
> economics profession.]
> > There is no need to expand on
this any more. The
> > banks create huge amounts of money
-- ALL of it is
> > interest-bearing -- and the only way your
reply
> > makes sense is if the banks create more and
more
> > such money and so there has to be more and
more
> > debt. SO NOW YOU KNOW what is the fundamental
cause
> > of the g;lobal financial crisis today -- the
banks'
> > continual (and necessary if the present system is
to
> > be maintained) creation of money at interest.
BUT,
> > of course, once confidence collapses as at
some
> > stage is inevitable, the huge amounts of debt
and
> > money not properly directed means a
collapse.
> > > -
> > >
> >
> 3. Please display your expertise further in
> > >
explaining your statement that, when interest is
> > >
repaid, it is cancelled.
> > >
> > > [Reply:
Because when interest is paid to the
> >
banks,
> > > deposit accounts held by the public are
debited,
> > > without any corresponding credit to any
accounts
> > held
> > > by the public.
The deposit accounts are
> > liabilities
> > >
of the banks to the public, which are reduced when
> > >
payments are made to them for interest or any
> >
other
> > > purpose. The sum total of bank deposits
held by
> > the
> > > non-bank public are
thereby reduced, reducing the
> > > quantity of money as
generally defined.]
> > Therefore there must be a continued
creation of more
> > and more (interest-bearing) money if there
is not to
> > be a credit contraction overall.
> > >
> > > 4. Please also explain how
banks pay their
> > employees
> > > etc if the
interest the banks receive is
> > cancelled.
> >
>
> > > [Reply: By writing checks, which are
their
> > > liabilities. When those checks are
deposited into
> > > bank accounts, the sum total of bank
deposits
> > thereby
> > > increase, increasing
the quantity of money as
> > > generally defined. It's
all handled by the
> > ordinary
> > > rules and
conventions of double entry accounting.
> >
Let
> > > me also comment on another point you made in
the
> > > program, that two things are paid to the banks
in
> > > addition to principal: administrative charge
plus
> > > interest. Actually, the administrative
charge is
> > in
> > > fact interest, inasmuch
as interest is defined, in
> > the
> > >
standard definition, as the amount paid to the
> >
banks
> > > in addition to principal, regardless how it
is
> > > calculated. The three components of interest
are
> > a)
> > > ordinary business expense,
what you call
> > > administrative charge; b) what is effect
an
> > insurance
> > > premium to cover
defaulted loans, which varies by
> > > credit risk category;
and c) profit for the
> > financial
> > >
services that banks supply. By far the largest
> >
amount
> > > collected through interest by the banks is
the
> > > insurance premium, the next largest is
business
> > > expense, and the smallest is the banks'
profit.]
> > > Again more and more money (not properly
directed)
> > must be created if this is to work. You asre
a
> > covnentional economist/banker in mind and
spirit.
> > Yes, in interest at present there is an
element of
> > 'insurance
premium'
> >
> > I do not think you
understand the effects of
> > compound interest and,
moreover, are only thinking
> > of interest at the branch
of a lcoal bank. What
> > about those huge interntitonal
loans at compound
> >
interest?
> >
> > >
> > >
5. I am fascinated by your comments on
> >
riba/interest
> > > and the Qu'ran. I have contact with many
Islamic
> > > scholars and the consensus is undoubtedly
that
> > > interest is riba and that in ancient usage
'usury'
> > > generally refers to riba.
> >
>
> > > [Reply: The "consensus" is from the
Islamic
> > > fundamentalists you are conferring with. Myro,
you
> > are a very naughty boy in saying that I
associate
> > with Islamic fundamentalists. I am sure that
your
> > supervisor Bill Ryan would not approve. Kindly
ask
> > if he agrees with you on this.
> >
The
> >
> === message truncated ===
>
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
>
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
> Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.
> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
>
>
_______________________________________________
> Discussion mailing
list
> Discussion at globaljusticemovement.net
> http://globaljusticemovement.net/mailman/listinfo/discussion_globaljusticemovement.net
>
>
_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing
list
Discussion at globaljusticemovement.net
http://globaljusticemovement.net/mailman/listinfo/discussion_globaljusticemovement.net
_________________________________________________________________
Who's friends with who and co-starred in what?
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/celebrityseparation.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://globaljusticemovement.net/pipermail/discussion_globaljusticemovement.net/attachments/20080119/fd389e1a/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Discussion
mailing list