[GJM] The Last Stand from "Ryan" as Professor (!!!) "Peter Hogwood"!
robert searle
dharao4 at yahoo.co.uk
Thu Jul 3 09:13:25 MDT 2008
--- On Thu, 3/7/08, robert searle <dharao4 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> From: robert searle <dharao4 at yahoo.co.uk>
> Subject: The Last Stand from "Ryan" as Professor (!!!) "Peter Hogwood"!
> To: p_t_hogwood at yahoo.com
> Date: Thursday, 3 July, 2008, 4:08 PM
> Dear Professor (!) Peter Hogwood, et al,
>
> Since your identity is in question how can you
> prove that you have a genuine Phd? Granted, you do seem to
> know alot about economics but economists, and the whole
> subject per se is suspect in extremis with little
> credibility....even in academia.
>
> As for your so-called "criticisms" here they are
> hardly worth answering because they betray a bigoted view
> of things. More importantly, they reveal the
> "fact" that you do not really understand the
> basics of TFE, and have yet again put your own spin on
> things. It would be far more noble that by
> "exposing" weaknesses in my arguments you came
> up with some POSITIVE CONSTRUCTIVE SOLUTIONS rather than ad
> hominem attacks.
>
> To be fair though you did originally come up with some good
> arguments on the Discussion Group which are now largely
> exhausted. You had your say then, and I took due note, and
> came up with tentative counter-arguments. Granted, some of
> my thinking has been "fuzzy" on occassion but
> here we are dealing with something which can be difficult,
> and complex.....
>
> ........plus it has to be remembered that the electronic
> inflation controls are still subject to research, and
> development. Furthermore, I will have to commissiion
> certain willing economists to give a critique on them plus
> positive recommendations as to what could be done. Their aid
> will be noted in my book. But the process of improving the
> electronic inflation controls would probably continue on a
> professional website dealing with TFE. An on-line scholarly
> journal could be put up....
>
> Anyway, I will end this communication
>
>
> THE NOISE HAS BEEN
> STOPPED..........................
>
> R.Searle
>
>
>
>
> --- On Wed, 2/7/08, Peter Hogwood
> <p_t_hogwood at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Peter Hogwood <p_t_hogwood at yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Re: [GJM] CHECKED GOVERNMENTAL ORDERS FOR THE
> AUTHORIZED TRANSMISSION OF NEW NON-REPAYABLE MONEY BY A
> LEGAL INDEPENDENT ENTITY (OR ENTITIES) /JULY 2008.
> > To: discussion at globaljusticemovement.net
> > Date: Wednesday, 2 July, 2008, 9:22 PM
> > As a matter of fact, Robert, I do have a Ph.D. in
> economics
> > from Rice University.
> >
> > I see that Chris Cook has weighed in with his typical
> > brilliant insight.
> >
> > As to your "explanation" of inflation
> controls, I
> > append the text from your link relating to the
> controls,
> > which appears to be a welter of contradiction and
> nonsense,
> > with some short replies [Reply] inserted:-
> >
> > Peter
> >
> >
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Electronic Controls Over Inflation Levels.
> > http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Transfinancial_Economics
> >
> > i) Automatic Inflation Adjustment.
> >
> > This is when the inflated portion of a product, or
> service
> > is subjected to an instant inflation check at the
> point of
> > sale, or later on at the bank. If whatever has been
> bought
> > happens to be inflated to say 10% this amount is
> instantly
> > created electronically into a subsidy which goes
> straight
> > into the account of the customer. Thus, income, and
> nominal
> > prices rise at the same time. This avoids serious
> > devaluation.
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > [Reply] This superficially appears to be the Social
> Credit
> > recommendation of the Retail Discount paid directly to
> the
> > consumer on his purchases, but without its logic or
> > rationale. The Social Credit recommendation is
> predicated
> > on the assumption that consumer purchasing power being
> > distributed during the course of production is
> insufficient
> > to cover the costs of production being imposed to the
> point
> > of retail through the error in cost accountancy as
> > demonstrated through the A + B theorem. In Social
> Credit
> > theory the discount has the effect of increasing the
> rate
> > of profit in a situation where the rate of profit is
> > otherwise falling, that would otherwise be depressing
> > production. With the Retail Discount prices will be
> held
> > in check through competition between producers. In
> your
> > imaginary world, however, there is the deliberately
> induced
> > highest rate of inflation the world has even seen from
> a
> > government that continues to spend but has stopped
> > taxing. There is no demonstrated shortage of
> purchasing
> > power in comparison to prices. That crucial element is
> > absent from your theory. Just even more money being
> > credited to the accounts of consumers in your bizarre
> > scheme.
> > -
> >
> > ii) Customer Current/Deposit Account Adjustment.
> >
> > This is perhaps the easier method than i). Here, all
> bank
> > accounts could be indexed electronically to the
> changing
> > value of money during inflation. Something like this
> > already exists to a limited extent.
> >
> > In TFE new non-repayable money could be created
> > electronically for the bank accounts of customers.
> This
> > would give rise to the "money illusion" that
> one
> > has more to spend, and buy. Yet, the bank account has
> been
> > adjusted to take into account inflation, and thus,
> ones
> > purchasing power remains largely the same as before.
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > [Reply] This differs from i) only in that it is not
> keyed
> > to individual purchases by individual consumers.
> > -
> >
> > iii) Automatic Inflation Deduction.
> >
> > This is when the inflated portion of a product, or
> service
> > is subject to an instant inflation check in which it
> is
> > reduced to its real value. In other words, the
> > "inflated portion" is destroyed. This can be
> seen
> > by some as a "tax" but it is not because
> money in
> > real terms (ie.non-inflated) retains its purchasing
> power
> > as if nothing had happened to it at all.
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > [Reply] If the destruction is through debits to bank
> > accounts, it is indeed a tax. You do not explain how
> the
> > remaining balances retain their purchasing power
> "as
> > if nothing had happened at all." This however
> > contradicts your credits to bank accounts in i) and
> ii).
> > Contradictory nonsense.
> > -
> >
> > iv) Instant Electronic Price Subsidization.
> >
> > If parts of the economy have persistent price rises
> this
> > may disturb public confidence in the monetary system.
> It is
> > thus beholden by banks, and/or democratic governments
> to set
> > up a programme of instant automatic price
> subsidization
> > created electronically ofcourse out of new
> non-repayable
> > money.
> >
> > This could in part pay for the inflated portion of the
> > market price of a product, or service, (upto a
> > "flexible" Price Ceiling) and the rest is
> paid
> > for by the customer with earned money. Such an
> approach may
> > be used if the prices are not only persistent but rise
> too
> > quickly.
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > [Reply] This is merely a variation of your i) and
> ii).
> > -
> >
> > v) Price Rises, and Price Descrease Subsidization.
> >
> > This is another form of subsidization. It can play an
> > important role in preventing, and/or reducing price
> rises.
> >
> > As the prices reach a "flexible" electronic
> Price
> > Ceiling they are encouraged to decrease their retail
> value
> > otherwise they are fined progressively to zero.
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > [Reply] How is a "fine" equivalent to
> > subsidization? More contradictory nonesense.
> > -
> >
> > However, as a positive incentive to start dropping
> their
> > prices a subsidy acting as extra profit is instantly
> > created. This could well mean double, or even triple
> profit
> > a small part of which is given as earned money from
> the
> > customer, and the rest of it is the instant creation
> of new
> > non-repayable money as a subsidy.
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > [Reply] A subsidy is the opposite of a fine. More
> > contradictory nonsense.
> > -
> >
> > However, this could lead to some degree of overall
> price
> > distortions in the marketplace but this could be
> sorted out
> > by using electronic techniques.
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > [Reply] More magic that is not explained.
> > -
> >
> > All this ofcourse is a small price to pay for an
> economy
> > which is:-
> >
> > a)free of taxes
> >
> > b)free of interest on loans.
> >
> > b) The greater possibility of commercial grants.
> >
> > c) There are no "boom" and "bust"
> > cycles but rather a continuous process of growing
> > prosperity. Thus, businesses benefit enormously in a
> > Transfinancial Economy.
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > [Reply] The effects of magic that is unexplained.
> > -
> >
> > vi) Controlled Hyperinflation.
> >
> > This should be totally unnecessary as it is largely if
> not
> > wholly unacceptable. This is when businesses deal
> amongst
> > themselves in "hyperinflated" pricing.
> However,
> > as soon as the money enters the bank computers it is
> > reinterpreted into its real values rather than its
> > "astronomical" nominal equivalent.
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > [Reply] It is "reinterpreted" through
> > "fines" or what?
> > -
> >
> > Businesses would have to understand that this is just
> > "a change of digits" in which the purchasing
> > power is preserved without serious currency
> devaluation.
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > [Reply] You don't even know what currency
> devaluation
> > is, do you?
> >
> >
> > --- On Wed, 7/2/08, robert searle
> > <dharao4 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > From: robert searle <dharao4 at yahoo.co.uk>
> > > Subject: Re: [GJM] CHECKED GOVERNMENTAL ORDERS
> FOR THE
> > AUTHORIZED TRANSMISSION OF NEW NON-REPAYABLE MONEY BY
> A
> > LEGAL INDEPENDENT ENTITY (OR ENTITIES) /JULY 2008.
> > > To: discussion at globaljusticemovement.net
> > > Date: Wednesday, July 2, 2008, 1:04 PM
> > > I do not know why you are showing yourself up
> again!
> > If you
> > > read the p2p foundation piece the basics of
> possible
> > > electronic inflation controls are explained. But
> it
> > does
> > > require a little INTELLIGENCE, AND VISION to
> > understand.
> > > You do not have a BSc, or Phd in economics!!
> > >
> > > R.Searle
> > >
> > >
> > > --- On Wed, 2/7/08, Peter Hogwood
> > > <p_t_hogwood at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: Peter Hogwood
> <p_t_hogwood at yahoo.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: [GJM] CHECKED GOVERNMENTAL
> ORDERS
> > FOR THE
> > > AUTHORIZED TRANSMISSION OF NEW NON-REPAYABLE
> MONEY BY
> > A
> > > LEGAL INDEPENDENT ENTITY (OR ENTITIES) /JULY
> 2008.
> > > > To: discussion at globaljusticemovement.net
> > > > Date: Wednesday, 2 July, 2008, 5:52 PM
> > > > In other words, my paranoid little
> ignoramus,
> > magic
> > > that you
> > > > can't explain is the difference. Tee
> hee
> > hee.
> > > >
> > > > Peter
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- On Wed, 7/2/08, robert searle
> > > > <dharao4 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > From: robert searle
> > <dharao4 at yahoo.co.uk>
> > > > > Subject: Re: [GJM] CHECKED GOVERNMENTAL
> > ORDERS
> > > FOR THE
> > > > AUTHORIZED TRANSMISSION OF NEW NON-REPAYABLE
> > MONEY BY
> > > A
> > > > LEGAL INDEPENDENT ENTITY (OR ENTITIES) /JULY
> > 2008.
> > > > > To:
> discussion at globaljusticemovement.net
> > > > > Date: Wednesday, July 2, 2008, 10:33 AM
> > > > > Dear Peter Hogwood aka William Ryan aka
> > Ashen
> > > > Politicus (or
> > > > > whatever) aka
> > > > > Mc Gunningle....et cetera.........
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > We have been through all this before!
> So, I
> > think
> > > it
> > > > is a
> > > > > waste of time repeating myself. But
> ofcourse
> > you
> > > are
> > > > going
> > > > > to reply with something daft notably
> that I
> > do
> > > not
> > > > have the
> > > > > answers....(which even an ignoramus
> would
> > realize
> > > that
> > > > I do
> > > > > have if they went to the p2p foundation
> > entry)
> > > > >
> > > > > As I understand it Zimbabwe was largely
> > churning
> > > out
> > > > PAPER
> > > > > MONEY. As such it cannot be directly
> > controlled
> > > unlike
> > > > the
> > > > > electronic inflation controls of
> > TFE....thats the
> > > > > difference.
> > > > >
> > > > > Moreover, I have never ever said I was
> a
> > genius
> > > per
> > > > se!!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > R.Searle
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- On Wed, 2/7/08, Peter Hogwood
> > > > > <p_t_hogwood at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > From: Peter Hogwood
> > > <p_t_hogwood at yahoo.com>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [GJM] CHECKED
> GOVERNMENTAL
> > > ORDERS
> > > > FOR THE
> > > > > AUTHORIZED TRANSMISSION OF NEW
> NON-REPAYABLE
> > > MONEY BY
> > > > A
> > > > > LEGAL INDEPENDENT ENTITY (OR ENTITIES)
> /JULY
> > > 2008.
> > > > > > To:
> > discussion at globaljusticemovement.net
> > > > > > Date: Wednesday, 2 July, 2008,
> 3:00 PM
> > > > > > It's not a mental complex, my
> > paranoid
> > > little
> > > > > fellow,
> > > > > > but the patent absurdity of a
> proposal
> > that
> > > can
> > > > be
> > > > > summed
> > > > > > up in one sentence: Let the
> government
> > just
> > > spend
> > > > and
> > > > > stop
> > > > > > collecting taxes. That is the
> policy
> > of
> > > > Zimbabwe,
> > > > > with the
> > > > > > world's highest inflation
> rate,
> > > officially
> > > > 195,000
> > > > > > percent, but in reality some four
> > million
> > > > percent.
> > > > > And you
> > > > > > pompously prance about with the
> claims
> > of
> > > genius,
> > > > when
> > > > > in
> > > > > > actuality you are a stupid
> ignoramus.
> > > Unread in
> > > > even
> > > > > the
> > > > > > most basic literature of
> economics.
> > Lacking
> > > even
> > > > > common
> > > > > > sense.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Peter
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- On Wed, 7/2/08, robert searle
> > > > > > <dharao4 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: robert searle
> > > > <dharao4 at yahoo.co.uk>
> > > > > > > Subject: [GJM] CHECKED
> > GOVERNMENTAL
> > > ORDERS
> > > > FOR
> > > > > THE
> > > > > > AUTHORIZED TRANSMISSION OF NEW
> > NON-REPAYABLE
> > > > MONEY BY
> > > > > A
> > > > > > LEGAL INDEPENDENT ENTITY (OR
> ENTITIES)
> > /JULY
> > > > 2008.
> > > > > > > To:
> > > discussion at globaljusticemovement.net
> > > > > > > Date: Wednesday, July 2,
> 2008,
> > 4:45 AM
> > > > > > > Dear Mr. Hogwood,and Hi to
> your
> > Alter
> > > Egos!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Obviously, you have
> a
> > MENTAL
> > > > COMPLEX
> > > > > about my
> > > > > > > work. I have explained it
> before
> > to
> > > you. If
> > > > you
> > > > > cannot
> > > > > > > fully understand English then
> that
> > is
> > > your
> > > > > problem.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But at least TFE is not
> > > > as"nonsensical"
> > > > > as
> > > > > > Social
> > > > > > > Credit your pet subject
> though the
> > > concept
> > > > is
> > > > > fine as
> > > > > > far as
> > > > > > > it goes. Yet, it does not
> involve
> > > electronic
> > > > > > super-flexible
> > > > > > > controls over inflation, and
> is
> > thus
> > > suspect
> > > > > > unfortunately.
> > > > > > > To be fair, Major Douglas
> cannot
> > be
> > > totally
> > > > > blamed for
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > introducing this profound
> > innovation as
> > > he
> > > > lived
> > > > > > before the
> > > > > > > present Computer Age.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Incidently in TFE,
> governments do
> > NOT
> > > create
> > > > the
> > > > > new
> > > > > > money,
> > > > > > > and there is as such NO LUMP
> SUM
> > TO
> > > DRAW
> > > > UPON
> > > > > unlike
> > > > > > now.
> > > > > > > This process is ideally done
> > through a
> > > > private,
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > independent public body. It
> would
> > have
> > > > genuine
> > > > > legal
> > > > > > teeth
> > > > > > > to ensure that any
> governmental
> > order
> > > for
> > > > the
> > > > > creation
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > new non-repayable capital is
> for
> > the
> > > public
> > > > good.
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The legal framework of such a
> > structure
> > > > would
> > > > > have to
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > ultimately decided by
> > policy-makers at
> > > the
> > > > time
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > introduction of TFE into the
> world
> > > economy.
> > > > Yet,
> > > > > when
> > > > > > > introduced this whole process
> of
> > money
> > > > creation
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > require little if any
> bureaucracy
> > as
> > > such.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is best to leave the
> subject of
> > TFE
> > > > otherwise
> > > > > you
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > just show yourself up again.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > R.Searle
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- On Tue, 1/7/08, Peter
> Hogwood
> > > > > > > <p_t_hogwood at yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From: Peter Hogwood
> > > > > <p_t_hogwood at yahoo.com>
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [GJM]
> Innovation
> > > > Economics? And
> > > > > > Paula
> > > > > > > Gloria doing a "William
> > > Ryan?"
> > > > > > > > To:
> > > > discussion at globaljusticemovement.net
> > > > > > > > Date: Tuesday, 1 July,
> 2008,
> > 2:25
> > > PM
> > > > > > > > You don't have to
> reply,
> > my
> > > > paranoid
> > > > > little
> > > > > > > fellow.
> > > > > > > > Your proposition to just
> let
> > the
> > > > government
> > > > > spend
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > stop
> > > > > > > > collecting taxes is
> > ridiculous on
> > > its
> > > > face.
> > > > > > > There's no
> > > > > > > > way to defend such
> nonsense,
> > which
> > > > explains
> > > > > why
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > don't even try.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Peter
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 7/1/08,
> robert
> > searle
> > > > > > > >
> <dharao4 at yahoo.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > From: robert searle
> > > > > > <dharao4 at yahoo.co.uk>
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [GJM]
> > Innovation
> > > > > Economics? And
> > > > > > > Paula
> > > > > > > > Gloria doing a
> "William
> > > > Ryan?"
> > > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > discussion at globaljusticemovement.net
> > > > > > > > > Date: Tuesday, July
> 1,
> > 2008,
> > > 4:47
> > > > AM
> > > > > > > > > Dear Peter Hogwood,
> Zack
> > > Johnson,
> > > > Clark
> > > > > > Kent,
> > > > > > > Ashen
> > > > > > > > > Politicus (or
> whatever),
> > > > McGunnigle,
> > > > > William
> > > > > > > > > Ryan............et
> al...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I am not going
> to
> > waste
> > > time
> > > > > repeating
> > > > > > > myself
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > someone like you
> who
> > exists
> > > in
> > > > multiple
> > > > > > > personality
> > > > > > > > land
> > > > > > > > > with a string of
> > aliases. I
> > > might
> > > > as
> > > > > well
> > > > > > talk to
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > brick
> > > > > > > > > wall. Perhaps I
> would
> > get
> > > some
> > > > better
> > > > > sense
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > way!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Another person who
> > appears to
> > > be
> > > > > suffering
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > somekind of
> > > > > > > > > "multiple
> > personality
> > > > > disorder" is
> > > > > > > Paula
> > > > > > > > Gloria.
> > > > > > > > > Admitedly, I was
> perhaps
> > > unkind to
> > > > her
> > > > > when
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > suggested
> > > > > > > > > that her videos
> were
> > somewhat
> > > > > > > "amateurish"
> > > > > > > > on the
> > > > > > > > > comment section of
> one
> > of her
> > > You
> > > > Tube
> > > > > > Delights!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > She, herself, did
> not
> > respond
> > > but
> > > > > someone
> > > > > > called
> > > > > > > Paula
> > > > > > > > > Tsakona did (her
> alter
> > ego
> > > > > probably)with
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > spite,
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > some deluded
> comment on
> > me!
> > > > Indeed,
> > > > > there is
> > > > > > even
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > Paula
> > > > > > > > > Puja if I recall
> > correctly.
> > > This I
> > > > > suspect
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > PGs aliases because
> the
> > word
> > > Puja
> > > > means
> > > > > > worship
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > Sanskrit. I know
> > ofcourse she
> > > has
> > > > a
> > > > > strong
> > > > > > > connection
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > Indian mysticism.
> > > Obviously,PGs
> > > > > "own
> > > > > > > name"
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > probably fake,and a
> just
> > a
> > > stage
> > > > name
> > > > > to
> > > > > > protect
> > > > > > > > herself
> > > > > > > > > from any
> > > > "undesirables".....
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On the internet you
> can
> > be
> > > > anything,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > anyone.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Anyway, enough
> said!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > R.Searle
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > R.Searle
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- On Mon,
> 30/6/08,
> > Peter
> > > Hogwood
> > > > > > > > >
> > <p_t_hogwood at yahoo.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > From: Peter
> Hogwood
> > > > > > > <p_t_hogwood at yahoo.com>
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re:
> [GJM]
> > > Innovation
> > > > > > Economics?
> > > > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > >
> discussion at globaljusticemovement.net
> > > > > > > > > > Date: Monday,
> 30
> > June,
> > > 2008,
> > > > 5:20
> > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > Except it
> would be
> > a
> > > going
> > > > back to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > Stone
> > > > > > > Age
> > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >
> > "innovation."
> > > And
> > > > your
> > > > > let
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > government
> > > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > spend and stop
> > taxation
> > > is a
> > > > nut
> > > > > house
> > > > > > > > > >
> > "innovation."
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Peter
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon,
> > 6/30/08,
> > > robert
> > > > searle
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > <dharao4 at yahoo.co.uk>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > From:
> robert
> > searle
> > > > > > > >
> <dharao4 at yahoo.co.uk>
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject:
> [GJM]
> > > > Innovation
> > > > > > Economics?
> > > > > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > >
> > discussion at globaljusticemovement.net
> > > > > > > > > > > Date:
> Monday,
> > June
> > > 30,
> > > > 2008,
> > > > > 4:30
> > > > > > AM
> > > > > > > > > > > Dear All,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> This
> > link
> > > may be
> > > > of
> > > > > > interest.
> > > > > > > > Perhaps we
> > > > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > > > suggest
> > interest
> > > free
> > > > loans
> > > > > could
> > > > > > be a
> > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > economic
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > innovation!!!???
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovation_Economics
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > R.Searle
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________
> Not happy with your email address?.
> Get the one you really want - millions of new email
> addresses available now at Yahoo!
> http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html
__________________________________________________________
Not happy with your email address?.
Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html
More information about the Discussion
mailing list