Monetary Reform

[Ryan] Comments inserted below.

>From: "Rodney Shakespeare"

>Reply-To: monetaryreform@cog.kent.edu

>Subject: MONETARY: Re:Manners in Group and other matters

>Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 01:41:24 +0100

>Dear Monetary Reform members,

>I have been away at a private conference (of the Bromsgrove group) and have

>come back to 250 emails and a lot of other work. I am therefore having to

>read quickly a surprisingly large number of Monetary Reform postings.

>1. The conference had about 40 people and was addressed by, among others,

>well-known monetary reformers including James Gibb-Stuart, James Robertson,

>Frances Hutchinson, and the truly remarkable William Krehm and Connie Fogal

>of Canada. I therefore have to say that I was taken aback to see that

>William Ryan thinks all monetary reformers are a gaggle of cranks spouting

>claptrap

[Ryan] I never said that "all" monetary reformers are a gaggle of cranks spouting claptrap. Many of them are; that's the public perception. For many of them the perception is justified. The list archives provides a compendium of confirmatory examples.

----------

and would point out that generalised abuse is usually a sign of a

>mind which, at the very least, cannot distinguish between individuals.

> 2. However there is a much more serious aspect to William Ryan's

>generalised attack. He openly states that he has no intention of addressing

>the "cranks"

[Ryan] Where did I say that? The whole purpose of this endeavor is to engage them in conversation.

----------

and that statement can only mean that he has no intention of

>following the purposes of the Monetary Reform group. The purposes of the

>group are clearly set out at http://cog.kent.edu/grpMonetaryReform.htm and,

>very obviously, if a member of the group cannot generally subscribe to those

>positive, outward-going purposes and, furthermore, is bent on destruction

>of the group,

[Ryan] Who is bent on the destruction of the group? The counter arguments I have submitted have been submitted by the vast majority of economists since the beginning of time. The difference is that I agree with many of the conclusions while at the same time I disagree with the logical development leading to the conclusions. It is fallacious. There is an alternate logical development going back more than eighty years, but you won't hear it. The vast majority of economists disagree with the conclusions. They've already decided that the conclusions are wrong. You should welcome my participation. I'm on your side. The fact that you and your colleagues find it repellent rather than constructive would indicate that you and they are not serious thinkers in the scientific tradition. That's the very definition of being a crank. Look it up.

then that member should withdraw.

[Ryan] What you are really saying is that those who do not adhere to the party line should withdraw.

I thank Dan Bell for

>helpfully suggesting that all postings go through the Co-ordinator (me)

>before they go to the group as a whole but, at this stage, I think it best

>to invite members to ask themselves whether, in making their contributions,

>they have a positive or negative purpose towards monetary reform and so

>whether or not they should remain group members.

> It has been privately suggested that I might wish to

>make clearer rules for the discussion -- I thank those who have taken the

>trouble to write to me on this. The trouble with too many rules in

>this situation would be that there would endless dispute about them. I

>think it better to invite everybody to try to exhibit a modicum of good

>manners and some good grace in admitting that sometimes, we can all get a

>bit carried away and use unfortunate language (such as calling another

>member a liar)

[Ryan] Which is the more egregious accusation: being called a "liar," or being called the perpetrator of "evil" and "treason," particularly if those accusations preceded the usage of the word "liar"? All of us are liars. Few of us are so depraved that we are both demons and traitors. You're not exhibiting even a scintilla of common sense or perspective, Rodney.

>3. I thank Dan Parker for the courtesy with which he has made his

>postings.

>4. Although it takes time for people to adjust to new ideas and, in

>particular, to begin to co-operate with others where there are areas of

>common cause, it is pleasing to report that the conference showed

>considerable support for the purposes of this group and, in particular, for

>the extension of those aims as set out in the Seven Steps. In essence, this

>means the use of debt-free money for a second basic income in a

>counter-inflationary situation stemming from the use of interest-free loans

>for public capital and private capital (wide ownership) investment giving a

>first basic income Although there are undoubtedly some die-hards who do not

>wish to co-operate with others, it is becoming clear that, for example,

>social crediters and binary economists CAN co-operate together if they want

>to and, in that co-cooperation, both sides will better be able to achieve

>their own aims. Dan Parker puts the matter well when he says:-- "I think we

>are wise to downplay the differences in our proposals; in the service of

>working on the ideas of progress, especially monetary reform, that are held

>in common."

>5. A point for Dan -- all binary economists want a substantial basic

>income for all individuals.

>6. The numbers at the weekly Global meeting in London (Friends House,

>near Euston Station, London, every Wednesday morning at 11.00 a.m. in the

>basement canteen) seem to be sharply increasing.

>Rodney Shakespeare.

>----- Original Message -----

Re: MONETARY: Re:Manners in Group and other matters