> Dear John Law, > > To review a bit, we've been discussing the concept of e-Land > which is a proposed currency circulated electronically which > would be "backed" by land. The land would be held by the > company issuing the e-Land currency, it would not be > fungible so different parcels of land would have vastly > different values, and it would not be available for redeeming > the currency itself. It is a proposed design for a currency > which the author says he is too lazy to implement, so all > these discussions are taking place in the hypothetical.
Ok, I'll help you recoup a little bit. The concept I put on the table was somewhat broader: electronic circulation of ownership in all kinds of assets, which will be both an investment generating revenue and a money you can pay with at the same time. E-land is just one of the possible implementations of this idea. But , since you choose to focus on the e-land implementation in particular, no problem, we can follow that line. Discussing a concept hypothetically is what is usually done before something is implemented in real practice. That is nothing new. Electronic circulation of ownership is technically not a problem, it can be done with gold, it can be done with shares, it can be done with shares in an e-land trust. Nobody has disagreed on this point. Your objections based on historical examples like John Law, were proven irrelevant. As somebody else pointed out, the fact that there were scams in a certain line of business (and there have been scams in almost every line of business) does not prove that there is something wrong with the business idea itself. It will be not difficult to find historical examples of casinos that turned out to be scams, but that does not prove anything about TGC. Nearly everyone understands this, Jim. It is the "Somebody from New York stole my car, so New Yorkers are thieves" type of logical error, better known as 'generalization' In fact every succesful scam is set up behind a good business idea, since that's their only way to succeed. So, actually you prove that e-land is a valid business idea, if John Law was able to set up a succesful scam on it. Next you went to great lengths to say what you *think* about me. Now, this is even less relevant to the concept of e-land. Even if you are right that I am a scammer, it doesn't change a yota to the viability of an e-land concept. If e-land is run by scammers it will probably be a scam, if it is run by honest people it will not be a scam. Who runs the business will determine if it is a scam, not the idea itself, and that's equally true for other businesses like casinos. What made you waste so much time telling your opinion about *me*, we can only guess. I had noticed earlier that you easily gravitate towards saying things about *me*, as if that is going to make your case. So I concluded that you were having 'vomit' sitting ready , and it was better to help it come out. That's why I pushed your buttons , calling you a politician, etc... and we all saw a big truckload of stuff coming out. Of course you are going to say you don't believe it, and that's ok. You are right, it doesn't matter at all what you say about me. At the most it can harm your own reputation, since people will start wondering what it is all about. You sayings can't make me happy or unhappy. It would be rather naive to expect a lot of approval by expressing ideas in favor of money other than gold, on a list that is predominantly pro-gold. Obviously when I point out advantages to paper money here, there is going to be protest, and people with strong 'belief' in gold will protest more strongly. That is no surprise. I post my objections to bad designs like TGC shares, not because I want to keep customers away from them. I have objections because designs like this are easily used for scams, since it completely relies on trust in one single party: the owners themselves. And it is always trust that scammers search to exploit. TGC people may be totally honest, but as everything goes well, the bad design becomes accepted too, and that creates the opportunity for the scammers to use this same design. As more people run into the scams, more calls will be heard for a government to regulate the field. So, I am going to suffer more ridiculous government control in the future, because businesses create careless designs and the customers accept them without much question. People don't do any real due dilligence, they say : "oh, *** says these shares are ok, so I'll buy them too" , and when things go wrong later on they vote for governments to put their hands in everything. A good design will spread the trust over several independant entities that all have their reputation capital on the line. That will probably not eliminate all scams, but it will make them far less likely as you now need 2, 3 or more different parties all to cooperate into the scam. Audits are just an example of how the trust can be spread. An honest business has no reasons to avoid such arrangements that enhance the safety from the customers point of view. By not insisting on such designs we are laying the foundations for more future government control. That's why I speak up, from a completely egoistic motive. > > You are lying, Jim. > > I would say that my memory isn't perfect. I write a lot > more stuff than you post here, every day. Mea culpa. > I was mistaken (nota bene). Thanks for pointing it out in > such a courteous manner. It's ok. > > question: what can your TGC shares be redeemed for? > > Non-sequitur. > > The TGC shares are not money and are not being circulated > as money. e-Land is supposed to be a design for money > and to be circulated as money. To compare apples and > oranges is silly. Let me point out that e-land can be seen in two ways, which are basically exactly the same. You can say it is a design for money, and at the same time also an investment that generates a dividend. You can also say it is a design for an investment vehicle, and at the same time also useable to pay with it, hence money. Since you said that TGC is a very well designed investment vehicle, TGC and e-land are in the same category. TGC is a share in the gold casino E-land is a share in the e-land trust You can pay with TGC shares, but you have to contact Dbourse in person to transfer your ownership to somebody else. They just don't have the automatic interface for it, that's the only real difference with e-land. So, we just market E-land as an investment vehicle and Jim Davidson will have no objection that E-land is not redeemable. Those who choose to accept e-land as payment, they will be aware that e-land is not redeemable, and that's their business. > > I have never said that I think they are scammers. > > Yet you've managed to convey that idea about them. Clever > you. I didn't say they are scammers, yet you conclude that I said that. It is just an example of what was described in the post about critical listening. > > With this design the shareholder is in the most > > disadvantageous position that he can possibly be. > > Whereas with Enron, the executives are known by name, the > stock exchanges listing the stock did so after various > types of due diligence, the accounting firm that audited > their accounts was paid by Enron, the SEC accepted various > filings, and the shareholder is in...what? A more > advantaged position judging by your statement. How can > that be? The shareholders were in a more advantageous position, but they just didn't use their rights properly. If they elected a bad management, who is to be blamed? If they didn't question certain management decisions and use their right to call for a special meeting, who is to be blamed? A TGC shareholder has no real contractual rights at all, so there is no question of using them. Danny --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
