-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 2:22 PM -0700 on 5/12/02, Morlock Elloi wrote:
> that needs to be handled in synergy with medications.) Tried that. Makes me a really grouchy bastard who'd kick your ass soon as look at you. Oh. Wait. I just just kicked your ass anyway, without getting grouchy at all. So sorry. Aren't you glad I wasn't medicated? :-). > There are many different "costs". Look who's being "selectively dumb" now... Keep re-defining things, and you won't have an argument to stand on. Don't look down, Mr. Coyote, 'cause you've run out of cliff... > Paper cash is next to impossible to be invalidated at will, and > gold is impossible to invalidate (yes, I've seen "Dr. No"). It is > self-contained (at least temporary for paper cash). And, so too, would be an on-line bearer transaction. Sooner or later the net goes everywhere, and if the net isn't there yet, it's no skin off my nose... > Many people today that have reserves keep them as cash under > various juristictions (harder and harder), as real estate in > various juristictions and as precious stuff - gold and similar, > which is generally immune to juristiction. Of course, besides the fact that you're throwing another red herring into the pot here, the real gag in the above ist that you probably have no assets in any jurisdiction, being busy storming the Bastille, and all, right? :-). > Maybe we need to separate two issues here - (1) currency for the > sheeple, always at mercy of the big guys, but should be made > low-transaction-cost as much as possible, and (b) "cash". "There are two kinds of people, those who use dichotomies, and those who don't." Riiight... Currency is currency. Typically, Lord Morlock -- if I may call you that, since you seem to speak using the concordance of an erst-aristocrat, or at least a proto-nomenklatura, which is the same thing -- currency for the "sheeple" is currency for the "rest of us who know better", like, say, you. Just like, as far as currency is concerned, there's no difference between, as the thread topic says, good guys or bad guys, something modern nation states flaunt at their peril, including the one I live in. It won't work any other way, you see. What comes to be called a currency is always an emergent phenomenon, a result of the buyer setting the price and the seller setting the terms in *every* transaction in a given economy. As a result, the "customers" for anything called "currency" are the *sellers* of a good or service, since the sellers are the ones who are going to be holding that asset at the end of the transaction and want to get it at the lowest possible risk-adjusted cost of acquisition. [I swear, re-teaching elementary finance and economics to proto-Masters-of-the-People's-Universe who should have learned it already, like Little Lord Morlock here, is making me cyanotic, anymore...] Cheers, RAH -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 7.5 iQA/AwUBPN9PaMPxH8jf3ohaEQJNTQCfdFirt6EQdopF8/m0olhf3wn9m90AoIrB mspgpqGXTp0ySvPBqq0oj7yU =9EUn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
