-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Web of Debt
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 06:05:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>
To: Ripple users <firstname.lastname@example.org>
We are used to thinking that it is a question of "either" Public =
State or "Private" = "proprietary to an individual or the particular
legal protocol known as the 'For Profit' Corporation".
There is in fact another way of doing it which is for people to agree
among themselves - consensually - to the terms of an LLC agreement, or
in the UK, to an LLP agreement. If we do this, it really doesn't
matter much what the conventional statutory routes are - we may just
go ahead and do it.
The outcome is something which is both "open" and "closed" or Public
and Private. It is closed because only members may use it, but open,
because anyone who consents to the agreement may be a member.
Within such an LLC or LLP there is no profit and loss - merely mutual
creation and exchange of value in all its many forms.
These presentations may give you an idea.
Within a partnership framework it is possible for communities to
achieve what Tom Greco refers to as Credit Clearing - and this is of
course where Ripple comes in as a methodology/tool, through its
capability to settle one obligation with another.
The partnership-based "Guarantee Society" (and provisions into a
default pool) provides the framework of trust which banks are no
longer able to provide, because of the shortage of capital on the one
hand and the absence of credit worthy people and projecst on the
On which note you might find this of interest
On Apr 6, 8:39 am, matabele <matabele.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chris - as I see it - the source of monopolized profit derives from
> limitation of liability (avoiding costs) - usually via the mechanism
> of rent seeking legislative lobbying (establishment of private
> privilege/public liability pair.)
> Until legislative reform either precludes, or apportions sufficient
> compensatory tax upon, such private privilege; how can open, co-
> operative enterprise compete?
> On Apr 6, 9:17 am, matabele <matabele.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > P.S.
> > There is much debate over the private versus public issue, on the
> > various forums. My take on the matter:
> > It appears that currency may be privately issued (in the form of an
> > I.O.U.) - but such issue is not public acknowledgment of such
> > obligation, and can not therefore be given full public (legal)
> > support.
> > If, however, an I.O.U. were issued according to the required
> > transparency rules (which would include a public statement of assets
> > pledged to meet such obligation, along with a statement detailing any
> > issue of currency against such assets) - then such I.O.U. could be
> > given full public (legal) support.
> > Any issue of currency, no matter whether private or public, can be
> > afforded equal public (legal) support - provided that such obligation
> > is publicly acknowledged according to the required transparency rules.
> > On Apr 6, 8:36 am, matabele <matabele.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I gather, from the above posts, that the main objection on this forum
> > > to the Greenback/Full Reserve Banking camp is:
> > > - that monopoly opens the opportunity of abuse and, therefore, any
> > > monopoly upon the supply of currency can and will be abused, and
> > > - that even in the case where this is a state monopoly upon the supply
> > > of currency, such 'money power' can and, therefore, will be usurped.
> > > The primary legislative/constitutional reform required, is therefore,
> > > to protect against the establishment of any monopoly upon the supply
> > > of currency (including a state monopoly). In a true 'free market',
> > > multiple currencies will, therefore, exist alongside one another in
> > > free competition with one another.
> > > In an attempt to clarify the issues and form a united currency reform
> > > camp - I propose the following guidelines for such legislative reform:
> > > 1. Clearly define the difference between money (anything accepted in
> > > payment), and currency (the token representing money), in all its
> > > forms.
> > > 2. State that money takes its existence from a lapse of time between
> > > two market transactions, and therefore, any issue of currency is in
> > > effect a token representing a loan to oneself from the future.
> > > 3. That no issue of currency may occur other than as a loan to oneself
> > > from the future (more specifically, therefore, no currency should be
> > > issued by virtue of a loan to another party.)
> > > 4. Establish transparency rules for any issue of currency.
> > > 5. Provide for equal legal backing for any currency issued according
> > > to these rules.
> > > This would, however, leave the problem of how government would finance
> > > itself.
> > > My suggestion:
> > > - That the legislature (by consent) can still pass to any governing
> > > authority the power to collect tax.
> > > - Any tax authority could, therefore issue currency against such
> > > future tax receipts (a loan to oneself.)
> > > To place limitation upon this process, I would suggest that any such
> > > issue should be limited by the simultaneous issue of an actual tax
> > > bill (in other words, currency issue by a taxing authority would be
> > > limited by an actual tax - not some hypothetical estimate of future
> > > tax.)
> > > On Apr 4, 4:01 pm, "cjensc...@googlemail.com"
> > > <cjensc...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > Some thought provoking and chewy material here.
> > > > I believe that our current position is that Humpty Dumpty is broken,
> > > > and cannot be put back together again.
> > > > The reason for this is that it doesn't matter how much credit = money
> > > > is created by credit institutions even when re-capitalised by States -
> > > > there are simply not enough creditworthy people left. The toxic
> > > > combination of the mathematics of compound interest on debt, and
> > > > absolute private property in land has done what it always has done
> > > > throughout history, and has concentrated wealth in the hands of the
> > > > few to such an extent that the system has collapsed.
> > > > As Chris W points out above, there isn't really any difference between
> > > > Public and Private - both are sets of legal protocols which connect
> > > > individuals together through the creation of institutional
> > > > Organisations which impose themselves "one way" through force of law -
> > > > (in France) contrats de mandat - upon the largely unwilling people. We
> > > > either suffer from the legal protocol of the State and central
> > > > planning, or from a legal overlay of "finance capital" consisting of
> > > > the Twin Peaks of Debt and Equity - two conflicting claims over the
> > > > same productive assets.
> > > > I believe that there is now emerging another - partnership-based -
> > > > approach involving consensual "two way" agreements or (in France)
> > > > "contrats de societe" . Our "Anglo" system is predicated upon imposed
> > > > contracts - French jurisprudence extends to the consensual agreements
> > > > with which many societies -eg the Japanese and Islam - are familiar.
> > > > I advocate Systemic Fiscal Reform. What I mean by this is the
> > > > abolition of all imposed taxes on earned income and their replacement
> > > > with consensual levies on privilege. Also the abolition of means-
> > > > tested or no benefits, and their replacement with a national Dividend
> > > > payable by right to all citizens from a National Equity.
> > > > Firstly, the privilege of exclusive private use of the Commons of land
> > > > - I agree wholeheartedly with Henry George's analysis here, and
> > > > advocate a levy on exclusive rights of use of location (as opposed to
> > > > money's worth invested in a location...)
> > > > Secondly, there is the privilege of exclusive rights of use of the
> > > > Commons of energy - whether renewable or non-renewable. Here I would
> > > > add an additional carbon levy to a levy on enclosure of renewable
> > > > energy.
> > > > Thirdly, I advocate a levy on the privilege of limitation of
> > > > liability. This would be made on the GROSS revenues of any "For
> > > > Profit" entity whose investors benefit from limiting their liability.
> > > > In many cases this would also act as a levy on "enclosed" Intellectual
> > > > Property, and the "Intellectual Capital" of individuals accumulated
> > > > knowledge and experience.
> > > > These mechanisms are all simple, inescapable, and (I would argue) fair
> > > > at a fundamental level. They apply a tax on unearned "rent" extracted
> > > > through privilege.
> > > > In this way we may rebase the tax system in a form to which most
> > > > people will consent, I think. These taxes and levies then form the
> > > > base for the direct issue by Treasuries of credit. There is no need
> > > > for Central Banks or any other banks as intermediaries, and there
> > > > never has been. But there is a need for banking as a service. ie the
> > > > management of bilateral creation of credit.
> > > > Credit costs nothing to create, but in order for a credit creation and
> > > > clearing mechanism to work it requires a framework of trust. In fact,
> > > > the economic value provided by banks IS trust - they provide an
> > > > implicit guarantee that the borrower's credit is good, and they back
> > > > this guarantee with a proprietary pool of capital and an interest
> > > > charge which covers their costs, defaults and (historically) a
> > > > handsome profit/rent which has been shamelessly and unsustainably
> > > > maximised.
> > > > I believe that the enabling mechanism for a new generation of finance
> > > > lies in a partnership-based framework or protocol which will enable
> > > > both direct Peer to Peer credit and direct Peer to Peer investment.
> > > > The Carnegie Institute recently published this article of mine on the
> > > > subject
> > > >http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/innovations/data/000085
> > > > The networked society I envisage has no more "organisations". Instead
> > > > it will consist of an organic network of consensual framework
> > > > agreements within which individuals will self organise to agreed
> > > > purposes.
> > > > Property will cease to be an "object" to be transacted, and instead
> > > > becomes a relationship within which individuals share the fruits of
> > > > mutual cooperation.
> > > > A partnership-based enterprise model is optimal, I believe. Capitalism
> > > > will be hoist by its own petard, because profits to rentiers are
> > > > actually INEFFICIENT, and those enterprises who pay them will be
> > > > outcompeted by cooperative enterprises (whether formerly private or
> > > > public) who do not,because they operate "Not for Loss" as what Dr
> > > > Yunus of Grameen Bank calls Social Businesses.
> > > > This recent presentation of mine in Bristol went down reasonably well
> > > > in that respect
> > > >http://www.slideshare.net/ChrisJCook/social-investment-mechanism-12-0...
> > > > In conclusion, I think that we are very close to a decentralised peer
> > > > to peer market operating system, and that this is capable of spreading
> > > > virally because the proposition to users is so compelling.
> > > > (a) Peer to Peer Credit - mutual risk sharing leading to interest free
> > > > but not cost free credit used for the circulation of value and the
> > > > craetion of productive assets;
> > > > (b) Peer to Peer investment - mutual revenue sharing leading to
> > > > reasonable and secure returns from productive assets in common
> > > > ownership but with private use.
> > > > Best
> read more »
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Ripple users" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at