@head1 Page ## TRANSCRIPT of a hand-written letter, made by J.Zube, 12/Nov./89, gibbins.jz1 ======================================================================================== John Gibbins, GPO Box 3178 GG, GPO, Melbourne 3001 ( No date, rec. 9 Nov.89 ) John Zube, 7 Oxley St., Berrima, NSW 2577 Dear John, Thank you for the extensive letter you have sent. You are one of the best resources that I have found to date!! The article by Richard King is merely the 'entre' to a book. Quite an extensive draft though! This loophole is to use a document called a "gift voucher", or coco-nuts. The coco-nuts are too awkward to keep in your wallet. However - there is no reason why the legal document - a 'bill of exchange' cannot be made out in terms of 'coco-nuts' ( Coconuts are an analogy. ) (1) This is the area of legislation I am investigating. What about a "bill of exchange" ( or, in layman'sterms a cheque ) made out to cash. (2) This cheque made out to 'cash' is very close to becoming money. Now it is a very fine line & simple to move LEGAL TENDER > BILLS OF EXCHANGE > CHEQUES > GIFT VOUCHER. So what I advocate is to imply - but never say - Legal Tender < Gift Voucher. This would only necessitate people realizing that a gift-voucher ( even from Meyers ) is NEAR MONEY. (3) A greater leap of intellect is to realize that deposits in bank accounts also contribute to the volume of money. If they can be cashed by a withdrawal, it is only a small step to come to (the) conclusion that the total volume of money (M) is related to Gross National Assets and also - Gross National Product. The link of M to GNP can be documented & shown. In Australia it's about 10 to 1. (4) What Richard claims is that trees - animals - livestock - national nature parks & mineral reserves - our whole chunk of planet - should be part of Gross National Assets, which would then be close to infinite. (5) But rather than have us YOBBOS destroy our land, why not make the new unit - say the TALENT - equal to 4 gum trees or 2 Kangaroos or 6 Sheep or 1 Bushel Wheat? (6) That way - the TALENT would not inflate - would also hold the concept of conservation in people's mind. (7) I would have preferred to have seen some legislation in favour of own units of exchange. (8) I AM NOT LOOKING FOR AN ALTERNATE ( alternative? ) A U S T R A L I A N LEGAL TENDER. (9) Anything which is near to legal-tender for the rest of us will do just fine.(10) Why not use poker chips? They are legal & freely convertible for cash!!(11) What I will be doing is to sell my gift vouchers at a slight discount - put the money in a bank-account, called "LET$ RESERVE TRUST POOL" & back my gift vouchers 100% with Australian Cash. (12) Providing, I always honour my 100% commitment, then nothing should go wrong - we will have established LETS Shop Currency - isn't that what we wanted? (13) I have decided to send you the letters in dribs and drabs - I can feel you pining for this one! (14) As to FICHE - I would like access to a microfiche - microfilm - reader - printer!! Oh well - when I win TTattsLotto. I will be happy to supply a list of business books to FICHE. You are being rather naughty & narrow by restricting the range of boks you FICHE. Why be narrow, why not chase the market!! (16) I have access to a large range of "How To" technology. I have access to know how how to do virtually anything. With LET$ I can pay people to do virtually anything. (17) What I would love to see is RICHARDS SOVEREIGNTY TECH, your ECONOMIC TECH, MY ( GREAT WISDOM ) & OR MY GLUE. WHY NOT USE MY GLUE TO STICK YOUR ECONOMICS TO RICHARD'S POLITICS? (18) I have set up a Club with a unique structure. We have weighted voting based on popularity and wisdom. (19) Enough for one letter! Do you have FAX access? (20) Do you have CD-ROM access? (21) I will send more details & information next time... (22) Signed : John. ... to be continued : LET$ Adelaide, Byron Bay = Richmond Valley, NSW, Castlemaine & Maldon, Warragu, The "Credo System", Mellany, Canberra & Bendigo & parts of Perth & Sydney have all people WHO WILL CASH my "currency". ======================================================================================== ANNOTATIONS BY JOHN ZUBE, 12 November 1989 : -------------------------------------------- (1) I believe that the bill of exchange as well as the cheque legislation is pretty well internationalized. Both are ultimately claimable in legal tender paper money, in most countries today. Bills and cheques "for clearing ONLY" are as a rule outlawed. But, I must admit that I have not perused the current act on bills of exchanges and that on cheques in Australia for that - and all the relevant commentaries. What is common sense to you and me is often a "no! NO!!!" for the legislators and bureaucrats. (2) Legally, juridically, commercially and economically, bills of exchange and cheques ARE different. Both are made out to cash. Bills are under stricter enforcement regulations. Moreover, bills postpone the redemption date for a period, usually 2-4 months, while cheques, unless postdated, are immediately creditable to an account or convertible into cash. Lately the banks tend to make some difficulties or cause some delays with the cash conversion. The legislation and commentaries on both are voluminous and one should not jump to conclusions on either. (3) For some people, to some extent, if they live nearby and are accustomed to purchase many of their requirements from Meyers Department Store, provided all sound issue techniques are applied. (4) Only to the extent that deposits are immediately disposable by cheques or convertible into cash, etc., can they be counted as "money". Otherwise, they belong to the savings, capital and investment sphere, that is, they are, on their due dates, settled with circulating exchange media or their equivalents, but that means not that they are, as exchangeable papers, EQUAL to the circulating exchange media. Much more capital can be "moved" with a circulating medium, over a period, than is, at any point of time, existing in form of that circulating exchange medium. That the total volume of money is related to GNP implies a monopoly issuer and all of the GNP producers as its "victims". The monopoly issuer draws, so to speak, a blank cheques upon them and obliges them to honour them at amounts prescribed by him, when it suits him. When there are diverse and competing issuers then each cannot simply make a claim upon the GNP but his issues entitle only to that part of the GNP which HE offers. If he should be able to issue thousand times as much then, although the GNP would not, most likely, be exceeded thereby and would, seemingly, be able to cover his notes, it would not do so in the absence of legal tender for his notes. His notes would be likely to depreciate fast, to one thousands of their nominal value. However, under free market rating for issues and the right of people to refuse to accept and full publicity for all details of private issues, such large over-issues would be impossible. (5) National Assets are no more than POTENTIALS unless they are dug up, caught, harvested, treated, "skinned", wood-chipped or otherwise used or developed or made accessible as WEALTH. And why confine yourself to this planet? But whom do they BELONG to when they are NATIONALIZED? Does that mean that anyone could draw cheques or issue notes upon that "unlimited" wealth? Or is it necessary that thes giant "chunks" are first to be converted, to some extent, into the consumer goods and services that are really wanted and consumable - or enjoyable? Access to "nature's treasure house" should be open to all but that does still not mean that it ought to be free of all costs to all. E.g. fire wardens for national or private forests do cost something. I like Theodor Hertzka's open access mode via "open cooperatives", in which everyone would be rewarded only according to his labour, service and capital input but everyone else could have a vote in general meetings, too. (6) The choice of value unit has nothing directly to do with the sensible use or destruction of this planet's biosphere. Introducing "convertibility" into gum trees and kangaroos could lead to their depletion & "runs" upon them. It also assmes that they would have a relatively stable value at any time or that they are sufficiently equal to each other at the same time and place, instead of being very different. Moreover, then large bushfires or wildlife pests could destroy the "currency reserve"! However, in a total monetary freedom system, where there would also be freedom in the choice of value standards, SOME are certain to try such "standards" out. (7) No standard inflates by itself, apart from rather narrow limits. Inflation is only made possible when a currency is given, by law or custom the legal tender characteristic. Otherwise, stable value reckoning for consumer goods, wages and other contracts could go on while a mismanaged and over-issued currency would depreciate. As for conservation : Redeemability in gum trees and kangaroos could lead to their depletion and so could the expansion of sheep and wheat farming. Even a free, competitive and private money cannot offer ALL good things together. Let us confine our efforts to those spheres where it could do much good, namely turning over unemployed or underemployed labour and consumer goods and services and with them, and thereupon, also more capital goods and producing more capital goods. The better off people will then also have more time and money to spend upon enjoying and restoring "the earth" to that extent of pristine purity that they are willing to pay and labour for. (8) I would prefer to have seen no legislation at all in favour of one or the other unit of value or exchange medium. All the necessary rules for the exchange game could be privately drafted and agreed upon and enforced. State intervention in this sphere, as in others, has predominantly led to abuses. (9) I want to see Australian legal tender abolished - for all but its individually volunteering victims. It should no longer be legal tender but just a competing currency, refusable, discountable or to some extent acceptable, to dissenters, as they please or contractually bind themselves. We must look to an alternative currency or, better still, currencies, at least in the long run, if we want to avoid inflations, deflations, stagflations and all that accompanies them. (10) There are x kinds and characteristics of legal tender. I enumerated ca. 19 in my booklet against legal tender in PEACE PLANS No. 19 A. What we ought to aim at seems contradictory but is moral and necessary : a) To get away as far as possible, for moral and utilitarian reasons, from the coercive, centralistic, monopolistic and despotic aspects of legal tender legislation. b) At the same time, to come as close as possible with private issues to providing what is perceived as "cash", at least locally, with a local private currency. To achieve that, we will have to re-institute "legal tender" in the juridical sense, as a means to dissolve debts effectively, in a new, limited and private way but, at the same time, widely enough spread to achieve the "cash" value effect. For this not only one small shop in a locality but e.g. a department store or shopping centre or all or most of the shops in a locality must accept the local currency quite readily and at par - even though in other localities it may suffer a small discount. Primarily the issuer himself must be under "compulsory acceptance at par" for his own IOUs. Secondarily, his debtors under contract to him - and these debtors might similarly oblige their debtors. This obligation does not impose a burden but, rather, offers an option to get rid of a burden. (11) Why not use potatoe chips or wood chips? They also have SOME value and are SOMEHOW transferrable and marketable to SOME. For poker players, various card players and roulette casinos they are convertible. But I attended such a casino only once, in 1986, in Germany, in Baden Baden and am not likely to do so again. Nor do I want to visit e.g. Tasmania for redemption purposes or a a black market gambling spot in Sydney. And most Australian are rather involved with horse or dog or foot racing, lotteries, Lotto etc. And who but a casino could issue them? And which casino would not gladly issue more IF it could thereby induce more potential gambles into its rooms, IF it would find ready acceptors? The fact that they are cash convertible and, nevertheless, have not inflated the market, indicates one of the basic teachings of monetary freedom : Under freedom the good money drives out the bad. Money perceived as bad or as not good enough, cannot succeed on a free market. Poker chips HAVE NOT SUCCEEDED. They are thus not suitable token coins. Neither are postage stamps or cinema tickets or railway or bus tickets. At most they can serve in only a very limited way, temporarily, for small amounts, in some exchanges, among some people. They are largely merely commodities - competing with millions of other commodities or claims to services. (12) Precisely that kind of substitution of Australian Notes by your gift vouchers will be strongly resisted by the Reserve Bank, if necessary by special and retroactive and penal legislation, if the present one is not yet repressive enough, rushed through within a day or two, with bi-partisan support. And if you do offer your alternative already right from the beginning at a discount, then how do you think others will evaluate it? Furthermore, how are you going to cover them 100% with cash, if you sell them at a discount of, let us say, 5%. Where do you get the difference from? Out of whose pockets? And who, among the recipients of your gift voucher of e.g. $ 100, obtained at a discount from you at $ 95, will not, if he can, immediately or next day access the supposedly 100% cover pool of the LET$ RESERVE TRUST, convert the voucher into legal tender cash, within hours or a day, making, after a day, 365 x 5% per annum on his investment with you, at your expense? (13) As said under (12), you could not go on honouring this kind of non-economic commitment, unless you have x amounts of dollars to waste on it. You would not have established the LETS currency but assured that it would stream back, at maximum speed, for a cash conversion at your expense. It would not have served additional turnovers, sales and labour. Replacing, very temporarily, and without achieving additional turnovers that would otherwise not take place, an A note by a JG note would have achieved nothing - but your empoverishment or that or your creditors. A private LETS currency or any other currency should have the ability to become CURRENT, at least locally and to some extent, WITHOUT any kind of BACKING, COVER or RESERVE in form of the GOVERNMENT'S LEGAL TENDER. There should be only a MARKET RELATIONSHIP, NOT A FIXED PARITY between them. For instance, you receive some donations or payments in Australian Notes or someone BUYS LETS notes from you to give you a boost. Then, to the extent that you do not have to spend them in YOUR EXTERNAL TRADE, you should utilize these notes not as cover, reserve or redemption fund but, actively, by buying up any of the LET notes floating about at a discount - paying par value for them. Why? That discount prevents the expansion of your currency. It indicates an excess, a shortage of "READINESS TO ACCEPT" options in form of debts to be settled, goods and services to be paid for. There is a flaw in your REFLUX system ( which at any time must balance the ISSUE system that you use ) and you ought to patch that up by BUYING UP your excess notes. And, naturally, you will have to FULLY HONOUR YOUR OWN NOTES, rather than accepting them only at their discounted market value. "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's!" Don't get unnecessarily mixed up with his manipulated currency, no more so than a free trader in foreign currencies.Do not pretend to be Caesar's equal. Be better! Then you do not need his support. (14) If this is going to be a prolonged exchange, then it might be better if it were fully computerized, with each entry starting with a catchword and thus fully sortable, automatically, on a computer. What system are you using? I use IBM compatible Dulmont Magnum - later renamed Kookaburra and a Zenith, with an MSDOS system going to, I believe, 2.2 or possibly 3. (15) I have recently seen a reader printer from 3M advertised in Sydney for only $ 150. The cheapest before, that I heard of, wre $ 300. You could have a large Bell & Howell box machine from me for my purchase price, ca. a year back, $ 35, with me absorbing the inflation factor, hoping to recover it through sales of fiche. But you would have to pick it up at that price. I don't want to bother with packing and shipping. At most, if I come for a visit, I could bring it with me. I have other machines for $ 55, 100 & 150. Sydney has now several suppliers at $ 60, 65, 90 and I am expecting to hear price of 3 more of them, shortly. (16) I you read my literature list you will notice that I DO cover already a wide range. No one can publish everything, not even on fiche. It is eminently a SELF-PUBLISHING medium. Thus, why don't YOU fiche these "business books". I cannot even imagine what you mean by them. Accounting and tax records??? Each has to cultivate his own garden. If business books belong into yours, YOU cultivate it. There are dozens of micrographic agencies in Melbourne, too, only too willing to do your commercial papers filming. I do not chase the existing market but try to build up a new one that interests ME! (17) Well, why not try to build up a collection of all monetary freedom writings, more complete than mine? I have tried for decades, in vain, to get many of thes titles. Why not get someone to produce a comprehensive bibliography, including abstracts of such writings, and reviews of all of them? A listing of all relevant addresses. Scanning the lot into computers and putting it on line? If you are, practically OMNIPOTENT, then this should be EASY for you. This information soup could even be automatically sorted, alphabetically, according to locations, time of publication, title, contents, author, length of contribution, source of contributions etc. (18) Let me first see what kind of politics Richard offers now. I knew him on and off, more off than on, since about 1964 and we largely agreed then but he may have trodden a somewhat different path since and have adopted other priorities. And one has to be careful with modern super glues. They can become rather sticky. Information exchanges are often better than associational links. A scholarly or activist network can be more productive than any organizational monster, artificially glued together into a solid and petrified structure. (19) Club membership requires proximity. Sine 1959 I was just 5 times in Melbourne and only 2 of these stays lasted more than hours. Voting systems : Even the most ingenious ones cannot fully replace individual initiative, ad hoc associationism, unanimous agreements among frieds, free individual choice, experimental freedom etc. They are just a consensus mechanism that is SOMETIMES and SOMEWHAT helpful in certain cases. Voting is NEITHER A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT NOR A FUNDAMENTAL OBLIGATION. Individual choices are. (20) No. (21) No. Can't afford either. (22) I do hope so, soon. But better typewritten. Preferrably on computer, with catchwords at beginning of paragraph and on a compatible system, for the alphabetical and automatic integration of our notes. PIOT, John. P.S.: My youngest, David, 26, with whom you spoke on the phone, sends best wishes and is glad that someone gets stuck into that particular wedge, as he put it.