RE: Life after the oil crash

From: Tjalle T Vandergraaf <>
Date: Fri Oct 28 2005 - 11:24:42 EDT

I did have a quick look at the web site cited by Janice Matchett. One
statement stood out for me, and I have copied it here (hope I won't get sued
by copying without explicit permission!)


"To repeat the message of the peaceful means of exchange, "If you do
something good for me, then I will do something good for you." If both
parties did not believe they gained through the trade, if each did not see
the exchange as beneficial, they would not continue to take part in it."


What if one party has next to nothing to contribute? I'm thinking here of
the unfortunate victims of the hurricanes that hit the US Gulf Coast, Mexico
and Guatemala recently. I suppose an incident reported on CBC speaks volumes
to the concept of "peaceful means of exchange." A Canadian couple,
vacationing in Cancun, reported that they had to exchange their wedding
rings for some food and water. I suppose it was a peaceful exchange, there
was no coercion, and both parties got what they wanted and therefore saw the
exchange as beneficial.


I'll have to read the entire article to become clued in, I suppose, but it
would be nice if Janice would point out why the other guy would not be
skewered under her system.


Chuck Vandergraaf



From: janice matchett []
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 9:50 AM
To: Tjalle T Vandergraaf; 'Glenn Morton';
Subject: RE: Life after the oil crash


At 10:41 AM 10/28/2005, Tjalle T Vandergraaf wrote:

True, any scheme will involve some skewering of the other guy.

### You have no clue.

Received on Fri Oct 28 11:26:32 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Oct 28 2005 - 11:26:33 EDT