RE: Life after the oil crash

From: janice matchett <>
Date: Fri Oct 28 2005 - 11:30:37 EDT

Apples and oranges. ~ Janice

At 11:24 AM 10/28/2005, Tjalle T Vandergraaf wrote:
>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
Received on Fri Oct 28 11:30:49 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Oct 28 2005 - 11:30:49 EDT