Re: A Debate among Friends

John Turmel:
SEVENTH REJOINDER, TENTH ADDENDUM

1.  You wrote May 16:  "...if you borrow only $1000 and have to pay
back $1100 and that is all it is still a problem to be objected to.
It's only when you borrow $1100 interest-free and have to pay the
banker his service charge of $100 can you be happy about it.  Find a
banker as Bill Ryan sees it who will allow both the principal and the
interest he charges up front.  I'd always heard that there were such
'perfect' loans but never had any proof.  If it were true, it would
really be good news because we would then have the chance to borrow
both the loan and the upfront service charge (which I'm sure has been
computed to equal the interest they would have gained), then handing
over the service charge to the banker doesn't destroy the money and
all the prices can be recouped."

-----//-----

One would think that a person who so arrogantly awards himself the
designation of "banking engineer" would have once in his life opened a
banking dictionary.

>From The Institute of Financial Education, *A Glossary of Savings
Association Terminology,* 1976: "Discounting: The advance deduction of
interest from the principal amount of a loan, so that the borrower
receives the principal amount less the interest due over the term of
the loan, but repays the full principal amount."

>From American Bankers Association, *Banking Terminology,* Third
Edition, 1989: "Discount: The interest collected in advance at the
time a loan is made."

>From Lewis E. Davids, *Dictionary of Banking and Finance,* 1978:
"Discount: The amount of money deducted from the face value of a note.
The borrower receives the net amount after the discount has been
deducted.  The discount is computed at the rate of interest agreed
upon."

>From Charles J. Woelfel, editor, *Encyclopedia of Banking & Finance,*
Ninth Edition, 1991: "Bank discount: Interest paid in advance or, more
accurately, interest paid at the beginning of a loan based upon the
sum to be repaid at its maturity."

But as I have repeatedly stated, it doesn't matter if interest is
collected at the beginning, during or at the end.  If there are many
overlapping loans, it all works out the same to the economy as a
whole.

2.  I had written: "And why even 'reference' Kreyszig's text or any
other engineering text at all, except to lend credence to your bogus
claim to being an engineer?"
You replied: "I don't think too many people aren't convinced that I'm
a qualified engineer.  Didn't I know that your nodality theory
violated Kirchoff's Law?  As Wes [Burt] pointed out, it's not
something that the average layman learns and it's obvious you never
learned it at all...The fact I would use Kirchoff's Law to disprove
your nodality hypothesis is good engineering."
WBR: "Kirchoff's Law refers to current flow in electrical circuits,
and has absolutely no relevance to the subject we are discussing.  The
fact that you would even import Kirchoff into our discussion is
persuasive evidence of your complete incompetence as an 'electrical
engineer.'  In any case, the operative word is 'nodality' and not
'node.'"
JCT: "Oh yes.  Your ever expanding black hole that money disappears
into.  Interesting theory but after repeated demands, you've not once
shown us a nodality in the real world.
WBR: "The 'nodality' in question refers to a 'black box' that has
inputs and outputs, where the outputs are functionally related to the
dynamical characteristics of the 'black box.'"
JCT: "How many times have I asked you to provide us with one example
of a real-world nodality?  Five? Ten? Fifteen times?  Until you show
us a real-world 'expanding nodality,' I'd prefer to trust that
Kirchoff's Law applies to the financial circuit as readily as it
applies to electrical circuits and you don't know what you're talking
about.

-----//-----

Establishing the existence of real-world expanding nodalities, as the
term is used in Social Credit theory, will be the subject of my eighth
rejoinder.

For the moment, let's dismiss the relevance of Kirchoff.

Some definitions:

A "node" is a circuit point, into which there are current inputs and
from which are current outputs.  The idealized assumption is that it
is a point with no dynamical characteristics whatsoever--no
resistance, inductance, capacitance or reactance.

As contrasted to a point, a "nodality" is a element or component,
which may indeed have dynamical characteristics.  In electricity, a
delay circuit would be one such example.

I used the word "expanding" which is a dynamical concept.

Kirchoff's Current Law or theorem states that the algebraic sum of the
currents entering (or leaving) a node is zero.  The theorem most
definitely does not apply to elements, components or circuits.

I have been accused of being repetitive.

In this instance I cannot help but be repetitive.  By bringing
Kirchoff into our discussion, you have dramatically demonstrated your
utter incompetence as a self-proclaimed "electrical engineer."

Bill Ryan
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/7018
william_b_ryan@hotmail.com









_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com