On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 12:33, Elliott Hird <penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On 12 Dec 2008, at 19:21, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > >> I object. This proposal lets the indebted parties off the hook for >> value they got out of the VM without having to give anything of value >> to the other parties in return. > > I think we should cut them some slack. After all, this removes > indebtedness because it's basically fixing the value of VP, and this > motion repeals everything that uses VP (only leaving the definition > so that you can get value out of your current VP.) > Except the problem here is that by removing everything but the definition you have suddenly removed any value that VP once had. Sure the banks (due to not being able to instantly react to this change) will still buy them, but really all you are doing is letting the banks bailout the indebted players, which is only slightly better than the US Congress bailing out Fannie Mae. Hence why I suggested a gradual phase-out of VP that would still require the indebted to pay off their debts.
BobTHJ
