At 12:40 PM +1000 06/10/2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I suggest the e-gold list is probably NOT the place for a long
>discussion of political matters!
>
This is probably true.
>I'm an offender, let us keep it to pithy comments so Jim doesn't have
>to bring down the email list police on us :)
Well, I don't own the list (Reid does) so I would not. This discussion,
while interesting, seems to have come to a point of fervent, vehement,
mostly-agreement. Both guys don't like anti-freedom governments! A
pretty unremarkable view around these parts, I'd say.
What interests me is the following question: We all know that e-gold
is great stuff. We all know that more folks should use it. It's obvious
that many/most "early adopters" are somewhat-libertarian in their
political outlooks -- plainly, I'm that way too! Yet at the same time,
we should remember that no matter how we personally feel, e-gold
is like gold. It's apolitical stuff, just a currency! How should "we" get
across to groups (with which we may disagree) the advantages of
e-gold? We know it works better, so should we point out the ways
that e-gold helps owners of small accounts? The ways it's efficient
for giant transfers of value across borders, in no time? Socialists,
not just libertarians, should flock to e-gold, but they have not so far.
What can we do or say to change things, so that they love e-gold
like they should? I've tried the "it costs less" argument many times,
but (perhaps because these folks aren't known for economics...) I
usually don't get anywhere. People seem willing to pay more if it
means they don't have to think about something new.
JMR
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
