So your argument is that this is right because "everybody does it" and because "it's always been done that way"?. Your counter-argument against my point that the current system does not enhance usage and entice new users *as good as it could* is "plenty of people pay to read e-mail the world over" and "there is plenty of circulation"?
As you said yourself, those email readers are outexchanging their revenue. Where does that help the system? Now, I was suggesting to charge punitive fees on outexchanges, remember? Would an exchanger benefit more from those people who read emails all over the world and then outexchange if those people were paying 5% discount on outexchanges or not? Also, I did suggest a flat fee for in-exchanges. So, if someone in-exchanges $100 and another outexchnages $100 then your spread would be a whopping 10% !!! I must have been teaching temple traders in a previous life, yes? Interesting by the way, that you used specifically that example. Because those exchangers had another thing in common with your way of thought: They were exchanging coin for the specific purpose of spending it in the temple! Very much like the current system enhances a single purchase of and subsequent spending of a set amount of e-gold, which then is outexchanged again by the merchant. Do you really not see that what I'm proposing is designed to keep the money in gold? It's designed to foster trade inside the community and to attract others to it. Of course, the current system can go on forever and exchangers make a few bucks and we make a few bucks off exchangers on top. In the end, I'm trying to sacrifice parts of my very own cash cow in order to enlargen everyone's herd, so that we all have more to milk - and me more cream to take off the top. I would never suggest that I'm willing to give away parts of my own profits if I didn't expect that the benefits of doing so would multiply my profits. Traders in Asia hide their daughters and shudder in angish when I enter a bazaar. I haggled a 10% discount in a department store in Australia because everybody said it can't be done. So hey, I'm suggesting something that I believe will give us all more profit. And the argument that "we don't do things that way" has cost shareholders of a department store 10% off the revenue of my purchase ;o) Imagine I can convince three or four of the big exchanges to give a reversal a shot? Imagine other exchangers loose all their in-exchange clients to those three or four. Imagine the others would be swamped with out-exchange requests because they still have the old spreads in place, but couldn't get rid of the gold afterwards because nobody would be willing to pay the surcharge? Of course it takes guts and cash to pull it off against the others, but it's doable. It would take no guts and next to no extra cash if the majority of exchangers saw the light from the onset. What difference does it make to an exchnager if he charges for inexchange or for outexchange - the spread is still there - and I never argued against a spread, quite the opposite. Cheers, Robert. PS - budget & privacy website hosting http://www.cyberica.net budget & privacy domain registrations + mail http://www.u2planet.com/cfdomaintrust.html --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
