Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: maceng2 who wrote (6508)	9/1/2003 6:49:00 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793622

You have a good thread here LB, and I like discussing the issues with you. Thank you, Pearly! I will post this for you to ponder on when you come back. I came up with a "Theory of Money" back in the 70s that is really the way the money system functions today. My basic postulate was that: The ultimate Money is credit good for future delivery of energy. All money today is really backed by the productivity and stability of the country that issues it. At it's base level, using the term from Physics, that means it is backed by energy. A bunch of Bond and currency traders keep the countries honest. No guns involved anymore. You run an honest currency, or you go under eventually. To take this to a micro level, lets imagine a multinational company that is working all over the world. It is paying it's people all over the world in a variety of ways. Let's say it sets up an internal credit card company and issues "Company" credit cards to all employees. It pays the salaries of it's employees to these credit cards. The card functions as a "Debit" card. The employee knows that so much is credited to the card each period, and can spend off it in any country to satisfy any currency, or debit it out to any Financial Institution he or she cares to. Now, the kicker is added that the employee will recieve "x" amount of interest on the credit left on the card. This could be reinsured easily. The Multinational has just become a private Bank issuing its own currency.

To: maceng2 who wrote (6508)	9/8/2003 4:15:36 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793622

You may have seen this "Scotsman" piece, Pearly. Documents reveal Gilligan misled MPs JASON BEATTIE CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT THE reputation of Andrew Gilligan, the controversial BBC journalist at the centre of the Hutton Inquiry, has suffered another blow after previously unpublished documents reveal he misled MPs investigating the case for war with Iraq. The BBC reporter has already been criticised by corporation executives after he e-mailed two members of the foreign affairs select committee (FAC) revealing that Dr David Kelly was the source of a report by the BBC Newsnight journalist Susan Watts. It has since emerged that three days after sending the e-mail, Mr Gilligan told the committee he had no knowledge of the MoD scientists? dealings with other journalists, including Ms Watts. The contradictory statements have infuriated Labour MPs on the committee and will raise further doubts about the credibility of Mr Gilligan as Lord Hutton prepares for the second stage of his inquiry. Committee member and Labour MP Gisela Stuart said she would be asking her colleagues to consider referring Mr Gilligan to the appropriate Commons authority for his alleged contempt of Parliament. In an e-mail on 14 July to a Liberal Democrat aide, Greg Simpson, which was forwarded to FAC member David Chidgey, Mr Gilligan outlines a series of questions the committee should put to Dr Kelly when it questioned him the following day. A similar e-mail was sent to Richard Ottaway, a Conservative MP on the committee. At the time, Mr Gilligan was under pressure to name Dr Kelly as the source of his story that Downing Street had exaggerated the September intelligence dossier on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction against the wishes of the security services. In the e-mails, Mr Gilligan said Dr Kelly should be asked about "what kind of threat Iraq was in September 2002". He continued: "He also told my colleague, Susan Watts, science editor of Newsnight, (who described Dr Kelly as ?a senior official intimately involved with the process of pulling together the dossier?): ?In the run-up to the dossier, the government was obsessed with finding intelligence to justify an immediate Iraqi threat?." Three days later, Mr Gilligan appeared before the FAC in a private session during which he denied being aware that Dr Kelly had informed Ms Watts?s report. Prior to giving evidence, Mr Gilligan was warned by Donald Anderson, Labour chairman of the FAC, that he was "bound" to answer all questions put to him. Mr Anderson also warned that misleading or refusing to answer the committee could cause it to make a report to the House of Commons. If the committee decides to take the matter further, Mr Gilligan could be accused of contempt of the House. This article: thescotsman.co.uk