<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: PLENTY Exchange Rate Moves to 1P:$1 Today</title>
	<atom:link href="http://theplenty.org/plenty-exchange-rate-moves-to-1p1-today/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://theplenty.org/plenty-exchange-rate-moves-to-1p1-today</link>
	<description>Piedmont Local EcoNomy Tender</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 03:00:17 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Drew</title>
		<link>http://theplenty.org/plenty-exchange-rate-moves-to-1p1-today/comment-page-1#comment-8476</link>
		<dc:creator>Drew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 03:00:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theplenty.org/?p=566#comment-8476</guid>
		<description>What I don&#039;t entirely understand is why the PLENTY is necessary for accomplishing the objectives it is supposed to help achieve.  Couldn&#039;t many of these objectives simply be accomplished without the additional transaction costs that are inherent in producing a local currency?  After all, publicity campaigns and social pressure should be quite useful tools to promote a &#039;buy local&#039; initiative.  As for the PLENTY&#039;s environmental goals, the program breaks down into internal incoherence.  Because of the 1:1 exchange rate, the same number of dollars will be produced and circulated by the Fed regardless of whether or not the PLENTY is in circulation.  As a result, the production of the PLENTY, in fact, will contribute more carbon emissions, effluent, and other forms of pollution to the environment.  Finally, doesn&#039;t using the PLENTY actually put local business at a distinct disadvantage?  Those who choose to use the currency will have to incur additional transaction costs in order to transact in both the PLENTY and traditional Federal Reserve note economies.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What I don&#8217;t entirely understand is why the PLENTY is necessary for accomplishing the objectives it is supposed to help achieve.  Couldn&#8217;t many of these objectives simply be accomplished without the additional transaction costs that are inherent in producing a local currency?  After all, publicity campaigns and social pressure should be quite useful tools to promote a &#8216;buy local&#8217; initiative.  As for the PLENTY&#8217;s environmental goals, the program breaks down into internal incoherence.  Because of the 1:1 exchange rate, the same number of dollars will be produced and circulated by the Fed regardless of whether or not the PLENTY is in circulation.  As a result, the production of the PLENTY, in fact, will contribute more carbon emissions, effluent, and other forms of pollution to the environment.  Finally, doesn&#8217;t using the PLENTY actually put local business at a distinct disadvantage?  Those who choose to use the currency will have to incur additional transaction costs in order to transact in both the PLENTY and traditional Federal Reserve note economies.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
