news-record.com

Skip to the site menu
Skip to search

BLOGS

Thinking Out Loud

« Return to blog

What does local currency have to do with Nov. 3? Zilch.

Some readers took issue with Signe Waller Foxworth's piece last Sunday about a local currency initiative.

One called the notion "socialism."

But however you feel about local currency, it is perfectly legal, and it is being tried in a number of cities.

Two callers said we should have identified the writer's connection with the Nov. 3, 1979, Klan/Nazi shootout.

That is not our policy.

We do that if it is germane to the topic the writer is addressing ... or if the disclosure reveals some involvement or affiliation that speaks to the writer's expertise or vested interest in the subject.

So, we'd tell you if the author addressing health care reform is in the insurance industry or is a doctor.

Similarly, we'd tell you if someone writing about the challenges at, say, Oak Ridge Military Academy is an employee there.

Waller survived the bloody Nov. 3 shootout. Her husband at the time, Jim Waller, did not.

But her connection to that incident had absolutely nothing to do with what she was writing about Sunday.

Had her column focused in any way on Nov. 3, we would have mentioned her role as one of the anti-Klan protesters and a member at that time of the Communist Workers Party.

It didn't, so we didn't.

Permalink

Posted by Allen Johnson on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 at 9:18 am

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Andrew Brod

July 22, 2009 - 9:41 am EDT

Of course your callers were bonkers. Not only does a local currency have nothing to do with November 3rd, but it has nothing to do with socialism either. (I swear, people have no idea what "socialism" is--it's just a catchphrase for anything political conservatives dislike.)

Not being socialism doesn't necessarily make a local currency a good idea. I'm still deciding what I think of it, but of one thing I'm sure. It's not socialism, but it is protectionism. It's just a new gloss on the old mercantilist idea that trade is bad and we need to keep "our money" at home. The trade opposed by 18th-century mercantilists and 20th century labor unionists was international in nature. The trade that local-currency enthusiasts oppose (or at least want to reduce) is trade with anyone outside of Greensboro.

newtogso

July 22, 2009 - 3:01 pm EDT

I didn't get that they were opposed to trade outside of Greensboro, but that they are FOR keeping more currency circulating locally. I'm skeptical as well

dcribar

July 22, 2009 - 4:21 pm EDT

Andy:

To compound the ironies here, one of the best-known examples of a local currency was(is) the company-issued scrip, which U.S. labor leaders in the 19th and early 20th centuries fought. Until recently, Walmarts in Mexico used this despicable practice, paying part of their workers' salaries in Walmart vouchers ( http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssFinancialServices%20-%20Diversified/i... ).

So we have a one-time communist now trying to resurrect this approach and conservatives calling it "socialist." It just goes to show that if you live long enough, you'll see just about everything.

Andrew Brod

July 22, 2009 - 7:42 pm EDT

newtogso: It's the same thing.

Dave: Ironies abound in the way economics is debated these days. Thanks for the latest example.

SueP

July 22, 2009 - 12:13 pm EDT

So why do you print the names of victims of violence (just not rape)? Victims, who might be witnesses, are jeopardized by that policy and it's not germane to the story - and it's dangerous to the victim.