Wei writes,  ":)" ( I don't think I got the ears on straight).
    I am LOL because that looks just like the old man on the cover of my Tao
te ching.
    But wasn't Pound aiming at a more equitable distribution of wealth by
attacking usury? Or was he misguided in this crusade? And shouldn't we have
acknowledged his distinction between usury and interest not being the same
thing? I am not an economist. Someone please help me.
    " the way never acts, but nothing is left undone"

    Peace,
    Charles