Dear List, In the essay _What is Money For?_ under the subheading "Usury" Pound writes: "The perspective of the damned nineteenth century shows little else than the violation of these principles [that is money is a culturally produced 'artifact']by demoliberal usurocracy. The doctrine of Capital, in short, has shown itself as little else than the idea that unprincipled thieves and anti- social groups should be allowed into the rights of ownership" (SP) This quote crystallizes the message I find throughout Pound's economic theory: ungoverned Capitalism is entirely impoverishing. What I find difficult to fathom is the reception of Pound as "capital happy" because of his apparent willing manipulation of his and his friends' "image" (Bel Esprit etc.) and cultural position for profit. Was Pound ever rich? I hope this find helps. All the best, Chris Chapman