Not what I am saying, I just wanted to know to save myself lots of time.Blondie wrote:Paul,
You are saying that if I want clarification of your perspective I should read Armstrong?
I have read the work of both Armstrong and Lietaer, but disagree with both. Both believe in the omnipotence of central planning.
I have more interest in thoughts about ideal system.I'm less interested in the "ideal" monetary system than I am in the next one. Nothing emanating from central planning will ever be ideal, that's the whole raison d'être of central planning - to tilt the playing field, because those doing such planning do not understand their own value and perceive "others" (in this case other states) as a threat. They are fearful of engaging without artificial advantage in case they are found wanting.
I can see your position from your diagram. The state is at the centre of your digram of "power"! The state!!! While you neglect to tell us the nature of this state, the fact that it is at the centre indicates that there can be no personal freedom, as the state is more important. One cannot be allowed to be responsible for oneself when the state is more important than you... what function would the state have in such a situation?
Individuals being free to be responsible for themselves supplies just this diversity. Government can adapt by stepping aside.Paul wrote:It is like ecosystem, to be sustainable you need diversity. Government will have to adapt to modern times ...
I could ask a very long list of questions based upon your "clarifying comment" alone (how does one hotlink to individual comments on this forum?), but you have not yet answered any of the other questions from my last comment, just asked if I read Armstrong.
Armstrong is a very clever guy, to be sure. He was the first to successfully adapt to the floating fx environment post 1971 by modeling a "virtual currency" for himself which gave him a reference point inside the system, and a huge advantage over everyone else. Well done. His problem now however is that he remains in that perspective, thus the only way forward on such terms is further complications, and further state controls and diktats. Because of the past success of his perspective, Armstrong is hamstrung by it.
This one is not going to last, we do agree on that one.
What/how next one will be we will see. In euro-freegold I do not believe. Architecture is just flawed.
I think there is much more to Armstrong's work than you give him credit for. He certainly is no central plan man. He is the one acknowledging no one can have control over worldeconomy. To state Armstrong wants further state control is far from the truth. The man is a free market fundamentalist. He brings a historical perspective and understanding of time and markets not having anything to do with this dollar system. His cyclic economic confidence model also works on roman empire. I did not check myself. I do believe though.
It answers to why I questioned if you've read the man. We draw totally different conclusions. And some of the answers to your questions about the one world currency are in his piece I referred to.
I would not call the complementary currencies I like and Lietaer suggests central planning. exactly opposite. they grow from bottom up instead from top down. they are organic. we could start one
You use own interpretation of my nice mental playing board to judge it by. but I did put state(any form) in the middle, correct, just as I did with unit of account(reserve currency). It is where the tensions/problems are. They should only be administrative. They are not. State is what we make of it (just like reserve currency), It is not a curse in my book anyway. I am not advocating statecontrol nor am I attacking personal freedom. Are you advocating anarchy here ? This board(in progress) is just a confidencegame, do you play your games alone ?
I am not here to defend or attack, I am here to share thought, perspective and comment,
I might answer questions I might not,
It is nice to watch this interesting time and market with people who share same interest,
we do not have to agree, time will prove all things