Abstract: As'current'events'remind'us,'the'search'for'quality'money'(stable,'universal,' fungible,'secure,'convenient'and'fair)'is'an'on.going'game.'Previous'thinkers'have' proposed'“ideal'money”'[1],'tied'to'a'basket'of'commodities,'or'world'monetary' union'[2],'as'solutions'to'problems'associated'with'currency'wars'and'the'Triffin' paradox'[3].'But'these'kinds'of'solutions'require'benevolent'and'strong'central' authorities'that'can'impose'measures'on'state'actors.'This'appears'neither'feasible' nor'democratically'desirable.'At'the'same'time'lack'of'trust'in'state'level'monetary' discipline'can'undermine'popular'faith'in'available'systems'of'money.
Ideal Money is cited in this article above.
[/quote]
Quote
If 'forboon' was you, as you have claimed, you either control the account or you don't. If you do, it's a simple matter of proving to everyone that this particular claim is true with high probability - certainly significant enough for most here to believe you. Why should this matter? Not much, except that your arguments on Ideal Money often devolve into appeals to authority and burden-of-proof reversals. That's not going to get us further.
I could see us getting along in this dialogue if you are willing to provide evidence of claims that you make, in such a way that those here can verify. You should also demand the same from us here.
Suck it. I could see us getting along in this dialogue if you are willing to provide evidence of claims that you make, in such a way that those here can verify. You should also demand the same from us here.
