time to save the American Government's finances.
I had intended to list the planks one by one, but first, it will make less sense, and seem less cohesively thought out, if I do it that way, so here are the main planks affecting Finance
( Read more... )
2) I don't think this works. It's complex to explain, it indicates willingness to default causing a huge loss of confidence, and it doesn't address the most likely course for us: not outright default, but inflation. Unless you're going to denominate the senior tranches in something other than USD, I think this doesn't help much.
3) yup.
4) I can give you a pass on this. Fixing 1 and 3 gives us a bit of breathing room.
5) I can't sign up for slavery. This is a non-starter.
6) easy.
7) It's a hard sell for me to give up anonymous transactions and the ability to have cash on hand that can't be invalidated by the police without physical contact. Less of a showstopper than #5, but I don't see much economic benefit and I see a huge personal freedom loss.
8) No real opinion. Easy cross-border movement is a good thing (and VAT makes it reasonable to still charge sales tax as duty), but language and culture matter and I'm not sure the integration will be all that smooth. I'd be tempted to push the other way: split USA into (at least) 3 distinct nations.
Reply
I agree. I think being too big is not a good thing. I think perhaps splitting up the US and then having a AU sort of like the EU could work, at least for mobility and freedom of movement and for economic partnership.
Reply
2) You are right. Look at my response to Radiata Prime above, but....you make me think that the senior tranche could be denominated as you say, perhaps a basket of useful commodities (preferably one's we have here in the USA) and that might make the whole thing a real big synergistic plus, and not just a stop gap savior measure....hmmm...
5) I think you do National Service a great wrong by calling it slavery. That word is so loaded from our own ugly history. I think I can explain it to all of you opponents more appropriately in a separate entry. But a few key thoughts are above, esp. in my response to Corwyn ap. Look there for a few thoughts, but I'll elucidate on this in one of the next few entries.
8)A few years ago I tried to suggest a split up of the USA into separate entities and no one liked it then. (Of course I can't find the quote/entry now.) I agree it would be at least 3 distinct nations, maybe as many as 8.
This possibility is why I want to include the coming "states rights" plank, because I don't think stepping back further into sectional nationalism is the right road. The future is world government. Maybe it is a long way in the future, but I'll be surprised if we don't end up there.
Uh, no I won't, I'll be dead by then.
Thanks, as always.
Reply
Leave a comment