Show paragraph

You have broached two related topics of particular interest to me:

a) the possibility of (some person, human or legal) conceiving and implementing “goods and services that would improve the lives of their fellowmen” and thereby “help to build a better world”, and,

b) the tendency of experts, especially with respect to economic matters, to be oriented toward policy.



The latter impulse impels experts to major in diagnosis of what ails economies and societies, often rigorously and convincingly. But, with respect to possible remedies, they default to advocacy of reforms which typically entail prescriptions for government policies.



The problem with this is that policy prescriptions rest on several imperatives. To be embraced requires an outbreak of right thinking - a broad (enough) recognition (and defeat) of the folly, incoherency and perhaps even the vile underlying motives of alternative schools of thought. Right thinking would then enable emergence of the degree of consensus required to influence discretionary policies or to amend legislation/regulation. And of course, the imperative aspect does not stop there. Once memorialized in enactments of the state, these policies compel obedience, just as losers in any political contest must submit to the dictates of the winners.



My life’s work entails developing and refining a specific integrated offering of goods and services, systematically focused on a foundational layer of economic activity and introduced via a market-based (i.e. non-coercive) commercial undertaking. If valid, and successful in the sense of becoming self-sustaining on the basis of operating revenues, its efficacy would not hinge on consensus, broad agreement with, or even understanding of, its principles. The core problem domain addressed is money and payments though broader applications are inherent.



Unlike the contradictions inherent in either direct or representative democracy, it would afford a harnessing of collective wisdom enabling automatic self-adjustment without the latency and reflexivity of discretionary monetary and fiscal policy processes. As such, I assert it to represent a “Gordian Knot” severing solution, capable of catalyzing both a much needed “Great Reset” and of fostering subsequent emergence of a credible and sustainable successor paradigm. None of this would entail impinging on any of the prerogatives of the state even though the emergent system would likely result in a beneficial entrainment of discretionary policy determinations worldwide.



Engagement and discourse desired!