commentary by Roger Erickson
Could the ‘platinum coin option’ solve the U.S. debt crisis?
What we really need are anthropologists to solve our fiscal problems. Read on, to grasp why.
This murky story starts with a seemingly isolated, and arcane question. Does the Pete Peterson Institute like the platinum-coin option for real, or do they just see it as a way to reduce future public spending, and hoard more of the existing currency supply among the plutocrats? Answering that arcane question, however, requires assessing the context - involving class & clan competition, and competing social paradigms held by the feuding sub-groups competing to shape group policy. Hint: you can't coordinate without communicating.
[And wow. Some of the other factions REALLY don't understand fiat currency!]
Initially, I can't tell if Pete Peterson is evil, or just ignorant about dynamic operations. Any evidence to tilt one way or the other?
Turns out Pete's had multiple interviews on Charlie Rose, so I'm going through them, to see if it helps shed some light on this baffling situation. It's revealing, from the start.
Jump to the 6 min mark here, to see Pete's views on the American dream.
Ok, Pete Peterson is a typical child of immigrants, like so many of us. Unlike others, however, he took a narrow path and became an absolute acolyte of Milton Friedman, working out of the Death Star (U-Chicago Economics Dept). Pete now clearly believes that in order to attain liquidity, "money" has to be saved up - even by the issuer of fiat liquidity notation!
I'd love to ask him how we "save" inter-personal credit, optimism and goodwill - aka, social credits; aka, social liquidity. Just to see how he answers.
[How do other social species maintain liquidity? Do ants hoard pheromones?]
Pete either didn't notice, or never accepted, that we left the gold std in 1933?
It's a tragically ironic twist that a man who "cares so deeply" about loss of the American Dream, is absolutely the major peril to that dream ... and simply doesn't realize it. He wants to save the American Dream, by starving it of liquidity? It's confusing. Doesn't that imply that he wants us all to have one, and only one, fixed dream - nevermore to diversify and evolve? Note to Pete: there is no evolution without liquidity - only austerity, and death.
There may be a deep-seated social reality here. Innovative people want liquidity so they can rapidly explore all options. Conservative people want to avoid risks, and hoard existing assets. They both extrapolate their fears of one another to extremes.
To be fair, conservatives hyper-extrapolate their fear that freely exploring emerging options will "naturally" lead to hyperinflation and collapse. They're patient, organized control freaks, and hibernators. They panic at the thought of depleting hoarded static-assets.
To be fair, innovators hyper-extrapolate their fear that any constraint whatsoever to exploring emerging options will stifle all exploration, and "naturally" lead to debt-deflation and collapse. They're impatient, disorganized risk takers, and rebels. They're enraged by the thought of running up dynamic-asset Output Gaps.
In reality, conservatives don't want to enslave and kill everyone, they just want them to suffer, a little bit - so everyone stays properly "motivated"? That's controlling.
In reality, innovators don't want to risk everyone's lives, they just want them to maintain enough daredevil practice to avoid comatose hibernation - so everyone stays adequately alert and gets enough practice, whether they want to or not? That's pushy.
Surival tracks the messy back and forth of staying between those two tolerance limits? Can't the two camps get together and focus on smoother navigation, rather than wasteful oscillations? Isn't that failure to maintain prior levels of coordination the factor that is really killing the American Dream?
We can do this. Can anyone schedule a small, private meeting with Pete Peterson?