You didn't read the footnote 3 did you? These are all theories and 'schemes' that were analyzed and where not a part of the Gold Standard or metallic standard. "Angela Redish has reminded me, some work goes so far as to speculate about the potential stability of systems with no such anchor at all". I would speculate that "Amero" could be a viable "anchor". Here is the footnote:
3. The free-banking literature contains many ingenious schemes for convertibility anchors that go far beyond simple metallic standards, such as those based on gold and silver. As Angela Redish has reminded me, some work goes so far as to speculate about the potential stability of systems with no such anchor at all. Selgin and White (1994) survey this material, which there is no space to discuss here, with admirable clarity. Suffice it to say that I share their skepticism about the viability of systems that lack any convertibility anchor, and that to it I add a further personal judgment: namely, that, to be politically durable, monetary policy arrangements need to be kept simple, and that some of the more complex schemes that have appeared in the free-banking tradition, though apparently theoretically viable, would probably fail this test in practice.
Reading is good for the soul.
Does MADIVAN = CRAZYIVAN? the Russian submarine tactic?
By anchor, they meant a commodity backing a currency.
Reading is good for the soul.
Understanding is good for the soul.
Away with you, minion of idiocy.
Regards, Ivan