Given the Americans' total lack of interest in giving up a shred of control over their own currency, let alone abandoning it for something else
Now, is that clear? Do you understand? Learning yet? Or do you have to have a nurse come wipe the drool from the corners of your mouth every 10 minutes?
Ivan
Back to your corners. Both of you.
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.
The type is large enough but you are still using some awful big words.