I am very familiar with the AMI's proposal. Relative to the MMT approach the AMI proposal is a half measure, and it relies upon the legislative process and celebrity politics. I suggested to Stephen Z. at the AMI's first annual conference the utility of a p2p like process to demonstrate what a sovereign currency would operate(hence the CRX as a learning process). He chose to structure local chapters as advocacy groups solely toward national level legislation for reform. The MMT folks believe that by the use of reserve accounting as used by the central banks and that Pres. R. Nixon took the US economy off of the gold standard in 1971 by executive order, federal level legislation is not required for monetary reform. I have labored to bring the two perspectives together, and Stephen seems to regard the MMT people as an opposition to his agenda. I have done several reviews of pop-level books on monetary economics for the AMI and have been invited to speak several times by Stephen Z. and continue to have conversations with him during the year. I believe that the Kucinich legislation is a worthy effort and doomed at the gate due to massive economic illiteracy, particularly at the legislative level. My approach is more on the lines of if the people will lead, the politicians will follow. as we go, Tadit On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 07:14:38 -0400, robert searle <[email protected]> wrote:
The following maybe of interest from the American Monetary Institute headed by Stephen Zarlenga. The present page of the link reveals that Senator Kucinich has been at it again to try, and have Congress take the ideas of AMI seriously. A copy of the Bill can be found onsite... http://www.monetary.org/ RS>