Thank you, -Michel I watched the entire video, and have seen Money as Debt One several times. First, the sophistication of Grignon understanding of economics has greatly expanded. There are a few quibbles in details and the development and identification. He is advocating for a version of MMT/FF. He never actually addresses the state origin of money per se, and it is a major objective. He never explicitly defines money as a COMMONS, and it is central to his narrative. You will have to excuse me on two points of irony. Grignon mentions both the Money Masters crew and the American Monetary institute, and he never mentions MMT/FF or any of the participants in that discourse. It is a bit like rolling out a plan and then not giving credit to the community which has co-developed that bundle of ideas and principles. Not posing the MMT/FF position as a legitimate participant in this immediate discussion becomes a significant problem for me. The MMT/FF position on monetary reform is actually the discovery that the bus named "Our Economy" actually has a steering wheel and other control features. The advocacy of monetary reform ends up being a bit pointless unless there is a substantial body of practice that can propose new policies and move toward new fiscal objectives. To a large degree, MMT/FF is what we can do with monetary reform that reoccupies the currency commons being held as a privately held franchise. The MMT/FF people are also of the opinion that new major legislation is not necessary, the reforms that are needed could be done as easily as US Pres. Nixon closing the Gold window in 1971 by executive order. Most of the banking process that would be necessary to support the MMT/FF instrumental process as already established though currently under private franchise. The MMT/FF people seem to feel that the move for legislation, is more of an educational and political strategy toward a public discourse, not necessarily having a value in the literal reform agenda. In his roll out of "alternatives" he mentions LETS (1.0) and Timebanks, which are specifically debt based exchange models. They are credit union based, in a sense, currencies that operate under banking laws and conventions. In that there is a strong similarity between credit unions/thifts and debt based "alternatives," it would likely be that there could be a legal point here that debt based "alternatives" should be placed under the same banking legislation and regulations. Operating across national boundaries would seem to attract the same sort of scrutiny as is being given the hawala networks. The second irony here for me is that although Grignon seems to advocate for MMT/FF practices and principles, that energy is primarily directed toward debt based alternatives. The CRX becomes a sort of missing link in the process and in the discourse of what alternatives are possible. To rely so much upon the MMT/FF discourse only tacitly acknowledged, and then channeling reform energies into the centralization of electoral politics and toward debt based semi-alternatives does not seem particularly progressive in detail. There are nuances of the word "Open" that seem to be absent in the named cast of participants. Perhaps there will be a "Money As Debt III: Money as Asset/Sustainable Economics". as we go, Tadit On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 03:43:07 -0400, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsmbWBpnCNk

hi chris, could you embed this with the youtube abstact, post-date oct 25 or after,

perhaps Tadit could offer an extra comment to add to it,

Michel