Re: On freedom of choice in pricing method, and in currency

RE: the governments themselves

Any government and any political party is an amalgam of many forces, inside
and out. At this time there is more open-mindedness amongst government and
political party folk around the world to consider workable new monetary
system architectures and elements than at anytime since the 1930's and
40's. The keyword is "workable". There are many half-baked excellent and
silly ideas out there.

RE: Wouldn't they feel that their ability to control the marginal changes
in the money supply in their own country is threatened, and attempt to
block the standard on this account?

Governments don't control total effective money supply anyways. That's
determined by the notional value of the world's derivatives (currently
guessimated to be equilvalent to more than USD$600 trillion). Search:
[notional value dervatives] for some interesting reading generally, and
follow http://www.bis.org/statistics/derstats.htm to boggle your mind with
the official numbers. Outside the official realm, the super-wealthy won't
oppose something new that they can still get super-wealthy in. There's
nothing in choice of currency or choice of price index concept that would
give the super-wealthy a headache, and it's not an income-redistribution
scheme. If anything, it enables the whole range of tangible goods and
services businesses, large and small, with a way to partially protect their
market trade from the purely speculative market that typically runs in
opposite directions to what they require. So there's lots of reason for
certain power and money to support it. Yes, some interests losing power and
money would oppose it.

RE:  If so, then that might cause the whole standard to be blocked. Perhaps
not a good trade-off.

If so, then keep it out of the standard. But I only suggest that this
matter about choice of currency and choice of price index goes inevitably
hand-in-hand with a universal web payments system. I don't advocate is as
policy decision, but as a logical corollary. I certainly grant that I could
be wrong about this (hence, I'm proactively asking for peer review). But if
I'm right about it, then the only result of keeping it out of the standard
will be that a number of extensions or plugins will be created and
implemented outside the standard, and will eventually need to be
standardized. That would involve more commotion than getting the logic
squared away elegantly the first time.

RE: a new equal-playing-field web money system is going to be
revolutionary. Maybe the fight to get standardized is going to be the same
with or without this inclusion.

To be clear. my recommendation is not for any new "money system" in law or
practice -- it would just standardize choice of currency and price index
within the realm of contract law (which is where webpayments occurs
legally). Anyways, the incumbent monetary system is far more revolutionary:
an ongoing seat-of-the-pants revolution that they're cobbling together to
keep things going. <frown> So inelegant! </frown>

RE: Maybe best to include it, and negotiate with it in place, but be ready
to pull it if there's too big a backlash?

That's what I think. But as I said, I reckon that "pull it" just means it
gets done as a number of non-standardized plugins, wasting valuable time
and effort until eventually its seen as a normal requirement.

Joseph Potvin


On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > Thoughts about this anyone?
>
> +1
> Very interesting bg reading and standard amendment. Thank you.
>
> It seems that this could be a fundamental improvement, but probably fought
> hard by various entrenched groups.
>
> The big one that occurs to me is the governments themselves. Wouldn't they
> feel that their ability to control the marginal changes in the money supply
> in their own country is threatened, and attempt to block the standard on
> this account?
>
> If so, then that might cause the whole standard to be blocked. Perhaps not
> a good trade-off.
>
> On the other hand, even without this inclusion, a new equal-playing-field
> web money system is going to be revolutionary. Maybe the fight to get
> standardized is going to be the same with or without this inclusion. And
> maybe this inclusion will bring more people *into* the standard than it
> attracts new enemies. Hard to predict at this point. Maybe best to include
> it, and negotiate with it in place, but be ready to pull it if there's too
> big a backlash?
>
>
> Steven Rowat
>
>
>
> On 11/24/13 6:10 AM, Joseph Potvin wrote:
>
>> I'd like to cross-post and request some peer review about this item
>> from the Payswarm's github site, dealing with a draft suggested
>> payments system standard requirement:
>>
>> "A payments system standard shall respect and enable vendor freedom of
>> choice in pricing method, and in currency. Any vendor may implement
>> fixed, differentiated or indexed pricing. And any vendor may designate
>> one or more currencies in which to receive payment. Following from
>> this, any purchaser may issue payments in any of a vendor's designated
>> currencies."
>>
>> Details here:
>> https://github.com/web-payments/payswarm.com/issues/
>> 9#issuecomment-29155947
>>
>> Significance explained in pgs 17-19 in:
>> http://library.mises.org/books/Friedrich%20A%20Hayek/
>> Choice%20in%20Currency.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>
>> --
>> Joseph Potvin
>> Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
>> The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman<http://goo.gl/Ssp56>
>>
>
>


-- 
Joseph Potvin
Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
http://www.projectmanagementhotel.com/projects/opman-portfolio
jpotvin@opman.ca
Mobile: 819-593-5983
LinkedIn (Google short URL): http://goo.gl/Ssp56