CNN's Brett Scott Confused About Money and Utopia 

By Marc Gauvin

Copyright ©21/8/2014

Reproduction expressly granted provided attribution is given and original link is provided.

"Our goal should not be to try to design a stable utopia, but to preserve peoples' ability to challenge or dissent from whatever dominant system is in place at any one time."   Brett Scott for CNN

Just in case some people were to confuse "Utopia" with "stable money system" easy to do given that the comment in the quote refers to an article about "Financial (money) Revolution":

A stable money system is not a "Utopia" because it doesn't solve the real problems of an economy, as by definition, a stable money system does not influence economic activity one way or the other.  But what a stable money system does do,  is provide a common, abundant, stable and Passive means for all to access "liquidity",  i.e. it provides the means for everyone and their wealth to be economically represented no matter their circumstances or the state the economy happens to be in.

Not to pursue stability of the money system is simply insane, because if we don't,  then we are preserving the instability of money that is what precisely makes it both so tantalising as lethal to society.   But anyone that knows what they are talking about when it comes to stability, knows that stability of money cannot ever amount to stability of the economy.  That is while money stability is a requirement for dealing and indeed adapting to changing economic circumstances and challenges,  it is not a sufficient requirement for economic stability (Utopia) however this is not to conclude that by the same token,  instability of money IS NOT a minimum and sufficient requirement for destabilising any economy.

Economics and so called financial expertise are the world's most insidious failures as they paint themselves as being rational when they are not and push themselves on society as being as imperative and necessary as in reality they are flawed.   They amount to a massive practically universal fallacy both in their content and in the illusion of credibility under which they propagate themselves,  as they use appeal to authority and appeal to the ignorance of their ignorance to spout absolute nonsense under the guise of a pseudo academic and pseudo rational front of "success" in everything about them except their mandate.  It is a circular quagmire of protraying a semblance of success in a failing system and veritable disaster that they are responsible for and using that "success" as a sort of social "centrefold" of what they expect the world to equate to some semblance of "credibility". 

But luckily for the rest of us who bother, we can show how in the most formal sense money systems are rudimentary system's that fall under a category of systems known to the rest of science as LTI (Linear Time Invariant) systems.  This means that money is not a mysterious natural phenomenon, it is not equatable to "The Economy" which is on the most part dependent on natural phenomenon (although there is no shortage of laughable lunatics that believe humanity will conquer the universe).  Thus,  money does not therefore inherit any of the reason defying complexity and inconclusiveness of "The Economy" which is literally dependent on the forces of the universe i.e. it has no humanly definable scope.  

So and in spite of the confusion in concepts and terms so indicative of economics and finance where the requirements for stability of tools (money) is confused with the stability of the system that the tool is to be applied to,  such that the latter dictates the stability of the former which is tantamount to saying a meter's stability is as good as the stability of what the meter measures, which is as stupid as it is absurd,  because then we would have no effective measure of "instability".

Unfortunately the vast majority simply and unwittingly assume that money is some sort of unavoidable unwieldy natural phenomenon that the poor "experts" that have "courageously" undertaken to try to apply their superior and exclusive brilliance to deal with this intellectual behemoth on everyone's behalf, by definition can never be expected to succeed.  Oh no! any success in understanding this beast is by definition so unrealistic that it must be utter "Utopian" folly.  But please take note everyone that if it walks and quacks like an LTI system then it is an LTI system and also take note that the so called expert pundits that claim the indomitable nature of money as a discipline, on the most part don't have the faintest idea of what LTI even means and those that do, do so by quoting shallow misquotes down the rabbit whole of answering questions with quotes of more inconclusive nonsense.

Remember it is one thing not to be able to define something because of its complexity or transcendent nature and quite another to conclude that therefore we cannot have any conclusive definitions at all. 

In the above quote, what Mr. Scott left out was the caveat that "stable money system" is not equivalent to "stable economy" and therefore does not and cannot ever imply any Utopia.  But then if he did do that,  then his comment would be meaningless wouldn't it?  Let us not forget that with this kind of shallow commentary,  how easy it is for others to fall into the error of believing that seeking a stable money system is just another foolish cause i.e. a "chimera",   which in itself is as foolish a statement as concluding that any engineering that uses simple meters is foolishly simplistic because engineering problems are generally quite complicated e.g. ask an economist or "financial expert" to build a GPS system or anything else that actually works.

Break out of  "The Money PSYOP" and give your kids

a future they can be proud of you for.


Additional information