>
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-03/26/content_11074507.htmIf this was a single voice I wouldn't give it $4.99 of attention, but it's not - and this time it's the voice of official China, which gives it some weight (about one trillion at least).
I somehow doubt that Keynesian 'bancor' would work - if it was based on the behavior of 100 items, these 100 items would become subject of the worst kind of speculation, with swings from overabundance to shortage, depending on the interests of speculators. It's more of a Russel's paradox - how do you introduce a criterion within a system without stepping out of the system? As in "all the men on the island who shave themselves are in group A, those shaved by the local barber are in B", which is impossible because the barber goes both ways. He's one of the set which is to be divided based on their relation to him, so his relation to himself needs to be decided. As he can't step outside of himself, we have a paradox.
Money is probably the most paradoxical thing in our civilization - it's an attempt to impose an absolute value in an area where everything is relative, fluid and dependent on the whims of the day. Anything that's used as a measure of value will soon be multiplied and there'll be inflation - if it's diamonds or precious metals, new mines will be found or a synthetic process will be invented. Whatever it is, a way will be found by some ingenious schemer/swindler to relativize any absolute value that was set - with the sole goal to become rich.
Whichever way this turns, I just hope it won't be that instead of one country exporting its inflation to the rest of the world, it goes to a two dozen doing the same thing. If that happens, it will just serve to kill few more millions.
