The following article appeared on the US edition of FT.com today, if you haven't already seen it: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fed87d52-20c3-11e1-816d-00144feabdc0.html
I find this article's appearance as curious for a couple of reasons.
First, when I hear "confidence trick," I of course hear "rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric." But, then, what's new?
But, second, this understanding of the US's credit-based system of currency is also not new. So why is it appearing in the FT now? Bankers in both the US and the UK should know this about our system, shouldn't they? How is it that the FT, one of the most respected financial journals in the world, for whatever that's worth, thought it important to reproduce one of the most basic aspects of our financial system?
One guess is that they want to remind the "masters of the universe" (investment bankers, hedge fund managers, traders, CEOs of top companies--those who have the financial power to make decisions about our financial systems) that our whole system is predicated on "confidence," which, again, I read as "rhetoric." So are they trying to remind the bankers and hedge fund managers to step-up the confidence-inducing rhetoric? This piece might've been useful to every-day, regular citizens, so that they can empower themselves with knowledge of the system and make more intelligent choices about who they want in power or about how they approach money qua power in their own lives. But this piece won't reach those folks. I, with my tech savvy, had to subscribe to this feed, click through a bunch of stuff, save it, then distribute it. I have the privilege of leisure to read it, process it, think critically about it, then engage someone else similarly situated in order to contextualize it. Lots of folks don't have the time or the practical know-how to do all that. (Not that they couldn't, of course.)
The only other guess is that FT and the author are trying to take seriously the idea that because the system of confidence is government generated, stability and longevity of the system must be government supported. So it may be a call for the Fed to step up their game. But then I have to question whether this is the most effective forum for this argument. Maybe it's my skepticism getting the best of me, but I hardly think that most folks in Congress are going to take this piece seriously, if they even read it, unless they already agree. It just isn't strong enough to be convincing to someone who disagrees that government has a meaningful role to play here. If this piece is an answer to a David-Harvey-esque call for academics to get out there and start talking, I'm dubious of its efficacy in that regard...
