> I'd like to suggest you re-read what I'd said. I stated that local
> currencies would obviously _not_ work for many things, such as (in
> Doug's suggested counterexample) steel, and it would not be a substitute
> for the prevailing currencies in all situations. Again, I'd be
> interested in knowing the actual workability of local-currency schemes,
> and how well they've worked when they've been implemented.
>
> But I am surprised at your argument which is, basically, "Nobody does
> this now, so it can't possibly work." You might argue, with equal
> content and force, that because GE doesn't like labor unions, and Ford
> isn't going to divest its investments in governments that commit
> human-rights abuses, it's silly and pointless to suggest that they
> consider going along with these things.
I didn't say local currencies can't possibly work. I said they can't possibly work if you want to have MRI's, ambulences, cancer drugs and computers in your local community. If you can do without these things, a local currency might work fine.
GE can be forced to accept a union as long as the union has the power of the central government to back it up. But the whole idea of the local currency seems to be to retreat from engaging with the central government and form your own local mini-communities. If you retreat from capturing power, you have to do without certain things -- like MRIs, cancer drugs and labor unions at GE.
Seth