The effect is to mandate private money where the restriction is not judicial, but market determined. That clause is a fundamental over-ruling of the right to coin, the Supremes are going to have a problem, big time.
The Supremes would need to codify a mathematical condition, on money, allow mathematicians the power to define what exactly sacred can mean, in terms or a fake Godot. On what basis can he Executive take Facebook to court for libra? The defense is simple, the right to coin is over ruled by double entry accounting money in the 14th.
How will Robert's rule? Going to court when mathematicians can prove the necessity of government shutdowns, implies the monopoly effect of sacred debt causes untenable prohibitions of other rights. Specifically, the right to coin seems to be contradictory to rulings on sacred debt. The right to coin is reserved by millennials, and it is not hard to prove that they be deciding the issue, soon. They ae not paying, roll overs will be slowed way down.
But the court is faced with an even deeper right, the right to amend , and the 14th is the latest word on the subject. I dunno? Where are the legal scholars? I give it a shot.
Legally, current debt is sacred, but the right to coin implies government can run a dual monetary system. Both the 14th and the Right are preserved. That is a solution sandbox can deal with, we can bet the crossover to new money, and discount enough government debt in the transition. It would be like executing an exit from a liquidity net, and having to cover accumulated government default costs. The pit bosses can bid entry and exit queues, according to a default rule.
The mathematicians are telling us Thy will be done, for the simple reason that money means a process of stabilization. The whole conversation starts and ends with the assumption that all agents can notice a shortest path forward. What we really know is entropy is not decreasing.
No comments:
Post a Comment