>However, this accidental birth of a new currency is less likely than a
>proactive decision to start one. This is much easier to imagine. For
>example, if, say, Microsoft, General Electric (the finance division
>thereof), VISA, IBM, Citibank, WalMart and one or two more of the biggies
>decided to issue a new e-currency, fully backed by their assets, with
>guaranteed exchange value against a defined package of goods, and able to
>be securely transferred, then it's possible to imagine this becoming a
>useful currency for individual use. The new currency would only then
>require the formation of investment banks to pool individual savings, and
>it would then become a fully-functioning currency. I cannot see how even
>the US government could stop this.
Easy. Require payment of taxes in legal tender. Make all government payments in legal
tender. Require all banks to deal with the Fed in legal tender as to reserve
requirements, capitalization, etc.That's the way it works now, and there's little
reason to change it, from the government viewpoint.
I once did the paperwork for a non-profit, tax-exempt organization. One of the
projects we had in mind was a LETS (Local Exchange Trading System). The examiner at
the IRS had a hissy fit over that one and just about didn't give us our tax-exempt
status. The IRS requires payment in legal tender, not LETS dollars and they feel
threatened by local currencies.
Tom
--
_________________________________________________________________________
Tom Lowe One of the most powerful aspects of
Jackson, Mississippi delusion, or ignorance, is the belief
[EMAIL PROTECTED] that what we do does not really matter
http://www.jacksonprogressive.com -- Sharon Salzberg
