Sorry for the crossposting, but did you seriously make the claim that *I* provide one-sided supportings for my points? After writing out that list, you seriously make that claim?
Second, I didn't claim the BoR was fully incorporated. Please stop setting up straw men.
Heh. Keep kidding yourself. I think you've been sufficiently chastised by another responder to your post... you cited the dissenting opinion. Way to go, chief.
You've proven yourself quite capable, over the years, of making a statement and then googling to find supporting for it. Unfortunately, since you do not have a grasp of the subject matter, you sometimes make glaring failures such as this one.
As for shades of gray, versus black and white, who was it who claimed that the law was completely constitutional? Are you backtracking now, claiming to acknowledge shades of gray when glarin holes in your statement are pointed out?
Once again, you've shown yourself to be ignorant of the subject matter.
Please see my reply to your comment in the other subthread. The Supreme Court has ruled affirmatively that the 1st amendment rights are covered under the 14th amendment.
The word "rights" does not exist in the Fourteenth Amendment. "Privileges and Immunities" does. They are exclusive terms.
Go ahead, argue against what the Supreme Court has found over and over again. While the 14th has been held to be selectively applied to the protection of rights from State interference, only the 2nd and 5th amendments have not been affirmatively upheld wrt state law.
This is a State-level body declaring their right, via the 9th and 10th Amendments, to regulate speech.
In direct contradiction with the 14th amendment.
As long as the U.S. Congress does not try this tactic, as far as I know, it's constitutional, and people will get what they deserve at the State level.
Relevant portion in bold. You obviously don't know... please save your ramblings for subjects where you have knowledge.
So Childs pursues the one course of action that is guaranteed to lead to his never being allowed to look after so much as a toaster, never mind his beloved network. Not very smart.
He's probably hoping for whistleblower protection, and intends to show that he was being terminated wrongfully for threatening to blow the whistle.
It may be a desperation move, but until the facts come out, we don't know. If it turns out that he was being terminated wrongfully, it's possible that the city of SF could be forced to keep him on their payroll... on the other hand, I'd speculate that he's grasping at straws.
I've read some about the "situation", and all I think all we know for certain is that we don't know anything for certain yet.
In the case of gas, it's really more expensive than it should be because of various taxes.
I'm not so sure about -- what about the billions we have spent, and continue to spend, to defend the interests of the oil companies? There are many indirect subsidies (such as tax incentives to refineries, for example) that often get missed.
I'd also add that pollution and resource depletion are externialities, so if they were factored in, I'd say that the cost of gas, in the US at least, is _FAR_ lower than it should be.
Dude, you amaze me with your inability to follow a logical chain of thought. You continue to make false parallelizations. You can scream and cry about the current situation all you want, but note that the GDP of te US is not shrinking, it is still growing. Compare that to the 1930s.
You compare figures of GDP to figures of national debt. You compare industry risk to national debt. Just because the numbers are big doesn't mean they have anything to do with eachother in the fashion in which you compare them.
As for Freddie and Fannie's holdings, why are you using net value models when you should be using expected value models? Seriously? You have NO idea of what you're talking about, which I'm sure has something to do with the fact that your posting as an A/C.
Finally, was the US great depression a nightmare? Well, my grandparents made it through fine, but definitely with a healthy respect for savings and hard work. Inflation never got out of control to the point where people were burning money to keep warm.
Dumbass. Why is inflation such a bugaboo for you? Moderate inflation to devalue the excess currency would probably have staved off some of the economic disaster of the great depression. And no disrespect to your grandparents, but if you want to talk about straw men...
Contrast that with people starving today in Zimbabwe due the the 1-2 MILLION % inflation.
And that has, exactly, how much to do with US economic policy?
As I referenced earlier, a Germanic country without an asset backed currency during that period happened to come up with their own "solution", or as we call it today, the Holocaust.
OK, now I know you're either completely illogical, an absolute idiot, or a pretty good troll. I suspect the latter, with some elemenents of the first two thrown in.
That trust you mention is bleeding away, and quickly.
As long as we don't get sucked into a global inflationary spiral, we'll be OK... the problem is if poor management of currencies in south america and asia drag us into a mess.
I'm sick of being on the low end of this 99/1 split (It is said that 99% of the world's wealth is owned by 1% of the population).
You're kidding, right? Are you in the US? Guess what... chances are, you're pretty close to being in that 1%. You may not feel like it, since there are people more absurdly wealthy in the US... but by and large, complaining about global wealth distribution while living in the US is pretty absurd. My apologies if you're not American.
We are off the gold standard, and two of the largest boom bust cycles in history just went down with tech and housing.
You're confusing economic boom/bust cycles with sector boom/bust cycles. There is a big difference between a bubble in one sector versus an economy-wide boom/bust. Also, you should note that the latest two bubbles were nowhere close to the largest in history when compared to GDP.
How about looking to the hyperinflation that happened in many other FIAT currencies and deciding to avoid that? (Wiemar republic anyone)
So since some fiat currencies were poorly handled, that means all fiat currencies are bad?
And sorry, but I would hardly call the economy of the US a nightmare from 1876 to 1971.
I see. The Great Depression wasn't a nightmare? Or any of the other recessions during that period? Never mind the fact that the US was forced to revalue the currency during the Great Depression... they didn't even stick to the gold standard.
Deregulation of the banking industry relaxed controls on the money supply... this is different from controls on the currency. Furthermore, the current controls on the money supply are greater than we would have if we had a commodity-backed currency. So even though the situation now is not good, it could be far worse if we had a gold standard... since even meager controls are better than no controls.
And an effectively oil-backed currency is different how?
You answered your own question with your qualifier. The USD is not oil-backed... if anything, it is backed by one thing only: trust.
Effectively the US earns 1-2% annually by nature of the USD being the world's reserve currency. The fact that oil is priced in dollars (for now, anyway) contributes to this. The biggest factor, however, is the fact that the USD is relatively inflation-resistant. This is not because it is effectively oil-backed (and I'm not sure what you mean by that statement, anyway -- USD cannot be redeemed for oil with the organization that prints it), but because of the Federal Reserve's actions to maintain a low level of inflation... i.e., a fiat-based currency.
What maintains trust in the dollar is the idea that the US will maintain low inflation.
US dollars are backed by nothing but the whims of the federal reserve, and it's this very fact that has brought about America's current financial predicament.
Citation, please.
Some economists believe that America's current financial predicament was brought about by deregulation of the banking system, allowing banks to create currency by lending far more than they owned. Some economists believe that the current predicament is due to huge federal budget deficits. Some economists believe the current predicament is due to trade imbalance. I'm sure there are other theories out there.
However, a gold standard is not some magical cure to ecnonomic woes, it carries its own host of problems... and the biggest problem is that it removes the ability to correct for currency valuation issues.
E-Gold holds audited stocks of gold to the value of its deposits, which is a far safer store of wealth than the US dollar.
Gold is a commodity, and thus is not a safer store of wealth than currency -- if anything, it is less safe, since there are fewer controls over the world supply of gold then there are over the supply of currency. Apples to oranges -- one cannot compare a commodity to a currency, they are by nature two different things.
If you really want to consider the problems of a gold standard, look to history. There are reasons the gold standard was abandoned, and no protestations by any number of goldbugs will change the fact that a commodity-backed currency leads to frequent boom-and-bust cycles that are devastating to economies.
The current system is not perfect, but a commodity-backed currency is a nightmare we should not revisit.
* The Long Now Foundation uses five digit dates, the extra zero is to solve the deca-millennium bug which will come into effect in about 8,000 years.
So yes, it's looking forward to avoid problems based upon our experiences with Y2K. What I want to know is: What about the centamilleniall approximately 98,000 years from now? Should be 001999 and 002008. Talk about short-sighted...
Won't somebody think of the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-[...]-great-grandchildren?
I see your point... and definitely agree, except for a small nitpick, which is why I lumped consultants as a subset of contractors.
If I hire a consultant to consult for me on a contract basis, then the consultant is a contractor. I've dealt with McKinsey, with E&Y, with (showing my age a bit) Deloitte Haskel & Sells, and with JH Cohn on this basis.
If I hire resources to serve my clients on a contract basis, then the resources I engage are subcontractors... I'm the contractor.
In the past, I've hired consultants as staff, and I've hired them on contract basis. Consultant refers, in my experience, more to the role being fulfilled, than to the means of employment.
Why this is important in the context of this discussion is that when budgets need to be slashed, often contract consultants are vulnerable, just as contract workers are. There are some consultants who specialize in areas where they are in higher demand during cost-cutting cycles, but those are few and far between. Typically, the long-term planning that those kinds of consultants engage in applies to more than the short-term budget crunch -- so demand for their services does diminish at crunch-time. That said, there are plenty of management teams (and ownership) that don't plan well in the long term, and their companies may need more consultants in times like this... I'm just saying that my experience suggests that good companies have that consulting done in times of plenty, not times of want.
The report was based upon a survey. So, the reason for the reporting is "Most CIOs we interviewed expect to reduce expenditures for contractors and discretionary IT spending". If you want reasons, you'd probably need to contact the CIOs that were interviewed. But here's my guess: pressure from owners/the board to reduce costs in the face of lower forecasted revenues.
Take the article for what it is... not an analysis of why and how companies will reduce spending, but instead the results of a survey.
Well, it's anecdotal at best, but I've seen a severe reduction in consultant expenditures over the past 6 months, and I don't think that's going to improve over the next year or two. Depends on the nature of the consultant of course... but most consultants are contractors.
I think you misunderstand the problem. Carbon is not sequestered in coral. It is sequestered as coral. It can only be protected from dissolution by encapsulating the coral in a non-permeable membrane, which is not feasible, even if it might be possible.
Think of the "sequestered" coral as a buffer. When the ocean gets too acidic, carbonate is "pulled out of" coral and shells in order to maintain equilibrium.
The equilibrium is between dissolved CO3--, HCO3-, H2CO3, and CO2. As CO2 goes up, the other portions of the equilibrium will increase in order to maintain equilibrium, so we'll end up "needing" to dissolve some CO3-- from shells/coral.
Dumping lime into the ocean will shift the equilibrium, since some of the carbonic acid will be stripped of H+ by the OH- in lime.
In order for the system to "replace" the H2CO3, more carbon will need to be pulled into solution from atmospheric CO2.
I'm getting a little sidetracked, here, but the answer is that sequestering the carbon as calcified carbonate doesn't help since it is still available to the system. In the purest sense of the word, it's not really sequestration of the carbon at all.
Charles King, an analyst at Pund-IT Inc., said that such hot-button technologies as cloud computing deployments may slow down. "The message here is CIOs are looking primarily to tested, well-understood technologies that can result in savings or increased business efficiencies whose support can be argued from a financial point of view," he said.
I'm sorry, but it's hard to take your message seriously when your company name is Pund-IT. From the name, I think you'd have been better off with Pun-dit. Or Pwnd-IT, which is pretty much what a lot of consultants are going to be feeling like next year.
At any rate, anyone who has been around business through a down-cycle or two would know that this is common sense. New programs, new ways of doing things, are saved for when the budget Gods are feeling generous with surpluses, not when eveyone is tightening their belts. There are, of course, exceptions to this... but anyone who thought that, in general, discretionary spending would increase over the next year really needs to have their head examined.
You're right in some ways, but I'd still like to see the info on what copy he reviewed. Either the publisher is terrible (in which case, reviewer may be correct), or he got hold of a review copy... in which case the reviewer comes off as amateur at best.
However, given his complaint about "Custom", I'm taking every error the reviewer found with a grain of salt. I am not confident of his capacity to identify errors, even grammatical ones -- particularly since no context was given for them.
The quality of the book's writing is noticeably weak, with countless awkward phrases and run-on sentences. Some are downright puzzling, e.g., "Thanks for your custom!" (page 125); did the author mean "order?" Throughout the book, one finds a remarkable underuse of commas, frequent mixing up of "that" and "which," misplacement of commas and parentheses, misuse of commas in place of semicolons and even periods (e.g., page 124), semicolons in place of colons, and missing hyphens from adjective phrases. Most noticeable -- and at times laughable -- is the excessive use of exclamation marks, reflecting a common misconception that they jazz up otherwise dull material. For example, page 49 contains three completely unnecessary exclamation marks, not counting the two contained within a customer testimonial. In addition, the book contains several errata, such as: "loose" (should read "lose"; pages 8 and 195), "leads customers" (should read "leads to customers"; page 57), "products" (should read "product's"; page 62), "customers' role" (should read "customers' roles"; page 88), "to mentioned" (should read "to mention"; page 131), "its does" (page 159), "If a more" (should read "If more"; page 202), "businesses" (should read "business's"; page 221), and many more.
The review seems pre-occupied with errors that were missed by the editors that do not reflect the quality (or lack thereof) of the writing itself. While the reviewer does touch on some serious issues (awkward phrases, run-on sentences), using over 10% of a review to harp on editorial gaffes is a waste of space. This is especially true considering that some of the "mistakes" are not mistakes at all, but instead, use of British English instead of American English. "Thanks for your custom!" is perfectly acceptable in England, it is equivalent to saying "Thanks for your business!" in the US.
In short, grammar Nazism doesn't belong in a book review, other than perhaps making a slight mention of it. I'm also very curious as to whether the review read a review copy, or a retail copy. Review copies are frequently filled with errors that will be caught later during final copy editing.
I think you're missing something... namely, that sequestered carbon is soluble in acidic water. Sure, the coral can try to sequester it, but as soon as it is exposed to the water, it dissolves. There's no getting around the basic chemistry of this problem.
this inherently unstable volatile fiat currency would quickly disappear as worthless in the market, and real money would evolve to take its place.
What? "Real money would evolve"? Please explain how "real money" differs from currency. Do you mean commodity-backed currency? Because that's a nightmare we'd rather not repeat. Do you mean bank notes? Because that's another nightmare we'd rather not repeat.
I'm curious, seriously, about what attributes you'd like to see a currency have that are currently not present, and what restrictions you'd like to see.
Also, as for the Central Bank being the only ones who can counterfeit dollars, care to explain what you mean? All lending banks get to create dollars out of thin air, in a proportion to their actual currency reserves. What we have now seems to be prettyy close to the "real currency" you envision.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry for the crossposting, but did you seriously make the claim that *I* provide one-sided supportings for my points? After writing out that list, you seriously make that claim?
Second, I didn't claim the BoR was fully incorporated. Please stop setting up straw men.
Heh. Keep kidding yourself. I think you've been sufficiently chastised by another responder to your post... you cited the dissenting opinion. Way to go, chief.
You've proven yourself quite capable, over the years, of making a statement and then googling to find supporting for it. Unfortunately, since you do not have a grasp of the subject matter, you sometimes make glaring failures such as this one.
As for shades of gray, versus black and white, who was it who claimed that the law was completely constitutional? Are you backtracking now, claiming to acknowledge shades of gray when glarin holes in your statement are pointed out?
Once again, you've shown yourself to be ignorant of the subject matter.
Please see my reply to your comment in the other subthread. The Supreme Court has ruled affirmatively that the 1st amendment rights are covered under the 14th amendment.
Go ahead, argue against what the Supreme Court has found over and over again. While the 14th has been held to be selectively applied to the protection of rights from State interference, only the 2nd and 5th amendments have not been affirmatively upheld wrt state law.
Here's some analysis that may help you, and it includes additional writings that clarify the intent of the 14th amendment.
If you have sources that contravene this, please provide, I'd be glad to read them.
In direct contradiction with the 14th amendment.
Relevant portion in bold. You obviously don't know... please save your ramblings for subjects where you have knowledge.
He's probably hoping for whistleblower protection, and intends to show that he was being terminated wrongfully for threatening to blow the whistle.
It may be a desperation move, but until the facts come out, we don't know. If it turns out that he was being terminated wrongfully, it's possible that the city of SF could be forced to keep him on their payroll... on the other hand, I'd speculate that he's grasping at straws.
I've read some about the "situation", and all I think all we know for certain is that we don't know anything for certain yet.
I'm not so sure about -- what about the billions we have spent, and continue to spend, to defend the interests of the oil companies? There are many indirect subsidies (such as tax incentives to refineries, for example) that often get missed.
I'd also add that pollution and resource depletion are externialities, so if they were factored in, I'd say that the cost of gas, in the US at least, is _FAR_ lower than it should be.
Sweet, where can I get a 62-bit browser?
I already have a two-bit browser, that would be IE7.
/Ducks
You compare figures of GDP to figures of national debt. You compare industry risk to national debt. Just because the numbers are big doesn't mean they have anything to do with eachother in the fashion in which you compare them.
As for Freddie and Fannie's holdings, why are you using net value models when you should be using expected value models? Seriously? You have NO idea of what you're talking about, which I'm sure has something to do with the fact that your posting as an A/C.
Dumbass. Why is inflation such a bugaboo for you? Moderate inflation to devalue the excess currency would probably have staved off some of the economic disaster of the great depression. And no disrespect to your grandparents, but if you want to talk about straw men...
And that has, exactly, how much to do with US economic policy?
OK, now I know you're either completely illogical, an absolute idiot, or a pretty good troll. I suspect the latter, with some elemenents of the first two thrown in.
I suggest you redefine your usage of the word "liberal" to coincide with how the rest of the world uses it. :)
As long as we don't get sucked into a global inflationary spiral, we'll be OK... the problem is if poor management of currencies in south america and asia drag us into a mess.
You're kidding, right? Are you in the US? Guess what... chances are, you're pretty close to being in that 1%. You may not feel like it, since there are people more absurdly wealthy in the US... but by and large, complaining about global wealth distribution while living in the US is pretty absurd. My apologies if you're not American.
You're confusing economic boom/bust cycles with sector boom/bust cycles. There is a big difference between a bubble in one sector versus an economy-wide boom/bust. Also, you should note that the latest two bubbles were nowhere close to the largest in history when compared to GDP.
So since some fiat currencies were poorly handled, that means all fiat currencies are bad?
I see. The Great Depression wasn't a nightmare? Or any of the other recessions during that period? Never mind the fact that the US was forced to revalue the currency during the Great Depression... they didn't even stick to the gold standard.
Nice false dichotomy. What are you, 12 years old?
Deregulation of the banking industry relaxed controls on the money supply... this is different from controls on the currency. Furthermore, the current controls on the money supply are greater than we would have if we had a commodity-backed currency. So even though the situation now is not good, it could be far worse if we had a gold standard... since even meager controls are better than no controls.
You answered your own question with your qualifier. The USD is not oil-backed... if anything, it is backed by one thing only: trust.
Effectively the US earns 1-2% annually by nature of the USD being the world's reserve currency. The fact that oil is priced in dollars (for now, anyway) contributes to this. The biggest factor, however, is the fact that the USD is relatively inflation-resistant. This is not because it is effectively oil-backed (and I'm not sure what you mean by that statement, anyway -- USD cannot be redeemed for oil with the organization that prints it), but because of the Federal Reserve's actions to maintain a low level of inflation... i.e., a fiat-based currency.
What maintains trust in the dollar is the idea that the US will maintain low inflation.
Citation, please.
Some economists believe that America's current financial predicament was brought about by deregulation of the banking system, allowing banks to create currency by lending far more than they owned. Some economists believe that the current predicament is due to huge federal budget deficits. Some economists believe the current predicament is due to trade imbalance. I'm sure there are other theories out there.
However, a gold standard is not some magical cure to ecnonomic woes, it carries its own host of problems... and the biggest problem is that it removes the ability to correct for currency valuation issues.
Gold is a commodity, and thus is not a safer store of wealth than currency -- if anything, it is less safe, since there are fewer controls over the world supply of gold then there are over the supply of currency. Apples to oranges -- one cannot compare a commodity to a currency, they are by nature two different things.
If you really want to consider the problems of a gold standard, look to history. There are reasons the gold standard was abandoned, and no protestations by any number of goldbugs will change the fact that a commodity-backed currency leads to frequent boom-and-bust cycles that are devastating to economies.
The current system is not perfect, but a commodity-backed currency is a nightmare we should not revisit.
So yes, it's looking forward to avoid problems based upon our experiences with Y2K. What I want to know is: What about the centamilleniall approximately 98,000 years from now? Should be 001999 and 002008. Talk about short-sighted...
Won't somebody think of the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-[...]-great-grandchildren?
I see your point... and definitely agree, except for a small nitpick, which is why I lumped consultants as a subset of contractors.
If I hire a consultant to consult for me on a contract basis, then the consultant is a contractor. I've dealt with McKinsey, with E&Y, with (showing my age a bit) Deloitte Haskel & Sells, and with JH Cohn on this basis.
If I hire resources to serve my clients on a contract basis, then the resources I engage are subcontractors... I'm the contractor.
In the past, I've hired consultants as staff, and I've hired them on contract basis. Consultant refers, in my experience, more to the role being fulfilled, than to the means of employment.
Why this is important in the context of this discussion is that when budgets need to be slashed, often contract consultants are vulnerable, just as contract workers are. There are some consultants who specialize in areas where they are in higher demand during cost-cutting cycles, but those are few and far between. Typically, the long-term planning that those kinds of consultants engage in applies to more than the short-term budget crunch -- so demand for their services does diminish at crunch-time. That said, there are plenty of management teams (and ownership) that don't plan well in the long term, and their companies may need more consultants in times like this... I'm just saying that my experience suggests that good companies have that consulting done in times of plenty, not times of want.
The report was based upon a survey. So, the reason for the reporting is "Most CIOs we interviewed expect to reduce expenditures for contractors and discretionary IT spending". If you want reasons, you'd probably need to contact the CIOs that were interviewed. But here's my guess: pressure from owners/the board to reduce costs in the face of lower forecasted revenues.
Take the article for what it is... not an analysis of why and how companies will reduce spending, but instead the results of a survey.
Well, it's anecdotal at best, but I've seen a severe reduction in consultant expenditures over the past 6 months, and I don't think that's going to improve over the next year or two. Depends on the nature of the consultant of course... but most consultants are contractors.
I think you misunderstand the problem. Carbon is not sequestered in coral. It is sequestered as coral. It can only be protected from dissolution by encapsulating the coral in a non-permeable membrane, which is not feasible, even if it might be possible.
Think of the "sequestered" coral as a buffer. When the ocean gets too acidic, carbonate is "pulled out of" coral and shells in order to maintain equilibrium.
The equilibrium is between dissolved CO3--, HCO3-, H2CO3, and CO2. As CO2 goes up, the other portions of the equilibrium will increase in order to maintain equilibrium, so we'll end up "needing" to dissolve some CO3-- from shells/coral.
Dumping lime into the ocean will shift the equilibrium, since some of the carbonic acid will be stripped of H+ by the OH- in lime.
Ca++ + OH- +H2CO3 --> Ca++ + H2O + HCO3-
Ca++ + OH- + HCO3- --> Ca++ + H2O + CO3--
In order for the system to "replace" the H2CO3, more carbon will need to be pulled into solution from atmospheric CO2.
I'm getting a little sidetracked, here, but the answer is that sequestering the carbon as calcified carbonate doesn't help since it is still available to the system. In the purest sense of the word, it's not really sequestration of the carbon at all.
I'm sorry, but it's hard to take your message seriously when your company name is Pund-IT. From the name, I think you'd have been better off with Pun-dit. Or Pwnd-IT, which is pretty much what a lot of consultants are going to be feeling like next year.
At any rate, anyone who has been around business through a down-cycle or two would know that this is common sense. New programs, new ways of doing things, are saved for when the budget Gods are feeling generous with surpluses, not when eveyone is tightening their belts. There are, of course, exceptions to this... but anyone who thought that, in general, discretionary spending would increase over the next year really needs to have their head examined.
You're right in some ways, but I'd still like to see the info on what copy he reviewed. Either the publisher is terrible (in which case, reviewer may be correct), or he got hold of a review copy... in which case the reviewer comes off as amateur at best.
However, given his complaint about "Custom", I'm taking every error the reviewer found with a grain of salt. I am not confident of his capacity to identify errors, even grammatical ones -- particularly since no context was given for them.
The review seems pre-occupied with errors that were missed by the editors that do not reflect the quality (or lack thereof) of the writing itself. While the reviewer does touch on some serious issues (awkward phrases, run-on sentences), using over 10% of a review to harp on editorial gaffes is a waste of space. This is especially true considering that some of the "mistakes" are not mistakes at all, but instead, use of British English instead of American English. "Thanks for your custom!" is perfectly acceptable in England, it is equivalent to saying "Thanks for your business!" in the US.
In short, grammar Nazism doesn't belong in a book review, other than perhaps making a slight mention of it. I'm also very curious as to whether the review read a review copy, or a retail copy. Review copies are frequently filled with errors that will be caught later during final copy editing.
I think you're missing something... namely, that sequestered carbon is soluble in acidic water. Sure, the coral can try to sequester it, but as soon as it is exposed to the water, it dissolves. There's no getting around the basic chemistry of this problem.
What? "Real money would evolve"? Please explain how "real money" differs from currency. Do you mean commodity-backed currency? Because that's a nightmare we'd rather not repeat. Do you mean bank notes? Because that's another nightmare we'd rather not repeat.
I'm curious, seriously, about what attributes you'd like to see a currency have that are currently not present, and what restrictions you'd like to see.
Also, as for the Central Bank being the only ones who can counterfeit dollars, care to explain what you mean? All lending banks get to create dollars out of thin air, in a proportion to their actual currency reserves. What we have now seems to be prettyy close to the "real currency" you envision.