Now I loosely read your papers, which I think is fair that we don't all always fully read each others posts.  But I will go back and read more carefully over the days if they are still relevant. I do not want to immediately seem like I am arguing but I do have some relevant (counter) points to make. Because again I must point out that you also do not seem familiar with the 20 years of lectures on the topic of "what is ideal money", and so I am not so sure that you can be said to be speaking in the context of that subject.

In constructing what is to be our most ideal money, we should certainly want to be familiar with the subject of it, and especially in relation to that which are the nature and causes of the wealth of nations.  And these are the very points in my opinion that you have missed in your essays.

Do I SERIOUSLY have to fight to be heard, when I can simply point out, you have not even consulted the lectures entitled "ideal money"?