> power transfer from individuals to the state" This statement is very short, but it is full of unsubstantiated implications: 1. To have such a transfer, ther

> power transfer from individuals to the state" This statement is very short, but it is full of unsubstantiated implications: 1. To have such a transfer, there must be powers to individuals in the first place. But currency in its modern sense has never been "individual power". It's a common denominator of value transfer, and a measurement of credit. No individuals can possess such thing. It's inherently social and community based. 2. The power has always been within the government. It was somewhat stolen by the capitalist moguls, who, including other pro-market deeds and statements, have managed to turn government into the foundation of monetary power, but deprives the government from exercising actual control over it. For instance, government forced taxpayers to bail financial institutions, but are powerless to fundamentally alter the behavior of the financial system. 3. Transfer, no, these type of social-economic dynamism can never been reasoned using the English word "transfer". It's more like social engineering, of adapting people's perception, setup societal, and business organizations, and laws to match that design. You and the economist are basically on the same camp, but arguing a superficial issue that doesn't even matter. The goal is always make government become the safety net of the actually powerful entities, and ensnare the whole population to surrender the majority of their freedom for the enrichment of the few.