Rushkoff's conclusions don't follow from his argument (such as it is, setting aside such silliness as middle-ages tourism). He seems to be arguing against merc

Rushkoff's conclusions don't follow from his argument (such as it is, setting aside such silliness as middle-ages tourism). He seems to be arguing against mercantilism and fiat money. Luckily, we've progressed past mercantilism in many ways, and fiat money could be easily replaced without destroying the economy. His conclusions about the banking system seems a hopeless confusion between central banking and a market for capital. He indicts the former, yet wants to tear down the latter. While he seems to be aiming at corporatism (or corporate fascism), he only takes an unsupported swipe at corporations in general, placing all blame on their shoulders without acknowledging any blame that might fall on the government and democracy. Saying "For one business to pay back what it owes, another must go bankrupt", he reveals a childish idea that all business must be zero-sum, so that there must always be a winner and a loser. But it can plainly be seen, when two parties freely enter into a transaction, that both feel that they are coming out ahead. He seems never to have considered that business can actually create wealth. And apparently dismisses the idea that new markets are being created at a furious pace, ignoring the giant strides in communications, healthcare, computing, transportation, etc, that have been made in the last half a century.