1.  Do you believe that economic growth can continue indefinately?

2.  If not, do you believe that a debt-based currency system forces short-term decisions to maintain economic growth without regard to long-term consequences?

It has zero merit and has not checks and balances and hence would have drastic affects on our present floating currency exchange system.

The system is a simplification of what we use today: independent central banks decide monetary policy and try to control the amount of money in the system - independent of government.

This proposal does not imply that politicians can choose how much money to pump into the economy. That decision is still in the hands of the central bankers: just as it (mostly) is today.

In fact this system is more accountable, because central bankers are merely well paid to manage the economy, there is no personal profit motive for them to inflate the money supply unlike with private bankers who are always under the so-called "moral hazard".

The report does discuss why this would not lead to runaway inflation. I suggest you read it.

The American currency--paper dollars or electronic dollars credited to bank accounts--is created at will by a privately owned organization called the United States Federal Reserve.[1]  The Federal Reserve creates money to lend to the US government at interest--and the US Treasury packages this debt as an "asset."

It's the current system that lacks checks and balances. Rules that once exists are broken down in the name of free markets.  The collapse of the gold standard, for example. I would like to know the current M3 figures. And you only have to look at the huge twin deficit of the USA to know that the exchange system isn't working.

In the name of National security, company's traded at the New York stock exchange can be allowed to report incorrect number. [Intelligence Czar Can Waive SEC Rules. Now, the White House's top spymaster can cite national security to exempt businesses from reporting requirements http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/may2006/nf20060523_2210.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily, ]

<snip> President George W. Bush has bestowed on his intelligence czar, John Negroponte, broad authority, in the name of national security, to excuse publicly traded companies from their usual accounting and securities-disclosure obligations. Notice of the development came in a brief entry in the Federal Register, dated May 5, 2006, that was opaque to the untrained eye. <end snip>

For American middle class stocks are there retirement funds. The paradigma is that in the long rum they have to up. Why would a government allow companies these hidden numbers on balance sheets? Maybe to prevent another Enron to happen?

But central banks do think about a collapse of the worldwide banking system. And in the conclusive chapter of annual report of the Bank of International Settlements they speak of a "tipping point" in the world capacity to produce oil and commodities.

<snip page 141>
Again, there are considerable uncertainties. To be more pessimistic, if the global disinflationary effects of lower-priced goods from emerging economies have been underestimated, then the consequences of the waning of this influence could also be unexpected. In addition, there is a great deal of uncertainty as to whether the world has hit a "tipping point" in its capacity to supply more oil and commodities, with the implication that prices might stay higher for longer than has historically been the case. To be more optimistic, there are still many lower-cost jurisdictions in the emerging market economies, not least central and western China, and production will eventually move there as well. And advancing technology could well compensate for the increased difficulty of finding new reserves of commodities. Yet both of these adjustment processes will take time. Given current levels of global demand, the risk would be continuing inflationary pressures in the interim. Moreover, to the extent that the credibility of central bankers has been enhanced by the earlier, fortuitous circumstances, this credibility could also be tested. It would, of course, need to be vigorously defended.
What grounds are there for believing that "imbalances" pose a threat to the optimistic view looking forward? It is not hard to identify a large number of significant and sustained deviations from historical norms in important macroeconomic variables. However, concerns about disruptive reversions to more "normal" values have to be qualified to the extent that such deviations can be explained and justified as being of a lasting nature. Unfortunately, recourse to such "fundamentals" does not seem adequate to explain either the extent or the duration of the unusual circumstances currently being observed. This leaves room for a complementary explanation: these phenomena might be linked to there having been such abundant global liquidity over such a long period.
<end snip>

And the central banks do prepare themselves for collapse.  

<snip page 148>
Making such preparations in advance of trouble would complement the wide variety of other measures which have been taken over the years to improve the underlying health of financial institutions, markets, and payment and settlement systems. A more recent suggestion that merits greater attention is the possibility of setting up "off the shelf banks" in advance of difficulties. The idea is to establish a legal entity that would be able to assume, at very short notice, the vital functions of a failed financial institution and thus mitigate the knock-on effects of closure. This would be another way to limit regulatory forbearance, which has often been a problem in the past.
<end snip>

Or is this path another way to overcome check and balances?

----

Personally I don't think that USA invested money of collective retirement funds from the Netherlands or elsewhere will be paid back in the end. Beside agriculture, defense equipment, software and Hollywood, there isn't much industry left to payback. And you can't pluck a bald eagle.  

Time will tell, but I know that real wealth comes from nature.

Bart Blaauwendraad
The Netherlands

A cheetah can't spend more energy on finding it's preys than it's getting from them.
[1] In 1982 the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that:
"Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations."
JOHN L. LEWIS, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant/Appellee. 1982 No. 80-5905