RE RICKARDS

He apparently came up with some of the things I have alluded to here on this blog.

Just watched his interview re The Death Of Money, part 1.

Great stuff. Kindof similar to my comments here, re the clash, and re lack of leverage, things like that.

Of course, he shares economists' delusions that the best planning is no planning.

Question: How did he reach that conclusion: 

by comparing good with bad planning (but there is no such thing as good planning); 

or by comparing no planning (good planning) with bad planning (but there is no such thing as no planning);

or by comparing bad planning with bad planning (but how then to arrive at a criterion of bad planning or good planning); 

or by reasoning abstractly about the concept of planning (but there is no such thing as planning in the abstract)

or by comparing good, or bad, policies with planning (but aren't policies just planning by another name, just less of it; or, rather, are policy and planning then apples to oranges in some senses;

finally for now, if he has prescriptions based on his conclusions, are those merely policy options instead of planning options; 

for example if other countries are trying to get off the dollar and return to gold, is his advice to just stick with policy rather than to try to do some planning for such an eventuality; 

but then how to do longer term planning if the next administration changes policy?