No, the solution. The alternative. The third way. The best of many proposed but mostly unsustainable or impossible answers.

Why? Because of the nature of the generalization or de-specification process, not only in government regulation as here, but also in such fields as grammar building in descriptive and theoretical linguistics (see Chomsky's Syntactic Structures - also Sidney Lamb, John Wevers). There is ultimately only one direction of "more general," just as a pyramid has only one peak (= generalized side) regardless of how many sides it has. Or as Chomsky put it, the better of two grammars is the one that accounts for the same linguistic data with fewer rules. The fact that they are fewer means they are more powerful, more generalized, and more insight-producing about the deep structure of the language.

This means that the next generation of economic designs (and underlying theories) may differ in detail, but they will have an overall similarity. They will all treat worktime not only as an economic variable, not only as a control variable, but as the control variable for the present century. And it will have a definite, non-optional series of successors, such as income, wealth, credit, credibility,....

In short, there are language universals and there are institutional or regulatory universals.

As for the matter of "non-war" alternative and the quote "War is declared! Universal joy among the merchants!" which is from the PBS documentary on the history of New York City screened repeatedly on Boston Channels 2 and 44 in 2000-2001, we have additional corroboration, based on the history of the Great War (World War I) from Prof. David Friday of the U. of Mich., who says at the start of Chapter 2 of his 1920 book, "Profits, Wages and Prices" (p. 14), "The popular impression that the war has brought a large increase in profits is fully borne out by the facts." And note the title of his first chapter, "The Curse of Peace."