Given the obvious advantages of restructuring an economy to conform to the principles of binary economics, why aren't governments — many of which are increasingly panic-stricken about the declining world economic situation — adopting it?
Frankly, governments have become so used to thinking of Keynesian economics as something that cannot be questioned that they don't question it. Many people in power simply haven't considered the possibility that things could be fundamentally different if we changed a few basic assumptions about labor and capital, money and credit, private property, the role of the State, and the market.
These people aren't bad, but they refuse to think about something new unless someone in authority tells them it's okay. That's why we think if we could talk to, for instance, President Obama or Romney, even now something could be done in a very short time. One person who should be very interested in what we're saying is Pope Benedict XVI — and he has the prestige to get other world leaders to listen.
There is, of course, always the possibility that another country will see the benefits of adopting reforms consistent with the principles of binary economics and enact a Capital Homestead Act before the United States. Japan, for instance, has demonstrated that once it gets hold of a good idea, it can take it to heights undreamed of in other countries. Poland is another possibility, especially in light of the fiscal restraint that the National Bank of Poland has previously shown (although there are signs of weakening on this).
Any country that adopts the basic principles of binary economics as embodied in Capital Homesteading can expect to rebuild a sound economy within a very short time — and not at the expense of other countries, but to their benefit as other countries begin to realize the benefits associated with restructuring their institutions to conform to common sense instead of political expedience.