"Daniel Pouzzner appears to have authored a philosophy called Innovism which is essentially pragmatic."
Hmm.
Well I searched Innovism:
http://www.mega.nu:8080/innovism.html
"The practical agenda of Innovism is to facilitate the creative, inventive, and productive activities of conscious systems, particularly those of humans. It is a complete moral system, and indeed strives to adhere to the unique system inherent to the universe. It does not, however, generally prescribe any particular course of action for a particular circumstance. Instead, it provides guidelines for evaluating the relative merits of available courses of action, and proscribes certain acts classified as crimes."
A rather strange idea- anything new is good. Perhaps this thinking is a result of watching too many TV ads- "Buy the New and Improved Tide"
:)
More:
"The capstone principle of Innovism is that which facilitates innovation is good and that which impedes it is evil. This is a dynamical definition, by which I mean it is expressed in terms of processes and changes. A typical act has a complicated structure, some components of which would by themselves have moral valence different from that of the act as a whole. Any act has a complicated set of expected and actualized consequences, which are themselves related to the basic moral compass of Innovism in a complicated way. Thus it is hard work to be good - indeed, hard work just to recognize good. Moreover, as will be explained in greater depth below, innovation is but one component of an inseparable triad composed of innovation, competition, and cooperation. This triad is a common and recognizable form of an evolutionary operating system, and Innovism, most generally and primitively, is the effective maintenance and enhancement of evolutionary operating systems. In the final analysis, that which facilitates innovation cannot but facilitate the operation of the whole evolutionary operating system, and that which impedes innovation necessarily degrades the whole evolutionary operating system. Thus, the capstone principle of Innovism can be equivalently stated that which facilitates evolution is good and that which impedes it is evil."

A rationalist selling some materialist religion.
Personally I have a high regard for reason, but it's not the whole ball game.

Oh, I read a bit further:
Economically, Innovism is a form of free market capitalism, differing from dialectical capitalism by the addition of certain constraints on the contents and operation of contracts. Specifically:

only employees of a company can own shares of ownership therein

share voting authority cannot be delegated

companies that produce similar or competing products with intersecting present or potential markets cannot merge or buy each other out, either explicitly or through orchestration

all monopolies in staple products are bound to uniform rate schedules (set by the owners), and are forbidden to refuse a paying client when productive capacity and contractual obligations permit acceptance

the institution of intellectual property is not supported, aside from trademarks

the state can accept as monetary payment only monetary metals and legitimate (redeemable) money, as valued by the open market

the state cannot issue money"
Eariler he said:
"The particular architecture described above is distinguished by the fact that the US Federal Reserve, among many other national central bank systems, has the capacity to create money out of nothing, which the state accepts as payment. In fact, the Federal Reserve has a practical monopoly on the creation of money. Legitimate money is not in wide use; in the US, only metal money and bonds are real, with the bonds being somewhat suspect."

What he is missing is that stocks are private money which with his economic model he will regulate and therefore limit it as money (not very Libertarian here:). Also, though US Federal has capacity to create money from nothing it restricts money depending by a nation's productivity. [not claiming the Fed is perfect in this regard and there is lots of fuzziness connected to this- but my point is they try to control money depending on their perception of the economy]. Finally, this guy wants to go back to hard currency- the problem with hard currency is there is a shortage of precious metal- our modern economy is simply too big and dynamic- gold is simply not flexible enough- people will hoard it and crash market. And holding huge piles of gold is basically quite stupid- having a federal reserve with a pile of gold is pretty good idea- I would say it worth the waste associated with storing vast quantity of it, because it's good emergency type money.

Anyways, like I said, it's pretty boring.