“And we do need to adopt very different economic models, given the flawed ones we rely on now, have placed us where we are now; and created both the Great Depression and the GFC.”

The flawed models that created both the Gread Depression and the GFC, involve government monopoly control of the supply of money and credit. Foyle is in favour of that. He’s not proposing a free market in money and credit, subject only to a ban on fraud, is he? No. He’s not proposing a new economic perspective at all; he’s proposing the old economic perspective that caused both the GD and the GFC with government, in cahoots with their cronies the banks, licensed to commit as much fraud as they can politically get away with.

Foyle, isn’t it true you are in favour of:
1. Government having a legal monopoly of fiat money and criminalizing the competition in the supply of money which people would prefer to government's constantly inflated paper rubbish?
2. Government having a legal monopoly power to manipulate interest rates which it can use to inflate the supply of money substitutes at will, thus thieving billions from the ordinary working people and giving it to the government-created fractional reserve banking cartel, at the same time causing recessions which marxoid and Keynesian ignoramuses then blame on non-existent "unregulated capitalism"?

JKJ. Economic theory is just that, theory!
And if one theory creates a Great Depression and or a GFC? Then surely any individual of even just average intelligence would concede, that there could be flaws in it, based on outcomes or results?
In science, we'd call it the law of cause and effect, or for every effect there is s cause, and for every cause there is an effect.
Throw a stone into a pond, and you will always get ripples.
And if you're not getting the desired outcome, then surely, you'd try something else or different.
Now, we simply can't keep growing our population numbers, or retain an economic model completely predicated on unsustainable population growth?
We approach a point by 2050, where to feed the world, we will need to double food production?
Moreover, mass produced and transported food has a minimum energy component, which as things stand, can only ever become comparatively more expensive, as will every good or product that in any way relies on it.
Food production also depends on reliable water!
And more food production equates to more water, and more investment in necessary associated infrastructure!
So all of those things and or their current apparent lack, persuades me, we need a different economic model.
Rather than simply reject it all and create in it's place an economic void or vacuum, which you seem, in your seemingly unnecessarily overaggressive inquisition, to be suggesting, is my goal?
That's simply incorrect and entirely misrepresents my often advocated position; and or, preferred economic paradigms!
Rhrosty.

Now, we simply can't keep growing our population numbers, or retain an economic model completely predicated on unsustainable population growth?

Hmmmm, now will some informed person kindly advise me that if some of us can see that as clear as daylight, why can't bloodsucking parasite politicians / their advisers / cronies / assorted hangers-on, economists / multinationals / all manner of educated idiot 'experts' ??
The economic growth paradigm is horribly similar to cancer ... just like someone pointed out when I suggested cancer is the only example of unlimited growth in nature .... cancer eventually kills its host.

I don't know that I agree with the term 'rule of law'. Maybe 'the law' was something to respect back when Thomas More wrote 'Utopia', but these days its nothing more than a dirty big stick with which to abuse the people. I suggest there is probably an agreement of sorts between the legal / judicial establishment & the consortium of banksters. Both possess the 'born to rule' gene but both have some kind of 'respect' (as in fear) of the power wielded by the other. Both view money & power as interchangeable ... take one out of circulation and their whole system collapses. Ultimately this is exactly what will end the era of legal & financial control of the masses.

You are full of it, aren't you Arjay.

>>Currently in OZ we have 3% growth + 3% inflation.Our private banking system creates both as debt.The debt can never be repaid because imputs in terms of loans will always be greater than debt + inflationary debt in terms of outputs.This is a mathematical reality that people like Pericles cannot address.<<

I'm willing to bet that you haven't the faintest clue what this means. The reason why I can be so sure of this, is that it is nothing more than meaningless gibberish. Just a bunch of mashed-up slogans that you have unearthed from the internet, and blindly copy/pasted here.

You could always prove me wrong by explaining what you mean when you say that the private banking system creates our GDP growth as debt. Once you have done that, you can explain exactly why that debt cannot be repaid, and we can work from there.

But don't worry, I shan't be holding my breath in the meantime.

Well Pericles address the reality of imputs interms of loans from private banksters,cannnot be repaid by outputs in terms of debt by us, on both increases in productivity + inflation. In this present system the more growth we have ,the more debt we incur.

Money is not wealth.Money should be the medium of exchange but the criminal banksters and Wall st have turned it into a commodity that trades in human misery.

You have to better than just pathetic ad hominem

Rhostry
(It’s not me who’s being aggressive – it’s you two. You’re advocating the State violating the freedoms and property rights of people – including me - who don’t agree with you. I’m just pointing out that your reasons don’t make sense, even in terms of your own theories. Perhaps you should re-think them?)


“ Economic theory is just that, theory!”

Not sure what you’re getting at there.

I thought you were saying that economic theory has no more explaining power than a monkey throwing darts – in other words, no better than random.

If that’s what you’re saying, then obviously the same applies to your economic theory?

Facts don’t interpret themselves. That requires theory. If so, you yourself must be using theory – which according to you is not reliable – in saying that the GFC or GD were because of excessively free markets, rather than because of governmental intervention.

And the same goes with your idea that a “new economic model” is indicated for “sustainability”. This presupposes that your diagnosis is correct, which requires economic theory. And it presupposes that your remedy is possible, and won’t make the situation worse. How do you know that without using economic theory?

You seem caught in a self-contradiction. Either you have no way of distinguishing good theory from bad, in which case you disqualify your statist opinion that the solution is even more arbitrary government power and violations of freedom.

Or you assert that your theory (or Foyle’s) has superior explaining power, in which case it must withstand critical scrutiny.

Foyle’s doesn’t, which is why he can’t answer my questions. He knows if he does, he’ll prove his own theory wrong.

There are numerous objections to his and your theory blaming “neoliberal” policies for the GFC.

1.
You need economic theory to justify that, and your own theory of economic theory doesn’t permit your conclusion.

2.
“Neoliberal” is not a term that any school of economics uses to describe itself. It is a term of abuse by marxoids/Keynesians that actively confuses free market and interventionist policies and issues.