The proposals become self evident once you look at what is in reality happening.
There is a part of the economy which is real and a bigger part which is an overhead, sometimes useful or essential like education, but just as often no more than a way to keep people busy.

So the first step, Should be to define the real economy of goods and services which are essential and create wealth - here minimise all government interference, red tape, etc and more over clear their path to ensure it can work optimally.

As for the rest, what do you think? Make it as lean as possible, apply as much technology as we can for things like taxes, banking, accounting, the law etc - simplify, automate, repeat.

Then lets have an honest to goodness debate about how debt, particularly government debt, is managed, created? And then lets see what happens.

They are just some ideas, but once you look at it correctly, their are numerous possibilities, and I am sure many better than what I came up with here. We may for example find that we are prepared to fund a semi permanent 20% pool of unemployed or invent whole new industries or ways to keep people engaged and still some how contributing to the economy and the common good.

For the minute though we all act as if the economy were a tarot reading, all mysterious and unfathomable except by those with visionary powers.

“So the first step, Should be to define the real economy of goods and services which are essential and create wealth.”

So after all this, you still haven’t got to square one in thinking what your new paradigm is. Go ahead: define the “real economy of goods and services which are essential and create wealth.”
(Hint: you will see this is the answer to the question you’ve been evading until now: how do you distinguish legitimate from illegitimate government activity. See unlike you, I don’t evade and ignore disproofs, I actively seek them out and change my theory accordingly.)

Wake us up when you’ve worked out what your new paradigm is do. (Hint: you’ll need a theory that’s logically coherent.) (Hint: handouts to industry is not a “new paradigm”.)

You start the thread by saying “Well said Binoy” and railing against “free market fundamentalism”. Binoy was arguing for government protection if industry; and you imply that opposition on free market grounds can only be religious i.e. irrational.

Then you say “As for Government, noone can honestly argue that Government is anything but a parasite on an economy, an overhead which contributes little and mostly misallocates; at every turn causing inefficiencies, waste and even down right destruction to industries, producers, and cumbersome red-tape.

So far, according to you, government intervention is parasitical, but on the other hand the legal monopoly it claims and exercises for itself is unquestionably necessary and “unless you subscribe to some radical anarchist nirvana you will acknowledge this”.

Self-contradiction.

Then, according to you, the fair price is defined as one that is “established through the free negotiation between buyers and sellers”. But then you say that “oligopolies” [no definition] need to be [iforcibly] “restrained [no reason given why].

Self contradiction. The neo-classical school pretend to find justification for such policy in all that stuff about perfect this, perfect that, perfect competition, and so on. But I think we are agreed that’s crap as a premise of policy?

You said you’re ready to be proved wrong.

Well? Consider it done.

By the way, a proposition isn't self-evident just because you happen to think it's a good idea. It's self-evident if you can't deny it without performing a self-contradiction.

The binary thinking has you in its grasp Jardine
Every now and then you appear to almost escape its clutches but down the rabbit hole you plunge once again.

the contradictions you think you see occur because of this binary yes/no simplicity which possesses you.

See if I can help, if the real economy is a small subset of the whole. Surely, Once this distinction is made it is possible to treat the real economy one way and the rest another. In fact, logic would surely lead in that direction. So the real economy needs to be unfettered and protected from red tape and government interference. Whilst the false economy is than a matter of strategy, options abound.

See no inconsistency what so ever.

I know you want to be consistent toward the whole economy but why? Government alone is 20% of the economy. It is not really important what it does is it? As long as it does not encumber the real economy which provides us with food, industry, essential services. Similar all does other redundant activities - I am all for scaling them down.

Is that the best you can do?

So basically it's just an open-ended plea for handouts. You don't know whether the handouts are going to do more harm than good, and are unable to define what activities should or should not qualify for them.

Well if you were trying to act as an advertisement and billboard for conceited meddling socialist stupidity, you couldn't have done a better job, could you?

But perhaps a few more supercilious remarks to the effect that you may be assumed to know how to re-structure the world's economy may vindicate your (non-)argument?