Im confused or maybe I didnt read the article properly, but didn't Henry Thorton die a long time ago? Are you a distant relation?

And who are these "global vigilantes"?

Surely they are not the "Financial Oligarchy" that LaRouche keeps trying to frighten little children with?

The difference between the 1970s and now is simple.

Thanks to the efforts of Reagan and Thatcher, the political tide has turned.

Economics, including monetary policy, are no longer seen as the foot pedals on a car - ie - socialist model where all factors are controlled by the state - it is really like weather forecasting - you can see the storm coming but are helpless ot stop it.

Since the 1970's the world has moved from managing all things to maintain the equilibrium of the status quo - to trusting to individuals to make the most of life for themselves.

Likewise, Accepting "Monetary Policy" is a crudely reactive, rather than a precise proactive system. The vain and damning faith socialists had in controlling an uncontrollable variable has been replaced by acceptance that - tinkering with the interest or exchange rate will not -
turn the economy to avoid the problem of a rock in its path -
it will merely adjust the course of the ship of state to deflect off that rock and hopefully recover rather than sink.

In much the same vein, I bring you this quote -

"Isn't it interesting that the same people who laugh at science fiction listen to weather forecasts and economists? "
Kelvin Throop III

or Better Still

"If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion."
George Bernard Shaw

Three and a half decades is an interesting framing of history in which to look at monetary policy. It neatly excludes the very successful monetary policies used prior to the 1970s.

The aim of good monetary policy is to have money that is stable in value. As Goldilocks would say it should be neither too hot, nor too cold but rather just right.

In order to manage something it is first necessary to measure it. Today we measure the value of our money using something called the CPI. This is a basket of consumer goods. In effect we measure the value of the aussie dollar in bananas and pineapples and based on the result we adjust the rate of currency creation to keep things steady.

Prior to the 1970s we did much the same thing. However instead of bananas and pineapples we used gold. And gold offers a somewhat more transparent means of measuring value.

The monetary regime we enjoyed through the 1950s and the 1960s was superior to the monetary regime of today. Whilst our monetary policy is at its best for 35 years it is far from excellant.

Henry Thornton should take a slightly longer view of history

Monetary policy still fails to factor in the entire picture. As Ross Gittins points out in his article "We're doing well but how do we feel?", we are very good at measuring economic growth but lousy at applying this to the day to day existence of the average person.

I don't know if the present system is dead or not - I do know that thus far economics is a very limited science. Anything that fails to consider in all contributing factors to human prosperity and well being is a faulty indicator of prosperity.

Ross Gittins has expressed this far more eloquently than I, please read link below.

http://theage.com.au/news/ross-gittins/were-doing-well-but-how-do-we-feel/2005/09/06/1125772519083.html