“as your ideas don’t make sufficient sense for us to be able to align ours with yours, why don’t you respect us by trying to align yours with one of ours?”
That is an incorrect statement as additional money in the system and no harmful inflation is the goal of virtually every heterodox economist. Also it is the duty of honest investigators to acknowledge that mere targeted reforms and even more organized theories in fact need to align THEMSELVES with the ultimate integrated-integrative phenomenon AKA a paradigm and its change.
“about changing from scarcity to abundance looks particularly ridiculous without qualification, e.g. to “scarcity to abundance” of giving each other credit for who we are. (Each of us having our own responsibilities).”
Who has ever suggested that we don’t need to be responsible for our actions? Not me.If you can equate me suggesting we contemplate the many aspects of grace as in love in action and applying that concept to the monetary and economic system so as to invert its current realities and so also to have an everyday re-inforcement of that universally acknowledged highest personal good….with lack of responsibility, then I welcome you to try.
“Likewise your 3), advocating “a re-juvenated profit-making economics” without defining ‘profit’, which in our capitalist context will be assumed to be a monetary surplus enabling money lenders to live off the services of others.”
Does not apply to what I’ve said here many times because I suggest the end of private for profit money creation and the creation of a non-profit, publicly administered national banking, financial and monetary system aligned with the concept (grace as in monetary gifting) of the new monetary paradigm.