MT: “Because they simply realise that even in the pluralist economic scene no significant progress is being made. Sad but true.”
Me: True. And why might that be?
I would suggest that to a great degree it is the lack of any studies of the signatures of historical paradigm changes and hence virtually no analysis on that level at all. And such failure leaves them with only piecemeal, palliative reforms with only facile or no policy suggestions at all.
The leading economists and economic pundits know that the problem lies in money, banks and debt, but they apparently don’t know what the definition of a paradigm actually is (a singular concept that is such a deep simplicity that it describes a current pattern, and such new concept applied, transforms the entire current/old pattern).
Hence they can’t perceive that the current paradigm is the monopoly concept of Debt Only, and they don’t know that conceptual opposition and integration of the particles of truth in seeming opposites via a new insight and/or tool to the point of thirdness greater oneness are major signatures of historical paradigm changes….and so Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting fits and fulfills as the new monetary and financial paradigm.