lee wrote on Jun 15^th, 2026 at 2:05pm:


You prove my case re ignorance of the electorate who like you think TINA: 'there is no alternative' (to classical economics). 

Don't shoot the messenger: I'm merely reporting the findings of a growing band of heterodox economists who have identified the errors in Neoclassical orthodoxy.

Feel free to vote ON (or any other political party); contented conservatives like you won't suffer the consequences when ON find they can't eradicate poverty or solve cost of llving crises while trying to 'balance the budget'.   

aquascoot wrote on Jun 15^th, 2026 at 1:12pm:


I agree.

He's an anti-science, slightly crazy, racist homophobe.

Perfect fit for ON.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 15^th, 2026 at 3:29pm:


And your evidence is - what?
Apart from your being a slanderous liar.

Frank wrote on Jun 15^th, 2026 at 5:49pm:


Well, he doesn't believe in climate change and, he's an anti-vaxxer/COVID sceptic.

Plus, he opposes same sex marriage.

lee wrote on Jun 15^th, 2026 at 7:41pm:



Gosh - a correct statement from you, at last.

Hence my commas around the word science  - 'science' - which evidently went completely over your head.

Quote:


There is no "IF" statement in my sentence:  "That's because in the 'science' of economics, we are still at the  'geocentric stage' ". - which is a statement of fact.


Quote:


Exactly: heterodox economists have exploded the nonsense about economics being a science, and have shown the errors in Neoclassical 'science'.

Re the 'science' of economics:

(google)

Yes, economics is universally classified as a social science. It systematically studies human behavior, decision-making, and how societies allocate scarce resources using both qualitative and quantitative data.The scientific classification of economics is a subject of ongoing debate, balancing on a few key factors:Why it is a science: Economics relies heavily on the scientific method. Economists build mathematical models, test hypotheses, and analyze historical, demographic, and financial datasets to forecast trends.Why it faces criticism: Unlike natural sciences (like physics or chemistry), economics cannot easily isolate variables or run perfectly controlled laboratory experiments. Because it deals with unpredictable human behavior and complex global systems, economists often struggle to reach a total consensus

Indeed: heterodox economists have exploded mainstream Neoclassical myths like SDGE and 'rational consumers':

(google)

DSGE (Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium) is a macroeconomic modeling method used by central banks and policymakers to simulate and forecast economic activity. It models aggregate economic behavior by using microeconomic principles, incorporating rational decision-making by consumers and firms, and introducing random market shocks to analyze

There's the error right there: modelling  the macroeconomy on microeconomc principles.

Hence the heterodox understanding based on observations of the economy,  post Smith's obsolete "invisible hand" and globalization of production.

....

So, back to the endless poltical dispute re taxation,  determined by govt. elected by 50%+1 of self interested citizens:   

(Daily Maii)

Kemi Badenoch makes offer to wannabe PM Burnham to support welfare cuts to boost defence spending

Surprise, surprise...according to comfortable Conservatives, the nation's 'self-defence' is more important than eradicating poverty....but electorates are becomimg disillusioned, as c-o-l pressures negatively affect more and more of the electorate.

Anthony Albanese’s attack on One Nation Leader Pauline Hanson backfired spectacularly, helping drive a surge in donations and support.

tallowood wrote on Jun 16^th, 2026 at 12:37pm:


One of the few instances when I think Credlin has presented a cogent case.

But I think the workers who are abandoning Labor will be mightily disappointed by ON if they achieve government, for the reasons I have already outlined in this thread.

Meanwhile shadow treasurer Tim Wilson  shows he's an evil, greedy ideologue, during a heated debate with Amanda Wishworth on ABC News Radio this morning, in effect defending a greater protection, via the taxation regime, for 'aspirational risk takers' compared with ordinary wage earners.   

lee wrote on Jun 16^th, 2026 at 1:14pm:


ah..then like i said, we are agreeing economics isn't a science, despite the widespread assertion by economists who use 'scientific' modelling techniques (like DSGE) to bamboozle the populace - like you -  into  believing the c-i government's budget (representing the macro economy) must be balanced just as our household budgets (micro-economy) must be balanced.

Quote:


Your error: MMT observes the nature of money, how it is created, and draws logical conclusions, eg  a c-i government is not finance constrained (like you and me), the issue for govt (managing the macro ecnomy) is management of resources, not debt.

Logic - which completely escapes you, since you are burdened by the mainstream illusion that money must be taxed or borowed from the private sector, when in fact money can be creeatd ex nihilo by legal currency issuers. 

Quote:


Yes, but the topic is money, taxes and debt, not science: open your mind to reality as addressed above, and consider non-market dogma re resource utilization to avoid inflation and maintain full employment - or an UHI (Universal High Income) if AI eliminates the need to work, as Musk himself has addressed recently.