Home   Editorial   About   Botequim   



Welcome to the website for the Real Incomes Approach to Economics!

The Real Incomes Approach has evolved since I initiated its development in 1975, in Rio de Janeiro, into the only macroeconomic policy with a direct microeconomic foundation and that is wholly supply side. In 1976 my focus in its development moved from Brazil to the UK economy and to this day its development continues with a focus on the UK economy.

What emerged as "supply side" economics, in the late 1970s was no more than a fiscal device which, in practice, failed. The recognition of supply side being the issue to resolve slumpflation was correct at the time but the solution was moulded in the light of existing, proven-to-be-ineffective, policy instruments so this did not resolve the issue. As a result there was a good deal of suffering imposed by the policy solutions. I was not involved in the development of "supply side economics" and was surprised when I reviewed it in early 1980s to find that it has very little to do with supply side; it is an Aggregate Demand Model (ADM) fiscal policy. So why it has that name remains a mystery. My own view on what supply side should be is easy to understand and can be found here: What are the elements of a supply side policy?

My motivation for initiating the economic analysis, that ended up as the Real Incomes Approach, was that having studied post-graduate economics and both Cambridge and Stanford Universities I found that, in 1975, when I tried to work out a solution to slumpflation I was unable, with my understanding of the existing policy instruments, to find one that I found to be acceptable. All options would cause serious prejudice to segments of the economic and social constituencies. I therefore set about investigating why conventional economic theory and practice was so constitutionally defective. I found it unacceptable that poorly conceived socially destructive policies, which hardly passed for experiments, could be called "essential medicine" for economic recovery involving national constituents. Unfortunately this blunderbuss mindset persists today in many politicians and many economists around the issues that are referred to as "austerity" and "living within our means". The dyed in the wool "there is no alternative" mantra continues. This conveys an inability to observe what is happening or to acknowledge and accept the evidence that the theory does not translate into practice in an effective fashion. This reflects an intellectual deficit and a worrying level of ignorance of the economic and financial options that are superior to what passes for conventional macroeconomics with its threadbare tool kit of currently available policy instruments.

In reality Keynesianism, monetarism and supply side operate using different perspectives on a common but flawed ADM (Aggregate Demand Model) paradigm which I refer to as KMS policies. So the electoral cycles that result in each false option coming to the fore and applied and then, inevitably, failing, is a wholly predictable disruptive cycle that is unacceptable.

This website was set up to disseminate information on the Real Incomes Approach and to help clarify some questions and hopefully encourage feedback on this topic. The Real Incomes Approach remains work in progress.

If this is your first visit to this site, I would encourage you to read the Introduction page. This provides a broad sweep of the breadth of impact that a Real Incomes Approach to policy can have and, hopefully, this will encourage you to read further or at least ask questions. This site contains a selection of about 200 of the more recent articles and documents from the archive, accessible from this page, including the most recent output.

I have recently opened the Botequim where I explain the context of the most recently posted articles providing backgrounds. I welcome constructive feedback that might point to any flaws that reader might detect in this approach.

The United Kingdom and other countries, under the weight of KMS policies, are experiencing an inversion in real growth in the context of the world's declining natural carrying capacity. Recent assessments indicate that climate crisis actions are still inadquate. My contention is that this is a direct result of the inappropriate macroeconomic policies pursued for some time. In particular, these have not provided the appropriate incentives on the supply side to bring about necessary change to more appropriate sustainable technologies and techniques. The last attempt at an "adjustment" or "improvement" to KMS policies was the introduction of quantitative easing (QE) introduced to "recover" from a KMS policy-induced financial crisis in 2007/2008. However, this has resoundingly failed by exacerbating income disparity and overall levels of debt now being greater than in 2008. Real incomes, for an increasing proportion of population, continues to follow a downward trend. Productivity-enhancing investment has declined.

The Real Incomes Approach is an attempt to address this type of prejudice associated with KMS policy cycles and to establish the fact that "there is an alternative". Any feedback that helps improve its theoretical coherence and applications feasibility is welcomed as contributions to the improvement in its utility as a realistic option to failing KMS policies.

Hector McNeill
SEEL - Systems Engineering Economics Lab
Portsmouth

hector.mcneill@realincomes.org.uk

Telephone: +44 (0) 7 760 444 625.

Where it all began



Work on the Real Incomes Approach (RIP) started in June 1975 in Rio de Janeiro. This development was motivated by the gaps in conventional macroeconomic theory and practice (Keynesianism and monetarism) which in attempting to control slumpflation risked imposing unacceptable prejudice on constituents.

During the initial work the library resources of the Getulio Vargas Foundation in Botafogo Bay were used.

Since 1978 RIP has addresssed the UK economy.

Since 1983 SEEL, Systems Engineering Economics Lab in Hamsphire, UK became the international centre for RIP development work.

New publication in the CEN series

The consequenes of being a naton of shopkeepers

The next edition of British Strategic Review 2022

In agreement with Hambrook Publishing Company, a special edition of the British Strategic Review will produced this year concentrating on the requirments to overcome our cost of living crisis.

The feedback on the first edition has provided enough support for the Real Incomes Approach and Real Incomes Policy (RIP), in particular, as representing a fully credible alternative to conventional policies in addressing the cost of living crisis.

Much of the preparation has been undertaken and this includes explanations on the theoretical differences between RIP and the theories and policies based on the Aggregate Demand Model in the form of Keynesianism, monetarism, supply side economics and modern monetary theory, none of which possess appropriate policy instruments to tackle stagflation.

I expect to submit the draft for this Review end of June for publication and distribution in July 2022. In the meantime, please note that the first fulll edition of the Review 2022 is now obtainable free of charge (see annoucement below).

British Strategic Review 2022
Monetarism & The Real Economy
The full Review now available free of charge


The Board of the George Boole Foundation, in collaboration with Hambrook Publishing Company, has authorised the sponsorship of the free distribution of the British Strategic Review 2022. The free copies are available in EPUB and PDF formats.

Each formatted copy is in a ZIP file to facilitate the handling of downloads on some browsers. Files sizes are: PDF version 1.573 k and the EPUB version 1.830 k.






Cambridge Economics Network publish first document concerning the cost of living crisis(pdf)

Options worth considering to solve the cost of living crisis


Notes on the cost of living crisis

The critical gaps in the briefs of the OBR and BoE

Why super-deductions cannot work

Notes on Monetarism & The Real Economy

The following Notes (pdfs) responding to questions on the British Strategic Review have been released:

Some aspects of inflation
From earned income to pauperism and back
Why the Bank of England cannot solve the cost of living crisis
Correction applied to identities..
Technology, technique and real incomes


Comment
Real Incomes Policy (RIP)

RIP is a general macroeconomic policy framework based on microeconomic foundations. It is an alternative policy for sustainable development which eliminates the productivity-enhancing gaps that are so apparent in conventional Keynesian and monetary theory and derived policies. RIP is based on the Real Incomes Approach to Economics. RIP provides a sustained productivity incentive system that benefits any size and supply side production company in any sector from agriculture, industry, manufacturing and logistics. It lowers the risk of using efficiency-enhancing investment to secure competitive prices enabling companies to lower or even eliminate inflationary output.

Articles
The article "From nominal growth to stable real incomes" (see previous section below) introduced the RIP-Real Incomes Policy deploying the supply side instruments of Price Performance Ratio and the Price Performance Levy. The impact of this approach is comprehensive and can help resolve many of the outstanding issues requiring solutions. A series of links to short notes will be prepared below to explain the associated benefits:

RIP and the calculation & knowledge problem

RIP's potenial role in filling in gaps in COP26

RIP's role in getting rid of inflation

RIP and interest rates

RIP and real wages

RIP tackling predatory finance

RIP supporting people's care

RIP labour representation

RIP and the UK trade balance

RIP and the UK's real income trap

RIP and the Bank of England's dilemma

RIP as an adaptable macroeconomic performance framework

RIP and levelling up .. in preparation ...

RIP and public services .. in preparation ...



The trends over the last 5 years see a repeat of the initiation of a 1975-type slumpflation. The "solution" at that time was inappropriate. It led directly to a slow cascade of events that culminated in the 2008 financial crisis. The nature of macroeconomic policy and regulatory frameworks accelerated rises in temperature. We are now faced with trying to sort these issues out.

Some of the members of the Committee reviewing the world's performance of the UN Sustainable Development Goals said there was a direct correlation between "economic growth" and rising income disparity, falling sustainability and accelerated climate change. Where there was growth, these indicators went into reverse. Following "editing" the resulting 2019 UN Sustainability Development Report made no mention of this direct correlation. However, continuing with the same macroeconomic policy framework cannot solve the climate crisis.

COP 26 has not produced any credible proposals for action. Achieving "Net-zero" will not reverse temperature rises but "Net-negative" could achieve this. This fact is missing from the deliberations.

The financial services sector with trillions to invest has a very poor project performance record making "plans for action" unlikely to achieve timely practical results.

From nominal growth to stable real incomes




Macroeconomic management, before the Keynesian policy model existed, used flexible wages as the way to manage the balance of payments and "state of the economy".

In 1975 Denis Healey rejected the Keynesian approach and in 1976 sought an IMF loan to intensify already imposed policy.

The IMF conditions, agreed to with Johannes Witteveen, the Managing Director of the IMF, returned the UK to the pre-Keynesian policy model of setting the balance of payments as a target and using labour wages to compensate for poor productivity.

The result was 45 year journey characterized by an increasing real incomes depreciation trap culminating in the UK's extreme exposure to the 2008 financial crisis. Quantitative easing as the "solution" has only exacerbated this state of affairs.

Witteveen's folly - Part 1        Witteveen's folly - Part 2



The document, "Why monetarism does not work" explains why the Quantity Theory of Money (QTM) formula (algorithm) is wrong. However, it did not explain the evolution in "asset entropy" which caused the QTM to become completely out of tune with reality.

Entropy is defined as the measurement of the energy in a system that is not available to do work. Asset entropy degree to which assets attract speculative "investment" driving down the investment supporting the work in supply side production.

During the last 50 years, the removal of financial regulations, algorithmic trading and technical innovation have increased the range of physical and financial assets which, since around 1990, have attracted more investment than supply side production. Since the QTM was never updated it continues to exclude assets as determinants. As a result, the reality of the rise in asset entropy resulting from quantiative easing, renders the QTM defunct.

This is why monetarists, contrary to central bank assertions based on the "logic" of the QTM, have lost the ability to manage the economy.

Asset entropy



The two part article concerning public choice concludes that in order to break through the TINA (There Is No Alternative) firewall there is a need to reduce the influence of political parties. These tiny private organizations with a miniscule membership (1.25% of national electorate) are captured by financial benefactors with a miniscule size of legitimate voting power (less than 0.1% of national electorate) who dominate party policies and the media, to their own benefit.

Thus compromised, political parties cannot respond to majority needs.

The unacceptable levels of policy-induced income disparity in the last 15 years has confirmed the inability of political parties to serve the interests of the majority. As a result, "politics without parties" is being given serious consideration by many as a route to the establishment of more rational economic policies.

Politics without parties


Part 1 of this article described how macroeconomic policy benefits those who earn their income from physical and financial asset market transactions. Those who do not participate in these markets hold around 85% of the votes. The question arises as to how can the constitutional provisions be changed to a participatory process of policy design based on a genuine public choice.

This is a topic that is seldom aired but is of fundamental importance to a future marked by improved wellbeing and peaceful coexistence.

Under our party system there is no plurality associated with policy choices and there is a tendency to dismiss real income disparity as the result of "free market operations". This default position attempts to diminish and marginalize the mutual concern most constituents have for one another. This is, in the end, a moral question of the degree to which we, as a nation, are prepared to tolerate stark differences in wellbeing and opportunities within our national community. Do voters really desire an ethical basis for decision making on the policies that affect us all?


Changing our constitution to establish public choice - Part 2


Macroeconomic policy, and in particular monetary policy, has created a long term trend, accelerated under quantitative easing, of benefiting those who earn their income from physical and financial asset market transactions.

In spite of 13 general elections since 1971, macroeconomic policies have continued to prejudice the real incomes of wage-earners employed in the supply side production and service markets.

85% of the population consists of supply side wage-earners who also possess over 85% of the voting power of the electorate. However, our constitutional settlement continues to prevent the majority from achieving a form of public choice that benefits the majority.

Changing our constitution to establish public choice - Part 1


Peter Schumpeter referred to disequilibria caused by technical innovation in 1942. In the late 1950s, Nicholas Kaldor added technology to his macroeconomic analysis of income under conditions of disequilibrium. Technological innovation aside, population numbers and longevity are another cause of disequilibrium. The current care crisis is an example.

The government has applied a static equilibrium analysis to a process that is a dynamic disequlibrium; so the solution will not work and another tax hike will be required.

The real incomes approach can help alleviate this issue more effectively without raising taxes.

How to make care, and much else, affordable


The government, the economic policy advisers and the central bank need to be held to account.

Monetary policy does not do what is promised as far as the working population is concerned. The correlative analysis of data between interest rates, growth and prices shows an inverse relationship to that pronounced. Quantitative easing outcomes have disproven the Quantity Theory of Money. Those implementing monetary policy are incapable of explaining the mechanisms whereby benefits are transferred to the majority.

The reason is that economists do not know what the mechanisms are and they insist on using incomplete and, therefore, inadequate datasets in their analysis.

The consequences of monetary econometrics based on incomplete datasets


Alfred Korzybski observed

"The layman, the "practical man, the man in the street, says, "What is that to me?" The answer is positive and weighty. Our life is entirely dependent on the established doctrines of ethics, sociology, political economy, government, law, medical science, etc. This affects everyone consciously or unconsciously, the man in the street, in the first place, because he is the most defenseless".

The term dismal science leveled at economics was in reality leveled at the dismal people who manipulate others by giving primacy to economic arguments in their justification for their offhand treatment of others. So why in a democracy do people have no recourse against such abuse?

The plight of the majority in a loaded-dice policy environment


The eternal message...



In 1920, Ludwig von Mises called attention to the calculation and knowledge problem in relation to socialist policies.

His argument has held up over time.

However, the same argument can be leveled at the monetarism and central bank policies which face exactly the same calculation and knowledge problem and, for this reason, the current form of monetarism is destructive.


Ludwig von Mises' calculation and knowledge problem revisited


Hayek spoke of the "Knowledge problem" facing central governments caused by ignorance of the details of local conditions anywhere in an economy. This is cited as a reason central planning cannot work efficiently.

Macroeconomic management constrains free markets because it is based on direct interventions by government and the Bank of England in taxation, money volumes and interest rates; this is inefficient and ineffective.

The reason for such inappropriate policies is rooted in the types of knowledge society values, collects and applies.

The social & economic impact of what we know


Decision analysis has the advantage of requiring that participants specify the mechanisms of change they describe in the form of a determinant model of quantified causes and effects.

Inability to model the mechanism is a sign that there is a lack of reliable information upon which to base decisions.

It is a pity that monetarists have not yet mastered this technique.

Its mechanisms stupid!


Advocates of the mantra, "There is no alternative" would have something going for them if their policies were demonstrably beneficial for the constituency of this country. Prosperity is for asset holders and not wage-earners.

Policy-induced "stop-go", imagined to be a thing of the past, has morphed into neither "stop" nor "go", but policies maintain a sort of "quivering paralysis". What else can be expected when policy decisions negate what is required?

Is there really no alternative to perversity?


The Bank of England has got itself in a bit of a pickle by supporting government policies more ideological than economically rational. Their inappropriate policy instruments counter productive growth, cause inflation and depress real wages.

A witness for the Economic Affairs Committee stated quantitative easing is a policy without a theory. The BoE added that they are still trying to understand the effects of QE.

The relevant theory is the Quantity Theory of Inflation (QTI) and its logic counsels terminating what they are doing.

QTI-The Quantity Theory of Inflation


Hayek supported many of the provisions of the Welfare State but advised of the dangers of policies that favour specific groups of constituents over others.

An ideological fixation, on the part of politicians, has created a situation of the UK government doing the inverse of what Hayek advised.

Hayek, totally misunderstood?


In the discussions concerning QE, MMT and now a suggestion that there should be MTT (Modern Tax Theory) to match, few are asking why there is any taxation at all. If this is left to social tax expenditure experts, taxation consultants and the big 4 a correct analysis will not be forthcoming. The international 15% tax proposal with City exemptions is more theatre than a solution.

The taxing question of governemnt revenues - a note This article is still in preparation


An aspect of Kaldor's basic objection to monetary theory also applies to Keynsianism. It is worth noting given the threatened monetary splurge associated with "Building Back Better" and all those proposed New fill-in-the-blank Deals. Policy-makers need to pay attention to this reality.

A snippet of Kaldorian logic for building back better.. this has been extended


(1908-1986)

Nicholas Kaldor's work on economic growth and monetarism turned out to be largely correct.

His contributions to growth theory and why monenatrism does not work, provides added logic for the Real Incomes approach.

Reflections on Kaldorian economics


The impact of hegenomic stages on known universes - a locational-state perspective

Proposals to build back better ignore the fact our mix of capabilities no longer match the need - proposals ignore this fact and are disjointed and have no leverage

Part1


The inevitability of hegemonic cycles - realty of myth?

Observations on the relevance of copious evidence for hegemonic cycles to attempts to building back better....

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3


Bank & people's QE - a note

Handing out money but not investing in supply side production destroys real growth
- in preparation...


Recent contributions to Charter House Essays in Political Economy

The following papers (pdfs) have been released:

Why monetarism does not work

Why the purchasing power of wages falls

Technology, technique and real incomes

The Logic of inflation

Inconsistencies in macroeconomic theory and derived practice


Annoucement

The RIO Model


A new economic model to demonstrate a range of Real Incomes Objective concepts is under construction.



Why 1.5oC is far too much for some

Economic models on temperature rises confuse climatic data with meteorological data with disastrous consequences.




Terminating the assault on humanity

Satisfying basic needs is an imperative. Ignoring them, will intensify the assault on human survival.






Real Exchange

Beyond the fiat currency to the promise of coherent policies, digital accounts & policy traction without invasion of privacy - Part 1.




The UK's policy-induced pauperism - a note





Jung and the inflationary Jungle




Bretton Woods in retrospect





On life, loves, sense and economists




The critical issue of absorptive capacity



Economics, the dilemma of conscience





Raising real issues .. but solutions?







Economics is physics


In a recent lecture series, Mark Carney stated that "Economics is not physics".

He should have said "Monetary policy is not physics" and thereby admit that it remains unrelated to the real economy whose operation is largely based on physical phenomena and relationships.


Not all assets are an asset


The core economic assets of natural resources, human resources capital and innovation have long been sidelined.

Monetary policy gripped by financialization and quantiative easing has focused on the promotion of inflation in the values of less vital assets from the standopiint of our long term survival...





...but what about financialization & QE?





More to Say - Part 2

A century of encapsulation & economic disintegration 1920-2020



Jean Baptiste Say
17671832


Analysis of the destruction of the Say model reveals more about the unsound nature of monetary theory and its destabilizing leakages in practice.







A Real Money Theory II

- The Real Money Theory (RMT) substitute of the QTM and has been updated to include offshore monetary flows. Offshore investment is an additional omission from the monetary identity The Quantity Theory of Money (QTM).




Jean Baptiste Say
17671832
More to Say - Part 1 1920-1975
A note



... or why "conventional" policies have destabilized the economy and thereby intensified social divisions in the UK constituency







Leading issues in development economics

... we have come full-circle from a country that led the industrial revolution to one requiring a development economic model and abandonment of coventional macroeconomics



Why the International Monetary Fund is in a hurry to become the International Digital Monetary Fund








Alleviating the Covid-19 economic hardships through DxCs






Optimized money supply - Note - This article has been updated
A constitutional economic policy - Part 7 - designing a sustainable future - Step 1

or what should we be investing in for recovery?



Monetary policy: The journey to there and back - a note
The real incomes and investment trap
The imposed internalization of monetarism's destructive externalities
The British Strategic Review- Advance information
A constitutional economic policy - Fiscal policy and the growth dilemma - Part 6
The limits of fiscal policy in securing higher productivity and growth
A constitutional economic policy - The government and constituent's revenue-seeking trap - Part 5
A constitutional economic policy - The opportunity costs of comparative advantage - Part 4
A constitutional economic policy - Filling in operational gaps - Part3
A constitutional economic policy - Part 2
A constitutional economic policy - Part 1
Is this RIO business socialism or capitalism?
Towards a constitutional macroeconomic framework
RIO and Locational State Theory - Rational laws and regulations
RIO-Real Income Objective - Rights and expectations - a note
RIO and Locational State Theory - The evolving dualistic disequilibrium
RIO and Locational State Theory - Changing perceptions on welfare and constitution
RIO and Locational State Theory - Adding individual freedom to policy objectives
Evolutionary economics - a note
RIO and Bitcoin
The emerging status of Modern Monetary Theory
Function assignment options - Part 4 Imprudence under prudential financial regulations
Function assignment options - Part 3
Artificial intelligence and economic practice

The opportunity cost of our democratic deficit
Function assignment options - Part 2
The implications of location state theory on economics

Is RIO policy Pigovian Welfare Economics?
Function assignment options - Part 1
>Useless Consumer Price Indices - a Note
Keynes' position on Money and Inflation - a Note
Supply and Demand, Revisited
Heading for recovery
Constitutional inconsistencies
Addressing income disparity
Why we should not need banks
QTM inflation analysis - A note
The Real Incomes Objective, inflation and deflation - A note
pEc-Price elasticity of consumption
Updated, June 2020.
The real growth multiplier
Updated, June 2020.
Growth impetus
The real incomes component of the Real Money Theory - a note
A Real Money Theory
The concept of irrational debt
Production, innovation and national accounts
A clarification of "demand" based errors
Resources, economic capacity, endogenous & exogenous means of exchange
A clarification of the role and significance of supply side operations
Note change of title, explained in article
Post-Covid-19, time to apply policies based on the Production Accessibility & Consumption Model (PACM) - Part 2
An outline of the PAC Model functions
Getting rid of predatory finance is an essential solution - Note
What are the elements of a supply side policy? - Part 1
Completely revised and updated, March 2020.
Post-Covid-19, time to apply policies based on the Production Accessibility & Consumption Model (PACM) - Part 1
Prudential financial management - NOT
Covid-19's economic policy audit
Keynes on stock markets
The position of the UK on 5G and Huawei technology - note
Why a digital tax is a sensitive issue - note
The new data on pay disparity underlines failed government policy
Reducing the negative
impacts of financialization
on productivity
and real incomes


Options manipulation ruining corporate performance - a note
Back to the future doesn't work
Class divisions and instability
Why quantiative easing undermines the constitution
It's assets, stupid!
Promising to rebuild what has been proactively destroyed is not a sign of economic competence - a note
Appropriate business rules for competitivity & growth

PPP is not PPP
Sense and nonsense on interest rates
The outcome of quantitative easing on real incomes - summary note
The occlusion of lower middle and lower income family purchasing power under quantitative easing - summary note
The Real Incomes approach - A new paradigm - Introduction, the main outcomes, notable aspects of policy, relevance
Why has inequality risen in the UK?
BREXIT - Price Performance Policy - the last policy standing - Why not give it a try?
Historic lessons on the potential impact of BREXIT and economic sanctions>
A comparison of conventional policies & the Real Incomes Approach (table)
What is the Real Incomes Approach? - Resumé
A concise summary of the impact of Quantitative Easing
The Real Incomes Approach - The main theoretical principles & policy options
The PAC Model of the economy
Macro-micro coherence
Policy Decision Analysis & the Real Incomes Approach
Identifying optimised policy design - Bottom up or top down?
The Occlusion of lower middle and lower income family purchasing power under Quantitative Easing
Tacit & explicit knowledge
Appropriate business rules for competitivity & growth
Getting rid of corporation tax
Policy Decision Analysis & Constitutional Economics
The journey from 1971 to 2020 - the consolidation of financialization
Constitutional questions arising from macroeconomic management
Slumpflation, the policy-induced crisis
Slumpflation or Deflationary Slump?
It all depends on what happens to...
Quantitative easing for people
Why Gordon Brown made the Bank of England "independent"
Economists endorsing Jeremy Corbyn's economic policies
Gordon Brown on electability
Clause IV and all that ..
The Scotland Effect - The Quest for Fiscal Autonomy
The Minority Principle
Leaving austerity behind - the prospects for the UK
Public service provisions - a note
Private & public goods
Why Real Incomes?
In spite of policy - a note
The inevitable stop-go
The Tarshis paradox
Solving the PPR puzzle
The profit paradox
The fiscal paradox
The monetary paradox
Macroprudential regulation
IMF confirms that monetary policy is an incentive for speculation
Brazilian economic prospects - The needed transition from the Real Plan to a plan for Real Incomes
Greece & the Eurozone - Part 1
Greece & the Eurozone - Part 2
Constitutional aspects of the Real Incomes Approach
Real Incomes & the Quantity Theory of Money
The state of knowledge on the Real Incomes Approach
Positive Systemic Consistency
The importance of Constitutional Economics
How constitutional economic principles saved a nation
The Price Performance Ratio
Macroeconomics - the problems   - media article
Macroeconomics - a solution   - media article

From chain gang to Blockchain - the necessary transition
Über-rentiers
The Price Performance Levy
Asset and productive economies
Some evidence on the failure of supply side economics

All content on this site is subject to Copyright
All copyright is held by © Hector Wetherell McNeill (1975-2022) unless otherwise indicated

SMOT.GIF - 2160 Bytes