Earlier quoted context omitted.
Still better than the alternatives
Pledging blind allegiance to a single system is stupid A smarter approach is to cherry pick the best elements from every model and redesign the parts that don't serve us Not everything should be for profit, if you don't value society and collective welfare, it's meaningless: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/aug/2... You'll be forced to rethink that model anyway once post-scarcity hits Abundance…
There is a reason why Gesell only suggested the three core policies free money, free land and free trade. Once you have that you can cherry pick whatever you want, without any contradictions.
If you want austerity and low unemployment, high wages, low inequality and so on, the system is set up to support that.
How is that possible? Because most important thing realization of Gesell was that the system is not in equilibrium. You have to bring it into equilibrium through equilibrium encouraging policies.
The standard neoclassical framework treats the economy as if it was always in equilibrium and governments are the ones ruining equilibrium, which means you can abuse the economy and hack it and destroy it as much as you want and it will still work anyway. If anything, a neoclassical economist will even think that it will work better when it is in shambles.
So in a way, the policies that bring about equilibrium will appear as if they are a panacea. They do impossible things that people who are living in the old way of mandatory contradictions would never believe, when in reality all they did was reduce the obvious dysfunction staring down on them.