Phil Docking
@phildocking.bsky.social
Retired layabout, with an interest in music.
Yes, please don't fall out - we need both Richard and Gary to build a better future.
Gary's value is that he is pointing out to mainstream economists the fact that inequality is going to cripple the world if nothing is done about it - EVEN USING THEIR OWN FLAWED BELIEFS.
Gary's value is that he is pointing out to mainstream economists the fact that inequality is going to cripple the world if nothing is done about it - EVEN USING THEIR OWN FLAWED BELIEFS.
August 9, 2025 at 6:12 AM
Yes, please don't fall out - we need both Richard and Gary to build a better future.
Gary's value is that he is pointing out to mainstream economists the fact that inequality is going to cripple the world if nothing is done about it - EVEN USING THEIR OWN FLAWED BELIEFS.
Gary's value is that he is pointing out to mainstream economists the fact that inequality is going to cripple the world if nothing is done about it - EVEN USING THEIR OWN FLAWED BELIEFS.
It is unbelievable to me that "economists" have lost sight of this basic truth. Economies can only be healthy if money and goods are allowed to circulate. If the majority have no money, then there is no economy.
It seems that our government "economists" are not worthy of the title.
It seems that our government "economists" are not worthy of the title.
April 1, 2025 at 7:10 AM
It is unbelievable to me that "economists" have lost sight of this basic truth. Economies can only be healthy if money and goods are allowed to circulate. If the majority have no money, then there is no economy.
It seems that our government "economists" are not worthy of the title.
It seems that our government "economists" are not worthy of the title.
Excellent ending - I have reposted from 19:04 - I think that section really makes the point, and doesn't put people off due to the length. Attention spans being what they are these days, I feel a 5 or 6 minute edited section will have more impact.
Great work Gary!
Great work Gary!
February 16, 2025 at 10:34 AM
Excellent ending - I have reposted from 19:04 - I think that section really makes the point, and doesn't put people off due to the length. Attention spans being what they are these days, I feel a 5 or 6 minute edited section will have more impact.
Great work Gary!
Great work Gary!
This is the perennial tricky question, of course - "who judges the judges?"
It does have to be a non-political appointment - maybe a rotating panel of senior high-court judges who have to declare any conflicts of interest.
There will also have to be the right of appeal up Supreme court level.
It does have to be a non-political appointment - maybe a rotating panel of senior high-court judges who have to declare any conflicts of interest.
There will also have to be the right of appeal up Supreme court level.
February 1, 2025 at 5:06 PM
This is the perennial tricky question, of course - "who judges the judges?"
It does have to be a non-political appointment - maybe a rotating panel of senior high-court judges who have to declare any conflicts of interest.
There will also have to be the right of appeal up Supreme court level.
It does have to be a non-political appointment - maybe a rotating panel of senior high-court judges who have to declare any conflicts of interest.
There will also have to be the right of appeal up Supreme court level.
...but as I also said - they will fight tooth and nail NOT to allow this kind of regulation.
February 1, 2025 at 1:48 PM
...but as I also said - they will fight tooth and nail NOT to allow this kind of regulation.
Regulation is required, not an exam - as I said on one of your blog posts, not so long ago.
The rule of law, not exams.
The law being something like "If you are caught in a lie, and the ruling of an 'judgement panel' is that you weren't mistaken, but deliberately lying, you should be expelled.
The rule of law, not exams.
The law being something like "If you are caught in a lie, and the ruling of an 'judgement panel' is that you weren't mistaken, but deliberately lying, you should be expelled.
February 1, 2025 at 1:48 PM
Regulation is required, not an exam - as I said on one of your blog posts, not so long ago.
The rule of law, not exams.
The law being something like "If you are caught in a lie, and the ruling of an 'judgement panel' is that you weren't mistaken, but deliberately lying, you should be expelled.
The rule of law, not exams.
The law being something like "If you are caught in a lie, and the ruling of an 'judgement panel' is that you weren't mistaken, but deliberately lying, you should be expelled.