tell me that you disagree with this bloke, page-19

You introduce into the discussion such a broad range of economic factors. Fiat currencies to name one. There is a great deal of discussion about the merits and otherwise of it but one of the points I wanted to make was that we live with what we have. Some will want to fight windmills but most accept the economic reality we find ourselves in - fiat currency, moving interest rates, money supply fluctuations... the list goes on.
That the Reserve Banks manipulate the markets is a given. No one in their right mind would dispute it. That they do it to line their own pockets at the expense of everyone else is a long bow to draw. To me, to carry this out to the extreme is a nonsense because the people involved might well end up with all the money, but the quagmire they would have to live amongst would make it senseless. To this end, I believe that the major thrust of the powers that be is to maintain the economic status quo (they have money already) and create a general well-being in society. To this end, of course they will do what they believe is required because this is their remit. There is no point following some mindless rule about money supply because it is an economic theory held above all if 50% of the workforce is unemployed.
My final point is that throughout history economies have existing based on inflexible economic rules including gold based currency. There is no evidence to suggest they were pinnacles in human civilization and development. Flexibility is the key here and I would prefer the system we have rather than the rigid economic dogma you spout about fixed interest rates and inflexible money supply. There seems to be more of you luddites around now so perhaps you should all go and form your own country and get on with it, rather than take over ours.