ThatBritGuy:

a little simplistic?

One of the concepts that's absent from current economic theory is the difference between synergy/symbiosis and expropriation.

It's not just simplistic: it's plain wrong.

It assumes that credit is necessarily money, whereas the truth is that credit is a necessary part of a monetary relationship but credit neither needs to be nor should it be monetised, IMHO.

It ignores the fact that - contrary to the anthropocentric assumption of conventional economics and Marx alike - Capital may also be "productive", in that it has a "use value" with a value in exchange (eg a Kilo Watt Hour or a Square Metre Year). There is a strand of heterodox economics Binary Economics based upon this "Binary" assumption, and I understand that the US policy of Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) owes its origins to the "Binary" thinking of Louis Kelso.

The Social Credit movement was based upon Colonel C H Douglas' view of money as a credit object, and his

 Social Credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A + B theorem

in relation to the draining of purchasing power out of Economies, and the need for what he called "Social Credit" to be fed into Economies - according to formulae he had developed -to replace it.

In my view there is a qualitative difference between

(a) Static credit - tied up in secured Debt and Equity; and

(b) Dynamic credit - aka time to pay;

and that the equations of monetary flow must incorporate this distinction if they are to reflect reality.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

One of the concepts that's absent from current economic theory is the difference between synergy/symbiosis and expropriation...

There's no reason why a loan can't be symbiotic.

Some loans will be synergetic. But the question is, what proportion? The amount of credit extended recently is staggering - but all for non-synergetic "investments" into bubles. There can't possibly be so much synergy gain to match the ridiculus amount of credit.

Absence of synergetic considerations in economic theories is indeed interesting. Synergies are abound in the natural world - almost compulsively. The role of government should be seen primarily as synergetic - i.e., capturing large common wins. But common interest is politically dead, and the government is unabatedly promoted as a free-rider helper. The libertarian understanding of "There is no free lunch" appears to mean "There is no synergy through governing" (but they appear to believe in a "synergy" of making money out of thin air through credit extension).

The brief history of government as "for the people" is finished and is being erased. The only "legal" cooperation is corporation - it feels like no one else is allowed to take care of own interests in a coordinated matter, or do any good to others. The rhetorical mix-up of what is a cooperator, or a free-rider, or a rentier is amazingly Orwellian in this world.