Of course I have seen that, I may be a Bear of Little Brain, but I am not entirely dumb. ;-)

But my point - and it has been brilliantly examined on ET in recent months - is that everything begins with the Rhetoric.

We have to take "their" Rhetoric and discourse and turn it against them.

That is what I am attempting to do when I talk about "asset-based" as distinguished from "deficit-based" finance. And more recently, by demonstrating new forms of "Public Equity" (using different legal forms to the Corporation) which people may then compare and contrast with the locust variety of "Private Equity".

Robin has IMHO something new, but if the descriptor is "tarnished" in some way by pre-conceptions and associations then he will get nowhere with it.

I would see the Economist etc giving short thrift to "Sympathy Value", but possibly a fair wind to "Indifference Value" particularly if it gives better results - (Does it? Examine Robin's work and tell me where he is wrong) - than the conventional bollocks.

And maybe in due course the world will be ready for "Sympathy" value, but right now, regrettably, I don't think it is...

When you are in power you have to stretch the truth, and then it won't ever go back to it's normal shape

I think what Chris is actually referring to is to the cases when we confront utopians with "yeah, that's great, but how do we get there from here?". I think you may have even written a diary or story against utopianism based around that point.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?