Wander through life and you will find people who have causes, who try to persuade you of the merits of their view. They will claim their view is reasonable and rational, and suggest that you look at it yourself.

One of these "causes" is Geonomics. I would not have looked into Geonomics unless I had things to do with Geonomic advocates for other reasons. And so this prompted me to look into it. That's an accident of history. I guess there's a lot of other causes I might have become involved with.

And so, I looked at it. But I'm just an amateur. Georgists do seem to get worked up about academic economists who ignore Geonomics. I'm an amateur who has reviewed it, and my feeling are only mildly positive. But heck, I accepted the invitation to look at it. I looked at it. Now I need to get on with my life. My assessment may be of interest and I'm putting it forward.

But, with all things, there is a balance. I'm not trying to argue my case too vigorously, take it or leave it. I'm not about to get into long dialogues with people on the merits or otherwise of Geonomics. But, if you have a short factual comment to make on the contents of this document, I'll listen to it, but will avoid entering into a dialogue.

However, I'm not planning to be completely closed in my outlook. I have academic physicists listen to me on my alternatives to relativity, and it would be pretty sad if I did not operate in the same way as I appreciate them listening to me.

So, I do plan to keep a quiet, settled dialogue open with Neil Gilchrist. If you want to talk to him about your Geonomic views, there is a chance they will be passed onto me. But Neil has a life to lead too, and you'll be dealing with his priorities. Anyway, here it is, translate it to get a real email : Neil@fnord.RADical.com.au.

I don't want to be dealing with a plethora of emails saying "have you considered this ?"; "Have you considered that ?". I've actually bothered to criticise Geonomics. Most people just ignore it. Take heart from that.

I may end up giving Neil the right of reply to this webpage. But, in the meantime, take a look at some pro-Geonomic web pages.

Also, two qualifiers : in an ideal world, I'd have included a lot of references to Geonomic statements. Also, I'm a bit vague on the distinction between classical economics and neo-classical economics. But, I think my arguments involving "classical" economics are still reasonably clear. These would be an improvement, but I'm not sufficiently motivated make these improvements at present.

At the end of this whole process, I'm a lot clearer on my economic view of the world. I'm a bit more content. It has been a useful experience. I hope reading this material has been useful for you, too.