Crime Against Humanity: Pensée Unique in Economics, 48

In terms of cause and effect, if what makes an organism thrive or wither, be it a society or a parasite, is the lymph of purchasing power, of means of credit, payment and exchange, then the ultimate cause of the effects that we all do suffer in full, and that speculators themselves suffer according to their position in the pyramid scheme, are those who control that lymph: either the legitimate owners of monetary sovereignty – you and me – or its usurpers: the moneypulators.

In the face of all this, what is the position of the mainstream economics schools and literature?
Drawing again from that “Japanese anomaly” whose study inspired Werner his breakthrough of separating productive and speculative flows, and considering it for what it really is, an exposition of common denominators rather than contingent items, I will consider the comments related to it too as expression of the Pensée Unique in Economics as a whole:
“This is in contrast to the mainstream literature, which has not been able to find determinants of land price rises or has found, as in Hutchison (1994), that, using the traditional deposit−money based approach, there is ‘little evidence that monetary factors have played a significant systematic role in land price fluctuations in Japan’.”

Should that sound familiar to you, it may be because you either instinctively or explicitly know that “When one cannot solve a problem, the only way to maintain an authoritative position about it is saying it cannot be solved.”
Firstly, using their tools they couldn’t find the cause of facts; secondly, using their tools no relationship surfaced between the hypothesised cause and the facts; thirdly, consequently the conclusion is that the hypothesised cause is not the cause of facts and that’s that. Right?
We know how that stuff goes: I’m right, you’re wrong, anything outside my perimeter just does not exist, and then if it even threatens to undermine my position…