I actually felt rather uncomfortable at this meetup session, for a whole host of reasons but NOT because I felt Mr X was fundamentally wrong with regard to the the current system. I just felt his arguments were poor at best and in some cases were demonstrably wrong via basic mathematics.

1. There is NOTHING wrong with having a meeting where the speaker is advocating for a political party BUT this should be stated in the information beforehand. I am forced to wonder “Why were you afraid to say beforehand what you said in the meeting, namely that you looked forward to Reform cleaning out Nottingham at next election?”
2. You trotted out the old canard of the Evil Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is actually under the power of the US government. Its power could be nullified in an instant: look up “mint the 10 $trillion coin” or whatever large amount you get hits for these days. The Treasury can then spend whatever it likes.
3. You bemoaned the size of the national debt. Either:
   1. You don’t understand what a balance sheet is: the national debt is EXACTLY equal to the national credit, which is the accumulated value of money spent by the national government into the economy to provide stability via bonds etc so people like you don’t get told one cold snowy February month “sorry old chap, can’t pay you your pension, the stock market took a dive”. The national credit oils the machine and ensures guaranteed pension payments. There is a version of an old joke: economists have predicted 20 of the last zero hyperinflations in Japan after its national debt ballooned.
   2. You DO understand a balance sheet, in which case you are deliberately being partisan to “cut spending” and people are going to question your motives.
4. You could not even be consistent in your own arguments within a single paragraph. You proclaimed private rights over property and land, then lauded China for not following this and achieving the “highest growth”. Not true. Singapore has, since its founding as an independent nation, free of British and Malaysian control, done better than China (which, even if you find GDP growth figures to contradict me will ignore the little issue of the millions who died of starvation). Singapore had full public ownership of most of the land: equivalent to the “land value taxation” that those “lefties” (snort) Adam Smith said were ESSENTIAL for ANY system to run.
5. Singapore did so well partly because of the issue you clearly didn’t understand (and ironically gave a “classic politician’s fudging” reply to), namely that Capitalism or any other economic system can only work if the third, crucial, factor of production, LAND, is ensured to give everyone a “level playing field”. This is why the Classical Economists like Adam Smith and David Ricardo HATED rentiers and advocated Land Value Taxation. Tax land according to the value it has to society so big companies that are content to keep unused shops will incur taxes that mean that they must get tenants or sell up to someone who will use the land more productively. Singapore kept the vast majority of land in public ownership for decades so no “rentiers” could exploit companies or individuals.
6. I’ve read Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations” and the key sections of “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” where he qualified his views. You clearly have not. Your answer to me was a politician’s answer, full of avoiding the issue because you DO NOT KNOW HOW A BALANCE SHEET WORKS AND YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW SOVEREIGN vs OTHER CURRENCIES WORK.
7. In short, this felt like a very unwelcoming environment to anyone who wasn’t already signed up to Reform UK or who knew enough to challenge the litany of mis-statements made.
8. I feel profoundly sorry for those attendees who lapped this up. We know that COVID19 has led to neurological damage: maybe they should get checks?
9. Resorting in the comments to comparisons with Nazi Germany invoked Godwin’s Law. Which should make any genuinely open-minded person worried.
10. Notice I have NOT mentioned MY textbook at any point. I don’t shill. If you really want to understand personal preferences then 2 minutes on the internet gives my entire history and links. My work stands on its own two feet.
11. There is NOTHING wrong with advocating Swiss style system. But when you shill your book and laud Reform I feel conned. My £80 royalties from MY book based on 15 years of research into public preferences (and yes Mr X, you’re correct that this is due to oligopolists) all just go straight to an accountant since I, earning a “weird” income, must use an accountant who charge about £80 p.a. I get annoyed. But you know what? I just engage in open forums….I never Shill for my book.