It must be turned into productive speculative assets

I phrased that badly. What I mean is the opposite: land should not be held purely as a speculative asset. A land value tax forces productive use, idle land becomes costly to hold, which drives it toward economic contribution rather than passive appreciation. The rent of natural resources belongs to no one person more than another.

Good first draft. the Godley Table framing is the right move, and the asset-swap argument ("bond issuance → real natural capital") is exactly what's needed to break out of the household-budget fallacy. A few things worth strengthening in a next iteration: What works well: The SFC approach ensures every funding flow is accounted for across sectors. The ROI framing (€1 → €4–38) is compelling, and the "crisis of postponement" reframe is rhetorically sharp. What's missing: The model patches restoration spending onto the existing tax structure. That's fine as a first draft, but it leaves the harder question unanswered: if you're serious about using SFC modelling, the revenue side deserves the same rigour as the spending side. A nitrogen tax is a good Pigouvian instrument, but it's a small loop. The larger question is what happens to the overall fiscal architecture when you shift from taxing labour to taxing wealth, which changes the macro-financial picture for how public investment gets funded at scale. I've been working on exactly this at Astra Europa, a pan-European federalist movement, using the same SFC methodology but applied to a full structural redesign: EU wealth tax, zero labour tax, European Citizen Dividend as automatic stabiliser, and Pigouvian taxes (including CO₂ and financial speculation) as the corrective layer. The NRR funding question fits naturally into that framework. Restoration bonds become far easier to justify politically when the revenue base is already structured around asset taxation rather than labour. Happy to share the SFC scenario files if anyone wants to dig in.

@Stephen Hinton Thanks! A few suggestions for a next version: 1. Model the revenue side with the same rigour as the spending side. The nitrogen tax loop is a start, but the harder question is what the overall fiscal architecture looks like when you shift from taxing labour to taxing wealth, that changes the macro-financial baseline for public investment significantly. 2. Run a two-scenario comparison. A current fiscal architecture vs. asset-tax-funded architecture. The simulation plots in Ravel make the difference between fiscal architectures visible in a way narrative arguments cannot. I've built a Minsky/Ravel SFC model that does exactly this for the EU-wide case. This addendum is probably the most relevant starting point: https://codeberg.org/astra-europa/Policies/src/branch/main/belasting/Addendum_Financial_Market_Transmission_EN.md Happy to connect with anyone working on the fiscal architecture question, whatever the theoretical starting point.

@Kendra Alien yes but I think something went wrong. My skool on my Mobile is different than on my desktop

Hi everyone, I'm Rolf Strijdhorst, a federalist from the Netherlands and one of the founders of Astra Europa a pan-European political movement working toward a democratic European federation. Over the past months I've been developing a tax reform proposal that shifts the burden from labour to wealth at EU level, replacing income tax with a progressive wealth tax and funding a European Citizen Dividend. The proposal draws heavily on Keen's work on private debt dynamics and the Minsky Moment, which is why I ended up here. To test the core claims I built a Stock-Flow Consistent model in Minsky/Ravel. The results are honest: the reform stabilises private debt and maintains a demand floor, but demand pressure is real and the supply side remains an open question. The model files are publicly available. I'm here to learn, to get the model torn apart by people who know what they're doing, and hopefully to contribute where I can.