I totally agree.

If I may, another issue is the political imperative that exists in every nation to maximize total output in order to maximize employment, total income, and taxes collected (at whatever rates exist). I have developed a change within the existing economic system to address that issue. For the record, I do have an M.A. in economics; my Thesis was in political economy, focusing on money and distributive justice.

The key to the idea is to create money as needed--without involving debt in any way--to fund a minimum guaranteed income that would be sufficient to live on (based on either the median or average income). Importantly, that would be the pay for people in minimum-pay jobs. Employers would use working conditions and (in-kind) benefits to compete for employees to fill such positions. That decouples that income from output. With government as an employer of last resort, providing jobs that paid that income but with no benefits, there would be no unemployment or poverty at any level of total output. It could also be paid as easily as not to one parent (or legal guardian) in a household with at least one (legally recognized) dependent living there.

Money could also be created to fund all government, from local to national, based on population. That would decouple the funding of government from output, via taxation.

With those two streams of money entering the economy as they do, demographics would govern total output--passively but effectively. There are built-in protections against inflation.

If curious, a fuller introduction to the proposal is in "Economic System Not the Problem" (here in Medium, but not behind the paywall), with links to more about it.