Of Science and Paradigm Changes

Me:  The paradigm of the economy and the money system hasn’t changed for the entire length of human civilization. Economic specialists are not idiots because they don’t believe me, they’re idiots because, curiously from a scientific standpoint, they don’t and/or refuse to analyze from the paradigmatic level.

DT:  But Craig, economics is still in the pre-scientific class because it is using the WRONG paradigm: not of economics but of scientific method. It is disagreeing about paradigms and what they are because empiricists try to theorise events rather than what is channelling and ordering them: trying to bring order out of chaos before it knows how to by mimicking the ‘force’ rather than the ‘communication of information’ paradigm.

Me:  Dave, yes economics is held back by the fact that the monetary paradigm has never changed for the last 5000 years as David Graeber has written about. It has ALWAYS been Debt Only. That is both its conceptual essence and temporal fact….which should satisfy scientists, but mostly doesn’t because the present paradigm for inquiry is Empirical Science Only and hence strongly tends to invalidate and exclude philosophy and integrative phenomena like paradigm changes.

Integration Not Obsessive Contention

This discussion dramatizes what is wrong with economic theorizing, namely dualistic, obsessive, non-resolving contentiousness.

What is required is integrating BOTH anthropological AND empirical evidences and then considering and finding a single concept that fits seamlessly within and enables a thirdness greater oneness of such evidences namely a pattern/paradigm change. As I have pointed out here many times before two of the major signatures of a paradigm change are the discovery of a new insight and/or tool and conceptual opposition to the current/old paradigm.

So the discovery of the power of a monetary policy at the single aggregative ending point for all consumer goods and services, hence the terminal expression point for all economic factors including inflation and purchasing power and finally that fits seamlessly within the very woof and warp of exchange, i.e. economics/the productive process itself…seems to fit such insight.

And a 50% discount/rebate monetary policy at that point (retail sale) would result in empirically inverting the present realities of individual income scarcity and systemic business revenue austerity into abundance of same thus fulfilling the conceptual opposition signature (and integratively the temporal reality one as well) of genuine paradigm change.

Posted To RWER Blog Regarding What Economists Have Missed

1) Macro-economically the rate of change in credit must always go up or you go into recession according to Steve Keen, yet as that means debt service consequently continuously rises you’re stuck between a rock and a hard place in a rigged cost inflationary monetary system.

2) This is the exact same calculus that C. H. Douglas correctly came to from his cost accounting micro-economic perspective characterized by his statement that “the rate of flow of total costs exceeds the rate of flow of total individual incomes simultaneously created to liquidate them.”

3) Economists have iconoclastically analyzed and de-bunked macro-economics 15 trillion times from the middle….and almost totally neglected and/or totally missed that the real problem is the monopolistic monetary and financial paradigm of Debt Only, that’s ONLY AS DEBT…WHICH ALWAYS MUST GO UP….WHICH WHEN ALL FACTORS ARE CONSIDERED ALWAYS INCREASES COSTS….WHICH MEANS THE SYSTEM IS COST INFLATIONARY…WHICH MEANS A MEANS (READ MONETARY AND FINANCIAL PARADIGM CHANGE) MUST BE FOUND TO COUNTER THE PRESENT PARADIGM…NOT JUST TO CREATE AN EQUILIBRIUM WHICH IS PALLIATIVE, STATIC AND LAGGING, BUT TO CREATE “THE HIGHER FREEING, INTERACTIVE, DYNAMIC, FREE FLOWING AND ETHICAL MONETARY DISEQUILIBRIUM, AND BENEFICIAL PRICE AND ASSET DEFLATION WITH A HIGH PERCENTAGE DISCOUNT/REBATE MONETARY POLICY AT BOTH THE POINT OF RETAIL SALE AND NOTE SIGNING….WHICH IS THE VERY EXPRESSION OF THE NEW PARADIGM OF DIRECT AND RECIPROCAL MONETARY AND FINANCIAL GIFTING.

Economists are extremely intelligent and erudite, but when it comes to paradigm perception and solutions they tend to be “dipsticks”.

Posted To Ellen Brown’s Forum Regarding Incentivizing Green Tech and Land Practices

A very good article. Perhaps we can paraphrase G. K. Chesterton’s slogan “Three acres and a cow” to: Twenty acres and a solar/battery powered mini-tractor. An economics of grace would include an ultimate wise and respectful attitude toward the land and its cultivation, and the approach would best be integrative in every way.  Incentivizing economic virtues and discouraging economic vices via taxation with a mind toward ecological sanity is a part of the solution, yet costs are the ultimate factor in both economics and ecology. None of the ideas and projects mentioned in your article are ever likely to come to fruition until the money system is taken off our necks and utilized to assist rather than impede such sanity.

A truly non-profit and national distributive money and financial system that integrates price and asset deflation with a 50% discount/rebate monetary policy at retail sale for all consumer products and a second 50% discount/rebate for all “big ticket” items and green products at the point of note signing would reduce the costs of the latter category by 75%.  In other words a $40k battery powered mini-tractor would cost $10k and then a x2 increase in the purchasing power of personal savings that is used to retire debt would mean $5000 in savings would make the entire note go “poof”. (the 50% discount/rebate policy automatically doubles the purchasing power of savings for retail products but not for the residual after note signing…unless the x2 policy post note signing were implemented of course). And incentivizing savings would also tend to mitigate over consumption even though a doubling of purchasing power for routine consumer goods does not necessarily equate with a doubling of consumption/commodity throughput.
The paradigm of Debt Only and its oppressive costs is the ultimate problem and its resolution is, as all historical paradigms illustrate, conceptual opposition to the current/old paradigm….as in freeing monetary gifting. 

Incentivize Savings The Same Way As You Double Purchasing Power (or quadruple it with green and big ticket items)

In other words you multiply savings’ purchasing power by 2. Then, if you buy a new electric powered auto or solar energy home you not only get a 75% reduction in its price with the double 50% discount, if you use savings to buy it you get an additional doubling of the purchasing power of your savings. Thus a $40k electric car  is purchasable for $10k with the double discount and if you use $5000 of your savings you’ve paid off the total cost of the car and the note goes poof. Normal savings’ purchasing power doubles with the 50% discount/rebate at retail sale for any product or service, and at note signing for “big ticket” and/or green products, but savings’ purchasing power is not doubled on the residual note….unless you do so with a 2x purchasing power of savings policy.

It incentivizes savings and to that degree also tends to reduce overall general and non-green consumption.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5will

So you’ve not only reduced

Response To A Poster On RWER Blog

Me:  @JD

Excellent suggestion. KISS is always a good policy. How about:

1) Loans create deposits

2) Private banks create 97+% of loans, a virtual monopoly on credit creation

3) Even the money created by governments via the FED as deficit spending is created as debt.

4) Hence the monetary paradigm/pattern is Debt Only

5) A monopoly on both credit creation and also on the ENTIRE pattern of Debt Only, that is as the sole FORM and VEHICLE for the DISTRIBUTION of money/credit is probably

a) the stupidest,

b) most naive, (in view of the fact that money in a monetary economy is both the means of security, and the ability to deny it is the power to deny both individual survival and the continuation of commercial enterprise) and

c) blatantly contradictory fact in an alleged competitive free market economy.

6) Finding a way to place the power of money “into the many hands of the individual” in such secure abundance that there is no longer “the reserve army of the unemployed” that can be extorted and cowed, that also more abundantly benefits 99.9% of enterprise, that resolves the deepest problems of the current paradigm by literally inverting its realities of individual income scarcity, systemic austerity, balkiness and tendency toward recession or worse and finally of price and asset inflation….would seem to be the order of the day.