As per usual your misunderstandings about the nature and effects of a truly macro-economic/aggregate discount policy are showing in your problems with the the Discount mechanism. The fact is there is no difference between the “just price” and your “refund-to-retailers” monikers. A macro-economic discount would be very large (50%+) enabling price deflation, not just some mistaken chintzy 3% derived from under stated/untrustworthy governmental BS inflationary statistics. As for retailers “taking advantage”, they of course risk competitive taking of their market share. Competition in a profit making system will never not be in effect. And if they (retailers) take a little more profit who cares…because as Steve Keen just said in his latest video when business profits are good they use less financing for continuing operations, but when profits are low they use finance to make up for it. With the combination of increased spending from the dividend and the large discount percentage (applied to each item by an equal percentage) Finance as a business model will be downsized to just another business model instead of the suffocatingly dominant one it is now.

***********************************************************************************

Of course I agree with the collaborative spirit of the post, but the misunderstanding regarding a truly macro-economic (as in totals/aggregates)   ability to reduce prices with the Discount percentage muddies the waters about its economic and monetary resolving powers. Reference my post in the other thread.

I DO agree that gracious but effective financial regulations similar in fact to the Discount mechanism (which is a regulation businesses “cannot refuse”) might also be used to discourage finance’s proclivities for encouraging economic vices like Rentiering etc. For instance savings and profits put into bond funds could be taxed at say 50-60% and that amount earmarked for investment in research on how to produce more for less resources or other similar ecologically sane projects, or just give the individual/business the option to do the same with minimal if any taxation.

As I have said numerous times here my motto is:

Transformation First! Rational and ethical regulation…right along with it.

**************************************************************************************

Answering John’s call for me to explain:

John,

I just did explain it. And I could give a shit if the billionaires get 50% off their yachts and jets or whatevers. That’s a one off drop in the bucket macro-economically. The Discount percentage is derived from aggregates…there’s NO NEED to calculate every product and service separately because the same percentage is discounted for every retail product and service. In other words a product worth $.50 with a 50% discount is purchased for $.25. A $15,000 automobile becomes $7500.

You forget John that unlike the micro-economy which is ruled by the necessities to consider cost and debt, to the macro-economy everything over and above original finance costs…is basically irrelevant waste and can be reduced using the digital nature of the money system to create an abundant equilibrium via the costless dividend and price deflation via the discount….at the same time. The macro-economy is about aggregates, numbers…that is all. Now you’re not alone in missing this, that is for sure. Virtually every economist extant, even the good ones like Keen and Hudson STILL have their heads about half way up the backside of the paradigms of Debt and Loan ONLY. Ideas/paradigms rule human minds and shape reality…and digital monetary grace has been there for 90+ years for everyone to discover.

You’re right though, something terrible might happen if people begin to awaken to the uses of macro-economic tools in a digital monetary system….like the end of the rule by Finance over everyone and every other business model for instance.

*****************************************************************************************

Hmmm, let’s see Auto maker A sells his car for $15,000 and the discount makes it $7500 to the consumer. Automaker B sells his $15,000 car for $18,000 and the discount makes it $9000. Now how many times is he going to get away with that before no one comes to his dealership and buys a car when they can buy the same one for $1500 less??????

“I am not interested in your alimentary problems in relation to the obvious fact that, these days, about 80% of any discount value would go to about the top 5% of the people.”
First of all that statement is ad hominem derision which last time I looked was grounds for banning here and most reputable lists.

Secondly it is a complete falsehood. The Discount is a RETAIL Discount. It’s at RETAIL SALE…where all costs including all profit, savings, interest, depreciation etc. ….have already been terminatedly summed for each and every product and service, and so who could possibly be harmed by discounting the totality percentage of those extractions of money and excess costs??? …especially seeings how they are all rebated back to the retailer so he/she can be whole on THEIR profits and overhead payments also.

No John, it is you who have misunderstandings about the nature and capabilities of Social Credit’s macro-economic policies. And you persist in spreading that misunderstanding. That is why you got moderated on the Social Credit list. A moderation, I actually opposed by the way.

The real problem here is John and other New Zealander Social Crediters, mostly because they were themselves still too much in the grasp of the paradigms of Debt and Loans ONLY and thus did not have/did not use valid macro-economic examples to counter derisive comments, and so were cruelly victimized by pols in sway to the Banking and Financial lobbies …and John has never gotten over that. Then add to that he also retains some of the falsehoods/vices of other economic theories as well as has never quite grasped the true power and nature of macro-economic/aggregate policies like the Dividend and Discount…especially when they are combined with the workings and digital plus and minus nature of our monetary system.

Old paradigms are hard to see through and new paradigms are usually hard to get one’s mind around…but when one sees them clearly and completely…they are incredibly powerful….and wipe away all of the orthodox dross that has hidden and inhibited them.

John Rawson: “Both the messages below seem to me to be to be perfect examples of the sort of digressions we should get away from if we are to get anywhere.”