Post To Ellen Brown’s Forum 12/19/2015

Posted by

0

I’ve read your writings Bob. Their perceptive, intelligent and come at things from a very similar perspective to my own. We should not be at odds with each other, but rather in essential agreement.

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

Yes, Steve our views are similar in many areas.

Here’s a question: You say: “… the modern economy/productive system itself continuously creates more costs and so prices than it can possibly create in incomes.”
Yes, but what part of this is the cost of interest and the inflation and costs it generates throughout the system? By this I mean in addition to interest, the taxes we pay for profiteering in war, disease, ignorance (“education”), etc., not to mention private control over all the financial markets, which inflate prices through speculation and profit-taking.
Bob
***************************

Bob,

Interest is indeed a very large part of the gap, and waste which is also very large proceeds from it.

However, the logic of structural monetary and economic reform is infinity based, that is there can be an infinite number of progressions (or retreats) from the actual solution, and actual enslavement can continue to exist, even if it be more and more subtle, throughout the process.

An example of this is Keynesianism which the neo-liberal DSGE economic ideology quite easily tossed overboard.

The logic of solutions, integration and Wisdom is trinity based: Thesis, antithesis and synthesis-unification. Furthermore Wisdom necessarily includes an ethical consideration, and while reform may also have it, historically it has always been willing to compromise if it perceives progress, which equally historically as per Keynesianism above, we see is a very unstable and reversible process.

Now none of this means there can’t be reform AND solutions (i.e. Public Banking and Social Credit),  but what it means is an ENDURING AND REFLECTIVE aspect of an actual solution MUST BE A PART OF ANY REFORM. That means that dividend and discount mechanisms MUST be a part of whatever monetary and economic reform also occurs. That is, it cannot and must not be compromised away. It, (INDIVIDUALLY ABUNDANT monetary grace the free gift) is the next NECESSARY evolutionary IDEA in economics and money systems.

An example of this is Social Security which is a monetary reflection of the solution (albeit incomplete, indirect, relatively scarce and RE-distributive) has endured despite continual attempts by deluded and regressive forces deriding it for 80+ years. The idea/the concept of Grace as in abundance will (correctly) always trump austerity in the minds of men in the temporal universe. As will balance as in satisfactory enoughness and full responsibility as in ethical restraint, which are also aspects of Grace.

If we contemplate, trust and insist on policies aligned with Grace being an ESSENTIAL aspect of reform then it (the freedom of Grace) can and will come to fruition much more rapidly than if we only settle for reform.

None of this is necessarily religious (nor necessarily not religious) it is however spiritual/naturally metaphysical in nature.

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

Steve,

Yes, I understand that the next step in human evolution plays a part in economic reform; indeed, my first book incorporated a proof for how the progression of light reveals what the next step is (conscious spiritual evolution), and my next book (working title: 7 Steps to Global Economic and Spiritual Transformation) deals with this evolutionary step going hand-in-hand with economic progression.
However, you say: “Now none of this means there can’t be reform AND solutions (i.e. Public Banking and Social Credit),  but what it means is an ENDURING AND REFLECTIVE aspect of an actual solution MUST BE A PART OF ANY REFORM. That means that dividend and discount mechanisms MUST be a part of whatever monetary and economic reform also occurs.”
While I agree that Social Credit/Dividends/Humanity Credits must be a part of the solution, I don’t believe it is enough to just say this is so, but to offer some sort of model or numbers in support of this position.
Based on all the evidence that I have seen, the problem that I have with Social Credit proponents is that their arguments are based of issues created within a capitalist framework (i.e., privately owned central banks and interest on all credit). In a system with a public banking network (from the Central Bank down to the local banks) operating without interest, the reason for Social Credit changes: Sustainability requires and automation enables fewer working hours. Thus, to guarantee a standard of living consistent with an Economic Bill of Rights, dividends would be required.
Bob
*********************************

Bob,

I agree that to help convince everyone, particularly those in the economic and mathematical professions it is important to include such. Douglas’s A + B theorem and the observation that a costing/pricing system actually exists because the cost accounting convention (that is ubiquitously applicable and applied) that all costs must go into price is important as a tool of enterprise and also actually enforces A + B….is that model. And the ongoing cost accounting statistics of any enterprise (and so the macro-economy) can be taken, the calculus done on them and so the dynamic nature of A + B empirically and mathematically shown.

As it is merely a mistaken orthodoxy that governments must have balanced budgets (the MMT insight) so is it a mere and mistaken orthodoxy that the macro-economy must be merely statistically balanced. This is why the discount mechanism could and should be utilized to proactively create price deflation within a profit making economic system because it actually can be utilized to do that, and because it helps to ally the interests of both the individual and the vast majority of enterprises so as to better overcome the present power of Finance and finally, because (like the concept of Grace) it further complements abundance of individual incomes and is non-entropic and so balances the entropic nature of the economy in a higher and fuller sense.

By the way, a Social Credit economic system is neither a power, profit and control mad capitalistic one nor a socialistic RE-distributive one, it is a third, integrated and unified Distributive system whose policies are direct mandates to ethically consider and reach fully to the individual.

As for the banking system itself the Social Credit concept of a national credit office (NCO) which could double as or include the central bank and which would in essence be a fourth branch of government with full separation of powers and constitutionally mandated policies of the dividend and discount as well as a sovereign 0% original creation of credit to disburse to Banks pretty much fills that bill. I do see both Public Banking and private finance as being possible in a Social Credit economy but the private part would be completely and clearly distinct as inter mediating only priorly earned profit and savings and understood in no uncertain terms that its loans were in no way the general public’s responsibility. I see structural public Banking as actually being able to loan money to businesses and individuals at very low rates (1-2%) which should not at all be any problem with the dividend amount and discount percentage I envision, and rather than tax the populace to run such a system those low rates could pay the salaries and wages of the employees of the system. Eventually AI might be able to completely mechanize the process, but we’re not there yet.

Leave a comment