Confronting The Social Credit Insight: Ellen Brown’s Forum 06/13/2016

Posted by

0

Kevin,

As I said, I’m all for cutting costs, but cutting costs only addresses half of an inherent scarcity of individual incomes in ratio to costs. The only way to resolve both is implement policies that COSTLESSLY raise individual incomes (a gift of money) and reduce costs/prices (a discount to retail prices which is actually a policy of reciprocal gifting, first to the consumer and then back to the merchant who did the gifting). Half measures are by definition not actual solutions.

Can we confront this finally on this forum

Kevin:  Steve what you say is what envesting does.  Instead of interest lenders get a return by getting goods and services at a discount. The tokens that assist in the exchange are zero cost.  The 2% cost is the cost of administering the tokens.

The tokens are not a “store of value” because they do not earn interest.
You will find Envesting is what you are after. Better still we can do it one loan at a time and not have massive disruption.
Public Banks are important because we still have to have a party to administer and operate the system.  The Public Bank will get its funds from transaction fees.  It will have deposits but it will never create money.  The government will create money when needed.  The savers create the zero cost tokens to enable the exchange.
Each transfer of value is treated as a separate event.  The transfer of one value does not directly effect the transfer of any other value.
Until we had the technology that underlies the Google and Facebooks etc. it was hard to keep track of all the individual exchanges.

Me:  Okay Kevin, but what I am saying is it does not address the additional inherent costs like depreciation. In the physical universe stuff wears out and/or becomes obsolescent and the costs of replacing such must go into prices right along, or the business is merely a zombie that doesn’t know it is going out of business. This and other factors that disequilibrate the economy is what almost everyone overlooks or ignores. I’m not out to rain on anybody’s parade or invalidate, after all your ideas do address part of the problem, I’m just pointing at realities that must be addressed. Your ideas and things like the Block chain tech may cut costs, but they ignore the necessity of also dealing with the individual income scarcity. The problem is an unresolved/unintegrated Duality (the income scarcity ratio to costs/prices) that requires an integrative third/Trinity-Unity factor, namely monetary Grace as in Gifting in order to be both individually and systemically freeing.

Kevin:  Steven,

When we do a transfer of value over time we address the costs of depreciation etc. as part of the agreement.  In an agreement we take the length of time the asset has value.
Me:  Okay, but do you address the effects of depreciation costs for BOTH businesses AND the individual? Currently The individual can only liquidate a cost with income/money that is scarce in ratio to costs/prices. Your extra “rights” look very much like a social credit dividend, but why not just use legal tender currency that we now use and which is accepted by all businesses. Remember, I believe it was Minsky who said creating money is easy, getting people to accept it is more difficult. The business community must “buy in” to any monetary scheme. With Social Credit/Wisdomics/Gracenomics businesses are rewarded for their gifting to the consumer by being gifted back with the entirety of their discounts, so its already a win-win for everybody…..except for the Banks whose monopoly on credit creation and dominating position in the economy is ended.

Me:  “You do not want to use fungible money because then the funds can be spent on anything.  It is important when issuing a social credit dividend that you get the credit into society by creating an asset of value.”

This is a monetary inflation orthodoxy and fear that is just a shadow that a deflationary retail discount mechanism deals with in a straightforward fashion. Soddy was bright, but his main genious was chemistry, and he didn’t have the accounting knowledge or the direct knowledge of the costing pricing system like Douglas had.
I couldn’t care less how much people save. Unlike indebtedness, they are in control of their savings. You might have commonsensical regulations in place that say you can’t take on more than 20% of your current dividend in additional debt service unless you could show terrific and stable income. This would quell profligacy on the part of the consumer or a return to the days when the Banks were trying to entice everyone and the birds and the bees with debt. And remember, Wisdomics/Gracenomics has a tri-level sovereignly controlled Banking system not the monopolistic out of control nonsense we have now. Finally, with the discount mechanism you could entice people’s savings into traditionally productive non-financialized investment/speculation instead of pooling and extracting it into bonds or other complete idiocies like derivatives.

Leave a comment