Potlaching is gifting which is a primary aspect of the philosophical concept of Grace. If the modern technologically advanced economic system is inherently cost inflationary due to the additional and increasingly additional costs of capital depreciation, (and also increasingly erosive of aggregate demand due to AI), then, in a monetary economy, monetary Gifting/potlaching….is actually the only way to stabilize such an economy because Gifting does not incur additional systemic costs.

This philosophy and policies aligned with it (Social Credit) has been around for over 90 years awaiting re-discovery. The thing that I have added to it is the recognition that nature abhors a vacuum and/or a stasis/equilibrium, and hence for true economic free flowingness, requires a systemic vector of price deflation, what I refer to as “the higher disequilibrium” of more total individual incomes than total costs/prices….instead of the present inherent price inflationary state as diagnosed above.

The natural, linguistic and philosophical concept of Grace in all of its various aspects, particularly regarding Gifting, is the new philosophy economic theorists have been calling for, but so far comprehending only in a piecemeal, fragmented way.

TW:  Technology is deflationary, for production costs to capital. This drives capital to innovate technology for competitive edge, improved profit margin. See also, obsolescence function. And the Industrial Revolution. And Jevons paradox. Oh and see also, effect of discount rate on innovation.

Production functions’ dimensional analysis is bizarre.

Me:  Technological research, its productive means and its depreciation costs, being capital intensive, are cost inflationary as the cost accounting convention that all costs must go into price is never not in effect. Original pricing for innovation is also inflationary and generally has the appearance of being deflationary after market saturation, but considering the original inflation, is minimal or still inflationary. That’s why the nickel candy bar of my youth after 50 years of innovation is now $.89 at Wal Mart and $1.09 elsewhere. No one is saying that more productivity and profit is not made via innovation, but considering that both profits and re-investments of same are monetary diminutions to the circular flow of one financial and costing cycle and create new costs in proceeding ones where additional individual incomes are already and consequently even more scarce in ratio to costs….the inherently cost inflationary nature of modern economies remains. And that of course is not even considering the acceleratingly erosive effects on aggregate demand of AI or the largely unperceived additional costs of waste.

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

Me:  Money is basically accountancy which is actual looking and recording. Abstract theorizing is at best once removed from present time reality and hence prone to missing/misinterpreting data.

I said a long time ago that Prof Keen was correct that (mathematically) interest can be paid. I am not an interest crank. But the only way that can be accomplished is by continuous build up of debt the COST of which is problematic as Prof Keen has also pointed out.

Interest is but one of numerous ADDITIONAL costs over and above the costs of finance which combined in each moment of modern economies creates a flow of total costs that always tends to exceed the flow of total individual incomes. Prices go up and prices go down, but the flow of cost accounting datums reveals this ratio is the deepest problematic reality missed/misunderstood by economists.