https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/social-credit/HNnTcGLgVvs
GM: “How? Does such an accounting system exist today?”
Me: Yes, the money system is digital in nature which means that money, whether it is issued as debt or as a gift is able to liquidate prices. Social Credit does not destroy the system simply integrates monetary gifting into it via a universal dividend and reciprocally to both the individual and businesses at point of retail sale.
GM: Maybe. Imputing intentionality is somewhat problematic. “Finance” is not a monolith, and it does not act with the monopolistic intent o, for example, Microsoft squelching competitors and potential competitors, as it was convicted of doing with its Explorer browser. Most bankers simply look to maximize their personal gains in the very short term, and have strong incentives to do so. Too many such incentives, and there is one reason why Wells Fargo is now in dutch with Elizabeth Warren. So the idea of “Finance” trying to deliberately protect a long term monopoly runs rather counter to what we have learned about how the financial markets work. Institutions often do what is contrary to their long term interest in order to maximize short term gains. That astonished Alan Greenspan, who thought the markets were rational until the GFC showed him how banks had destroyed themselves by irrationally chasing short term gains instead of protecting their long term prospects. See this New Yorker piece (http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/elizabeth-warren-and-the-wells-fargo-scam) on Senator Elizabeth Warren grilling the Wells Fargo CEO over the latest frauds there.
Your analysis seems to presuppose “Finance” to be a rational albeit malign, agent seeking to maximize its long term competitive position. There is scant evidence to support that presupposition, and less after the GFC, IMHO,Thanks again.
Me: While the individual banker/loan officer is not a co-conspirator there is actually a lot of evidence for conscious efforts on the part of the major too big to fail banks to make sure that politicians and governments tow the line of Finance’s interests, for instance all of the revolving door of former banking executives becoming secretaries of the treasury and other strategic governmental positions. And even if one doesn’t want to confront these facts the truth is the system is set up to empower the Banking system anyway. For instance, while the Banks don’t own a complete monopoly on credit creation….97% of it is a virtual monopoly. That plus their claim to ownership of the credit they create reinforces their power. And that’s not even considering their dominating paradigms of loan only and for production only that put a straight jacket on the types of vehicles allowed for the distribution of credit…..when what specifically is required to balance the system is monetary grace as in gifting.
Sure the large corporations with global reach play the game “with extreme prejuidice” and that also needs to rectified by the same concept that will transform the economy, but what they do only proves they know that in order to survive and thrive the current system basically requires them to be ruthless with power…..instead of just profitable in an actually humane and freeing system.
GM: YES, money is digital. So what? If the accounting system exists, what is the Social Credit of the USA now, and how much dividend could the recipients expect, for example, this year, if SC were in place? How is Social Credit measured in that accounting system you aver to exist, and how distributed?If there is a reliable accounting system to calculate the dividend, it should be rather simple for a mathematician or econometricianto produce an algorhithm that would calculate in near-real-time. Then we could put up an online tool something like the “Debt Clock” telling people”This is what you would have today with Social Credit– now write your Congressman and tell her/him you want to claim your dividend.”
Thanks again,
Me: I thought Wally mentioned already that an assessment of the nation’s capital value would be part of the process of sizing up a dividend. Douglas said that attempting to balance the books of an economy was flawed because it assumes that we depreciate/destroy our capital at the same rate that we create it. Some may disagree here, but it is my opinion that the dividend should be relatively abundant approaching a middle class living standard and the retail discount percentage significantly higher than any rate of inflation. This would reverse the individually austere and cost inflationary nature of the economy into an individually abundant and systemically cost deflationary one. One of the aspects of the philosophical concept of grace, upon which Social Credit is based, is abundant/abundance. A mere statistical equilibrium IMO is actually an orthodoxy to overcome. Therefore, the dividend and discount, so long as they reflected abundance and avoided stimulating profligacy, could be “ball park” estimates. If the dividend approached a middle class level, say $1500/mo. and the discount 40% that could translate into as much as $2100/mo in purchasing power for an individual and $4200 for a household, and any pay from employment would be additional. This would also enable taxes paid by both individuals and businesses for unemployment insurance, welfare and eventually even Social Security to be eliminated due to their then redundancy.
The dual policies of Social Credit effect more of the alleged agendas of the left (economic democracy) and the right (governmental frugality and downsizing) than either of their advocates have been able to deliver since forever. Also, because they are direct, costless and placed at the terminal end of the productive process they are naturally and automatically balancing. They would change the unstable disequilibrium of austerity and inflation into “the higher disequilibrium” of individual abundance and price deflation. And this is how it should be “sold” to the general public and the small to medium sized business community.
JS: Actually, I see what Greg is getting at here. I think in order to “sell” Social Credit, there has to be a multi-pronged approach. Those of us on this list tend to be intellectuals and academics, so we tend to want to appeal to that group. I think what Greg is saying is that this method is not going to appeal to the average person. William Aberhart won an election guaranteeing a $25/month dividend. I’m not sure if Greg knows this, but William Aberhart and the Social Credit party were elected to power in Alberta with the promise to implement Douglas Social Credit.
Me: Yes I see the value of having an integrated approach where both altruism and self interest can be communicated to awaken the general population and the business community to the economic necessity and the ethical difference that Social Credit’s policies would effect.
The idea that a dividend would elicit suspicion and rejection more than perhaps a momentarily surprised acceptance is very probably an unhealthy cultural phenomenon as the normal and healthy response to a gift is gratitude and joy. In my opinion the overwhelming majority of people would have the latter response….especially if they just ignored their “intellectuals’ habituated skepticism and obsessive contention.
GM: Yet, many of the voters will be looking for material benefit, which seems to make them “crude and animalistic” and not worth bothering about in the view of some Social Crediters.
Me: Well I think that is a misconception as the dividend and discount are available to all. It is however true that ignoring or discounting an unhealthy/unwholistic viewpoint when a healthy and holistic one is available…is Wisdom.
GM: Nobly put. However, ambassador Adlai Stevenson II said it most succinctly, and I have quoted him in earlier correspondence: “Unfortunately, Mdm., we need a majority.”
Me: Okay. But I would simply say that selling faith and hope for the future with monetary Grace is a more effective way to overcome cynicism and scepticism. We even saw/see it in both Obama’s and Trump’s political strategies. All you really have to do differently….is make the policies reflect the philosophy and follow through.
JS: We do need a majority, but we don’t necessarily need to convince the majority of people. As Soren Kierkegaard once wrote:
“Truth always rests with the minority, and the minority is always stronger than the majority, because the minority is generally formed by those who really have an opinion, while the strength of a majority is illusory, formed by the gangs who have no opinion — and who, therefore, in the next instant (when it is evident that the minority is the stronger) assume its opinion..”
Me: That makes perfect sense to me and dovetails with recent sociological research that indicates that if as little as 10-12% of a populace gets the idea that a change is necessary it becomes difficult to keep such change from being implemented. A committed 10-12% will sway the remainder who will then enthusiastically embrace the change or even merely glom onto it.
GM: I suppose that the judgment of the best way to win an electorate is best made by competent professional politicians who know how to win. I know that in order to interest an editor in the subject of Social Credit, I would have to point to something in reality that made it now especially worthy of attention from the readers of that particular magazine or newspaper. If I were to talk only about Grace and Giftedness, I would expect a deaf ear, even from most “Christian” publishers. “Grace” is not, I confess, immediately apparent to me in the Trump campaign, as you seem to suggest. In fact, you are right that Pres. Obama did earn his title by promising somewhat vague “hope”, with the slogan “yes, we can!”, but has disappointed and even alienated many of the idealists who supported him. Guantánamo is still operating, for example, and disappointment among African American voters is threatening Democratic prospects in this election, see
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article24775147.html. “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me,” rather well captures the attitude among many voters.
Me: Actually I don’t think Trump is “selling” Grace either. If he were aware of Social Credit’s philosophy and policies he would be doing so. He IS selling change, a kind of change that you correctly point out was not followed through with by Obama. Again, what is needed is the economic and monetary philosophy and policies of Grace. Social Crediters are not talking “only about Grace and Giftedness” they are talking about integrating both a philosophy of Grace and the direct, pinpointed and valid economic policies that will resolve the deepest problems of modern economies.
GM: If banks were indeed the ultimate source of all credit, as you seem to be suggesting, they would certainly not be so worried about “dis-intermediation” as they have been since the 1970s. The Eurodollar market probably put the first and biggest nail into the coffin of bank intermediation, as companies found it economical to raise funds in the European capital market instead of from US banks that were subject to regulation that make credit costlier. Disintermediation is just a fancy term for “cutting out the middleman”. Banks are middlemen, a.k.a. “on lenders” in so far as they “get” funds from corporate and consumer depositors and, after reserving a fraction at the central bank, lend funds to borrowers. Therefore their role and function is not distinct from other major institutional investors in that respect. As far as the ultimate source of monies going to borrowers by means of the junk-bond market, banks were not it. There is a lot on the record about those investors. The most important institutional investor group is, it is fair to say, pension funds, the like of Calpers, TIAA-CREF, etc. Banks can only wish they were as important as Social Creditors seem to think. They aren’t, and lending is no longer their main business. Obsessing over the power of banks now seems something like obsessing over the power of the Luftwaffe. That also may have made great sense during the 1930s, as Mr. Churchill insisted at the time.
Me: No one here “obsesses” over the power of Banks. They do correctly look at and point out that a handful of too big to fail banks dominate the system and also correctly point at policies that would end that domination so that Finance would take its proper, non-dominating and so ethically correct place in the economy along with all of the other business models.
As re-distribution of a systemic scarcity (socialism) doesn’t resolve that scarcity, so economizing by “cutting out the middleman” (conservative orthodoxy) won’t actually solve that same systemic condition. Social Crediters have no problem with economizing, but you can’t economize your way out of an inherently cost inflationary system. The only way to do that is to awaken to the necessity of a new economic idea that creates abundance where there was once systemic austerity and that idea is the costless and freeing concept of monetary grace as in gifting. It’s really a pity that so many modern intellectuals are so habituated to doubt and contention which tends to make them obsess over problems and palliatives in favor of actual solutions. A better way would be to first “become as little children” that is truly open and accepting and then utilizing Wisdom to combine truths, workabilities and applicabilities.
GM: However, the growth of shadow banking has made it difficult for policymakers to use the old tactics based on the idea that by influencing bank money creation using such tactics as adjustment of the reserve requirement they can control the money supply. People and institutions have somewhere else to go beside banks: the shadow banks.
Me: The big Banks facilitated the growth of shadow banking largely by their promotion and selling of derivatives like MBS (mortgage backed securities) CDS (credit default swaps) etc. etc. And they now hold many times the entire world economy’s actual money volume with these same “weapons of financial mass destruction” and so attempt to extort things like bail outs and bail ins. Ellen Brown who is a member of this group has written extensively about this as well as Mary Fricker of REPO Watch. The problem is still the business model of Finance, and the solution is still a new paradigm of monetary and price grace.
GM: Jim, you may not have noticed that what you think I wrote came directly from the Fed. It is counterfactual or at best hyperbolic to say, as you did, that, “This is totally untrue. Savings has NOTHING to do with deposits.” The source you cite, by contrast, says that saving by itself does not increase deposits and lendable funds. So there are other sources too, but saving assuredly has something to do with deposits and lending
Me: “saving assuredly has something to do with deposits and lending”
Yes, saving can increase deposits….for savers. But regarding lending ability, the essential nature of the money system and monetary and economic transformation/reform…it has absolutely no significance whatsoever.
Forget the FED. The FED is actually the hand maiden of the too big to fail banks. This was especially so during the folly of the recent financial crisis where a combination of greed and false orthodoxy regarding general equilibrium theory, the Banks and their creation the shadow banking system took leave of their moorings and created titanic amounts of bogus products and debt responsibilities. And unless we demand that derivatives be cancelled/responsibly unwound and implement ongoing policies that actually make the system serve man and the entirety of the business community, at best the system will limp along for another 25-30 years and at worst enable Finance to bully and/or buy unimaginative, ignorant and compliant politicians…into further enslaving the individual with bail-ins and further austerity. And that’s if we avoid a major war in an era of modern weaponry. And all one really needs to do to avoid this is actually look at the beauty, validity and economically encompassing nature of the philosophy and policies of Social Credit….instead of actually not looking at them and also not recognizing their wisdom, work-ability and applicability. This is not dogma. It is confronting stark and historically reflective tendencies….and perceiving the holistic and transformative nature of Social Credit’s policies.
GM: However, it would be equally foolish to dismiss all research without examination, if only because, in order to determine whether the research is “flawed,” we need first to consider it in order to determine whether and how fatally it may be so.
Me: What we really need to do is compare their research and policies (if they offer them up) to Social Credit’s research and policies. That will be basically the difference between flawed and incomplete research and honest accounting, valid economic theory and philosophical and ethical depth. But don’t just take my word for it. If you want a non-social credit source Steve Keen has done a lot of excellent de-bunking of the current monetary and economic orthodoxies you mention. But once one realizes most of the current thinking is wrong they need to actually consider Social Credit. Keen has actually re-discovered some of the things Douglas advocated like the basic, inherent disequilibrium of modern economies.
JS: You have this archaic notion that banks are intermediaries between “savers” and “investors”. This idea has been totally debunked.
Me: Precisely. What matters is the flow of total costs and hence even the minimal flow of total prices (there’s always a tendency and temptation to increase prices in a profit making system) will always tend to exceed the flow of total individual incomes even ideally available to liquidate those prices. This disequilibrated ratio of costs/prices to individual incomes necessitates continual borrowing in order to attempt to stabilize the system. However, because this is the ongoing and inherent state of the system injecting money into the system simply re-initiates the inherent problem. Direct and costless gifts of income to the individual/purchasing power at retail sale are therefore the best and only ways to actually bring equilibrium to the system, and I would say, because time never stands still and nature abhors a stasis, that in order for the system to truly be free flowing a “higher disequilibrium” producing more and more freedom, leisure and independence from Finance should actually be the objective of Social Credit policy. Time is a flow of moments, two of the major aspects of Grace are abundance and flow, Grace is love in action so Grace can only take place in the temporal universe and once again Time never stands still. A philosophy and the policies of Grace are dynamic and abundant flows.
**********************************************
GM: Yes. Would inflation not rise also under SC, with much more purchasing power chasing a fixed supply of goods? It is important to have some idea of what that dividend would amount to.Would it approximate the average or median wage? That is more than $50k in the US, so if people making nothing now or even less than that get topped up by the dividend, but production has not increased, what happens? The marginal propensity to consume is higher among the lower income people.. So their money would chase goods. And there are millions of them.The central banks have been boosting the money supply through QE but inflation has not risen.
Me:You need to understand that the retail discount mechanism is a macro-economic/general one. With it, prices would fall both because of increasing productivity and also because if it was conservatively only say 20% and effected every month, even if we then magically had “normal” 2% inflation it would be dwarfed by the discount. QE is actually just an asset swap not an increase in money/incomes, particularly an increase in individual incomes.
GM: I need to understand how big that dividend would be and how calculated. Without that info we are weaving the wind.
Thanks. With some quantitative info, maybe we can enlist some doctoral candidate to test this in a dissertation. Yes of course 2% <20%.
Thanks,
Me: Okay. I think there are ways to estimate/approximate it that are legitimate even without hard and fast statistics. After all it was Mark Twain who said there were lies, damned lies and then there were statistics. What about estimating a portion of the unnecessary and superfluous costs of our bloated defense budget or the tax costs for individuals and businesses to support welfare, unemployment and even social security that would become redundant and be replaced with a sufficient dividend. If both of these income generating parts of our economy were eliminated the true insufficiency of individual incomes would become much more apparent.
Actually, I think that a statistical equilibrium of individual incomes and costs/prices is just another orthodoxy to overcome. Douglas said that trying to balance a national budget was deceptive folly. Trying to do the same with a dividend is probably not going to actually convince financial, political and scientistic “experts”. “This generation looketh for a sign” so to say. Better that they look at the economy, contemplate how non-economically wasteful it actually is and contemplate how monetary grace as in gifting would accomplish equilibrium more generally and frugally. But that would require faith as in confidence which the orthodoxy of science only has largely eliminated in modern intellectuals and instead habituated doubt.
GM: This could be the time for SC to get a hearing.
Me: I completely agree with that. In fact they need to understand that Social Credit is actually a much better integration of both hard headed economics, i.e. frugality which is a virtue, and also a greater economic democracy accomplished not via the probably well intended but false orthodoxy of re-distributive taxation, but via monetary grace as in gifting.
Me: While it’s a noble effort trying to convince experts in finance, politics and economics I would suggest that a mass movement directly addressing both the general public and the small to medium sized business community detailing the personal and business benefits of a dividend and a retail discount, in other words more money instantly in your hand, more money to buy the businessman’s products and services and compensated lower prices as well. A sufficient dividend and discount percentage would appeal to both the left and right because it would enable both governmental downsizing and increased individual income. If the large constituencies of the small to medium business community….and the individual, that is everybody awakened to both their own self interests and the freedom it would bring to the system….how could the politicians not glom onto it, the financiers resist it and economists argue against it?
Two of the forgotten aspects of Grace are integrated bothness and simultaneity-unity. In other words integrate the best and workable truths of opposing sides and you’ll get a third state/condition that is more unified or a trinity-unity. Actually, Grace and graciousness are their own best reward because it blesses both giver and received at the same time.
GM: Where is the ‘mass movement”? Who said that a committed minority is enough?
Me: Yes, it’s obviously “waiting to happen”, but I intend to include a chapter about the policies of Social Credit as fitting perfectly into the formula in my book called The Cosmic Code of Wisdom and Grace as well as a call for Operation Economic Wisdom and Grace as I outlined above.
GM: It has been. a long wait since the 1930s. Is its real name Godot?
Me: Beckett was a great artist, but unfortunately he worked the opposite side of the existential street. I prefer to stride the fully integrated side espousing faith, hope and love, in other words Gracientialism.
GM: What effects? The failure in Alberta? The failure in the US? in both cases, SC was aborted before delivery. Where has SC actually been implemented and then to what effect? A Social Credit government, once elected, failed to implemented the promised policies. In the United States, legislation introduced by Congressman Alan T Goldsborough of Maryland would have set up a social credit regime (program, economy choose whichever word you please) in the United States. It passed the lower house with overwhelming support but failed in the Senate, according to one account because it was not possible to explain it clearly to the Senators.
Steve asked me to look at the effects of social credit, and the only effects of which I am now aware are those rejections. If Social Credit has ever been implemented anywhere, what are the effects ? We can point clearly to the effects of Keynesianism, Marxism, monetarism, and neoliberalism. But where are the effects of Social Credit? Under the circumstances, telling someone to look at the effects is like telling someone to look at the chimera, isn’t it?
Me: I asked you to actually look at the actual effects that implementing Social Credit policies….wouldactually have. You’re not doing that. Instead you’re asking us to give you effects….which have never been allowed to happened, and then unfairly and incorrectly judging Social Credit as failed. Look at that. You are either looking for an invalidation of Social Credit or your being (unconsciously) caught up in the obsessive dualistic habit of what modernity falsely thinks is objectivity which can result in a lot of heat but no light….unless an integration of the truths etc. of the opposing sides of the dualism occurs. As the process of Wisdom is the integration of truth(s) and the pinnacle result of such continual integration is a third more unified and graceful state/condition of workability, applicability and ethics….I suggest you actually look and integrate.
GM:Wallace, here is an intriguing essay: http://www.alor.org/Triumph%20of%20The%20Past/DouglasandtheJews.htm
The lead sentence is: C. H. Douglas’s antisemitic reputation is an almost insurmountable obstacle to the acceptance of social credit. This reputation stems especially from his writings of the 1940s, in which he takes a critical attitude toward the role of the German-Jewish elite in the century 1850-1950.
Me:I don’t think Douglas was actually anti-semitic. He objected to the dualistic mindset in finance and economics of “only this for that” which is legalistic, exclusionary of new and/or relevant data-reality and hence neither good and complete science nor good and complete spirituality. The pharisees were criticized by Christ for being exactly these things. Beyond this, I don’t even care whether Douglas may have been actually quasi anti-semitic because he never suggested that social credit’s dividend and discount be withheld from Jews which is the truly relevant fact of the matter. There are probably thousands of arbitrary and/or false ways to invalidate something….and imperfect and non-discerning men may fall for them. Such is the value of recognizing and utilizing Wisdom which produces depth of understanding and clarity.
GM: Note that George Will is not offering an encomium to leisure in that article, but pointing to very negative consequences of choosing not to work. To the extent that Social Credit offers people unearned income, this article would enter a debate as evidence against Social Credit.
OH: On the contrary, I see it as strong evidence in favour of Social Credit. All these men are not working (regardless of the explanation and I do doubt the one he gives – I think the jobs just aren’t there anymore) and yet we still manage to produce everything we need to support these “idle men” and everybody else … fancy that.
Me:Correct Oliver. And what George Will misses because his conservative theoretical mind is fixed on employment as an only option to solving the problem are two additional things:
1) the imminent workability of an economic philosophy of monetary grace as in gifting and
2) the fact that positive self determined purpose, whether that is employment or any other positiveactivity one considers purposeful….is the deeper point and ought be the objective.
GM: You asked me to look at the effects of social credit. I asked you to show them to me, which you cannot do. In fact, until Social Credit is implemented somewhere, we cannot “look at” the effects we can only “speculate about” the “possible” effects. Looking at real effects is grasping reality. Speculating about possible effects is not.
Me: Not correct. I asked you to look at the ACTUAL effects of what the dividend and discount would do. Look at what a dividend distributed monthly would do. It would increase the scarce incomes of every citizen 18 and over without incurring an additional cost to the system. Look at what a general discount to prices at retail sale would do, especially if it was 40% or more. It would eliminate and even reverse inflation which under “normal” conditions is 2-3% and it would also prevent price gauging above that rate from being a problem as well as endanger any business that chronically inflated their prices unnecessarily. The truly beautiful thing about the dividend and discount are that they are gracious and yet “offers that businesses and individuals…cannot refuse/resist.”
You’re simply refusing to look at what the ACTUAL effects would be.
There’s nothing wrong with using your imagination Greg. Especially if it helps you look at facts. And if it helped you perceive and understand facts that would solve the systemic economic effects that are largely responsible for dragging us closer and closer toward war in an era of modern weaponry…..I don’t think it would kill you to try doing so.
GM: Well, he does refer to unemployment as a “catastrophe” and refers to statistics showing that unemployment used to be much lower as “Those statistics were created before government policy and social attitudes made it possible to be economically inactive.” With more than a hint of disapproval for the fact that these people are now not working, and ” the loss of meaning, self-esteem and masculinity that is a consequence of chosen and protracted idleness.
That does not suggest to me applause for leisure and unearned income. Does it to you?
Me: His thinking is entirely orthodox and puritanical. The solution is leisure, i.e SELF determined purpose NOT JUST EMPLOYMENT…..and certainly not idleness. Requiring employment to be the solution will inevitably result in an unworkable and oppressive work state, especially as artificial intelligence and other innovations competitively and within another 10-15 years eliminate the need for human input/employment. Economists and investigators miss this….because they simply are unable to ‘think outside of the box” or refuse to visualize the ACTUAL effects of policy.
GM: Steve, You may not think that Douglas was anti-semitic, but scarcely any other contemporary reader would be likely to agree with you after reading such a remark as “That Jewry as a whole has a permanent policy which aims at establishing the individual Jew as a member of a `chosen’, superior, dominant and ruling class in every country “. Most people would reasonably consider that kind of language anti-Semitic, especially when followed by the clarification offered by M ajor Douglas, “It is a racial and not a personal indictment.”
Since you have made it clear that you like to imagine “actual effects” (a contradiction,imho, as I have explained, citing Thomas Aquinas on act vs. potency), here is a scenario for you to consider;. Suppose someone seriously proposes to an audience or electorate an unfamiliar idea called Social Credit and begins to promote it in the public arena. Anyone seeking to discredit Social Credit could give that quotation from Major Douglas to Abraham Fox of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League. The storm that Donald Trump had to face after he was endorsed by David Duke is only a slight foreshadowing of what would happen to Social Credit. This is much closer to imagining an”ACTUAL effect” of Social Credit than your discussion of the “ACTUAL effect” of the dividend and discount, because we do have a solid body of empirical evidence about the consequences of remarks perceived as racist, anti-Semitic, etc. and of the phenomenon of guilt by association.
Me: The word “perceived” is the operant one in your post. Also Douglas’s quote undoubtedly meant “It is a racial, i.e. a cultural mindset….and not a personal indictment.” So do you mean that because Douglas might not be perfect his ideas are not worth considering. There is a real bias, a real culturally puritanical, perfectionistic and so irrational mindset.
You’re refusing to look. That’s you’re whole problem. Until you look/visualize at what the actual effects of social credit’s two policies you’ll never perceive the wisdom and workability of them….and you’ll continue to be stuck in the self caused, obsessive doubt you’ve been dramatizing here the entire time. You’re stuck in don’t know and refusal to look whose eventual end is a narcissistic vanity of mere philosophizing. Beware. Don’t be afraid or refuse to look….both outwardly and inwardly.
GM: No, I do not. Nor can you find anything to that effect in what I have written anywhere. I never said that, you put words in my mouth as you did in Douglas’s but to smear not ameliorate.
Me: Your refusal to look, yes to imagine WHAT THE ACTUAL TEMPORAL EFFECTS OF SOCIAL CREDIT’S POLICIES WOULD BE…..is YOUR problem.
GM: You keep repeating the same nonsense, Steve. Look at what?
Me: I’m not repeating any nonsense. I’m simply trying to get you to look at what the immediate real time economic and monetary effects of social credit’s policies would be. You’re apparently not willing to look/see that.
GM: You say “Look!’ and I say “At what? Show me.” and you can’t. That is a fact, not a problem for me. You write like a Mooney or a Scientologist or a Hare Krishna. They also say that if you don’t swallow their unsubstantiated assertions whole, it’s your problem. Is Social Credit just another cult, or can you do better?
Me: Answer these questions please. If I get a gift of money of $1500 each month does that increase my income? Does it add an additional cost to the economy? If everyone gets the same $1500/mo does that not increase their incomes? Does that add any additional costs to the system? If we implemented a discount of 10-40% at retail sale of virtually every product and service and the (supposed) rate of inflation was say 3% would the economy as a whole be inflationary or deflationary? So would these dual policies change the entire vector of the economy from monetary scarcity to relative monetary abundance, and inflationary to deflationary?
GM: Where does the $1500 figure come from?
Me: See, you don’t want to look. Answer my questions.
GM: I read the questions and they put us, again, in the realm of making predictions. For example will inflation or deflation occur? Either may, depending.
Textbook answers do not always hold true in the real world. So the monetary authorities have been baffled as to why inflation has been so stubbornly low despite QE, As they were baffled in the 1970s by “,,stagflation,'” which was not supposed possible. I do not make forecasts. Nowadays we are in chaos -theory territory. Buy you allege that a $1500 dividend is possible so you may know how you calculated it. Pray tell.
Me: Look at the questions and answer them as they are given. They are exactly what the policies of social credit would do.
GM: Tell me why. How did you calculate the starting proposition of $1500 monthly and why is it credible? Again, There are too many unknowns to say if.. then with assurance.
Me: Answer my questions…directly, and I’ll tell you why I decided on $1500/mo.
GM: This is going nowhere. The answer is that there’s no real predicting what will happen if.. we can say what might happen but that is not what you asked. Same answer for all those questions. And here I end it. If you have something to contribute on how to calculate that dividend, I would like to consider it but there is no point in going around in circles on this, with you posing lists of speculative questions and asking for definitive answers. Yogi was right about predicting. He said “it’s hard, especially about the future.” Goodnight now.
Me: YOU are the one going around and around, not me. You need to show that this is not the case by directly answering the questions which were straight forward recitations of what would happen both individually and systemically if the dividend and discount were implemented. I think everyone else here can see that, and that you are simply refusing to acknowledge it. You can run from that but you cannot hide.
M: I find this discussions about Douglas and the jews deeply disturbing. I think Douglas’ insights about economy have an enormous potential to help humankind, but I won’t spend one second of my time trying to defend him from anti-semitism accusations, and I’m appalled to see people in this list actually engaging in his defense in this matter.
However, I fail to see how Douglas’ anti-semitism should have any relevance when judging the validity of his ideas about economy and Social Credit.
Me: Manu,
Your last statement is the correct and positive conclusion to be drawn. Douglas is dead and gone. So be and long live his gracious economic philosophy and policies. Everyone is born into a cultural horizon parts of which need to be overcome. To require people to completely do this is puritan perfectionism, and to judge them for not doing so despite the body of their work and their actual actions misses the mark of Grace. Comparisons to Hitler are generally invidious and overblown and usually arise from cultural flaw or other unconscious agendas themselves.
RK: Douglas, with his characteristic caution, says “it appears to me”, which is clearly an invitation to the reader to consider the hypothesis for himself. The professional “historians” are seldom so tentative. There are innumerable instances of writers who have had no training as historians who have made interesting contributions to history,
because the indisputable fact is that anyone who takes an intense interest in a particular aspect of the past can become a historian, and is probably more likely to make an original contribution than a professional who has been “framed” by a university education. I have an M.A. in history (or, rather, possessed the degree until the Canadian House of Commons denied its existence, a position it has maintained for 28 years despite the abuse having being drawn to the attention of a succession of Speakers–what explanation, apart from the operation of some occult influence, can there possibly be for this phenomenon?) and I can attest that the process of writing my thesis, which entailed intense examination of a narrow historical issue, convinced me that Henry Ford was expressing a real insight when he said, “History is bunk”. In fact, My thesis adviser had a conspicuous sign in his office with this quote on it. All professional historians must know that there is much validity in Ford’s warning, but they don’t make an issue of it publicly (because they don’t want to jeopardize their status and salaries?).
Me: Robert,
Yes. Those who are more inclined to emphasize the art of history as opposed to its orthodoxies are generally considered to be ultra vires by the established order.
GM: No, Mr. Hummel. That is not the case. I have been asking consistently how to calculate the possible economic benefit of SC, which you strangely refer to as an “ACTUAL effect” though it has never actually occurred, and instead you offer a list of questions based on an inexplicable premise of $1500 per month dividend. What if it the dividend were only $15, ? it could be either, or none, maybe even negative depending on the calculation formula, and that does not seem to change the answers to your questions except maybe by the size of the impact though that size matters for purposes of public choice. . You are saying,” Trust me, this will be great, I cannot say how.” I do not. I am researching Social Credit for an article and I am asking for information to determine whether it merits the consideration of my editor and readers, but when I ask for the information necessary to determine that, you dance around with imaginary futures and pop quizzes. The answer to all of your questions depends on what model one is using. Is there a model for SC? Are you accepting premises of what you call “orthodox” economics in some cases, and if so which, and why do you reject and vituperate the economists? I will not quote, again, your abusive language, But here is the gist of our exchanges:
You:”Look at the actual effects?
I: “Where? What are those?”
“I can’t tell you. Here, answer this list of hypothetical questions about an entirely imaginary scenario.”
“No. Show me what you want me to look at and I will look. Oh, that’s right, nothing has ever been actual about any of this, that I see clearly now.As the Temptations sang, ‘just your imagination”.
“But answer these hypothetical questions.”
“”This is a waste of time.”
Me: For the last time I’m not asking you to do anything wickedly delusional, only to look at what actual and immediate temporal effects the policies of monetary grace as in gifting would have for the individual and for the system. If I or some civic authority gave you $15 or $1500….would you be monetarily wealthier without further obligation? If that same authority enabled merchants to sell their products and services at 40% less than their usual price and still be profitable because every cent of their discounts would be rebated back to them….would that effectively make the macro economy price deflationary while still within a profit making system? Would it also increase individual purchasing power? Within a profit making system would it actually be almost irresistible? I’m only asking you to consider the power of monetary grace applied. Considering this is actually for your better enable-ment to see its temporal effects and not be overly doubtful.
OH: The article from which you (GM) originally quoted immediately follows up your citation with the following paragraph:
Douglas seldom uses the word race, but when he does, it is always in the sense of the group as against the individual, the group that has taken on a life of its own at the expense of the lives of its individual members—hence always negative. This helps us make sense of Douglas’s introductory sentence to this chapter, “A satisfactory reformation of the monetary and political system would be fatal to the aspiration of the Jewish race, although it is vital to its best interest,” that is, to the best interest of its individual members (ibid.). The “race” gives way to the free association.
In a Social Credit society, all people, Jews and Gentiles, would be treated the same; both would enjoy the National Dividend and compensated prices.
Me: Exactly Oliver. And if we would all just consider these things in love and its temporal actionable manifestation Grace…we’d be willing and able to see and integrate all of the seeming conflicting opinions…and proceed with a more balanced and consciously unified perspective.
GM: Thanks, joe. You write: I’m not aware of any banker, or anyone else in business, who purposefully loans money with a fore-knowledge he’ll never be repaid. There may be instances when it happens, but I think we’d be hard pressed to find any where the lender wasn’t convinced that he was going to alternately profit in some way.
You also write: Douglas stated in one of his early books that bankers would always lend so long as they believed they’d be fully repaid. This is not true because Basel III capital adequacy requirements have tightened screws on how much and what kind of capital banks must carry, and also because the cost and low return of maintaining a commercial loan function resulted in some banks having gotten out of the lending business. I worked for Bankers Trust Company in NY and was there when it decided to “fire” most of its corporate clients because it was not making enough money from them. BT and other banks demanded “compensating balances”, from companies that hoped to access credit facilities. Repayment prospects were not an important factor. Most of the “fired” customers had sound credit. Again, Major Douglas does not describe our world.
Me: Just place the word “normally” in front of Joe’s and Douglas’s remarks and your comments fall completely apart. There are a thousand unethical and/or fallacious things that can undo truth and they need to be confronted. However, simply pointing them out and then stopping there is the road to habitual doubt and cynicism. Imbuing all realities with love and its hard headed and disciplined temporal pinnacle i.e. grace as in love in action, you can end up with a positive solution to any question. On an ascending emotional scale doubt and cynicism are a tick or two above apathy while love and Grace are waaaay higher and more productive.
GM: As far as your statements about Douglas’s personal dispositions, how do you have access to his subjectivity? One cofavoradisposed to African Americans as Douglas to Jews, and with as little justification.
Me: I place before you obsessive doubt and cynicism and love and love in action. Therefore choose love and love in action.
GM: “Normal” is a statistical term for the heftiest portion of the bell curve, within one standard deviation from the mean, Originate to sell, subprime, securitization, etc. were indeed normal, frequent, widely accepted and encourage prior to the GFC. That is why they proved so damaging. If they had been scarce, we would probably not have had the GFC.
In a bubble, irrational things become “Normal”. Consider the dotcom bubble: companies with no profits selling their stock at huge P/E multiples. Normal? Yes, for internet companies then. Rational/ Arguably not. But when it was underway, Fed chair Alan Greenspan denied a bubble.
Financial innovation since the 1970s haschanged what was normal. In Maj. Douglas’s day, banks made loans and held them. Not “normal” now.
Me: You make my point…and your “points” are ethically irrelevant. GM’s is at the least afflicted with the modern cultural obsession with doubt. This is not an apology for blind faith just an observation that pitifully, obsessive doubt is intellectually fragmented to the point of twisted intention, inaction and so no progress.
GM: I am not discussing ethics, but trying to gather evidence. “What bliss it was in that new dawn to be alive” Wordsworth wrote of the French Revolution, thinking of the “actual effects” people imagined. Quite different, those, from the actual effects that happened in actuality.
Me: Hey Greg, ethics are always relevant. Do yourself a favor and spend about 4-5 hours a day looking at the revelation before and around you for about 6 months until you actually come into the present moment and away from your mind which seems to be stuck in perpetual doubt. Then begin to study social credit. Meanwhile goodbye, and don’t let the door strike you in the ass as you leave.
GM: “Straining at gnats, swallowing camels”.. I don’t know about Canada,.but in the US the word usually referred to the kind of sentiments Douglas expressed against Jews specifically.
Me: No Wally and Jim make legitimate political and mindset points as did Douglas. If you are unable or unwilling to acknowledge and see through the cultural, financial and mindset linkages that work to create a puritanical, legalistic and almost hypnotic mindset opposing something like monetary grace as in gifting, then it is YOUR lack of astuteness, YOUR lack of insight and wisdom and YOUR unwillingness to see that is the real problem. NO ONE HERE is bigoted against Jews. Jews are simply flawed but deserving humans the same as everyone else and NO ONE HERE wants to punish them IN ANY WAY. LOOK AT THAT REALITY and come away from the cultural blindnesses that you are either consciously or unconsciously afflicted with. My best guess is that Greg is just that, either a conscious or unconscious shill for these same cultural, financial and mindset forces and that his eventual article will be a “hit” piece that serves their purposes.
JT: To GM: So I’ll come back again to what I asked you before, at the end of my previous post. Only I’ll rephrase it perhaps a bit better. Given the current rules and conventions of double-entry accrual cost accounting, what kind of conditions would always have to attend ‘macro-economically’ before the ongoing “flux” of overall loans from the banks could always be fully met by their “reflux” in overall loan repayments as originally contracted? In other words, what has to continually be happening before the ‘costs’ of production can be fully liquidated from ‘prices’ charged at the point of final retail?
Me: Precisely Joe. Enterprise of all kinds except Finance are just treading water/continually borrowing toward inevitable drowning/unservicable debt bankruptcy because the underlying reality of A + B requires them to do so to survive “for a season”. The one thing conscious or unconscious financial forces forget is that the next rhyming war they are making more likely with the long downturn we’re in is that there is no safe haven in the next major war with modern weaponry.
Steve Keen has also re-discovered this by the way. He’s a nascent social crediter.
WK: “Straining at gnats”? Words are crucial to meaningful communication. I would think that elementary ethics and intellectual honesty would seek to understand their precise meaning—not the meaning that has been insinuated into the public mind by a significantly mendacious “public” or “mainstream” monopolized media. The general public in the United States has been well-known as being substantially, if not pathetically, brainwashed, although more recently a number of fissures seem to be developing.
Me:Exactly Wally. Greg, your vain intellectual citations mean nothing if your inability/unwillingness to consider the valid political, cultural, financial, philosophical and paradigmatic issues we have been striving to get you to look at persist. You can’t even confront the exquisitely obvious fact that a gift of money to individuals would increase their purchasing power….BECAUSE IT’S A GIFT. Like wise you are unwilling/unable to look at/confront the fact that a policy of a general retail discount that was a higher percentage than any supposed monthly rate of inflation would result in price deflation….BECAUSE IT’S RECIPROCAL GIFTING.
Grace as in monetary and price gifting is the answer to our current economic and monetary problems. An aspect of Grace manifests itself every several centuries or so and benefits Man like transformation (Christianity), directness (The Reformation) or gifting (Social Credit), or is continually trying to set Man free like abundance, productivity (technological innovation). Grace is “Where it’s at”. You just have to look at it and accept it.
GM: “Kings will be your guardians, And their princesses your nurses. They will bow down to you with their faces to the earth And lick the dust of your feet; And you will know that I am the LORD; Those who hopefully wait for Me will not be put to shame.
The really important part of this citation is the last sentence.
Greg
PS Steve, if you have nothing substantive to say, please don’t bother to say anything. Your offensive language, vulgarities, etc. make no positive contribution to understanding anything but your personality, which is not of interest to me.
Me: Grace, if imperfectly expressed, is of no substance to you, right? You make my point, and your vain quotations of scripture thus fall back on you. “Ye must be born again” and accept Grace in all of its forms and aspects Greg.
GM: “Physician, heal thyself.”
Me: Contemplate Grace Greg. Or go and do what you must….such as writing your “hit” piece.
GM: One mark of a hustler is a tendency to say, “Trust me.” I believe it may have been Mark Twain who said, “if someone says ‘trust me’, look to your wallet.”
Me: Answer Joe’s question. Don’t just get on to the next shallow mass media, culturally hide bound “point”. And indeed, take Mark Twain’s advice and envision what a dividend and discount if implemented would do for your wallet. Just try doing that. Just try looking. It’s what honest inquiry is all about and essential for the deep thinking known as Wisdom.
GM: I have answered Joe’s questions. As to the rest of your nonsense, it merits no consideration. Who do you fancy yourself to be, telling people how to approach their spirituality? It ain’t me, babe.
Me: You answer with shallow mass media “observations”. As for spirituality we both legitimately used quotes of wisdom, the difference is I beseech you to look inwardly and outwardly to contemplate Grace while you generally do it to invalidate others and avoid the pinnacle and enlightening experience of Grace.
That is you think it better to be obsessively “objective” (nothing wrong with objectivity ITSELF) more so than creating Grace within yourself which is its beginning point, and will not observe its effects outwardly in the temporal universe by answering the questions I asked you. Grace is dangerously enlightening. Mostly because it is the antidote to orthodoxies and false and/or incomplete thinking.
GM: Douglas himself said that he intended a “racial indictment ‘ of ‘Jewry,,”. You say he meant no ill will towards Jews. But his own words clearly debunk your unsupported.assertion of what you would like people to think he really meant. You and some others have called not to disavow his anti-Semitism but to try to make a case for it by, eg, quoting Torah out of context and claiming that Israel controls the US. This is reprehensible.
Me: You’ve already decided. Verdict first, evidence later! ….that will be “rationally” invalidated or just ignored.
GM: Nonsense.
Me: Make it (now) incorrect by directly answering my original questions. Don’t deflect them, make any other comment about them, just look at what they would actually do for the individual and for the system. You cannot understand a concept and actually have any meaningful reality on it….unless you contemplate it and are willing to look at its temporal universe expression.
OH: Greg, the quote that I cited “The very last thing which I should desire … would be the association of the Social Credit movement with Jew-baiting.” is from Douglas’ own journal called “The Fig Tree” of which he was the editor. It was called “The Fig Tree” incidentally after a line from the Prophet Micah in the Old Testament: “Every man shall sit under his fig tree and none shall make him afraid”. Furthermore, I already explained in a previous e-mail what Douglas’ racial indictment meant, it was an indictment of an organized community incorporating a philosophy and policy that Douglas did not accept as correct. I also quoted from Douglas where he talks about wanting the best interest of the Jews as individuals. So you see, it is not true that my assertions are unsupported at all. I will repost that section of this discussion:
The article from which you originally quoted immediately follows up your citation with the following paragraph:
Douglas seldom uses the word race, but when he does, it is always in the sense of the group as against the individual, the group that has taken on a life of its own at the expense of the lives of its individual members—hence always negative. This helps us make sense of Douglas’s introductory sentence to this chapter, “A satisfactory reformation of the monetary and political system would be fatal to the aspiration of the Jewish race, although it is vital to its best interest,” that is, to the best interest of its individual members (ibid.). The “race” gives way to the free association.
It seems to me that what Douglas is criticizing is not Jews as a biological race as such, but rather Organized Jewry as a community with a philosophy and policy uniting people of a certain ethnic and religious heritage. Certainly that philosophy (or conception of reality) and its corresponding policy can be analyzed and evaluated and, if necessary, criticized and rejected. Please note as well, that Douglas’ overriding concern was for the best interest of the Jews. He meant them well; he willed their objective good. That seems like the opposite of anti-Semitism.
Me: Yes. Case closed, for the honest and objective observer, on the accusation that Douglas was some bigot to be pilloried. The essence of tolerance and graciousness toward others is to consider their individual humanity with good will. To conclude otherwise than this in the face of Douglas’s utter rejection of such bigotry is to expose either a hidden agenda or some intellectually fatal, unconscious and twisting tendency toward negative generalization like obsessive doubt or cynicism.
Me: We don’t lack objectivity here, nor do we lack the discernment that comes with contemplation of its pinnacle concept Grace. While the world wallows in unworkable economic orthodoxies and the tensions of a lingering slowdown we have better things to do than try to defend Social Credit to someone who is so caught up in his personal intellectual problem that he won’t even look at what its stated policy effects would temporally be. It’s called being trapped in one’s own head. Grace on the other hand is the only concept that is the complete ethical integration of thought and action and Social Credit is based on it. Wisdom is knowingness, not obsessive not knowingness which is willful ignorance. We have better fish to fry. Are you hearing me here Jim?
GM: There is no contradiction. When a man shot up a Jewish community center, explaining that he wanted to deliver “a wake-up call to America to kill Jews,” So also with the Douglas quotation about “Jewry”, or comments by members of this group about what “all Jews” think or do.
Me: Condemning a dead man with blithe accusations or even by mere association with anti-semitism whose entire body of work is based on the concept of Grace is an incredible contradiction, outrageous injustice and a total missing of the mark.
GM: You have not provided evidence or support for many of your comments. For example, you never did explain how you calculated a $1500 a month dividend.
Me: I was only trying to get you to look at Grace and its economic and monetary policies when I asked you to do so before I gave my reasons for a $1500/mo dividend. Then I figured maybe you could understand those reasons. Very well I tell you anyway, even though you couldn’t bear to look. My reasoning was to create a family income that was abundant enough to accomplish a leisurely life, especially considering that employment could also add to that income. That level of income would consequently create the best intentions of liberal economic theory and also enable the elimination of the government bureaucracies that have grown up around welfare, unemployment insurance and even social security. In other words it would integrate and create the best intentions of the agendas of both the left and right and accomplish more of the same more so than either has been able to do in the last 80+ years of their obsessive contention. Yes, I stand condemned of this.
Me: We’re digging our own grave here despite our intellectual fine points and objectivity. When Greg publishes even an objective article and it gets “pushed” in a society fraught with what even he is willing to acknowledge are the puritan attitudes and beliefs of the vast majority….so much for Social Credit’s good name despite its policies based on Grace. This rigged and ready environment is what neither Greg is considering in his claim of objectivity nor we who desire a better nation and planet are apparently aware of. So let us become aware of it.
Me: Greg,
Are you willing to acknowledge the following about the un-objective results any article published about Social Credit mentioning anti-semitism in an environment already generally condemning anti-semitism?
GM: No.
Me: Good. So much for your willingness to look at and perceive even obvious realities. That’s YOUR problem. Why don’t you write an article about how the Catholic church which has been guilty of many acts of anti-semitism and has declared no conflict between its teachings and the philosophy and policies of Social Credit?
Maybe you won’t because there isn’t a broad audience for such a viewpoint because it’s correctly perceived as completely unfair, anti-intellectual and not likely to be considered for a Pulitzer prize.
OH: (OH quotes in blue) “What does “anti-Semitism of the Douglas kind” say? It says that there is a kind of “anti-Semitism” associated with Douglas. The author does indeed go on to say that he personally may not consider it to be “anti-Semitism” but, again, people do not have the right to define words idiosyncratically.”
Neither myself nor anyone else is obliged to accept a definition for a made up word that is out of step with the nature of the reality it purports to refer or a made up definition that is out of step with the etymology of a word. For example, I don’t accept “homophobia” in place of ‘anti-homosexual prejudice’ because homophobia implies, etymologically, an intense irrational fear of homosexuals like the fear of heights and I don’t know anyone who reacts to homosexuals that way. Furthermore, it is certainly possible to have negative thoughts, attitudes, and emotions where homosexuality or homosexuals are concerned and for none of those things to be motivated by an irrational prejudice; they could be based on aesthetic, medical, ethical, existential, and religious considerations …. i.e., not all dislike or disapproval of homosexuals is “homophobia”.
In the same way, anti-Semitism is not even the right word, because Arabs, who vastly outnumber Jews, are semites. If one suffers from an anti-Arab prejudice, is one an anti-Semite? If Jews in Israel suffer from anti-Arab prejudice are they anti-Semites?
The correct term for the phenomenon you have in mind should be anti-Jewish prejudice. Is there such a thing? Certainly. Just as there are 101 other prejudices in the world, like anti-Gentile prejudice, and anti-German prejudice, etc.. But not everyone who expresses negative judgements, attitudes or emotions where things Jewish are concerned is ipso facto motivated by an anti-Jewish prejudice. The judgements could be true and even grounded in argument or more direct evidence, the attitudes could correspond to the objective nature of the issues in question, the emotions might be fitting responses to injustices, etc. Are Palestinians who object to be disenfranchised and treated as second-class citizens in their own country and who are therefore critical of Israel policy and who dislike Israel, labouring under an anti-Jewish prejudice? Absurd! “Don’t cry, riot, and throw stones, dear Palestinians because your homes have been taken out from under you and your relatives have been killed, you must see a psychiatrist …. it’s only an irrational prejudice from which you are suffering!” Double plus absurd.
If you are anyone else has evidence that Dr. Stingel has violated any academic norms or good practice in her work, then you have no grounds to suspect her of bias because of her religion or ethnic origin. It is not even clear why are on the basis of what evidence you and Jim consider her to be a Jew, and if you make that charge, it is incumbent on you to supported with evidence. “Innocent until proven guilty,” is the rule in law and should be here. You describe her as a “self- admitted Jew who, “Like all Jews who see people who have said anything negative about them.”
I think you are confusing my statements with those made by someone else. The sentences you quote are not mine. In any case, Dr. Stingel makes a basic claim in her work about Douglas’ views on economics and politics being wholly dependent on what she terms as “anti-semitic conspiracy theories”. This is not simply overreach; it is completely and utterly false. There is no logical relation of dependency between the one and the other. Remove all of Douglas’ statements on Jews and the Social Credit economic and political diagnosis and his remedial proposals remain completely intact. Anyone who would take the time to read Douglas would know this … clearly Stingel either did not take the time to do her homework or …. she didn’t care to do her homework because she already had a goal in mind: to discredit Social Credit, which of course, is referenced in the very name of her book. So incompetence or malice, take your pick. Either way, she has indeed violated academic norms and good practice in her work. Now, with this evidence of biased treatment where Social Credit is concerned, one natural looks for an explanation. I said it might be that she has taken the erroneous position she has because she is Jewish herself. Can a Jew fairly and objectively investigate the relationship between Social Credit and anti-Jewish prejudice? Certainly it is possible. Just as German could fairly investigate Auschwitz. But note that, in both cases, there is a possibility of a conflict of interest because the investigator is a party to the dispute. To highlight that possibility is to raise a legitimate concern. The investigator will have to be extra carefully to assure people of his neutrality … when someone like Stingel makes outlandish claims concerning the nature of Social Credit theory, it does not inspire confidence, to say the least.
You earlier defined “prejudice” as a judgment made with no rational basis. So what is your rational basis for claiming anything about”all Jews”. Have you examined each and every one of them? It is only necessary to find one counterexample to invalidate your allegation. “They’re all alike” is what a bigot says about a group.
I never said anything about all Jews. I spoke about the Janine Stingels of this world – whoever they may be, be they Jew or Gentile – who, on a superficial acquaintance with Douglas’ works, or with Stingel’s misrepresentation of Social Credit theory, would be inclined to accept her false and outlandish claim that Social Credit is “wholly dependent on … blah, blah, and blah”. Unfortunately, the people who would accept her statement at face value are legion. This is what I meant when I said that this is the irrationality that we are up against.
Your unsupported claims about Dr Stingel do qualify as a “smear”.
I think I have proven her claim false and outlandish just by citing my book which treats thoroughly of Douglas’ economics and never once has cause to talk about any special group of people, Jew, Gentile, or otherwise. Clearly, SC is not wholly dependent or even dependent in the smallest part on what she alleges it to be dependent on.
Her evidently well researched and well supported case against anti-Semitism in Social Credit does not. Yes, she does seem to have overreached by writing “wholly dependent,” but you have overreached even more by making a claim about “all Jews.”
Again, I never said anything about all Jews.
BTW, how do you know that her book is well researched and well supported? …. have you read it? It is surely not self-evident at all that she is successful in making a good case for anything. Or, are you assuming, that because she IS Jewish, her work must be of the highest quality? You know, prejudice can be both positive and negative.
The Jewish population of Israel is 6.1 million, of the United States 5.7 million, of the entire world 16 million. My source:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4673018,00.html so if you are to support your claim about “all jews” you have your work cut out for you. If you interview or examine two a day, it will take you over 2000 years to substantiate the unsupported allegation.
Again, I never made any claim about all Jews …. I am a philosopher, not a sociologist. I have very little interest in such mundane, empirical matters such as what all Jews think, or claim to think, or say they think.
This kind of irrationality and bigotry seem unworthy of your Ph.D., Oliver. Is this how they taught you to reason at the Pontifical University from which you graduated summa cum laude?
This is way over the top, Greg … even by your standards 😉
Me: Extremely well put and thought out Oliver.
Greg, if you don’t include the entirety of it in your article you’re guilty of lack of objectivity and illogic.
GM: Space is limited and you do not know what you are talking about. In the first place, editors make the final cuts.
Me: “In the first place, editors make the final cuts.”
Precisely. More evidence that the article will likely not be objective and thorough going.
As for my not knowing what I’m talking about I used to also work as a free lance writer for a newspaper. That plus I’ll stack my philosophical bona fides up against yours any day….and your stubborn refusal to consider the relevant context of the answers we have repeatedly made to you shows you are the piker here not me.
GM: I call them like I see them, Steve. You not only talk about social credit as “Grace”, but also recommended meditation on the theme, took it on yourself to diagnose states of mind and offer nostrums for them, chattered about the “present moment”, and altogether justified the characterization you drew yourself in the second sentence of your email.
Me: Yes, all of which are legitimate means of practicing and acquiring Wisdom according to the world’s major wisdom traditions. I was in fact attempting to help you practice such when I asked you to look and answer what the actual doingness of social credit’s policies were. You should have taken my advice. Your “seeing” would have been increased no doubt.
GM: I was not and am not asking for a program to achieve what you apparently consider to be enlightenment; I only ask you a straightforward factual question in order to obtain some basic information about the calculation of the alleged dividend from Social Credit. I am not looking for a religious conversion, thank you very much, but but just for a few facts to fill in the details of a rather broad idea.
Me: You don’t follow me. I’m not advocating for any religion, just wisdom and its pinnacle concept. You WOULD benefit from from contemplating Wisdom because it’s the superior integration of the Good and the practical. You don’t show any willingness to integrate truth(s). Instead you’re easily deceived by the modern pre-occupation of the habitually contentious and incomplete notion of scientific objectivity. Wake up will ya.
GM: Steve, we just have to agree to disagree about this. You aren’t going to convince me and I’m not going to convince you, so let’s just stop running in circles around the same tree. I think you are way out of line in talking as if you were a spiritual director. I already have a Spiritual Director, and a Dharma guide as well. Have a look at the Ezra Pound booklet and let me know what you think. I imagine that he will be right up your alley.
Me: The state of Grace being the trinity-unity of [ (Space x Time) x Self Awareness/Consciousness ] I’m consciously aware that integrating truth(s) is Wisdom. You’re still caught up in the non-integrative culturally dualistic belief in scientific objectivity ONLY. I on the other hand believe in the trinity-unity of good science which is
[ ( the dualism of the scientific method) x the confidence and ability to tolerate ambiguity and so actually be open minded enough to look at and consider new data/insights ]
GM: As I proposed earlier, let’s just agree to disagree.
Me: Well, under the circumstances of your astounding capability of over looking the positive aspects of a man’s entire body of work that is based on the philosophical concept of Grace whose essence is tolerance and understanding itself…I’d rather keep drawing attention to that tendency in you. Grace is worth defending, and showing the “know nothing”, non-looking, unconsciously scientistic and twisted value system of someone who would do that in the name of objectivity ONLY…might be instructive to others.
GM:Enough of this mysticism and enough about “the Jews”!! Why does that subject obsess you guys so?
No need to answer that. If you can hold yourself back, don’t bother to try answering that question. Let’s just agree to disagree. Agreed, though, that Stingel has some flaws. Imho she also has some facts. So should be read but critically.
Me: Good, excellent, I sincerely compliment you on your willingness to look at Stingel objectively. As for the “the Jews” I think if we look at it as a critique of a mindset of “only this for that” especially regarding economic philosophy, a dead letter of the law enforcement of morality and a reactionary unwillingness to look at the bigger ethical picture we can more accurately judge the actual philosophy and policies of Douglas and Social Credit. So maybe we can proceed from there.
Social Credit/Wisdomics/Gracenomics/ Gracientialism 