Responses To GM

Me:  “Is Social Credit ready to move in, taking Rahm Emmanuel’s advice??”

If only. Awareness of its integrative policies is nil. As for those articles at least one is stale dated, and the others are suspiciously aligned with things like a gold standard which is equally non-integrative economics.

“A modern debt jubilee” and the continuing policies of an abundant universal dividend and cost deflationary discount to retail prices, all of which are aligned with the concept of grace as in gifting and abundance would be the whole, third and unifying solution.
GM:  The HSBC.problems are current and shown in  stock prices.  Heritage Foundation just tweeted opposition to mortgage principal forgiveness so its a live issue too. Deutsche just settled with US regulators whose fines could have sunk it.I F SC has a case to make no time like the present.
Social Credit seems absent from contemporary discussion.  Why?  It used to be a contender, as Brando said it in On the Waterfront.

Me:  It does not surprise that the Heritage Foundation would object to such, being an entirely orthodox conservative think tank under the mistaken puritanical mindset Wally and others have referred to and which is thus unable/unwilling to integrate the values of both employment and monetary grace as in gifting. The same inability/unwillingness will be found in liberal and libertarian organizations. It’s not a partisan issue, it’s a paradigmatic one.

You could write an article simply advocating SC’s policies because they they pin point and immediately counter the two most chronic problems of modern economies, scarcity of individual income and creeping inflation, and also point out that if implemented as Douglas suggested would accomplish more of the agendas of both the right and left and it might get published…..but I doubt it.
Respectfully, on the other hand an article conflating Social Credit with anti-semitism despite it being based on Grace an aspect of which is granting of beingness to others/tolerance would very likely be published and trumpeted as both true and godawful.

Me:  Integrate the best intentions of the two political parties with an awareness of the most basic issue and the integrative idea and reflective policies resolving it and you’ll have not only true progress, but transformation.

[ (smaller government/conservation of resources x economic democracy) –> A continuing and increasingly abundant universal dividend and a retail discount higher than any rate of inflation ] = A dynamically flowing, increasingly productive and yet ecologically sound economic system where prices fall as innovation and AI reduce the necessity of effort and human input.

Manu:  Perhaps I was not clear enough in my text. As I understand it, the controversy between Keen and Krugman is not exactly about the creation of money as credit by the private banks, as this is widely accepted today. The question is whether the private banks are limited by the Central Bank in the creation of credit or not.

Krugman follows the textbook version, the “money multiplier” model, where the Central Bank stablishes a certain ratio between reserves and loans that banks cannot exceed. In this model the central bank ultimately controls the amount of money in circulation because it is the only source of reserves.
Keen, however, argues that private banks are not limited in practice by the reserve ratio. When one looks at what happens in reality it can be seen that banks just grant the loans that they think will be profitable, regardless of the amount of reserves they have. If there is a reserve ratio to meet (not all central banks have this policy) they look for the reserves later on, and eventually the central banks are pretty much forced to accomodate whatever reserve needs the private banks have, if they want to keep the commerce system running. In this model money is said to be endogenous because it is created by the economy itself as a result of an internal process, not injected by an external source such as the Central Bank.
This article has a detailed explanation, with account tables included.
The consequences for the macroeconomy are completely different depending on who is right. In Krugman’s model private banks are eventually neutral, because in some way the amount of aggregate demand they create as credit is compensated by the amount of demand they keep away from the economy in the form of reserves. In Keen’s model, private banks are everything but neutral. They have a key role because they are basically the originators of the money that the rest of the economy needs.
This is explained by Keen himself in this video
The most worrying problem is not that any economist, perhaps not speciallized in this area, could have misconceptions about how money is created in the real world. The problem is, as Keen frequently mentions, that the central banks themselves seem to ignore it as well.

Me:  Keen is correct, but what he misses/is unconscious of is the ubiquitous nature of the costing pricing system and the convention of cost accounting as a flow with it that enforces all costs to go into the lower bound of price, and that hence makes the system inherently cost inflationary and compels continuous borrowing by enterprise and simultaneously reduces total individual incomes in ratio to total costs/prices.

Awareness of these realities and policies resolving them is a true integration of micro and macro-economics.

WW:  I haven’t followed Keen, perhaps I should.  How does he expect to deal with a problem of flow with a ‘one off measure to kick start the system?’ Wouldn’t the thing immediately begin backing up again unless there is a change in method? Furthermore it seems that control of policy would remain with private, irresponsible credit issuing authorities.

The current crisis may be an opportunity to bury a bad monetary system. The last thing we want is one off measures to give it fresh impetus. I can see a one off measure would suit the status quo perfectly and be an easy sell to an indebted public ‘plunged in ignorance of the simplest economic facts.’

Me:  Will,

I would of course say that the implementation of an abundant dividend and discount are the ultimate and only way to bring final stability to the system, but a debt jubilee could have the positive effect of taking the geo-political pressure off the unconscious march toward conflict in an age of modern weaponry. The best thing we could do in that light is call for a debt jubilee in conjunction with SC’s policies. They are all aligned philosophically. We need a coordinated effort that addresses and resolves all of the aspects of the problem like need for hierarchy-benevolent sovereignty, economic de-centralization-corporate giantism, acculturation to work for pay-leisure, competition-cooperation etc. In other words take a reductionary approach to identifying all factors involved and simultaneously taking an integrative approach to their resolution. It is my observation that an aspect of the philosophical concept of grace is the policy resolution of each factor. Grace is the ultimate integrative and ethical concept.

GM: I was responding to steve, who once again raised the subject of Douglas’ anti-Semitism.  I did not open this can of worms and prefer to leave it closed. So let’s ignore the subject for now, we can agree to disagree

. To be clear: You are Douglas true believers, I am not.i am hoiwevrergiving his economic ideas a close look and acknowledge that theymay have some merit, but I’ve not “come to the altar.”
Me:  You’re clever and intelligent…but not insightful. For that you’d have to have the willingness to consider, especially in view of the fact that Douglas never advocated punishing the Jews or denying them the policy effects of Social Credit, that his critique was regarding a mindset and not driven by some irrational hatred. That IS the real issue we debated….and you lost.
Part and parcel of puritanism is the trait of having a narrowness of viewpoint and an insistence on an irrational perfectionism….which is what you were/are manifesting in the above debate. And by the way, observing or even declaring someone to have a puritan trait is not pejorative…..especially if its based on what they do….much more than what they say.
GM:  typing???  means what??
Me:   Typing means nothing. Just re-read what I said….and think about it a little, especially in view of valid psychological insights about the wisdom and healthiness of integrative behavior and thinking.
GM:  No substance here Steve, just pejoratives:
t does not surprise that the Heritage Foundation would object to such, being an entirely orthodox conservative think tank under the mistaken puritanical mindset Wally and others have referred to and which is thus unable/unwilling to integrate the values of both employment and monetary grace as in gifting. The same inability/unwillingness will be found in liberal and libertarian organizations. It’s not a partisan issue, it’s a paradigmatic one.
WK:  Of course it is a paradigmatic issue.  That’s what Douglas said, “Society is hypnotized and only a drastic de-hypnotisation can save it.”  The minds of the people have been poisoned by the insinuation of falsehoods which have severed their cognitive processes from reality. and ruptured the relation of mankind with the natural  order. Social Credit is at war with the prevailing metaphysics and material order that proceeds from it.  Language transmits ideas and ideas control minds.  Those who have seized the monopoly of power to transmit pernicious and false ideas have come to control the philosophical mindset of society in general.  Social Crediters envisage and strive for an inverse dispensation which restores man’s ability to perceive, and recover the ability to live harmoniously within, the natural order.  “The Devil is God Upside Down.”(Douglas).  Gorham Munson referred to this as “The Revolution Absolute.”  The present state of the world surely justifies the pejoratives which apply specifically to the Puritanical mind, i.e., the Will to Power.   This is the ultimate evil which Jesus rejected when Satan tempted Him with dominion over the nations of the earth.  Whether one accepts the Scriptural narrative or not, the principle is valid, morally, psychologically and practically with regard to the very intrinsic nature of the laws which govern the Universe.
Me:  Completely correct Wally, and claiming that deeper more unifying paradigmatic critique/observation to be merely pejorative is probably a well intentioned but less integrative and less conscious  reaction.
You’ll note I mentioned that the same was true with liberal and libertarian viewpoints. The puritan MINDSET gets hung up in overly contentious, overly moralistic dualistic reaction. The solution to this is developing an integrative trinity-unity ethic, economically the better to recognize integrative policy solutions like the dividend and discount which would result in a third more unifying temporal state of individual freedom and systemic free flowingness.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s