Me:  I’m not being accusatory here. I see my ideas as more right….because they are AUTHENTIC integrations of OPPOSING ideas.  That is an authentic difference between simply advocating one of two opposing orthodoxies. I know I have said at least a hundred times on your blog that I consider capitalist and socialist theory to have particles of truth and untruth in them. If we’d integrate those particles (for instance the truth that capitalism is more dynamic and efficient and the intention of socialism, economic democracy, is more stable than capitalism) we’d have a genuinely third and more unified economic theory.

MS:  Yeah – wisdom according to you – but not because you say so – rather because you are the self-assigned purveyor of wisdom

Me:   Mish, you’re being invalidative, accusatory and unnecessarily angry. I was hoping we could have an actual discussion here. The idea of integration of opposing ideas can be found not only in every one of the world’s major wisdom traditions, but in science and logic itself. I will be happy to provide examples if you’d like. My ego or lack thereof has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the process itself. I merely observe that capitalists and socialists, conservatives and liberals have not accomplished nearly what they could have by the constant and rigidly invalidative contention they participate in when engaging their opposing ideology. If we took the best, most workable and ethically resolving aspects of both sides and implemented them would that not be better? Accomplish more of the agendas of both sides? Hence be actual progress instead of lots of heat, but no light and standing still while disintegration continues? The third integrative alternative is wisdom. It’s in continual contention that egos become more prevalent. The third way is more open, more wholesome and broader in its point of view. So long as one is integrating only truths, only workabilities and only solutions instead of palliatives I don’t see why one would object to it.

MS:  I am being logical

Me:  Here is logic: [ (Thesis x Antithesis)    Synthesis ]  That is the Hegelian dialectic widely understood to be the basis for all logical process. The Marxian dialectic is a false one because it reactionarily assumes profit is bad thus breaking the rules of integration which only integrates truths, and is just as stuck in contentious duality without ever getting to the third synthesizing aspect of the process as capitalists are with it. Therefore they are both reactionary conflict theories and will lead to nothing but continuous mental conflict until there is physical universe conflict…unless they integrate/synthesize the particles of truth in each. I’m sorry Mish, but it’s not just me saying this. This IS the logical process, the integrative process.

Me:  @ Driver,

The purpose of Life….is purpose, not just work. To think otherwise is actually very Marxist thinking. Employment is likely to be around for quite a while yet, although with competition wed to profit making systems and artificial intelligence increasingly becoming an economically disruptive force, less and less so. Therefore the logical and third alternative thing to do is let the process free us from ENFORCED work in order to survive and have the helping professions and perhaps, like with the campaign to reduce smoking, have public service announcements to help people find the myriad positive and constructive purposes they could pursue in addition to employment.

J:  It is great to be free of work. There is only the small problem of how you get money to pay the mortgage/rent or buy food.Elon Musk and others say this will require a government backed guaranteed “Universal Income” for everyone. Guess who is going to have to pay for that? The wealthy, of course. And if there aren’t enough wealthy, then may have to try a sleight of hand, such that the robots/automation get taxed to provide the unworkers with money to pay bills and buy things. Ponder that for a while!

Me:  No one has to pay for it, the money would be created out of nothing exactly like virtually all of our money is now. The difference would be that it would be GIFT of money equally distributed to every citizen or every citizen 18 and older. now some of you will I’m sure immediately say, “Oh, that would be terribly inflationary.” Actually it would at least enable an equilibrium of individual incomes and total costs/prices, but yes, businesses seeing lots of demand coming will tend to raise their prices in order to try to profit. That’s why right along with the universal dividend you’d want to implement a policy of a retail discount of say maybe 25-40%. Voila! Prosperity AND price deflation! This is actually an example of reciprocal gifting where retail merchants would give consumers the discount and then a separate monetary authority would re-imburse the retail merchants every penny of their discounts back to them. You’d undoubtedly need to have an agreement that the retail merchants in order to receive their discounts back that they agree to honestly find their best competitive price first thus not letting them willy nilly raise their prices. Of course competition would tend to keep this from occurring too much, and you could also have sanctions like loss of rebate privileges if the business repetitively raised their prices without economic reason. With a sufficient level of universal dividend taxes for unemployment insurance, welfare and even eventually social security could be completely eliminated further enabling profit for businesses and increased incomes for the individual. And if a business still abuses this gracious and obviously beneficial system for all….then screw them…they lose their privileges to participate in it and so bye bye business as there will be plenty of honorable businessmen that will see all of the advantages of such a system.

MS:  Fractional reserve lending, massive expansion of debt, and Fed insistence on inflation in a productivity-induced deflationary world is “the” problem. Your proposal to solve the problem by more government mandates (giving away free money) is seriously misguided.

Debt increased exponentially increased when Nixon closed the gold window. Your half-baked, non-solution of giving away money does not address any fundamental issues I raised. Your further statement “No one has to pay for it, the money would be created out of nothing exactly like virtually all of our money is now. The difference would be that it would be GIFT of money equally distributed to every citizen or every citizen 18 and older,” is so preposterous and tiring, that I deleted it.

I am really tired of debating your nonsense. Start all over with a reflection on the problem. “Gift” money mandates are pure stupidity. It promotes “something for nothing” perpetual-motion madness that does not work in the real world.

I do not have the time or the energy to debate such nonsense with you endlessly. Any subsequent reference by you to giving away money as the solution will be deleted without comment.

I have been very patient, but this is it.

Me:  All of your “solutions” are structural issues. Ideas and generally held ideas as in paradigms are a priori and more powerful in their effects. Sorry, ideas trump structure because they go to the heart and core of problems.This has been known for a long time and is not just my opinion. You can ban me and run from that truth if you so desire….but it won’t change the truthfulness of it.

The truth is also that I’ve posted here for many years, been almost entirely ignored by you except the occasional mistaken outburst like calling me a communist so no big strain on you, and been derided and mistakenly called a socialist since the beginning by your commenters. So who’s the one that has endured anything and been the patient one here?