Posted To RWER Blog 12/16/2016

Me:  If one wants to understand stagnation or even devolution in a discipline they must confront the dominant powers present. Economic systems are dominated by the business model of finance via its monetary paradigms of Debt only, loan only and for production only. If Europe and the rest of the world wants to be free they must recognize and effectively deal with these three glaringly contradictory monopoly powers in what is alleged to be free market systems. Integrating a new paradigm of monetary gifting into all three of Debt, Loan and for production only into the money system with policies that would simultaneously interpenetrate and encompass it for both the individual and enterprise would break up these monopoly paradigms and enable free flowingness for all agents. That is, provide monetary policies that last through time for the individual and that also free businesses from the burden of macro-economic costs that routinely exceed actually available individual aggregate demand at the end of the entire economic process at retail sale.

RL:  We have a crisis in Europe because we let finance capitalism pouring out of the US and the UK dominate Europe through EU institutions. We all know that. But we forget there is so much more to Europe than that, which I remind you of by quoting Hoie. You know the old story, America is a country that went from barbarism to decadence without passing though civilization. Don’t forget the civilization, which is why I choose to live here rather than in the US.

Me:  I would suggest most economists don’t know it enough. The monetary paradigm dominance of finance is our deepest structural economic problem. It is an established psychological fact that when a neurotic confronts his/her deepest conflict all manner of attending irrational behaviors dissipate as well. Human systems inevitably being reflections, albeit neurotic reflections in the case of economics, of humans themselves, again….maybe we just don’t know ourselves well enough.

I have known economists whose work I respect call for a new economic philosophy and even suggest actions that I think reflect the concept I perceive as the one that is needed. It’s just that not having a fully fleshed out understanding of the philosophical concept their actions are only one offs instead of strategically placed and continuing policies that would actually correct the economy through time.

A new, and hopefully deeper, philosophical concept would do that.


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