Me: Puzzling about reserves is just a side show. The entire problem can be understood by recognizing that the paradigm of Debt Only which Finance has a virtual enforcing monopoly on must be replaced by the primacy of Monetary Gifting.
I told Steve Keen over 5 years ago when he was de-bunking DSGE (Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium theory) that C. H. Douglas was the first disequilibrium economist. It was one of the few times he deigned to respond to me when he said he would have to investigate that. Shortly thereafter he came up with his current theory that when the rate of increase of debt dips the economy must go into recession. This is nothing more than a macro-economic restatement of Douglas’s A + B Theorem. When you put the fact that the only way currently allowed to increase incomes is to incur debt (Finance’s enforced monopoly product) with the fact that recession-depression occurs if you do not continually borrow you see how rigged the system is because you’re stuck between a rock (the necessity to continually borrow to avoid recession-depression) and a hard place (the continual build up of debt until it can no longer be serviced).
Keen doesn’t have the cost accounting insight that Douglas had that the way to resolve the problem is to implement monetary gifting policies at the terminal summing and ending point of the entire economic process known as retail sale because both the pricing and the money systems are digital and so a discount-rebate policy at that point can resolve and invert the problematic ratio that is the base of the problem. This blindness is mostly because he’s plagued by a reactionary orthodoxy of his own that came out of his de-bunking of DSGE and that is that macro-economics doesn’t need to be tied to micro-foundations. Hence he doesn’t look at the cost accounting convention that all costs must go into price and is unconscious of the significance of the point and time of retail sale. Social Crediters themselves did not fully comprehend the new paradigm they were advocating, and they also were hampered by the classical doctrine of equilibrium. They also apparently did not have a good understanding of the nature and signatures of paradigm changes which always are inversions and transformations of problematic ratios-dualities and changes in primacy between the old and new paradigms. Hence they only advocated “filling” the Gap instead of inverting and transforming it from a a scarcity ratio into an abundance one, and as technological innovation and AI continue to reduce aggregate income the paradigm of Monetary Gifting replaces the primacy of Debt.
GA: There is a parasitism involved in banking. But if banks freeze up, business no longer can produce real stuff. 2008 should be proof enough of that.
Me: It IS parasitism par excellance.
A true national bank/sovereign money creating entity….cannot freeze up.
EB: What do you rich people do with their money in the Cayman Islands? Don’t they invest it in something? That’s also where I get blocked on the A+ B theorem. It seems to me that even if the costs are incurred before the laborers go to work and get paid, the money goes somewhere – to suppliers or bankers or construction workers – and those people can then spend it on consumer goods. The problem is not that the money is not there; it’s that they don’t spend it on consumer goods. They are the rich, who have a limit on how much they can consume. So it goes into the speculative economy. And that’s as far as I get. I can’t prove that it never gets back into the consumer economy, in the form of loans if nothing else. It goes into some form of savings, which is generally invested in some way back into the economy. Even if the rich buy gold and diamonds, somebody gets the money, which can then be spent or lent.
Me: The money is there….in the form of business revenue NOT however as INDIVIDUAL income…..and that is the real problem. Businesses require liquidity to pay their costs that’s why you have a statistic like the velocity of money which is simply an indicator that there’s more liquidity out there for businesses to pay their vendors, but the velocity of money, unlike how it is portrayed in its classical description….doesn’t add a single cent to individual incomes.
This of course sets up the necessity to continuously borrow which results in the business cycle and eventually debt deflation from the continuous build up of debt. And of course as its an INDIVIDUAL income problem NOT total money problem that is why the dividend and discount/rebate policies ACTUALLY RESOLVE THE PROBLEM, especially if you make the dividend sufficient and the discount percentage high enough…because it inverts the scarcity ratio so instead of the business cycle and eventual collapse you continuously have an abundance of individual incomes in ratio to costs/prices AND YET PRICE DEFLATION which translates into systemic free flowingness.
In other words the moment to moment CONTINUING PRESENT TIME reality of the economy is a scarcity of total individual incomes in ratio to total costs/prices….and therefore “eventually” has no relevance or enforcing reality. “Eventually” is a delusional hypothetical that does not and by definition of the CONTINUING present moment reality CANNOT exist. Whether or not and to what degree we are aware of it, the present moment IS OUR REALITY, and the same is true of the present moment reality of the economy. This is also the definition of economic inherentcy, and inherentcy can only be changed by a reality/policy that avoids, goes around or resolves the inherent reality/problem present in every moment within the economy.
The whole tariff thing is another side show. Yes, Gary Cohn formerly of Goldman Sachs resigned because globalization, i.e. the global coalescence of the integration of Finance’s paradigm of Debt Only is its goal, and nationalist policies momentarily slow that. However, tariffs are just more palliative policies and conservative/libertarian “change” which are just the flip side of Obama’s liberal neo-classical economic empty suit “change you can believe in”…so neither will resolve the actual problem.
For a real solution you have to recognize the real problem (the de-stabilizing unworkability of continuing the paradigm of Debt Only), recognize the significance of the digital (+, -) nature of both the money system and the pricing system, the significance of the fact that retail sale is the terminal summing and ending point of the entire legitimate economic process and that Monetary Gifting is the new paradigm that will integratively enable stable economic prosperity for both the individual and enterprise and true free flowingness as well.
GA: The Fed has pruned wages historically. Eventually if it doesn’t stop we will be back to child labor.
Me: Precisely why the new paradigm is Monetary Gifting. And anyone who doesn’t realize that the business model of private finance is inevitably problematic and must be dispensed with is ignorant, bought, unconscious and/or increasingly ethically “challenged”.
GA: When I Google monetary gifting, I get nothing as far as an economic concept. If you mean Helicopter Money that is a term we understand.
Me: That’s because it’s a NEW paradigm that few have so far recognized. Helicopter money/universal dividend is simply one of its aspects/policies. A paradigm change is a single concept (Agriculture, Helio-Centrism, Monetary Gifting) that describes policies and an entirely new pattern that resolves the long standing problems of the current/old paradigm.
GA: Helicopter Money is not inflationary as a one time gift. Any continual financial help to the masses would be inflationary, creating inflationary expectations.
Me: Inflationary? The point of retail sale is both the terminal ending point of the economic/productive process and so also the terminal expression point of inflation for every consumer product and service including big ticket asset purchases like autos and homes. Thus if the price at that point is reduced by 50%…how could you possibly have price inflation???
And if you implemented a 10% “pass on” discount/rebate at the retail product sale between every business model on the way toward retail sale you could prevent inflation throughout the entire economic/productive process.
Money itself is not the operative factor in what is mistakenly called monetary inflation. It is instead the human freedom to decide to inflate prices by business executives. Finance knows this but they promulgate the delusion that its additional money that “causes” it. It’s just another way to deceive the public and enforce economic and monetary austerity. The intelligently placed discount/rebate policy throughout the economic process exposes that fraud, undoes the hypnotism and implements the new paradigm of Monetary Gifting.
GA: It is easier to control the money supply using a one time helicopter money rather than universal basic income which could prove to be inflationary over time. I lived through price changes in the ’70s. Inflation is a monetary phenomenon. Business executives did not just decide to inflate prices in the 70’s. Banks did not just decide to make high interest payments. They were driven by too many dollars filtering down to main Street, sharpening the value of each dollar. There were price changes multiple times per week for a single item.
Me: Nonsense. The oil embargo caused an (over)reaction by the markets that resulted in COST inflation…..NOT MONETARY inflation.
GA: It is not nonsense. The Great Inflation started in the mid 1960’s. The oil embargo and Petrodollars were largely out of control of monetary policy, but that alone did not cause the Great Inflation.
Me: Cost inflation is an ever present systemic condition in technologically advanced and ever growing economies because of the ever increasing costs of depreciation of its fixed real estate/productive asset, and other diminutions of the flow of money within the economy.
Money is not the operant factor in “monetary” inflation, but rather the fact that the system is income/demand constrained which not only afflicts the individual, but all enterprise who seeing a bit more money coming into the economy are quick to (understandably) try to take advantage of it by raising their prices. General Equilibrium Theory Market worshipers and those blinded by fallacious orthodoxies like the Quantity Theory of Money and the Velocity of its circulation and “monetary” inflation….are not perceiving reality.
And the new paradigm of Monetary Gifting and its policies, regulations, structural business model changes and basic philosophical concept will resolve the inherent individual and systemic problems.
Demand may be a factor in inflation, but it is not THE operant cause of it. Demand caused inflation is a misnomer and a delusion. The upper bound of inflation is caused by the absolute freedom to DECIDE to inflate by business executives in markets that are not free, but rather are in chaos because that is the definition of absolute freedom. In the human universe there is actually only true freedom amongst known barriers where morals and ethics can thus be defined and enforced when necessary.
Cost inflation is indeed a systemic reality as John says, and amongst many other factors is enforced by the current paradigm of Debt as the only way to increase the money supply, which in turn enforces additional costs even at 0% interest as continual debt build up eventually makes debt service unpayable. 5 0% loans of $201/mo. minimal payment makes an income of $1000/mo. a state of insolvency.
The new paradigm of Monetary Gifting, intelligently and sufficiently implemented, resolves the basic paradigmatic problem.
And the chronic inflation that plagues modern economies CAN be not only controlled, but inverted into price deflation with the 50% retail sale discount/rebate policy and the 10% “pass on” discount of each business model’s “retail product” to the next business model on the way toward the retail business model.
Inversion of a problematic ratio or duality (the positions of the earth and the sun in the Copernican paradigm change and the inversion of nomadism into staying in one place, i.e. Agriculture) is one of the signatures of paradigm change, and the inversion of the scarcity of total individual incomes in ratio to total costs and so total prices inverted into an abundance ratio of incomes to costs/prices will effect the paradigm change when implemented at the point of retail sale. Why? Because retail sale is a stable datum in the complexity of the economy in that it is the utter summing point of costs/prices and the utter ending point of the entire economic process where production becomes consumption and thus we can take advantage of the fact that the pricing, money and accounting systems are all digital in nature and implement the digital policy of the discount/rebate and transform the tendency to inflate into price deflation. Why? Because retail sale is also the terminal expression point for price inflation for any item or service. Possession is 90% of the law and consumption/productive possession is 99.99% of economics.
Douglas was waaaay more insightful than Keynes or any economist since, but neither he nor his followers truly understood the paradigmatic power of the discount policy. Why? Because they were still habituated to the idea of general equilibrium and had less education about the nature and signatures of paradigm changes. Also, he thought private finance could be tamed. It cannot, even within the Monetary Gifting dispensation. Public finance can’t either…unless it has a hard and fast commitment to the specific policies of Monetary Gifting and just as much eventual commitment to the new ethic-zeitgeist of grace-graciousness from which the paradigm of Gifting is philosophically derived.
The discount much more than the dividend is the pivotal policy. Why? Because it is the very expression of the new paradigm, i.e. Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting…to both the individual and enterprise. The dividend was only Direct Monetary Gifting to the individual.
LA: Actually, it is nonsense. A country’s finances don’t work the same as your personal cheque book. For one thing, the country can create money and you can’t. But that is not at the heart of the matter. The GAP is. The gap is created in a number of ways. C. H. Douglas cited five primary causes for the price gap in his paper titled The New and the Old Economics and they are consistent with Professor Frederick Soddy’s findings:
1. Financial profits on money (i.e. interest of all kinds)
2. Savings (money not in circulation)
3. Investment in Capital with which to create wealth (what Soddy called a dead hand).
4. Difference in velocity of money between cost liquidation and price liquidation.
5. Deflation caused by settlement of loans and the sale of securities by banks.
Me: Yes the moment to moment reality is the Gap. However, merely filling the Gap is falling for the fallacy of General Equilibrium Theory and so fails to attain paradigmatic change. Hence it turns what could be paradigm change into reform that regressive forces can game and undo the same as Keynesian reform got morphed into the neo-classical “synthesis”. Social Crediters have never fully understood the transformative economic and monetary power of the discount/rebate policy and how it can make “free” markets that are actually chaotic ones where no genuine ethic can be deduced let alone enforced into a truly free and free flowing phenomenon within the beatific chains of an unimpeachable ethic of grace and the paradigm of ABUNDANT Monetary Gifting.
JR: Steve, just two comments.
The “gap” as theorised by Social Credit certainly exists. It explains so many phenomena that orthodox economists can’t that it must be taken seriously. But a level of 3% to 5% of GDP would explain them. I believe it is never higher than 8% to12% max..
Where an economy is thriving or even stagnant, the “gap” must be filled by new money issued as debt. Nowhere in the world is debt rising by 50%p.a., so the extra purchasing power left over from your suggestion would cause rampant demand inflation.
The proper answer is a national dividend, in equal amount to every adult citizen, carefully modulated from time to time to ensure that neither deflation nor demand inflation occur.
Second, what a terrific way to increase the discrepancy between rich and poor. Millions to subsidise billionaires yachts and jets and a few dollars a week for the destitute.
You have some wonderful ideas, but, please, take a double check on this one.
Answer me this. If the price of every consumer product including autos and homes was reduced by 50%…..how could you possibly have price/demand inflation? The terminal expression point for “demand/monetary inflation” IS RETAIL SALE.
If every business model preceding retail sale passed on their 10% price discount/rebate on each and everyone of their retail products until it reached retailers how could there be price inflation throughout the entire economic process? Sure they could raise their prices to match the 10%, but if even one didn’t do that how long do you think it would take purchasing agents to switch to the one or the many who were less greedy?
There are other regulations I’ve mentioned here that would reward thrift and punish greed as well.
I don’t care what the actual percentage of the Gap is. My intention is to create a policy situation that cannot be gamed because no retail or preceding enterprise can resist opting out of it. Imagine a retailer opting out and having to get his full price without the discount while his competitor can sell his products at 50% of their cost plus profit….and still get his full price with the rebate. The one that opts out will be out of business in no time.
I don’t want the halting wage and price stickiness of Keynes and other economists who believe in the fallaciousness of the economy tending toward general equilibrium….I want the policies of ABUNDANT individual monetary freedom and the systemic free flowingness that such will continuously create. I want the policies of social credit to rise to their full paradigm changing potential by inverting and transforming the problematic scarcity ratio that Douglas identified.
And I want to have it communicated, not to the political or educational authorities who don’t give a sh!t, have egos that are involved with their own “hobby horse” theories or are so habituated to orthodoxy and/or fallaciousness that they couldn’t think a new thought if you put a gun to their heads….I want it communicated to those whose self interests are served by it. The students, the small to medium sized business people, the poor and the working poor, the 90% whose wages have stagnated for the last 40 years.
Steve there will never be abundant continual gifting permitted. A one time gift would not violate the theory of money. But UBI would. The Fed protects the value of long bonds for a reason. That collateral holds the financial system together.
Me: The natural interest rate of a fiat money system is 0%. A sovereign government’s ability to create money is unlimited and if price deflation is created by the discount/rebate policy…who cares how much the individual is given, relatively speaking of course, to give everyone a million dollars would not be wise, but a middle class lifestyle guaranteed would enable everyone to do as the intelligent rich have always done….find positive and constructive purposes in addition to employment….and have the leisure time to develop and enjoy them.
The quantity theory of money is BS as I have shown because money itself is not the operant/deciding factor in inflation, and the 50% and 10% discount/rebate policies would make it irrelevant even if it were.
Collateral may hold the financial system together in the paradigm of Debt Only, but not in the new one of Monetary Gifting which is held together with adult, responsible, ethical and actual control of the currently rigged system with policies that accomplish exactly that.
Don’t be guilty of dramatizing Sun Tzu’s first rule of military strategy: Convince the enemy they cannot possibly win…and you’ll never have to fight.
GA: Most money is created with collateral. It is not fiat in a classic sense. If a loan is created at a bank, increasing the broad money supply, it is based on collateral, like a house or a car. Lonergan says fiat would be base money, from the fed, with no collateral, bonds, being exchanged for it.
Me: No one is saying we should ignore collateral, after all money is basically accounting and economics is assessment of entrepreneurial viability and systemic free flowingness. But in a money system of abundant income for all individual and commercial agents and that has recognized the significance and power of monetary policy tied directly to retail sale so as to counter any human freedom to inflate and as well the fact of inherent systemic cost inflation to the point of integrating price deflation painlessly and beneficially into profit making systems….it becomes an appendix, and fixation on it becomes a fetish.
I’m not trying to be pejorative. It’s just that these issues are so important and urgent….and resolvable…if we simply look at them…until we see them.
GA: Real fiat money is not tied to collateral. It must be used sparingly. If it were issued off the balance sheet of the Fed it would not be applied to the fiscal deficit and would not be inflationary. Steve is a dreamer because the Fed will never allow unlimited growth.
Me: Who in the hell runs (or should run) the country and its money system…the FED or the actual sovereign government?
Yes, I am a dreamer, I have a dream. It’s better than believing in fallacies and in palliatives to a dominating power. Palliation of domination when an actual solution is available….is an unethical act.
GA: Sovereignty has been limited in the globalist government. In the Great Depression, many, except the biggest bankers, went to jail. In the Great Recession no bankster went to jail. Now no one will go to jail even for running over people with globalist self driving cars. Then no one will go to jail when cash is illegally taken in a cashless society by the globalist banks.
Me: “Sovereignty has been limited in the globalist government.”
Precisely. That’s why it’s so important to take back control of the government…from the actual bad actors (the private banks and financiers and their handmaiden the FED) and awaken to the real problem, that is, their no longer workable and dominating paradigm of Debt Only.
First of all a cashless society is not inevitable, and secondly electronic credit of a universal dividend and debits and credits with the discount/rebate policy have the same effect as cash.
The problem with “free” markets is exactly the same problem that facebook and social media are facing, and that is that we have mistaken chaos for freedom. Ethics are not enforceable in chaos. For humans and human systems, freedom only exists within known barriers, and if you can’t or won’t deal with malicious manipulation (the problem of social media) or domination by the business model of finance and their paradigm of Debt Only in the name of “free” markets that are actually chaotic and uncontrolled….then no matter how erudite you may be….you’re out of touch in a most basic way.