You’re 5/27 post is exactly spot on. It is a litany of private Finance’s additional costs post retail sale and so lays bare its money creating power to be parasitic and illegitimate. It also accurately describes many of the means by which finance’s virtually monopolistic paradigm of Debt Only as the sole vehicle and form for the distribution of credit/money sucks the profits and vitality out of the rest of the legitimate economic/productive process. Systems were made for Man, not man for systems. I’m confident everyone here believes this to be true. They just don’t know how to make the system serve us.
Modern economies’ two primary and chronic problems are scarcity of free to spend individual income and price/asset inflation. A universal dividend begins to resolve the first problem, and the twin digital discount/rebate policies at the point of sale between business models throughout the entire length of the productive process and also the 50% discount at the terminal end of that process for every item or service at final retail sale….which point just so happens to also be the terminal expression point for all consumer price inflation….and so these three policies automatically double everyone’s purchasing power and not only resolves the chronic problem of inflation, but painlessly and beneficially accomplishes what has up to now been considered impossible, namely the integration of price deflation into profit making systems. That is far more than any theorist or politician has ever conceived let alone accomplished, and its not even the end of the benefits that follow on from them.
Such dramatic and definitive progress characterizes a paradigm change, and that’s exactly what we need.
KZ: Craig, some good points but don’t forget all the things you want to fight are not accidental. A little history here. Lewis Franklin Powell Jr. (September 19, 1907 – August 25, 1998) was an Associate Justice of SCOTUS, serving from 1971 to 1987. Powell compiled a conservative record on the Court and cultivated a reputation as a swing vote with a penchant for compromise.” But before he was a Supreme Court Associate Justice, Powell planned the future we’re now living. On August 23, 1971, Powell was commissioned by his neighbor, Eugene B. Sydnor Jr., a close friend, and education director of the US Chamber of Commerce, to write a confidential memorandum titled “Attack on the American Free Enterprise System,” an anti-Communist, anti-Fascist, anti-New Deal blueprint for conservative business interests to retake America for the chamber. It was based in part on Powell’s reaction to the work of activist Ralph Nader, whose 1965 exposé on General Motors, Unsafe at Any Speed, put a focus on the auto industry putting profit ahead of safety, which triggered the American consumer movement. Powell saw it as an undermining of Americans’ faith in enterprise and another step in the slippery slope of socialism. His experiences as a corporate lawyer and a director on the board of Phillip Morris from 1964 until his appointment to the Supreme Court made him a champion of the tobacco industry who railed against the growing scientific evidence linking smoking to cancer deaths. He argued, unsuccessfully, that tobacco companies’ First Amendment rights were being infringed when news organizations were not giving credence to the cancer denials of the industry. That was the point where Powell began to focus on the media as biased agents of socialism. The memo called for corporate America to become more aggressive in molding society’s thinking about business, government, politics, and law in the US. It sparked wealthy heirs of earlier American Industrialists like Richard Mellon Scaife; the Earhart Foundation, money which came from an oil fortune; and the Smith Richardson Foundation, from the cough medicine dynasty to use their private charitable foundations, which did not have to report their political activities, to join the Carthage Foundation, founded by Scaife in 1964 to fund Powell’s vision of a pro-business, anti-socialist, minimalist government-regulated America as it had been in the heyday of early American industrialism, before the Great Depression and the rise of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. The Powell Memorandum thus became the blueprint of the rise of the American conservative movement and the formation of a network of influential right-wing think tanks and lobbying organizations, such as The Heritage Foundation and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) as well as inspiring the US Chamber of Commerce to become far more politically active. CUNY professor David Harvey traces the rise of neoliberalism in the US to this memo. Powell argued, “The most disquieting voices joining the chorus of criticism came from perfectly respectable elements of society: from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians.” In the memorandum, Powell advocated “constant surveillance” of textbook and television content, as well as a purge of left-wing elements. He named consumer advocate Nader as the chief antagonist of American business. Powell urged conservatives to take a sustained media-outreach program; including funding scholars who believe in the free enterprise system, publishing books and papers from popular magazines to scholarly journals and influencing public opinion. This memo foreshadowed a few Powell’s court opinions, especially First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, which shifted the direction of First Amendment law by declaring that corporate financial influence of elections by independent expenditures should be protected with the same vigor as individual political speech. Much of the future Court opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission relied on the same arguments raised in Bellotti. Jack Anderson of the Washington Post made the memo public, claiming Powell was attempting to undermine American democracy. However, in terms of business’ view of itself in relation to government and public interest groups, the memo only conveyed the thinking among business persons at the time. The real contribution of the memo was to facilitate institution-building, particularly updating the Chamber’s efforts to influence federal policy. The memo was a major motivator for the Chamber and other groups modernizing efforts to lobby the federal government and shape the future of American society. Trump benefited from all this work, even if he couldn’t read the memo (too many big words).
Me: Yes, I’m well aware of The Powell Memo. What we require is a new INTEGRATIVE Powell Memo, it being a mere reaction to liberalism. Integrating the best aspects of both the left and right economic perspectives so as to create a thirdness greater oneness is precisely what the policies I post about here will accomplish. Integration of truths and the simultaneous deletion of untruths is the very process of Wisdom itself.
Liberals and conservatives get stuck in their respective orthodoxies and miss the real point of logic and progress. The Thirdness greater oneness/trinity-unity-oneness process the dialectic [( thesis x antithesis) <–> synthesis ] gets lost in all of the heat but little light.
Me: The heart of the money problem is twofold:
1) How to remedy the inherent scarcity of free and available individual incomes in ratio to total costs/prices without causing/increasing inflation and
2) How the current monopolistic paradigm of Debt Only enforces the continual build up of debt/additional costs, and how it also prevents the establishment of the price deflationary/doubling of individual purchasing power remedies of the dual policies of a universal dividend and a retail discount/rebate.
KZ: Craig, in my view the heart of our “money” problem is the belief by politicians and others involved in liberal democracy that compromise with capitalists is possible and should be pursued. In my view, it is not possible and is not worth pursuing. For most in the capitalist group the vision of America they hold is of a pro-business, anti-socialist, minimalist government-regulated America as it had been in the heyday of early American industrialism, before the Great Depression and the rise of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. They see no need to limit the methods used to get to that end. After all, they are defending western civilization and fighting the takeover by socialism. But mostly they are assuring the rich, whom they represent stay rich, and poor remain poor. Mainstream economists mostly aid them in this effort with big words and high-sounding theories that are mostly just walls behind which to hide the intentions of their capitalist employers. Economists debate the theories and the math, but the debate is meaningless. Just a smoke screen for the deliberate effort to maintain the wealthy in their place in control and ensure the poor remain always poor. Keeping in mind Jay Gould’s description of this situation. Physicists are scientists, biologists are scientists, sociologists are scientists. Economists are not scientists. Economists pretend to be scientists, but their actual work is protecting capitalism and capitalists. I suggest we take economists for what they are, rather than what they pretend to be.
Me: I was referring to the money problem itself, and you characterize the political part of the problem accurately. That could be most effectively addressed by showing how the best aspects of the agendas of both the left and right are accomplished by the paradigm changing policies I’ve long suggested here. For instance:
1) A universal dividend to everyone 18 years of age and older of sufficient amount and doubled in its potential purchasing power by the discount/rebate policies immediately accomplishes the heart of the liberal agenda of economic democracy and the end of poverty.
2) If every adult is assured a satisfactorily middle class lifestyle without employment this immediately satisfies the conservative agenda of frugality and downsizing government by enabling the elimination of all transfer taxation for unemployment insurance and welfare and their respective bureaucracies. This actually works for both the liberal and conservative agendas as both individuals and enterprise pat these taxes.
3) With the two discount/rebates policies linearizing price deflation throughout the entire economic/productive process the erosive effects of inflation are ended for both individuals and businesses
4) With the accomplishment of integrating monetary gifting into the now bounded and stabilized economy all but a small percentage of income taxes to keep the government legitimated (say 2-3%) will no longer be necessary because fiat monetary gifting…will be able to all but replace it. Taxation will return to its legitimate purpose of discouraging personal and economic vices instead of being a “necessary” burden on the individual and enterprise which in fact is just a way for finance to enforce austerity with its paradigm of Debt Only and also enforce the mistaken assumption that taxation is necessary to control inflation.