Here are three economic innovations that will also have positive social, political and psychological benefits if we work together to acculturate a new zeitgeist of graciousness instead of mere profit, power, cynicism and harshness:
A universal dividend of $1000/mo. for everyone 18 and older
A 20% discount/rebate policy at the point of sale throughout the entire economic process
A 37.5-50% discount/rebate policy at the point of final retail sale for every product or service.
Paradigm changes are always innovations that are conceptually oppositional to the current/old paradigm. Let us end monetary austerity with abundance and employment only with employment and monetary gifting.
L: I am a proponent of MMT and the use of sectoral balance monitoring to adjust the unemployment to near zero by guaranteeing a minimum wage for public infrastructure projects with the government spending adjusted to provide jobs for all unemployed workers willing to work. But this article convinces me that if and when capitalists think the way described in this article some sort of control mechanism would be needed to avoid an ever-growing incentive to increase automation to a point where only publicly funded infrastructure projects employ the labor force. The labor force is the consumer base for 70% of GNP, and if automation is allowed to decimate privately employed labor GNP will decrease accordingly and the fraction of the labor force ejected from private enterprise will increase. Finally, I suppose, industry will be mostly automated, the labor force will all be working for the government at the guaranteed rate, and the GNP will have decreased to fit the ability of the labor force to pay.
Me: Yes, that is precisely what will happen unless we awaken to the new paradigm of Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting and then acculturate ourselves intelligently to leisure/self chosen purposeful activity.
Unless we think we can do away with profit, innovation and competition the labor participation rate will increasingly plummet. Technological innovation may decrease the need for human effort, but AI reduces the need for human PARTICIPATION. It is a far more disruptive economic force.
JB: Hi, Craig, in Adam Smith’s day as through all history there have been big winners & also losers: in love, war & obviously with economics. I think of the Newport in R.I. as well as the place of the same name in California, near where I used to live. My obvious main point is that at any given time the big winners & those who support them defend the system. A secondary point is that these winners change over generations/decades, while some at the bottom improve their economic lot greatly. The changes come from many sources: the competence/ interest of second/third generations, as well as the vicissitudes of life including inheritance tax & size of next generation who split the pot. I taught in San Bernardino, CA where an itinerant milk shake salesman encountered McDonald’s #1 after WWII. He bought the firm & his widow became a billionaire in today’s terms. Joan Kroc lived an affluent period for decades. Similarly with Elvis Presley’s daughter who was a neighbor above San Bernardino in the local mountains.
Our economic models are anything but dynamic, & special events like natural resource/tech discoveries, celebrity & natural events (wars, storms, etc) all play a role in the economic ups/downs of individuals/firms/nations. The famous empires of global history all were gone within a few hundred years, or far less. People accept this generally, especially if they have left home & worked/fought elsewhere. I have never met many people who wanted to share the shirt off their back. They were oddballs. A generic response, my friend.
Me: James, Thanks for the reply. Your historical perspective is accurate…because it depicts aspects of the zeitgeist of the current economic paradigm like burden, effort, indirectness of reward, domination, submission, enforced instead of rational hierarchy etc. Cultures follow and reflect their ideational/philosophical foundations.
The policies I advocate will be largely responsible for ushering in a new philosophical foundation upon which the populace will express its various aspects in every sphere of human endeavor like graciousness, gifting, cooperation, integration, flow, free flowingness, newness and nowness of consciousness etc.
Change is a thought away, and huge change is a new, basic, paradigm changing idea away.
DT: Following Mervyn’s link in the “fuzzy” discussion, here’s Bill Mitchell in 2016 [http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=32743]
“Marx, in the – Introduction, A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right – published in the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher (February 1844) was proposing that humans have the capacity for self-deceit and create religions for that purpose. The important point he was making is that there is human agency involved.
“He wrote that:
‘Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people’.
[In context, this is an atheist Jew reacting to a protestant interpretation of Christian gratitude, forgiveness and cooperative care for creation as an opiate created self-deceptively for others – i.e. to quieten their own consciences – by the heartless capitalists who had stolen creation].
Mitchell adds: “Mass consumption became the opiate in the Post Second World War period”.
Commenting on this, ‘Steve’ said [on Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 16:40]
“Yes capitalism and religion have psychologies that encourage infantilism, puritanism, authoritarianism, consumerism, and increasingly shallowness and distraction. I couldn’t agree more. That’s why I’m for Distributism and Wisdom, and Wisdom’s pinnacle concept and natural value Grace/graciousness which requires a rational and ethical mental rigor plus contemplation in order to avoid falling into the above flawed “hang ups” which inhibit mental as well as economic and monetary flow. There’s a duality to the trinity-unity of the dialectic that goes: thesis, antithesis and synthesis….and thesis, antithesis and ascension of knowledge/knowingness”.
Has Steve now changed his pen-name to Craig, I wonder? I agree with Craig here, anyway: huge change is just a new, basic, paradigm changing idea away.
Me: Regardless of who says it the many aspects of the natural philosophical concept of grace are imminently relevant and resolving of any and all problems/conflicts…in any area of human endeavor. That’s why contemplation of the natural philosophical concept of grace is so utterly important. In fact, historically, an aspect of grace and its temporal universe effects has always been the operant factor in every true progression and/or paradigm change that humanity has discovered/re-discovered. The concept of grace is the deepest, broadest….and most relevant concept in the cosmos. That is precisely why it is the concept behind what I refer to as the cosmic code.
L: Craig, a lot of what I’m reading here is like a sales pitch. What I need is a simple example that takes a product from raw materials to sold finished product and gives the discounts, dividends and rebates at all stages of the process and the source of funds needed to commence the next cycle.
Nobody has given that information in what I’ve read.
Me: The policies speak for themselves because they utilize the fact that the point of sale is a complete summing and stopping point and at final retail sale is also a terminal summing point for any and all inflation.
As for the source of funds it obviously would have to be a governmental/monetary authority. It could actually be the FED. They are the monetary authority (wink, wink….because the too big to fail private banks are the real monetary authority)…but NOT the government (wink, wink because Finance and its monopolistic paradigm are the actual ruling authority).
But all it would take is honest and informed people to expose this ruse and establish the government as the actual ruling authority and mandate that the FED fulfill the policies of the dividend and discount/rebate. Fiat money systems with temporal universe actual, rational and ethical controls must serve Man, Man must not serve tyrannical systems.
MH: Warren Mosler has a workable solution, and importantly one which any EZ member can usefully adopt unilaterally, incl. Italy.
Me: MMT has the mechanics of money creation correct. But like every other mere new theory or iconoclastic insight it neither rises to the level of paradigm nor simultaneously plumbs the depths of and seamlessly integrates into the temporal universe….which is what occurs in a paradigm change. The policies of Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting go to the heart and the groin of the problem (the current paradigm) and implement the paradigm change.