Me: We need national financial subsidiarity via the new paradigm instead of well intentioned but problematical domination via elitist institutions.
In other words the true route to sane trade is making sure that the domestic economy of all nations is monetarily stable and abundant for all agents individual and commercial via the policies of a universal dividend and discount/rebate policies, and thus they can all industrialize/re-industrialize in the most efficient and productive way without having to worry about unemployment/a declining participation rate due to technological innovation and AI. Thus the consequent general national robustness will no longer compel either export platforms or dominating reserve currencies.
C: Jorge Morales, Dave Taylor: All of the points you make are treated in the discussion at billyblog and those old books. The point that if you really want to confuse yourself and your friends, then change the meaning of basic words and misapply basic concepts. And misread what other people say (MMT, Lerner, Graham, Gulick etc etc) when they speak correctly using the accepted meanings. Most of the criticism above is of that sort. One criticism that is not confused, but that is considered in the discussion is the stuff about dutch elm. In that discussion I noted that of course the usual phrase concerns goods, to be complete you should say “exporting bads are a benefit, importing bads are a cost.” But as Bill Mitchell notes, that tautology, that truism “doesn’t equate, as I have been reading the last few weeks, in a conclusion that MMT’s preference is for a nation to have a current account deficit.” MMTers & predecessors are much more careful than critics who vastly overgeneralize what MMT says.
Dave Taylor:You really think that “people overthink things, make things more complicated than they really are”, Calgacus?
Absolutely. Undersimplification, not oversimplification are the intellectual vices of the age, based on the idea that nothing is simple, that all the simple ideas were discovered long ago etc. It is based on enormous amnesia, enormous ignorance of history. The simple, most trivial things are usually the hardest and take the longest to discover and understand. That doesn’t mean they aren’t simple and trivial.
Consider Aristotle’s distinction between the things that are simple to us (meaning what I would call “obvious to us”) and those which are simple in themselves. The great mathematician Andre Weil noted how any mathematician knows that saying something is trivial is not at all saying it is obvious. An even greater thinker, Alexander Grothendieck, said – praising himself when someone criticised an idea of his as trivial – said that of course that idea is trivial, all of my ideas are entirely trivial.
“Undersimplification, not oversimplification are the intellectual vices of the age, based on the idea that nothing is simple, that all the simple ideas were discovered long ago etc. It is based on enormous amnesia, enormous ignorance of history. The simple, most trivial things are usually the hardest and take the longest to discover and understand. That doesn’t mean they aren’t simple and trivial.”
With the slight disagreement that “trivial” should be “seemingly trivial” ….you and Aristotle are absolutely right, and that is precisely why the when, where and why of the policies of the new monetary and economic paradigm have been missed by all of the otherwise brilliant economic thinkers including Keen, Hudson and the major figures of MMT.
DT: Demonstrably, Hume’s oversimplification can be reversed if the logic is dynamic (i.e. is not just a statement of observed relationships but actually forms the relationships observed). MODERN data processing was impossible before Algol68 took account of language level as well as numbers, producing an architecture in which the multi-user, multi-purpose operating system was distinct from the programs it was managing, and distinct programs likewise could be structured as a basic program repeatedly calling sub-programs only as required.
Me: Curiously, you are correct also Dave. New paradigm perception is not only a kind of ultimately integrative experience it’s also a looking glass straddling one because it brings a full and expanded consciousness to both the old and new paradigms. In fact a new conscious experience is a component part of new paradigm perception….very much analogous to the data processing example you presented that integrates thought and action, i.e. statics and dynamics. And of course that is exactly what the discount/rebate policies of the new paradigm do.