Me: “Earlier realizations of retail-level profits generate purchasing power to effect later ones, then being intermixed with earlier realizations of successive production (periods); while overall _never catching up_ to an expressable condition in a static way, being the crux of the matter.”
First you’re not considering the separate cost inflationary reality of modern economies. Secondly “later” never happens, and third you’re still confusing total money in the system with total ACTUALLY AVAILABLE INDIVIDUAL incomes. The latter being the salient point vis the free flowingness and workability of the system.
“In terms of sought economic reproduction potentials, this will happen at a price level determined by the setting and direct spending of later realized retail profits, either by its receivers or by subsequently hired new help instead.”
Again, “Later” never happens in the economy…whose realities are stuck in each successive present moment of time. Only economists and economic pundits, being (at least partially) conscious can conceive of the future…and erroneously believe that “later” matters and actually occurs in the economy.
“nor are there any “additional POST RETAIL SALE costs” to be bandied about that IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS wouldn’t be someone’s personal income and hence purchasing power.”
Same confusion of total money with total available individual income as above.
“The hard part is letting go of the myth that a dynamic purposeful economy can be made sense of in any way statically and that money is a tangible thing, existing as such in time.”
I’m not doing that. As I’ve explained before that Douglas’s followers mistakenly assumed a static/set amount for the “Gap”, I’ve innovated that by showing that what is required is a dynamically abundant flow of individual purchasing power TIED DIRECTLY TO THE TERMINAL EXPRESSION POINT OF ALL FORMS OF INFLATION, I.E. RETAIL SALE, which INVERTS the individual income scarcity FLOW ratio with total costs….and which then exposes the fallaciousness of additional money being the truly operant reason for “monetary” inflation when in fact the reason why any inflation other than cost-push inflation is caused by….the utter freedom to raise prices by commercial decision makers. Such utter freedom in human systems is chaos and not freedom as freedom in a human world can only be defined and experienced in terms of known rational and ethical barriers.
Too much acceptance of orthodoxies and not enough looking at the cost accounting datums and then doing the calculus on them which exposes the basic economic moment to moment problematic realities.
Also, why have so many reform movements and economists like Steve Keen come to embrace UBI? Because they are nascently recognizing that the cost inflationary nature of modern economies IS THE INHERENT REALITY. They just haven’t recognized how to make that reform a stable, painless and beneficial price deflationary paradigm change by pairing it with the discount/rebate policies at retail sale.
DT: I see the alternative of free credit as needed, given at Craig’s point of retail sale and accounted for (non-profit because firms and bankers also have credit available as needed) using something like the existing credit card accounting system. In this, money withdrawn from an ATM is pre-accounted for without prior commitment as to what it is going to be spent on, i.e. mathematically it becomes a variable rather than a value.
Me: Philosophy-theoretics is at least one epistemological integration below the meta level of paradigm perception because even thinking is still mental data while consciousness is knowing in the highest sense of the word, and a component part of paradigms is a new conscious realization. It’s why Aquinas said: “All that I have written appears to be as straw compared to what has now been revealed to me.”
Once you’ve cultivated self awareness-consciousness as an ethic, philosophical exegesis and its policy alignment is not mystification it’s logic informed by the confidence of knowing.
The reason why heterodox economists, even the best of them like Steve Keen and Michael Hudson, are stuck in the perfectly legitimate pursuit of theoretics but only the futile pursuit of converting academics espousing DSGE instead of creating the mass movement that will herd political elites toward paradigm change, is because they lack an incisive study of the signatures of paradigms and apparently also lack some of the skills (wisdom) involved in paradigm perception…..and so they do not have the insight to decipher and confidence to assert the logical policy progressions necessary to finish their theoretics.
And by the way Dave I completely agree that everyone and every enterprise should have a debit account with the central bank or other monetary authority mandated to distribute the dividend and rebate monies.
DT: Craig, of course I agree that a consciousness is better than a reference to one; but to communicate it we have to refer to it: the reference in effect pointing to where it can be experienced.
Me: Yes, the perpetual problem with a nothingness of ultimate and exquisite quality.
With a 50% rebate percentage and a $1000/mo. dividend that is $2000/mo. and more than the highest welfare payment and if issued upon one’s 18 birthday would also be higher than most people’s social security payment thus enabling us to eliminate the transfer taxes that both enterprise and individuals pay for such.
Grace is a universal personal and temporal universe solvent.
My stance on private finance is not only that it is illegitimate being additional costs post the actual end of the economic/productive process at retail sale, but as thrift/cost cutting is always an economic virtue and a public-governmental bank has no need for profit it could offer consumers and enterprise loans at 0% interest. In fact a public bank issuing 0% loans could actually participate in the 50% discount/rebate policy thereby even more dramatically reducing costs. (if an auto was purchased for $15,000, in other words 50% of $30,000 then the public bank could discount the $15,000 note to $7500.
Anyone not recognizing that Finance is the 800 lb. gorilla of economic power….simply isn’t looking. And even though most would agree with this fact the real problem is they’re still working at the data, theory or philosophical level of analysis….when the paradigm level is where both the philosophical and policy insights are clarified.
That’s why a study of the signatures of historical paradigms and paradigm perception is such an important and essential skill….and wisdom/the process of discerning and integrating only the truths, workabilities, applicabilities and highest ethical considerations in apparent opposites is its tool.
JV: As I repeatedly said before, the most difficult task involved in accepting this alternative paradigm is to let go of deeply ingrained but false “truths”. And for that we need to start from the clean slate that this paradigm provides, letting its truths solely roll out from a delineation of the chosen axioms.
Craig’s “paradigm” does no such thing. It’s a hodgepodge of myth and self-contradiction.
Me: “deeply ingrained but false “truths”.
Yes, like the paradigm of science only.
Science is a dualistic discipline, Wisdom is an integrative one and its pinnacle natural philosophical concept of grace is a thirdness greater oneness of the two and hence includes science….and that concept. This is generally anathema to people who are stuck in either the paradigm of science only or religion only. The concept of grace is the integrative resolution of opposites. When in doubt integrate….and keep on integrating! This is not mysticism, and the concept and its aspects applied to the temporal universe invariably work…especially regarding monetary and economic policies insightfully and intelligently applied at the point of sale throughout the entire economic process and at final retail sale as well.
If you don’t believe it just play the policies out like in a clay
demo with the three elements involved: a monetary authority, a business model or a retailer and a consumer. It’s a good zen meditation on the temporal universe for economists and pundits that are a little too involved in abstraction.
DT: Craig, it seems you are still clinging to double-entry book-keeping in its present form, where each loan of credit is matched by a credit to the bank’s account.
In my “credit card” system I ask the retailer for credit, and though I end up with debit in my account for the objects I bought, he ends up with a credit in his account for the same goods for having supplied them. Thus he has the wherewithal to restock and I have a reminder of my need to renew my own credit-worthiness by working. This is double-entry book keeping, but in the form of a relational database not dependent on “banks” and financiers supplying fictitious “capital.” What for traditional reasons we call “banks” (as in food-banks in a real economy and gold-banks in ancient trading finance) can in the digital age be reduced to management of automated local databases, linked by the internet, which account not just for prices but for who sold what to whom. Which they did do before commercial bank centralised management started closing them down.
Me: Dave, Your credit card system is largely making a “distinction without a difference” in that you’re seeing the significance of the digital nature of double entry bookkeeping and a monetary policy crafted around that fact. As for banks/central banks I advocate a publicly administered national and central bank because:
1) I do not see or foresee an adequate way to secure cryptocurrencies/blockchain technologies against money laundering, fraud and theft.
2) You need a third governing/administering entity especially in regard to ultimate powers whether spiritual or economic and monetary. Trinity-Unity/thirdness greater oneness IS the valid concept here not the duality of science and rationality which degenerates into technocracy and amorality because the ethical content gets dropped out. Nor is it the dominating false oneness of monopoly like we have now with private finance’s paradigm of Debt Only as the sole form and vehicle for distribution of credit/money.
3) Private finance and public finance both have inevitable corruption problems unless firmly guided and aligned with the unimpeachable concept of grace as in benevolence and monetary gifting, and having a single entity to watch and regulate as opposed to 10-20 is Occam’s Razor applied.
In order for the wider monetary and economic effects of the new paradigm to occur the discount/rebate policy needs to be paired with a universal dividend:
1) enabling the re-industrialization of western economies and
2) eliminating unnecessary re-distributive taxation which is analogous to the dispensation system that corrupted the church and was a via system that obstructed a direct relationship with god/the monetary authority
especially as technological innovation and AI disruptively destroy aggregate demand and finally
3) the major advocates of cryptocurrencies/blockchain are libertarians whose irrational generalization that government is always tyrannical, and their terminal orthodoxy/inversion of the truth and necessity of monetary gifting is summed up in their slogan “there ain’t no free lunch” …..are almost as anathema to the new paradigm as are the private banks whose monopolistic paradigm currently rules and obstructs economic free flowingness….so It’s extremely unlikely that they are going to see the efficacy of monetary gifting.
DT: ….a trinity of points/terms is necessary to describe a living God or a business cycle, but we create three new trinities/cycles when we form relationships to these. (Try drawing a triangle and connecting it to a point outside it).
Me: “a trinity of points/terms is necessary to describe a living God or a business cycle, but we create three new trinities/cycles when we form relationships to these. (Try drawing a triangle and connecting it to a point outside it).”
Not if that additional trinity is an integral part of the original trinity. Consider the symbols of the cross as a duality of lines and the third point of their intersection, the Buddhist yin-yang symbol with of complementing commas with the third integrative dot in each and the dual integrated triangles of the star of David.
“Have you not realised industrialisation has wrecked our world to the point where in another fifty years it is likely to become uninhabitable if we don’t change our ways?”
Yes, if the re-industrialization is as wasteful and polluting as our current technologies, but if everything is financable as a result of the new paradigm of monetary gifting then the most productive and ecologically sensitive and sane technologies can be so financed. That and the fact that grace as in dynamic balance in every respect and grace as the ultimate wisdom concept and experience self actualized by many more than currently take the time to contemplate….would make it a whole lot more likely that people would have the rationality and inclination to consider their own and the planet’s survival….than when they are perpetually under stress to survive monetarily and economically….like now.
DT: For me the cross was the upright on which Truth was hung, with untruths leaning either side: the one drawn to Truth, the other repelled by it. Both the Buddhist and Jewish symbols are fascinating, but for me are symbols of the complementarity of objects and contexts consisting of eveything else. Where is there room for change and evolution in an object and an undifferentiated context? I spoke of three new circuits [trinities, cycles], of which the third is in economic terms the development of new processes, interacting with human families who are not God but children of God: sharing his likeness and sustained by him, but as children do, having to learn from their own mistakes. If Big Bang creation is likened to blowing up a balloon, there is motion not only in the direction of the surface but two dimensional motion at right angles to this in its expansion. Tension in this motion controls the rate of expansion.
If everything were “financiable” as a result of sufficient credit-worthiness and surplus stocks, surely nature’s technology is more likely to resolve nature’s problems than our own? We need to support those employed in planting trees and irrigating those that need it. Nature irrigates its growth by feeding sap through pipes and in our case, blood through arterial circuits. The pipework gives us clues about functions; we have to look at what is going through it to see whether it is going well, or ill.
Me: The “mystery” of an integrated duality within an integrative trinity-unity is that every separate thing, it’s opposite and their oneness exist at the same time. As I’ve said here before ultimate reality is not a reality problem nearly so much as it is a perception problem.
“If everything were “financiable” as a result of sufficient credit-worthiness and surplus stocks, surely nature’s technology is more likely to resolve nature’s problems than our own?”
As grace is dynamic balance, the pinnacle concept of wisdom and also the natural underlying state of the cosmos, cogniting on those facts and aligning with them would mean both we and the rest of nature would together be better able to resolve our mutual problems….with the universal personal and temporal solvent of grace.